003-5890111-7512221

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 311 (2017)   19.10.2017   Judgments and decisions of 19 October 2017   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing ten judgments1 and 67 decisions2:   five Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press releases has been issued for one   other Chamber judgment in the case of Fuchsmann v. Germany (application no. 71233/13);   four Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 67 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Lebois v. Bulgaria (application no. 67482/14)   The applicant, Vincent Lebois, is a French national who was born in 1986 and lives in Sofia (Bulgaria).   He spent three months in detention in Bulgaria in 2014 following his arrest for breaking into cars.   The case concerned in particular his complaint about the restrictions on communication with family   and friends during his detention.   Mr Lebois was arrested in Sofia on 24 January 2014 and placed under police detention. He spent the   first day of his detention in a police station before being transferred to a pre-trial detention facility in   Sofia. He was subsequently brought before the Sofia District Court, which decided he should remain   in custody pending trial. On 17 April 2014, Mr Lebois pleaded guilty, upon agreement, and accepted   to serve a sentence of three months’ imprisonment. He was released on 24 April 2014, having spent   six days in Sofia Prison, as the time he had already spent in detention was deducted from the   sentence.   Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the correspondence)   of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Lebois made a number of allegations about   restrictions on access to a telephone and on visits from family or friends. He notably alleged that the   detention facility staff had often not complied with the internal regulations governing detainees’   rights to receive visitors or to purchase/recharge phonecards. As a result, he had been unable to   speak to his mother in France over the telephone for a period of three weeks in March/April 2014;   and, on two separate occasions, his Bulgarian girlfriend and another friend were told that he had   been moved to a different wing and were turned away without seeing him.   Violation of Article 8 – concerning the restrictions of Mr Lebois’ visits and access to a telephone   Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 400 (costs and expenses)   Vanchev v. Bulgaria (no. 60873/09)   The applicant, Georgi Petrov Vanchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in   Sofia. The case concerned his complaint of having been detained for a period in excess of the set   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.   term of his sentence and of having been ordered to pay excessive court fees in tort proceedings he   had brought against the prosecution authorities.   Mr Vanchev is a former police officer. Criminal proceedings were brought against him in 1996, and   he was placed under house arrest from 6 March 1996 until 3 April 1996, when he was remanded in   custody. He was once again placed under house arrest on 1 July 1996 until 30 September 1997. He   was thus deprived of his liberty for more than one year and six months. In its final judgment in   January 1998 the Sofia Military Court convicted him of failing to perform his duties and gave him a   one-year suspended prison sentence. In separate proceedings the Supreme Court of Cassation, on   March 2003, convicted him of fraud and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment. He was   again placed in detention on 1 July 2003 to serve a combined sentence of one year in prison, but was   released on 18 September 2003 by a decision of the competent prosecutor who noted that the   period of pre-trial detention should have been deducted from Mr Vanchev’s sentence.   In 2004 Mr Vanchev brought a tort action against the prosecution authorities, claiming   compensation for his detention having exceeded the set term of imprisonment. In a judgment of   2006, Sofia City Court allowed his claim in part. The court also ordered him to pay court fees   amounting to 1,040 euros (EUR). He was eventually awarded approximately EUR 1,530 damages in a   final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation in 2009.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Vanchev alleged that his detention had   been in excess of the set term of imprisonment. Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair   hearing), he complained that the court fees he had to pay had reduced significantly the   compensation he had been awarded.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,500 (costs and expenses)   Verlagsgruppe Droemer Knaur GmbH & Co. KG v. Germany (no. 35030/13)   The applicant company, Verlagsgruppe Droemer Knaur GmbH & Co. KG, is a prominent German   book-publishing house based in Munich. The case concerned proceedings in which it had been   ordered to pay damages to a person who was presented in a book the company had published as a   member of the mafia.   The book, entitled “Mafia” and written by the well-known author Petra Reski, was published in   September 2008. It was reprinted in several editions and also published in Italy. Its subject were the   Mafia’s ties to Germany and its inner structures. On two pages, the book referred to an Italian   national residing in Germany (S.P.) by his full name. It stated, in particular, that S.P. was a presumed   member of the ‘Ndrangheta and that he had allegedly been involved in a murder.   Following the publication of the book, S.P. brought court proceedings seeking an injunction against   the dissemination of those passages. In November 2008, the Munich Regional Court issued the   injunction. It held in particular that, while there was a public interest in reporting about organised   crime, the author had acted in breach of her journalistic duties. She had relied on internal reports of   the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation, as regards S.P.’s presumed membership of the   ‘Ndrangheta, which constituted an insufficient source for her allegations, since the reports were not   intended for publication and she had exaggerated the degree of suspicion described in these   reports. The investigating authorities themselves had not come to the conclusion that there was   sufficient evidence of an offence having been committed by S.P. The company’s appeal was   dismissed in April 2009.   