003-7125252-9653215

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 276 (2021)   21.09.2021   Judgments of 21 September 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing ten judgments1:   six Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for two Chamber judgments in the cases of: Dareskizb Ltd   v. Armenia (application no. 61737/08) and Carter v. Russia (no. 20914/07);   two 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 judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Barseghyan v. Armenia (application no. 17804/09)   The applicant, Levon Barseghyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Gyumri.   The case concerns the police preventing the applicant from holding a political protest in Theatre   Square in central Gyumri on 2 March 2008, the day after a state of emergency had been declared in   Yerevan following clashes between protestors and law enforcement. The clashes had occurred in the   context of nationwide rallies alleging election irregularities after the February 2008 presidential   election. The applicant refused to leave the area, and he was arrested and later fined in   administrative proceedings.   Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the   applicant argues that the ban on his protest was not justified as there had been no violence or   uncontrollable emergency situation in Gyumri; in reality the police had cordoned off the square and   no one could enter.   Violation of Article 11   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 1,500 euros (EUR)   Aliyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 66249/16 and six other applications)   The applicants are seven Azerbaijani nationals who all live in Baku.   The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that the domestic courts failed to award them   additional compensation, provided for under domestic law, for flats they owned in the Sabail District   of Baku which had been expropriated in 2011 and early 2012 in order to expand a highway.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention and   Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, the applicants allege that the authorities   had told them that additional compensation would only be possible after they had sold their flats to   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   the State and that the domestic courts’ refusal to make such awards contradicted other similar cases   involving individuals living in the same neighbourhood.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: for details of the amounts awarded please see the operative part of the judgment   Willems and Gorjon v. Belgium (nos. 74209/16 and three other applications)*   The applicants, Ms C. Willems and Mr Y. J. Gorjon, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1971 and   respectively and live in Gesves. Together with other defendants, they were tried before the   Namur Criminal Court on various charges of avoiding value-added tax and were convicted in criminal   proceedings.   The two initial applications (nos. 74209/16 and 75662/16) concern the alleged formalism arising   from the Belgian Court of Cassation’s refusal, in a judgment of 1 June 2016, to accept appeals on   points of law lodged by the applicants against the judgments convicting them. The two other   applications (nos. 19431/19 and 19653/19) concern the refusal by the Court of Cassation to reopen   the criminal proceedings in spite of the Belgian Government’s unilateral declaration, on the basis of   which the Court had struck the applications out of its list of cases.   The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: the Court rejected the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.   Bērziņš and Others v. Latvia (no. 73105/12)   The applicants are three Latvian nationals who live in Katlakalns and Riga, Latvia.   The case concerns the applicants’ complaints that they have not been able to access their plot of   land in the parish of Garkalne since 2005 because of decisions designating the property as a   protected water zone.   Relying on Article 1 Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that they have   not been able to access and use their property, without compensation or offer of a comparable plot   of land.   Violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: no request for just satisfaction made within the set time-limit   Milosavljević v. Serbia (no. 2) (no. 47274/19)   The applicant, Ranko Milosavljević, is a Serbian national who was born in 1960 and lives in   Kragujevac (Serbia).   The application concerns a civil defamation case brought against Svetlost, a weekly news magazine   based in Kragujevac, and the applicant, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, following publication in 2009   of an article alleging corruption in the management of the city’s cemetery. The domestic courts   found that the article had damaged the honour and reputation of the cemetery’s director and   ordered the applicant and the other defendants to pay compensation plus costs in the amount of   approximately 1,241 euros.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains about being sanctioned for   the article’s publication, arguing that it contributed to a debate on a matter of public interest,   namely the functioning of a public burial company.   No violation of Article 10   Kerem Çiftçi v. Turkey (no. 35205/09)   The applicant, Kerem Çiftçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Batman (Turkey).   The case concerns an arrest warrant against the applicant and his police custody for, among other   things, being a member of a terrorist organisation (the PKK – Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal   armed organisation), attacking security forces using stones, sticks and Molotov cocktails and causing   damage to public and private property. He was detained for approximately an hour and half in   January 2007.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that his detention was unlawful as the   arrest warrant had already been withdrawn one month earlier. He also alleges under Article 5 § 5   (enforceable right to compensation) that the domestic courts dismissed his compensation claim for   unlawful detention.   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 1,000   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   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   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