003-4923104-6025007

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 327 (2014)   06.11.2014   Judgments concerning Germany, Malta and Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven judgments, of   which five (in italics) are Committee judgments and are final. The others are Chamber judgments1   and are not final.   Repetitive cases2, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press   release. The judgments are available only in English.   The Court has also delivered today its judgment in the case of Dvořáček v. the Czech Republic (application no. 12927/13),   for which a separate press release has been issued.   Ereren v. Germany (application no. 67522/09)   The applicant, Faruk Ereren, is a stateless person who was born in 1955 and lives in Hagen   (Germany). The case concerned his complaint about the length of his pre-trial detention, which had   lasted for more than five years, on suspicion of having ordered terrorist attacks.   Mr Ereren was arrested in Germany in April 2007 for possession of forged documents. His detention   was subsequently ordered on the basis of a strong suspicion, in particular, that he had played a   leading role in the activities of a foreign terrorist organisation and of having committed two counts   of murder; it was extended on several occasions and his appeals against the arrest warrant were   rejected. The German courts held in particular that there was a risk of collusion and of absconding,   observing that Mr Ereren did not have a fixed residence in Germany. In September 2011, an appeal   court convicted him of two counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, but the   judgment was subsequently quashed and the case was remitted for a fresh trial by another chamber   of the same court. After his detention had again been extended, Mr Ereren was eventually released   in February 2014, the criminal proceedings against him still pending.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or   to release pending trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Ereren complained that   the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive.   No violation of Article 5 § 3   Azzopardi v. Malta (no. 28177/12)   The applicant, Peter Azzopardi, is a Maltese national who was born in 1950 and lives in Naxxar   (Malta). He is the director of the company Canadian Brothers Limited on whose behalf he lodged the   application.   The case concerned compensation proceedings in respect of the expropriation, in 1974, of a plot of   land of which the company had been the holder. The land was expropriated in order to construct a   reservoir. Mr Azzopardi contested the sum offered by the authorities for the acquisition and   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.   repeatedly requested them to bring proceedings to determine the compensation due for the   expropriation. Compensation proceedings were eventually initiated in 2004, and they remain   pending. In the meantime, Mr Azzopardi was awarded compensation in respect of non-pecuniary   damage in constitutional redress proceedings he had brought, complaining about the authorities’   inactivity.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial   within a reasonable time), Mr Azzopardi complained that he had not been compensated for the   expropriation within a reasonable time.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court and length of proceedings)   Just satisfaction: 445,000 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage) and EUR 6,000 (costs and expenses)   Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which had already been submitted to the Court.   Brlek v. Slovenia (no. 6000/10)   Faganel v. Slovenia (no. 6687/10)   Maselj v. Slovenia (no. 5773/10)   Petrovic v. Slovenia (no. 5998/10)   Puzin v. Slovenia (no. 29998/10)   These cases concerned, in particular, the applicants’ complaints of the allegedly poor conditions of   their detention in Ljubljana prison, notably on account of severe overcrowding, unreasonable   restrictions on out-of-cell time, inadequate health care, and exposure to violence from other   inmates due to insufficient security. The applicants relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 3 – in all five cases   Violation of Article 13 – in all five 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)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   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.   2