003-4557488-5504758

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 323 (2013)   05.11.2013   Judgments concerning Albania, Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Serbia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 judgments, of   which five (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 (*).   Izet Haxhia v. Albania (application no. 34783/06)   The applicant, Izet Haxhia, is an Albanian national who was born in 1966. At the time of the   introduction of the application, he was detained in Turkey pending the outcome of his extradition to   Albania. In January 2001, the Albanian prosecutor issued an arrest warrant in respect of Mr Haxhia,   who used to be the bodyguard of the then President of Albania, on suspicion of Mr Haxhia’s   involvement in the assassination of a Member of Parliament and his bodyguard in September 1998.   In March 2001, Mr Haxhia, who was declared fugitive after unsuccessful attempts to locate him, was   charged with having participated in the assassination. He was subsequently convicted in his absence   and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment in a judgment eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in   February 2003. In June 2006 Mr Haxhia was arrested in Turkey following a request by the Albanian   authorities for his extradition. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, he complained that the criminal proceedings and conviction in his   absence had been unfair.   Violation of Article 6   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for damages. The Court awarded him 1,400   euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania (no. 3330/12)   The applicants in this case are JGK Statyba Ltd, a private construction company registered in   Lithuania, and Jurijus Guselnikovas, a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Vilnius.   Mr Guselnikovas is a shareholder and a member of the board of JGK Statyba Ltd. The case concerned   the length of two sets of civil proceedings relating to the ownership of two houses and restriction of   the company’s property rights by the domestic courts which had seized those houses in order to   secure satisfaction of civil claims lodged by private individuals. The applicant company, whose main   activity is construction and real estate, was prohibited for over ten years from selling or transferring   the disputed property until the cases had been examined. Initially, a final and binding court decision   of 1995 had recognised the company’s ownership of the same houses and dismissed the action by   several private individuals for attribution of ownership rights. In July 1996 the company lodged a civil   claim for the eviction of one of the unsuccessful claimants from one of the houses. The courts   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.   eventually allowed the company’s claim and dismissed the counterclaim in a decision ultimately   upheld in February 2010, and the house was returned to the company in July 2010. The second set   of proceedings was brought in June 1996 by another unsuccessful claimant, seeking   acknowledgment of his ownership rights to one of the houses. The latter claim was eventually   dismissed by a final decision in January 2006. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a   reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the   applicants complained that the proceedings had been unreasonably long and that, as a result of the   prolonged seizure of the houses, they had been unable to use their property, leading to considerable   financial losses and an interference with the company’s activity.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   of the Convention was not ready for decision and reserved it.   Pauliukienė and Pauliukas v. Lithuania (no. 18310/06)   The applicants, Zita Pauliukienė and Vytautas Pauliukas, are Lithuanian nationals, wife and husband,   who were born in 1954 and 1953 respectively and live in Kaunas (Lithuania). Mr Pauliukas is an   official of the Kaunas city municipality. The case concerned an article published in November 2003   by the daily newspaper Respublika about disputes between the applicants and their neighbours after   Ms Pauliukienė had acquired a plot of land. Ms Pauliukienė was involved in a number of   administrative and civil proceedings with one of the neighbours and the municipal authorities   concerning the boundaries of the plot and the reconstruction of the applicants’ house. The article   stated in particular that the applicants were illegally building on their land and had occupied part of   the plot belonging to other owners and the State. Following the article’s publication, Mr Pauliukas   brought proceedings seeking rectification of part of the article, which he considered erroneous and   damaging to his reputation, and compensation for damages. His claim was rejected in a decision   ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in November 2005. Mr Pauliukas complained that the   article had tarnished his reputation and had thus breached his rights under Article 8 (right to respect   for private and family life).   No violation of Article 8   Branişte v. Romania (no. 19099/04)*   The applicant, Ion Branişte, is a Romanian national who was born in 1929 and lives in Bucharest. The   case concerned his inability to peacefully enjoy land of which he had become a joint owner. By a   final judgment of 2002 Mr Branişte and his brothers and sisters had been awarded title to land that   had formerly been nationalised; however, they were prevented from taking possession of the land   on account of the presence of buildings on it that had previously been erected by two cooperative   societies under a right of free use. On account of the dispute between the cooperatives and   Mr Branişte, the request to register the property in the land register was rejected by a final   judgment of 2006. In the meantime a counterclaim lodged by Mr Branişte for payment of rent for   occupation of the land had been dismissed and no appeal lodged. By two final judgments of 2007   and 2008, the Romanian courts respectively dismissed an application by the two societies to have   the property title annulled and upheld the validity of that title. Mr Branişte complained of a violation   of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in respect of the period 2 October 2003 to 3 March 2005   Just satisfaction: EUR 13,000 (covering all heads of damage)   Ertuş v. Turkey (no. 37871/08)   The applicant, Cüneyt Ertuş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1993 and lives in Hakkari (Turkey).   