003-5067204-6235616

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 134 (2015)   21.04.2015   Judgments of 21 April 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments1:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below; for three others, Pisari v. the Republic of Moldova   and Russia (application no. 42139/12), Danis and ‘l’Association des personnes d’origine turque’ v.   Romania (no. 16632/09) and ‘Junta Rectora Del Ertzainen Nazional Elkartasuna (ER.N.E.)’ v. Spain   (no. 45892/09), separate press releases have been issued;   one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can   be consulted on Hudoc; it does not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available in English only.   Catalina Filip v. Romania (application no. 15052/09)   The applicant, Cătălina Filip, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bucharest.   Her case concerned the inadequacy of the official investigations into her husband’s death during the   violent crackdowns in Romania.   On 25 December 1989 Ms Filip’s husband was shot dead whilst sitting in front of a window at home   in Bucharest. His death occurred during a period of violent crackdowns by the armed forces in   Romania when the Head of State was deposed and more than 1200 people died. The Bucharest   Military Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the death of Ms Filip’s husband in   and in 2007 this file was linked to another investigation into the use of violence in Bucharest in   December 1989. It appears that the investigation was still pending in 2009 when Ms Filip lodged her   case with the European Court of Human Rights. In 2004 Ms Filip instituted civil proceedings against   the Romanian Ministry of Public Finances, seeking damages against the Romanian State for lack of   diligence shown in the investigation into events in December 1989 and for failing to identify and   punish those responsible for her husband’s death. Following a series of court proceedings, the   Ministry of Public Finances was ordered to pay Ms Filip an award for non-pecuniary damage in   recognition of the ineffective criminal investigation into the death of her husband.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Filip complained   that the criminal investigation into her husband’s death had been ineffective.   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: 15,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 500 (costs and expenses)   Todireasa v. Romania (no. 2) (no. 18616/13)   The applicant, Gheorghe Costică Todireasa, is a Romanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in   Piatra Neamţ (Romania). His case concerned conditions of detention and access to medical care   whilst in detention.   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   In 2001 Mr Todireasa began a 17-year prison sentence. Between 2010 and 2014 he was detained in   Bacău, Iaşi, Galaţi, Brăila, and Vaslui prisons where he alleged in particular that he had been held in   damp overcrowded cells with inadequate heating in winter, poor sanitary conditions, dirty bedding   infested with parasites, nowhere appropriate to eat, lack of light, and generally poor quality food. He   was conditionally released in 2014.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Todireasa complained in   particular about the conditions he had been held in at the five different prisons.   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment)   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,800 (non-pecuniary damage)   Piper v. the United Kingdom (no. 44547/10)   The applicant, Graham Jason Piper, is a British national who was born in 1948 and lives in Essex   (England, UK). His case concerned the length of criminal proceedings to seize assets.   Mr Piper was arrested in the Netherlands in 1999; he was then transferred to the UK and charged   with attempting to import 163kg of cocaine. In 2001 he was sentenced to 14 years in prison. He was   released in 2006 having served half his sentence.   Prior to his trial the prosecution obtained an order to seize and preserve Mr Piper’s assets under the   Drug Trafficking Act, which allows the State to confiscate assets equivalent in value to the   proceeds received from drug trafficking. Following a number of procedural steps, the final judgment   in the case was delivered on 17 March 2010.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Piper complained that the   length of the proceedings had meant that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted adequate just satisfaction   for the purposes of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention in respect of any possible non-   pecuniary prejudice sustained by Mr Piper.   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