003-5206587-6449522

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 336 (2015)   22.10.2015   Judgments and decisions of 22 October 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 15 judgments1 and 86 decisions2:   ten Chamber judgments are summarised below;   five Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 86 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (application no. 2204/11)   The applicant, Annagi Bahadur oglu Hajibeyli, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1955 and   lives in Baku. The case concerned in particular his complaint of having been arbitrarily refused   registration as a candidate in the 2010 parliamentary elections.   Mr Hajibeyli was nominated by a coalition of two parties to stand as a candidate in the   parliamentary elections of November 2010. In October 2010 he submitted a number of signature   sheets with 675 voter signatures collected in support of his candidacy to the Constituency Electoral   Commission (“the ConEC”), as the electoral code required that each nomination as a candidate be   supported by a minimum of 450 voters. The ConEC refused his request to be registered as a   candidate, finding that a number of the signatures were invalid and that there were less than 450   valid signatures. Mr Hajibeyli’s complaint to the Central Electoral Commission against that decision –   arguing in particular that the signatures had been deemed invalid on the basis of a mere visual   examination, that the members of the ConEC were no experts and that he had not been invited to   participate in the process of examination – was dismissed. His appeals to the courts were also   unsuccessful, his complaint being eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28 October 2010.   While Mr Hajibeyli’s case was pending before the European Court of Human Rights, in August 2014,   his legal representative was arrested in the context of criminal proceedings against him, in   connection with the activities of an NGO headed by him, on charges of tax evasion and abuse of   power. During a search of the representative’s office, the investigation authorities seized a large   number of documents, including the entire file concerning Mr Hajibeyli’s case.   Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human   Rights, Mr Hajibeyli complained that his request for registration as a candidate in the 2010   parliamentary elections had been arbitrarily refused. He further complained that the seizure of the   entire file concerning his case before the European Court of Human Rights from his lawyer’s office   had amounted to a hindrance of the exercise of his rights under Article 34 (right of individual   petition) of the Convention.   Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 34   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.   Just satisfaction: 10,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,600 (costs and expenses)   Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11)   The applicant, Nuriya Khalikova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1964 and lives in Baku.   The case concerned her forced eviction from her flat in the context of a large construction project.   In September 2008, the head of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) issued an order for   the construction of a new park complex in the area where the flat owned and inhabited by   Ms Khalikova was located. According to her submissions, supported by several video recordings, in   early 2010 the BCEA began to build fences around the building where her flat was located; the   BCEA’s employees instructed her and other residents to leave their homes in exchange for financial   compensation. Following the departure of several residents, some flats and the roof of the building   were destroyed. In the morning of 19 November 2010, a group of people, including several police   officers, arrived at her flat and ordered her to open the door, which she refused to do, stating that   there was no court order for her eviction. The group of people then broke down the door and   entered the flat against her will. Ms Khalikova was taken to a police station and was released in the   early evening, without any record being drawn up. She returned to her flat, finding that it had been   wrecked, and was informed that her belongings had been taken to a warehouse. On her arrival at   the warehouse she discovered that part of her belongings and furniture had been damaged or had   disappeared. Three days later the building where her flat had been located was completely   demolished.   According to the Government’s submissions, Ms Khalikova was taken to the police station together   with a number of people because they had organised an unauthorised demonstration protesting   against their relocation.   Ms Khalikova lodged a criminal complaint alleging that she had been unlawfully deprived of her   liberty by the police. Her claim was dismissed, the decision being eventually upheld by the appeal   court in January 2011.   Two parallel sets of proceedings brought by Ms Khalikova concerned her complaint that her   property rights had been violated by: the BCEA’s attempts to make her leave her flat; by her eviction   and the demolition of her flat; and by the contract of sale in respect of her flat which she alleged she   had been forced to conclude at a time when the flat had already been destroyed. All her claims were   dismissed, the relevant decisions being eventually being upheld by the Supreme Court in December   2011.   Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention,   Ms Khalikova complained that she had been unlawfully arrested and detained by the police and that   she had had no effective remedy in this respect. She further complained that her rights under   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) had been violated on account of   the unlawful entry of the police into her flat and of her forced eviction from her flat without any   court order. She finally complained, in particular, of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property) on account of the demolition of her flat and her being unlawfully deprived   of her property.   Violation of Article 5   Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 45,000 (pecuniary damage), EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and   EUR 2,500 (costs and expenses)   Lyubushkin v. Russia (no. 6277/06)   The applicant, Konstantin Lyubushkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in   Khabarovsk (Russia). The case concerned his complaint regarding the length of his pre-trial detention   and the speediness of the review of the detention orders.   On 6 October 2004 Mr Lyubushkin, then a police officer, was arrested on suspicion of extortion and   remanded in custody by the District Court. Mr Lyubushkin’s pre-trial detention was extended by the   court on multiple occasions on account of the seriousness of the alleged offence and the risk that if   he were not in custody he may abscond, put pressure on victims and witnesses or otherwise   interfere with the administration of justice.   