issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 178 (2014)
24.06.2014
Judgments concerning Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Switzerland,
and Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine judgments, of
which one (in italics) is a Committee judgment and is final. The others are Chamber judgments1 and
are not final.
One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of
the press release. The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).
The Court has also delivered today judgments in the cases of Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy
(applications nos. 48357/07, 52677/0/07, 52687/07, and 52701/07), Petrova v. Latvia (no. 4605/05) and Roşiianu v.
Romania (no. 27329/06), for which separate press releases have been issued.
Petkov and Profirov v. Bulgaria (applications nos. 50027/08 and 50781/09)
The applicants, Stanislav Petkov and Petko Profirov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1981
and 1980 respectively and live in Burgas (Bulgaria). The case concerned the applicants’ detention for
24 hours by the police who believed that they were linked to a series of thefts.
Both applicants were arrested in a hotel in Stara Zagora on 4 March 2007; the police justified the
arrests on the fact that the applicants had been in the company of a man who was on an
international wanted list and that there had been a series of thefts in the city. They were questioned
and issued with a 24-hour detention order and, not questioned or summoned further, were then
released on 5 March 2007. Mr Petkov was arrested again on 6 December 2007 on a street in Burgas
and detained for another 24 hours’; the police justified the arrest on the fact that it was late at night
and Mr Petkov and another man had tried to hide a pair of pliers and gloves from them.
The applicants claimed that they had been arrested without reasonable suspicion of having
committed an offence, had not been informed of the reasons for their detention in the orders issued
against them, had not been given access to a lawyer during their detention, had been unable to
bring proceedings to obtain their immediate release and, once released, had not been able to obtain
compensation for their allegedly arbitrary detention. The case was examined under Article 5 §§ 1, 2,
4, and 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4 and 5
Just satisfaction: 1,000 euros (EUR) to Mr Petkov and EUR 500 to Mr Profirov (non-pecuniary
damage), and EUR 1,232 jointly to the two applicants, EUR 601 to Mr Petkov and EUR 339 to Mr
Profirov (costs and expenses)
1 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
Alberti v. Italy (no. 15397/11)*
The applicant, Mr Dimitri Alberti, is an Italian national who was born in 1971 and was homeless at
the relevant time. The case concerned his allegations that he was assaulted at the hands of the
carabinieri after his arrest on 11 March 2010 while in a bar in Cerea (Verona).
A customer had called the authorities following a clash between the manager of the bar and
Mr Alberti. Faced with the applicant’s refusal to produce an identity document and the insults and
threats made by him, the carabinieri decided to handcuff him and take him to the police station.
They had difficulty in restraining the applicant, who put up a fight. He was then transferred to
Verona Prison, where he told the doctor that he had been struck by the carabinieri during his arrest.
Examination in a casualty department revealed three broken ribs and haematoma on the right
testicle, resulting in twenty days’ unfitness for work. The investigation opened following these
allegations of ill-treatment was discontinued, as the State prosecutor considered that the events as
related by the applicant were not corroborated by the witnesses who had been questioned.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Alberti alleged that he had
been assaulted whilst in the hands of the carabinieri, and that the authorities had failed in their
obligation to carry out a thorough, prompt and independent investigation into his allegations.
Two violations of Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment + ineffective investigation)
Just satisfaction: EUR 15,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 4,000 (costs and expenses)
Biraghi and Others v. Italy (nos. 3429/09, 3430/09, 3431/09, 3432/09, 3992/09,
4100/09, 11561/09, 15609/09, 15637/09, 15649/09, 15761/09, 15783/09,
17111/09, 17371/09, 17374/09, 17378/09, 20787/09, 20799/09, 20830/09,
29007/09, 41408/09, and 41422/09)
Cataldo and Others v. Italy (nos. 54425/08, 58361/08, 58464/08, 60505/08,
60524/08, and 61827/08)
Both cases concerned legislative intervention in pending proceedings relating to the calculation of
old-age pensions.
The applicants are 28 Italian nationals who were born between 1934 and 1947 and live in Italy.
In 1995 Italy changed its pension system from an earnings- or remuneration-based one to a
contributory one. Following that change the applicants, who had worked in Switzerland and
eventually moved to Italy (where they transferred their contributions paid in Switzerland), started
receiving lower pensions as a result of a specific interpretation being used by the Italian welfare
entity (INPS) concerning the calculation of pensions. The applicants brought judicial proceedings in
2005/6 challenging this interpretation. While those proceedings were still pending Law no. 296/2006
was enacted confirming the interpretation used by the INPS. Their claims were therefore rejected in
2008 and 2009 in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants alleged that the legislative
intervention – namely the enactment of Law no. 296/2006 – while their proceedings had still been
pending before the Italian courts had breached their right to a fair trial.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 – in both cases
Just satisfaction:
- in the case of Biraghi and Others: the Court awarded each of the 22 applicants a sum comprised
between EUR 6,000 and EUR 47,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 each in respect
of non-pecuniary damage
2
- in the case of Cataldo and Others: the Court awarded each of the six applicants a sum comprised
between EUR 13,500 and EUR 40,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 each in
respect of non-pecuniary damage
A.K. v. Latvia (no. 33011/08)
The case concerned an allegation of a gynaecologist’s medical negligence in antenatal care.
The applicant, Ms A.K., is a Latvian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Rīga Parish (Latvia).
In June 2002 she gave birth to a daughter with Down’s syndrome. She claimed that her
gynaecologist had failed to ensure that she had an antenatal screening test during her pregnancy, in
spite of the fact that she was 40 at the time and under domestic law should have been treated as a
patient with a high risk pregnancy.
