003-3617948-4101334

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 127 (2011)   26.07.2011   Judgments1 concerning Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Poland,   Portugal, Russia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18   judgments.   Repetitive cases2 and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding   indicated, can be found at the end of the press release. The judgments available only in   French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Juričić v. Croatia (application no. 58222/09)   The applicant, Mirjan Juričić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in   Zagreb. An administrative court judge, she complained about the unfairness of   proceedings she brought to contest a decision in 2008 by Parliament on the election of   judges to the Constitutional Court and in which she was an unsuccessful candidate. She   relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (on account of the lack of an adversarial hearing)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (on account of the lack of an oral and public hearing)   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient   just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant might have sustained   Choromidis v. Greece (no. 54932/08)*   The applicants, Efklidis Choromidis and Spyros Choromidis, are Greek nationals who   were born in 1960 and 1967 and live in Acharnes, Attiki (Greece). They owned plots of   land on which their commercial and agricultural company had been operating since   1950, and were affected by a State decision to expropriate a large part of their land, to   such an extent that some of the adjoining plots were allegedly rendered unusable.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained about the   Court of Cassation’s refusal to compensate them for the non-expropriated (but,   according to them, unusable) areas of their land. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair   hearing), they also complained about the fact that the Court of Cassation did not find it   necessary to consider some of the arguments that they had submitted.   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month   period following a judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber   of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,   judgments delivered by a Committee are final.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the   Convention.   Karamanof v. Greece (no. 46372/09)*   The applicant, Mr Alexandros Karamanof, is a Greek national who was born in 1978 and   lives in Athens. He was compulsorily detained in hospital between November 2008 and   May 2009. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he alleged   that the deprivation of liberty was unjustified and that certain conditions laid down by   the relevant domestic law were not complied with.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction: No claim made by the applicant   Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland (no. 30614/06)   The applicants, Klara and Maria Iwaszkiewicz, mother and daughter, are Polish nationals   who were born in 1947 and 1987, respectively, and live in Zapolice (Poland). Their   husband and father, now deceased, was granted a veteran’s disability pension due to   ill-health caused by his deportation to a Soviet labour camp in the 1940s. The case   concerned the two women’s complaint about the authorities’ decision in March 2003 to   withdraw his pension and therefore their entitlement to it on his demise. They relied in   particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Musiałek and Baczyński v. Poland (no. 32798/02)   The applicants, Tomasz Musiałek and Jarosław Baczyński, are Polish nationals who were   born in 1966 and 1974, respectively. Mr Musiałek lives in Kamień (Poland) and,   convicted of murder, was detained from July 1995 to July 2004 and then from January   to February 2009; Mr Baczyński is currently serving a prison sentence in Zaręba   Górna Prison (Poland). Both applicants complained about the inadequate conditions of   their detention in prisons in Wołów and Wrocław, essentially due to overcrowding.   Mr Musiałek, suffering from a serious medicial condition (Dupuytren’s contracture)   which, if untreated, prevents the fingers and toes from straightening, also complained   about the inadequacy of the medical care there. Both applicants relied in particular on   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment).   Violation of Article 3 (in respect of Mr Musiałek’s first detention)   Just satisfaction: No claim made by the applicant   Larisa Zolotareva v. Russia (no. 15003/04)   The applicant, Larisa Zolotareva, is a Russian national who was born in 1932 and lives in   Moscow. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home), she   complained about her eviction in June 1999 from a flat she shared with her son and his   ex-wife following conflict with the latter. She alleged in particular that the eviction took   place despite the fact that the execution of the judgment against her had been stayed   before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, she was evicted at night and was not given the   chance to vacate the flat of her own will.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,540 (costs and   expenses)   Liu v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 29157/09)   The applicants are Liu Jingcai, a Chinese national born in 1968, and his wife and   children, Yulia, Regina and Vadim Liu, Russian nationals born in 1973, 1996 and 1999,   respectively. They all live in the town of Sovetskaya Gavan in the Khabarovsk Region   (Russia). The case concerned the family’s complaint that Mr Jingcai was refused a   residence permit in Russia and expelled to China in November 2009. They relied in   particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,800 (non-pecuniary damage)   T.Ç. and H.Ç. v. Turkey (no. 34805/06)*   The applicants, H.Ç. and T.Ç., mother and daughter, are Turkish nationals who were   born in 1965 and 1995 and live in Biga (Turkey). H.Ç. and her husband divorced in   1998. He died in 1999, leaving shares and real property to his daughter. Believing that   their son was not T.Ç.’s real father, the parents of the deceased brought an action,   shortly after his death, successfully disputing her paternal affiliation. Relying on Article 6   § 1 in particular (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants   complained that the proceedings before the national courts were affected by   arbitrariness and irregularities and lasted for an excessively long time. Relying on Article   (right to respect for private and family life), they also complained about the impact of   the proceedings on their private and family life. Finally, relying on Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property), the daughter complained of having been denied her   inheritance rights as a consequence of arbitrary proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 8   The Court also found that it was premature to examine if there had been a breach of   T.Ç.’s inheritance rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage, both applicants jointly) and   EUR 5,860 (costs and expenses)   Yavuz Çelik v. Turkey (no. 34461/07)   The applicant, Yavuz Çelik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in   Istanbul. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Çelik   alleged that a police officer punched him in the face and squeezed his throat in the yard   of the local police station where he had been taken in October 2006 on charges of   insulting and assaulting the police. He also alleged that the ensuing investigation into his   allegation was inadequate.   Two violations of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 11,700 (non-pecuniary damage)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Paleari v. Italy (no 55772/08)   Pozzi v. Italy (no 55743/08)   These cases concerned the compatibility of proceedings concerning the application of   preventive measures with the requirements of a fair trial. The applicants relied in   particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (both cases)   M.B. v. Poland (no. 11887/07)   This case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of her pre-trial   detention. She was charged with abuse of her powers and accepting a bribe.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length   of legal proceedings.   Criminal   Dobosz v. Polond (no. 15231/08)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Non-criminal   Hadzhinikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 24720/04)   Capriati v. Italy (no. 41062/05)   Leite de Oliveira v. Portugal (no. 51251/09)   Sousa Lello and Fernandes Borges v. Portugal (no. 28776/08)   Tomé Monteiro and Others v. Portugal (no. 43641/09)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (all five cases)   Violation of Article 13 (first, third and fourth case)   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 88 41 41 09)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   4