003-5078273-6252719

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 152 (2015)   07.05.2015   Judgments and decisions of 7 May 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1 and 11 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below; for two others, in the cases of Emin Huseynov   v. Azerbaijan (application no. 59135/09) and S.L. and J.L. v. Croatia (no. 13712/11), separate press   releases have been issued;   one Committee judgment, which concerns issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   and the 11 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Ilievska v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application   no. 20136/11)   The applicant, Marina Ilievska, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Kriva   Palanka (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). Her case concerned the manner in which   she had been taken to a psychiatric hospital in Skopje.   In 2009 Ms Ilievska’s husband requested medical assistance from Kriva Palanka hospital for his wife   who he claimed was anxious and distressed. Dr M. and Dr C.T instructed that she be sent to a   psychiatric clinic in Skopje and two police officers and a nurse went in an ambulance to fetch her. Ms   Ilievska did not wish to go and so the police forcibly dragged her away from her children and into the   ambulance. Ms Ilievska’s husband assisted them. Ms Ilievska claims that the police officers put her in   handcuffs, beat her, and sat on her legs during the 110 km journey to Skopje although the police   officers claim that they used only the degree of restraint necessary to prevent Ms Ilievska from   harming herself or others. She was discharged from the psychiatric hospital a few days later at her   husband’s request, apparently without having been examined or treated. She was then admitted to   the Kriva Palanka hospital where doctors noted that she had various injuries, probably caused by   blows. In 2010 Ms Ilievska brought criminal charges against Dr C.T, the nurse and the police officers   who had been in the ambulance. However they were acquitted and the trial court’s decision was   subsequently upheld on appeal.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, Ms Ilievska complained about the brutal treatment she alleged she had been   subjected to by the police officers during her transfer from Kriva Palanka to Skopje.   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – on account of Ms Ilievska’s handcuffing during her   transfer from Kriva Palanka to Bardovci hospital in Skopje   Just satisfaction: 5,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 300 (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.   Aleksandr Dmitriyev v. Russia (no. 12993/05)   The applicant, Aleksandr Dmitriyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in the town   of Kozelsk, the Kaluga region (Russia). His complaint concerned the length of time he had spent in   detention pending trial and the conditions in one of the prisons in which he had been held.   Mr Dmitriyev was arrested in April 2003 on suspicion of involvement in a violent crime. He was   detained until July that year when the prosecutor agreed to release him whilst he awaited trial. In   May 2004 he was convicted by the district court and returned to prison. The regional court quashed   his conviction on appeal and ordered a retrial but specified that Mr Dmitriyev should remain in   detention. The court did not provide a reason for keeping him in prison or set a time limit on his   detention. He was convicted again by the district court in April 2005, but in June the regional court   again quashed this decision on appeal and ordered another retrial. His request for release pending   retrial was turned down on numerous occasions. He was finally released in October, but reconvicted   in December 2005 and sentenced to seven years in prison. In 2008 during his prison sentence   Mr Dmitriyev spent some months at prison IZ-16/1 of Karzan where he alleged that an insufficient   number of beds in the cells meant prisoners had to sleep in shifts which had deprived him of sleep.   Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release   pending trial) of the Convention, Mr Dmitriyev notably complained about the length of time he had   been detained pending his trial.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,100 (non-pecuniary damage)   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