003-6219982-8079292

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 334 (2018)   11.10.2018   Judgments and decisions of 11 October 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing four judgments1 and 23 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for two   other Chamber judgments in the cases of Osmanyan and Amiraghyan v. Armenia (application   no. 71306/11) and S.V. v. Italy (no. 55216/08);   a separate press release has also been issued for one decision, in the case of Mazziotti v. France   (no. 65089/13);   the remaining 22 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Tuskia and Others v. Georgia (application no. 14237/07)   The case concerned a protest by professors at their university which had been broken up by the   police.   The applicants, Vakhtang Tuskia, Jemal Mebonia, Maia Natadze, Tengiz Sanadze, Giorgi Gogolashvili,   Medea Sikharulidze, Avtandil Arabuli, Gela Dolidze, and Demur Bakhtadze, are Georgian nationals.   They were born in 1935, 1939, 1929, 1930, 1948, 1955, 1953, 1963, and 1939 respectively.   Over several months in 2006 the applicants, all professors at Tbilisi State University, held meetings   on university premises to protest about ongoing reform. The protests culminated on 3 July 2006 with   the applicants and 400 other protestors calling for the acting rector’s resignation. The applicants   submit that they went to his office but left without resistance when the police intervened.   They were subsequently found liable in administrative proceedings for violating public order at the   university by forcing their way into the acting rector’s office and insulting him. They were given   fines. The domestic courts found in particular that the police’s decision to remove the applicants   from the office was to prevent further disruption and was therefore justified. They relied on   statements by ten eyewitnesses, including the police and university staff. Furthermore, all but two of   the applicants had disobeyed a lawful police order, because it had taken the police about one hour   to negotiate with them to leave the office and to agree to continue their protest in a lecture hall.   Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and   association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants alleged that the police’s   dispersal of their protest on 3 July 2006 and the related administrative proceedings had been   unlawful and disproportionate. They also complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair   trial / right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) that the administrative proceedings   against them had been unfair because the courts’ decisions had been arbitrary and had been taken   without questioning either the acting rector or his deputy.   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.   No violation of Article 11 read in the light of Article 10   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   Parol v. Poland (no. 65379/13)*   The applicant, Albert Parol, is a Polish national who was born in 1978 and is currently in prison in   Warsaw.   The case concerned the application by the domestic courts of the procedural provisions of the   national legislation on lodging appeals.   In July 2011 Mr Parol brought an action in the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court (“the Regional Court”)   against four prisons, seeking compensation on account of his conditions of detention. In June 2012   the Regional Court dismissed his action as being time-barred. In November 2012 the applicant   appealed against that judgment. In a letter of 20 November 2012 the Regional Court requested Mr   Parol to rectify some formal defects in his appeal. It requested him, in particular, to submit a copy of   the appeal and of his memorial rectifying the formal defects. In order to comply, the applicant   requested the Regional Court to send him a copy of his appeal at his own expense. No action was   taken.   In December 2012 Mr Parol submitted a handwritten copy of his appeal to the Regional Court,   together with the other documents requested. At the end of December 2012 the Regional Court   declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible on the grounds that the copy of the appeal submitted   was not identical to the original. In July 2013 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”)   dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of December 2012, noting that appeals   had to be submitted in duplicate so that they could be served on the respondent. In October 2013   the Court of Appeal declared the applicant’s appeal against the decision of July 2013 to be   inadmissible, on the grounds that the decision in question was not open to appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complained of a violation of his right   of access to a court on account of the dismissal of his appeal against the Regional Court judgment of   June 2012 as being inadmissible, following what he regarded as an unduly restrictive application by   the domestic courts of the relevant procedural provisions.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: 3,250 euros (EUR) for 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