003-6306161-8233346

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 021 (2019)   22.01.2019   Judgments of 22 January 2019   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 13 judgments1:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one   other Chamber judgment in the case of Vazquez and Calleja Delsordo v. Switzerland (application   no. 65048/13);   ten Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   including excessive length of proceedings, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press   release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Móry and Benc v. Slovakia (applications nos. 3912/15 and 7675/15)   The applicants, Marek Móry and Matúš Benc, are Slovak nationals who were born in 1973 and 1980   respectively and live in Horná Kráľová and Nitra respectively (both in Slovakia).   The case concerned their complaint of arbitrary pre-trial detention and insufficient compensation.   In March 2014 the Nitra District Court remanded the applicants in custody pending trial after they   were arrested for insurance fraud. They appealed against the remand decision, arguing that the   District Court had not relied on specific facts. The Regional Court dismissed their appeal, and they   complained to the Constitutional Court, which in September 2014 found a violation of their rights.   It held in particular that even though the ordinary courts had referred to specific facts, they had   failed to explain them in their decisions. It concluded that the applicants’ pre-trial detention had   been based on an arbitrary decision lacking proper and sufficient reasoning and awarded them 1,000   euros each in compensation. The men had meanwhile been released on probation in May 2014.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human   Rights, the applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been arbitrary and that they had   not been given sufficient redress.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction: 4,000 euros (EUR) each to Mr Móry and Mr Benc for non-pecuniary damage.   Taşkaya and Ersoy v. Turkey (no. 72068/10)*   The applicants, Ms Kader Taşkaya and Mr Tahsin Emir Ersoy, are two Turkish nationals, who were   born in 1964 and 1996 and live in Istanbul. The second applicant is the son of the first. At the   material time, Ms Taşkaya was practising as a lawyer. The case concerned a complaint of a breach of   the right to respect for their private life on account of an article published in a daily newspaper and   of the unfairness of the ensuing proceedings.   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   On 5 June 2006 Ms Taşkaya lodged a criminal complaint against the Consul General of Azerbaijan in   Turkey. She alleged that he had threatened and insulted her and had stolen her jewellery. In July   three articles were published in the daily newspaper Hürriyet concerning that complaint. In   August 2006, the public prosecutor, considering that there was insufficient evidence, dropped the   charges. In September 2006 Ms Taşkaya withdrew her appeal against the public prosecutor’s   decision. On 5 September 2006 the Consul General of Azerbaijan was dismissed from his post. In   various newspaper articles, it was alleged that this dismissal was the result of articles and   photographs concerning his alleged relationship with Ms Taşkaya. On 12 September 2006 an article   about Ms Taşkaya under the heading “it’s not just about the Consul” was published by the daily   paper Sabah. The article’s sub-heading was “the lawyer Kader Taşkaya, who caused the dismissal of   the Consul General of Azerbaijan, is also accused, in connection with an investigation for extortion,   of issuing and trying to cash forged cheques”. A rectification drafted by Ms Taşkaya, disputing the   allegations concerning her, was published in the newspaper.   On 10 August 2007 Ms Taşkaya brought proceedings, in her own name and on behalf of her son, for   an award of damages against the author of the article and the newspaper’s editor.   On 17 July 2008 the District Court delivered its judgment, taking the view that the facts reported in   the article seemed to be correct. The court concluded that the article was in the public interest and   that it had not infringed the applicants’ personality rights. The Court of Cassation dismissed an   appeal by Ms Taşkaya on points of law.   Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention, the   applicants alleged that the article had breached their right to the protection of their reputation.   No violation of Article 8   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.   2