003-6893439-9252225

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 383 (2020)   22.12.2020   Judgments and decisions of 22 December 2020   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing six judgments1 and three   decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for three other Chamber judgments in the cases of M.L.   v. Norway (application no. 64639/16), Usmanov v. Russia (no. 43936/18) and Schweizerische Radio-   und Fernsehgesellschaft and publisuisse SA v. Switzerland (no. 41723/14);   one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the three decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Plokhovy v. Russia (no. 45024/07)   The applicants, Tatyana Aleksandrovna Plokhova and Vladimir Mikhaylovich Plokhov, are Russian   nationals who were both born in 1959 and live in St Petersburg (Russia).   The case concerned the applicants’ son’s death while ill during compulsory military service, and the   lack of an effective investigation into his passing.   On 17 May 2004 the applicant’s son was drafted into the army; according to the applicants and the   draft doctors, he was in good health.   In August 2005, he complained of pain. He asked to see a doctor at least twice, as his condition   worsened. His request was granted only on 3 September 2005, after his condition had again   worsened. He was diagnosed with acute gastritis. Tests were prescribed but not performed.   On 10 September 2005 he had an altercation with another soldier. After allegedly being repeatedly   hit in the head, he reported vomiting, blood in his urine and pain on his left side, among other   symptoms, to a doctor.   In the following week the applicant’s son was admitted to two hospitals. Various tests and   treatments were performed. He lost consciousness. On 19 September 2005, he died.   On 16 September 2005 an internal inquiry was completed into the events. It was found that the   causes of the applicant’s son illness and being beaten up had been the organisation and leadership   in his military unit. On 19 September 2005 criminal proceedings were initiated into the altercation of   September 2005. An autopsy was performed, which found multiple injuries on his body. The   assailant was convicted and given prison time, with the applicants being awarded 5,000 Russian   roubles in damages.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a 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.   In 2005 and 2006 (twice) the prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings into the applicants’   son’s death. The applicants appealed to the courts, in vain.   The applicants took a civil action against their son’s military unit in respect of his death. It was found   to be unsubstantiated at first instance and on appeal.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicants complained that their   son’s death during military service and the lack of a proper investigation in that connection had   breached their rights.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life and investigation)   Just satisfaction: EUR 295 (pecuniary damage), EUR 33,800 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,489   (costs and expenses) to the applicants jointly.   Z. v. Switzerland (no. 6325/15)   The applicant, Mr Z., is a Spanish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Gandia (Spain).   The case concerned the withdrawal of the applicant’s residence permit following criminal   convictions, despite his having been born and lived his entire live in Switzerland.   The applicant had a residence permit since birth. He had a son in 1991 and in 2003 he married a   Belarusian national.   In 2009 the applicant was convicted of multiple sexual offences, involving his extramarital sexual   partner’s underage daughter. In January 2014 the Migration Office revoked the applicant’s residence   permit owing to his “disregard[ing] fundamental norms and massively violat[ing] valuable legal   interests” and his having reoffended. It noted his connections to Spain and fluency in Spanish. It   particularly cited the general interest in maintaining public safety. That decision and grounds were   upheld by the competent administrative court. It pointed out that his wife was free not to join him in   Spain.   In 2015 the Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant. It held that the lower court   had correctly balanced the applicant’s interests with the public interest, and stated that the right to   respect for private life was not absolute.   On 28 February, the applicant left Switzerland for Spain. His wife remained.   Before the Court, the applicant complained that the revocation of his residence permit had infringed   his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8.   No violation of Article 8   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   During the current public-health crisis, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via   [email protected].   Tracey Turner-Tretz   Denis Lambert   Inci Ertekin   Neil Connolly   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