003-7050293-9520899

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 186 (2021)   15.06.2021   Judgments of 15 June 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 21 judgments1:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   two separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of   Melike v. Turkey (application no. 35786/19) and Ömür Çağdaş Ersoy v. Turkey (no. 19165/19);   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 summarised below are available only in English.   Vardan Martirosyan v. Armenia (application no. 13610/12)   The applicant, Vardan Martirosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1984 and, at the time   of the application, was detained at Nubarashen Remand Prison in Yerevan.   The case concerns the applicant’s detention during criminal proceedings against him on account of   alleged attempted drug smuggling, and repeated extensions of that detention on the grounds that   he might abscond and obstruct the proceedings by suppressing evidence and exerting unlawful   influence on those involved in the proceedings. It concerns the decisions taken by the courts during   the pre-trial and the trial proceedings, and the dismissal of the applicant’s appeals.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security) respectively of the European   Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains of the alleged unlawfulness of his detention   during the court proceedings, the alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and   sufficient reasons for his continued detention and the alleged absence of an enforceable right to   compensation. Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a   court) of the European Convention, the applicant complains of the alleged lack of equality of arms at   a detention hearing before the appeal court. Under Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the   Convention, he alleges that his right to be presumed innocent was violated by the decisions taken by   the courts during the pre-trial and the trial proceedings.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Violation of Article 5 § 5   No violation of Article 6 § 2 as regards the decisions of 28 October and 28 December 2011   Violation of Article 6 § 2 as regards the decision of 27 March 2012   _________________________________________________________   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   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: 5,200 euros (EUR)   Costs and expenses: EUR 3,000   Barovov v. Russia (no. 9183/09)   The applicant, Vadim Kurbanovich Barovov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in   Irkutsk (Russia).   The case concerns the alleged lack of an effective investigation into the applicant’s ill-treatment in   police custody during questioning for allegedly handling a counterfeit banknote. The injuries   suffered by the applicant included rupture of the spleen, internal bleeding, rib fractures, brain injury,   concussion and severe bruising. After almost 12 years, a preliminary investigation and criminal   proceedings by the authorities ended with the conviction of two police officers for having subjected   the applicant to ill-treatment. However, they were exempted from serving their sentences under   one applicable provision of the Criminal Code due to expiration of the ten-year statutory time-limit,   and received suspended terms of imprisonment under another applicable provision of the Criminal   Code. No disciplinary measures were taken against them.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the   applicant complains that the investigation into his ill-treatment in police custody was not effective,   and that he did not have an effective criminal-law remedy in regard to his allegations of torture by   the police. He alleges that the police officers’ punishment was not commensurate to the suffering he   had endured as a result of his ill-treatment.   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 11,000   Costs and expenses: EUR 943   Y.S. and O.S. v. Russia (no. 17665/17)   The applicants, Y.S. and O.S., are both Russian and Ukrainian nationals who live in Nakhodka,   Primorye Region (Russia). They were born in 1976 and 2006 respectively. The first applicant is the   second applicant’s mother.   The case concerns a court order for O.S. to be returned to live with her father in Donetsk (Ukraine).   In 2001 the first applicant married a Ukrainian national, A.S., and settled in Donetsk. After the birth   of O.S. in 2006, the marriage broke down and in 2011 Y.S. moved to Nakhodka. There she   successfully applied for a temporary and subsequently permanent residence permit. The second   applicant remained in Donetsk.   In 2014 civil unrest broke out in Eastern Ukraine. An illegal secessionist movement, the “Donetsk   People’s Republic”, took control of Donetsk. The first applicant tried to have the second applicant   moved to Russia, but was prevented from doing so by A.S. So, in January 2016 she went to Donetsk   and took her daughter to Nakhodka anyway. She applied for Russian citizenship for both of them.   In March 2016, A.S. began renting a flat outside of the conflict zone.   A.S. lodged an application before the Russian courts for the child’s return to Ukraine under the   Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which was allowed by the   Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk and on appeal by the Khabarovsk Regional Court, despite   the first applicant’s arguments concerning the risk to the second applicant of harm if returned to a   conflict zone.   Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 2 (right to life) and/or 3 (prohibition   of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that the court judgment ordering the   second applicant’s return to Donetsk interfered with their family life, and that if enforced, the   second applicant would run the risk of physical harm in that State.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for   the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants;   Costs and expenses: EUR 4,150   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