003-7232909-9838847

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 013 (2022)   18.01.2022   Judgments of 18 January 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 23 judgments1:   Six Chamber judgments are summarised below;   Separate press releases have been issued for four other Chamber judgments in the cases of Karuyev   v. Russia (application no. 4161/13), Atristain Gorosabel v. Spain (no. 15508/15), Faysal Pamuk   v. Turkey (no. 430/13), and Mehmet Çiftçi and Suat İncedere v. Turkey (nos. 21266/19 and   21774/19);   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 judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Adomaitis v. Lithuania (application no. 14833/18)   The applicant, Virginijus Adomaitis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in the   Vilkaviškis region of Lithuania. He was the governor of Kybartai prison.   The case concerns a criminal investigation opened into him on suspicion that he had provided, for   pay, better conditions for inmates while they were serving their sentences, and that he had also   awarded them incentives. For one year, his telephone communications were monitored and   intercepted, after which the criminal intelligence investigation was discontinued for lack of   incriminating evidence. Nevertheless, the use of the collected information was permitted in   disciplinary proceedings, which ultimately led to his dismissal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 and Article 8 (right to respect of private life) of   the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that he did not have access to   the material from the secret surveillance, that there was a lack of a precise legal framework   indicating how information gathered via covert operations could be used and its lawfulness   contested, and he complains of a breach of his right to privacy.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 8   Khudoroshko v. Russia (no. 3959/14)   The applicant, Yekaterina Ivanovna Khudoroshko, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and   lives in Ust-Tarka (Russia).   The case concerns the applicant’s son’s suicide as a result of being subjected to hazing practices and   extortion in the Russian Navy.   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   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of   the European Convention, the applicant complains of her son’s ill-treatment and death during his   compulsory military service. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with   Articles 2 and 3, she complains that the domestic courts had dismissed her claim against the State   for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life)   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with article 2   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 26,000 euros (EUR)   The applicant did not submit any claims for costs and expenses.   Lyubov Vasilyeva v. Russia (no. 62080/09)   The applicant, Lyubov Mikhaylovna Vasilyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in   Tyrgetuy (Russia).   The case concerns the suicide of the applicant’s son during his compulsory military service whilst   being transferred to a new military unit after bouts of hazing, and the subsequent investigation into   his death. In his suicide letter, he explained that he knew what senior conscripts in his new unit   would do to him for having reported the hazing, so he had decided to kill himself before his name   and honour were sullied.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, the applicant complains that the State failed to   protect the life of her son and to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of his   death; she complains in particular of the alleged negligence on the part of her son’s military   superiors and of the psychologists.   Violation of Article 2 (right to life)   No violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 20,000   costs and expenses: EUR 7,300   Nevzlin v. Russia (no. 26679/08)   The applicant, Leonid Borisovich Nevzlin, is an Israeli and Russian national who was born in 1959 and   lives in the city of Herzliya (Israel).   The case concerns Mr Nevzlin’s trial in absentia and conviction for three counts of murder, one of   aggravated robbery, and three of attempted murder, for which he received a life sentence.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), and Article 6 §   (a) (right to be informed promptly of an accusation), (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for   preparation of defence) and (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), the   applicant complains, in particular, that he was not notified of the charges against him, that the trial   court relied on evidence that came from other trials, and that the judge denied him time to prepare   his defence and the opportunity to call witnesses. He complains that the judge implied that he was   guilty of murder during the trial.   Relying on Articles 6, Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 18 (limitation on use of   restrictions of rights), the applicant complains, in particular, that his prosecution was part of a   politically motivated discriminatory campaign of persecution against Yukos shareholders.   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) on account of the lack of an effective opportunity for the   applicant’s defence to challenge victim Ry   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) as regards other witnesses   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not make any claims for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage, or   for costs and expenses.   Akpaz limited liability company v. Turkey (no. 6800/09)*   The applicant, the Akpaz limited liability company (Akpaz Dayanıklı Tüketim Malları Sanayi ve Ticaret   Limited Şirketi), is a company set up under Turkish law based in İzmir.   In June 1995 was informed that the applicant company had committed a customs offence by   deliberately altering a number of declarations of imported goods in the port of İzmir. Following this   notification, the customs officers searched the company’s warehouses and seized the goods in   respect of which the company had drawn up the declarations in question. On 30 June 2004 the   Customs Department ordered the return of the goods.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complained   about the seizure of the goods and their belated return, submitting, inter alia, that the value of the   seized goods had fallen sharply during the period of their confiscation.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court considers that the remedy provided under domestic law before the   compensation board is an appropriate means of redressing the violation found and therefore   decides to strike out of its list of cases the part of the application concerning the request under   Article 41 of the Convention for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the   applicant company EUR 7,500 in respect of costs and expenses.   İpek limited liability company v. Turkey (no. 29214/09)*   The applicant company, İpek Dayanıklı Tüketim Malları Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi (İpek), is a   Turkish limited liability company based in İzmir.   The case concerns the seizure of the applicant company’s property and the damage it sustained on   account of the time lapse between the seizure and the return of the property.   In June 1995 the İzmir Customs Department was informed of a suspected customs offence   committed by the İpek company, by allegedly forging a number of declarations with a view to   conducting fraudulent customs procedures in respect of imported goods. Following this notification,   the customs officers searched the company’s warehouses and seized the goods, which were   returned on 29 June 2004.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complains of   the seizure of the goods and their belated return. It submits, inter alia, that the value of the seized   goods had fallen sharply during the period of their confiscation.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: The Court considers that the remedy provided under domestic law before the   compensation board is an appropriate means of redressing the violation found and therefore   decides to strike out of its list of cases the part of the application concerning the request under   Article 41 of the Convention for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court awarded the   applicant company EUR 7,500 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.   4