003-7024562-9477970

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 157 (2021)   20.05.2021   Judgments and decisions of 20 May 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 17 judgments1 and 48 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for three other Chamber judgments in the cases of:   Lapshin v. Azerbaijan (application no. 13527/18), Amaghlobeli and Others v. Georgia (no. 41192/11),   and Beg S.p.a. v. Italy (no. 5312/11);   a separate press release has also been issued for one decision in the case of Terhes v. Romania   (no. 49933/20);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 47 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Asanović v. Montenegro (application no. 52415/18)   The applicant, Nebojša Asanović, is a Montenegrin national who was born in 1965 and lives in   Podgorica.   The case concerns the serving, in September 2017, of a summons on the applicant, a practising   lawyer and long-standing representative of an opposition media outlet, outside the court where he   was about to plead in two hearings, by four officers, the summons specifying that if he did not   comply at once, he would be brought in by force. The applicant was suspected of tax evasion. Two   days later, the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, claiming unlawful deprivation of liberty and   alleging that there had been no legal grounds for it, given that none of the reasons for detention had   been indicated, that there was no related criminal case-file and no relevant court decision.   Various claims followed, including prosecutorial and civil proceedings involving the applicant, the   State Tax Administration, the Ministry of Interior, the Police Department and the State Prosecution   Office.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of   the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that he had been unlawfully   de facto deprived of liberty and that he had had no effective domestic remedy in that regard.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Just satisfaction:   No request for just satisfaction made   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.   Atima Limited v. Ukraine (no. 56714/11)   The applicant, Atima Limited, is a Cypriot company based in Larnaca (Cyprus).   The case concerns transactions for shares in a State construction company in Ukraine between the   applicant company and the company N., and involving other companies and Kyiv City Council. The   courts annulled the privatisation. Various claims followed, including prosecutorial and civil   proceedings involving the applicant company, the Council, and companies K. and N.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention and   Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant company complains of the fairness   of the prosecutorial proceedings and of being deprived of its shares in the company K. as a result of   the prosecutorial proceedings against company N.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction:   The question is not ready for decision and has been set aside   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.   2