003-6354883-8319432

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 093 (2019)   14.03.2019   Judgments and decisions of 14 March 2019   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing six judgments1 and 17 decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one   other Chamber judgment in the case of Kangers v. Latvia (application no. 35726/10);   a separate press release has also been issued for one decision, in the case of Campion v. France   (no. 35255/17);   two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 16 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 (*).   Quilichini v. France (application no. 38299/15)*   The applicant, Séverine Quilichini, is a French national who was born in 1964 and lives in Paris. Born   out of wedlock, her paternity was acknowledged by G.Q. in 1972. The case concerned the division of   property between the two legitimate children of G.Q. and Ms Quilichini, who submitted that she was   the victim of discrimination on grounds of birth in respect of the succession.   Following the death of G.Q. the division of the estate was given effect by a notary in a record of   1992. The entitlements of the legitimate children were fixed at 5/12ths each and those of   Ms Quilichini at 2/12ths pursuant to the former Article 760 of the Civil Code. The notarial record   stipulated that the entitlements were final, regardless of any future changes to the legislation. In   spite of the additional bequest of a flat in Marseilles, the share of the estate inherited by   Ms Quilichini remained less than that received by her siblings. France changed its legislation in 2001,   abolishing discrimination against children born out of wedlock in matters of succession.   A notarial record of 2005 provided for the division of a plot of land in Corsica which had belonged to   Ms Quilichini’s paternal grandfather. The heirs included Ms Quilichini, her half-brother and her   half-sister, representing their deceased father. The entitlements of the heirs were again established   in accordance with the former Article 760 of the Civil Code, such that the applicant was to receive   one half of the share that she would have received as a legitimate child. The tribunal de grande   instance upheld Ms Quilichini’s claim in 2011 for the amendment of the record. That judgment was,   however, overturned by the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the record of 1992 had settled the   succession with final effect, including in respect of the property covered by the 2005 record. An   appeal on points of law was dismissed in 2015.   Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in   conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant   argued that she had been treated differently from the other heirs in a disproportionate manner, as   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.   regards the division of property in 2005, after the change in the French law enshrining the principle   of equality between all children for inheritance purposes.   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: 11,434 euros (EUR) (pecuniary damage), EUR 3,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and   EUR 34,500 (costs and expenses)   Kobiashvili v. Georgia (no. 36416/06)   The applicant, Archil Kobiashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Tbilisi.   The case concerned his complaint about his conviction for drugs offences.   Mr Kobiashvili was convicted in 2005 of buying and possessing heroin and sentenced to six years’   imprisonment.   A police report on a search of his person, statements by the two police officers who conducted the   search and by two attesting witnesses who allegedly attended it laid the basis for his conviction.   However, he stated throughout the proceedings against him that he had not been searched, either   before or after his arrest, and that the substance allegedly found on him had to have been planted   by the police.   An appeal on points of law was rejected as inadmissible in 2006.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Kobiashvili complained that his   conviction had been unfair because it had been based on planted evidence. He also alleged that he   had not been given an effective opportunity to challenge the search or the use of the evidence thus   obtained in the proceedings against him.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 3,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Arnaboldi v. Italy (no. 43422/07)*   The applicant, Franco Arnaboldi, is an Italian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Cecina   (Italy). He was the owner of a plot of land on which he had built his primary residence and a   warehouse.   The case concerned the expropriation of Mr Arnaboldi’s land for the construction of a road, and in   particular his failure to obtain the compensation awarded to him by the Florence Court of Appeal.   In 2007 that court found that Mr Arnaboldi’s land had been unlawfully expropriated and ordered the   real estate company Padana Appalti S.p.A. – which had been asked to act on behalf of the national   bridges and highways corporation (ANAS) – to pay him a total of 653,821.54 euros (EUR).   In 2008 Mr Arnaboldi filed his claim for payment with the liquidators of Padana Appalti S.p.A, which   had gone into “extraordinary administration” in 2004. The liquidators explained that the company’s   assets were made up of a building worth about EUR 169,000 and that the preferential claims already   registered amounted in total to EUR 278,000.   In 2010 and 2011 Mr Arnaboldi lodged applications with the Livorno Civil Court and the Tuscany   Regional Administrative Court, stating that he was unable to obtain payment and seeking the return   of his land and/or compensation from the authorities. Those claims were dismissed and he had to   pay costs.   In 2015 the extraordinary administration procedure concerning Padana Appalti S.p.A was concluded   by the distribution of its remaining assets (EUR 54,341.82) between some of the preferential   creditors. In the meantime, an expert commissioned by the Livorno District Court, having failed to   obtain the payment of his fees (EUR 11,928.44) from the company, brought enforcement   proceedings against Mr Arnaboldi, who was liable for the costs. In the context of those enforcement   proceedings his primary residence was sold by auction in 2018.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property), Mr Arnaboldi complained that he had been unable to obtain payment of   the compensation awarded to him by the Court of Appeal of Florence and that he had been deprived   of his property.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: EUR 880,000 (pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 8,000 (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.   3