003-4547797-5491299

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 310 (2013)   24.10.2013   Judgments concerning Croatia, Greece, Monaco, Russia, Slovenia and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 judgments, of   which four (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 (*).   Damjanac v. Croatia (application no. 52943/10)   The applicant, Borisav Damjanac, is a Croatian and Serbian national who was born in 1926 and lives   in Belgrade. The case concerned the payment of his pension. Mr Damjanac served as a military   officer in the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) between 1941 and 1979, and between 1992 and 2003 he   received his pension from the Croatian pension authorities in Dubrovnik. However, after   Mr Damjanac informed the Croatian authorities that he intended to move to Belgrade, his pension   payments were halted in October 2003. Croatia and Serbia were signatories to an international   treaty stating that the right to payment of a pension abroad existed regardless of whether the   pension recipient lived in one of the signatory states. However, the Croatian authorities explained   that this treaty did not apply to YPA pensions. Mr Damjanac appealed the decision in December   and lodged a constitutional complaint, but these were unsuccessful. He changed his place of   residence to Dubrovnik in October 2004, and once again started to receive his pension. Relying in   particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on   Human Rights, Mr Damjanac complained notably that the stopping of payment of his pension had   been arbitrary.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit fixed.   Housein v. Greece (no. 71825/11)*   The applicant, Ali Housein, is an Afghan national who was born in 1994 and has no fixed address. The   case concerned the conditions in which Mr Housein was held in a detention centre. While he was   still a minor, Mr Housein was arrested in 2011 for entering Greece illegally and was placed in   detention in a detention centre for adults pending his deportation. His lawyer applied for the   detention order to be lifted and for the applicant to be placed in a special centre for unaccompanied   minors. Shortly afterwards, Mr Housein lodged an objection against his detention with the Greek   courts, complaining of being detained together with adults in unacceptable conditions. His objection   was dismissed and an order was made for his continued detention. In July 2011 he was transferred   to a youth hostel. The decision ordering his detention and deportation was subsequently set aside   and Mr Housein later left the youth hostel. Under in particular Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty   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.   and security and right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the   Convention, he complained notably that his arrest and placement in detention had infringed his   status as an unaccompanied minor.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Ioannis Papageorgiou v. Greece (no. 45847/09)*   The applicant, Ioannis Papageorgiou, is a Greek national who was born in 1962 and lives in Athens.   Mr Papageorgiou was convicted in his absence under the procedure applicable to persons of   unknown address, although he claimed that the Greek judicial authorities had been informed of his   address. The applicant was charged with several offences, including forgery and using forged   documents, and supplied his address to the investigating authorities. He was summoned to appear   in 1995. After failing to find him at the address given, the authorities responsible for serving   summonses initiated the procedure applicable to persons of unknown address. In 1996   Mr Papageorgiou was sentenced in his absence to a prison term, which was commuted to a fine. The   applicant appealed in 2007, submitting that he had found out about the judgment simply by chance   in 2006. After his appeal was dismissed as being out of time, he lodged an appeal on points of law. In   a 2009 judgment the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. The applicant complained of a   violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a), (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial/right of access to a court).   No violation of Article 6   Navone and Others v. Monaco (nos. 62880/11, 62892/11 and 62899/11)*   The applicants, Davide Navone, Guglielmo Lafleur and Danilo Re, are Italian nationals who were born   in 1981, 1980 and 1979 respectively. Mr Navone lives in Canale and Mr Lafleur and Mr Re live in   Savona (Italy). The case concerned the details of their time in police custody. The three applicants   were arrested in Monaco in December 2010. On 5 December 2010, at the end of their respective   periods in police custody, they were made the subject of a judicial investigation concerning several   offences, including theft and handling stolen goods. All three applicants were charged and taken into   detention on the same day. Arguing that their police custody should be declared null and void, they   lodged pleas of nullity and applications for release with the Court of Appeal, without success. In   January 2011 they lodged a notice of appeal on points of law with the general registry. The Court of   Revision rejected the first two applicants’ appeals; in the case of Mr Re, it set aside the record of his   first interview in police custody. The applicants were subsequently sentenced by the Criminal Court   to 18 months’ imprisonment and the sentence was upheld by the Court of Appeal in June 2011.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to be assisted by a lawyer),   Mr Navone and Mr Lafleur alleged that they had not been informed of their right to remain silent   and that they had been deprived of their right to be assisted by a lawyer while in police custody.   Mr Re complained that he had not had the assistance of a lawyer from the beginning of his police   custody, despite his request to that effect, and of the fact that this circumstance had not resulted in   the proceedings as a whole being declared null and void.