003-6023599-7729470

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 087 (2018)   06.03.2018   Judgments of 6 March 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments1, which   are summarised below.   The judgments are available only in English.   Royer v. Hungary (application no. 9114/16)   The applicant, Patrick Royer, is a French national who was born in 1969 and lives in Gaillard (France).   The case concerned his complaint about the Hungarian authorities’ refusal to order the return of his   son to France. His son was taken by the mother, a Hungarian national, to Szombathely in Hungary in   January 2014 when he was just a few months old.   Over the next few years a number of parallel proceedings ensued before the French and Hungarian   courts. The French courts found that the child had been taken illegally from France, and, awarding   the parents joint custody, granted the mother contact every other Saturday for two hours. However,   the Hungarian courts ruled out enforcing the French court judgments, concluding that the return of   the child, who was less than two years old, under the circumstances envisaged by the French   judgments, would cause him serious psychological harm. In particular the Hungarian courts pointed   out that it would not be in the child’s best interests to take him away from Hungary, where he was   very well integrated, to an unknown environment in France. Furthermore, given the father’s work   schedule, he would be looked after by his aunt, also unknown to him, whilst allowed very limited   contact with his mother.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, Mr Royer alleged that, by refusing to order the return of his son to France, the   Hungarian courts had confused what was in the child’s best interests and what was in the mother’s.   No violation of Article 8   Chumak v. Ukraine (no. 44529/09)   The applicant, Sergiy Chumak, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Stryzhavka   (Ukraine).   The case concerned the banning and dispersal of a protest outside an official building.   Mr Chumak arranged the protest outside the buildings of the regional authority of Vinnytsia in   September 2006 in the form of a picket for an indefinite period. The action, organised by him on   behalf of a youth association, was aimed at protesting about what the association called the   unhealthy social and economic situation in the region.   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   Vinnytsia city council went to court for an order to end the picket, which had included the setting up   of two small tents by the walls of the regional authority building. The District Court upheld the city   council’s action and ordered the tents to be taken down. It found in particular that protestors had   obstructed the pavement and endangered road users, and that further breaches were possible given   the indefinite nature of the protest. It also banned any further peaceful assemblies by the   Association in the streets and squares of the town. The police later the same day dispersed the   protestors.   The court’s decision was upheld on appeal in November 2006. The appeal court found that a blanket   ban on peaceful assemblies was not allowed under the Constitution and replaced the word   “assembly” with “picket” in its judgment.   Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European   Convention, Mr Chumak complained of an artificial and disproportionate restriction on his right to   freedom of assembly.   Violation of Article 11   Just satisfaction: 4,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Mikhaylova v. Ukraine (no. 10644/08)   The applicant, Olena Mikhaylova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Nova   Kakhovka (Ukraine).   The case concerned her conviction for contempt of court.   Ms Mikhaylova, who is not a lawyer, was involved in litigation with the local municipal utilities   company either as a party or as a representative. On 1 June 2007, at a preliminary hearing in a case   concerning utilities arrears, she challenged the presiding judge’s impartiality and told her, among   other things, that “I know of no case where you have given a lawful decision” and “the law will mean   absolutely nothing to you”.   The presiding judge adjourned the hearing and, within the next hour, an administrative offence   report was drawn up for contempt of court, the case was transmitted to another judge and a hearing   was held. Having examined Ms Mikhaylova and the evidence in the report, the judge found her   guilty as charged and sentenced her to five days’ administrative detention, which she served   immediately.   Ms Mikhaylova made a number of complaints, in particular under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to a   fair trial). She complained, inter alia, that there had been no party for the prosecution at the hearing   on her case, meaning that the judge who had convicted her for contempt of court had to assume   this role, thus undermining her impartiality. She further alleged that she had not been given time to   prepare her defence.   She also complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) that sentencing her to detention had   been excessive and had breached her freedom of expression. Lastly, relying on Article 2 of Protocol   No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), she complained that Ukrainian law had not provided for a   right of appeal in administrative-offence proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) – in that Ms Mikhaylova was not afforded adequate time and   facilities to prepare her defence   Violation of Article 10   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,200 (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)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   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