003-5138727-6345526

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 255 (2015)   23.07.2015   Judgments and decisions of 23 July 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing nine judgments and 42 decisions:   Six Chamber judgments1 are summarised below;   The remaining three Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been   submitted to the Court, as well as the 42 decisions2, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in   this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Novaković v. Croatia (application no. 32096/12)   The applicant, Dragan Novaković, is a Croatian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Sisak   (Croatia).   The case concerned his complaint that he had not been able to bring a claim for damages within the   statutory time-limit because he had had to flee Croatia during the 1991-1995 war for independence   (“The Homeland War”).   Mr Novaković lodged civil proceedings in September 1999 for payment of money from property   investments, stating that he had not been able to lodge the claim within the five-year statutory   time-limit as, fearing for his safety on account of his Serbian ethnic origin, he had left Sisak in 1991   only to return in 1996. The lower courts subsequently dismissed his claim as time-barred, finding   that Mr Novaković had left Sisak of his own free will, that the town had never been occupied and   that the courts there had remained operational. The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court   upheld the lower courts’ judgments in May 2009 and October 2011, respectively.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Novaković complained about the refusal   of the national courts to examine his claim for damages on the merits.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Andonovski v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 24312/10)   The applicant, Vladimir Andonovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1948 and lives in   Kumanovo (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   The case concerned his allegation of police brutality.   According to Mr Andonovski, the incident occurred on 17 September 2004, when he approached a   police car to discuss a parking ticket he had been given and two police officers (one of whom was a   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.   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   Committee judgments, as well as inadmissibility and strike-out decisions, are final.   neighbour and with whom he was not on good terms) insulted him, then punched and kicked him   and took him to the local police station where the beating continued until he lost consciousness. An   ambulance was subsequently called and he was taken to hospital where he remained for the next   days. He underwent extensive medical examinations during his stay in hospital and upon his   release, the ensuing reports attesting to a spinal fracture, concussion, head trauma and bruising all   over his body.   Two sets of criminal proceedings ensued: the first against Mr Andonovski for assaulting police   officers and resisting arrest; and the second brought by Mr Andonovski against the police officers for   – among other offences – serious bodily harm, abuse of office and false testimony. Mr Andonovski   was found guilty as charged in the first set of proceedings in October 2005 and sentenced to five   months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years. The courts accepted the police officers’   statements that they had had to use force against Mr Andonovski who had assaulted them, biting   one of the officers on the thumb, and resisted arrest. The other set of proceedings were never heard   on the merits, as they were stayed and finally concluded in October 2009, Mr Andonovski having   withdrawn the charges against the police officers (which he subsequently contested).   Mr Andonovski alleged that he had been ill-treated by the police and that the investigation into his   allegations of police brutality had been ineffective. He complained in particular that, unlike the   criminal proceedings against him, the proceedings against the police officers had been protracted,   alleging that this had shown bias on the part of the judges. He relied in particular on Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Violation of Article 3 - investigation   Violation of Article 3 - ill-treatment   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Aleksandr Shevchenko v. Russia (no. 48243/11)   The applicant, Aleksandr Shevchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in   Volzhskiy, Volgograd region (Russia).   The case concerned his pre-trial detention on suspicion of drug offences.   Mr Shevchenko was arrested in October 2010 on charges of attempted drug trafficking and, the   charges subsequently being reclassified to purchase and storage of drugs, was convicted in April   and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Before the referral of his criminal case for trial,   he was detained on the basis of individual detention orders; after referral, he was detained on the   basis of a collective detention order, which included his co-defendants. Mr Shevchenko’s appeals   against his continued detention during the whole period of that detention were rejected, the judicial   authorities referring to the gravity of the charges against him (and later also against his co-   defendants) and the risk that he/his co-defendants might abscond or reoffend. He was ultimately   granted early release in February 2013.   Relying mainly on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention,   Mr Shevchenko alleged that his pre-trial detention for one year and six months had not been   justified and that his appeals against certain detention orders (made in January and September 2011   and February 2012) had not been examined speedily.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Just satisfaction: 6,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Bataliny v. Russia (no. 10060/07)   The applicants, Vladislav Batalin, born in 1977, and his parents, Igor Batalin and Lyudmila Batalina,   born in 1937 and 1938 respectively, are Russian nationals who live in Moscow.   The case concerned Vladislav Batalin’s involuntary confinement and treatment in a psychiatric   hospital between 26 May and 9 June 2005. Having suffered from a number of health issues,   including neurological problems, for several months, he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital on   May 2005 after he had received emergency aid for having cut the veins on his forearm. He was   diagnosed with a number of diseases, including a chronic pain disorder and a personality disorder.   When his parents arrived at the hospital on the following day to take him home, as he had   requested, they were not allowed to do so and were asked to leave. According to Vladislav Batalin’s   submissions, during the following night he was beaten by the hospital nurses and then strapped to a   bed. He also alleges that he was subjected to scientific research by being treated with a new   antipsychotic drug and forbidden all contact with the outside world. After his release on 9 June   2005, an ambulance doctor noted a haematoma under his eye and bruises and contusions on his   body.   