003-5568828-7023092

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 395 (2016)   06.12.2016   Judgments of 6 December 2016   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1:   seven Chamber judgments are summarised below; for three others, in the cases of Kanalas   v. Romania (application no. 20323/14), Cherepanov v. Russia (no. 43614/14), and Sarıhan v. Turkey   (no. 55907/08), separate press releases have been issued.   one Committee judgment which concerns issues which have already been submitted to the Court   can be consulted on Hudoc and doed not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Škaro v. Croatia (application no. 6962/13)   The applicant, Dean Škaro, is a Croatian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Šibenik (Croatia).   The case concerned his allegation that the criminal proceedings brought against him for murder had   been unfair.   Mr Škaro was indicted in May 1997 on charges of killing a British national in Split. Three rounds of   proceedings ensued with the trial panel hearing Mr Škaro as well as a number of witnesses, including   A.B., the only witness who said that he had seen Mr Škaro attacking the victim. At hearings held in   February 2004, February 2010 and July 2010 Mr Škaro was thus able to put questions to this crucial   witness. During the third round of proceedings, however, one of the judges on the panel had to be   replaced, the trial had to start afresh and the new trial panel heard evidence from all the various   witnesses in person, except for A.B because he was in a psychiatric institution. His statement was   thus read out. Mr Škaro’s request for witness A.B. to be heard in person was denied as taking him   away from the psychiatric institution could have had a negative effect on his treatment. At the end   of the third round of proceedings, in June 2011, Mr Škaro was convicted of murder and sentenced to   months’ imprisonment, suspended for five years. The Supreme Court upheld this judgment in   March 2012. Mr Škaro’s subsequent constitutional complaint was ultimately dismissed in July 2012.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination   of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Škaro complained that the witness   whose statement had been decisive for his conviction had not been heard by the panel which   convicted him.   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   Ioan Pop and Others v. Romania (no. 52924/09)*   The applicants, Ioan Pop, Crina Pop, and Răzvan Pop were born in 1968, 1972, and 1995 respectively   and live in Gherla (Romania). Ioan Pop and Crina Pop are the parents of Răzvan Pop.   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 case concerned a complaint by Mr and Mrs Pop concerning the lawfulness of their deprivation   of liberty following their eviction from their home and the fact that their child had remained alone   throughout their detention, without any concrete measures being taken by the authorities.   On 4 July 2007 a bailiff went to the house of the Pop family with police support to enforce an   eviction order against the family. Ioan Pop opposed the eviction so the police immobilised him using   handcuffs and took him to the police station with his wife. While they were in custody on police   premises, their son (Răzvan Pop), then aged 12, remained on his own without adult supervision. He   allegedly suffered from depression after this incident. The Government disputed this version and   said that he had been left in the care of Mrs Pop’s sisters.   The public prosecutor committed Mr Pop to stand trial on charges of failure to comply with court   decisions, insults directed at persons of authority, immoral conduct and breach of the peace, but   decided not to press charges against Mrs Pop. In 2008 Mr Pop was sentenced at first instance to six   years and eight months in prison. On appeal the sentence was reduced to two years and eight   months.   The Pop family also filed a criminal complaint against the bailiff, the police officers and a nurse   involved in the incident of 4 July 2007. In 2008 the public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings,   finding that the police officers had acted in self-defence. The applicants’ ordinary appeal and appeal   on points of law were rejected.   In 2010 Mr Ioan Pop sued the Romanian authorities for the harm sustained by him and his family   during the incident, but the courts dismissed his claim.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention,   Răzvan Pop complained that he had been left alone for several hours even though he was only 12,   with no adult supervision. Under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr and Mrs Pop complained   that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty on 4 July 2007.   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – in respect of Răzvan Pop   Violation of Article 5 § 1 – in respect of Crina Pop   Just satisfaction: 4,500 euros (EUR) each to Crina Pop and Răzvan Pop for non-pecuniary damage   Vasilică Mocanu v. Romania (no. 43545/13)*   The applicant, Vasilică Mocanu, was born in 1972. He is currently in prison in Zurich (Switzerland).   The case concerned the conditions in which Mr Mocanu was held on police premises and the use of   CCTV monitoring in his cell.   At an unknown date Mr Mocanu was sentenced to five years and six months in prison for forgery. He   claims that during his detention on the premises of the County police, from 7 to 14 March 2013, he   was placed in a cell measuring 19 or 20 sq. m with no ventilation and situated in a half-underground   basement, accommodating five other prisoners, in conditions that were also unhygienic. The   Government challenged that version. Moreover, Mr Mocanu alleged that the cell had been fitted   with a system of permanent CCTV monitoring by which he was filmed.   In April and June 2013 the competent courts rejected Mr Mocanu’s complaint about the conditions   of his detention and the system allegedly used to monitor him.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Mocanu complained about   the conditions of his detention. