003-7152356-9698206

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 303 (2021)   14.10.2021   Judgments and decisions of 14 October 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 24 judgments1 and 39 decisions2:   four Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for four Chamber judgments in the cases of Democracy   and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 74288/14 and   64568/16), Kapa and Others v. Poland (nos. 75031/13, 75282/13, 75286/13, and 75292/13), M.L.   v. Slovakia (no. 34159/17) and Samsin v. Ukraine (no. 38977/19);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 39 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Milachikj v. North Macedonia (application no. 44773/16)   The applicant, Zoran Milachikj, is a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia who was   born in 1955 and lives in Ohrid (North Macedonia).   The case concerns compensation proceedings following the impounding of the applicant’s car on   suspicion that no taxes or customs duties had been paid on it. His car was returned to him after   misdemeanour proceedings had been discontinued as time-barred. He brought the compensation   claim in respect of the loss of value of the car while impounded.   Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights,   the applicant complains that the reasoning provided by the higher civil courts in dismissing his   compensation claim referred to subsisting indications of his possible guilt in the misdemeanour   proceedings.   No violation of Article 6 § 2   M.B. v. Poland (no. 60157/15)   The applicant, Mr M.B., is a Polish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Cracow (Poland).   The case concerns the applicant’s detention in a psychiatric hospital on the basis of an allegedly   outdated medical assessment. After the applicant had attacked his parents with a knife the domestic   courts applied a security measure and placed him in a psychiatric hospital.   Under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention, the applicant   complains that his detention in a psychiatric hospital was unlawful in that it was not based on recent   medical evidence. He submits that he was not reliably shown to have been “of unsound mind”.   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.   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) (as regards the applicant’s hospitalisation between 4 August 2015 and   April 2016)   No violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) (as regards the applicant’s hospitalisation between 12 April and   November 2016)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 16,000 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: EUR 940   Staniszewski v. Poland (no. 20422/15)   The applicant, Jan Staniszewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Bulkowo   (Poland).   The case concerns the sanctioning of the applicant, the editor of a free monthly newsletter, for   having published untrue statements about a candidate in local government elections.   The applicant complains, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression)   of the Convention, that his right to freedom of expression was violated in the summary proceedings   under the Election Code. He emphasises the privileged role that the press occupies in a democratic   society, particularly in the context of free elections. Lastly, the applicant alleges that the penalty   imposed on him in summary proceedings under the Election Code was unduly harsh and not   proportionate to the offence.   No violation of Article 10   Lysyuk v. Ukraine (no. 72531/13)   The applicant, Leonid Vasylyovych Lysyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in   Radomyshl (Ukraine).   The case concerns the applicant’s conviction of bribery in relation to an incident whilst he was head   of the State Bailiffs Service in the Radomyshl District.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life),   the applicant complains in particular that covert recordings of his conversations were made   unlawfully and subsequently used as evidence in criminal proceedings brought against him.   Violation of Article 8 (on account of the recording of the applicant’s conversation on 26 January   2007)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (on account of the admission of the recording of the applicant’s   conversation on 26 January 2007 in evidence against him)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (on account of the excessive length of the proceedings)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,000   the applicant did not submit any claims in respect of costs and expenses   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