In October 2005, the applicants complained of Vladislav Batalin’s involuntary confinement in the   hospital and his alleged ill-treatment to the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation. After the district   department of the interior had twice refused to open proceedings, criminal proceedings were   eventually opened in November 2006. The proceedings concerning the alleged beatings were   subsequently suspended and reopened on several occasions and they remain pending. The   complaint concerning Vladislav Batalin’s involuntary confinement was later removed from the case   and separate proceedings were opened in October 2007; they were eventually discontinued in   November 2010.   Vladislav Batalin and his parents complained that his involuntary confinement in the hospital had   been in violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and that he had had no effective   procedure at his disposal by which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, in breach of Article   § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). They further alleged   violations, in particular, of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of:   his forced psychiatric treatment in the absence of an established medical need and in the framework   of scientific research; and on account of his beatings during his confinement and the lack of an   effective investigation by the authorities in that respect.   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (in respect of Vladislav Batalin)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 (in respect of Vladislav Batalin)   Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment) - on account of Vladislav Batalin’s forced psychiatric treatment   Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment and investigation) - on account of Vladislav Batalin’s ill-treatment   in the psychiatric hospital and failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective   investigation   Just satisfaction: EUR 26,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses) to   Vladislav Batalin   Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14)   The applicant, Artem Patranin, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently detained   in the correctional colony no. 2 in the Tatarstan Republic (Russia).   The case concerned his complaint about receiving inadequate medical care in detention.   By a judgment upheld on appeal in September 2013, Mr Patranin was convicted of a number of   offences, including membership of an organised criminal group and murder, and sentenced to ten   years’ imprisonment in a correctional facility under a strict regime. He had been suffering from   progressive multiple sclerosis for years and, while in pre-trial detention, from February 2012   onwards, Mr Patranin’s health deteriorated significantly as the detention facility where he was   placed did not have any medical specialists. In September 2012 he suffered an epileptic seizure   which resulted in paralysis of one side of his body. A medical report subsequently found that his   serious condition prevented his detention and he was released. Following his conviction, however,   he was taken into custody again and placed in a prison hospital in a correctional colony. In January   he was served with a medical opinion which concluded that he did not suffer from a condition   serious enough to warrant his release. According to his submissions, he spent the entire day in bed,   he could not eat or drink unaided and could not go to the toilet, receiving an enema only once every   two weeks.   Having received no reply to his complaints to various Russian State authorities that he required   constant assistance and medical treatment which the Russian penal system was unable to provide,   or to his request to be examined by an independent doctor, Mr Patranin made a request to the   European Court of Human Rights for an interim measure, under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court. In   February 2014 the ECtHR thus indicated to the Russian Government that Mr Patranin should be   examined immediately by independent medical experts, including a neurologist and an   epileptologist. The experts were to answer: whether the care and treatment he received was   adequate to his condition; whether his current state of health was compatible with detention in the   conditions of a correctional colony or prison hospital; and whether his condition required his   admission to a specialised hospital or his release.   Relying on Article 34 (right to individual petition), Mr Patranin complained that the Russian   Government had failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court, in that they had   not had him examined by medical experts independent of the penal system. He further complained,   relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), that he had been   unable to receive appropriate treatment in detention, which had led to a serious deterioration of his   condition, had placed him in a life-threatening situation and had subjected him to severe physical   and mental suffering. Finally he complained that he had not had an effective remedy at his disposal   as regards his complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Violation of Article 34   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 900 (costs and expenses)   Serikov v. Ukraine (no. 42164/09)   The applicant, Sergey Serikov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Kharkiv   (Ukraine).   The case concerned his complaint of having been ill-treated by the police.   Mr Serikov was arrested and taken to a police station in Kharkiv in the evening of 16 May 2008. A   report set up by the police stated that a package of marijuana was found on him. According to Mr   Serikov’s submissions, he was ill-treated by the police to make him confess. In particular, he alleges   that he was threatened with rape, kicked and hit on the head, and dropped face down on the floor,   causing him to lose consciousness several times. According to the Ukrainian Government, the only   violence applied to him was his handcuffing during his arrest, when he attempted to escape. A   medical report by a forensic expert, who examined Mr Serikov during the same night, recorded that   he had several haematomas and bruises. At a hospital, where he sought medical aid the following   day, he was diagnosed, in particular, with concussion.   On the day following his arrest, Mr Serikov’s mother lodged a criminal complaint against the police   officers alleging that they had ill-treated her son. In June 2008 the prosecutor refused to open   criminal proceedings, finding that no unlawful force had been used by the officers. The decision was   later set aside and the investigation was subsequently reopened and closed on several occasions. It   has not led to any prosecution.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment),   Mr Serikov complained that he had been ill-treated by the police and that the domestic authorities   had not effectively investigated his allegations.   Violation of Article 3 - ill-treatment   Violation of Article 3 - investigation   Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,200 (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.   5