003-5579727-7042055

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 415 (2016)   15.12.2016   Judgments and decisions of 15 December 2016   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments1 and   decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below; for two others, in the cases of M.P. v. Finland   (application no. 36487/12) and Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15), separate press releases have been   issued;   for two decisions, in the cases of Žirovnický v. the Czech Republic (nos. 60439/12 and 73999/12) and   Bıdık v. Turkey (no. 45222/15), separate press releases have been issued;   a separate press release has also been issued for 11 partial decisions concerning Turkey;   lastly, three Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the   Court, and the 44 other decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Colloredo Mannsfeld v. the Czech Republic (application no. 15275/11)   The applicant, Jerome Colloredo Mannsfeld, is a Czech national who was born in 1949 and lives in   Zbiroh (the Czech Republic). The case concerned restitution proceedings for movable property   located in Opočno Castle. The property was confiscated from the applicant’s predecessor during the   German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1942, and once again in 1945 after the Second World War   had ended.   National legislation adopted in 1991 provides for the restitution of properties that had been   transferred to the State between 25 February 1948 and 1 January 1990. In 1992 the applicant’s   father thus brought an action for the restitution of property in Opočno Castle. The applicant entered   the proceedings as heir and legal successor to his father, when he died in 1998. Owing to the large   number of items concerned, the action was decided in three sets of successive proceedings from   to 2012. The first set of proceedings – in which a collection of paintings was returned to the   applicant – is not part of the present application before the European Court.   In 2006, in the course of the second proceedings, the Pardubice District Court, finding the applicant’s   claim well-founded, ordered the State to return a large set of items to him. However, this judgment   was subsequently overturned by the Regional Court. Referring in particular to a decision of 1947 by   the Ministry of Agriculture in which the Opočno Castle State was declared cultural property, the   Regional Court considered that the property in question had been taken away from the applicant’s   predecessor before 25 February 1948 and that therefore the legislation on restitution did not apply.   The supreme jurisdictions, also explicitly referring to the 1947 decision as evidence, all went on to   uphold the Regional Court’s judgment.   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.   In the third set of proceedings, the District Court followed the conclusion of the Regional Court and   dismissed the applicant’s claim. This decision was upheld by all levels of courts, including the   Constitutional Court in April 2012.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human   Rights, the applicant complained about the courts’ rejection of his claim for restitution of property   located in Opočno Castle. He alleged in particular that the restitution proceedings had been unfair as   the Regional Court had based its decision in the second set of proceedings on a document – the   decision – which had not been shown to the parties or discussed by them and which had also   affected the outcome of the third set of proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,400 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,242 (costs and   expenses)   Vaščenkovs v. Latvia (no. 30795/12)   The applicant, Maksims Vaščenkovs, now deceased, is a national of Latvia who was born in 1986.   The case, continued by his grandmother, concerned the justification for his pre-trial detention.   In August 2011 Mr Vaščenkovs was arrested by the Latvian police and placed in pre-trial detention   initially on suspicion of robbery and later on suspicion of theft. His subsequent appeal against the   decision was dismissed by the Latgale Regional Court.   Although detained on suspicion of theft, in September 2011 the public prosecutor decided to charge   Mr Vaščenkovs with robbery and theft and transferred the case to the Ludza District Court for   adjudication. His detention was then extended on three occasions by the investigative judge, in   October and December 2011 and in April 2012. This continued detention was justified by reference   also to suspected robbery which allowed the permissible time-limit for his detention to be increased   from 12 to 24 months. The judge thus decided to further extend Mr Vaščenkovs’ detention in August   and November 2012 and in January 2013, justifying his protracted detention by referring also to the   robbery charge. These decisions were not subject to appeal.   Mr Vaščenkovs complained on several occasions to the Ludza District Court claiming that it had   failed to provide reasons for his detention on suspicion of robbery, without success.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security/reasonableness of pre-trial detention),   Mr Vaščenkovs complained that the domestic courts had failed to provide sufficient reasons for the   suspicion that he had committed robbery.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (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)   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.   3