003-7414674-10148424

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 260 (2022)   30.08.2022   Judgments of 30 August 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of 16 judgments1:   four Chamber judgments are summarised below;   five separate press releases have been issued for six other Chamber judgments in the cases of   Korporativna Targovska Banka AD v. Bulgaria (applications nos. 46564/15 and 68140/16),   R v. France (no. 49857/20) and W v. France (no. 1348/21), C. v. Romania (no. 47358/20), Pârvu   v. Romania (no. 13326/18), and Tusă v. Romania (no. 21854/18);   six 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 below are available only in English.   Ibragimova v. Russia (application no. 68537/13)   The applicant, Naylya Razinovna Ibragimova, was born in 1988 and lived in Murmansk (Russia) at the   time of the events.   The case concerns the applicant’s conviction in administrative-offence proceedings for wearing a   balaclava during a demonstration in August 2012 in a square in Murmansk (Russia). She was staging   a lone protest in reaction to the trial of the Pussy Riot punk band and her balaclava, a green knitted   hat with eyeholes stretched to the chin, was similar to that worn by the band during their   performances.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the   applicant complains about her conviction, submitting that the relevant domestic law – banning the   concealing of one’s face during a public event – is excessively rigid. She also argues that there is no   evidence to prove that she refused to take the balaclava off, or that police officers present during   her protest either attempted to check her identity or caution her.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: 242 euros (EUR)   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,500   Sergey Sorokin v. Russia (no. 52808/09)   The applicant, Sergey Vladimirovich Sorokin, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in   Syktyvkar, Republic of Komi (Russia).   The applicant is a journalist and public activist. In 2008 he published an interview – on the website of   his weekly newspaper, Zyryanskaya zhizn – with a high-ranking police officer regarding a scandal   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   about abuse of power. A criminal case was subsequently opened against the police officer for   disclosing State secrets. The applicant’s case with the European Court concerns the search of his flat   and the seizure of his computer, four hard drives and an audio cassette in the context of these   criminal proceedings.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicant alleges in   particular that the search and seizure warrant was worded in such wide terms that all his electronic   devices were seized, along with confidential information completely unrelated to the criminal case.   He also alleges that the subsequent judicial review of the measures against him failed to balance   protection of journalistic sources against the needs of the criminal investigation. He also relies on   Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an   effective remedy) of the Convention.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,500   costs and expenses: EUR 6,000   Traskunova v. Russia (no. 21648/11)   The applicant, Nonna Vladimirovna Traskunova, now deceased, was a Russian national who was   born in 1925. Her grandson is continuing the application on her behalf.   The case concerns the death of the applicant’s daughter in 2006 while she was participating in the   clinical trial of a new drug – asenapine – for schizophrenia. The ensuing inquiry revealed that her   daughter had slipped into a coma and died because of heart disease which had gone undetected and   which had been aggravated by the experimental drug. The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to   have disciplinary proceedings instituted against those responsible and to bring criminal proceedings   into the death.   Relying on Article2 (right to life), the applicant argued that her daughter’s doctors had put her life at   risk by failing to carry out comprehensive medical check-ups prior to admitting her to the trials, to   then monitor her condition, and to discontinue the trials as soon as side effects had appeared.   Violation of Article 2   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 20,000   costs and expenses: EUR 270   Y.G. v. Russia (no. 8647/12)   The applicant, Y.G, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow. He is HIV-   positive and suffers from hepatitis.   The case concerns the collection of health data, including that of the applicant, in a database that   was made available for sale at a market.   Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the   applicant complains that the law-enforcement authorities had unlawfully collected, stored and   entered his health data in a database, and that they had failed to ensure the confidentiality of his   data and to carry out an effective investigation into their disclosure.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,500   costs and expenses: 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   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.   3