003-7572267-10408068

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 051 (2023)   16.02.2023   Judgments and decisions of 16 February 2023   The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of seven judgments1 and   decisions2:   four Chamber judgments are summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for a decision in the case of Taleski and Others v. North   Macedonia (applications no. 77796/17, 80003/17, 81848/17, 81862/17, 11583/18, and 30884/18);   three Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 16 other decisions can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Ibrahimbeyov and Others v. Azerbaijan (application no. 32380/13)   The applicants, Rustam Ibrahimbeyov, Shohrat Ibrahimbeyova, and Lala Afandiyeva are Azerbaijani   nationals who were born in 1939, 1966, and 1941 respectively. Mr Ibrahimbeyov has since died; the   remaining two live in Baku.   The case concerns the alleged unlawful annulment of the applicants’ title to plots of land without   compensation.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Right and   Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the applicants complain   about their loss of land and that the domestic courts’ decisions did not provide any explanations.   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Ochigava v. Georgia (no. 14142/15)   The applicant, Akaki Ochigava, is a Georgian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Tbilisi.   The case concerns the applicant’s treatment whilst he was in Tbilisi Prison no. 8 (“Gldani Prison”)   after being convicted of robbery.   Relying on Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or   degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was subjected to   systematic acts of ill-treatment in Gldani Prison between June 2011 and August 2012, and that the   competent domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation.   Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment and investigation) on account of the applicant’s ill-treatment, the   certain acts of which amounted to torture, and the lack of an effective criminal investigation thereof   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.   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 20,000 euros (EUR)   Perstner v. Luxembourg (no. 7446/21)*   The case concerns the pre-trial detention in Schrassig, Luxembourg, of the applicant, Kevin Perstner,   a French national who was born in 1990.   On suspicion of having robbed an elderly couple in 2015, Mr Perstner was surrendered to the   Luxembourg authorities by their French counterparts in 2019. After being remanded in custody he   made three bail applications, which were refused. In 2021 he was convicted and sentenced to seven   years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, he complains that he was held   on remand for too long and that his detention was unreasonable. He argues that the decisions   refusing him bail were inadequately reasoned.   No violation of Article 5 § 3   Hubert Nowak v. Poland (no. 57916/16)   The applicant, Hubert Nowak, is a Polish national who was born in 1986 and lives in Warsaw.   The case concerns a serious car accident that left Mr Nowak with brain damage and tetraplegic, and   the allegedly inadequate first aid provided to him. He was initially pronounced dead by an   ambulance doctor and no medical attention was given to him for two hours.   Relying principally on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complains that the authorities failed both   to protect his right to life and to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into his allegation   of medical negligence.   No violation of Article 2 (right to life)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 26,000   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.   2