003-6491064-8559494

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 300 (2019)   03.09.2019   Judgments of 3 September 2019   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing six judgments1:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   four 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 summarised below are available only in English.   Januškevičienė v. Lithuania (application no. 69717/14)   The applicant, Ms Vida Januškevičienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1955 and lives in   Vilnius.   The case concerned her complaint that court judgments in cases concerning other defendants had   stated that she had committed criminal offences, although she herself had not been tried in those   proceedings.   In 2007 the Vilnius office of the Financial Crime Investigation Service gave official notice to the   applicant that she and other individuals were suspected of various fraud-related crimes as part of an   organised group, including false invoicing.   The investigation was subsequently split and several trials were held. In particular, courts in 2009,   and 2014 convicted other defendants. The courts’ judgments included statements such as the   applicant and others having received falsified invoices and cash and that those on trial had acted in   concert with the applicant and others.   Finalised charges were brought against the applicant in 2014 and the case went to trial. However,   the court discontinued the proceedings as time-barred in 2018.   The applicant complained in particular that she had not been able to appeal against the judgments   against third parties which had affected her right to the presumption of innocence. The Court dealt   with that complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on   Human Rights.   No violation of Article 13   Religious Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Kryvyi Rih’s Ternivsky District   v. Ukraine (no. 21477/10)   The applicant community is the Religious Community of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Kryvyi Rih, Ternivsky   District, Dnipropetrovsk Region.   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   The case concerned the community’s complaint that it had not been able to construct a building for   worship on land it had purchased owing to the domestic authorities’ inactivity.   In 2004 the applicant community purchased a residential building in Kryvyi Rih in order subsequently   to erect a place of worship, a “Kingdom Hall”, on the site. In February 2005 the city’s Architecture   and Planning Council approved the placement of the Kingdom Hall on the land and seven months   later the city’s planning authority submitted a draft decision to approve a land allocation project and   to grant the applicant community a lease, but this plan was not adopted at subsequent City Council   meetings.   In February 2007 the applicant community initiated a first set of proceedings against the City   Council, seeking to have its lack of activity declared unlawful. In June 2007 the Regional Court   allowed the claim, but in August 2007 a draft decision on the applicant community’s project failed to   get enough votes to be adopted by the City Council.   In January 2008 the community lodged a second claim against the City Council for a declaration that   it had the right to lease the plot of land and for the City Council to be ordered to enter into a lease   agreement. In December 2008 the Regional Court rejected the claim, holding in particular that land   allocation decisions fell within the exclusive competence of councils and that the courts could not   replace the City Council and take the decision in its place. All further appeals by the religious   community were rejected.   Relying in particular on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and Article 1   (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1, the applicant community alleged that the City Council’s   failure to allow it to establish a place of worship had breached its rights.   Violation of Article 9   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 6,000 (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)   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