003-5846217-7448269

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 280 (2017) 19.09.2017 Judgments of 19 September 2017 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing four judgments1: three Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one other Chamber judgment, in the case of Ranelovi and Others v. Montenegro (application no. 66641/10). The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*). Zolotorev v. Russia (application no. 13408/07)* The applicant, Leonid Leonidovich Zolotorev, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and is imprisoned in Kharp (Russia). The case concerned allegations of ill-treatment. On 4 July 2003, on suspicion of having committed a number of offences, Mr Zolotorev was arrested by the police and taken to the temporary detention centre of the police station of the city of SaintPetersburg (IVS). On his arrival he was examined by an assistant doctor. In the evening of 7 July 2003, according to Mr Zolotorev, two men in uniform took him to an interrogation room where they struck him twice with a truncheon in the stomach to make him confess. On 9 July 2003 Mr Zolotorev was transferred to prison no. IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg, where, in the evening of 20 September 2003, a police officer struck him in the stomach while he was in his cell. On the orders of that officer, he received blows to the body and head from two of the other inmates. He was admitted to the prison hospital on 26 September 2003. On 23 June 2005 Mr Zolotorev was taken to the court of Saint Petersburg to attend a hearing, but he refused as the lawyer of his choosing was not present. The escorting police officers allegedly pressed him against a wall and punched him in the back, also banging his head against the wall. The investigating authorities refused several times to open criminal investigations or order a forensic medical examination in respect of Mr Zolotorev's allegations. Various documents were also lost. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Zolotorev complained that he had sustained ill-treatment and that there had been no effective investigation into these allegations. Violation of Article 3 (investigation) No violation of Article 3 (treatment) � concerning the allegation of ill-treatment on 7 July 2003 Violation of Article 3 (torture) � concerning the treatment sustained on 20 September 2003 Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) � concerning the treatment sustained on 23 June 2005 Just satisfaction: 45,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) 1 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 Binnur Uzun and Others v. Turkey (no. 28678/10)* The four applicants are Turkish nationals, respectively the wife and daughters of Mr Ufuk Uzun. The case concerned the death of Mr Uzun in an accident on an abandoned building site. On 30 March 2002 Mr Uzun fell down the shaft of a lift in a building whose construction had been abandoned. He was taken to hospital but died on arrival. On 8 April 2002 the public prosecutor decided to discontinue the criminal investigation which had been opened automatically. He took the view that no offence had been committed and that no third party was liable. On 31 January 2003 the applicants brought civil proceedings before Sariyer District Court to obtain legal aid in order subsequently to bring a compensation claim against the municipal authority of Sariyer, which they regarded as liable for the death. The court decided to grant them legal aid. On 10 June 2003 the applicants sued the Sariyer municipal authority for damages. On 10 April 2006 the District Court upheld their claim and decided to award them sums for loss of the family breadwinner and non-pecuniary damage. The court found that Mr Uzun bore principal liability for the fall, as he had acted imprudently by entering a building site in the dark and in an inebriated state. It further took the view that the failure by the municipal authority to adopt safety measures on the building site had contributed to the death. The authority appealed on points of law. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on the ground that the administrative court alone was competent to rule on the merits of the case. The applicants applied for damages before the Istanbul Administrative Court, which dismissed the appeal as out of time. The Administrative Court did not examine whether the request for legal aid had interrupted the running of the limitation period. It took the view that the one-year period had begun on the death of Mr Uzun, 30 March 2002, and observed that the period had already expired when the case was brought before the District Court on 10 June 2003. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld that judgment. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants notablty alleged that the lack of safety measures on the building site had led to the death of their husband/father. Violation of Article 2 Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (pecuniary damage) and EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) to the applicants jointly. Cang�z and Others v. Turkey (no. 7469/06) Revision This request for revision of a judgment concerns a case brought by 17 Turkish nationals following the killing on 17 and 18 June 2005 of 17 of their relatives, members of an outlawed organisation in Turkey (the Maoist Communist Party, "the MKP"), during armed clashes with the security forces. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants alleged that their relatives had been deliberately killed by the security forces and that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths. Also relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they alleged that their relatives' naked bodies had been displayed in a carpark at a military base without any thought to the dignity of the deceased or their own feelings. In a judgment of 26 April 2016 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 2 on account of the killing of the applicants' 17 relatives and the failure to carry out an effective investigation. It awarded each applicant 65,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage. On 26 October 2016 the applicants' lawyers informed the Court that five of the applicants had died. They consequently requested the revision of the judgment of 26 April 2016 under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court and the designation of a number of the applicants' heirs as beneficiaries of the award made for non-pecuniary damage. In today's judgment, the Court decided to revise its judgment of 26 April 2016 in so far as it concerned the claims made by the deceased applicants Mustafa Cang�z, Nari Ata, Mehmet Akdeniz, brahim Turgut and Hatice Karaolu under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention. Just satisfaction: The Court held that Turkey was to pay to the applicants' heirs mentioned hereafter the following amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage: EUR 65,000 jointly to Ali Cang�z, Riza Cang�z, Hidir Cang�z, Aliye G�l and Ayten Akyildiz; EUR 65,000 to brahim Ata; EUR 65,000 to Emine Akdeniz; EUR 65,000 to Sultan Turgut; and EUR 65,000 jointly to Nihayet Kilin�, nayet Erdoan, Perihan Kaya, Ayhan G�rocak and Song�l Koyunolu. 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) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) 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