003-7203345-9785974

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 373 (2021)   07.12.2021   Judgments of 7 December 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 20 judgments1:   Five Chamber judgments are summarised below;   Separate press releases have been issued for five other Chamber judgments in the cases of Standard   Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (no. 3) (application no. 39378/15), Filat v. the Republic of   Moldova (no. 11657/16), Daneş and Others v. Romania (nos. 44332/16, 44829/16, and 44839/16),   Godlevskaya v. Russia (no. 58176/18), and Yasin Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 14606/18);   Ten Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by 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 (*).   Stoyanov and Tabakov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (application no. 64387/14)   The applicants, Valeri Stoyanov Stoyanov and Valentin Stoyanov Tabakov, are Bulgarian nationals   who were born in 1962 and 1960 respectively and live in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria).   The case concerns the attempted purchase of an office from Pazardzhik Municipal Council and   complaints about lack of implementation of the related subsequent domestic-court judgments. The   Court found in the applicants’ favour in 2013, stating that the authorities “had not only failed to   undertake the necessary steps to enforce the final judgments in the applicants’ favour, but had   demonstrated a particular unwillingness to do so”.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 1   of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention and Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicants complain, in particular, of the lack of   enforcement of the final judgments in their favour, which had also been in breach of the Court’s   judgment.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: the Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   in so far as pecuniary damage sustained by the first applicant was concerned was not ready for   decision and reserved it for examination at a later date;   non-pecuniary damage: 3,600 euros (EUR) to the first applicant. The second applicant did not submit   a claim for damages in the allocated period.   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: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Ghrenassia v. Luxembourg (no. 27160/19)*   The applicant, Gaston Ghrenassia, is a French national who was born in 1938 and lives in Paris   (France).   Mr Ghrenassia alleges that the Luxembourg Court of Cassation displayed excessive formalism in   declaring inadmissible a ground of appeal he had submitted in a dispute with a bank that had been   placed in compulsory liquidation. In the context of those proceedings he had requested that   questions be referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) of the European Convention, the applicant   criticises the Court of Cassation for displaying excessive formalism.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 12,000   Danilenko v. Russia (nos. 7000/17 and 81319/17)   The applicants, Sergey Vasilyevich Danilenko and Leyla Davudovna Danilenko, are Russian nationals   who were born in 1968 and 1987 respectively and live in Novocherkassk (Russia). They are husband   and wife.   The case concerns the pre-trial detention, legal proceedings and detention in respect of the first   applicant following his arrest on suspicion of fraud.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of   detention decided speedily by a court), and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) the   applicants complain, in particular, of the length of the pre-trial detention, the refusal of the domestic   courts to examine the first applicant’s appeals, the speed of the proceedings, and of the limitations   on family visits while in detention.   Violation of Article 5 § 4 in respect of the first applicant on account of the domestic court’s failure to   consider the substance of his appeals against the decisions of 5 October, 2 November and   December 2016   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 1,250 to the first applicant   costs and expenses: EUR 850   Yakut Republican Trade-Union Federation v. Russia (no. 29582/09)   The applicant, the Yakut Republican Trade-Union Federation, is a non-governmental organisation set   up in 1991 in the Republic of Sakha, Yakutia (Russia).   The case concerns legislation in Russia banning prisoners from setting up or joining trade unions.   Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 11 (freedom of association), the applicant federation   complains that, under the statutory ban, it was ordered to expel a trade union set up in 2006 by   inmates in a high-security prison located in Yakutsk. The inmates work in the colony’s sawmill and in   prison maintenance jobs.   No violation of Article 11   Yefimov and Youth Human Rights Group v. Russia (nos. 12385/15 and   51619/15)   The applicants, Maksim Mikhaylovich Yefimov, and Youth Human Rights Group, are a Russian   national and a Russian non-governmental organisation respectively. Mr Yefimov was born in 1976   and he founded Youth Human Rights Group in 2000 in Petrozavodsk (Republic of Karelia, Russia).   The case concerns the law in Russia providing that an association may be dissolved if it refuses to   expel a member who has been suspected of an extremist offence.   In 2011 Mr Yefimov was charged with an extremist offence of hate speech in connection with his   publication in which he criticised the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in public life. Two   years later, the Youth Human Rights Group was liquidated for failure to expel from its ranks   Mr Yefimov, who had been charged with an extremism offence.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Yefimov complains of his prosecution for   expressing his views. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of association) the applicants complain of the   order to expel the first applicant from Youth Human Rights Group and the order to dissolve the   latter.   Violation of Article 10 in respect of the first applicant   Violation of Article 11 read in the light of Article 10 in respect of both applicants   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000 to the first applicant   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