003-5255426-6524310

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 394 (2015)   15.12.2015   Judgments of 15 December 2015   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 19 judgments1.   Chamber judgments are summarised below; for four others, in the cases of Raihani v. Belgium   (application no. 12019/08), Bono v. France (no. 29024/11), Fábián v. Hungary (no. 78117/13), and   Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal (no. 56080/13), separate press releases have been issued;   two Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   including excessive length of proceedings, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press   release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Budaházy v. Hungary (application no. 41479/10)   The applicant, György Budaházy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Diósd   (Hungary).   The case concerned Mr Budaházy’s blocking of one of the main bridges over the Danube in Budapest   in protest against the 2002 legislative elections.   A right-wing activist, Mr Budaházy organised a demonstration on 4 July 2002 in Budapest aimed at   forcing the authorities to postpone the destruction of the ballot papers in the recently held elections   and to carry out a recount. Along with some accomplices, he completely blocked all six lanes of   Budapest’s Erzsébet Bridge by parking six cars across it, with their doors locked. The blockade   created a massive traffic jam all over the city from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, when the cars were finally   towed away by the police.   Criminal proceedings were subsequently brought against Mr Budaházy for disturbing public works.   In June 2008 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to 30 days community work. Given the   chaos to traffic his demonstration had caused, affecting approximately 23,000 passengers, the   courts considered that his criminal conviction was justified. The courts did not accept Mr Budaházy’s   argument that the blockade was a spontaneous demonstration reacting to a political urgency,   namely the imminent destruction of the 2002 ballot papers, finding that he had misunderstood the   relevant statutory date (the destruction date was actually later than Mr Budaházy thought). The   courts also weighed in the balance Mr Budaházy’s right to express a political concern against the   significant inconvenience he had caused to road-users and found that his conduct had been out of   proportion. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed Mr Budaházy’s petition for review in December   2009.   Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, Mr Budaházy complained that his conviction had amounted to an   interference with his right to organise and take part in a peaceful demonstration.   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   No violation of Article 11   Matczyński v. Poland (no. 32794/07)   The applicant, Zbigniew Matczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Suwałki   (Poland).   The case concerned Mr Matczyński’s complaint that he had not been allowed to build on land he had   bought in Gawrych Ruda in north-eastern Poland on account of the creation of a national park.   Mr Matczyński bought his first plots of land in Gawrych Ruda in 1975 and further plots in 1979. The   property was classified as farmland. In 1976 a national park, the Wigry Landscape Park, was created   and, in 1988, Mr Matczyński’s land was incorporated into that park on the basis of an ordinance by   the Council of Ministers. Thus, under a new local land development plan adopted by the local   municipality in 1994, Mr Matczyński’s land could not be used for construction purposes. He retained,   however, the property rights to his land and was free to divide his property and to dispose of it,   which he did do on several occasions.   Mr Matczyński attempted to obtain compensation from the Mayor of Suwałki resulting from the   amendments made to the local land development plan and the resulting inability to construct on his   land. In March 2003 the Mayor replied that his request was ill-founded as the plan had not changed   the designation of his property, which had always been considered as an agricultural area which   could not be constructed on.   His attempts to obtain construction permits – notably to build a house and an outbuilding on his   land – were also unsuccessful. The domestic courts notably observed in 2002 and 2006 that the   construction permits granted to the owners of property near Mr Matczyński’s land applied solely to   the development of already existing buildings and equipment, whereas Mr Matczyński’s requests   concerned entirely new construction on previously undeveloped land.   Most recently, in 2009 Mr Matczyński offered to sell his property to the national park, in return for   certain amendments to the land development plan. The director of the park replied that he was   interested in buying the land but informed Mr Matczyński that it was not possible to amend the   plan.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention,   Mr Matczyński complained that the prohibition of any construction on his land amounted to de facto   expropriation, alleging that owners of adjacent plots of land to his had, unlike him, obtained   construction permits and built numerous buildings, including guesthouses.   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Szafrański v. Poland (no. 17249/12)   The applicant, Andrzej Szafrański, is a Polish national who was born in 1963. He has been serving a   prison sentence in Wronki (Poland) since March 2010.   The case mainly concerned Mr Szafrański’s complaint about lack of privacy when using the toilet in   the various cells where he had been detained during his incarceration.   In September 2010 Mr Szafrański brought civil proceedings to obtain compensation for the alleged   inhuman and degrading conditions in which he was being held, complaining in particular about   inadequate heating and ventilation as well as a lack of privacy when using the toilet.   