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – Mr Navone and Mr Lafleur not having been informed of their right to   remain silent during their custody   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) – the three applicants having been deprived of their right to be assisted   by a lawyer while in police custody   Just satisfaction: The applicants did not submit claims for just satisfaction.   Dovletukayev and Others v. Russia (nos. 7821/07, 10937/10, 14046/10 and   32782/10)   The applicants are seven Russian nationals who live in various districts of Chechnya (Russia). They   are close relatives of five men – Aslan Dovletukayev, Khizir Gulmutov, Islam and Abubakar   Tazurkayevy and Supyan Khutsayev, born between 1936 and 1982 – who disappeared, between   and 2004, after having been taken away by armed men in uniforms whom the applicants took   to be Russian servicemen. The bodies of four of the applicants’ relatives were subsequently   discovered. One of the men remains missing and his family has had no news of him since his   disappearance in September 2003. The investigations into the circumstances of the disappearance   and the death of the applicants’ relatives remain pending. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the   applicants complained that their relatives had been abducted and killed by Russian State officials,   and that the authorities had failed to carry out effective investigations into their deaths. Further   relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they complained of their relatives’   unacknowledged detention. They also complained, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy),   that no remedy had been available to them in respect of these complaints. Finally, the family of   Abubakar Tazurkayev relied on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading   treatment), complaining that the disappearance of Abubakar caused them mental suffering.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) – in respect of the applicants’ relatives   Violation of Article 2 (investigation) – in respect of the failure to investigate effectively the   abductions and deaths of the applicants’ relatives Aslan Dovletukayev, Khizir Gulmutov, Islam   Tazurkayev and Supyan Khutsayev and the disappearance of Abubakar Tazurkayev   Violation of Article 3 – in respect of the relatives of Abubakar Tazurkayev, on account of their   mental suffering   Violation of Article 5 – in respect of the applicants’ relatives on account of their unlawful detention   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 – in respect of the relatives of Aslan   Dovletukayev, Khizir Gulmutov, and Supyan Khutsayev)   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 – in respect of the relatives of Islam and   Abubakar Tazurkayevy   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 to the mother of Islam and Abubakar Tazurkayevy in respect of   pecuniary damage, between EUR 40,000 and EUR 120,000, per application, in respect of   non-pecuniary damage; and between EUR 3,000 and EUR 4,000, per application, in respect of costs   and expenses   Lapshov v. Russia (no. 5288/08)   The applicant, Zakhar Lapshov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and is serving a prison   sentence in Kaliningrad (Russia). The case concerned the conditions of his pre-trial detention, before   his conviction for robbery. On numerous occasions between 26 July 2006 and 7 August 2007   Mr Lapshov was kept in a temporary detention centre in Bagrationovsk. He alleged that the   conditions of this detention had been inappropriate in a number of ways; in particular, that his cell   had no window or bedding, and that he had had no access to a private toilet or outdoor exercise. He   therefore complained that his detention conditions at this time had been incompatible with the   standards established by Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment)   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 850 (costs and expenses)   Pakhomova v. Russia (no. 22935/11)   The applicant, Natalya Pakhomova (formerly Natalya Baranova), is a Russian national who was born   in 1975 and lives in Novosibirsk (Russia). The case concerned the custody of her son. Ms Pakhomova   married her former husband in 1997, and their son was born in 2001. She later applied for a divorce.   On 24 February 2009, while the proceedings were still pending, her former husband picked up their   son from school, and the child has not been seen since. The divorce was granted in March 2009, and   Ms Pakhomova was granted custody of the couple’s child. However, her former husband did not   comply with the judgment, and Ms Pakhomova persistently sought to have the judgment enforced   by making numerous applications and complaints. However, bailiffs have not succeeded in returning   her son to her. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Pakhomova   complained that the Russian authorities had failed to enforce the judgment granting her custody of   her son.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   Shcherbakov v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 34959/07)   The applicant, Igor Shcherbakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Tula   (Russia). Between his arrest on 16 November 2004 and his conviction for extortion and fraud on   February 2008, he was held in pre-trial detention. His appeals against this detention were   dismissed. Mr Shcherbakov relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),   Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable   time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). He complained in particular that the conditions of   his pre-trial detention had been inappropriate, in particular because of overcrowded cells, that both   this detention and the criminal proceedings had lasted for an unreasonably long time, and that an   appeal of November 2006 against his pre-trial detention had not been heard in good time.   