003-7666847-10570024

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 167 (2023)   06.06.2023   Judgments of 6 June 2023   The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of six Chamber   judgments1:   three judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for the other three judgments in the cases of Navalnyy   v. Russia (no. 3) (application no. 36418/20), Demirtaş and Yüksekdağ Şenoğlu v. Türkiye   (nos. 10207/21 and 10209/21), and Sarısu Pehlivan v Türkiye (no. 63029/19);   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Pitsiladi and Vasilellis v. Greece (application no. 5049/14 and 5122/14)*   The applicants, Georgia Pitsiladi and Efstratios Vasilellis, are Greek nationals who were born in 1978   and 1963 respectively and live in Lesbos.   The case concerns the inability of the applicants to access a bank account containing the funds   raised to pay for their son’s hospital treatment in the United States. Their son eventually died.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants   complain about their inability to access the bank account in question and to transfer the money to   the hospital in the United States so that their son could receive treatment. They allege that this   situation resulted in his death.   No violation of Article 2   Just Satisfaction   Vod Baur Impex S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 17060/15)   The applicant, Vod Baur Impex S.R.L., is a Romanian company based in Bucharest. In 2006 the   applicant company bought from the City of Bucharest commercial premises which included the   ground floor and the basement of a multi-storey building. Following civil proceedings brought by the   association of landlords, representing the owners of the private apartments in the building, the   courts annulled the contract of sale in respect of the basement, finding that it had always belonged   to the association of landlords, not the City of Bucharest.   The judgment concerned the procedure relating to the parties’ observations on just satisfaction   following the Court’s judgment of 26 April 2022 in the applicant company’s favour, finding a   violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention as   regards the proceedings brought by the applicant company against the City of Bucharest for   compensation.   In its judgment on the merits of 26 April 2022, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention as regards the proceedings brought by   the applicant company against the City of Bucharest for compensation.   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.   It reserved the question of just satisfaction for examination at a later date.   Today’ judgement dealt with the question of just satisfaction.   Just satisfaction: Since the applicant company had not submitted any observations on just   satisfaction, the Court decided to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.   Kazan v. Türkiye (no. 58262/10)*   The applicant, Şerife Kazan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Ankara.   The case concerns a civil court decision following a claim for reimbursement lodged by the Ministry   of the Interior, ordering the applicant jointly and severally with forty-five other individuals to   reimburse the State for the compensation paid in respect of medical expenses to a number of police   officers injured during a demonstration, in spite of the applicant’s acquittal in the criminal   proceedings.   Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention, the applicant   complains of being ordered by the civil courts – despite having been acquitted of the charges against   her in the criminal proceedings – to reimburse the sums paid by the Ministry of the Interior in   compensation for medical expenses to the police officers injured during the dispersal of a   demonstration outside the courthouse, where the applicant had gone to attend a hearing as the   relative of a prisoner and where she had expressed her views. Under Article 10 (freedom of   expression), she alleges a breach of her right to freedom of expression. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right   to a fair hearing), she complains of a lack of reasons for the civil courts’ decisions and maintains that   the finding that she was liable for the physical injuries sustained by the police officers lacked any   justification.   Violation of Article 11   Just satisfaction:   No request for just satisfaction made   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