Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 133 (2015)


Forthcoming judgments and decisions

The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 judgments on Tuesday 28 April
2015 and 50 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 30 April 2015.

Tuesday 28 April 2015


Delijorgji v. Albania (application no. 6858/11)

Press releases and texts of the judgments and decisions will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on
the Courts Internet site (www.echr.coe.int)

The applicant, Mihal Delijorgji, is an Albanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Tirana. His
case concerns the length of his detention "pending trial" and the time it took for the authorities to
examine his first request for release.
Mr Delijorgji was the administrator for a private commercial company which was carrying out a
demilitarisation process in March 2008 when a massive explosion in one of its facilities killed
26 people and injured 265 others. Criminal proceedings began against Mr Delijorgji and 28 other
people for murder and breach of the rules on explosives.


Two days after the explosion Mr Delijorgji was remanded in custody. In March 2009 the case against
Mr Delijorgji and his co-accused was sent to the Supreme Court for examination because one of the
co-accused was an MP as well as a Cabinet Minister. In June 2009 the case was registered with the
Tirana District Court. In July 2010 Mr Delijorgji requested his release, arguing that the 12-month time
limit for detention "pending trial" had expired. His request was rejected on the basis that the 12month period had only commenced when the case was registered with the District Court (that is to
say in June 2009, not in March 2009 when the case was sent to the Supreme Court), and that a
period of over 8 months, when the case had been stayed, did not count towards the 12-month total.
This decision was upheld on appeal but quashed by the Supreme Court. Whilst this procedure was
still underway, Mr Delijorgjis lawyer introduced a second request for his release; this was quickly
rejected by the District Court which argued that the Supreme Courts findings on his earlier appeal
were only binding on the bench hearing that particular case and had no bearing on his second
release request.
In February 2011 Mr Delijorgjis lawyer made a third request for release, this time it was successful
and Mr Delijorgji was released and placed under house arrest. Mr Delijorgji was convicted in March
2012, and released in March 2013 as the time spent in pre-trial detention both in prison and under
house arrest was deducted from his sentence.
Relying on Article 5 1 (c) (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 4 (right to have lawfulness of
detention decided speedily by a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Delijorgji
complains that his detention "pending trial" from mid-2010 onwards was not in accordance with the
law and that his first request for release was not examined sufficiently speedily.

Doroeva v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 39553/12)

The applicant, Ecaterina Doroeva, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in
Chisinau. The case concerns her allegation that she was ill-treated by the police on being arrested for
a drug-related offence.

On 11 November 2009 Ms Doroeva was arrested by several police officers on the street on
suspicion of possession of drugs. She was taken to the police station where she was held until the
next morning. She alleges that she was ill-treated by the police officers before being taken to the
police station and that this was confirmed upon her release when she was examined by several
doctors who found that she had numerous bruises to her face, arms and hips, concussion and a
broken nose. She lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecuting authorities in January 2010 which
was subsequently dismissed on two occasions, first because the prosecutors thought that her
injuries might have been the result of her falling over and second due to discrepancies in dates of
her medical records. The second and last decision refusing to initiate criminal proceedings was
upheld by an investigating judge in November 2011.


I.P. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 33708/12)

Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Doroeva complains that

she was ill-treated in police custody and that the authorities failed to properly investigate her
complaint or explain the origin of her injuries as recorded in the medical reports.

The applicant, Ms I.P., is a Moldovan national who was born in 1987 and lives in Chisinau. The case
concerns her complaint that the authorities failed to properly investigate her allegation of rape.
Ms I.P. alleges that she was raped by O.P. whom she had been dating for over one year. According to
her, O.P., who was jealous and violent, was upset with her on the evening of 10 May 2010 because
he had not been able to contact her. He had therefore waited for her outside her home and, on her
arrival, had assaulted her, forced her into his car and driven her to his home where he had
sequestered her all night, violently assaulting her, raping her and sodomising her against her will. He
let her go in the morning and called a taxi for her.
She immediately lodged a criminal complaint against O.P. and underwent a medical examination.
The ensuing medical reports found that she had multiple bruising on her body and traces of semen
in her vagina. O.P. was also examined and scratches on his neck characteristic of those inflicted by
rape victims were recorded.


