003-6724238-8964060

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 177 (2020)   18.06.2020   Judgments and decisions of 18 June 2020   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing eight judgments1 and 54   decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   six Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 54 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments below are available only in English.   Antia and Khupenia v. Georgia (application no. 7523/10)   The applicants, Marina Antia and Nana Khupenia, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1964 and   respectively and live in Zugdidi (Georgia).   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint about their conviction for neglect of official duties.   In October 2006 the applicants were charged with neglect of official duties during their employment   as inspectors at the Unified State Social Insurance Fund (“the Fund”), between 1995 and 2004, which   had allegedly resulted in employed people unlawfully receiving pensions from the Fund. They were   convicted in 2008 and fined.   On appeal, they argued, among other things, that their conviction had not been foreseeable as Fund   staff members had only fallen within the personal scope of the offence of neglect of official duties   since 2006 amendments to Article 342 § 1 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, neglect of official   duties was a minor offence with a two-year statute of limitations, which had expired in October   as the charges had concerned offences allegedly committed before January 2004. In November   the Kutaisi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ arguments and upheld the lower court’s   judgment in full.   The Supreme Court in May 2009 ultimately upheld the applicants’ conviction, finding that they had   been covered by the offence of official misconduct as they had worked for a public-law legal entity.   However, it agreed that the two-year statute of limitations had expired, quashing their fines and   expunging their criminal record.   The applicants sought damages from the Social Services Agency, the Fund’s legal successor, for the   termination of their contracts in 2006. However, the courts, including the Supreme Court, dismissed   their claims, noting their convictions and finding that the termination had had a valid legal basis.   Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the   applicants complained that their conviction for neglect of official duties had been time-barred, and   that it had not been foreseeable in view of the limited personal scope of the domestic criminal   provision on the basis of which they had been prosecuted.   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.   Violation of Article 7   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.   Safonov and Safonova v. Ukraine (no. 24391/10)   The applicants, Eduard Safonov and Natalya Safonova, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in   and 1976 respectively and live in Moscow.   The case concerned the applicants’ dispute with the local authorities and private companies over a   flat and a building in Yalta, Crimea.   Under court and administrative decisions from 2001 to 2005 the applicants became co-owners of a   building and owners of a flat within it. In October 2007 the Autonomous Republic of Crimea Court of   Appeal cancelled the applicants’ title to their flat and ordered the Inventory Bureau to register the   company Sanatoriy im. Kirova Ltd (“Company 1”) as the owner of the building, which it sold in   January 2008 to another company, Topaz-K Ltd (“Company 2”).   After proceedings initiated by the applicants, the Supreme Court in June 2009 ultimately upheld the   applicants’ title to the flat. In September 2009 Company 2 sold the building to Selbilliar Ltd   (“Company 3”). On 4 November 2009 the Yalta Court ordered the Inventory Bureau to register the   applicants’ property rights to the flat. The judgment became final but remained unenforced.   In January 2010 the Inventory Bureau told the applicants that it could not enforce the judgment as   their flat and others in the building had been registered as Company 3’s property. The applicants   began proceedings and on 16 February 2010 the court ordered the Inventory Bureau to renew the   registration of their ownership of the flat. The judgment became final but remained unenforced.   In 2010 Company 3 sold the building to High Tech Group Ltd (“Company 4”). In March of that year   the applicants began proceedings against companies 2-4 over ownership of their flat and the   building. In particular, in April 2012 the Supreme Court upheld lower court findings that the   applicants owned their flat, lived in it and did not therefore require its restitution from Company 4.   A fifth set of proceedings involving Company 4 and the building ended in April 2014.   The applicants complained in particular under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an   effective remedy) of the Convention about the failure to enforce the judgments of 4 November 2009   and 16 February 2010, which concerned the registration of their property rights to the flat, and the   alleged lack of effective remedies.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 – on account of the non-enforcement of the judgments of 4 November   and 16 February 2010   Violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: 2,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) to the applicants jointly   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_CEDH.   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