003-4624292-5596314

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 003 (2014)   07.01.2014   Judgments concerning Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland,   and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven judgments, of   which two (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 (*).   The Court has also delivered today judgments in the cases of Cusan and Fazzo v. Italy (application no. 77/07), Ringier Axel   Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2) (no. 21666/09), and Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 3)   (no. 37986/09), for which separate press releases have been issued.   Reformed Church Foundation for Student Housing and Stanomirescu   v. Romania (applications nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07)*   The first applicant, the Reformed Church Foundation for Student Housing, is an NGO which was set   up in 1992 and has its registered office in Odorheiul Secuiesc. The second applicant, Marinică   Stanomirescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1929 and died in 2009. In the first case, the   applicant association, whose main activity is to promote pupils’ education in line with the doctrines   of the Reformed Church, had obtained a final judicial decision on 5 October 2000, ordering the   administrative authorities to destroy six buildings on its land (they had been put up to provide   temporary homes for workers on a construction site then in progress). 12 years later, and after   numerous attempts at enforcement, the administrative authorities refused to execute the final   judicial decision in the applicant association’s favour. In the second case, Mr Stanomirescu had   obtained a court order which obliged a legal entity under State authority – the regional centre of the   Gorj forestry estate - to assess, mark and evaluate trees on his forest for the purpose of using the   timber, and another which ordered that damages and interest be paid to the applicant. Although the   first decision was executed with more than a year’s delay, the second decision is currently still   unexecuted. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property), the applicants complained about the authorities’ failure to execute binding   and enforceable judicial decision issued in their favour.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: 8,000 euros (EUR) (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs   and expenses) to the applicant Foundation and EUR 300 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and   EUR 60 (costs and expenses) jointly to the heirs of Mr Stanomirescu.   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.   Lakatoš and Others v. Serbia (no. 3363/08)   The applicants, Slavko Lakatoš, Lajči Dimović, Ivica Dimović, Maćaš Dimović (now deceased) and   Ramajana Ametov, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1974, 1980, 1980, 1957 and 1979   respectively. The case essentially concerned the five applicants’ complaints that they had been   ill-treated by the police when arrested on suspicion of carrying out a series of robberies, targeting   elderly people, in northern Serbia. They alleged in particular that they had been beaten by the police   both during their arrest on 6 November 2007 and then when taken to Novi Sad police station. The   Government contended that the applicants had been injured because the police had had to resort to   force when the applicants had resisted arrest and/or tried to escape. On 10 July 2009 the first three   applicants were found guilty of 13 robberies and four attempted robberies. The first and second   applicants were sentenced to 14 years and six months’ imprisonment. The third applicant was also   found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer when resisting arrest and sentenced   to 15 years’ imprisonment. Their convictions were ultimately upheld by the Appeals Court in June   2012. Their constitutional complaint is still pending. Most recently, in December 2012, the applicants   were released under a general amnesty granted by the Serbian Parliament. The last two applicants   were never indicted as the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. Relying in particular on   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), all five applicants alleged that they had   been ill-treated during police custody and that the investigation into their allegations had been   inadequate. Further relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the first three applicants   complained that the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of their alleged crime could   not justify their being held in pre-trial detention for more than one year and eight months (from   their arrest on 6 November 2007 until their initial conviction on 10 July 2009).   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – in respect of S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, I.   Dimović, and M. Dimović   Violation of Article 3 (investigation) – in respect of S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, I. Dimović, and M. Dimović   Violation of Article 5 § 3 in respect of S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, and I. Dimović   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 each to S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, I. Dimović, and M. Dimović’s daughter   (non-pecuniary damage); and EUR 2,750 to I. Dimović and EUR 1,800 to S. Lakatoš, L. Dimović, I.   Dimović, and M. Dimović’s daughter jointly (costs and expenses).   A.A. v. Switzerland (no. 58802/12)   The case concerned the threatened expulsion of a failed asylum seeker from Switzerland to Sudan.   The applicant, A.A., is a Sudanese national who claims that he was born in 1985 in Zalingei, a village   near the town of Kutum in the region of North Darfur, Sudan. He arrived in Switzerland in August   2004, claiming that he had had to flee his village in Sudan when it had been attacked by Janjaweed,   the local militia, during which his father and many other villagers had been killed and he had been   mistreated. Since his arrival in Switzerland he has become an active member of the Sudan Liberation   Movement-Unity and was appointed its human rights officer in 2009. The Swiss authorities   dismissed his asylum requests twice, in 2004 and in 2012, because they had doubts about his origins   (notably they were not convinced that he came from Darfur), because they found that his story   about his flight from Sudan lacked credibility and because he was not at any great risk of persecution   if returned as he did not have a high profile as a political activist. Moreover, the Government   believed that he had only become a political activist in Switzerland to avoid being expelled to Sudan.   The applicant currently lives in the Canton of Zurich (Switzerland) pending an expulsion order against   him, the enforcement of which was stayed following an interim measure granted by the European   Court (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) in which it requested the Swiss Government to not expel   the applicant pending the outcome of the proceedings before it.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleged that, if   expelled to Sudan, he would be detained, interrogated and tortured on account of his political   activities in Switzerland. He also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in   combination with Article 3 that he had no effective remedy before the Swiss courts to assert his   claims that he originated from Darfur.   Violation of Article 3 – in the event of the applicant’s being expelled to Sudan   No violation of Article 13 in combination with Article 3   Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) – not to expel the applicant to Sudan – still in force   until judgment becomes final or until further order   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for any just satisfaction. The Court awarded   him EUR 8,500 (costs and expenses)   Kaçak and Ebinç v. Turkey (no. 54916/08)*   The applicants, Nebi Kaçak and Ömer Ebinç, are Turkish nationals who were both born in 1980 and   live in Van (Turkey). They were arrested by the police during a demonstration in Van and placed in   police custody. According to the police report of the same day, which was signed by them, they had   been arrested on the fringes of an unlawful demonstration, involving the use of force; Mr Kaçak was   accused of having thrown stones and lightly wounded a police officer. Relying on Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants alleged that they had been   subjected to brutality by police officers during their arrest, and that the authorities had not complied   with their obligation to conduct an effective investigation.   Two violations of Article 3 (ill-treatment + investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 to each applicant (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,325 to the   applicants jointly (costs and expenses)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Karabin v. Poland (no. 29254/06)   The applicant in this case complained about the conditions throughout his detention on remand and   imprisonment between October 2002 and July 2007 in Mysłowice Remand Centre. He relied in   particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment)   Prăjină v. Romania (no. 5592/05)*   The applicant in this case alleged that his right to a fair trial had not been respected, in particular in   that he had been unable to examine a witness whose statement had been essential in securing his   conviction. He relied in particular on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 6 § 3 (d) (right to examine   witnesses).   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, 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.   Maxian and Maxianová v. Slovakia (no. 43168/11)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   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.   4