In June 2011 the first-instance court dismissed Mr Szafrański’s claim, finding that his cells had been   well lit and properly ventilated and that the toilet had been separated from the rest of the cell by   fibreboard partitions which, although without doors, ensured that prisoners were out of sight when   using the toilet. That judgment was upheld on appeal in December 2011, the Court of Appeal   notably finding that the way in which the toilets were fitted in the cells did not exceed the normal   difficulties inherent in serving a prison sentence.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect   for private life), Mr Szafrański complained about poor sanitary conditions in the cells in which he had   been held in Wronki Prison and, in particular, that the toilet facilities had not been properly   separated from the rest of the cell.   No violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: 1,800 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Revision   Cipleu v. Romania (no. 36470/08)   The applicant, Dănuț Cipleu, now deceased, was a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and   lived in Timişoara (Romania).   The case concerned a request for revision of a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in   which Mr Cipleu complained about the fairness of his conviction for failure to stop after a drink-   driving accident. The accident occurred on the evening of 17 November 2005 when Mr Cipleu’s   family car hit a pedestrian crossing the street. The driver fled the scene of the accident. When the   police arrived at his home that night Mr Cipleu stated that he had been driving the car, which he   confirmed in a written statement later that evening. A medical report later showed that he had been   drinking. However, in December 2005 Mr Cipleu and his wife both informed the authorities that she   had been driving the vehicle rather than him. The trial court found this evidence unconvincing; it   convicted Mr Cipleu as charged in June 2007, and imposed a three-year suspended sentence.   Mr Cipleu was later acquitted on appeal, but his acquittal was then quashed by the High Court of   Cassation and Justice. The High Court chose to re-examine the evidence in the file, and in February   upheld Mr Cipleu’s original conviction. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Cipleu   complained that, though the High Court had re-tried the case and imposed a conviction, it had not   heard any evidence from him.   In its judgment delivered on 14 January 2014, the Court held that there had been a violation of   Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr Cipleu EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage.   On 24 June 2014 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Mr Cipleu had died   on 17 October 2012. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment of 14 January 2014, which   they had not been able to implement because Mr Cipleu had died before the judgment had been   adopted.   The Court decided to revise its judgment of 14 January 2014 in the case and to strike the case out   of the list.   Ofensiva Tinerilor v. Romania (no. 16732/05)*   The applicant association Ofensiva Tinerilor (“Youth Initiative”) is an association established under   Romanian law in 2004 with the aim of representing the interests of Romanian citizens of Polish   origin, with its head office in Arad (Romania).   The case concerned the refusal of the Romanian authorities to register the applicant association’s   list of candidates for the parliamentary elections.   On 23 October 2004 the Union of Poles in Romania “Dom Polski”, which had been set up to   represent the interests of the Polish minority, challenged the presentation of candidates by the   applicant association with the Central Electoral Board, which then rejected the applicant’s   candidates.   The applicant association sought the annulment of the Board’s decision in the High Court of   Cassation and Justice. In a judgment of 28 October 2004 the court’s Civil Division declared the   association’s claim inadmissible. The association appealed on points of law claiming that the Civil   Division had not had jurisdiction to examine an administrative matter. It added that it had not been   summoned to a hearing when its claim had been examined and its defence rights and right of access   to a court had thus been breached. In a final judgment of 15 November 2004 the High Court   declared the appeal inadmissible.   The applicant association then lodged a new claim for the annulment of the Board’s decision in the   Bucharest Court of Appeal. The case was transferred to the Civil Division of the High Court which,   without summoning the parties, dismissed the action on the ground that the judgment of   October 2004 was final. The association lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared   inadmissible.   Relying in particular on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), the applicant association   notably complained about the decision of the Romanian authorities to refuse to register its list of   candidates for the parliamentary elections and its inability to challenge that decision in the domestic   courts.   Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction   for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant association.   S.C. Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 27227/08)   The applicants, S.C. Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L., are Romanian commercial   transport companies based in Râmnicu-Vâlcea (Romania). The case concerned the withdrawal of   their transport licences.   Following a decision by the local county council in April 2005 adopting a new programme of   passenger transport, a public tender took place and the applicant companies acquired licences to   provide passenger transport services on a group of seven routes in their local area for a period of   three years. However, shortly afterwards two companies which lost their licences for one of the   routes in that tender asked the courts to annul the decision of April 2005. In February 2006 the   County Court found that the county council had acted arbitrarily by limiting access for other   competitors in the public transport market and ordered the council to call a new public tender for   the route in question as an individual route. The first applicant company’s appeal on points of law   was subsequently rejected and, on 6 July 2006, the county council put out to public tender all seven   routes as individual routes. As a result, on 26 July 2006 the applicant companies were informed that   they had to hand over their licences for the entire group of seven routes. A new public tender was   organised, but the applicant companies did not participate in it.   