003-7965968-11107281

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 143 (2024)   06.06.2024   Judgments and decisions of 6 June 2024   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 32 judgments1 and 55 decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for a Chamber judgment in the case of Bersheda and   Rybolovlev v. Monaco (applications nos. 36559/19 and 36570/19);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 55 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and does not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Abbasali Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 46579/14,   46596/14, and 58873/14)   The applicants are 16 Azerbaijani nationals who all live in Azerbaijan, either in Shirvan or Baku.   The case mainly concerns the applicants’ complaints that they could not recover savings they had   deposited in a private bank in Baku before 2008 which had been embezzled by the head of the bank   and other staff members. The bank was subsequently liquidated.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article   of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the applicants allege that   the domestic courts’ examination of the cases seeking to recover their money was unfair, in   particular because they held that only the individuals who had been convicted in the embezzlement   proceedings were liable to repay the deposits, and not the bank.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 4,000 euros (EUR) to each applicant   costs and expenses: EUR 2,000 to the applicants jointly   Cramesteter v. Italy (no. 19358/17)*   The applicant, Fabio Cramesteter, is an Italian national who was born in 1970. He is currently in   detention in Florence Prison (Italy) for offences unrelated to the present case.   He complains that he was kept in a psychiatric facility beyond the time-limits allowed under a   domestic law that was enacted after the measure imposed on him had been decided.   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   In 2003 the applicant was convicted at first instance on charges of illegal possession of weapons and   handling stolen goods. Subsequently, in 2004, the Court of Appeal acquitted him on the grounds   that, at the time when the offences were committed, he was incapable of understanding the   wrongful nature of his acts and of forming the intent to commit them. Since it considered him   dangerous, the court nevertheless placed him in preventive detention for an initial term of two   years. This measure was extended until 26 October 2016, at which time the Florence District Court,   acting as sentence-execution judge, found that the maximum term set by Law no. 81/2014 had   elapsed and ordered the applicant’s immediate release. This law, which came into force on 1 June   2014, provides that the maximum term for preventive measures involving a restriction of personal   liberty is equal to the maximum term of the sentence applicable in the event of conviction.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicant   complains that he was unlawfully imprisoned as of 28 February 2015, the date that he alleges   corresponded, in his case, to the expiry of the maximum term for preventive detention measures   introduced by Law no. 81/2014. He further complains that he was unable to obtain redress for the   unlawful detention to which he claims he was subjected, despite having brought an action in the   domestic courts on the basis of Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the courts   dismissed.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   Violation of Article 5 § 5   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 8,000   L.T. v. Ukraine (no. 13459/15)   The applicant, Ms L.T., is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Poltava (Ukraine).   The case concerns criminal proceedings against Ms L.T. which led to a decision to commit her to a   psychiatric facility. In particular, she was accused of assaulting a woman in the street. The courts   convicted her in July 2014 of inflicting bodily harm, but found that she was not responsible for the   offence and ordered her involuntary medical treatment.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial/right to legal assistance), Ms L.T. alleges that   the criminal proceedings against her were unfair because she had been excluded from her trial and   denied access to the case file and the State-appointed lawyers who had represented her had been   manifestly passive, with one of them openly supporting the prosecutor’s position. She alleges   moreover that, as a person subject to court-ordered medical treatment, the only possibility for her   to appeal the ruling of the criminal against her had been through her defence counsel, who had   failed to do so.   She also relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of   appeal in criminal matters).   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,400   costs and expenses: EUR 3,800   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 are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   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