003-5430320-6802373

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 245 (2016)   07.07.2016   Judgments and decisions of 7 July 2016   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two judgments1 and 55 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are listed below;   the 55 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   R.V. v. France (application no. 78514/14)*   The applicant, R.V., is a Russian national from Chechnya. He was born in 1987 and lives in France.   The case concerned his return to his country of origin, the Russian Federation.   R.V. was the friend of T.I., member of a Chechen armed rebellion group called the “Boeviks”.   R.V. accommodated T.I. on his return to his village, providing him with supplies for his group. In   August 2005 T.I. was killed by the security forces, which seized the mobile phone T.I. had used to call   R.V. using a code name. In January 2006 R.V. was arrested and taken into custody in Grozny, where   he was interrogated for two weeks under torture. After being left half dead by the side of a road, he   was taken to hospital by passers-by. In May 2006 R.V. was again arrested and tortured, then   released after 10 days in return for a ransom. In November 2007 the henchmen of Ramzan Kadyrov,   current President of the Chechen Republic, abducted R.V. at his home and violently struck his wife   who was pregnant. She gave birth prematurely at the hospital, but the child died. To put an end to   her suffering, R.V. agreed to become an informer for the security services and was ultimately   released after payment of a new ransom. Taking the view that his safety was irremediably   compromised between the “Kadyrovski” who would not leave him in peace if he did not cooperate   and the “Boeviks” who would not hesitate to eliminate him if he did, he decided to flee to Poland,   where he was placed in the Dimbak refugee camp, intending to apply for asylum. However, R.V. was   forced to leave the camp because the “Kadyrovski” had infiltrated it to identify the Chechens who   had taken refuge there.   On arriving in France in January 2008, R.V. filed an application for asylum but it was dismissed by the   authorities. In December 2014 he was issued with an order to leave France and placed in a detention   centre. The Marseille Administrative Court dismissed his appeal and the decision was confirmed by   the Administrative Court of Appeal in May 2016.   In December 2014, on receiving a request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of   Court, the Court decided to indicate to the French Government not to return R.V. to the Russian   Federation for the duration of the proceedings before it.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, R.V. alleged that the enforcement of the order for his removal would   expose him to a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a 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.   Violation of Article 3 – in the event of R.V.’s removal to the Russian Federation   Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) – not to expel R.V. – still in force until judgment   becomes final or until further order.   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by R.V.   Zosymov v. Ukraine (no. 4322/06)   The applicant, Igor Zosymov, is a Ukrainian national who lives in Kyiv. The case concerned his   complaint about a police search of his office, car and garage, during which numerous items had   been seized.   Mr Zosymov and his wife were running a small business which, among other things, involved the   replication of digital data and the sale of blank data storage devices. In August 2002 several police   officers from the Kyiv economic crime unit inspected their office and seized a large number of items,   including several computers, over 3,000 discs containing data and some 30,000 blank discs. The   inspection lasted one full night, during which police officers questioned Mr Zosymov, his wife and   other family members regarding the business and the observance of copyright law. Two days later, a   report was published on the Ministry of Interior’s website, stating that the police had “identified a   criminal group of two [who]... organised an entire underground production [facility]”. The report   featured a photo of Mr Zosymov’s wife without a caption.   In November 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted on suspicion of breach of copyright without   naming any suspected offenders. In his decision the investigator referred to the search of Mr and   Mrs Zosymov’s office and the seizure of their belongings. The investigator subsequently declared the   seized items physical evidence to be stored by the police pending the investigation of the case. After   the couple’s flats had been searched, the proceedings stagnated; the police never pressed any   charges against Mr Zosymov or any other person.   Mr Zosymov asked the police and the prosecutor’s office numerous times to order the return of his   seized property. On several occasions the authorities rejected his requests, notifying him that his   seized property constituted physical evidence in a criminal case. The prosecutor and police also   rejected his requests to have the criminal case in which the items had been seized taken to court   with a view to closing the case as time-barred and to have the criminal proceedings terminated due   to lack of evidence.   Mr Zosymov and his wife successfully brought defamation proceedings against the police authorities   for publishing an inaccurate crime report on their website, seeking that the information be   retracted. Mr Zosymov also unsuccessfully brought several sets of proceedings against the police   alleging the unlawfulness of the inspection and requesting the recovery of the seized property.   Mr Zosymov complained in particular that his office, car and garage had been unlawfully searched, in   breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home, and the correspondence).   He further complained that the seizure of his property violated his rights under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property). Finally, he alleged a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy), stating that he had had no possibility of obtaining redress in respect of his complaints.   Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13   Just satisfaction: 6,000 euros (EUR) (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.   3