The applicant companies lodged two sets of administrative proceedings requesting the annulment of   the county council’s decision of 6 July 2006 and of the decision of 26 July 2006 to withdraw the   licences, without success.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant companies complained   about the withdrawal of their transport licences, alleging in particular that the withdrawal of licences   for all the routes in the group – instead of just one of the routes as ordered in the court judgment of   February 2006 – had been unlawful. They further submitted that they had acquired the licences   legally and that their withdrawal had reduced their business and had caused them significant   economic losses.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   was not ready for decision and reserved it for decision at a later date.   Șerban Marinescu v. Romania (no. 68842/13)   The applicant, Șerban Marinescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in   Bucharest. The case concerned his complaint of having been ill-treated by the police.   In June 2007 Mr Marinescu was taken to a police station against his will by a taxi driver with whom   he had had an argument. Mr Marinescu submits that he was then insulted and beaten by three   police officers. In particular, they punched him in the face, kicked him in the ribs, then handcuffed   him to a metal rail. He subsequently went for examination to a forensic institute, where his injuries   were documented. The Romanian Government maintain that Mr Marinescu was drunk and   aggressive, and that he already had a bruise under the eye when he arrived at the police station; he   was handcuffed but not hit by the police officers.   Three days after the incident, Mr Marinescu brought criminal proceedings against the taxi driver, for   unlawful deprivation of liberty and insult, and against three police officers for, in particular, abusive   behaviour and insult. In July 2009 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal   investigation, finding that no unlawful act had been committed. On appeal by Mr Marinescu, the   county court eventually ordered the prosecutor to reopen the criminal investigation. It was   subsequently discontinued and reopened several times and remains pending.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Marinescu   complained of his ill-treatment by the police officers and maintained that the ensuing investigation   had been ineffective.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,000 (costs and expenses)   Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08)   The applicant, Nikolay Ivko, is a Russian national who, until his arrest, lived in the town of Volzhskiy,   Volgograd Region (Russia). He was born in 1973 and died in 2014, while in detention. His partner has   informed the Court of her wish to pursue the application on his behalf. The case concerned his   complaint that he had not been provided with appropriate medical care while in detention.   Mr Ivko, who suffered from several illnesses, including a severe form of tuberculosis and hepatitis C,   was placed in custody in October 2007. He was convicted of attempted drug trafficking in May 2008,   receiving a prison sentence which was eventually reduced to five years and six months by the   Supreme Court in January 2010. He served his full sentence and was released in May 2013. In July   he was rearrested on suspicion of another count of attempted drug trafficking, for which he   was convicted in September 2013 and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He died from   tuberculosis in October 2014 while serving his sentence.   Mr Ivko was detained in several different detention facilities, including, between June and October   2012, a correctional colony. He maintained that during most of his detention he was not provided   with thorough medical examinations. While in the correctional colony, he received no medical care   or medication, despite his numerous requests for treatment. The temporary detention facilities,   where he was kept between October 2007 and June 2009, and between July and October 2013,   were not equipped to accommodate seriously ill detainees. By the time he was transferred to a   more appropriate facility, his tuberculosis had become barely curable.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy), Mr Ivko complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate steps to   safeguard his health and well-being, and that he had not had an effective remedy available in   respect of these complaints.   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Khalvash v. Russia (no. 32917/13)   The applicant, Vasiliy Khalvash, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lived in St Petersburg   until his arrest. He is currently serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Arkhangelsk   Region (Russia). The case concerned his complaint of not having been provided with adequate   medical care in detention.   Mr Khalvash, who has a history of cerebral diseases as a result of having sustained a head injury in   1997, was arrested and placed in a temporary detention facility in July 2010 on suspicion of   aggravated kidnapping, extortion and conspiracy. In June 2012 he was convicted as charged and   sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment in a high-security correctional colony by a judgment   eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in November 2012.   While the proceedings against him were pending, Mr Khalvash obtained a certificate by a doctor   who had previously treated him and who was of the opinion that a detention facility was ill-   equipped to guarantee the neurological supervision that Mr Khalvash’s condition called for.   