003-5338927-6657140

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 118 (2016)   31.03.2016   Judgments and decisions of 31 March 2016   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing nine judgments1 and 20 decisions2   : four Chamber judgments are summarised below; for five others, in the cases of Alexey Petrov v.   Bulgaria (application no. 30336/10), Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria (no. 45773/10), Stoyanov and   Others v. Bulgaria (no. 55388/10), Dimitar Yanakiev v. Bulgaria (no. 50346/07) and Seton v. the   United Kingdom (no. 55287/10), separate press releases have been issued.   for two decisions, in the cases Ursulet v. France (no. 56825/13) and I.A.A. and Others v. the United   Kingdom (no. 25960/13), separate press releases have been issued;   the remaining 18 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Karen Poghosyan v. Armenia (application no. 62356/09)   The applicant, Karen Poghosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Yerevan.   The case concerned the quashing of a final judgment which had recognised his ownership right in   respect of a building and his right of use in respect of the plot of land where the building had been   located.   Mr Poghosyan had constructed the building in 1991 without permission on a plot of land of   sq. m. in a suburb of Yerevan. In 2001 he brought court proceedings seeking the recognition of   his ownership right in respect of the building and of his right to use the plot of land. In June 2001, a   district court granted his request. The judgment became final, as no appeal was lodged within the   prescribed time-limit. In 2002 a certificate was issued by the authorities confirming Mr Poghosyan’s   ownership of the building and stating that he had a right of lease in respect of the plot of land.   Following his payment of the cadastral value of the plot of land in 2003 his right of ownership of the   land was registered and a relevant ownership certificate was issued. During the following years he   regularly paid property tax on the building and the land.   In May 2009 the Deputy Prosecutor General and the Yerevan Mayor’s office lodged separate appeals   against the June 2001 judgment recognising Mr Poghosyan’s ownership rights. They argued in   particular that the district court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant provisions and that,   since the court had failed to involve the Mayor’s office and the local branch of the Real Estate   Registry as parties to the proceedings, they had not been aware of the judgment. They therefore   requested the appeal court to restore the time-limit for appeal.   In July 2009 the appeal court granted the appeals, and quashed the judgment of June 2001.   Mr Poghosyan’s appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible in September 2009.   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   Committee judgments, as well as inadmissibility and strike-out decisions, are final.   In subsequent proceedings his ownership rights in respect of the building and the plot of land were   annulled.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Mr Poghosyan complained   that the renewal of the time-limit for appeal and the quashing of the final judgment of June 2001   had violated the principle of legal certainty and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his   possessions.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   of the Convention for decision at a later date.   Dzhabarov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 6095/11, 74091/11, and 75583/11)   The applicants, Deyan Dzhabarov, Vaska Nikolova and Stanislav Petkov (now deceased), are   Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1975, 1962, and 1981 respectively. Mr Dzhabarov lives in   Burgas and Ms Nikolova lives in Sandanski (both in Bulgaria). Following Mr Petkov’s death in 2014,   his mother has continued the application on his behalf. The case concerned the applicants’   complaints that they had been unlawfully detained by the police and that they had been unable to   obtain damages in that respect.   Travelling together in a car, Mr Dzhabarov and Mr Petkov were stopped by the police, arrested and   taken to a police station in the early hours of the morning on 20 December 2007. The police issued   orders for their detention for 24 hours on 20 December 2007 at 12 noon and 1.30 pm respectively,   under the provisions of the Criminal Code criminalising burglary and theft (in Mr Dzhabarov’s case)   and robbery (in Mr Petkov’s case). They were released on 21 December 2007 at 12 noon. In early   both applicants brought proceedings for judicial review of the orders for their detention. In   each case, the administrative court quashed the respective order, finding that at the relevant time   the police had not had a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed an offence.   The judgments were upheld on appeal. Both applicants then brought claims for damages against the   police in respect of their unlawful detention. In each case, their claims were dismissed on the   ground, in particular, that they had failed to prove that they had suffered any non-pecuniary damage   as a result of their detention.   Ms Nikolova, head of the audit unit of a local division of the National Revenue Agency, was taken to   a police station on the morning of 9 September 2006 – a Saturday – after the police had found her in   her office that morning with an acquaintance of hers, checking the personal data of certain   individuals in the Agency’s database. After being interviewed by the police – without being given any   explanation for the reasons for her detention – she was released at about 3.40 pm the same day.   Subsequent criminal proceedings against her, on charges that she had knowingly divulged   confidential information to which she had access by virtue of her position as a tax administration   official, were eventually discontinued. In 2010 Ms Nikolova brought a claim for damages against the   police in respect of her allegedly unlawful detention. As in the case of the other two applicants, her   claim was dismissed on the grounds, in particular, that she had failed to prove that she had suffered   any non-pecuniary damage as a result of her arrest and detention.