003-5060730-6225793

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 124 (2015)   14.04.2015   Judgments of 14 April 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1:   eight Chamber judgments are summarised below; for one other, Contrada v. Italy (no. 3) (application   no. 66655/13), a separate press release has been issued;   two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can   be consulted on Hudoc; they do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Just Satisfaction   Michael Theodossiou Ltd. v. Cyprus (application no. 31811/04)   The applicant company, Michael Theodossiou Ltd, is a Cypriot registered company which owned   4,462 square metres of immovable property located near the seaside in Limassol (Cyprus). The case   concerned the compulsory purchase of this property. The decision to acquire the property was taken   in July 1972, but the transfer only took place in 1995. In accordance with the domestic law on   compulsory acquisition, the level of compensation to be paid was based on the value of the property   at the time the decision was taken in 1972 rather than its value in 1995.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention   on Human Rights, the applicant company complained about the excessive length of the   expropriation proceedings concerning its property. The company also claimed that expropriation   proceedings and the amount of compensation paid more than 30 years after the start of   proceedings had violated the company’s rights under Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention.   In its principal judgment of 15 January 2009 the Court held unanimously that there had been a   violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length, approximately 11 years and seven   months, of the proceedings. It also held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Today’s judgment concerned the question of just satisfaction.   Just satisfaction: 8,750,000 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage), EUR 6,400 (non-pecuniary damage),   and EUR 23,445 (costs and expenses).   Chinnici v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 22432/03)   The applicant, Giuseppe Chinnici, is an Italian national who was born in 1945 and lives in L’Aquila   (Italy). His case concerned the amount of compensation he had received for a plot of land that had   been expropriated.   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   Mr Chinnici owned a plot of land in a designated industrial zone in L’Aquila. In 1989, the regional   authorities gave permission to the regional industrial development consortium to occupy part of the   land and a formal expropriation decree was issued in 1991. The consortium offered compensation   but, considering it inadequate, Mr Chinnici brought proceedings in 1991 to seek adequate   compensation. While the proceedings were pending, a law was introduced which set out new   criteria for calculating compensation for expropriated land and allowed for compensation far below   the land’s market value. It was decided that this new law was applicable to Mr Chinnici’s case. In   Mr Chinnici decided to accept the consortium’s compensation offer and requested the   termination of the court proceedings, but this request was rejected as the new law required a   reassessment of the amount of compensation due. However in 2007 the new law on compensation   was declared unconstitutional and consequently in 2013 the Court of Appeal found that Mr Chinnici   was entitled to compensation corresponding to the market value of the land, plus statutory interest.   However, the Court of Appeal did not adjust the amount for inflation.   Relying in particular on Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1, Mr Chinnici complained   that the compensation he had received had been inadequate and had made him bear a   disproportionate burden, highlighting the fact that the amount received had not been adjusted for   inflation.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 85,000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and   EUR 5,000 (costs and expenses)   Botezatu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 17899/08)   The applicant, Radu Botezatu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Băcioi (the   Republic of Moldova). His case concerned the non-enforcement over a period of 87 months, of a   judgment to provide him with social housing.   Mr Botezatu is a police officer. In 2004 the Centru District Court delivered a judgment obliging the   Chisinau municipality to provide him and his family with social housing. However even after   enforcement proceedings were instituted in 2005, Mr Botezatu was not provided with social   housing. In 2011 Mr Botezatu sought compensation for the rent he had paid for accommodation   between 2004 and 2011 whilst also seeking enforcement of the District Court’s judgment. In 2012,   following a series of court proceedings, the Chisinau Court of Appeal acknowledged that the   judgement had not been enforced and awarded him a sum of money for non-pecuniary damage and   costs but rejected the claim for the rent he had paid for seven years. The municipality also issued   him with an occupancy voucher which entitled him to move into a new flat.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to court) and Article 1 (protection of property)   of Protocol No. 1, Mr Botezatu complained that the authorities had failed to enforce the 2004   judgment within a reasonable period of time. He also complained that the redress awarded by the   domestic courts had been insufficient as they had refused to compensate him for the rent paid   between 2004 and 2011.