003-7880512-10957323

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 041 (2024)   20.02.2024   Judgments of 20 February 2024   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1:   Three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for four other Chamber judgments in the cases of Danileț   v. Romania (application no. 16915/21), I.L. v. Switzerland (no. 2) (no. 36609/16), Wa Baile   v. Switzerland (no. 43868/18), and Dede v. Türkiye (no. 48340/20);   four Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can   be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   M.G. v. Lithuania (application no. 6406/21)   The applicant, Mr M.G., is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1996 and lives in Kaunas   (Lithuania).   The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the proceedings brought against his aunt’s live-in   partner who had hit him and threatened him with rape in 2014 when he was 17 years old. The   perpetrator was convicted of attempted sexual assault of a minor in 2019 and given a three-year   suspended prison sentence. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2020.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the   applicant alleges that the length of the domestic proceedings, lasting almost six years, was excessive   and that his aggressor’s punishment was too lenient.   Violation of Article 3   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 8,000 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: EUR 605   Lypovchenko and Halabudenco v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia   (nos. 40926/16 and 73942/17)   The applicants are Oleksandr Lypovchenko, a Ukrainian national, and Oleg Halabudenco, a Moldovan   national. They were born in 1979 and 1969, respectively, and live in Dnestrovsk and Chișinău.   The case concerns the applicants’ allegations of various breaches of their rights in the   self-proclaimed “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” (a separatist administration on the territory of   the Republic of Moldova – the “MRT”).   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   Mr Lypovchenko was arrested in 2015 by the de facto “MRT” authorities for criticising the “MRT” on   social media. He was convicted in 2016 of incitement to extremism and sentenced to three and a   half years’ imprisonment; he served the sentence in full in an “MRT” prison.   Mr Halabudenco, a part-time lecturer at a university in Tiraspol (a city in the “MRT”), was   apprehended in 2016 and remanded in custody on charges of taking a bribe from a student. He was   released after posting bail. However, the de facto “Tiraspol City Court” subsequently rescinded the   decision to release the applicant on bail and issued an arrest warrant. The bail he had previously   posted was later forfeited and paid into the “MRT treasury”. He had in the meantime left the   Transnistrian region.   Relying on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European   Convention, Mr Lypovchenko complains that his arrest and conviction were unlawful. He also relies   on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) to complain that his detention   conditions were inadequate, principally because of overcrowding, lack of medical care and being   forced to have psychiatric treatment when he went on hunger strike. He also alleges that the de   facto “MRT” authorities prevented him from properly communicating with the European Court, in   breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of   movement) to the Convention, Mr Halabudenco complains that he could no longer travel to the   Transnistria region of the Republic of Moldova because of the arrest warrant against him or continue   his professional activities there. He also alleges a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of   property) because of the forfeiture of the amount that he had posted as bail.   Both applicants complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective   remedies in respect of their complaints.   Violation of Article 3 in respect of the first applicant by the Russian Federation and no violation by   the Republic of Moldova   Violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the first applicant by the Russian Federation and no violation   by the Republic of Moldova   Violation of Article 6 in respect of the first applicant by the Russian Federation and no violation by   the Republic of Moldova   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the second applicant by the Russian Federation   and no violation by the Republic of Moldova   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in respect of the second applicant by the Russian Federation   and no violation by the Republic of Moldova   Violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial) in respect of the first applicant   and of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4   in respect of the second applicant, by the Russian Federation and no violation by the Republic of   Moldova   No violation of Article 34 in respect of the first applicant   Just satisfaction:   The Court held that the Russian Federation was to pay EUR 26,000 to the first applicant and   EUR 6,500 to the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as well as EUR 4,000 to each   applicant in respect of costs and expenses.   Diaconeasa v. Romania (no. 53162/21)   The applicant, Angelica Diaconeasa, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Lupeni   (Romania).   Ms Diaconeasa had a stroke in 2013 which left her unable to move or talk. The case concerns the   authorities’ decision in 2017 to no longer provide her with a home care assistant.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life), Ms Diaconeasa complains that nothing had   changed in her situation since 2016 to justify reducing the level of care provided to her and that that   decision forced her into isolation and deprived her of her autonomy.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,500   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]e.int | 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