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained that their detention   had been unlawful and had been carried out without a reasonable suspicion that they had   committed an offence. They further complained that the courts had dismissed their claims for   damages in respect of their police detention, in breach of Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation for   unlawful detention).   Violation of Article 5 § 1 – in respect of all three applicants   Violation of Article 5 § 5 – in respect of all three applicants   Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) each to Mr Dzhabarov and Mr Petkov and EUR 700 to   Ms Nikolova in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and EUR 1,016 to Mr Dzhabarov, EUR 699 to   Mr Petkov or his heirs, and EUR 2,429.47 to Ms Nikolova in respect of costs and expenses   A, B and C v. Latvia (no. 30808/11)   The applicants, Ms A and Ms B, British nationals, and Ms C, a Latvian national, were born in 1992,   1995, and 1993 respectively and live in Latvia. The case concerned their complaint that the Latvian   authorities had failed to investigate their complaints of alleged sexual abuse by a sports coach.   According to the applicants, while enrolled in a State sports school in Riga, in 2008 and 2009, all of   them minors at the time, they were sexually abused by one of the coaches with whom they trained.   In particular they submit that: the coach requested that they attend the sauna fully undressed; he   massaged two of them, touching their intimate body parts; he entered the changing room, touching   – as if accidentally – the girls’ intimate body parts; and, during a trip to a competition in Lithuania, he   told one of the applicants that she would sleep in the same bed with him, which she refused to do.   Following a complaint by the mother of Ms A and Ms B, who are sisters, the police opened a criminal   investigation in January 2010. In the course of the investigation, the police took statements from   various individuals, including the applicants and their parents and other former students of the   sports coach and their parents. In October 2010 the investigation was closed, the investigator   concluding that it had revealed that the sauna sessions had been voluntary. The female students had   attended the sauna fully undressed, either on their own initiative or because that was the general   practice. The coach had massaged them at their request. The investigator could not establish that   the coach had acted with a sexual purpose within the meaning of the relevant section (sexual abuse)   of Latvian criminal law.   The appeal of the applicants’ parents against that decision was dismissed, and their subsequent   appeals to higher prosecutors were also rejected, the closure of the investigation being eventually   confirmed by the chief prosecutor in February 2011. Two requests by the applicants’ mothers to   reopen the investigation – arguing that a psychologist’s report, which found that two of the   applicants had or might have suffered psychological trauma, constituted newly discovered facts –   were dismissed. In the meantime, in civil proceedings the coach was ordered to pay the applicants   the equivalent of between 140 and 430 euros’ compensation for having violated their right to   privacy.   Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants   complained that the authorities had failed to investigate their complaints of sexual abuse by their   coach.   No violation of Article 8   Šantare and Labazņikovs v. Latvia (no. 34148/07)   The applicants, Lilija Šantare and Vladimirs Labazņikovs, are Latvian nationals who were born in 1960   and 1956 respectively and live in Riga. The case principally concerned their complaint about the   covert interception of their telephone conversations in the context of an anticorruption   investigation.   In April 2005 Mr Labazņikovs, who at the time was the owner of a chain of pharmacies, was   questioned by two investigators of the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption in   the context of an investigation into allegedly unlawful activities of officials of the State Pharmacy   Inspectorate. He subsequently arranged several meetings with one of the investigators outside the   Bureau’s premises. On one of those occasions he offered the investigator a one-time bribe and   monthly payments in return for the cessation of any investigative activities concerning his business   and the State officials connected with it. Mr Labazņikovs then called Ms Šantare, who was a board   member of his company, asking her to withdraw cash from the company’s account, which would be   spent on “protection”. Subsequently he gave the money to the investigator. The telephone   conversations between Mr Labazņikovs and Ms Šantare were intercepted and recorded.   The Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption brought criminal proceedings for   bribery against Mr Labazņikovs. It informed the prosecutor that Mr Labazņikovs’ phone had been   tapped and asked for the recordings to be included in the case file. Ms Šantare was later charged   with abetting bribery. A request by Mr Labazņikovs’ representative to have disclosed a document   proving the lawfulness of the telephone interception was dismissed by the prosecutor, stating in   particular that such a decision was not a procedural document and that it had been classified as a   State secret.   In November 2005 the trial court acquitted Ms Šantare and convicted Mr Labazņikovs – who had   pleaded guilty – of bribery. He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended. In October   the judgment was partially quashed on appeal. Ms Šantare was found guilty and given a   suspended sentence of one year’s imprisonment, and the suspension of Mr Labazņikovs’ prison   sentence was revoked. Ms Šantare’s appeal on points of law, arguing that the phone recordings   should not have been admitted as evidence, was dismissed.   The applicants complained in particular that the covert interception of their phone conversations   had been in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home, and the   correspondence).   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) to Ms Šantare and Mr Labazņikovs and   EUR 800 to Mr Labazņikovs (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)   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.   4