003-7486421-10268816

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 352 (2022)   10.11.2022   Judgments and decisions of 10 November 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of 50 judgments1 and   decisions2:   five Chamber judgments are summarised below;   four separate press releases have been issued for Chamber judgments in the cases of Bakirdzi and   E.C. v. Hungary (applications nos. 49636/14 and 65678/14), I.M. and Others v. Italy (no. 25426/20),   Rimšēvičs v. Latvia (no. 56425/18), and The Karibu Foundation v. Norway (no. 2317/20);   a separate press release has also been issued for one decision in the case of Mas Gavarró v. Spain   (no. 26111/15);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the other 61 decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Alasgarov and Others v. Azerbaijan (application no. 32088/11)   The case concerns a dispute over plots of land that had been allocated to the applicants by the   Agrarian Reform Commission in Absheron for agricultural use. The Absheron District Mehdiabad   Municipality later notified some of the applicants that their plots would be reallocated so that the   State could make use of the land for construction purposes. A wall was erected around the original   plots for construction purposes.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicants complain that the domestic authorities unlawfully interfered with their   peaceful enjoyment of their land. The applicants also complain, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial),   that the judgments of the domestic courts had not been reasoned.   The Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as brought by applicants   nos. 23-82.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: the question is not ready for decision and has been set aside   Sládková v. the Czech Republic (no. 15741/15)   The applicant, Lenka Sládková, is a Czech national who was born in 1983 and lives in Prague.   The case concerns Ms Sládková’s arrest in 2013 following an argument in a bar. She was taken to   Nové Město police station in Prague where she allegedly suffered violence – which allegedly left   marks on her body – racial abuse, threats and degrading sexual treatment.   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 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), and Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy) of the European Convention, Ms Sládková complains of ill-treatment while being   held at the police station and during her transfer from the sobering-up centre to that station the   following day.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   No violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 6,000 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: EUR 2,000   N.V. and C.C. v. Malta (no. 4952/21)   The applicants, N.V., a Maltese national, and C.C., a British national, were born in 1976 and 1968   respectively and live in Xewkija (Gozo, Malta).   The case concerns an order by the domestic court by which N.V. was prohibited from seeing her   partner, C.C., (with whom she later had a child) in the presence of her child from a previous marriage   who lived with them.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicants   complain of the court decision which remained in place for nearly five years. C.C. also complains,   under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that the domestic courts took a decision affecting him   without him having had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 12,000 to the applicants jointly   costs and expenses: EUR 2,937 to the applicants jointly   J.N. v. Poland (no. 10390/15)   The applicant, J.N., is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Warsaw.   Following a violent dispute with her partner and father of her children, J.N. moved out of her   partner’s house. The case concerns the subsequent proceedings to decide on custody and contact   rights with the children.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains that the   domestic courts took too long to examine her applications for custody and contact with her children.   She also complains that the domestic court’s decision to have the children moved to their father’s   home was unjustified and contrary to their best interests.   No violation of Article 8   Kupinskyy v. Ukraine (no. 5084/18)   The applicant, Sergiy Onisiyevych Kupinskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973.   The case concerns Mr Kupinskyy’s life sentence which he is serving in Izyaslav Correctional Colony   (Ukraine) for a double murder he committed in Hungary. He was convicted by the Hungarian courts   in 2002 and transferred to Ukraine in 2007 to serve his sentence.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains that   Ukrainian legislation did not provide for the possibility of applying for parole for prisoners serving life   sentences and that this amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment as he has no hope of   release. He also relies on Article 7 (no punishment without law) to complain that his situation   worsened when he was transferred from Hungary to Ukraine because his sentence was converted   from a “reducible” life sentence to an “irreducible” life sentence.   Violation of Article 3   Violation of Article 7   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,500   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