The prosecution subsequently submitted the case to the Regional Court for trial and on   September 2005 Mr Lyubushkin’s detention was once again extended. Mr Lyubushkin appealed   arguing that the maximum period of pre-trial detention had expired and he should, therefore, be   released. His appeal was examined and dismissed. Further detention orders were made on   November and 27 December 2005 which Mr Lyubushkin also appealed and which were   considered and subsequently dismissed. Mr Lyubushkin was acquitted of the offence and released   on 27 October 2006. His acquittal was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.   Relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial   within a reasonable time or to release pending trial / right to have lawfulness of detention decided   speedily by a court), Mr Lyubushkin complained about the unlawfulness and excessive length – from   October 2004 to October 2006 – of his detention, without swift review of his appeals against the   detention orders of September, November and December 2005.   No violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 3 – on account of Mr Lyubushkin’s pre-trial detention from 6 October 2004 to   October 2006   Violation of Article 5 § 4 – on account of the failure to examine speedily Mr Lyubushkin’s appeals   against the detention orders of September, November and December 2005   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   S.M. v. Russia (no. 75863/11)   The applicant, Ms S.M., is a Russian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Derbent (Republic of   Dagestan, Russia). The case concerned the lack of effective investigation into her reported rape.   Between 10 and 17 July 2009, Ms. S.M., who was 17 years old at the time, alleges that she was raped   on several occasions by an official of the Derbent town administration, who had promised to hire her   as his personal assistant. The official had then threatened to kill her family should she complain to   anyone. On 21 July 2009 she told her father who informed the authorities and requested that a   criminal investigation be opened.   Initially, on 2 August 2009 the investigator refused to open an investigation into the rape, noting,   among other things, that the official had stated that they had not had intercourse and alleged that   Ms. S.M. had accused him of rape to cover that she had stolen from him. On numerous occasions   over the course of the following five years the pre-investigation inquiry was found to be inadequate   by both the domestic courts and the investigators’ hierarchial superiors and the decisions not to   open an investigation were quashed and further investigations ordered. Most recently, in June 2014   a decision of December 2012 refusing to open a criminal investigation was quashed. To date,   however, no criminal investigation has ever been opened.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms S.M argued   that there had been a lack of an effective investigation into her rape by the domestic authorities.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Turgunov v. Russia (no. 15590/14)   The applicant, Botir Turgunov, is a national of Kyrgyzstan who was born in 1979 and lives in   St Petersburg (Russia). The case concerned his complaint that his extradition to Kyrgyzstan would   expose him to the risk of ill-treatment.   Mr Turgunov, who is of Uzbek ethnic origin, left Kyrgyzstan for Russia in July 2010, following   inter-ethnic clashes in the town of Osh where he lived. In April 2012 the police in Osh charged him in   his absence with participation in the mass riots and several other offences. In January 2013 he was   arrested in St Petersburg and subsequently remanded in custody; his detention was extended   several times. In July 2013 a Russian deputy Prosecutor General granted the request of the Kyrgyz   authorities for his extradition. Mr Turgunov’s appeal against that decision was rejected by the   St Petersburg City Court, the decision being eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in February   2014.   Following Mr Turgunov’s request, in February 2014 the European Court of Human Rights applied an   interim measure, under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, indicating to the Russian Government that he   should not be extradited for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.   Both Mr Turgunov’s application for refugee status and his request for temporary asylum in Russia   were rejected.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment),   Mr Turgunov complained that if extradited to Kyrgyzstan he would be subjected to torture or   inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because he belonged to the Uzbek ethnic minority.   Violation of Article 3 – in the event of Mr Turgunov’s extradition to Kyrgyzstan   Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) – not to extradite Mr Turgunov – still in force until   judgment becomes final or until further order   Just satisfaction: The Court held that its finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction   for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr Turgunov.   Jovanovic v. Sweden (no. 10592/12)   The applicant, Ljiljana Jovanovic, is a Serbian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Eskilstuna   (Sweden). The case concerned the Swedish authorities’ decisions to place her baby son in public   care, to restrict her contact rights and not to terminate the care upon her request.   In August 2008 the local social authorities in Eskilstuna decided to place Ms Jovanovic’s one-month-   old son in compulsory public care on a provisional basis following a report on suspected child abuse   filed by a physician at the hospital where Ms Jovanovic and her husband had taken the boy. The   decision was subsequently confirmed by the county administrative court; and in October 2008 that   court granted a care order in respect of the boy, noting that he had bruises on his genitals, probably   from being squeezed, and severe brain injuries as a consequence of which he would probably suffer   lifelong mental and physical disabilities. The court found that the injuries had occurred while he was   in his parents’ care. The judgment was upheld on appeal in March 2009 and the boy was placed in a   foster family. A criminal investigation in respect of Ms Jovanovic and her husband on suspicion of   child abuse was discontinued in December 2008 since it was impossible to prove that either of them   had committed the abuse.   In 2010 Ms Jovanovic requested the authorities to terminate her son’s placement in public care,   submitting that she had never ill-treated him nor had she witnessed anyone else doing so. Moreover   she and her husband had divorced and she had been granted sole custody of the boy. Following an   investigation which found that the boy suffered from “shaken baby syndrome”, that it was the social   services’ responsibility to ensure his safety and that, regardless of which parent had caused his   injuries, the other parent had failed to protect him, the local social authorities rejected   Ms Jovanovic’s request. The decision was upheld on appeal by the administrative courts, in the final   instance by the Supreme Administrative Court in June 2011.   