Mr Khalvash also argued that his transfer to a northern region to serve his sentence could result in a   deterioration of his condition. In December 2011 a medical expert commission concluded that there   were no medical grounds for his release from detention.   On two occasions, once while in pre-trial detention and the second time while serving his sentence   in the correctional colony, Mr Khalvash was hospitalised for examination. Both times he was   discharged and placed in detention again with recommendations for his further treatment and/or   supervision by a prison doctor.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy), Mr Khalvash complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate steps to   safeguard his health and well-being, and that he had not had an effective remedy available in   respect of these complaints.   Violation of Article 13   No violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   Roman Petrov v. Russia (no. 37311/08)   The applicant, Roman Petrov, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and is serving a prison   sentence in the Nizhniy Novgorod region (Russia). The case concerned his pre-trial detention.   Mr Petrov was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in June 2007 on suspicion of having   produced and distributed child pornography. In July 2010 he was convicted of production and   distribution of child pornography, child rape and molestation, and sentenced to 12 years’   imprisonment. His conviction was upheld in October 2010 and his sentence was subsequently   reduced by one year.   After his arrest, Mr Petrov’s pre-trial detention was extended on numerous occasions. Following his   appeal, he was released in February 2008 but his detention was subsequently authorised and he was   rearrested. In March 2008 he was released after the statutory maximum period for pre-trial   detention had expired. The trial court again authorised his detention in April 2010, finding in   particular that he had interfered with the administration of justice.   Relying in substance on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Petrov complained that the   court order of April 2010 had not been lawful, in particular because it had not specified the duration   of his detention. Relying further on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial   within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), he complained of the excessive length of his   pre-trial detention.   Violation of Article 5 § 1 - on account of the applicant’s detention authorised by the court order of   April 2010   No violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Gurban v. Turkey (no. 4947/04)   The applicant, Emin Gurban, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and is serving a sentence of   life imprisonment in the Kocaeli F-Type Prison (Turkey). The case concerned, in particular, his   complaint of having no prospects of conditional release.   Arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in October 1996, Mr Gurban was charged with   membership of an illegal organisation and taking part in two counts of murder for the organisation.   In June 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to the   death penalty under the Criminal Code in force at the time. The judgment was subsequently   quashed on procedural grounds and the case was remitted. In September 2002 the Istanbul State   Security Court again convicted Mr Gurban of the same offences but, having regard to recent   amendments to the relevant provision, sentenced him to life imprisonment instead of the death   penalty. The judgment was upheld on appeal in June 2003.   Mr Gurban complained that the irreducible life sentence imposed on him, without any prospects of   review and release, amounted to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment). Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complained of the allegedly excessive length of the   criminal proceedings against him and maintained that he had not had an effective remedy in respect   of that complaint.   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction   for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in relation to his complaints under   Article 3; it further awarded him EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained in relation   to his other complaints and EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   Just Satisfaction   S. S. Göller Bölgesi Konut Yapı KooP. v. Turkey (no. 35802/02)*   The applicant entity, Sınırlı Sorumlu Göller Bölgesi Konut Yapı Kooperatifi, is a housing cooperative   with its registered office in Burdur. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of   property), it complained of the national courts’ annulment of its title to a plot of land, which was   re-registered as Treasury property without any compensation being paid to it.   In a judgment of 23 March 2010 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Today’s judgment concerned the question of just satisfaction (Article 41 of the Convention).   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction   in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant entity.   Yavuz Selim Güler v. Turkey (no. 76476/12)*   The applicant, Yavuz Selim Güler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1990 and lives in Amasya   (Turkey).   The case concerned the disciplinary custodial sanction imposed on Mr Güler, a non-commissioned   officer, on 10 October 2012.   The sanction consisted of two days’ confinement for repeatedly arriving late for work without   justification and was imposed by his military superior under Article 171 of the Military Criminal   Code. From 26 to 28 December 2012, Mr Güler served his sentence in a disciplinary cell of the   gendarmerie headquarters.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that a disciplinary   custodial sanction of two days had been imposed on him by his military superior and not by an   independent and impartial tribunal.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   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 55 30)   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.   8