003-7514260-10313002

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 375 (2022)   06.12.2022   Judgments of 6 December 2022   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1   five Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for three other Chamber judgments in the cases of Kalda   v. Estonia (application no. 14581/20), K.K. and Others v. Denmark (no. 25212/21), and Spasov   v. Romania (no. 27122/12);   three 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 judgment in French is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Mnatsakanyan v. Armenia (application no. 2463/12)   The applicant, Samvel Mnatsakanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1956 and lived in   Yerevan.   In July 2011 Mr Mnatsakanyan was removed from his position as a judge of the Avan and Nor Nork   District Court in Yerevan. One of his decisions had allegedly lacked proper reasoning and he had   allegedly not demonstrated the required level of professional competence. The case concerns the   court proceedings initiated by him against that decision, which were unsuccessful, as were the   appeals.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 14 (prohibition of   discrimination), of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12   (general prohibition of discrimination) to the European Convention, Mr Mnatsakanyan alleges, in   particular, that he was denied access to a court, that the dismissal infringed his freedom of   expression, and that the actions on the part of the authorities were discriminatory.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 3,600 (euros) EUR to the applicant’s widow and daughter jointly   costs and expenses: EUR 1,300 to the applicant’s widow and daughter jointly   Pannon Plakát Kft and Others v. Hungary (no. 39859/14)   The applicants are seven companies based in Hungary. They are all involved in roadside advertising   hoardings.   The case concerns the introduction and amendment of the legislation governing roadside advertising   hoardings, in particular the Road Traffic Act, along with Government decrees, which had the effect   of heavily restricting the use of such hoardings and effectively banning the installation of new   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   hoardings outside built-up areas. That greatly limited the applicant companies’ activities, including   stopping use of up to 73% of hoardings and loss of up to 80% of revenue. Two of the companies   went bankrupt in the following years.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) to the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property), the applicant companies complain, in particular, of the loss of ability to   operate their previously installed advertising hoardings and the ban on the future installation of such   assets.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: Details of the amounts awarded to the applicant companies for pecuniary and non-   pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, are appended to the judgment.   Scalzo v. Italy (no. 8790/21)*   The applicant, Maria Scalzo, was born in 1954 and lives in Sellia Marina (Italy).   The case concerns the applicant’s inability to bring an action to establish paternity on the part of her   alleged biological father, owing, firstly, to the fact that under Italian law no paternity action can be   brought until a final judgment has been delivered excluding paternity on the part of the putative   father, and, secondly, to the length of the proceedings to contest paternity.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)   of the Convention, the applicant complains of her inability to have her status as daughter recognised   owing to the length of the proceedings to contest paternity, which have been pending for over   years.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR: 10,000   costs and expenses: EUR 20,000   Kerimoğlu v. Türkiye (no. 58829/10)   The applicant, Alican Kerimoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.   The case concerns the criminal proceedings against Mr Kerimoğlu, who was charged in connection   with a shooting over a property transaction.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman a degrading   treatment), Mr Kerimoğlu complains that his trial was unfair owing, in particular, to the courts’   failure to deliver a reasoned judgment, as was confirmed by the plenary Court of Cassation’s   decision to quash it six years after it had become final, and of the length of his detention and   sentence.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: EUR: 26,500   non-pecuniary damage: EUR: 12,500   costs and expenses: EUR 12,755   Subaşı and Others v. Türkiye (no. 3468/20 and 18 other applications)   The applicants are 19 Turkish nationals who were detained in various detention facilities at the time   of the events, either awaiting trial or appeal or who had been convicted of terrorism-related   offences in connection with the attempted coup of 15 July 2016.   The case concerns the refusal of the domestic authorities to grant the applicants permission to   receive visits from their school-age children during the weekends. Some of the applications also   concern the authorities’ decision to prohibit telephone calls during the weekends and the failure to   notify the applicants of the public prosecutor’s opinion during proceedings concerning those   restrictions.   Relying on Article 8, all the applicants complain that their right to respect for their private and family   life was violated as a result of the decisions of the national authorities to restrict their visiting rights   with their children, and the applicants in two of the applications further complain about the   restriction on making telephone calls at weekends.   Violation of Article 8 on account of the restrictions on visits in respect of all applicants   Violation of Article 8 on account of the restrictions on telephone calls in respect of the applicants   Barış Yaslan and Seyfettin Açıkgöz   Just satisfaction: Details of the amounts awarded to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary   damage, as well as costs and expenses, are appended to the judgment.   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