003-6084238-7837632

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 175 (2018)   15.05.2018   Judgments of 15 May 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 22 judgments1:   nine Chamber judgments are summarised below;   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can be   consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Unifaun   Theatre   Productions   Limited   and   Others   v.   Malta   (application no. 37326/13)   The applicants are Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited, a limited liability company, and four   Maltese nationals, Adrian Buckle, Christopher Gatt, Maria Pia Zammit and Mikhail Acopovich   Basmadjian who were born in 1971, 1960, 1968, and 1972 respectively.   The case concerned a complaint by the applicants about the authorities’ decision to ban the play   “Stitching”, written by the Scottish playwright Anthony Neilson.   In December 2008 the first applicant applied to the Board for Film and Stage Classification for a   rating certificate ahead of a planned staging of the play, which deals with a troubled relationship   between a man and a woman. However, the Board banned the play. The reasons for the decision   included the play being blasphemous, showing contempt for the victims of the Auschwitz death   camp, portraying dangerous sexual perversions and referring to the sexual assault of children.   The domestic courts rejected constitutional appeals under Article 10 and Article 6 of the Convention   in June 2010 and November 2012. In particular, the Constitutional Court found that any genuine aim   the play had in portraying relationships was submerged under the instances of blasphemy, the   vilification of the dignity of women and children, and the glorification of sexual perversion.   The applicants complained about the ban under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European   Convention on Human Rights.   Violation of Article 10 – in respect of Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited, Mr Gatt, Ms Zammit, and   Mr Acopovich Basmadjian   Just satisfaction: 10,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage), jointly, and EUR 10,000 (costs and   expenses), jointly, to Unifaun Theatre Productions Limited, Mr Gatt, Ms Zammit, and Mr Acopovich   Basmadjian.   Virgil Dan Vasile v. Romania (no. 35517/11)*   The applicant, Virgil Dan Vasile, is a Romanian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Paşcani   (Romania). He alleged that he had been the target of police incitement using an undercover agent.   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   In March 2007 a prosecutor with the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism   (DIICOT) authorised two officers and a collaborator to infiltrate an international drug-trafficking ring.   The individuals in question approached Mr Vasile. A procedure for the discovery of an offence while   being committed was organised and was carried out on 26 March 2007. On the same day a report   was drawn up by the authorities and signed by Mr Vasile. In May 2007 the DIICOT committed the   applicant for trial. The County Court heard evidence from the applicant and his co-accused.   On 23 April 2009 the County Court sentenced Mr Vasile to five years’ imprisonment for drug   trafficking. He appealed unsuccessfully. On 30 November 2010 the High Court of Cassation and   Justice dismissed a further appeal by the applicant as being unfounded. The High Court ruled that   Mr Vasile’s involvement in the drug trafficking had been corroborated by evidence that had been   duly examined by the lower courts and that there was no evidence to support the allegations of   police incitement.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that his conviction had been   the result of police incitement. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to   question witnesses), he alleged that he had been convicted on the sole basis of the statements made   by the undercover agent, whom he had been unable to question or have questioned.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   Agarkova v. Russia (no. 29951/09)   The applicant, Zoya Agarkova, is a Russian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Kaliningrad   (Russia).   The case concerned her son, who was taken to hospital on 17 January 2007 with severe head   trauma, lapsed into a coma and died a few weeks later.   Criminal proceedings were instituted almost a month after he died. The investigating authorities   established that his head injuries had been inflicted by a certain V. during a fight. V. was then   charged with homicide and the case was referred for trial. However, the case has never been   examined on the merits as it was returned to the investigating authorities so they could re-draft the   bill of indictment and, since then, the criminal proceedings have been repeatedly discontinued and   resumed. Most recently, in December 2012, the authorities decided to resume the proceedings and   give a polygraph test to the police officers who took Ms Agarkova’s son to the police station after   the fight. The case has been pending since then.   