003-7380266-10089352

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 234 (2022)   07.07.2022   Judgments and decisions of 7 July 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of 24 judgments1 and   decisions2:   five Chamber judgments are summarised below;   three separate press releases have been issued for Chamber judgments in the cases of SCI Le   Château du Francport v. France (application no. 3269/18), Safi and Others v. Greece (no. 5418/15),   and M.S. v. Italy (no. 32715/19);   a separate press release has also been issued for one decision in the case of Thibaut v. France   (nos. 41892/19 and 41893/19);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 29 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 (*).   Tagiyeva v. Azerbaijan (application no. 72611/14)   The applicant, Maila Bulud gizi Tagiyeva, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in in 1964 and lives   in Baku.   The case concerns the death of the applicant’s husband, Rafig Tagiyev, following his stabbing on   November 2011. Mr Tagiyev was a well-known writer and columnist. He was known in particular   for his critical views on Islam, and a religious fatwa was issued in Iran in 2006 calling for his death   after the publication of a series of articles, the “East-West studies”, he had authored. The   investigation into his killing was suspended in 2013 because it had not been possible to identify the   perpetrator. The national courts dismissed all the applicant’s subsequent challenges to this decision.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 10 (freedom of expression) and 13 (right to an effective remedy)   of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that the State failed to   protect her husband’s right to life, that the criminal investigation into his murder was ineffective,   and that he was targeted on account of his publications.   No violation of Article 2 (right to life)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 12,000 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: EUR 2,000   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.   Jurišić v. Croatia (no. 2) (no. 8000/21)   The applicant, Stjepan Jurišić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Sesvetski   Kraljevec (Croatia).   The case concerns a contact dispute over the applicant’s son, born in 2006.   In a previous judgment of 16 January 2020 (Jurišić v. Croatia, application no. 29419/17), the   European Court found that the applicant had been unable to have any meaningful contact with his   son practically since birth, notably on account of non-enforcement of judicial decisions in his favour.   Enforcement of that judgment is still pending before the Committee of Ministers, the executive arm   of the Council of Europe.   Since this 2020 judgment the Croatian courts have issued fresh decisions for gradually   re-establishing contact between the applicant and his son, while the mother has been found guilty of   obstruction.   In this second application to the European Court the applicant complains under Article 8 (right to   respect for private and family life) of the European Convention about his continued inability to have   contact with his son.   No violation of Article 8   Torosian v. Greece (no. 48195/17)*   The applicant, Garik Torosian, is an Armenian national who was born in 1983. He lives in Thessaloniki   (Greece). On 16 February 2015 he was arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by an   investigating judge and placed in pre-trial detention in relation to criminal proceedings that were   pending against him for armed robbery, committed jointly and in coincidence with other offences   and in a particularly brutal manner against persons, resulting in death and serious bodily injury. In   he was sentenced twice by the appeal court to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed on   points of law.   The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers   on the day of his arrest. It also concerns the criminal and disciplinary proceedings against those   police officers.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention,   the applicant alleges that he was submitted to physical violence by the police officers during his   arrest.   Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he submits that the administrative and judicial   authorities did not carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of police violence.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), he alleges a breach of his right of access to a court on   account of the dismissal, as inadmissible, of an appeal lodged by him on 6 July 2016.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   No violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000   the Court rejected the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses since he had not submitted any   supporting documents   Chocholáč v. Slovakia (no. 81292/17)   The applicant, Roman Chocholáč, is a Slovak national who was born in 1989. He is serving a life   sentence in Leopoldov Prison (Slovakia) for murder.   The case concerns the ban on prison inmates’ possessing pornographic material. In 2013 some   pornographic images were seized from Mr Chocholáč. He was found guilty of a disciplinary offence.   In the final domestic judgment in the case, the Constitutional Court held, among other things, that   the relevant law was absolute on the matter, that prison involved isolation from the opposite sex,   and that pornography could prompt sexual and violent offences. The law left no room for balancing   the ban on such material against the individual’s right to receive information.   He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,600   Ferhatović v. Slovenia (no. 64725/19)   The applicant, Sebastjan Ferhatović, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1984 and lives in   Ljubljana.   The case concerns the seizure of three large bags of copper wire from the applicant – then a   defendant in criminal proceedings – and their handover to Company E., from which the wire had   allegedly been stolen. The wire, at a value of 23,000 euros, had allegedly been stolen from the   company. Charges were lodged against the applicant for the alleged crime in 2010 and dropped in   2012.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant   complains about the handover of the wire.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction:   The finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary   damage sustained by the applicant.   pecuniary damage: EUR 16,500   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   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   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