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 9,461 (pecuniary damage), EUR 1,300 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 112   (costs and expenses)   Toran and Schymik v. Romania (no. 43873/10)   The applicants, Adrian Toran and Albert Ernst Schymik, are German nationals who were born in 1979   and 1978 respectively. They are currently serving prison sentences in Germany. The case concerned   their allegation of police entrapment in drug-related offences in Romania and the ensuing conditions   of detention in that country.   In 2007 Mr Toran and Mr Schymik were contacted by S.R.B, an acquaintance in Romania who   wanted to buy 5,000 Ecstasy pills. Although Mr Toran and Mr Schymik did not know it at the time,   S.R.B was in police custody and made contact as part of a covert police operation. Based on S.R.B’s   statements, a prosecutor authorised three undercover agents to purchase 6,000 Ecstasy pills from   Mr Toran and Mr Schymik, who were not known to the police at the time. Mr Toran and Mr Schymik   travelled to Romania, met S.R.B, and were filmed removing the drugs from hidden compartments   inside a vehicle. S.R.B returned with the undercover agents who handed over money in exchange for   the drugs. At this point the men were detained and placed in custody. They initially pleaded not   guilty but in 2009 changed their plea, arguing that they had been incited to commit the offence by   the investigators and that it had been a case of entrapment. In 2010 the High Court of Cassation and   Justice dismissed the entrapment plea but, taking into account the mitigating factor that neither   man had a previous criminal record, reduced their sentences from 14 to seven years.   Mr Toran and Mr Schymik were detained at the Timiş police station detention facility from 2007 to   early 2008. They were then transferred to Timişoara Prison until late 2009, after which they were   sent to Rahova Prison until midway through 2010 and then Giurgiu Prison where they remained until   mid-2011. They then went to Giurgiu Police Inspectorate from where they were transferred to   complete their sentences in Germany.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complained in particular   about the overcrowded and unhygienic conditions and extreme temperatures they had experienced   in detention. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they also complained about the unfairness   of the proceedings against them, in particular because they had been convicted for an offence which   had only been committed as a consequence of police incitement and because the prosecution had   denied the existence of evidence of recorded telephone calls between them and S.R.B, making it   impossible for them to prove their defence.   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment)   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage   Tatar v. Switzerland (no. 65692/12)   The applicant, Mehmet Ali Tatar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and currently lives in   Switzerland. The case concerned his imminent expulsion to Turkey following his criminal conviction   for having killed his wife.   Having arrived in Switzerland in 1988, Mr Tatar, who stated that he had been tortured in Turkey   because he was a member of the Turkish Communist Party, was granted asylum in 1994 together   with two of his sons. He received a residence permit in 1995. In 2001, in a dispute, he killed his wife,   who had joined him in Switzerland in 1995. During the criminal proceedings Mr Tatar was diagnosed   with a recurrent depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms. He was sentenced to eight years’   imprisonment in 2003. However, a plea of diminished responsibility having been accepted, the   execution of his sentence was postponed to allow him to benefit from treatment in a closed   psychiatric facility. In March 2009 his asylum status was revoked in view of his sentence for a serious   crime, and in June 2010 his residence status was revoked. Mr Tatar’s appeals against those decisions   were unsuccessful, but so far no date for his removal to Turkey has been set.   Mr Tatar complained in particular that his removal from Switzerland would expose him to a real risk   of being exposed to treatment in breach of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture   and of inhuman or degrading treatment), in particular because his mental health would deteriorate   quickly and he would be at high risk of severely harming or killing himself or another person.   No violation of Articles 2 and 3 – in the event of Mr Tatar’s expulsion to Turkey   Dürrü Mazhar Çevik and Münire Asuman Çevik Dağdelen v. Turkey   (no. 2705/05)*   The applicants, Dürrü Çevik and Münire Dağdelen, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1945   and 1950 respectively and live in Istanbul.   Their case concerned land owned by the applicants being entered into the land register as belonging   to the Treasury, without compensation being paid to them.   In 1958 the applicants’ grandmother, Z.B.C., acquired the title deeds to two plots of land located in   the Dikili district of Izmir province; the boundaries of these plots had not been defined by the land   registry. In 1966 Z.B.C brought proceedings before the Dikili District Court to obtain an injunction in   respect of these plots of land. Following her death Mr Çevik’s and Ms Dağdelen’s father, and   subsequently the applicants themselves, pursued the proceedings. The case was transmitted to the   land tribunal, as the court with jurisdiction to examine it. On 28 April 2003 the Treasury was given   leave to intervene in the proceedings and requested that an area of the plots of land on which   marshland drainage was being undertaken by the authorities be entered in the land register as   belonging to it. On 12 May 2003 the land tribunal ordered that a part of the plots of land be entered   in the land register as belonging to the Treasury, on the ground that it was part of a marsh and   contained hot springs. The tribunal also decided not to register private ownership of another part of   the plots of land in question, which consisted of rocky ground. Lastly, it ordered that the remaining   area of the plots of land be registered as belonging to Mr Çevik and Ms Dağdelen. On 30 June 2004   the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the applicants for rectification of the judgment.   