003-7043163-9508928

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 180 (2021)   08.06.2021   Judgments of 8 June 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 14 judgments1:   four Chamber judgments are summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for another Chamber judgment in the case of Ancient Baltic   religious association “Romuva” v. Lithuania (application no. 48329/19);   nine 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 (*).   Ilievi and Ganchevi v. Bulgaria (applications nos. 69154/11 and 69163/11)*   The two applications concern a police operation conducted in the respective homes of the   applicants, who allege that they suffered inhuman and degrading treatment.   The applications were lodged by five Bulgarian nationals: Georgi Iliev, his wife and his daughter, who   was aged 19 at the material time, (application no. 69154/11), and Georgi Ganchev and his wife   (application no. 69163/11).   In October 2010 the public prosecutor’s office brought criminal proceedings against five persons,   including Mr Iliev and Mr Ganchev, for unlawful pursuit of a financial activity and receiving stolen   goods. In April 2011 a court authorised a search of the applicants’ homes. On 18 April 2011, at   6.30 a.m. and 6.20 a.m. respectively, the applicants were awakened by special officers wearing   masks.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicants complain of ill-treatment at the hands of the police during the police   operation in their respective homes.   Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention, they also complain   that they had no access to an effective domestic remedy in order to put forward their allegations.   Violation of Article 3 concerning Mr Iliev and Mr Ganchev   No violation of Article 3 concerning Mrs K. Ilieva, Ms S. Ilieva and Mrs Gancheva   Violation of Article 13 in respect of all applicants   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: 3,000 euros (EUR), each, to Mr Iliev and to Mr Ganchev.   The finding of a violation of Article 13 constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction concerning   Mrs K. Ilieva, Ms S. Ilieva and Mrs Gancheva.   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   Staykov v. Bulgaria (no. 16282/20)*   The applicant, Minyu Staykov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Sofia.   The case concerns the placement in pre-trial detention of a businessman (Mr Staykov) in the   framework of two sets of criminal proceedings brought against him by the Bulgarian authorities.   Mr Staykov was initially placed in pre-trial detention on 6 September 2018, having been charged   with membership of a criminal group organised for the purposes of personal profit, and with a view   to conducting, inter alia, money-laundering operations. Later, on 7 May 2019, a court ordered the   applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention in the framework of a second criminal prosecution   concerning charges of involvement in a criminal grouped aimed at obtaining financial advantages or   exerting unlawful influence over the business of public agencies, as well as two charges of obtaining,   by means of forged documents, loans from European Union funds and credits granted to the   Bulgarian State by the EU. On 1 February 2021 Mr Staykov’s pre-trial detention was replaced with   house arrest.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, Mr Staykov complains of the   excessive length of his detention. Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy decision on the   lawfulness of his detention), he alleges that the review of the lawfulness and necessity of his   detention by the domestic courts was ineffective. Relying on Article 18 (limitation on use of   restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Article 5, he submits that his detention had an aim   different from those listed in the latter provision.   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Just satisfaction:   The Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.   Dijkhuizen v. the Netherlands (no. 61591/16)   The applicant, Ment Floor Dijkhuizen, is a Netherlands national born in 1966.   On 13 March 2008 the applicant was convicted, along with several co-accused, and sentenced to   nine years’ imprisonment for the smuggling of 1,623 kg of a substance containing cocaine into the   Netherlands. He appealed against that conviction.   Following an adjournment, appeal proceedings resumed on 25 November 2013. However, the   applicant had in the meantime been arrested in Peru, despite an order to make himself available to   the police or the courts in the Netherlands when necessary. He was unable to attend hearings in   person. His conviction was upheld on 21 November 2014 but his sentence was reduced to seven   years and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that he was prevented from   attending the appeal hearing in his criminal case, whether in person or by videoconference,   impinging on his defence rights.   No violation of Article 6   Bulaç v. Turkey (no. 25939/17)*   This case concerns the pre-trial detention of a journalist for membership of a terrorist organisation.   The applicant, Ali Bulaç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Istanbul. At the   material time he was working as a columnist for Zaman, a daily newspaper which was closed   following the publication of Legislative Decree No. 668 of 27 July 2016, in the framework of the state   of emergency declared after the failed military coup of 15 July 2016.   On 30 July 2016 Mr Bulaç was placed in pre-trial detention, the Justice of the Peace having found   that his articles had condoned the organisation designated by the Turkish authorities as FETÖ/PDY   (“Fetullah terrorist organisation/Parallel State Structure”). On 10 April 2017 the public prosecutor’s   office submitted an indictment against him, mentioning eight articles written by Mr Bulaç and   published in Zaman between 21 December 2013 and 6 February 2016, and stating that Mr Bulaç had   had no hesitation in encouraging a possible military coup.   On 11 May 2018 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered his release on bail. Then on 6 July 2018 the Assize   Court sentenced him to eight years, nine months’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld on   appeal in June 2019. The proceedings are pending before the Court of Cassation. On 3 May 2019 the   Constitutional Court, adjudicating on an individual appeal lodged by Mr Bulaç, found a violation of   the right to liberty and security and of the right to freedom of expression and of the press.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Bulaç complains about his pre-trial   detention on the grounds that there were no plausible reasons for suspecting him of committing a   criminal offence such as to justify his placement in such detention. Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to a   speedy decision on the lawfulness of his detention), he complains about the length of the   Constitutional Court proceedings. Under Article 5 § 4 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he   complains that he was unable effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention before   an independent and impartial tribunal. Relying on Article 10 he submits that he suffered a breach of   his right to freedom of expression.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 12,240   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