In June 2009 the authorities decided to reduce the parents’ contact rights to one visit every other   month, since the visits had a negative effect on the boy’s mental state. Ms Jovanovic’s appeal   against that decision was rejected.   Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Jovanovic   complained that her right to family life had been violated by the authorities’ decisions to place her   son in compulsory public care and to keep him there, and by restricting her right to contact with her   son.   No violation of Article 8   Lunev v. Ukraine (no. 4725/13)   Savinov v. Ukraine (no. 5212/13)   Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine (no. 40512/13)   Sokil v. Ukraine (no. 9414/13)   All four cases concerned allegations of inadequate medical care in detention for prisoners suffering   from HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). In two of the cases, the applicants also alleged that they   had been put under psychological and/or physical pressure in order to discourage them from   bringing their complaints before the European Court of Human Rights.   The applicants had all already been suffering from HIV for a number of years before their arrest and   detention.   The applicant in the first case, Andrey Lunev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977. He was   arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking in January 2012 and sentenced in February 2013 to six and   half years’ imprisonment. That decision was however subsequently quashed and the criminal case   against him remitted for fresh consideration by a court. Ultimately, in June 2013 he was placed by a   court under house arrest in the town of Bryanka, Ukraine, given that he required medical treatment   which he could not receive in detention. He alleges that, despite being diagnosed as HIV-positive on   being placed in pre-trial detention, he was only given a cell count test one year later in February   and prescribed with antiretroviral therapy only in April 2013.   The applicant in the second case, Eduard Savinov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970. In   June 2008 he was sentenced to a combined term of nine years’ imprisonment following convictions   of drug-related offences, theft and inflicting grievous bodily harm. He was, however, released in   June 2013 in view of his serious health problems. Mr Savinov, HIV-positive for 20 years, alleges in   particular that he only started receiving antiretroviral treatment at the end of December 2012   through the assistance of an NGO.   The applicant in the third case, Sergey Antonov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975. He   was arrested in September 2012 on suspicion of theft and his case was transferred to court for   consideration on the merits in June 2013. The last known information as to his whereabouts is that   he was transferred to a correctional colony in Buchanska in September 2013 to serve a sentence.   Mr Antonov alleges that, despite the prison authorities being aware that he was HIV-positive, the   first attempt to find out what kind of medical treatment he required had only been made at the   beginning of January 2013, four months after he had been placed in pre-trial detention. He was   prescribed with antiretroviral therapy in March 2013.   The applicant in the fourth case, Maksim Sokil, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1981. He was   placed in pre-trial detention in February 2012 and sentenced in September 2012 to two years’   imprisonment for drug-related offences and theft. He was released in January 2014 having served   his sentence. Mr Sokil alleges that, although he had been HIV-positive since 2008 and spent the   majority of his detention as a patient in various medical facilities, the treatment prescribed to him   was mainly symptomatic. He thus only received antiretroviral therapy in August 2013, nearly a year   and half after he had been placed in detention.   The Government argue, in all four cases, that the applicants had been provided with medical care for   their health problems in detention, receiving the treatment necessary and being under the   supervision of medical specialists. In the case of Mr Lunev, they further allege that his state of health   had been aggravated by his refusals to have blood tests and to be treated; and in Mr Sokil’s case that   it had been impossible to prescribe antiretroviral treatment because he first had to be treated for   tuberculosis.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), all four applicants complained   about the inadequate medical care provided to them during their detention.   Mr Antonov and Mr Savinov also alleged under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that national   legislation had not provided for effective remedies with which to complain about inadequate   medical care in prison.   Mr Antonov also complained under Article 34 (right of individual petition) that he had been   subjected to psychological pressure to dissuade him from maintaining his application to the   European Court, alleging that, as a result of the intimidation, he had signed a note in July 2013   stating that he had had no complaints about the prison medical staff. This note was submitted by   the Government to the European Court in the current proceedings.   Mr Lunev further alleged under Article 3 and Article 34 that he had been ill-treated in detention in   January 2013 by two police officers who had wanted to intimidate him into withdrawing his   complaint to the European Court about the inadequate medical care and that the ensuing   investigation into his allegation, terminated after one month due to lack of evidence and then on   two further occasions following remittals by a court or the prosecutor due to shortcomings, had   been ineffective.   In the case of Lunev:   Violation of Article 3 – in respect of the failure to provide adequate medical treatment in detention   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   No violation of Article 3 (alleged ill-treatment)   No violation of Article 34   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   In the case of Savinov:   Violation of Article 3 – in respect of the failure to provide adequate medical treatment in detention   between November 2011 and March 2013   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 910 (costs and expenses)   In the case of Sergey Antonov:   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 34   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   In the case of Sokil:   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (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)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   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.   7