003-6249521-8130619

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 385 (2018)   13.11.2018   Judgments of 13 November 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1:   five Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one   other Chamber judgment in the case of Zhang v. Ukraine (application no. 6970/15);   five 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 below are available only in English.   A.T. v. Estonia (application no. 23183/15)   The applicant, A.T., is an Estonian national who was born in 1977. He is currently serving a life   sentence in prison.   The case concerned his complaint about the security arrangements for medical examinations outside   prison and for a hospital visit he made to his baby daughter.   The applicant has been serving his prison sentence in X Prison since 2008. In November 2010 and   October 2011 he was taken to hospital for medical examinations. After a risk assessment, the prison   authorities decided that he had to wear handcuffs and ankle cuffs. He stated that prison officers   remained in the examination room with him, that they could overhear his conversation with medical   staff and that he had not been allowed to wear his own clothes.   He was also taken to visit his seriously ill newborn daughter in hospital in January 2012, which   included the same security measures. He states that he was prevented from touching his child and   the officers remained with him all the time, being able to overhear his conversation with his   daughter’s doctors.   The applicant complained about the security arrangements for the visits but in January 2013 the   Tartu Administrative Court dismissed his complaint in full. His appeal was rejected.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right   to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicant complained about the security arrangements which had been put in   place for his hospital visits. He also complained about certain aspects of the visit to his daughter,   under in particular Article 8.   No violation of Article 3 – concerning the security measures during A.T.’s visits to hospital   No violation of Article 8 – concerning the security measures during A.T.’s visits to hospital   Violation of Article 8 - concerning A.T.’s visit to see his daughter in hospital   Just satisfaction: 1,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage)   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   A.T. v. Estonia (no. 2) (no. 70465/14)   The applicant is the same as in A.T. v. Estonia (application no. 23183/15).   In February 2012 he attacked another prisoner, stabbing him several times with a scissor blade. The   prison authorities decided the same month to impose additional security measures, placing him in   isolation, restricting his freedom of movement and communication within the prison, banning him   from the sports facilities and handcuffing him whenever he was outside his cell.   The security measures were prolonged in August 2012 and February 2013.   The applicant complained about the extension decisions but the Tartu Administrative Court   dismissed his actions in January and October 2013 respectively, largely agreeing with the prison   authorities’ risk assessments. The Tartu Court of Appeal reversed part of the first-instance judgment   relating to the first four days of the second extension of the measures for failure by the prison   authorities to review them within the required six months, but upheld the rest of the judgment. The   Supreme Court refused in June 2014 to examine an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained   about the additional security measures that had been imposed on him.   No violation of Article 3   Litschauer v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 25092/15)   The applicant, Martin Litschauer, is an Austrian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Chișinău.   The case concerned the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention.   Mr Litschauer was the owner of a company which ran an erotic video-chat business in Chișinău. It   employed young female models who provided erotic shows via webcams to customers outside   Moldova in exchange for payment.   In March 2015 the applicant was arrested and accused of pimping (proxenetism). On 7 March 2015   the District Court ordered that Mr Litschauer be remanded in custody for 30 days. He appealed and   argued that the order had not been based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an   offence. He submitted that he could not be accused of pimping as the models he employed had not   been engaged in prostitution. His appeal was rejected. Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was   prolonged for another 30 days, and an appeal against the second order was again unsuccessful.   On 30 December 2016 the District Court found the applicant guilty of the charges but ordered that   the criminal proceedings against him be terminated on the basis of an amnesty law. One of the   conditions for applying the amnesty law was for the applicant to admit his guilt. Mr Litschauer did   not appeal against this decision. In deciding the case, the court had sought an opinion from the State   Agency for the Protection of Morality as to whether the female models’ acts could be classified as   prostitution and, thus, whether Mr Litschauer’s activity could be described as pimping.   The opinion, issued on 21 October 2015 and which was the key element in convicting the applicant,   stated that what the models did could be considered as acts of prostitution. Hence, the fact that the   applicant obtained revenue from that activity could qualify as pimping.   Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Litschauer complained that his   detention between 3 March and 27 April 2015 had not been lawful and/or based on a reasonable   suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence, or based on relevant and sufficient reasons. He   maintained in particular that he had been held in custody for an offence which had not been clearly   defined under domestic criminal law.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 8,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,000 (costs and expenses)   Revision   Cacuci and S.C. Virra & Cont Pad S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 27153/07)   The first applicant, Floare Cacuci, was born on 2 March 1939 and lived in Oradea. She was the owner   and general manager of the second applicant, S.C. Virra & Cont Pad SRL, a single-member company.   The case concerned a police search of Ms Cacuci’s home and S.C. Virra’s business premises.   Ms Cacuci was an accounting expert who wrote forensic accounting reports for criminal cases. She   was placed under investigation in October 2005 on the suspicion that she had committed intellectual   forgery while producing one of her reports in order to help a defendant avoid investigation. The   Oradea District Court issued a warrant for the search of her home.   According to Ms Cacuci, a police officer stopped her just after she had left the house and searched   her bag and seized some personal documents. Officers then searched her home and her business   premises, which were controlled by S.C. Virra. The authorities seized computer equipment, and   paper and electronic records. She lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office about the search   and seizure, in addition to two sets of civil proceedings about the incident. All of her complaints and   claims were dismissed. Ms Cacuci was eventually acquitted of all the charges made against her.   In a judgment of 17 January 2017 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to   private life) on account of the search performed on Ms Cacuci’s bag, which had included the seizure   of an orange notebook, and that the respondent Government was to pay the applicant 4,500 euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses.   On 14 June 2017 the Government informed the Court that Ms Cacuci had died on 28 December   2016. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment of 17 January 2017, which they had been   unable to execute because Ms Cacuci had died before the judgment had been adopted.   In its judgment today the Court decided to revise its judgment of 17 January 2017 and to strike the   case out of its list of cases.   Arzhiyeva and Tsadayev v. Russia (nos. 66590/10 and 3773/11)   The applicants, Patimat Arzhiyeva and Akhmed Tsadayev, are Russian nationals who were born in   and 1984 and live in Strasbourg (France) and Grozny, Chechnya, (Russia) respectively.   The case concerned the applicants’ failed legal efforts to obtain compensation for property   destroyed during the hostilities in Chechnya.   The first applicant’s flat was damaged in 1994-1995 and then destroyed in 1999-2000. She lodged an   application for compensation in March 2005. The commission in charge of compensation informed   her in June 2010 that the process could not move forward as her building had not been registered in   a list of destroyed buildings. However, the technical unit responsible for drawing up that register had   been suspended in August 2005.   She challenged the commission’s decision, but the domestic courts rejected her case, finding that   the commission could not act because of the suspension of the unit’s work. She brought a claim   directly against the Government of Chechnya, which was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court   of Chechnya in May 2013.   The building where the second applicant’s flat was located was destroyed in 1999-2000. His   application for compensation was also not examined by the commission because of the suspension   of the technical unit’s work. He went to court, but his complaint about the commission was   dismissed by the Supreme Court of Chechnya in August 2010.   The applicants both complained, in particular, of an interference with their right to the peaceful   enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the   Convention.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 4,600 each to Patimat Arzhiyeva and Akhmed Tsadayev for pecuniary damage,   and EUR 5,000 each 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.   4