003-6367670-8340916

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 105 (2019)   26.03.2019   Judgments of 26 March 2019   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments1:   five Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for one   Chamber judgment in the case of Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 14594/07,   14597/07, 14976/07, 14978/07, 15221/07, 16369/07, and 16706/07) – just satisfaction;   a separate press release has also been issued for one Committee judgment in the case of Anoshina v.   Russia (no. 45013/05);   five other 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 in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Haghilo v. Cyprus (application no. 47920/12)   The applicant, Mustafa Haghilo, is an Iranian national who was born in 1973 and is currently living in   Armenia.   The case concerned his detention pending deportation for over 18 months in three Cypriot police   stations.   Mr Haghilo left Iran in March 2011 and entered Cyprus unlawfully. Shortly after, he was arrested at   Larnaca airport when trying to take a flight to London on a forged passport and was placed in   detention.   In April 2011 the Ministry of the Interior informed him of a decision to deport him because he was   an illegal immigrant. From then, he was kept in holding facilities for immigration detainees at three   different police stations. He was released in October 2012 because he had not been deported within   the 18-month time-limit under the relevant European Union directive, as transposed into domestic   law.   He had previously been briefly released after a court hearing by the Supreme Court in December   because it found that his detention had been unlawful as of October 2011, but was   immediately rearrested when leaving the court and detained on the same grounds as the previous   deportation orders against him.   Mr Haghilo challenged the lawfulness of the new detention and deportation orders with the   Supreme Court, but his recourse was dismissed in July 2012. The Supreme Court upheld that   judgment in 2018 on appeal, noting that he had in the meantime left Cyprus for Armenia of his own   free will and no longer had any legitimate interest in pursuing his appeal.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, Mr Haghilo complained that he had been held in inadequate   conditions in facilities which had not been designed for prolonged detention.   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   Also relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he alleged that his detention   from April 2011 to October 2012 had been unlawful and that he had not had an effective remedy at   his disposal to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – concerning the conditions of detention   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction: 30,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,124 for costs and   expenses   Velečka and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 56998/16, 58761/16, 60072/16, and   72001/16)   The applicants, Saulius Velečka, Norbertas Tučkus, Audrius Petkauskas, and Tadas Petrošius, are   Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1971, 1975, 1974, and 1981 respectively. They are currently   serving prison sentences in Marijampolė and Kybartai Correctional Facilities (Lithuania) for their   involvement in organised crime and drugs offences.   The case principally concerned the four applicants’ complaints about their pre-trial detention for   almost five years.   They were arrested in January 2013 on suspicion of possessing and distributing large amounts of   narcotic and psychotropic substances via organised crime.   They were placed in detention on remand, which was extended every two or three months by the   courts because of the risk of the applicants absconding and/or reoffending. The courts based these   decisions on the seriousness of the charges against them, taking into account any prior convictions   or connections abroad and whether they were unemployed. During the pre-trial investigation, which   lasted for almost a year and six months, the courts also relied on the need to carry out additional   investigative actions, which included multiple requests for assistance from abroad to obtain   evidence.   Their case was sent for trial in July 2014. Following 41 hearings involving 13 accused and 85   witnesses and including numerous adjournments or cancellations mainly for procedural reasons, the   applicants were convicted in December 2017 of, in particular, organising or leading a criminal   organisation and various drugs offences. Mr Velečka was sentenced to 14 years and six months’   imprisonment, while the other three applicants were given 13-year sentences.   The proceedings are still pending on appeal.   Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security/entitlement to trial within a   reasonable time or to release pending trial), the applicants complained that the length of their   pre-trial detention had been excessive.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction: EUR 6,600 to each of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage   Valyuzhenich v. Russia (no. 10597/13)   The applicant, Mikhail Valyuzhenich, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and is currently   detained in St Petersburg (Russia).   The case concerned his complaint about his confinement in a metal cage during criminal proceedings   against him.   In March 2012 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan found the applicant guilty of involvement in   large-scale drug dealing. During the trial, which consisted of 16 hearings, Mr Valyuzhenich was   confined in a metal cage in the courtroom. There was no desk inside the cage, which made it   impossible for him to take notes during the hearings. His lawyer could only approach him with the   court’s permission. Any conversations between them had to take place in the presence of the   guards.   The Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic upheld Mr Valyuzhenich’s conviction on appeal. In the   hearing he participated by video-conference. He was placed behind a metal partition in the remand   prison where he was being detained and communicated with the judges via a video-link.   Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Valyuzhenich   complained that his confinement in a metal cage during the criminal proceedings against him had   violated his rights.   Violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – concerning Mr Valyuzhenich’s confinement in a metal   cage during the criminal proceedings   Just satisfaction: EUR 7,500 (non-pecuniary damage)   Revision   Gümrükçüler and Others v. Turkey (no. 9580/03)   The 34 applicants are Turkish nationals who were born between 1922 and 1996 and live in Turkey.   The case concerned the annulment of titles to land belonging to the applicants and the registration   of the land in the name of the State Treasury, without payment of compensation, on the grounds   that the land had previously been part of the public forest estate.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing   within a reasonable time), the applicants complained about being deprived of their plots of land,   classified as forest areas, without compensation. They also complained about the length of the   proceedings.   In its principal judgment of 26 January 2010 the Court held that there had been a violation of   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 6 § 1.   In a judgment on just satisfaction delivered on 7 February 2017 the Court decided to award the   applicants jointly 17,000 euros (EUR) for the non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of the   violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and EUR 2,500 in respect of costs and expenses.   On 23 August 2017, under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the applicants’ representative lodged a   request for revision of the judgment on just satisfaction. He requested that the names of five   applicants who had died, and the heir of one of the applicants who had died previously, be replaced   by the names of their legal heirs.   In its judgment today the Court decided to revise its judgments of 21 November 2017 in so far as it   concerns the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention. For further details, please   see the full text of the judgment.   Revision   Kar v. Turkey (no. 25257/05)*   The applicant, Hasan Kar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Trabzon. He   complained of the annulment of his title to a plot of land and its transfer to the State Treasury   without compensation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In its principal judgment of 29 March 2011 the Court found a violation of that provision.   In its judgment of 21 November 2017 on just satisfaction the Court decided to strike out the part of   the application concerning Mr Kar’s claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. It also   held that Turkey was to pay the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   On 9 April 2018 the representative of the applicant’s heirs informed the Court that the applicant had   died on 22 December 2016. Under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court he requested that the judgment on   just satisfaction be revised and that the applicant’s name be replaced by the names of his heirs.   In its judgment today the Court decided to revise its judgment of 21 November 2017 in so far as it   concerns the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention and held that Turkey was   to pay Mr Kar’s heirs, namely Keziban Kar, Derya Deniz, Mustafa Kar, Birol Kar and Necmettin Kar,   jointly, EUR 5,000 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