In the meantime, Ms Agarkova, who was convinced that the police had been involved in her son’s   death, repeatedly challenged the adequacy of the investigation into her son’s death and tried to   have criminal proceedings brought against the officers allegedly involved, without success.   Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Agarkova alleged that the investigation into her   son’s death had been ineffective.   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,780 (costs and expenses)   Lutskevich v. Russia (nos. 6312/13 and 60902/14)   The applicant, Denis Lutskevich, is a Russian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Lobnya,   Moscow Region.   The case concerned his arrest, detention and conviction after taking part in a demonstration in   Moscow on 6 May 2012 on Bolotnaya Square and is one of a series of cases linked to that incident.   Mr Lutskevich stated that he was beaten by the police when the demonstration was dispersed and   that in the early hours of 7 May he was admitted to hospital. He was arrested in June and placed in   pre-trial detention. He was charged with taking part in acts of mass disorder and the use of violence   against a public official, in particular of pulling a policeman’s helmet off his head. Further charges   were later laid against him, including that of throwing pieces of tarmac at the police. He was kept in   detention until his conviction in February 2014, when he was sentenced to three years and six   months in jail.   Mr Lutskevich complained under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) about,   inter alia, the conditions of his detention in his remand prison, in the holding room at Moscow City   Court and during his transfers between the remand prison and court for hearings. In addition, he   complained under this provision about being held in glass cabins and metal cages during his court   hearings.   Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a   reasonable time or to release pending trial), he complained that his pre-trial detention had not been   based on a reasonable suspicion and had not been justified by relevant and sufficient reasons.   He also complained under in particular Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), of   disruptive security measures at the protest and that his prosecution and conviction had been   arbitrary and disproportionate.   No violation of Article 3 – in respect of the conditions of detention in the remand prison   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment) – in respect of the conditions of transfer   to and from court   Violation of Article 3 – on account of Mr Lutskevich’s confinement in a glass cabin in hearing room   no. 338 at the Moscow City Court   No violation of Article 3 – on account of Mr Lutskevich’s confinement in a glass cabin in hearing   room no. 635 at the Moscow City Court   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 11   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Muruzheva v. Russia (no. 62526/15)   The applicant, Leyla Muruzheva, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Moscow.   The case concerned Ms Muruzheva’s attempts to enforce a court order that her children should live   with her rather than her former husband.   Ms Muruzheva separated from her husband in January 2014 and he took their two children, without   her knowledge, to Ingushetiya to live with his parents, himself returning to Moscow. In June 2014   the Izamylovskiy District Court of Moscow granted Ms Muruzheva a residence order in respect of the   two children.   Bailiffs in both Ingushetiya and Moscow were involved in trying to enforce the order for the return   of the children to the applicant, in particular by visiting their place of residence in Ingushetiya,   restricting the husband’s movements, visiting the husband at his apartment in Moscow and by   imposing fines on him for failure to fulfil the court’s residence order. The judgment has remained   unenforced to date.   Ms Muruzheva complained about the failure to fulfil the court order under Article 8 (right to respect   for private and family life).   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs and expenses)   Pankov v. Russia (no. 52550/08)   The applicant, Vladislav Pankov, is a Russian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Perm.   The case concerned an allegation of police brutality. Stopped by the police late at night on 9 April   for an identity check and taken to a police station, Mr Pankov alleges that he was beaten by a   police officer the following morning. He was questioned as a witness in a robbery the same day and   released. On being released he was examined by doctors who reported that he had head injuries. No   criminal proceedings were ever brought into his ensuing complaint to the prosecuting authorities of   ill-treatment because the investigator found that there was nothing to confirm that the injuries had   been inflicted by the police. The investigator’s refusal to initiate criminal proceedings was upheld by   the domestic courts in 2008.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Pankov alleged   that he had been ill-treated in police custody and that no effective investigation into his allegation   had ever been carried out.   