003-6628739-8799220

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 045 (2020)   04.02.2020   Judgments of 4 February 2020   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 16 judgments1:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for one   other Chamber judgments in the case of Alexandru-Marian Iancu v. Romania (application   no. 60858/15) and for two committee judgments in the cases of Baysultanov v. Russia   (no. 56120/13) and Bayram v. Turkey (no. 7087/12);   ten 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 are indicated with an asterisk (*)   Bastys v. Lithuania (application no. 80749/17)   The case concerned the authorities’ refusal to issue a member of parliament with security clearance.   The applicant, Mindaugas Bastys, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Vilnius.   In October 2016, Mr Bastys was re-elected as a member of the Seimas (the Lithuanian parliament)   and appointed as Deputy Speaker a month later. As part of the standard procedure, the Speaker   asked the State Security Department (SSD) to assess whether or not he could be granted security   clearance, which would allow him access to top secret information. Following a questionnaire and   two interviews to which he had agreed, the SSD issued a note opposing his security clearance as it   had reasons to doubt his trustworthiness. In particular, he apparently maintained relationships with   several individuals who had links to Russia and whose activities were considered contrary to national   security interests.   On 9 March 2017, the Speaker informed Mr Bastys orally that he would not be issued with security   clearance and asked him to resign as Deputy Speaker, which he did. A few days later, he asked the   SSD to provide him with the information used to justify its note in order to be able to contest the   note in court. The SSD refused, stating that part of the information in the note was classified. It also   stated that the note, as an interim document, could not be contested before a court. The Speaker   also refused to provide a copy of his decision not to issue the applicant with security clearance.   Mr Bastys subsequently lodged complaints against the Seimas and the SSD before the Vilnius   Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. He primarily alleged that the   conclusions in the SSD note were unfounded and that the Speaker had not adopted a written   decision on the refusal for security clearance. Both jurisdictions ruled that the SSD note was an   interim document without any legal consequences and could not therefore be contested in court.   The Supreme Administrative Court also found that the Speaker’s decision did not fall within the   scope of public administration and could not be examined by the administrative courts.   In March 2018 Mr Bastys resigned as a member of the Seimas.   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   Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to   respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Bastys   complained that he had not been able to defend himself against the allegations in the SSD note.   No violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 8   Kruglov and Others v. Russia (no. 11264/04 and 15 other applications)   The applicants are 25 Russian nationals who were born between 1953 and 1985 and live in Samara,   Yekaterinburg, St Petersburg, Cheboksary, Nizhniy Novgorod, Moscow, Novosibirsk, Markovo,   Khabarovsk, Vladivostok, Orsk, Tomsk, Orenburg and Krasnodar (all in Russia)   The case concerned police searches of the homes and offices of the applicants, who were practising   lawyers or their clients.   The searches in the 16 applications were carried out on various dates between 2003 and 2016. All   but two of the searches were based on court warrants. In some of the searches the investigating   authorities seized items such as computers, hard drives or documents.   The applicants complained in particular that the searches of their homes or offices and the seizure of   electronic devices containing personal information or documents covered by professional legal   privilege violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home, and the   correspondence).   Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European   Convention, the applicants in six applications complained about the seizure and continued retention   of their data-storage devices.   Violation of Article 8 - in respect of 22 applicants   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - in respect of 11 applicants   The Court declared application no. 14244/11 inadmissible.   Just satisfaction: For the exact amounts awarded to the applicants in respect of pecuniary and   non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, please see today’s judgment.   Revision   Süleyman Çelebi and Others v. Turkey (nos. 22729/08 and 10581/09)*   The case concerned clashes between the security forces and demonstrators on 1 May 2007 during a   demonstration on Taksim Square in Istanbul.   The applicants are, first, a trade union (the Confederation of Trade Unions of Revolutionary Workers,   “the DISK”) and, secondly, eight Turkish nationals, including Süleyman Çelebi (Chairman of the DISK).   Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained   about the security forces’ intervention.   In a judgment of 12 December 2017 the Court found there had been a violation of Article 11 on   account of the dispersion of the demonstration. It also decided to award Süleyman Çelebi, Musa   Çam, Adnan Serdaroğlu, Kamer Aktaş, Celal Ovat, Ali Rıza Küçükosman, Gençay Gürsoy, Arzu   Çerkezoğlu and the “DISK” trade union EUR 7,500 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   By a letter received by the Registry on 19 December 2018, the applicants’ representative informed   the Court that Mr Aktaş had died on 3 February 2009 and he thus requested a revision of the   judgment.   In its judgment today the Court decided to revise its judgment of 12 December 2017 and held that   the respondent State was to pay 7,500 euros (EUR) jointly to Fatma Aktaş, Aslıhan Aktaş, Nagihan   Aktaş (Aslan), Pınar Aktaş (Erat), and Hilal Aktaş 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)   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