003-7429557-10171898

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 281 (2022)   13.09.2022   Judgments of 13 September 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of three judgments1:   the three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   The judgments summarised below are available only in English   Gilanov v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 44719/10)   The applicant, Michael Gilanov, is a Georgian national who was born in 1959 and is currently under   the supervision of the courts in Chişinău.   Mr Gilanov came to Moldova in 2000 and obtained a residence permit, officially leaving in 2006. In   an investigation was opened into his alleged fraud and his detention was ordered. The case   concerns his extradition from Belarus and detention.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), and   Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, Mr Gilanov complains, in particular, that his detention was carried out   on the basis of an expired court order, that the order was not adequately reasoned, and it was   decided without a lawyer of his own choosing being present.   No violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 3   Violation of Article 5 § 4   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 3,000 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: EUR 650   Timur Sharipov v. Russia (no. 15758/13)   The applicant, Timur Rustambekovich Sharipov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives   in Moscow.   The case concerns Mr Sharipov’s removal from a polling station where he was working as an election   observer during the parliamentary elections of 2011. The decision to remove had been on the basis   of his conduct while filming in the polling station, and was later adjudged to have been well-founded   by the domestic courts.   He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention and Article 3 of Protocol   No. 1 (right to free elections).   Violation of Article 10   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   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,000   Başer and Özçelik v. Türkiye (nos. 30694/15 and 30803/15)   The applicants, Mustafa Başer and Metin Özçelik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and   respectively.   At the time of the events in question, the applicants were judges in the criminal courts in Istanbul.   The case concerns their pre-trial detention while being held on suspicion of, among other charges,   attempting to overthrow the Government and membership of an illegal armed organisation. They   had been involved in the decisions to release suspects allegedly connected to the Fetullahist   Terrorist Organisation/Parallel State Structure (Fetullahçı Terör Örgütü / Paralel Devlet Yapılanması).   The applicants were ultimately found guilty of membership of an armed terrorist organisation and   abuse of power only in 2017.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of   detention decided speedily by a court), Article 7 (no punishment without law), and Article 10   (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicants complain, in particular, that their pre-trial   detention was in breach of the law and was not adequately justified by the courts, that their   challenge to that decision was hindered by lack of access to the case files, that their detention was   overly long, and that the courts failed to respond to their arguments and interpreted the law in an   arbitrary manner.   Violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial detention   for lack of prior authorisation for initiating a criminal investigation   No violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the unlawfulness of the applicants’ initial pre-trial   detention insofar as the applicants complained about the lack of jurisdiction of the 2nd Bakırköy   Assize Court to decide on their detention   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) on account of the lack of reasonable suspicion, at the time of the   applicants’ initial pre-trial detention, that they had committed an offence   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,000 to each applicant   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.   2