003-6106250-7876399

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 199 (2018)   05.06.2018   Judgments of 5 June 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 17 judgments1:   seven Chamber judgments are summarised below;   ten 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 below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Khani Kabbara v. Cyprus (application no. 24459/12)   The applicant, Hani Abdul Khani Kabbara, is a Canadian national who was born in 1984 and lives in   Canada.   The case concerned an allegation of police ill-treatment.   On 27 February 2011, Mr Khani Kabbara was arrested by the police in front of a bank in Limassol. He   was suspected, among other things, of having withdrawn money with a fake credit card from the   bank and was immediately taken to the Limassol central police station. Still on the same day, he was   examined by doctors at Limassol General Hospital who found various injuries.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of   the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Khani Kabbara alleged that he had been ill-treated   by police officers during his detention at the police station and that no effective investigation had   been carried out by the national authorities into his complaint.   Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment and investigation)   Just satisfaction: 25,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs and expenses)   Sultan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 17047/07)*   The applicant, Alexei Sultan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1960 and lives in Holercani (the   Republic of Moldova).   The case concerned the refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to examine his appeal.   Mr Sultan brought a civil action for damages against the Holercani mayor’s office and the local   council, seeking payment of his unpaid salary, together with compensation and reimbursement of   his court costs.   The Dubăsari District Court dismissed the applicant’s action as unfounded. Mr Sultan appealed to   the Chișinău Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal on the same grounds. He lodged a further   appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, which rejected the appeal without examining it and   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   informed Mr Sultan that the Court of Appeal’s decision had become final at the time of its delivery,   in accordance with Article 421 of the Code of Civil Procedure.   Relying in particular on Article 6 (right of access to court) of the European Convention, the applicant   alleged that the refusal of the Supreme Court of Justice to examine his appeal had breached his right   to a court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Artur Ivanov v. Russia (no. 62798/09)   The applicant, Artur Germanovich Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lives in   Novocheboksarsk (Russia).   The case concerned Mr Ivanov’s complaint that he had not been awarded enough compensation in   domestic proceedings for a breach of his rights under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment).   The domestic courts established that a police officer had punched Mr Ivanov on the ear while he was   in custody in April 2007, causing bleeding and rupturing the eardrum.   He was ultimately awarded 20,000 Russian roubles (about 440 euros) in compensation in April 2009,   a decision that was upheld in May 2009 after an appeal against the amount by Mr Ivanov. The   appeal court explicitly rejected his argument that such compensation should be determined by   amounts awarded by the European Court of Human Rights in similar situations.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complained that he   remained a victim of a violation of his Convention rights because the amount of compensation had   been too low and had not provided him with proper redress. He also raised a complaint under   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 3.   Violation of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment)   No violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 11,000 (non-pecuniary damage)   Štvrtecký v. Slovakia (no. 55844/12)   The applicant, Miroslav Štvrtecký, is a Slovak national who was born in 1968 and lives in Senica   (Slovakia).   The case concerned Mr Štvrtecký’s complaint about being held on remand for more than three and a   half years.   He was remanded in custody in October 2006 on charges of extortion committed in cooperation   with others. The charges against him were expanded on several occasions. The authorities justified   his detention by the risk that he may put pressure on witnesses, tamper with evidence or contact   other perpetrators and the risk of reoffending. He was kept in detention throughout the further   proceedings, which included the investigation and the trial itself. He was convicted of establishing,   masterminding and supporting a criminal group, several acts of extortion, aggravated coercion and   fraud and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment in June 2010.   Mr Štvrtecký complained, in particular, of excessive length of detention under Article 5 § 3 (right to   liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).   No violation of Article 5 § 3   Amerkhanov v. Turkey (no. 16026/12)   Batyrkhairov v. Turkey (no. 69929/12)   The cases essentially concerned the deportation of two asylum-seekers to Kazakhstan.   