003-7021974-9472872

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 149 (2021)   18.05.2021   Judgments of 18 May 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 21 judgments1:   four Chamber judgments are summarised below;   Four separate press releases have been issued for six other Chamber judgments in the cases of:   Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v. Iceland (application no. 71552/17), OOO Informatsionnoye   Agentstvo Tambov-Inform v. Russia (no. 43351/12), Sedat Doğan v. Turkey (no. 48909/14), Naki and   AMED Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v. Turkey (no. 48924/16) and İbrahim Tokmak v. Turkey   (no. 54540/16), and Öğreten and Kanaat v. Turkey (nos. 42201/17 and 42212/17);   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 (*).   Manzano Diaz v. Belgium (application no. 26402/17)*   The applicant, Edmundo Manzano Diaz, is a Spanish national who was born in 1957. Three orders for   his compulsory confinement were issued by the relevant courts in June and December 2004 and   October 2007. He has been in detention continuously since the most recent order.   The case concerns the proceedings brought by Mr Manzano Diaz in the Court of Cassation   challenging the decision to extend his compulsory confinement adopted by the Higher Social   Protection Board (Commission supérieure de défense sociale – “the CSDS”).   In 2016 Mr Manzano Diaz, alleging irregularities in the proceedings leading to the successive   compulsory confinement orders, requested the Social Protection Board (Commission   de défense sociale – “the CDS”) to make an urgent ruling that his detention was unlawful and to   order his immediate discharge. In the alternative, he sought permission to go on outings. The CDS   held that it did not have authority to examine the lawfulness or appropriateness of the compulsory   confinement orders, and extended the applicant’s detention. That decision was upheld on appeal.   Mr Manzano Diaz lodged an appeal on points of law, alleging a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the   Convention among other provisions. The appeal was dismissed.   Mr Manzano Diaz alleges, in particular, a breach of the equality-of-arms principle and the adversarial   principle in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, on account of the notification of the   reporting judge’s draft decision to the advocate-general but not to the applicant and of exchanges   between the advocate-general and the Court of Cassation, or at least the reporting judge. He relies   in that connection on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court decided to examine the complaints under Article 5 § 4.   No violation of Article 5 § 4   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: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution - _blank   M.K. v. Luxembourg (no. 51746/18)*   The applicant, M.K., is a national of Luxembourg who was born in 1931 and lives in that State.   The case concerns the applicant’s placement under ordinary supervision by the Luxembourg courts.   In 2017 the Court of Appeal decided that administrative acts carried out with regard to the   applicant’s real-estate property required the agreement of a supervisor. That decision was upheld by   the Court of Cassation in May 2018.   The applicant considers that her placement under supervision amounts to an interference with her   right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.   No violation of Article 8   Berestov v. Russia (no. 17342/13)   The applicant, Yevgeniy Berestov, is a Russian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Samara   (Russia).   The case concerns the domestic courts’ alleged failure to adequately ensure that proceedings were   served on the applicant in civil proceedings against him following an accident in which a pedestrian   had been knocked over by the car he had been driving. The applicant’s application to the first-   instance court to have the decision that had been made in his absence quashed was dismissed, as   was a later appeal.   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that he was not duly informed of   hearings in civil proceedings against him.   Violation of Article 6 1 (on account of the applicant’s absence from hearings in civil proceedings   against him)   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: 1,500 euros (EUR)   Costs and expenses: EUR 240   Bişar Ayhan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 42329/11 and 47319 /11)   The applicants are ten Turkish nationals born between 1956 and 2009 who live in Van (Turkey).   The case concerns an incident in March 2009 when, following recent reports of terrorist groups   illegally crossing from Iran into Turkey, soldiers fired mortars on a group of people on horseback who   were illegally crossing the border into Turkey in what had recently been designated as a prohibited   military zone. The first applicant, Mr Bişar Ayhan, was seriously injured and Mr Murat Yılmaz, who   was a relative of the remaining applicants, died.   Relying, in particular, on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that the authorities used   excessive force and failed to conduct an effective investigation into the wounding of the first   applicant (application no. 42329/11) and the death of the relative of the remaining applicants   (application no. 47319/11). The applicants in the latter application further allege that their relative   died due to the negligence of the authorities in not promptly transferring him to a hospital.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life and investigation)   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 65,000 to the first applicant (application no. 42329/11)   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 65,000 jointly to the applicants (application no. 47319/11)   Costs and expenses: EUR 1,000 to the first applicant   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   Jane Swift   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