Violation of Article 13 – on account of the lack of effective remedy in respect of the applicant’s   complaint under Article 3 about the conditions of his detention   Violation of Article 3 – on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention from November   to May 2008   Violation of Article 5 § 3 – on account of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention   Violation of Article 5 § 4 – on account of the domestic court’s failure to examine speedily the   applicant’s appeal against the detention order of November 2006   No violation of Article 6 – on account of the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant   Just satisfaction: EUR 16,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sedminek v. Slovenia (no. 9842/07)   The applicant, Milan Sedminek, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Polzela   (Slovenia). The case concerned a civil suit brought by Mr Sedminek and insolvency proceedings   pending against the opposite party. In August 1996 Mr Sedminek bought some business premises   from a company, but soon realised that they were smaller than had been agreed in the contract.   Mr Sedminek sued the company in September 1998. He was successful in obtaining a judgment in   his favour in April 2004. The judgment was not enforced, because the company subsequently   entered insolvency proceedings, which are still pending. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair   hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Sedminek   complained that the proceedings he had been involved in had been unreasonably lengthy, that this   had meant that he had not been able to recover his loss from the company, and that he had had no   access to an effective remedy in respect of this complaint.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: EUR 16,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Baklanov v. Ukraine (no. 44425/08)   The applicant, Mikhail Baklanov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Gorlivka in   the Donetsk region (Ukraine). The case concerned his allegations that he had suffered ill-treatment   during his military service, in particular beatings and bullying. Mr Baklanov was drafted into the army   in May 2003, with no prior psychological concerns. He was discharged in April 2004 after it was   found that psychological problems he had developed made him unfit for military service. Following   Mr Baklanov’s allegations of ill treatment, the authorities conducted investigations but found no   grounds to launch criminal proceedings. Mr Baklanov’s claims aiming to acquire compensation and   an increase to his monthly disability allowance were unsuccessful. In July 2011, the Higher   Administrative Court rejected his final appeal. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or   degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Baklanov complained that the   treatment to which he had been subjected during his military service had caused a permanent   psychological illness, and that he had had no access to an effective remedy in respect of these   complaints.   No violation of Article 3 (Ill-treatment)   No violation of Article 3 (investigation)   No violation of Article 3 – in respect of the psychiatric illness the applicant acquired during his   mandatory military service   No violation of Article 13   Sergey Savenko v. Ukraine (no. 59731/09)   The applicant, Sergey Savenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975. When lodging his   application, he was serving a prison sentence in the Kharkiv region (Ukraine). The case concerned his   allegations that he had been ill-treated in prison. According to him, following his placement in a   disciplinary cell he had been taken to a storage room of the prison and asked for information about   the activities of other inmates. Mr Savenko claimed that he had refused to answer, and that in reply   he had been ill-treated. He complained that this had amounted to a violation, in particular, of   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 3, he also   complained that there had been no effective investigation of the incident.   Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment + procedure)   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Bousiou v. Greece (no. 21455/10)*   The applicants in this case, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), complained of the Greek   authorities’ refusal to enforce a judgment in their favour concerning the expropriation of their land.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Zakharova v. Russia (no. 17030/04)   The applicant in this case complained of the lengthy non-enforcement of a judgment in her favour   concerning repairs in her flat and of the domestic courts’ refusal to examine her claim. She relied on   Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (non-enforcement of the judgment + access to court)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Dmitriyev v. Russia (no. 40044/12)   The applicant in this case complained of the conditions of his detention and also that he had been   denied a fair hearing when making a resulting claim for compensation in the Russian courts. He   relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair   hearing).   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Necheporenko and others v. Ukraine (no. 72631/10 and 249 other applications)   The applicants in this case complained mainly of the lengthy non-enforcement of decisions in their   favour and of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. They relied on   Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of 244 applications (the six others applications have been   declared inadmissible)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of 244 applications (the six others applications   have been declared inadmissible)   Violation of Article 13 in respect of 244 applications (the six others applications have been declared   inadmissible)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following case, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair   hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Mavredaki v. Greece (no. 10966/10)*   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 13   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] | 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.   7