003-5365229-6699029

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 149 (2016)   03.05.2016   Judgments of 3 May 2016   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the four Chamber judgments1   summarised below.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Letinčić v. Croatia (application no. 7183/11)   The applicant, Kristijan Letinčić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Zagreb. The   case concerned the dismissal of his request for family disability benefit.   In 1993, when Mr Letinčić was five years old, his father, a war veteran, killed his mother and   maternal grandparents and then committed suicide. Represented by his paternal grandmother, he   sought family disability benefit in 1996, arguing that his father had committed suicide as a   consequence of mental derangement following his wartime service. His request was examined by   several bodies, notably by the administrative authorities (the Zagreb Municipality Office with   responsibility for war veterans’ affairs and the Ministry in charge of war veterans’ affairs) and then   by the judicial authority with power to review, namely the Administrative Court. Both the   administrative authorities, and subsequently the Administrative Court, dismissed Mr Letinčić’s   request, basing their decision on a report drawn up in June 2007 which had concluded that the   suicide of Mr Letinčić’s father could not be attributed to his wartime service. On becoming aware of   the report’s findings in September 2007, Mr Letinčić attempted to bring a challenge before the   Ministry and the Administrative Court, arguing in particular that he had not had an opportunity to   effectively participate in the proceedings and that the report had failed to take into account the   triple murder and suicide. His challenges were rejected, ultimately by the Administrative Court which   found that his specific complaints were irrelevant for the decision as to whether he could receive   family disability benefit. His constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible as manifestly   ill-founded in May 2010.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights,   Mr Letinčić alleged that the proceedings concerning his request for family disability benefit had been   unfair, in particular as concerned the expert report on his case.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: 4,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,413.64 (costs and expenses)   Abdi Mahamud v. Malta (no. 56796/13)   The case concerned an asylum seeker who had been held in an immigration detention centre for   more than 16 months.   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   The applicant, Sagal Abdi Mahamud, is a Somali national who was born in 1992 and at the time of   the introduction of her application was detained in Lyster Barracks Detention Centre, in Ħal Far   (Malta).   Ms Abdi Mahamud arrived in Malta by boat in May 2012 and, intercepted by the immigration police,   was immediately detained in Lyster Barracks under the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act.   Having been presented with an order for her removal as a prohibited immigrant, she lodged an   asylum claim. Her claim was ultimately rejected in December 2012 on the ground that, as a Somali   national, there was a possibility of her returning safely to Mogadishu. In the meantime, in October   Ms Abdi Mahamud, suffering from a number of medical problems – including headaches,   earaches and fainting – which resulted in her frequent hospitalisation, was referred to the Agency   for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers with a view to obtaining her release on the grounds of   vulnerability due to physical and psychological ill-health. She was interviewed in December 2012 and   then verbally informed in August 2013 – with confirmation from the Government – that she would   be released. She was actually released in September 2013.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention,   Ms Abdi Mahamud complained about the conditions of her detention from May 2012 to September   2013, notably on account of overcrowding, limited access to outdoor exercise, lack of proper   arrangements against the heat and cold as well as lack of female staff and little privacy.   Furthermore, she made a number of complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and   security) notably concerning the length of her detention, more than seven months of which pending   a decision on her asylum request and the rest allegedly pending her removal, without any steps   being taken to remove her or any effective judicial review being available with which she could have   challenged the lawfulness of her detention. She also claimed that her detention had been governed   by laws and policies, which had been vague as to the exceptions to detention for vulnerable persons   such as herself.   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Violation of Article 5 § 1 – in respect of the first period of detention   Violation of Article 5 § 1 – in respect of the second period of detention   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs and expenses)   Alexe v. Romania (no. 66522/09)*   The applicant, Elena Alexe, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Galaţi   (Romania).   The case concerned the restitution to Ms Alexe of a building confiscated improperly by the   totalitarian regime and the ensuing civil proceedings, leading to a judgment in which Ms Alexe had   been ordered to pay damages on the basis of a legislative amendment which had been made after   the proceedings at first instance.   In a final decision of 22 February 2006 Ms Alexe recovered the ownership of a house which, having   belonged to her mother, had been confiscated improperly by the totalitarian regime and then   unlawfully sold to the tenant. After she had taken possession of the house, civil proceedings were   brought against Ms Alexe by the former tenant, on 11 March 2008, to obtain the reimbursement of   costs incurred by the tenant in refurbishing the property. In her reply Ms Alexe sought the dismissal   of the suit, relying on section 48(3) of Law no. 10/2001 on the legal arrangements for property taken   improperly by the State, under which it was for the State to compensate the tenant for any costs   incurred for work on an unlawfully nationalised building.   In a judgment of 27 January 2009 Ms Alexe was ordered at first instance to pay 15,661 Romanian lei   (RON) to the tenant. Ms Alexe appealed, complaining about the fact that the first-instance judgment   mentioned no legal basis and relying on section 48(3) of Law no. 10/2001. In a final judgment of 29   May 2009, the County Court partly upheld her claim, reducing the sum to RON 15,086. The court   noted, however, that while at the time the claim was originally brought the former section 48(3) of   the law provided that the State had to compensate the tenant for any expenses incurred, after a   legislative amendment which entered into force on 3 February 2009 the law provided that such   expenses were to be reimbursed by the former owner, regardless of whether or not the   nationalisation had been unlawful. On 9 September 2010 Ms Alexe paid the sum due to the tenant,   plus the enforcement costs.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms Alexe complained that she had not had a fair   hearing since section 48 of Law no. 10/2001 had been amended during the proceedings and had   been applied to her detriment, without the issue of its application having been raised adversarially in   court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 900 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 756 (costs and expenses)   Cerf v. Turkey (no. 12938/07)   The applicant, Yaşar Cerf, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Adana (Turkey).   The case concerned the shooting of her husband, Sefer Cerf, a local politician for HADEP (the   People’s Democracy Party) on 3 October 1994 outside a café in the town of Yüreğir. He died on the   spot.   On the day of the killing the prosecuting authorities concluded an incident scene investigation and   launched an investigation. 17 days later they issued a standing search order in relation to the killings.   Eventually, in January 2000 following a number of operations carried out against Hizbullah, an   outlawed organisation in Turkey, a man, M.D, was arrested who confessed to killing Ms Cerf’s   husband. On various dates in 2000 criminal proceedings were thus instituted against M.D., as well as   against four other suspects, for membership of Hizbullah and for carrying out illegal acts on behalf of   that organisation. They were all convicted between 2009 and 2013 and given sentences of   imprisonment varying between five and a half years and life.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Cerf alleged that her husband had been killed because of his   political affiliation, either by the security services or by Hizbullah aided by the authorities, and that   the ensuing investigation had been ineffective. She alleged in particular that, on the day of the   killing, neither the police nor anti-terrorism officers had been patrolling in the area, which had been   unusual and that eyewitnesses to the incident, as well as herself and her daughter, had been   subsequently harassed and threatened by the police. She also submitted that the suspects’   confessions, which had been the only significant evidence revealed by the State during the criminal   proceedings against them, had been dubious as four of them had subsequently retracted, alleging   that the statements they had made had been extracted from them under torture.   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (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