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life),   Mr Mocanu complained about the presence of a CCTV camera in his cell.   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,900 (non-pecuniary damage)   Mikhail Nikolayev v. Russia (no. 40192/06)   The applicant, Mikhail Fedorovich Nikolayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in   the village of Krasnyy Yar in the Staropoltavskiy district of Volgograd Region (Russia). The case   concerned his allegation that he had been seriously assaulted by the police.   On 5 August 2002 Mr Nikolayev was involved in a family quarrel, during which he was apparently   aggressive towards his brother’s wife and had a fight with one of his brothers. The police was called   and he was taken to the local police station.   Mr Nikolayev alleges that he was thrown into the boot of a police car and driven around, and that   the officers stopped the car and assaulted him. He submits that he was further assaulted at the   police station, the officers punching him repeatedly in the head and chest.   He was charged the same day with an administrative offence – starting a brawl and using abusive   language – and placed in a cell overnight. The next day he was brought before a judge and   sentenced to two days’ administrative detention. However, on his way back to the police station, he   felt unwell and an ambulance was called. He was taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with a   fractured rib, abrasions and traumatic otitis. Discharged on 8 August 2002, he received outpatient   treatment. He was diagnosed with a serious head injury and hospitalised for a further two weeks in   the autumn as he had been suffering from recurrent headaches, ringing in the ears, dizziness and   hearing loss.   In the meantime, Mr Nikolayev lodged a complaint with the local police, alleging ill-treatment. He   also lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecuting authorities who, following a pre-investigation   inquiry, launched criminal proceedings into police abuse of power. Statements were taken from one   of the brothers who had seen Mr Nikolayev before his arrest and a police officer, Sh., who both   stated that, before being arrested, Mr Nikolayev did not have the injuries found on him immediately   after his release from police custody. Medical reports were also drawn up in 2002 and 2003   confirming that his injuries – notably to his head and ribs – could have been received as a result of   his having being assaulted by police officers. Between 2003 and 2005 the proceedings were however   discontinued on a number of occasions because the investigating authorities saw no element of a   crime in the police officers’ actions. The investigating authorities principally relied on the testimonies   of the police officers who denied ill-treating Mr Nikolayev.   Following the European Court’s notification of the case to the Russian Government in 2011, the   investigation was reopened. Further testimonies were taken and police officer Sh., together with   three other officers concerned, stated that on being arrested Mr Nikolayev had traces of blood on   his face and ear and that he had clearly been in pain from the left side of his chest. Two new medical   reports were carried out confirming certain injuries, namely an abrasion to the chest and bruised   ribs, and concluding that they could have occurred by Mr Nikolayev falling onto a hard blunt object.   His other injuries, the head injury and fractured ribs, could not be confirmed as the relevant medical   records and X-rays had been lost. These proceedings were terminated in April and finally in June   2012, the investigating authorities concluding that the only injuries which had been confirmed were   the abrasion on the chest and bruising to the ribs and that those injuries could have occurred during   Mr Nikolayev’s fight with his brother.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Nikolayev alleged that he   had been seriously assaulted during his police custody, that his allegation had not been properly   investigated and that the police officers responsible had thus gone unpunished.   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 13,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Trutko v. Russia (no. 40979/04)   The applicant, Marina Trutko, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Dubna,   Moscow Region. The case concerned Ms Trutko’s involuntary detention in psychiatric facilities.   In February 2003 Ms Trutko was charged with contempt of court, in addition to criminally insulting a   judge and other parties. The charge related to Ms Trutko’s alleged conduct during a hearing in which   she had acted as a defendant’s representative. Following a forensic psychiatric examination, and   upon the recommendation of a panel of psychiatrists, in November 2003 the Dmitrov Town Court of   the Moscow Region ordered that Ms Trutko be subjected to an inpatient examination. Ms Trutko   appealed the decision, arguing that she had not been given an opportunity to present her case, as   neither she nor her representative had been summoned to the hearing.   Prior to the hearing of the appeal, on 9 April 2004 Ms Trutko was apprehended by the authorities   and transferred to a psychiatric facility. She was kept there until her release on 13 April 2004. On the   same day, a panel of psychiatrists issued a report, stating that Ms Trutko suffered from “paranoid   personality development”, that she presented a danger to others, and that she needed compulsory   treatment in a psychiatric facility.   On 14 September 2004 the Moscow City Court relied on the report to order Ms Trutko’s compulsory   inpatient psychiatric treatment. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Russia in   December 2004.   months later, on 23 March 2006, Ms Trutko was admitted against her will to Moscow Regional   Psychiatric Hospital no.14. After a panel of psychiatrists found that she was no longer a danger to   society in May 2006, on 10 July 2006 the Dmitrov Town Court ordered her release. Ms Trutko’s   representative lodged an appeal against the court order, claiming that Ms Trutko should have been   released, but on the basis that there had never been any need for compulsory treatment in the first   place. The appeal was dismissed by the Regional Court on 31 August 2006. Ms Trutko had been   released from hospital on 15 August 2006.