003-5415695-6778271

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 222 (2016)   23.06.2016   Judgments and decisions of 23 June 2016   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1 and 54 decisions2:   eight Chamber judgments are summarised below; for one other, in the case of Brambilla and Others   v. Italy (application no. 22567/09), a separate press release has been issued;   two Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   and the 54 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Ben Moumen v. Italy (application no. 3977/13)   The applicant, Smail Ben Moumen, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1974 and is currently in   detention in Lecce Prison. The case concerned his complaint that he had been unable to question or   have questioned a witness against him.   In November 2008 A. lodged a criminal complaint against Mr Ben Moumen. The applicant had   offered to give her a lift home and had then driven her into the countryside before threatening,   beating and raping her. Another Moroccan national, B., had been in the car but had left when the   rape was taking place. B. was questioned on 23 November 2008 by the Lesina carabinieri.   Mr Ben Moumen was charged with rape, assault and committing lewd acts. On 9 February 2009 A.   was questioned at an ad hoc hearing before the investigating judge.   The hearing of 14 January 2010 was to be devoted, among other tasks, to hearing B.’s evidence.   However, B. failed to appear. The court ordered that the statement which B. had given to the Lesina   carabinieri on 23 November 2008 be read out. The statement was added to the case file. The Lucera   District Court sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment. His conviction was based on   A.’s statements at the ad hoc hearing of 9 February 2009, which were judged to be detailed, credible   and corroborated by other evidence, including B.’s statement.   Mr Ben Moumen appealed. He contested the assessment of the evidence against him and objected   to the use of B.’s statement. The Bari Court of Appeal reduced his sentence to six years’   imprisonment. Mr Ben Moumen appealed on points of law, reiterating his allegations concerning the   inadmissibility of B.’s statement. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal, observing that the   Court of Appeal had specified that B. could not be traced, that the impossibility of hearing his   evidence again could not have been foreseen, and that the absence of the witness had not resulted   from the latter’s free choice. The authorities had attempted to serve the summons to appear on B.   at the home address he had given and a report had been drawn up stating that the search had   proved unsuccessful. Furthermore, B. was of Moroccan origin and his place of residence was   unknown. He had been resident in Italy for a long time and had had stable and regular employment   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.   there, with the result that his failure to appear had not been “foreseeable”. Lastly, there was   nothing to suggest that B. had intended to evade questioning.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to question witnesses) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, Mr Ben Moumen contended that the criminal proceedings against him   had been unfair.   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   Strumia v. Italy (no. 53377/13)*   The applicant, Alessandro Strumia, is an Italian national. He has a daughter who was born on 11   September from his marriage to N.R.   The case concerned Mr Strumia’s inability to exercise his contact rights under the conditions set by   the courts, owing to the opposition of the child’s mother.   On 1 May 2007 the applicant’s wife (N.R.) left the marital home with the couple’s daughter, aged   three at the time. On 21 May 2007 she applied to the Youth Court for urgent measures, alleging that   her daughter had been ill-treated and sexually abused by her father. Mr Strumia, who had been   unable to exercise his contact rights prior to that, requested that visits be arranged in a protected   setting. On various dates the courts ordered meetings between the applicant and his daughter in a   protected setting, but the orders were not complied with because of the mother’s strong objections.   The social services wrote various reports observing that the child no longer wanted to see her father   and was hostile towards him; they also noted that the mother’s behaviour indicated an intention to   exclude Mr Strumia from the child’s life.   On 2 April 2009 N.R. lodged a complaint against the applicant for indecently assaulting her daughter.   In support of her claims she produced a certificate from a gynaecologist who had examined her   daughter. A medical expert report was ordered from a court-appointed gynaecologist, who   concluded that there had been no sexual interference with the child. On 20 July 2015 the Florence   Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of the charges against him.   In a judgment of 12 November 2010 the Florence Court of Appeal placed the child in the care of   social services, with her mother’s home as her main residence. The Court of Appeal also decided that   the child should receive counselling and awarded Mr Strumia contact rights and the right to have the   child stay with him. N.R. appealed on points of law and the proceedings are currently pending. On 25   February 2014 the Florence Court of Appeal ordered social services to take the requisite steps to   secure the child’s interests, including removing her from her mother’s home if necessary. It also   suspended N.R.’s parental responsibility, finding that she was not capable of ensuring the child’s   psychological development, and ruled that meetings should be arranged between Mr Strumia and   his daughter. That decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 25 February 2015.   