003-4626690-5599572

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 006 (2014)   09.01.2014   Judgments concerning Belgium, Croatia, France, Greece, Russia, Slovenia   and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 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 (*).   The Court has also delivered today its judgment in the case of Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 53036/08,   61785/08, 8594/09, 24708/09, 30327/09, 36965/09, 61258/09, 63608/09, 67322/09, 4334/10, 4345/10, 11873/10,   25515/10, 30592/10, 32797/10, 33944/10, 36141/10, 52446/10, 62244/10, and 66420/10, for which a separate press   release has been issued.   Van Meroye v. Belgium (no. 330/09)*   Oukili v. Belgium (no. 43663/09)*   Caryn v. Belgium (application no. 43687/09)*   Moreels v. Belgium (no. 43717/09)*   Gelaude v. Belgium (no. 43733/09)*   Saadouni v. Belgium (no. 50658/09)*   Plaisier v. Belgium (no. 28785/11)*   Lankester v. Belgium (no. 22283/10)*   The applicants are Ferdinand Van Meroye, a Belgian national who was born in 1962, Mohamed   Oukili, a French national who was born in 1969, Jurgen Caryn, Guy Moreels and Davy Gelaude,   Belgian nationals who were born in 1982, 1952 and 1977 respectively, Jamal Saadouni, a Moroccan   national who was born in 1970, Stijn Plaisier, a Belgian national who was born in 1984, and Raimond   Lankester, a Dutch national who was born in 1943. With the exception of Mr Saadouni, who is   detained in Louvain Prison’s psychiatric wing, they all are or have been detained in the psychiatric   wing of Merksplas Prison.   These cases concerned the applicants’ detention on the basis of court orders following acts of   robbery, burglary, fraud and receiving stolen goods, assault, indecency, rape of a minor and/or   homicide. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, all the applicants complained that they had been deprived of their   liberty in inappropriate premises. Alleging a violation notably of Article 5 § 4 (right to speedy review   of the lawfulness of detention), Mr Van Meroye, Mr Oukili, Mr Gelaude, Mr Moreels and Mr   Saadouni also submitted that they had not had an effective remedy or guarantees of a fair hearing in   order to draw attention to the inappropriate nature of their place of detention. Finally, Mr Lankester   complained that his detention in a prison psychiatric wing, where he had not received treatment or   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.   appropriate support for his mental and physical condition, and without any realistic prospect of   rehabilitation, amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment).   Violation of Article 5 § 1 – in all the eight cases   Violation of Article 5 § 4 – in the cases of Van Meroye, Oukili, Moreels, Gelaude and Saadouni   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) –in the case of Lankester   Just satisfaction: 15,000 euros (EUR) each to Mr Van Meroye, Mr Oukili, Mr Caryn, Mr Moreels, Mr   Gelaude, Mr Saadouni, and Mr Plaisier, and 16 000 EUR to Mr Lankester (non-pecuniary damage),   and EUR 1 500 to Mr Lankester (costs and expenses)   Maravić Markeš v. Croatia (no. 70923/11)   The applicant, Dragica Karla Maravić Markeš, is a Croatian national who was born in 1949 and lives   in Zagreb. The case concerned the fairness of legal proceedings on Ms Maravić Markeš’s right to   severance pay. Ms Maravić Markeš was dismissed from her job as inspector of Zagreb Municipal   Council from 31 March 1992. She was not provided with severance pay, and in July 2006 she   requested payment from the Municipal Office. However, her request was rejected on the grounds   that such an application should have been submitted within three years of her dismissal. Her appeal   to the Chief of the Municipal Office was also dismissed in November 2006. Ms Maravić Markeš   brought an administrative action against this decision later that year. The Administrative Court asked   the Municipal Office to comment on the matter, and the Office provided observations, raising some   new arguments. However, though these were sent to the court, they were not forwarded to   Ms Maravić Markeš. In May 2009 the court dismissed her action, partly relying on the new   arguments of the Municipal Office. Her subsequent constitutional complaint was declared   inadmissible in March 2011. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Ms Maravić Markeš   complained that the proceedings before the Administrative Court had been unfair, because it had   based its decision on the observations of the Municipal Office without giving her a chance to   comment on them.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.   Viard v. France (no. 71658/10)*   The applicant, Gilbert Viard, is a French national who was born in 1947 and lives in Saint-Nazaire   (France). A psychotherapist, he was placed under investigation for the sexual assault of four   patients, and for abuse of a state of weakness in respect of one of them. He was placed under court   supervision and barred from working as a psychotherapist and a psychoanalyst. By an order of   February 2010, the Court of Appeal of Rennes upheld an order by the investigating judge,   dismissing the applicant’s request for partial lifting of the court supervision. On 19 February 2010   Mr Viard appealed on points of law against the judgment of the investigation division, an appeal   which was dismissed. