003-7183939-9752773

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 346 (2021)   18.11.2021   Judgments and decisions of 18 November 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 13 judgments1 and 108 decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of M.H. and   Others v. Croatia (applications nos. 15670/18 and 43115/18) and Marinoni v. Italy (no. 27801/12);   a separate press release has been issued for one decision in the case of Shortall and Others v. Ireland   (no. 50272/18);   eight Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 107 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan (application no. 9437/12)   The applicant, Sayyara Nemat gizi Ahmadova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1955 and   lives in Baku.   The case concerns orders to demolish the applicant’s house and evict her and her daughter, without   compensation.   The applicant purchased a house in the Sabail District in Baku in 2007. In 2010 the courts upheld a   claim brought against the applicant by the subsidiary of a State oil company seeking the house’s   demolition and her eviction, finding that it was an unauthorised construction built on a State-owned   plot of land assigned for oil extraction. The demolition and eviction orders have not yet apparently   been enforced and the applicant still lives in the house.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on   Human Rights and Article 8 (right to respect for private life and the home) of the European   Convention, the applicant complains about the demolition and eviction. She alleges in particular that   the land was not urgently needed, whereas she and her daughter will become homeless if evicted.   Violation of Article 8 if the eviction order were to be enforced without a proper review of its   proportionality in the light of the applicant’s personal circumstances   Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction   Par and Hyodo v. Azerbaijan (nos. 54563/11 and 22428/15)   The applicants are Serpil Par, a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul, and   Katsunori Hyodo, a Japanese national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Yokohama (Japan).   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.   The case concerns undeclared sums of money seized from the applicants by the customs authorities   when they were travelling via Baku’s international airport in 2010 and 2011. Criminal proceedings   brought against both applicants for smuggling were later dropped when they agreed to transfer the   seized amounts to the State budget. They left the country shortly afterwards and brought   proceedings asking for the return of their money, to no avail.   Relying mainly on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention,   the applicants complain that the domestic authorities unlawfully confiscated their money, arguing   that the transfer of their money to the State budget had been made under pressure.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: 210,100 euros (EUR) to Serpil Par and EUR 127,500 to Katsunori Hyodo   non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for   the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants   Čolić v. Croatia (no. 49083/18)   The applicant, Ljupko Čolić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Zagreb.   The case concerns civil proceedings for damages brought by the applicant following an assault. The   proceedings went in his favour, but he was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs in an amount which   was approximately double what he had been awarded in damages.   Mr Čolić alleges that the excessive costs awarded to the defendant breached his rights under   Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: EUR 1,740   costs and expenses: EUR 2,550   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.   2