Relying on Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1, Mr Çevik and Ms Dağdelen alleged   that they had been deprived of their property, in favour of the Treasury, without receiving the   compensation provided for by that Article.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   of the Convention was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date.   Lütfiye Zengin and Others v. Turkey (no. 36443/06)*   The applicants are Lütfiye Zengin and 23 other Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır.   The case concerned their arrest during a demonstration in which they had been taking part, and   their detention and conviction following that demonstration.   On 22 February 2006 the applicants conducted a sit-in protest in Diyarbakır and blocked the   movement of traffic. They were dispersed by the police, then arrested and taken to the Diyarbakır   security police headquarters. An official report was drawn up, indicating, among other things, that   the applicants had unfurled a banner in support of Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned PKK leader. On   the same date the police took statements from the applicants, in which they said that they had   taken part in the demonstration with the aim of supporting, in a peaceful manner, the peace process   between the security forces and the PKK and in order to obtain a general amnesty for political   prisoners. Despite a prosecutor’s order for their release once their statements had been taken, the   applicants were kept in police custody until the following day, when they were brought before the   public prosecutor, then before the assize court, which ordered that they be remanded in custody. An   appeal by the applicants against that decision was dismissed. The prosecutor then charged the   applicants with propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation. On 1 March 2006 criminal   proceedings began before the assize court, which initially ordered that the applicants’ pre-trial   detention be extended and subsequently decided to release them on 30 March 2006. On 18 July   the same court found the applicants guilty of the offence as charged and sentenced each of   them to ten months’ imprisonment. However, the Court of Cassation quashed that judgment,   considering that the action in question came within the definition of another offence, namely   praising a crime and a criminal. On 13 May 2010 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicants   of that offence, sentenced each of them to two months and fifteen days’ imprisonment, ordered   that they be placed under supervision for five years and banned them from taking part in any form   of meeting or demonstration in the province of Diyarbakır for one year.   Relying in substance on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained   about the police intervention in the demonstration and about their arrest and the criminal   proceedings brought against them. Relying also on Articles 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) in   particular, they complained about having been kept in police detention after they had given their   statements and about having been placed in pre-trial detention.   Violation of Article 11   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,100 to each applicant (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 3,000 to the   applicants jointly (costs and expenses)   Just Satisfaction   Saçılık and Others v. Turkey (nos. 43044/05 and 45001/05)   The case concerned a complaint brought by 25 Turkish nationals, detainees in Burdur Prison   (Turkey), about a large-scale security operation carried out in the prison on 5 July 2000. The   applicants alleged that the force used against them had been unnecessary and excessive. Notably,   the soldiers had set fire to the prisoners’ cells leaving some of them with burns, had confined them   to one part of the prison and used teargas and chemical gases against them. Mr Saçılık further   alleged that a digger, brought in to open a hole in the wall where the prisoners had been confined,   tore off his left arm. The arm, first left in the rubble, was later retrieved from the mouth of a stray   dog. Further allegations included a gas bomb being detonated and soldiers sexually assaulting   female detainees.   In its principal judgment of 5 July 2011, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation   of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the incident in the prison   and on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the applicants’ complaints. At the same   time, the Court awarded compensation to 24 of the 25 applicants in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the   Convention was to be reserved in so far as it concerned the claims made by the remaining applicant   Mr Saçılık for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court held that these claims were   premature, as the compensation proceedings were still pending at national level.   Today’s judgment concerned the question of the application of Article 41 in so far as it concerned   the claims made by Mr Saçılık for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the Turkish Government was to renounce any claim for   reimbursement of the sum paid to Mr Saçılık in respect of his pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage   and any claim for any additional amounts which might have been incurred by the Ministry of Justice   and the Ministry of the Interior in respect of the costs and expenses in defending themselves in the   administrative proceedings brought by Mr Saçılık. It further awarded Mr Saçılık EUR 10,000 in   respect of 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.   6