In July 2002 Ms A.K. therefore lodged a complaint with the Inspectorate for Quality Control of
Medical Treatment (“the MADEKKI”), which issued an opinion to the effect that the gynaecologist
had referred her for an antenatal test but, having failed to ensure that it was carried out, was in
breach of the rules on the care of pregnant women. The gynaecologist was thus given a fine.
Ms A.K. subsequently brought a civil claim for damages against the hospital where her gynaecologist
practised. The claim was dismissed in January 2006. The civil courts found that Ms A.K. was to blame
for the fact that the antenatal screening test had not been carried out as she had not turned up for
the test and had not informed her doctor about the risk of genetic illness running in her family (her
eldest son has schizophrenia). In any case, the courts found that she was not in a high-risk category
merely on account of her age and that there was no causal link between the failure to ensure that
she had the test and the birth of her daughter with Down’s syndrome. Ms A.K. maintained her
complaints before the Civil Chamber and the Senate of the Supreme Court, but her claims were
dismissed in April 2007 and September 2007, respectively.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms A.K. alleged in particular that she
had been denied adequate and timely medical care in the form of an antenatal screening test which
would have indicated the risk of her foetus having a genetic disorder and would have allowed her to
choose whether to continue the pregnancy. She also complained that the national courts, by
wrongly interpreting the Medical Treatment Law, had failed to establish an infringement of her right
to respect for her private life.
Violation of Article 8 (procedural aspect)
Just satisfaction: EUR 5,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 5,141 (costs and expenses)
Ionuţ-Laurenţiu Tudor v. Romania (no. 34013/05)*
The applicant, Ionuţ-Laurenţiu Tudor, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in
Drăgăşani (Romania). The case concerned his pre-trial detention.
He was arrested on 26 February 2005 on suspicion of fraud in the sale of a vehicle, and placed in
police custody. His conviction for attempted fraud on 1 November 2005 was upheld on appeal on
30 April 2007.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained about the
conditions of his detention in the Timişoara and Colibaşi Prisons, particularly overcrowding. Relying
in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he also alleged, notably, that the
Romanian courts had not provided reasons justifying the need to extend his pre-trial detention.
Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he further alleged that the judges who had decided his case
3
could not have been impartial, since they had ruled both on the merits of the case and on the issue
of pre-trial detention.
Violation of Article 3 – on account of prison overcrowding
Violation of Article 5 § 3
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 12,500 (non-pecuniary damage)
Ukaj v. Switzerland (no. 32493/08)*
The applicant, Adem Ukaj, is a Kosovar who was born in 1982 and lives in Kosovo. The case
concerned his expulsion from Switzerland.
On 27 September 1998 he arrived in Switzerland with his mother and siblings, having fled the
conflict in Kosovo. On account of the tensions in that region, the applicant’s mother and siblings
received provisional residence permits for Switzerland. Mr Ukaj was issued with a residence permit
under the provisions for family reunification. Following the imposition of several penalties by the
juvenile section of the prosecuting authority, the applicant was warned that he was running the risk
of expulsion. Nonetheless, he subsequently became involved in new criminal activities on several
occasions, and on 6 July 2005 he was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment for, among
other things, multiple thefts, robberies and damage to property. While in prison, he married an
18-year old Swiss national, who was, he alleged, his long-term companion. The authorities decided
to expel Mr Ukaj. In dismissing his appeal, the Federal Court emphasised Mr Ukaj’s criminal energy
and potential for violence, and refused to find that he was well integrated in Switzerland, having
arrived only at the age of sixteen. The Federal Court applied the rule stating that, where a sentence
of more than two years is imposed, a foreigner who is married to a Swiss national can no longer be
accepted in Swiss territory. The applicant divorced on 16 March 2010 and left for Kosovo on
2 November 2010.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained about his expulsion
from Switzerland, on the ground that his private life had been established there for more than ten
years.
No violation of Article 8
Yarashonen v. Turkey (no. 72710/11)
The applicant, Zalim Yarashonen, is a Russian national of Chechen origin who was born in 1984 and
lives in Istanbul. He arrived in Turkey in 2000 after his father and brother were allegedly killed by the
Russian security forces and he fled the country.
He was arrested in October 2010 at Atatürk International Airport in Istanbul for illegal entry into
Turkey as he had no passport. He was detained in view of his deportation initially at the airport
police station and then at Kumkapı Removal Centre. He was released in April 2011 and granted an
asylum-seeker certificate.
Relying in particular on 5 §§ 1, 2, 4, and 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Yarashonen alleged that
his detention from October 2010 to April 2011 had been unlawful, that he had not been informed of
the reasons for his detention and that he had neither been given the possibility of challenging the
lawfulness of his detention or of obtaining compensation for those complaints. Further relying on
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective
remedy), he also alleged in particular that the conditions of his detention in Kumkapı Removal
Centre had been inhuman and degrading, notably on account of overcrowding and poor hygiene.
Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4, and 5
4
Violation of Article 3 – on account of the material conditions of the applicant’s detention at the
Kumkapı Removal Centre
Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 – on account of the absence of effective
remedies to complain about the material conditions of detention at the Kumkapı Removal Centre
Just satisfaction: EUR 10,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,997 (costs and expenses)
Length-of-proceedings case
In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial
within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings.
Grzona v. Poland (no. 3206/09)
Violation of Article 6 § 1
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_Press.
Press contacts
[email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)
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.
5