003-7570287-10404403

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 048 (2023)   14.02.2023   Judgments of 14 February 2023   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   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 judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Just Satisfaction   Avendi OOD v. Bulgaria (application no. 48786/09)   The applicant company, Avendi OOD, is a Bulgarian limited-liability company based in Sofia which   trades in alcoholic beverages.   The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint that the authorities failed to comply with a   final domestic court decision ordering the return of its merchandise, which had been seized as   evidence in criminal proceedings.   In January 2005 the Varna regional police carried out a search-and-seizure operation at a warehouse   where merchandise belonging to the applicant company was stored. The police seized a number of   bottles, of which 26,748 were bottles of Baileys cream liqueur belonging to the applicant company   as evidence in ongoing criminal proceedings against a certain M.M. and S.S. who were suspected of   storing merchandise subject to excise duty without the mandatory stamps. M.M. and S.S. were   subsequently acquitted and the Varna District Court ordered the return of the seized bottles to the   applicant company. The court’s decision became final in December 2005.   However, the investigative and tax authorities continued to retain the bottles pending parallel   proceedings against the applicant company for storing merchandise without the mandatory excise   duty stamps and against an importing company and its representative for selling the beverages to   the applicant company without the mandatory excise duty stamps. All the bottles were eventually   returned to the applicant company in March 2007, by which time the shelf life of the bottles of   liqueur had expired.   The applicant company lodged a claim for damages against the State, requesting that it be awarded   compensation for damage and lost profits, but the claim was unsuccessful.   The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European   Convention on Human Rights in its judgment of 4 June 2020, but reserved the question of just   satisfaction as regards pecuniary damage. It rejected the applicant company’s claims in respect of   non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.   Today’s judgment concerned the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the   European Convention as regards pecuniary damage.   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: The Court decided that the Respondent State was to pay the applicant company   165,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage.   Byčenko v. Lithuania (no. 10477/21)   The applicant, Dmitrijus Byčenko, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Vilnius.   The case concerns a dispute with his ex-wife O. over the residence of their child M., who was born in   2011. After Mr Byčenko and O. divorced in 2017, they agreed that the child would live with O. In   Mr Byčenko complained to the police that his son had disappeared. The police found that he   had been taken to the Netherlands by O. Mr Byčenko went to court to get an order assigning M.’s   place of residence as being with him, ultimately unsuccessfully.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, Mr Byčenko complains, in particular, of   the courts’ refusal to issue a residence order in respect of his son and of discrimination on the   grounds of his gender.   No violation of Article 8   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