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complained   that the refusal to examine his appeal as being out of time had infringed his right of access to a   court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)   Budanov v. Russia (no. 66583/11)   The applicant, Yuriy Budanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lived until his arrest in   the town of Morshansk, Tambov Region (Russia). The case concerned the quality of the medical care   given to him in the Russian prison system. Since at least the year 2000, Mr Budanov has suffered   from a serious medical condition affecting his brain, which has led to symptoms including severe   headaches, epileptic seizures, nausea and insomnia. In October 2002 he was arrested on suspicion of   committing a murder in a drunken rage. He was convicted in February 2005 and sentenced to   years’ imprisonment. Whilst serving his sentence, Mr Budanov has been provided with a wide   and varying range of medical treatment by repeatedly changing teams of medical staff in different   locations. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Budanov   complained that the Russian authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical care as his   condition had been dealt with only by a prison paramedic and psychiatrist for much of his detention.   In particular, he claimed that though his condition required significant medical expertise, the Russian   authorities had refused to admit him to hospital for neurosurgery.   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – on account of the lack of adequate   medical care of the applicant   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Gorelov v. Russia (no. 49072/11)   The applicant, Viktor Gorelov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lived until his arrest in   the village of Sushzavod, in the Novosibirsk Region (Russia). He is serving a sentence in a correctional   colony in the town of Raisino, in the same region. The case concerned his claim that medical   procedures in Russian prison facilities had led to his infection with HIV, and that subsequent care   provided by the Russian authorities had been inadequate. After being arrested in August 2007,   Mr Gorelov was convicted of aggravated robbery in January 2008 and aggravated fraud in November   2011. He received prison sentences of nine years and three months for the robbery, and three years   for the fraud. Blood tests during his incarceration in 2009 and 2010 produced a negative result for   HIV, but a test in February 2011 showed that Mr Gorelov had contracted the virus. He launched a   civil action applying for compensation from the prison authorities, but this was rejected on   procedural grounds. Mr Gorelov then requested criminal proceedings to be brought against staff at   his detention centre. This was also initially rejected in June 2011, but inquiries were later re-opened,   and the outcome of these is unknown. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Gorelov   complained that he had been infected with HIV due to the negligence of prison staff, and that the   authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter.   No violation of Article 2 (right to life)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Jevšnik v. Slovenia (no. 5747/10)   The applicant in this case complained about the conditions of his detention in the semi-open and   closed sections of Ljubljana Prison between July and December 2009. He relied in particular on   Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy).   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman or degrading conditions of detention) – as regards the applicant’s   detention in the closed section   No violation of Article 3 – as regards the applicant’s detention in the semi-open section   Violation of Article 13   Khaynatskyy and Others v. Ukraine (no. 12895/08 and 249 other applications)   Kyselyova and Others v. Ukraine (no. 6155/05 and 22 other applications)   Semyanisty and Others v. Ukraine (no. 7070/04)   The applicants in these cases 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 trial 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 all three cases (except in respect of nine applicants in the case of   Khaynatskyy and Others, and 13 applicants in the case of Semyanisty and Others)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in all three cases (except in respect of nine applicants in the   case of Khaynatskyy and Others, and 13 applicants in the case of Semyanisty and Others)   Violation of Article 13 – in all three cases (except in respect of nine applicants in the case of   Khaynatskyy and Others, and 13 applicants in the case of Semyanisty and Others)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial   within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings.   Goulioti-Giannoudi and Others v. Greece (no. 33367/10)*   Katsigiannis and Others v. Greece (no. 35202/10)*   Tasiouli v. Greece (no. 36169/10)*   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in all three cases   Violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) – in the cases of Katsigiannis and Others and   Tasiouli   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