003-6184815-8020534

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 297 (2018)   11.09.2018   Judgments of 11 September 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments1, which   are summarised below.   The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Revision   Mindek v. Croatia (application no. 6169/13)   The case concerned a request for revision of a 2016 judgment by the European Court of Human   Rights with regard to the forced sale of a house in order to pay a debt.   The applicant, Anton Mindek, is a Croatian national who was born in 1932. Between 2003 and 2007   he lost criminal and civil proceedings for defamation following the publication of two articles in a   daily newspaper accusing his neighbour of stealing his house and orchard. He was ordered to pay   damages and costs to his neighbour. He did not pay the sums on time and in 2007 the courts   instituted enforcement proceedings, ordering the seizure and sale of his house. In 2011 the courts   officially awarded the property to the neighbour. In the meantime, Mr Mindek had paid the debt in   full. However, the courts rejected his request to discontinue the enforcement proceedings.   In its judgment of 30 August 2016, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human rights because the   domestic courts had decided to sell Mr Mindek’s share in the house and the surrounding land even   after he had paid his debt in full.   On 10 February 2017 the Government informed the European Court that they had learned that   Mr Mindek and his wife had not been living in the house at issue. They argue that this could have   had a decisive influence on the Court’s original judgment, which had been based on the assumption   that Mr Mindek was facing eviction because of the judicial sale of his share in the house.   The Croatian Government accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of   Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.   In its judgment today the Court decided to dismiss the Government’s request for revision.   B. Tagliaferro & Sons Limited and Coleiro Brothers Limited v. Malta   (nos. 75225/13 and 77311/13)   The applicant companies, B. Tagliaferro & Sons Limited and Coleiro Brothers Limited, are two   companies registered in Malta in 1966.   The case concerned their complaint that their property had been expropriated for public use, but   that 25 years later the project had still not been carried out and they had never received   compensation for the property.   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 1993 the Government expropriated three properties owned by the applicant companies in   Valletta with a view to using them as government offices, in particular the Office of the Attorney   General. The project was delayed because the premises were occupied by squatters and in the   meantime the relevant building permits expired. In 2007 the premises were vacated and the   Government took over possession. In 2009 the Government issued another declaration for the   expropriation of the properties. However, the relevant building permits not having been issued,   another building in Valletta has most recently been identified and is being refurbished for use as the   Office of the Attorney General. The applicants’ properties remain designated for public use.   The applicant companies instituted constitutional redress proceedings and ultimately in 2013 the   Constitutional Court awarded them 15,000 euros each for non-pecuniary damage for a violation of   their property rights under the European Convention. They were told that if they wanted to seek   material damage, they had to bring separate proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the   applicant companies complained that their property had been expropriated without the public   interest requirement ever having been satisfied and that they had still not been paid compensation   for the properties. Further relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they also alleged that the compensation they had been awarded by the   Constitutional Court had been inadequate and that constitutional redress proceedings had not been   an effective remedy for the protection of their property rights.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 100,000 each to B. Tagliaferro & Sons Limited and Coleiro Brothers Limited in   respect of pecuniary damage, and EUR 10,000 to B. Tagliaferro & Sons Limited and EUR 4,500 to   Coleiro Brothers Limited in respect of costs and expenses.   Kasat v. Turkey (no. 61541/09)*   The applicant, Adem Kasat, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Mersin. The case   concerned his complaint about conditions of military life and an alleged lack of impartiality on the   part of the Military Administrative High Court, which had dismissed his compensation claim.   In October 2003 Mr Kasat underwent the requisite routine medical examination and was declared fit   for military service. In November 2003 he joined the military training unit of mountain commandos   at Isparta and was later assigned to the commando brigade of Kayseri.   While he was serving in the army he complained of back pain. The doctors diagnosed scoliosis and   low back pain. Mr Kasat was sent to hospital for medical treatment and was then put on sick leave.   After undergoing an operation, he was ultimately exempted from military service.   In November 2006 Mr Kasat applied to the Defence Ministry for compensation in respect of   pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, but he received no reply. Mr Kasat then lodged his claim with   the Military Administrative High Court, which appointed a committee of experts.   In January 2009, on the basis of the reports, the High Court found that there was nothing in the file   to suggest that Mr Kasat’s condition had been related to his military service. It concluded that there   had been no negligence or fault attributable to the administration as regards the diagnosis and   medical treatment and thus dismissed the compensation claim. In April 2009 it also dismissed   Mr Kasat’s application to rectify the judgment.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complained of a violation of his right to respect for   his physical integrity. He argued that the conditions in which he had carried out his military service   had contributed to the worsening of his back pain. The Court examined these complaints under   Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of   the Convention.   No violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   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.   3