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Sergey Ivanov v. Russia (no. 14416/06)   The applicant, Sergey Vladimirovich Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1966. He is   currently serving a 15-and-a-half-year prison sentence in the Nizhniy Novgorod region (Russia)   following his conviction in 2006 of theft and armed robbery.   The case concerned his allegation that he had been repeatedly tortured into confessing to the   crimes which had led to his conviction, by the police and by convicted prisoners acting on police   instructions.   Mr Ivanov was taken into police custody on 8 June 2004 following a search of his flat as a robbery   suspect. He alleges that the police punched and kicked him, and blocked his nose and mouth with a   rag until he lost consciousness, thus forcing him into writing a confession. He was brought before a   judge the next day, and remanded in custody.   He submitted that, during his subsequent detention on remand, the police had taken him away to a   police station and ill-treated him on two further occasions, on 22 and 28 June 2004. A doctor   recorded injuries on 29 June which he concluded had been inflicted on Mr Ivanov the previous day.   A month later he was transferred to a correctional colony where he alleges that he was repeatedly   visited and beaten by the police and fellow prisoners. At some point while in the colony he again   signed a confession, which he reiterated in November 2004 during his questioning as an accused.   His complaints that he had only confessed under duress never led to a prosecution as the   investigating authorities, essentially relying on the police officers’ denials of ill-treatment, found that   there was a lack of evidence to prove that a crime had been committed.   When convicting Mr Ivanov, the trial court relied on the investigating authorities’ decisions and   rejected his request that his confessions be declared inadmissible, and his confessions thus formed   part of the evidence against him. It further rejected statements by two witnesses at trial, in   particular Mr Ivanov’s son and a former prisoner, who confirmed that they had seen Mr Ivanov with   bruises and having difficulty walking.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Ivanov   complained that the violence to which he had been subjected in police custody and at the   correctional colony had amounted to torture, and that there had been no effective investigation into   his allegations. Also relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complained that his conviction   had been based on confessions extracted from him by torture.   Violation of Article 3 (torture)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 50,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Sancaklı v. Turkey (no. 1385/07)   The case concerned proceedings brought against a hotel owner for facilitating prostitution.   The applicant, Rıfat Sancaklı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955. He lives in Istanbul (Turkey)   where he owns the Hotel Sancak.   In May 2005 the prosecuting authorities indicted Mr Sancaklı on charges of failing to obey an order   from an official authority on the grounds that he had provided premises for prostitution in his hotel.   Shortly afterwards the domestic court found him guilty as charged. Under new legislation which had   recently entered into force, his offence was found to be a misdemeanour and he was sentenced to   an administrative fine of 100 Turkish lira (62 euros at the time). He objected to this decision, arguing   that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had known about the prostitution. The   domestic court’s decision was however upheld in February 2006.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Sancaklı alleged that the proceedings against him had   been unfair because the domestic court had not held an oral hearing on his case and that, although   the fine had been low, it could seriously affect his reputation given the offence in question.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Vatandaş v. Turkey (no. 37869/08)*   The applicant, Mehmet Uğraş Vatandaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in   Istanbul. The case concerned his allegations of ill-treatment in the course of his arrest.   On 6 April 2002 Mr Vatandaş was arrested by anti-riot police officers during a demonstration in   Istanbul. He was then handed over to police officers from the Beyoğlu district, who were instructed   to take him to the police station. He was released that night. The following day he lodged a criminal   complaint through his lawyer.   On 22 April 2004, on conclusion of the proceedings, the Criminal Court acquitted the police officers   on the grounds that there was no evidence that they had committed the alleged offences, and that   the anti-riot police officers concerned had not been identified. Eventually, on 14 June 2011, the   Court of Cassation closed the case, finding that prosecution of the offences was time-barred.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant   complained of being subjected to ill-treatment – including a fractured elbow – in the course of his   arrest.   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2 000 (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)   Somi Nikol (tel: + 33 3 90 21 64 25)   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.   6