003-7215230-9808625

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 397 (2021)   21.12.2021   Judgments and decisions of 21 December 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing eight judgments1 and seven   decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for the decision in the case of The Committee for the   organisation and registration of the Romanian Communist Party v. Romania (application   no. 20401/15);   Five Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the six other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Banaszczyk v. Poland (application no. 66299/10)*   The applicant, Jan Banaszczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1944. He lives in Kętrzyn   (Poland). At the time of the events in question he was the editor of a free local bi-weekly newspaper.   The case concerns Mr Banaszczyk’s criminal conviction for slanderous defamation of a health   professional and head of a public hospital (Doctor M.S.) following the publication, in 2005, of a press   article in which he criticised the hospital’s management and the quality of treatment provided in it.   The applicant illustrated his statements by quoting examples involving Dr M.S.’s patients.   The hospital and Dr M.S. both filed a complaint against the applicant, who was ordered by the   domestic courts to pay a criminal fine in 2010; they considered that his comments were liable to   destroy the public’s trust in M.S.’s medical abilities. An investigation was subsequently carried out,   and this doctor was convicted of the offence of endangering the life of a patient and sentenced, in   2011, to a suspended term of imprisonment.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights,   Mr Banaszczyk complains about his criminal conviction for slanderous defamation of Dr M.S.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: 280 euros (EUR)   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 6,000   costs and expenses: EUR 300   Stołkowski v. Poland (no. 58795/15)   The applicant, Marek Stołkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1975.   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 the seizure of the applicant’s Peugeot XV car in 2005. It was initially seized to   cover any payments of fines or damages that could have resulted from his then upcoming criminal   trial. While in storage, the condition of the car greatly degraded.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the   applicant complains that the seizure was unjustified.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,500   Kuzminas v. Russia (no. 69810/11)   The applicant, Denis Gennadyevich Kuzminas, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and is   detained in Slavyanovka (Kaliningrad Region, Russia).   The case concerns a search of the applicant’s flat carried out by the police in 2011 in accordance   with an urgent search order. They were seeking material evidence in connection with a test   purchase of drugs that they had executed.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection   of property) to the Convention, the applicant complains that the search of his flat was unlawful and   not subject to judicial review, and that he had no remedies for this complaint.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,000   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