003-6257668-8145946

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 398 (2018)   22.11.2018   Judgments and decisions of 22 November 2018   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1 and six decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one   other Chamber judgment in the case of Konstantinopoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 2)   (nos. 29543/15 and 30984/15);   a separate press release has also been issued for one decision, in the case of Wanner v. Germany   (no. 26892/12);   one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the five other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Avagyan v. Armenia (application no. 1837/10)   The applicant, Khosrov Avagyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Yerevan.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he had not been able to examine forensic experts   in court although their evidence had played a key role in his conviction for murder.   The charges arose from the fact that he had inherited an apartment from an elderly lady who had   died in January 2007. The initial autopsy found that the lady and her sister, who died at the same   time, had suffered from hypothermia. In June the ladies’ niece complained that the apartment had   actually been left to her in an earlier will and the authorities began an investigation. They ordered   post-mortem forensic examinations, which found that both sisters had died of phosphorous   poisoning.   Mr Avagyan was charged with fraud and two counts of murder for gain in September 2007 and   placed in detention. At his subsequent trial he asked for the experts who had delivered the   conflicting autopsy reports to be summoned but the courts repeatedly rejected that request. He was   found guilty on two counts of aggravated murder for gain and sentenced to life imprisonment in   October 2008. His appeals were all dismissed.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination   of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Avagyan complained that he had   not been given the opportunity to examine the experts in order to challenge the credibility of their   opinions, which had been decisive in securing his conviction.   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)   Just satisfaction: 900 euros (EUR) for 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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   D.L. v. Germany (no. 18297/13)   The applicant, D.L., is a German national who was born in 1974 and lives in Berlin.   In March 2011 a District Court issued a penal order against D.L., finding him guilty of libel and two   counts of assault against S. and B. and fining him 2,400 euros (EUR). D.L. lodged a timely objection   against that order. In May 2011 the District Court admitted the victim S. as private accessory   prosecutor represented by counsel and granted legal aid to him. It also appointed S.’s lawyer to   represent him in the pursuit of his civil claims in the criminal proceedings. In May 2011 the District   Court convicted D.L. of libel and two counts of assault, sentenced him to a fine of EUR 1,350 and   ordered him to pay EUR 430 in damages to S.   Subsequently, D.L. lodged an appeal on facts and law. In July 2011 the Regional Court informed the   public prosecutor of its intention to appoint defence counsel for D.L. The same day a lawyer gave   notice that he now represented the applicant, stating that representation by defence counsel had   been necessary also in first instance since the private accessory prosecutor S. had been represented   by counsel.   Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial/principle of equality of arms/right   to legal assistance of own choosing) D.L. complained that the District Court had not appointed, of its   own motion, defence counsel for him in the first-instance proceedings.   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)   Jurasz v. Poland (no. 48327/09)*   The applicant, Jan Jurasz, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Węgierska Górka   (Poland).   The case concerned allegations of ill-treatment.   In November 2008 Mr Jurasz was arrested and taken to a sobering-up cell by municipal police   officers following a violent dispute with his wife at home. A few days later he lodged a complaint   against the municipal police officers for abuse of authority and assault, producing medical   certificates in support of his claims.   In September 2015 the police officers were found guilty as charged, given a 12-month suspended   prison sentence and fined. The police officers’ appeals against that decision were dismissed.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Jurasz complained about   his ill-treatment at the hands of the police officers, and about the length and ineffectiveness of the   criminal proceedings.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (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