003-4023328-4692854

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 302 (2012)   17.07.2012   Judgments concerning Austria, Greece, Italy, Malta, the   Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey and the United   Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13   judgments, none of which are final.   The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Wallishauser v. Austria (application no. 156/04)   The applicant, Roswitha Wallishauser, is an Austrian national who was born in 1941 and   lives in Vienna. A photographer for the United States of America embassy in Vienna, she   complained about proceedings she had brought before the Vienna Labour and Social   Court against the United States claiming salary payments from September 1996   following her unlawful dismissal. In particular, she complained that she had been denied   access to court because the United States’ authorities, relying on their immunity, had   refused to be served with the summons to a hearing on the case and the Austrian   authorities accepted this refusal, finding that they were obliged to do so under the rule   of customary international law to respect a State’s sovereignty. She relied on Article 6 §   (right of access to court).   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 15,000 (costs and   expenses)   Lica v. Greece (no. 74279/10)*   The applicant, Arben Lica, is an Albanian national who was born in 1980 and lives in   Skala (Laconia, Greece). He had been a lawful resident of Greece since 2003. His last   residence permit was valid from 29 February 2008 to 27 February 2010. On 20 April   he applied for the renewal of his residence permit, belatedly as he had been in   hospital. On presenting his expired permit he was arrested by the Greek authorities,   then held at the police station, before his removal was ordered. Relying on Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty   and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Lica complained about the   conditions of his detention in the police station and the absence of an effective remedy   by which to complain about those conditions.   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and   expenses)   Matthias and Others v. Italy (no. 35174/03)*   Just satisfaction   The applicants, Maurizio Matthias, Germana Matthias, Fabrizio Matthias, Maria Serena   Buongiorno, Maria Nelly Buongiorno and Renato De Cesare, are Italian nationals. The   case concerned a plot of building land owned by the applicants in Terracina and in   respect of which an urgent measure of occupation was decided for the purpose of   building social housing. In a judgment of 2 November 2006 the Court held that the loss   of availability of the land, together with the inability to have that situation remedied, had   entailed consequences that were serious enough to regard it as de facto expropriation,   incompatible with the applicants’ right to respect for their property (Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1). Today’s judgment concerned the question of just satisfaction (Article 41).   Just satisfaction: EUR 2,645.000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary   damage) and EUR 15,000 (costs and expenses) to the applicants jointly.   Scoppola v. Italy (no. 4) (no. 65050/09)*   The applicant, Franco Scoppola, is an Italian national who was born in 1940. Aged 72, he   has a number of health problems including heart conditions, diabetes, muscular   weakening and depression. He has been confined to a wheelchair since 1987. He was   sentenced to life imprisonment by the Assize Court in 2002 for killing his wife and   wounding one of his sons, a sentence subsequently reduced to 30 years. The conditions   of his detention in Rome prison, before his transfer to Parma prison on 23 September   2007, were dealt with in a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Scoppola   v. Italy, no. 50550/06, judgment of 10 June 2008). The present application concerned   the conditions of his detention after that date. Following the indication to the Italian   Government by the Court (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court – interim measures) that   he should be transferred urgently to a facility that was adapted to his state of health, in   order to exclude any risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the enforcement of Mr   Scoppola’s sentence was suspended and he was placed under house arrest, as no   appropriate facility could be found. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or   degrading treatment), the applicant complained about his detention in Parma prison.   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 9,333 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 6,000 (costs and   expenses)   Muscat v. Malta (no. 24197/10)   The applicant, Paul Muscat, is a Maltese national who was born in 1970 and lives in   Malta. Relying on Article 6 (access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy),   Mr Muscat complained that he had been denied access to a court concerning a property   dispute over a hotel. In particular, he complained that it had been excessively formalistic   for the courts to declare his case deserted in November 2003 on the ground that no   notification of his appeal could be served due to an incorrect address (with the result   that the written procedure was not concluded within the legal time-limit).   No violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 13   Fusu Arcadie and Others v. Republic of Moldova (no. 22218/06)   The applicants, Arcadie Fusu, Petru Botezat, Tatiana Rusu, Svetlana Covalciuc, Galina   Bujor, Vera Boţoc, Vladimir Ţurcanu and Iacob Ciobanu, are eight Moldovan nationals   who were born in 1964, 1949, 1965, 1959, 1952, 1937, 1951 and 1930, respectively,   and live in Floreşti (the Republic of Moldova). Relying in particular on Article 9 (freedom   of thought, conscience and religion), the applicants complained about the authorities’   failure to register their church, a religious denomination of the Christian Orthodox   Church subordinate to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. The applicant church’s   complaint is part of an ongoing conflict with another denomination of the Orthodox   Church in Floreşti, subordinate to the Metropolitan Church of Moldova.   Violation of Article 9   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 880 (costs and   expenses)   Budaca v. Romania (no. 57260/10)*   The applicant, Gheorghe Budaca, is a Romanian national was born in 1960 and lives in   Mozzano (Italy). He was arrested in Italy and extradited to Romania to serve a three-   year prison sentence for fraud and forgery. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition   of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the conditions of his detention   in Botoşani prison (problems of overcrowding, hygiene and access to drinking water, in   particular).   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 4,900 (non-pecuniary damage). Claim for costs and expenses   rejected by the Court.   Iorgoiu v. Romania (no. 1831/02)*   The applicant, Cristian Daniel Iorgoiu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1969 and   lives in Bucharest. In 2001, he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for fraud.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he   complained about the conditions of his detention (overcrowding, problems of hygiene, in   particular), and about the lack of continuous medical treatment for his illnesses while he   was in prison.   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,100 (non-pecuniary damage). The applicant submitted no   claim for costs and expenses.   Radu Pop v. Romania (no. 14337/04)   The applicant, Radu Pop, is a Romanian national who was born in 1967 and is currently   serving a nine-year prison sentence in Gherla Prison (Romania) for the assault and   attempted murder of a police officer. The incident for which he was convicted occurred   on 18 August 2003 when police officers went to his home to arrest him so that he could   serve a sentence handed down in another set of criminal proceedings against him.   During his arrest he hit one police officer over the head with a stone, bit another officer’s   fingers and tried to seize an axe. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Pop alleged that he had been beaten by the police   both during his arrest and questioning on 18 August 2003 and that the ensuing   investigation into his allegations had been inadequate. He also complained under Article   about the conditions of his detention in different prisons where he had been detained,   notably on account of overcrowding, lack of hygiene and inadequate medical care for his   chronic gastritis and mental health problems.   Violation of Article 3 - conditions of detention   No violation of Article 3 - medical treatment in Baia Mare and Gherla Prisons   Just satisfaction: EUR 8,400 (non-pecuniary damage). The applicant submitted no   claim for costs and expenses.   Winkler v. Slovakia (no. 25416/07)   The applicant, Róbert Winkler, is a Slovak national who was born in 1977 and lives in   Žilina (Slovakia). Remanded in custody on 26 November 2004 for several criminal   offences, he alleged that, as there had been no decision by a court to extend his   detention from 26 May 2005, it had been unlawful from that date until 15 November   when he was convicted. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security). In   the Constitutional Court found that Mr Winkler’s detention from 26 May to 15   November 2005 was unlawful and awarded him 1,970 euros.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage). The applicant submitted no   claim for costs and expenses.   Ceviz v. Turkey (no. 8140/08)*   The applicant, Haydar Ceviz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in   Istanbul. Suspected of drug trafficking, he was arrested and remanded in custody on 30   September 2007. After his arraignment before the Assize Court on 20 February 2008,   and again on 21 July 2008, his detention on remand was extended, having regard to the   offence in question and the risk that he might abscond and tamper with evidence.   Relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Ceviz   complained about the length of his detention and the lack of remedies by which to   challenge that measure and seek reparation.   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Violation of Article 5 § 5   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses). The finding of a violation   constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non pecuniary damage suffered by the   applicant.   Tarhan v. Turkey (no. 9078/06)*   The applicant, Mehmet Tarhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in   Sivas (Turkey). The case concerns his refusal to do military service because of his   pacifist beliefs. Having refused to wear a uniform, he was held in custody in the military   prison, where he was subjected to disciplinary penalties for refusing to have his hair and   beard cut, which was ultimately carried out forcefully by seven soldiers. Criminal   proceedings were brought against him. Since his desertion in March 2006, the police   have been looking for him; he faces fresh criminal proceedings and custody. Relying on   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained   about the psychological violence that he had undergone and, under Article 9 (freedom of   thought, conscience and religion), about the non-recognition of the right to conscientious   objection and the proceedings against him on that basis.   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 9   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,300 (costs and   expenses)   Munjaz v. The United Kingdom (no. 2913/06)   The applicant, C. Munjaz, is a British national who was born in 1947. Suffering from   mental health problems, he has spent a number of periods in prison and hospital. The   case concerned Mr Munjaz’s complaint about his placement in seclusion in Ashworth   Special hospital (a high security hospital) where he was transferred in March 1994 as a   result of his increasingly psychotic, aggressive and violent behaviour. Relying in   particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he alleged that   Ashworth’s in-hospital policy on seclusion, which had not complied with the Code of   Practice under the Mental Health Act, had adversely affected his right to personal   development and to establish and develop relationships with the outside world. Further   relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also claimed that his seclusion had   amounted to a further deprivation of his liberty lacking any basis in law and without   possibility of bringing an external appeal.   No violation of Article 5   No violation of Article 8   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   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 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.   5