003-4393810-5276278

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 174 (2013)   11.06.2013   Judgments concerning Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania,   Switzerland, and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following   judgments, of which seven (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final.   The others are Chamber judgments1 and are not final.   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 in French are   indicated with an asterisk (*).   Prizzia v. Hungary (application no. 20255/12)   The applicant, Gary Prizzia, is a national of the United States of America who was born in   and lives in Glen Allen (Virginia, USA). The case concerned visiting rights to his   son, born in 2000, following his divorce from his Hungarian wife. The family lived in   Virginia, USA, until 2003 when Mr Prizzia’s former wife went to Hungary with their son   and, instituting divorce proceedings, did not return. The divorce was pronounced in 2005   and custody awarded to the mother. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect   for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Prizzia   complained about the ensuing non-enforcement of final judgments concerning his access   rights, which notably had granted him the right to take his son to the USA during the   summer holidays. He complained in particular that his former wife had refused to comply   with these judgments despite being ordered to pay fines and that, as a result, his son   had become alienated from him and reluctant to meet him. Due to this situation, the   Hungarian courts then modified his access rights in May 2011, limiting them to summer   holidays in Hungary until his son’s 16th birthday.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 10,000 (costs and   expenses)   Bannikov v. Latvia (no. 19279/03)   The applicant, Igor Bannikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and is   currently serving a 16-year prison sentence in Russia for aggravated murder and   hooliganism committed in Latvia. The case concerned Mr Bannikov’s complaint about his   pre-trial detention in Latvia where he was arrested in May 2002 and convicted in May   2004. At Mr Bannikov’s own request, he was transferred to Russia in June 2011 to   continue serving his sentence. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and   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.   security) of the Convention, he complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial   detention in Latvia.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction in the time   allowed.   Marin Vasilescu v. Romania (no. 62353/09)*   The applicant, Marin Vasilescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in   Wommelgem (Belgium). He was sentenced in June 2007 to five years’ imprisonment for   a financial crime. He served part of his prison sentence and was then placed in house   detention, under electronic surveillance. In March 2009 he fled to Romania. The Antwerp   Court issued a European arrest warrant against the applicant and, in application of that   warrant, the Craiova prosecutor’s office ordered that he be placed in police custody. On   August 2009 the appeal court ordered that he be placed in detention. He was held in   the premises of the Dolj County Police Inspectorate before being handed over to the   Belgian authorities on 9 October 2009. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of   torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleged that the detention   conditions in the Craiova police cells had amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment.   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 800 (costs and   expenses)   Hasanbasic v. Switzerland (no. 52166/09)*   The applicants, Nusret Hasanbasic and lazenka Hasanbasic-Zucko, are nationals of   Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr Hasanbasic was born in 1956 and lives in Bosnia and   Mrs Hasanbasic-Zucko was born in 1951 and lives in Berne (Switzerland). In 1979   Mrs Hasanbasic-Zucko obtained   a settlement permit for Switzerland. In 1982   Mr Hasanbasic had a child with her, and they married. He initially held a temporary   residence permit, then a settlement permit. In August 2004 he informed the authorities   that he intended to return permanently to his country of origin, and his settlement   permit expired. He returned in December 2004 on a tourist visa, then left Switzerland   following a Federal Court judgment against him. His wife submitted a request for family   reunion in favour of her husband, but that request was rejected. That decision was   upheld by the Federal Court, which noted that the first applicant had been convicted on   criminal charges, that the couple had acquired debts, that they had received significant   amounts in welfare assistance, and that it was probable that they would live on state   benefits in the future. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and   for the home), the applicants alleged that the authorities’ refusal to grant Mr Hasanbasic   a settlement permit in Switzerland had been disproportionate and had not been   “necessary in a democratic society”.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: The applicants did not claim compensation for the damage suffered;   the Court awarded them EUR 9,000 jointly in respect of costs and expenses.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Kowalski v. Poland (no. 43316/08)   The applicant in this case complained that because of a domestic court’s refusal to grant   him legal aid for the preparation of a cassation appeal, he had effectively been deprived   of access to the Supreme Court. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial   and right to legal assistance of own choosing).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c)   Namaz and Şenoğlu v. Turkey (no. 69812/11)*   The two applicants in this case, who were suspected of belonging to an illegal armed   organisation, were arrested in September 2006 and remanded in custody. Their trial   began before an assize court on 26 October 2007. At the close of the hearing on   September 2012, the assize court ordered that the second applicant be released and   extended the first applicant’s pre-trial detention. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3   (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained about the length of their pre-   trial detention.   Application struck out of the Court’s list of cases, under Article 37 § 1 (c) – as   regards Mr Şenoğlu   Violation of Article 5 § 3 – in respect of Mr Namaz   Tur v. Turkey (no. 13692/03)*   The applicant in this case complained of interference by the prison authorities in his right   to respect for his correspondence. He relied in particular on Articles 8 (right to respect   for private and family life).   Violation of Article 8   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length   of non-criminal proceedings.   Baksa v. Hungary (no. 44880/08)   Guest Zrt v. Hungary (no. 36999/08)   Szepes v. Hungary (no. 77669/12)   Mehmet Erkek v. Turkey (no. 45070/05)*   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (in all four cases)   Revision   S.C. Aectra Agrochemicals S.A. and Munteanu v. Romania (nos. 18780/04 and   13111/05)*   In its principal judgment of 27 March 2012 the Court had held that there had been a   violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention concerning the applicants’ complaints   that final decisions given in their favour in various sets of civil proceedings had been set   aside on an application by the Procurator General of Romania. Relying on Rules 80 and   of the Rules of Court, the representative of the applicant company in application   no. 18780/04 has requested revision of this judgment, arguing that, contrary to what   was indicated in the judgment, the claim for just satisfaction was submitted within the   deadline and was accompanied by supporting documents.   The Court decided to revise its judgment of 27 March 2012 in respect of   application no. 18780/04 only as far as Article 41 (just satisfaction) was   concerned.   Just satisfaction: EUR 103,086.56 (pecuniary damage), EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary   damage), and EUR 9,000 (costs and expenses)   Arif Erden v. Turkey (no. 37171/04)*   In a judgment on the merits of 23 March 2010, the Court had held that there had been a   violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the applicant having been deprived   of property without compensation. In a judgment on just satisfaction of 22 February   the Court had decided to award the applicant EUR 400,000 in respect of pecuniary   damage and EUR 760 in respect of costs and expenses. The applicant’s representative   informed the Court that he had learned that the applicant had died on 9 September   2008, and consequently requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule   of the Rules of Court.   The Court decided to revise its judgment of 22 February 2011.   Just satisfaction: EUR 400,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 760 (costs and expenses)   to the applicant’s heirs   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 here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   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