In 2013 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against his ex-wife for failure to comply with a   court order and ill-treatment of a family member or minor. Those proceedings are currently in   progress.   Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European   Convention, the applicant complained that he had been unable fully to exercise his contact rights for   seven years, despite the existence of several domestic court orders setting the conditions for the   exercise of that right. He complained that the domestic courts had failed to put in place measures   enabling him to maintain his ties with his daughter, thereby allowing his ex-wife the time to turn the   child against him. He complained of the authorities’ lack of action in response to his wife’s conduct.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: 15,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   I.N. v. Ukraine (no. 28472/08)   The applicant, Mr I.N., is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and lives in the town of   Severodonetsk (Ukraine). The case concerned his involuntary hospitalisation.   Mr I.N. was placed in a psychiatric hospital in March 2000 following the opinion of a panel of   experts, which had been requested by a prosecutor after I.N. had sent offensive letters to various   authorities. He stayed in two different hospitals between March and December 2000, when he was   discharged. He was again hospitalised between late May and late June 2001. I.N. subsequently   requested the hospitals to allow him to study his medical file and inform him on what legal basis he   had been subjected to psychiatric treatment. In September 2001 he brought court proceedings   against one of the hospitals for its failure to reply to his request. His claim was rejected in 2002, but   the appeal court quashed the decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. I.N. later joined   the complaint that his committal to hospital had been unlawful. In August 2007 the district court   partially allowed his claim, holding that while his initial hospitalisation in March 2000 had been in   compliance with the relevant provisions, his transfer to the second hospital, in September 2000, had   been in breach of the Psychiatric Medical Assistance Act, which had entered into force in the   meantime, in April 2000. The court awarded him the equivalent of approximately 286 euros in   compensation. The decision was upheld on appeal and the Supreme Court dismissed I.N.’s appeal on   points of law in February 2008.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (e) (right to liberty and security), Mr I.N. complained that his deprivation of   liberty had been unlawful. He further complained, under Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation for   unlawful detention), that he had had no effective and enforceable right to compensation for his   detention, stating that the sum awarded to him had been insufficient compared to his suffering.   Finally, he complained that the length of the civil proceedings he had brought had been   unreasonable, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 5   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Kleutin v. Ukraine (no. 5911/05)   The applicant, Denis Kleutin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Odesa   (Ukraine). The case concerned his alleged ill-treatment by the police, the conditions of his detention   and the alleged unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention.   In January 2004 Mr Kleutin was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having   committed a robbery. His detention on remand was subsequently extended and he remained in   detention throughout his trial. In June 2007 he was convicted, in particular, of premeditated robbery   as part of a group and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, the judgment being eventually upheld   by the Supreme Court in 2008.   According to Mr Kleutin, during his arrest in January 2004 he was ill-treated by three police officers.   In particular, he maintained that they had threatened him and hit him on his head and body with   their firearms, fracturing two of his ribs. He subsequently complained to the prosecutors, on several   occasions, and to the court about his ill-treatment. Eventually, in June 2007, the prosecutor refused   to institute criminal proceedings against the police, having found that no physical force had been   used. This conclusion was relied upon by the domestic court when dismissing Mr Kleutin’s complaint   of ill-treatment.   Mr Kleutin also submitted that the conditions in the pre-trial detention centre in Odesa, where he   was detained from January 2004 until November 2007, were very poor. In particular, the cells were   overcrowded, the sanitary conditions were poor and no outdoor activity was allowed.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Kleutin complained of   having been ill-treated by the police, of the lack of an effective investigation into his complaints, and   of his poor detention conditions. He further relied on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 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), complaining in particular that his detention on   remand had been unlawful – as it was either not covered by a court order or the relevant orders   were issued without sufficient reasons – and that the overall length of his pre-trial detention had   been unreasonable.   