In the main proceedings, the Court of Appeal eventually ordered the company to pay damages in the   amount of 10,000 euros. It reasoned that the injunction was not sufficient redress for S.P., as it was   not an adequate means of reaching the readers of a book that had already been published. A further   appeal by the company was dismissed and, in November 2013, the Federal Constitutional Court   refused to admit its constitutional complaint.   The company complained that the judgment ordering it to pay damages was in breach of its rights   under Article 10 (freedom of expression).   No violation of Article 10   Tsalkitzis v. Greece (no. 2) (no. 72624/10)   The applicant, Vassilis Tsalkitzis, is a Greek national who was born in 1945 and lives in Afidnes Attikis   (Greece). The case concerned his conviction for making false accusations, perjury and slander against   an MP, whereas complaints he had made against the same MP had never been heard owing to the   latter’s immunity.   In 2001 Mr Tsalkitzis launched a criminal complaint against the MP for breach of duty and extortion   when he had been mayor of Kifissia Municipality. The MP was never prosecuted following this   criminal complaint because Parliament refused to lift his immunity. In a judgment of 2006 the   European Court of Human Rights found that this refusal to lift the MP’s immunity for acts which had   been committed prior to his election had violated Mr Tsalkitzis’ right of access to a court under   Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention. To date, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of   Europe has not yet concluded the supervision of the execution of this judgment (Article 46 § 2 of the   Convention).   In the meantime, in 2004, the MP lodged a criminal complaint against Mr Tsalkitzis for false   accusation, perjury and slander and criminal proceedings were initiated. He was convicted in   absentia by the Athens Court of First Instance and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment and   deprivation of his political rights. Mr Tsalkitzis appealed this judgment before the Athens Court of   Appeal, submitting that his trial for slander should have been suspended until the end of the criminal   proceedings he had initiated against the MP. However, at a hearing in 2009 the Court of Appeal   dismissed this appeal finding that no criminal prosecution had actually ever been initiated against   the MP and therefore there were no pending criminal proceedings which could justify suspending   the proceedings against Mr Tsalkitzis. The Court of Appeal went on to examine a number of   witnesses (five for the prosecution and one for the defence; Mr Tsalkitzis himself did not testify) and   upheld the verdict at first instance. Mr Tsalkitzis’ appeal on points of law was also dismissed in May   2010. He spent eight days in prison before his sentence was commuted to community service and   was released; he eventually paid a fine in lieu of serving his sentence.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Tsalkitzis complained that the criminal proceedings   brought against him for making false accusations, perjury and slander had been unfair. In particular,   he alleged that the refusal by the domestic courts to suspend or adjourn the criminal proceedings   brought against him until the end of the proceedings he had initiated against the MP had been   excessively formalistic, especially in view of the European Court’s judgment of 2006.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Nawrot v. Poland (no. 77850/12)   The applicant, Krzysztof Nawrot, is a Polish national who was born in 1981 and is currently serving a   10-year sentence of imprisonment in Nysa Prison (Poland) following his conviction in 2001 for   robbery. His prison sentence was interrupted between 2008 and 2014 when he was placed in a   psychiatric hospital in a second set of criminal proceedings brought against him for murder. The case   concerned his complaint about his detention in the psychiatric hospital.   In the second set of criminal proceedings, in August 2005, he was notably charged with murdering   an Italian citizen by repeatedly hitting him on the head. A psychological assessment, ordered to   determine his criminal responsibility, found in July 2006 that he was suffering from a chronic   psychotic disorder of a delusional type, related to lesions in his central nervous system, and a   personality disorder. The report found that he would not have been aware of his actions in relation   to the offence or be able to control them. The court discontinued the proceedings against him on   grounds of insanity and recommended that he be placed in a psychiatric hospital, where he was sent   in May 2008.   Reviews of his condition confirmed that he should remain in a psychiatric institution on the ground   that he was a danger to society. However, a report drawn up in June 2012 by a different team of   psychiatrists in connection with a third set of criminal proceedings, also related to events in 2005,   found that he did not have any lesions in his central nervous system and was not suffering from a   mental illness at the time of those offences. They diagnosed him with a dissocial personality disorder   and stated that he had had full mental capacity at the time.   Starting from July 2012, Mr Nawrot challenged his confinement in psychiatric hospitals and applied   to be released. He attempted to commit suicide twice in 2013 and in May of that year he told the   court that he had been simulating mental illness. The courts examined his submissions and   divergences in opinions from two sets of experts, but held that his detention was justified by his   condition.   Amid differing expert opinions on his mental state, he continued to be held in psychiatric hospitals   until May 2014, when the security measure was lifted and he was transferred to a prison to serve   the remainder of the sentence imposed in 2001. In July 2015 in the third set of criminal proceedings   Mr Nawrot was found guilty of several counts of robbery committed in 2005 and given a three-year   prison sentence, suspended for seven years. The court found he had had full mental capacity at the   time of the events. In those same proceedings another person was charged and convicted of   murdering the Italian citizen.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Nawrot complained that his detention in a   psychiatric hospital had been unlawful and that he had not been able to effectively challenge the   lawfulness of his continued detention.   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (lawfulness of detention)   No-violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court)   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 550 (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)   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.   5