003-6523874-8615989

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 330 (2019)   03.10.2019   Judgments and decisions of 3 October 2019   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 13 judgments1 and 75 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for four   other Chamber judgments in the cases of Nikolyan v. Armenia (application no. 74438/14), Pastörs   v. Germany (no. 55225/14), Fountas v. Greece (no. 50283/13), and Kaak and Others v. Greece   (no. 34215/16);   seven Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   and the 75 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Fleischner v. Germany (application no. 61985/12)   Fleischner v. Germany (application no. 61985/12)   The applicant, Gerhard Fleischner, is a German national who was born in 1942 and lives in Schliersee   (Germany).   The case concerned his civil liability being established in a kidnapping case, despite the earlier   discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against him.   The applicant and four co-accused, including his wife, were indicted on kidnapping charges. The   other defendants were convicted but the charges against the applicant were discontinued as he was   found unfit to plead in August 2011.   Subsequently, the kidnapping victim’s civil proceedings against the applicant and the other accused   were successful. In December 2011 the civil court relied on findings of fact set out in the judgment   delivered by a criminal court namely, that the applicant and the other accused had fulfilled certain   constituent elements (Tatbestand) of the crime of kidnapping. The civil court was thereby able to   establish the applicant’s civil liability despite the criminal proceedings against him being   discontinued.   In April 2012 the Regional Court unanimously rejected the applicant’s appeal without an oral   hearing. The Federal Constitutional Court dismissed a final complaint lodged by the applicant.   Relying in substance on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicant complained in particular that he had been held liable for a criminal   offence even though the criminal proceedings against him had been discontinued.   No violation of Article 6 § 2   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.   Moustakidis v. Greece (no. 58999/13)*   The applicant, Dimitrios Moustakidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1956 and lives in   Thessaloniki (Greece).   The case concerned the expropriation of part of Mr Moustakidis’s property (a plot of land, a factory   and a warehouse) and the amount awarded to him in compensation.   The courts established the final amount of the award in compensation for the expropriated part of   the property. Subsequently, relying on the relevant domestic law, Mr Moustakidis sought   compensation for a non-expropriated section of this property as well as for the cost of transferring   his business, for the loss of opportunities during the interruption of business and for the further   damage sustained by the remainder of his property owing to the nature of the activity for which the   expropriation had taken place. The court of appeal and the Court of Cassation dismissed his   requests, on the grounds that the civil courts had no jurisdiction to consider them.   Relying, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Moustakidis   complained of an infringement of his right to property, submitting that the domestic courts had   refused to adjudicate on specific aspects of his claim for compensation, advising him to apply to the   European Court of Human Rights or the administrative courts for that purpose.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   of the Convention was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date.   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