003-4743367-5767110

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 122 (2014)   29.04.2014   Judgments concerning Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Serbia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber   judgments1, none of which is final. These judgments are available in English only.   The Court has also delivered today judgments in the cases of Natsvlishvili et Togonidze v. Georgia (application no. 9043/05)   and Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02, 33514/02, 38052/02, 25821/03, 29652/03, 3736/03, 17750/03 and   28688/04), for which separate press releases have been issued.   Salumaki v. Finland (application no. 23605/09)   The applicant, Tiina Johanna Salumäki, is a Finnish national who was born in 1978 and lives in   Helsinki. She is a journalist. The case concerned her conviction of defamation. On 8 July 2004, the   nationwide evening newspaper Ilta-Sanomat published an article written by Ms Salumäki concerning   the investigation into a homicide. The front page of the edition carried a headline asking whether   the victim had connections with K.U., a well-known Finnish businessman. A photograph of K.U.   appeared on the same page. Next to the article was a separate column mentioning K.U.’s previous   conviction for economic crimes. On 25 August 2006 the Helsinki District Court convicted the   applicant and the newspaper’s editor-in-chief at the time, H.S., of defaming K.U. as the title of their   article insinuated that K.U. had been involved in the killing, even though it was made clear much   later in the text that the homicide suspect had no connections with K.U. Along with H.S.,   Ms Salumäki was ordered to pay damages and costs to K.U. This judgment was subsequently upheld   on appeal and the Supreme Court finally refused leave to appeal in November 2008. Ms Salumäki   complained that her conviction had amounted to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of   the European Convention on Human Rights, referring in particular to the fact that neither the   Government nor K.U. ever alleged at any stage of the defamation proceedings that the information   presented in the article was incorrect.   No violation of Article 10   L.H. v. Latvia (no. 52019/07)   The applicant, L.H., is a Latvian national who was born in 1975 and lives in the Cēsis District (Latvia).   The case concerned a State agency’s collection of medical data about her. While Ms H. was giving   birth in 1997, a Caesarian section was used and in the course of that surgery a tubal ligation,   resulting in sterilisation, was performed without her consent. Following an unsuccessful attempt to   achieve an out-of-court settlement, she brought civil proceedings against the district hospital in   February 2005 and, in December 2006, was awarded compensation for the unauthorised   sterilisation. In the meantime, in February 2004, the Inspectorate of Quality Control for Medical Care   and Fitness for Work (“the MADEKKI”), on request by the district hospital’s director, initiated an   administrative inquiry concerning the gynaecological and childbirth assistance provided to Ms H.   from 1996 to 2003. The MADEKKI received medical files from three medical institutions and, in May   2004, issued a report containing sensitive medical details, and the summary of the conclusions was   sent to the hospital director. Ms H.’s lawyer lodged a claim before the administrative 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   complaining that the inquiry had been unlawful, in particular since its essential purpose had been to   help the hospital to gather evidence for the impending litigation, which was outside the MADEKKI’s   remit. The lawyer also requested to annul the report. Ms H.’s claim was rejected by the   Administrative District Court in a decision eventually upheld by the Senate of the Supreme Court in   February 2007. Ms H. complained that the MADEKKI, by collecting her personal medical data, had   violated her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: 11,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,768 (costs and expenses)   Ternovskis v. Latvia (no. 33637/02)   The applicant, Andris Ternovskis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Dobele   (Latvia). He was employed as a border guard with the State Border Guard Service from 1992. The   case concerned the authorities’ refusal to grant him security clearance for work with State secrets   and the procedure for contesting that refusal. Following the entry into force of the Law on State   Secrets in 1997, Mr Ternovskis, applied – at the invitation of the authorities – for the relevant   security clearance. In January 1999 he was informed by the Constitution Protection Bureau (“the   SAB”) that he had been refused first category security clearance. As he presumed that the reason for   the refusal was a suspicion that he had collaborated with the secret service of the Soviet Union, the   KGB, he applied to have the question of his alleged collaboration adjudicated in court. In a final   judgment of May 1999 the district court concluded that Mr Ternovskis had not knowingly   collaborated with the KGB. While his application was pending, he was dismissed from service as a   border guard in March 1999 since he had been refused the necessary security clearance. Mr   Ternovskis’ subsequent request for a review of the decision concerning his clearance was rejected by   the SAB. On appeal, the Prosecutor General upheld the refusal in a final decision of December 1999.   After an unsuccessful challenge of the relevant legal provisions before the Constitutional Court,   Mr Ternovskis attempted to obtain access to the materials in the investigation file to find out on   what basis he had been refused clearance, but was informed that the materials were confidential.   He also complained about his dismissal from his post as border guard before the courts, his   application eventually being dismissed by the Senate of the Supreme Court in October 2004. Relying   on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Ternovskis complained: that the appeal court, in the   proceedings contesting his dismissal, had examined his appeal in his absence; and, that the Latvian   procedure for disputing a refusal of security clearance was unfair as the persons concerned were   unable to find out the reasons for the refusal or to dispute it before the courts.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Z.J. v. Lithuania (no. 60092/12)   The applicant, Z.J., is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Šiauliai (Lithuania). The   case concerned the Lithuanian courts’ refusal to grant him custody of two of his five children. In   Mr J.’s wife died, leaving him as the only carer. Because he was unable to take care of the two   youngest children, six-month-old twins, while at the same time working and supporting his three   other children, Mr J. agreed for a cousin of his late wife to become the twins’ legal guardian. At the   same time he retained his parental rights and could see the children as he wished. Following   conflicts between him and the guardian, he applied to the courts in 2008 asking that the twins be   returned to him. While acknowledging that as their biological father Mr J. had a right to live with the   children, the courts came to the conclusion, on the basis of psychiatrists’ reports, that the twins   were not yet ready to be removed from the familiar environment of the guardian’s home. A court   order therefore provided for regular contacts between Mr J. and the children so that they could   develop stronger bonds with their father. By a decision of September 2011, upheld on appeal in   February 2012, the courts rejected Mr J.’s request for a residence order, finding that for the time   being it would not be in the twins’ best interest to live with their father. Relying in substance on   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr J. complained of being deprived of the right   to live with his children.   No violation of Article 8   Đekić and Others v. Serbia (no. 32277/07)   The applicants, Dragan Đekić, Zoran Đekić and Dragan Končar, are Serbian nationals who were born   in 1976, 1984, and 1976 respectively. Dragan Đekić and Zoran Đekić live in Prokuplje (Serbia), and   Dragan Končar lives in Belgrade. The case concerned their claim that they had been ill-treated in   police custody and that the ensuing investigation into their claims had been ineffective. On   September 2004 at about 2.30 a.m. the applicants were involved in a road traffic accident.   According to the applicants, police arrived on the scene and they were immediately handcuffed and   taken to the Prokuplje Police Station where they were beaten with truncheons, punched and kicked.   They were released the next day, following a checkup at hospital where they were diagnosed with   various bruising to their bodies. On 8 December 2004 the applicants lodged a complaint against   three police officers accusing them of ill-treatment. However, the national courts subsequently   acquitted the police officers, finding that the use of force against the applicants had been necessary   because – as testified by a number of civilians and police officers who were eye-witnesses to the   arrest – the applicants had been drunk and violent. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants maintained that they had suffered ill-treatment   and that the investigations into their alleged ill-treatment had been ineffective and had lacked   independence.   No violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment)   No violation of Article 3 (investigation)   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.   3