003-5042025-6197085

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 086 (2015)   19.03.2015   Judgments and decisions of 19 March 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three judgments1 and 30 decisions2   : two Chamber judgments are summarised below; for one other, in the case of Corbet and Others   v. France (applications nos. 7494/11, 7493/11, and 7989/11), a separate press release has been   issued;   the 30 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc; they do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Kolakovic v. Malta (application no. 76392/12)   The applicant, Jovica Kolakovic, is a British national who was born in 1956 and lives in Msida (Malta).   His case concerned the length of time he had been held in pre-trial detention and the unrealistic   conditions set for his release on bail.   Mr Kolakovic was arrested in Malta in 2009 and charged with the possession of cannabis and   conspiracy for the purposes of drug trafficking. He was remanded in custody. Having applied   unsuccessfully for bail on several occasions, he eventually, in 2010, lodged constitutional redress   proceedings, requesting his immediate release. In 2011 the Constitutional Court found that his rights   under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human   Rights had been breached but did not order his release or change the bail terms as it noted that   another court had agreed to grant him bail one month earlier. Mr Kolakovic claimed that the   conditions set for his release on bail, at 50,000 euros (EUR) deposit with a EUR 15,000 guarantee,   were impossible for him to meet as the Court had failed to take the real state of his financial   circumstances into account. As a result he remained in custody. Mr Kolakovic made repeated   requests for more modest bail conditions to be set, and eventually in 2012 the bail conditions were   reduced to EUR 5,000 deposit with a EUR 70,000 personal guarantee. Mr Kolakovic deposited the   money and was released on the same day. The criminal case is 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 Convention, Mr Kolakovic complained that he had been detained for   months after the court granted him bail because it had been impossible for him to meet the   financial conditions set by the court. He further complained that the authorities had not shown   proper diligence in conducting the criminal case as, four years after his arrest, no trial date had been   set although he had attended 97 hearings in court.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,200 euros (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 7,000 (costs and expenses)   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   Kulik v. Ukraine (no. 10397/10)   The applicant, Vitaliy Kulik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and lives in the village of   Budy, Kharkiv Region (Ukraine).   Mr Kulik was arrested in 2003 on suspicion of stealing cucumbers and of disobeying and resisting   police officers. According to the Government, he was taken to the police station and released the   same day, while Mr Kulik alleged that he had been beaten by the police and forced to confess to the   theft and only released on the next day. A doctor who saw him on the day of his release noted   bruising, concussion and a possible fractured nose; Mr Kulik was later admitted to hospital for   treatment for these injuries.   A few months later, Mr Kulik requested the prosecution of the police officers allegedly involved in   ill-treating him whilst in detention. This request was initially refused, but the prosecutor eventually   agreed to open criminal proceedings. Subsequently the investigation was repeatedly suspended,   with the investigators claiming that there was either no evidence of a crime having been committed   or that they were unable to identify the perpetrators. The investigation was still pending in 2012. In   the local prosecutor informed Mr Kulik that disciplinary proceedings were underway against   the investigators for inadequate investigation.   In 2005 criminal proceedings in the cucumber theft case were dropped due to lack of proof that any   crime had been committed.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy) of the Convention, Mr Kulik complained in particular that he had been ill-treated   by police officers and that there had been no effective investigation into what happened.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)   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