003-5104781-6293147

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 192 (2015)   11.06.2015   Judgments and decisions of 11 June 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1 and 53 decisions2:   five Chamber judgments are summarised below; for two others, in the cases of Tahirov v. Azerbaijan   (application no. 31953/11) and Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 29334/11), separate press releases   have been issued;   four Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 53 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Becker v. Austria (application no. 19844/08)   The applicant, Michael Becker, is an Austrian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Vienna.   The case concerned his complaint that no oral hearing had been held in the proceedings for the   withdrawal of his driving license.   In October 2000 Mr Becker was stopped by the police while driving his car and ordered to undergo a   breathalyser test. After nine attempts to measure the amount of alcohol in his breath, among which   only one was valid, the test was discontinued. His conduct was considered to amount to a refusal to   undergo the test and his driving license was temporarily withdrawn. Subsequently the district   administrative authority issued a decision to withdraw his driving licence for four months. The   authority noted that one of the police officers present had made the test himself using the same   device and had produced a valid result; the device had also been found to be fully functioning in   technical tests. In December 2005 the Regional Governor dismissed Mr Becker’s appeal against the   decision and in September 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed his complaint against it, noting   in particular that an oral hearing would not have been likely to clarify the case.   Mr Becker complained in particular that not holding an oral hearing in the proceedings for the   withdrawal of his driving license had been in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the   European Convention on Human Rights.   Violation of Article 6   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient   just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Becker. It further awarded him   1,634.76 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   Banović v. Croatia (no. 44284/10)   The applicant, Maja Banović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Čavle (Croatia).   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.   The case concerned her complaint about the rejection of her claim for family disability benefit.   In February 1997 Ms Banović’s father applied for recognition as a disabled war veteran. He died in   December 1997 and she therefore took over the proceedings as his heir. Her father’s status as a   disabled war veteran was established by a final decision of the administrative authorities in April   2007. In July 2007 she then brought an application with the domestic authorities for recognition of   her status as a family member of a Homeland War veteran entitling her to family disability benefit.   However, the domestic authorities, including the Administrative Court, declined to consider   Ms Banović’s request on the merits, declaring it inadmissible as lodged out of time. Under the   relevant domestic law – the Act on the Rights of Croatian Homeland War Veterans and their Family   Members – such requests had to be lodged within 12 months of the entry into force of the Act, that   is on 1 January 2005. The domestic authorities held in particular that there was no reason for her to   have awaited the outcome of the proceedings concerning her father’s status before lodging an   application concerning her personal status and the related family benefits.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Ms Banović complained that the manner in   which the domestic proceedings concerning her late father’s status had been conducted had meant   that she had been deprived of the ability to obtain recognition as the family member of a Homeland   War veteran. Notably, she alleged that the reason why she had not applied for recognition of her   status and the related family disability benefit within the statutory time-limit had been because she   had had to wait for the proceedings concerning her father’s status to be resolved.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Just Satisfaction   R & L, s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic (no. 37926/05)   Šumbera v. the Czech Republic (no. 44410/09)   The applications concerned complaints relating to rent regulations.   The applicants are R & L, s.r.o., a limited liability company based in Brno, and František Šumbera, a   Czech national who was born in 1945 and lives in Svitavy (both in the Czech Republic).   The applicants, who are property owners, complained about rent regulations imposed by the state in   various periods between 2002 and 2006. Their main concern was that they were unable to increase   the rents paid by their tenants which they considered too low and which they had never agreed to.   The respective rent agreements were created when the applicant property owners entered into   existing tenancy agreements which retained certain rights relating to the personal use of a flat. This   meant that the agreements were valid for an indefinite period, rents were set in compliance with   regulations existing at the relevant time, and the landlord’s right to terminate was seriously limited.   Both applicants sued the State for damages corresponding to the difference between the regulated   rent and the amount of rent usually paid in their locality. Their claims were ultimately dismissed by   the Constitutional Court in 2008 and 2009.   In its principal judgment of 3 July 2014 in these two applications the Court found a violation of   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Today’s judgment concerned the question of just satisfaction (Article 41).   Applications struck out of the Court’s list of cases: In both cases, taking note of the agreement   reached between the Czech Government and the applicants with respect to the latter’s claims under   Article 41 of the Convention, the Court decided to strike the applications out of its list as regards the   Article 41 procedure.   Tychko v. Russia (no. 56097/07)   The applicant, Viktor Tychko, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Volgograd   (Russia).   The case essentially concerned the conditions of his detention and the criminal proceedings against   him.   Mr Tychko was remanded in custody on suspicion of large-scale fraud in September 2001 and   released in November 2002 while the criminal proceedings were still pending. In a second set of   criminal proceedings he was again remanded in custody in January 2003 on suspicion of storing   firearms and narcotic drugs. In the second set of proceedings he was convicted as charged in June   2003. The first set of proceedings was adjourned on numerous occasions before Mr Tychko was   convicted as charged in August 2008 and given a final prison sentence, under both verdicts, of nine   years, upheld on appeal in December 2009.   Mr Tychko spent his detention between October 2001 and November 2002 and between January   and September 2008 in a Volgograd remand prison. According to his submissions, the cells   were so severely overcrowded that prisoners had to take turns to sleep, were in a poor sanitary   condition, infested with insects and rodents and permanently lit; the food was of poor quality.   During the trial Mr Tychko was transported between the remand prison and the courthouse more   than 100 times in a freight vehicle without windows or seat belts. The cells at the courthouse where   he spent up to eight hours on each occasion were small and overcrowded.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Tychko   complained of the conditions of his detention in the remand prison, the transport conditions and the   detention conditions at the courthouse. He also complained that he had not had an effective remedy   in respect of those complaints, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction   with Article 3. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained   that the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably long.   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) on account of the conditions of the   applicant’s detention in Volgograd remand prison IZ-34/1, the conditions in which he was   transported between the remand prison and the courthouse, and the conditions of his detention in   the courthouse   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 18,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,160 (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.   4