003-7211855-9802514

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 390 (2021)   16.12.2021   Judgments and decisions of 16 December 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 28 judgments1 and 99 decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for three other Chamber judgments in the cases of Zaklan   v. Croatia (application no. 57239/13), Women’s Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v. Georgia   (nos. 73204/13 and 74959/13), and Karpenko v. Ukraine (no. 45397/13);   separate press releases have also been issued for three decisions in the cases of Alami v. France   (no. 43084/19), Alves de Oliveira v. France (no. 23612/20), and Tenenbaum v. France (no. 68260/17);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 96 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Budimir v. Croatia (application no. 44691/14)   The applicant, Jovan Budimir, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Beli Manastir   (Croatia).   The applicant is a car mechanic. The case concerns the revocation of his licence to work as a motor-   vehicle inspector. The Ministry of the Interior revoked his licence in 1999 pending criminal   proceedings against him for allegedly falsifying a tractor’s inspection record. His employer   immediately dismissed him. He was acquitted of all charges in 2001, owing to insufficient evidence.   His licence was ultimately returned to him in 2004 at the end of administrative proceedings he   brought to challenge the revocation of his licence. He unsuccessfully claimed compensation for   damage against the State.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicant complains that he was left unemployed for some five years because of   the unlawful decision to revoke his licence and that he was not able to obtain compensation for   damage.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   costs and expenses: 2,000 euros (EUR)   Grbac v. Croatia (no. 64795/19)   The applicant, Milutin Grbac, is a Croatian national who was born in in 1949 and lives in Rijeka   (Croatia).   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 a property dispute between the applicant and the local authorities. In 2006 the   Rijeka authorities notified the applicant that he was unlawfully occupying two plots of land adjoining   his house. In 2007 they brought civil proceedings asking the courts to order the applicant to   surrender the disputed plots. The applicant brought a counterclaim, arguing that he had acquired   ownership by adverse possession as he and his legal predecessors had possessed the plots for more   than 80 years. His claim was dismissed in 2019.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the   applicant complains of the domestic courts’ decisions dismissing his claim in the property dispute.   He alleges in particular that before 2006 no one had contested his right to possess the two plots of   land or called into question his good faith and the continuous nature of the possession.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be the   reopening of the proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   Yakhymovych v. Ukraine (no. 23476/15)   The applicant, Oleg Ignatiyovych Yakhymovych, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1954 and is   currently detained in Lozivskyy.   The case concerns the applicant’s prosecution and conviction for ordering the contract killing of a   Mr S., who had allegedly defrauded the applicant of property. The murder was falsely “carried out”   by a person the applicant found through a friend, following which the applicant paid.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complains of allegedly   having been a victim of police entrapment and of his having been unable to examine a key witness at   trial.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the domestic courts’ failure to address adequately the   applicant’s plea of police incitement   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,600   costs and expenses: EUR 5,000   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.   2