No violation of Article 3 (treatment) – on account of the alleged ill-treatment on 22 January 2004   Violation of Article 3 (investigation) – on account of the alleged ill-treatment on 22 January 2004   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – in respect of the material conditions of detention in   Odesa SIZO   Violation of Article 5 § 1 – on account of Mr Kleutin’s arrest and detention between 22 and 24   January 2004   Violation of Article 5 § 1 – on account of Mr Kleutin’s detention between 24 January and 18 March   2004, between 8 April and 18 June 2004, between 18 April and 15 September 2005, as well as   between 15 September 2005 and 8 June 2007   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs and expenses)   Krivoshey v. Ukraine (no. 7433/05)   The applicant, Anatoliy Krivoshey, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1966 and is currently   serving a prison sentence. The case concerned his complaint about the excessive length of criminal   proceedings against him for theft and the unfairness of another set of criminal proceedings against   him in which he had been convicted of murder.   Mr Krivoshey was arrested on 15 August 2001 as a suspect in criminal proceedings for theft and was   subsequently remanded in custody. On 23 August 2001, a man, V.Z., who was being interrogated in   those theft proceedings, told the police that Mr Krivoshey had been involved in a traffic accident,   fatally injuring a woman, and that he had then killed the woman’s husband to cover up the crime. He   stated that he and Mr Krivoshey had then hidden the bodies in the forest. Later the same day, both   men took part in a crime reconstruction; Mr Krivoshey, who had agreed to give testimony, admitted   that he had hit the woman with his car and had helped V.Z. to cover the victims’ bodies, but denied   having killed the husband, stating that V.Z. had been responsible. Further criminal proceedings were   then instituted against Mr Krivoshey on charges of causing a traffic accident which resulted in a   woman’s death and of the aggravated murder of her husband and he was ultimately found guilty as   charged in May 2004. His conviction was based mainly on V.Z.’s testimony, which the trial court   found had been corroborated by Mr Krivoshey’s wife, the results of the crime-site inspection and the   forensic expert’s examination of the victims’ bodies. Mr Krivoshey was also convicted of the theft   charges in May 2012 and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Given his murder conviction, the   trial court defined the final sentence for all his crimes as 15 years’ imprisonment combined with   confiscation of his property and a three-year driving ban.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of own   choosing/right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Krivoshey complained about the excessive   length – more than ten years – of the criminal proceedings against him for theft and about not being   given the assistance of a lawyer at the initial stage of the criminal case against him for murder,   namely during the crime reconstruction of 23 August 2001, submitting that his conviction for murder   had been based on the statements he had made that day.   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) – on account of the lack of legal assistance at the initial stages   of police questioning   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Kulyk v. Ukraine (no. 30760/06)   The applicant, Anatoliy Kulyk, was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Shargorod (Ukraine).   The case principally concerned his complaint of having been ill-treated by the police.   On 30 December 2002 Mr Kulyk was apprehended by a police officer who suspected him of having   stolen aluminium sheets from a factory. According to Mr Kulyk, the officer hit him on the head with   a gun handle and kicked him, after he had fallen to the ground. Mr Kulyk was then taken to the   police station, where several police officers repeatedly hit and kicked him in order to make him   confess to the theft. On the following day he was fined in administrative proceedings for disobeying   a police officer’s order to stop. On the same day a decision was adopted not to institute criminal   proceedings against him for theft.   Mr Kulyk was hospitalised from early January until mid-February 2003. He was diagnosed with a   number of injuries, including brain contusion of medium severity causing numerous neurological   problems, two broken ribs and injuries to his kidneys and face. In February 2003 he requested the   prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. By a decision of March 2003   the prosecutor refused to institute proceedings, concluding that Mr Kulyk had sustained his injuries   when trying to run away from the police officer. This decision and subsequent decisions not to   institute criminal proceedings were respectively quashed by higher prosecutors who found that   further investigative steps had to be taken. In October 2004 criminal proceedings on suspicion of   abuse of power were instituted, which were subsequently terminated and reopened on several   occasions. Eventually they were terminated in October 2008 for absence of evidence of a crime.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13   (right to an effective remedy), Mr Kulyk complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the   police which amounted to torture and that no effective investigation was carried out into his   complaints. His representative further complains, in substance, of a violation of Article 34 (right of   individual petition), submitting that in October 2010 the police searched his office and seized his   computer, which contained documents related to Mr Kulyk’s case.   No violation of Article 3 (treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   No violation of Article 34   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction.   