The applicant in the first case, Samat Amerkhanov, is a Kazakhstani national who was born in 1989   and is currently detained in Atyrau, Kazakhstan. He arrived in Turkey in May 2011. Shortly   afterwards he was detained with a view to his deportation because he was considered a national   security risk. He was transferred to the Foreigners’ Removal Centre in Kumkapı in June 2011. While   there, he claimed asylum, and was released in September 2011 pending the outcome of his claim.   His asylum claim was however rejected in March 2012 and he was deported to Kazakhstan. After his   deportation, he brought proceedings before the administrative courts challenging the rejection of   his asylum application and the decision to deport him, without success.   The applicant in the second case, Arman Batyrkhairov, is a Kazakhstani national who was born in   and is also detained in Atyrau. He arrived in Turkey in June 2011. The Kazakh authorities   subsequently requested his extradition on terrorism-related charges and he was arrested in January   while trying to leave the country. A month later the domestic courts rejected the extradition   request and ordered his release from prison. He was, however, immediately transferred to the   Foreigners’ Removal Centre in Kumkapı where he was held until his deportation in March 2012. He   had in the meantime applied for asylum, but the courts rejected his claim as well as his objection to   this decision.   Throughout the asylum/extradition proceedings both applicants claimed before the domestic   authorities that they feared ill-treatment or even death if sent back to Kazakhstan.   The applicants brought a number of complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of   inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4, and 5 (right to liberty and security) about   their deportation to Kazakhstan and detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre.   In particular, they alleged that they had been unlawfully deported without any assessment of their   asylum claims, despite the risk of them being subjected to torture and other ill-treatment.   As concerns their detention, they alleged that it had been unlawful, that they had not been informed   of the reasons for it, and could not have it reviewed by a court or request compensation under the   domestic law. They further complained that they had been held in poor conditions at the Foreigners’   Removal Centre on account of overcrowding and lack of outdoor exercise.   Lastly, they alleged under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective   remedies to complain about most of allegations.   In the case of Amerkhanov:   Violation of Article 3 - on account of Mr Amerkhanov’s deportation to Kazakhstan on 19 March   2012;   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 2   Violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5   Violation of Article 3 - on account of the conditions of Mr Amerkhanov’s detention at the Kumkapı   Foreigners’ Removal Centre;   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 - on account of the absence of effective   remedies to complain about the conditions of detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,370 (costs and expenses)   In the case of Batyrkhairov:   Violation of Article 3 - on account of Mr Batyrkhairov’s deportation to Kazakhstan on 12 March   2012;   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5   Violation of Article 3 - on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention at the Kumkapı   Foreigners’ Removal Centre;   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 - on account of the absence of effective   remedies to complain about the conditions of detention at the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre;   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,345 (costs and expenses)   Fatih Çakır and Merve Nisa Çakır v. Turkey (no. 54558/11)   The applicants, Fatih Çakır and Merve Nisa Çakır, a father and daughter, are Turkish nationals who   were born in 1979 and 2007 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey).   The case concerned a car accident which had killed their wife and mother.   On 25 October 2008, while Mr Çakır was driving in İzmir with his wife and daughter in the back seat,   he lost control of his car when the road curved into a sharp bend. The car dropped into an empty   concrete canal. Mr Çakır’s wife, Yeşim, died and Ms Çakır was slightly injured.   Mr Çakır brought compensation proceedings against the local authorities, claiming in particular that   a damaged crash barrier, which could have prevented the car from dropping into the canal, had not   been repaired. However, his claims were rejected in 2011. Relying essentially on a traffic accident   report, the administrative courts found that Mr Çakır was responsible for the accident as he had lost   control of the car, despite a warning sign about the sharp bend ahead.   Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complained that the domestic   authorities had failed to take the necessary safety measures on the road, which had led to the death   of their wife and mother. They further alleged that the ensuing judicial proceedings had been   inadequate, and had not established whether the authorities had been responsible for the death as   the courts had based their decisions solely on the traffic accident report. The applicants argued in   particular that a technical expert opinion had been required to be able to ascertain whether   Mr Çakır had lost control of his car as a result of a problem with the road.   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   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.   5