003-7227209-9829846

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 010 (2022)   13.01.2022   Judgments and decisions of 13 January 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 39 judgments1 and 110 decisions2:   four Chamber judgments are summarised below;   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 110 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Hashemi v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 1480/16, 3936/16, 15835/16,   28034/16, 34491/16, 51348/16 and 15904/17)*   The applicants are eight Afghan and Pakistani nationals. They fled Afghanistan and Pakistan during   the 2000s and settled in Azerbaijan, where they registered with the Office of the UN High   Commissioner for Refugees, which issued them with a letter of protection.   The applicants in this case complain about the national authorities’ refusal to issue identity cards to   their children, who were born in Azerbaijan, and to acknowledge them as Azerbaijani citizens.   Before the national courts, the applicants argued that, in application of the principle of ius soli, as   enshrined in the Azerbaijani legislation in force prior to 30 May 2014, their children, who had been   born before that date, were Azerbaijani citizens. They alleged that the domestic authorities’ refusal   to issue them with identity papers was illegal. On various dates the applicants’ requests were all   rejected by the domestic courts, which held that their children could not be considered to be   Azerbaijani citizens, given that their parents held another nationality, namely that of Afghanistan or   Pakistan.   The applicants rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European   Convention on Human Rights.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 2,100 (euros) EUR to each applicant   Tabak v. Croatia (no. 24315/13)   The applicant, Ivan Tabak, is a Croatian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Ferdinandovac   (Croatia).   In 1995 the applicant was involved in a road traffic accident, injuring his knee. The case concerns the   proceedings he brought against the insurance company seeking damages.   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.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, Mr Tabak alleges that the   proceedings were unfair because court rulings in his case, in particular relating to his claim for lost   income between 1995 and his retirement in 1999, were based on the opinion of an expert who had   professional ties with the insurance company.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Istomina v. Ukraine (no. 23312/15)   The applicant, Olena Volodymyrivna Istomina, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973 and lives   in Dnipro (Ukraine).   The case concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant following her arrest on suspicion of tax   evasion.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicant complains that the   reasoning in placing her in remand was inadequate, and the bail set was excessive.   Violation 5 § 3 as regards the failure of the domestic courts to provide relevant and sufficient   justification for their decisions setting bail   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 1,000   costs and expenses: EUR 1,000   Krayeva v. Ukraine (no. 72858/13)   The applicant, Agnesa Eduardivna Krayeva, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1986 and lives in   Zaporizhzhya (Ukraine).   The case concerns a breach of customs regulations allegedly made by the applicant in her role as a   customs clearance agent working for a private enterprise, and the court proceedings that followed.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of   the Convention, the applicant complains, in particular, that the fine imposed on her had been   disproportionate and unlawful.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court considers that reopening the administrative proceedings would be the   most appropriate way to redress any consequences of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   established by the Court. The applicant made no request 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