Lovyginy v. Ukraine (no. 22323/08)   The applicants, Anatoliy Lovygin and Galina Lovygina, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1938   and 1939 respectively and live in Kherson (Ukraine). The case concerned the death of their son   during a police training exercise.   The applicants’ son, who was a police officer, played the role of a criminal for the purposes of a   police training exercise conducted on 14 January 2000. During the exercise he was accidentally shot   by another police officer. Fatally wounded, the applicants’ son died on the way to hospital.   A subsequent internal investigation concluded that the accident had occurred because of an   irresponsible attitude and/or negligence on the part of the police officers involved. As a result, three   police officers were dismissed, two officers were demoted and one was reprimanded.   On the day of the incident criminal proceedings were opened. In the course of the investigation one   police officer pleaded guilty to having shot the applicants’ son. However, in July 2000 the trial court,   in the absence of the applicants, terminated the criminal proceedings against that officer under the   Amnesty Act, since he was the father of a minor and was not liable to serve a punishment.   Ms Lovygina’s request for a renewal of the time-limit to appeal against that decision was rejected. In   June 2000 the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against other police officers   involved in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise. That decision was quashed by the   regional prosecutor and in September 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted in respect of the   alleged negligence on the part of the officers involved, which were subsequently terminated and   reopened on a number of occasions. A decision to terminate the proceedings was eventually upheld   by the Supreme Court in January 2008.   The applicants brought proceedings against the regional department of the Ministry of the Interior   claiming compensation for the damage inflicted by their son’s death. Their claim was eventually   rejected by the Supreme Court in October 2002, finding that since the applicants had already   accepted an insurance payment – a lump sum which had been paid jointly to them and to their son’s   widow and daughter – they no longer had a valid compensation claim.   The applicants also unsuccessfully brought several other sets of proceedings, including against the   prosecutor’s offices at various levels, complaining that the investigation into their son’s death had   been ineffective and claiming compensation.   Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants notably complained that the police had   failed to ensure the safety of the participants in the training exercise which had resulted in their   son’s death – which they claimed, moreover, had been intentional – and that the investigation into   the alleged negligence on the part of the police officers had been very lengthy and inefficient.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 9,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses) to the   applicants jointly   Truten v. Ukraine (no. 18041/08)   The applicant, Sergiy Truten, is a Ukrainian national who is currently in detention. The case   concerned the criminal proceedings against him and the conditions of his detention.   In early July 2006 Mr Truten was questioned as a witness in connection with the disappearance of a   young woman. He was subsequently arrested for “minor hooliganism” and placed in a cell at a police   station. According to him, while kept in the cell on 8 and 9 July 2006, he was beaten by police   officers who threatened him and urged him to “tell the truth” about the young woman’s   disappearance. Questioned again on 10 July 2006 without a lawyer being present, he confessed to   having murdered, robbed and raped the young woman in question. When investigators   subsequently carried out a reconstruction of events in Mr Truten’s presence, they found the   woman’s body. On the following day Mr Truten repeated his confession in the presence of a lawyer,   but at a court hearing in November 2006 he stated that he had unintentionally killed the victim and   submitted that the police had ill-treated him until he agreed to confess to murder. The trial court   ordered the prosecution authorities to conduct an inquiry into his allegations of ill-treatment, but in   February 2007 the prosecutor refused to institute a criminal investigation into the complaint.   In November 2007 Mr Truten was convicted of robbery, rape and murder and sentenced to 14 and a   half years’ imprisonment. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in March 2008.   Mr Truten complained that the conditions in the detention centre where he was kept from August   had been in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). In particular:   the cell where he was kept was too small for the number of inmates; it was impossible to open the   window, so that in summer temperatures would rise up to 45°C; he was never allowed to leave the   cell; and the food was inadequate. He further relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and   right to legal assistance of own choosing), complaining in particular that the police had questioned   him several times without a lawyer being present and that the statements he had made during those   questionings had been used for his conviction.   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) – in respect of Mr Truten’s questioning without a lawyer before   July 2006   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (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 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.   7