003-6244392-8122803

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 376 (2018)   08.11.2018   Judgments and decisions 8 November 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments1 and 45 decisions2:   four Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for two   other Chamber judgments in the cases of Narodni List d.d. v. Croatia (application no. 2782/12) and   Hôpital Local Saint-Pierre D’Oléron and Others v. France (nos. 18096/12, 53601/12, 23542/13,   32194/13, 39165/13, 39173/13, 39180/13, 39184/13, 49923/13, 57424/13, 58995/13, 59003/13,   68908/13, 68916/13, 68918/13, 76512/13, 76519/13, 76527/13, 76530/13, 5485/14, 23544/14,   30287/14, 46819/14, and 46862/14);   separate press releases have also been issued for two decisions, in the cases of Seražin v. Croatia   (no. 19120/15) and Agamemnon v. France (no. 13483/14);   six Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 43 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Rostomashvili v. Georgia (application no. 13185/07)   The applicant, Paata Rostomashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1973 and lives in the   village of Akhaldaba (Georgia).   The case concerned the applicant’s allegation that he had not had a fair trial when he had been   found guilty of murder.   Mr Rostomashvili was found guilty of aggravated murder in May 2006. His conviction was based to a   great extent on testimony by the victim’s father, who said he had witnessed the killing.   Mr Rostomashvili appealed, arguing that there was no forensic evidence to connect him to the   crime. He also questioned the testimony of the victim’s father, pointing to contradictions between   his statements and those of two other people, who had said that they themselves had told the   father of the murder and that he had not at the time mentioned having witnessed it.   The Supreme Court upheld the first-instance verdict in September 2006. It found that the trial court   had assessed the factual circumstances fully and objectively. It did not address any of   Mr Rostomashvili’s arguments, such as his submission that the trial court had failed to consider his   statement that none of the evidence had implicated him in the crime and that the victim’s father,   who had implicated him, may not have been at the crime scene.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human   Rights, Mr Rostomashvili complained that the domestic courts had failed to give sufficient reasons   for their decision to convict him.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   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 34   Just satisfaction: 3,600 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   Frezadou v. Greece (no. 2683/12)   The applicant, Eleni Frezadou, is a Greek national who was born in 1962 and lives in Palaio Faliro   (Greece). She has been a kindergarten teacher since 1983.   The case concerned her complaint about an appointment procedure for educational coordinators   abroad in which she had been a candidate.   In 2007 Ms Frezadou applied for the post of educational coordinator abroad. She was not selected   and in 2008 challenged the relevant ministerial decisions before the administrative courts,   complaining that the ranking of candidates had not been published and about the way in which she   had been graded.   In 2009 and 2010 her lawyer submitted two requests to accelerate the proceedings, arguing that an   educational coordinator’s term of appointment lasted two years and that the contested   administrative act would soon expire.   However, after five adjournments, the courts discontinued the proceedings in 2011 because they   considered that Ms Frezadou did not have any special legal interest in pursuing her application   because the administrative act had expired.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to court), Ms Frezadou alleged that the domestic courts’ failure to   consider her application for annulment had prevented her from having a judgment on the merits of   her case.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 4,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,480 (costs and expenses)   Malliakou and Others v. Greece (no. 78005/11)   The applicants are 11 Greek nationals who were born between 1932 and 1974, and live in Amfissa,   Itea, Nea Smyrni, and Monastira Doridos in Greece.   The case concerned the alleged loss of property rights to land where they had had a quarry.   The applicants or their predecessors obtained shares of a plot of land either by purchase in 1980 and   or inheritance in the late 1990s. Previously, under a ministerial decision of 1976, the area   where the land was situated had been classified as being of archaeological interest as it had   Mycenaean-era ruins.   The authorities in 1981 allowed a quarry on the land under certain conditions. In March 1991, the   authorities classified the area in question as a “zone A region”, where any alteration of the ground or   any construction was banned. The applicants alleged that their licence for the quarry, which   operated until 1993, had been revoked owing to the classification of most of their land as a   protected area.   The applicants began court proceedings for compensation for the restrictions placed on their land.   However, the first-instance court held in 2002, among other things, that the primary purpose of the   land was agricultural and that operating a quarry there had only been allowed under exceptional   circumstances. The authorities had not put any restrictions on the use of the land for agricultural   purposes and so their claim for compensation had to be rejected.   All the applicants apart from the seventh appealed, but the appeal court upheld the first-instance   decision. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law in March 2011.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants alleged that the   revocation of their licence to exploit the quarry and the classification of most of their land as a   protected area had violated their property rights. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a   reasonable time), they complained about the length of the proceedings in their case and argued with   reference to Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that there had been no effective remedy at the   time for a length of proceedings complaint.   Application declared inadmissible in respect of one of the applicants, Panagiotis Karageorgos   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in respect of all the other applicants   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in respect of all the other applicants   Violation of Article 13 – in respect of all the other applicants   Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) each and EUR 350 (costs and expenses) jointly   to all the applicants, except Panagiotis Karageorgos   Wcisło and Others v. Poland (nos. 49725/11 and 79950/13)   The applicant in the first case is Krzysztof Wcisło, while the applicants in the second application are   Elżbieta Cabaj, and Jerzy Cabaj. They are all Polish nationals and they were born in 1963, 1954, and   respectively. They live in Świątniki Górne (Krzysztof Wcisło) and Garwolin (the Cabajs).   The cases concerned lengthy administrative proceedings.   In June 2000 Mr Wcisło complained to the local district construction inspector about the addition of   a floor and new roof on a building next to one he owned in Cracow as the work was partly supported   by a wall in Mr Wcisło’s building. The district construction inspector began proceedings against the   neighbours the following month.   The case subsequently moved between the district inspector, the regional inspector, the mayor’s   office and the administrative courts. Orders have been issued to have the neighbours suspend work   or carry out work to make the renovation comply with the building permit. They have also been   asked to submit technical plans. The proceedings are still ongoing.   From May 2003 Mr Wcisło also complained about the length of the proceedings. Several new time-   limits were set within the proceedings, the most recent being in June 2015 for a decision to have   been made by August 2015.   The case of Mr and Mrs Cabaj began in 1996 when the Garwolin District Office decided to approve   the division of some land, which led to the expropriation of property belonging to them. They sought   compensation in proceedings which have involved the local city office, the mayor’s office, the   Mazowiecki governor’s office and the administrative courts, and have led to various offers of   compensation. The proceedings are still ongoing before the Supreme Administrative Court.   Mr and Mrs Cabaj also pursued length-of-proceedings complaints. In January 2017 the Supreme   Administrative Court dismissed a complaint by them related to delays in an earlier cassation appeal.   Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair   hearing within a reasonable time), all the applicants complained that the domestic remedies for   protracted administrative proceedings had been ineffective in their cases.   They also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the   length of the proceedings themselves. They alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of   property) that the excessive length of the proceedings had violated their property rights.   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – in respect of Mr and Ms Cabaj   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   of the Convention in so far as pecuniary damage resulting from the violation found in the present   case in respect of Mr and Ms Cabaj was not ready for decision and reserved it for decision at a later   date. It further awarded EUR 13,000 to Mr Wcisło and EUR 10,400 to Mr and Ms Cabaj in respect of   non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 2,000 to Mr Wcisło and EUR 2,958 to Mr and Ms Cabaj in respect of   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.   4