The case concerned his alleged ill-treatment by the police on 22 March 2008 when he had been   arrested in Hakkari for taking part in an unlawful demonstration in support of an illegal organisation   (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan – PKK). He was 15 years old at the time. Mr Ertuş submitted a video,   where he is seen crying in the street, as a police officer holds his arm behind his back and then twists   it so that he bends forward. His parents filed a criminal complaint against the officers involved in the   arrest, but the Hakkari public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings. An objection by   Mr Ertuş against this decision and a claim for compensation were both dismissed. In June 2010, he   was acquitted of the charges of taking part in an illegal demonstration, brought against him in May   2008, due to a lack of evidence. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or   degrading treatment), Mr Ertuş complained that he had been ill-treated during his arrest, and that   his allegations had not been properly investigated by the Turkish authorities.   No violation of Article 3 (treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (procedure)   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Mesut Deniz v. Turkey (no. 36716/07)   The applicant, Mesut Deniz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in   Sincan prison (Turkey). The case concerned ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on him, following his   arrest on 5 October 1999. Medical reports undertaken on the same day and during the following   days all record a large number of injuries on Mr Deniz’s body. Mr Deniz alleged that the police   subjected him to ill-treatment, including giving him electric shocks, hanging him by his arms, beating   him severely, twisting and squeezing his penis and making him lie on an icy surface. An investigation   was launched by a prosecutor in 2000, and a police officer was charged, but he was eventually   acquitted in September 2007. Mr Deniz attempted to appeal the decision, but the Turkish courts   refused to allow him to do so because he had not made himself a civil party to proceedings. This   refusal was upheld by Court of Cassation in May 2012. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition   of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Deniz   complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody, that the authorities   had failed to carry out an effective investigation into these allegations and that he had therefore   been denied the opportunity to claim compensation.   Violation of Article 3 (torture)   Violation of Article 3 (procedure)   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Nezir Adıyaman v. Turkey (no. 6042/09)   The applicant, Nezir Adıyaman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul. The   case concerned his complaint that he had been ill-treated by police, after having been arrested on   suspicion of using explosives in a demonstration. Mr Adıyaman maintained that he had been taken   into police custody while running an errand in the course of his business. He subsequently made a   complaint to the Istanbul public prosecutor that he had been ill-treated by officers following his   arrest. In March 2008 the prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute. Mr Adıyaman lodged an   objection to this decision, but this was rejected in May 2008. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Adıyaman complained that he had been punched, slapped and   pushed against a wall by ten to 15 officers for about 20 minutes, and that there had not been a   proper investigation into this allegation.   No violation of Article 3   Tüzün v. Turkey (no. 24164/07)   The applicant, Kamuran Tüzün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).   In May 2006 police conducted a drugs search of the house of the brother of Mr Tüzün’s fiancée,   while Mr Tüzün was present. According to the police report, he injured two police officers while   resisting arrest and then injured himself by falling into a door. Mr Tüzün denied that he had resisted   arrest, claiming that he had been beaten and injured by officers when they had arrested him during   the search. In June 2006 he was charged with resisting police, insulting public officials and   possessing a firearm without a license, of which he was convicted, and sentenced to two years and   nine months’ imprisonment, in March 2010. The judgment was eventually upheld in May 2012. In   July 2006 Mr Tüzün made an application to the public prosecutor, complaining that the officers who   arrested him had used excessive force. The prosecutor decided not to issue proceedings against the   officers, and Mr Tüzün’s objection to this decision was dismissed in January 2007. Relying in   particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Tüzün complained that   during his arrest officers had hit his head with a weapon, and that he had been beaten with   truncheons and guns.   No violation of Article 3 (treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (procedure)   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Brany and Jugokoka v. Serbia (no. 60336/08)   Jovčova v. Serbia (no. 49198/10)   Majs Eksport-Import v. Serbia (no. 35327/09)   These cases concerned the applicants’ complaints about non-enforcement of judgments given in   their favour against socially/State-owned companies. The applicants relied in particular on Article 1   of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to court).   Violation of Article 6 – in the three cases   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in the cases Jovčova and Majs Eksport-Import   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable   time), the applicants complained of the length of the main proceedings and of the inadequacy of the   “Pinto” compensation.   Ascierto and Buffolino v. Italy (nos. 20619/03 and 23751/03)*   Bencivenga and Others v. Italy (nos. 15015/03, 19419/03, 19436/03, 19448/03, 19469/03 and   19470/03)*   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in both cases   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.   5