003-5788247-7360987

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 240 (2017)   11.07.2017   Judgments of 11 July 2017   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing eight judgments1:   five Chamber judgments are listed below;   for three others, separate press releases have been issued: Belcacemi and Oussar v. Belgium   (application no. 37798/13), Dakir v. Belgium (no. 4619/12), and Oravec v. Croatia (no. 51249/11).   The judgments listed below are available in English only.   T.G. v. Croatia (no. 39701/14)   The applicant, T.G., is a Croatian national who was born in 1974. The case concerned his complaint   about being refused a firearms license on the basis of undisclosed police reports.   T.G. was a member of a hunting association and spent his vacations hunting in Croatia. After having   held a firearms license for hunting purposes in Croatia for ten years, he applied to renew it in 2011.   The police, having conducted a background check which included reports that T.G. regularly abused   alcohol, issued a report of their findings and refused his application. He challenged the decision   before the Ministry of the Interior, which ordered the police to produce a new assessment of the   background check. The second report provided further detail of the alleged alcohol abuse and   confirmed these details with T.G.’s neighbours in Croatia, though their identities were classified. The   Ministry of the Interior dismissed the complaint and T.G. challenged their decision before the   administrative courts, which then upheld the refusal based on information contained in the   confidential file. T.G. complained to the Constitutional Court that he had been denied access to the   evidence containing allegations against him and that it had left him without opportunity to challenge   them. The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as unfounded, holding that the police   reports on his background check contained sufficient details regarding the refusal.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human   Rights, T.G. complained that the administrative proceedings had been unfair because the refusal to   renew his firearms licence was based on police reports that had not been made available to him or   his lawyer.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: T.G. did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time-limit fixed.   The Court awarded him 336 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   Ž.B. v. Croatia (no. 47666/13)   The applicant, Ms Ž.B., is a Croatian national who was born in 1981. The case concerned her   complaint that the authorities had failed to properly prosecute her husband for his acts of domestic   violence against her.   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   Ms Ž.B. lodged a criminal complaint about her husband’s alleged acts of physical and psychological   violence in May 2007. He was prosecuted and convicted on two occasions, but both judgments were   overturned on appeal and remitted to trial, on the ground that some relevant facts had not been   established. When the proceedings were resumed again in January 2013, they were discontinued on   the grounds that the 2011 Criminal Code had abolished the offence of domestic violence.   Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Ž.B. complained that   the domestic authorities had failed to effectively prosecute a person who had committed domestic   violence against her.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 115 for costs and expenses   Mardosai v. Lithuania (no. 42434/15)   The applicants, Vygandas Mardosas and Vaida Mardosienė, husband and wife, are Lithuanian   nationals who were born in 1971 and 1981 respectively and live in Jurbarkas (Lithuania). The case   concerned alleged medical negligence which led to the death of their newborn daughter.   Following the baby’s death on 22 May 2009, inquiries by the hospital and the healthcare authorities   were carried out finding shortcomings in the doctors’ treatment of mother and baby during labour   and in particular in resuscitating the baby after its birth by Caesarean section. In June 2009 the   couple requested the prosecuting authorities to open a pre-trial investigation into alleged medical   negligence leading to their daughter’s death. The pre-trial investigation, during which a number of   specialist opinions and forensic examinations were ordered and carried out, lasted just over four   years and nine months before being discontinued by the Jurbarkas prosecutor on the grounds that   no causal link between the doctors’ actions and the baby’s death had been established. The couple   appealed and the case was then transferred in April 2014 to Jurbarkas District Court for examination   on the merits. It was however terminated as time-barred one month later. The applicants appealed   without success.   The couple were successful in a parallel civil suit against the hospital which was concluded in   November 2014. They were awarded 24,115 euros in compensation.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Mardosienė and Mr Mardosas complained that the criminal   proceedings concerning their daughter’s death had been lengthy and ineffective.   No violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Šidlauskas v. Lithuania (no. 51755/10)   The applicant, Antanas Šidlauskas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Jonava   (Lithuania). The case concerned his complaint that he had been unlawfully deprived of his home.   In November 2004 Mr Šidlauskas’ apartment was sold at auction for 3,390 Lithuanian litai (LTL)   (approximately 982 euros), by a bailiff who was seeking recovery of Mr Šidlauskas’ unpaid utility bills   (amounting to LTL 2,861 Lithuanian litai). In November 2007 Mr Šidlauskas brought an action against   the bailiff and its insurer. He claimed that the sale had been unlawful, given that enforcement of   unpaid debts against homes was not permitted for debts of under LTL 3,000. He claimed LTL 51,000   in damages, corresponding to the market value of the apartment at the time he submitted his claim.   The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in his favour, but only awarded damages of LTL 12,100,   corresponding to the property’s market value at the time of sale rather than the time Mr Šidlauskas   had submitted his claim.   Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Šidlauskas   complained that he had been unlawfully deprived of his apartment, and that the damages awarded   to him had been insufficient for him to acquire a comparable property.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 11,580 (pecuniary damage), EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR   (costs and expenses)   M.S. v. Ukraine (no. 2091/13)   The applicant, Mr M.S., is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Sumy (Ukraine).   The case concerned the investigation into alleged sexual abuse of his daughter and the   determination of her place of residence.   Mr M.S. had a daughter with V. in March 2008 and the two married a short time thereafter. Their   relationship deteriorated and in September 2011 V. moved with their daughter to live in a nearby   village. In December 2011, Mr M.S. found his daughter in a child care centre and took her for a   medical examination which revealed several injuries. The child allegedly reported the injuries had   been caused by her mother, but the police refused to open a criminal investigation into either   alleged abduction or abuse.   In March and April 2012, Mr M.S.’s mother requested that the authorities bring criminal proceedings   against V. because she suspected the child may have been a victim of sexual abuse. During an   interview, the child described having seen V. and V.’s uncle engage in sexual activity on several   occasions. She also described sex acts she had been made to do. The police refused to open criminal   proceedings on three occasions in 2012, but the refusals were quashed by prosecutors. A full-scale   investigation into sexual abuse was launched in May 2013. After numerous delays the investigation   was still ongoing as of January 2016.   In the meantime, in June 2012 the District Court had dissolved the marriage of Mr M.S. and V. and   ruled that their daughter should live with her mother. This decision was upheld on appeal before   both the Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters.   Relying in essence on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr M.S. complained that   the investigation into the sexual abuse of his daughter had been ineffective. He further complained   under this article that the domestic courts had failed to properly examine all of the relevant   circumstances when determining his daughter’s place of residence during the relevant civil   proceedings.   Violation of Article 8 – on account of the lack of an effective investigation into the alleged sexual   abuse of Mr M.S.’s child   Violation of Article 8 – in respect of the determination of the applicant’s child’s place of residence   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,000 (non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 27 (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)   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