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Ms Trutko complained that she had been   deprived of her liberty for the purpose of undergoing both the forensic psychiatric examination and   the consequent compulsory medical treatment. She maintained that the treatments had been   unlawful, and not required for any valid medical reasons.   Violation of Article 5 § 1 – on account of the unlawful deprivation of liberty for the purpose of   conducting a forensic psychiatric examination   Violation of Article 5 § 1 – on account of the unlawful deprivation of liberty for the purpose of   providing compulsory medical treatment   Just satisfaction: Ms Trutko did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   Belge v. Turkey (no. 50171/09)   The applicant, İzzet Belge, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Şırnak (Turkey).   The case concerned his criminal conviction for disseminating propaganda in support of the PKK (the   Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal armed organisation.   On 5 September 2005, a gathering was held in Cizre, a district of Şırnak, in front of the Cizre branch   of the People’s Democratic Party (Demokratik Halk Partisi – “DEHAP”). As president of the Şırnak   branch of the DEHAP, Mr Belge gave a speech to the audience.   One month later, the Cizre public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against Mr Belge and four   others. Mr Belge was charged with disseminating propaganda in favour of a criminal organisation.   He contended that he had not praised an illegal organisation in his speech; that he had not intended   to disseminate propaganda; and that he had only thanked those who had made an effort to bring   about peace.   After nine hearings in the Cizre Criminal Court, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the   case, as it considered that it should be examined under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law   no.3713). The case was transferred to the Diyarbakir Assize Court.   On 19 February 2008, the Assize Court found that the accused had disseminated propaganda in   support of the PKK’s aims during the gathering on 5 September 2005. In relation to Mr Belge, it   found that he had referred to Abdullah Öcalan as “the leader of the Kurdish people”, and to   members of the PKK as “guerrillas”. Furthermore, he had directed demonstrators who had: chanted   slogans in favour of the PKK; waved yellow, red and green pieces of cloth; and carried photographs   of Abdullah Öcalan. According to the court, these were well-known methods of disseminating PKK   propaganda – an act which was an incitement to violence and the use of terrorist methods.   On these grounds, the court convicted Mr Belge of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist   organisation and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment. Following an appeal, the judgment was   upheld by the Court of Cassation on 13 July 2010.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Belge complained that his criminal conviction had   been a violation of his right to freedom of expression. In particular, he argued that his speech had   not contained any incitement to violence; that his conviction had not been necessary in a democratic   society; and that his sentence had been disproportionate.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Dökmeci v. Turkey (no. 74155/14)*   The applicant, Abdullah Dökmeci, was born in 1932 and lives in Karaman (Turkey).   The case concerned the amount of compensation awarded to the owner of farmland affected by the   construction of a dam and a hydroelectric power-station in the region of Ermenek.   Mr Dökmeci was the owner of farmland affected by the construction of a dam and a hydroelectric   power-station. In 2008 the Cabinet decided that the land concerned by the project, which had not   yet been expropriated under the ordinary procedure, would be subject to the urgent expropriation   procedure (section 27 of the Expropriation Act). Consequently, the judge of the District Court set the   land-based compensation at an amount calculated by experts and ordered the urgent expropriation   of the land in question. Mr Dökmeci received the sum of 168,961 Turkish liras (TRY).   In 2010 the authority applied to the District Court seeking determination of the expropriation   compensation that would result, this time, from the ordinary procedure (section 10 of the   Expropriation Act). Based on the assessments they had already made in the urgent procedure and   other documents in the file, the experts estimated that Mr Dökmeci’s land, which was covered by   the water contained by the dam, was valued, on the date of the application to the District Court, at   TRY 377,489. Mr Dökmeci disputed that expert’s report, submitting that the compensation was   insufficient. The District Court noted that Mr Dökmeci had already received a payment of   TRY 168,961 in the context of the urgent procedure and it ordered the authority to pay the balance   of TRY 208,527. In 2012 the Court of Cassation dismissed Mr Dökmeci’s appeal on points of law.   In 2013 Mr Dökmeci lodged an application with the Constitutional Court, which found it   inadmissible, noting in particular that the method adopted for the calculation of the expropriation   compensation had been perfectly foreseeable and that the depreciation of the amount awarded,   because no statutory interest had been added, had not imposed an excessive and disproportionate   burden on him.   Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Dökmeci notably   complained of insufficient compensation for expropriation and the failure to apply interest to the   award.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Dökmeci. It further awarded him EUR   11,700 for 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)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   George Stafford (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 71)   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.   6