In O.P.s version of events, he admitted having slapped I.P. but denied having used any other
violence against her as well as having raped her, first insisting that they had both consented to
having sexual intercourse and then completely denying that they had had any intercourse at all.
I.P.s complaint was dismissed by the prosecuting authorities in August 2010 and then in April 2011,
essentially on the grounds that she used to date O.P. and, having gone willingly to his house on the
night of the incident, could have resisted him if she had really wanted to. In the last decision
dismissing her complaint the prosecutor decided that O.P. had committed a minor offence of assault
but the time-limit for bringing such proceedings had expired. I.P.s appeals to the hierarchically
superior prosecutor and then to an investigating judge were rejected in August and November 2011,
I.P. alleges that the Moldovan authorities failed to investigate her allegations of rape effectively and
that she had no effective criminallaw or civil remedies available for her allegation of rape or for the
ensuing inadequacy of the investigation. She relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading
treatment), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective

Mili and Nikezi v. Montenegro (nos. 54999/10 and 10609/11)

The applicants, Igor Mili and Dalibor Nikezi, are Montenegrin nationals who were born in 1974 and
1981 respectively and live in Podgorica. The case concerns their allegation that they were ill-treated
by prison guards during a search of their cell.

Detained at the Institution for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, the applicants allege that the
incident took place on 27 October 2009 when their cell was to be searched on account of Mr Milis
upcoming transfer to a disciplinary unit. According to them, several guards entered the cell, and
grabbing and handcuffing Mr Mili, beat him with batons and their fists. Mr Nikezi, who had
protested against the abuse, was then also beaten and kicked.
The Government submit that the prison guards had had to use force against the applicants to
overcome their resistance on entering their cell, Mr Nikezi in particular having attacked and injured
one of the guards.


The applicants mothers, having noticed that their sons were injured during a visit, subsequently
lodged criminal complaints and the State Prosecutor asked the domestic courts to investigate. The
investigating judge then requested that the prison guards involved be identified, that the applicants
have a medical examination, that a video-recording be submitted and also heard evidence from the
applicants, the prison guards and the detainees who shared the cell with the applicants. On the basis
of those findings the State Prosecutor rejected the criminal complaints in February and then in
October 2010, concluding that the prison guards had had to use force in the face of the applicants
resistance and had therefore acted within their powers.
In the meantime in March 2010, the Deputy Ombudsman, who had also visited the applicants in
prison and noticed injuries, gave her opinion on the incident, finding that excessive force had been
used and recommending disciplinary proceedings. At the end of the ensuing disciplinary proceedings
in May 2010 three guards were found to have abused their position by using excessive force during
the incident and were fined.
The applicants also lodged a compensation claim in the civil courts and they were ultimately
awarded 1,500 euros each for non-pecuniary damage in October 2014 by the Supreme Court, which
found that the guards use of force could not be justified by the applicants resistance and that their
actions degraded human dignity.


Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13
(right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain that they were tortured and ill-treated by
prison guards on 27 October 2009 and that the ensuing investigation into their complaints was

Cojan v. Romania (no. 54539/12)

The applicant, Vasile Cojan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and is currently serving an
18-year prison sentence in Giurgiu Prison (Romania) following his conviction in May 2011 of drugrelated crimes.
Mr Cojans case concerns his complaint about the conditions of his pre-trial detention in Bucharest
police detention facilities from May to November 2010 and then in Rahova Prison until August 2012.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains in particular
about overcrowding, poor hygiene and food as well as lack of natural light and access to fresh air,
which have resulted in him becoming ill and depressed.

Ferrari v. Romania (no. 1714/10)

The applicant, Adrian Rodolfo Ferrari, is an Argentinian national who was born in 1971 and lives in
Buenos Aires. The case concerns his complaint about the length of proceedings before the Romanian
courts for the return of his child to Argentina.
Mr Ferrari had a child with a Romanian and Argentinian national in August 2005. The familys
permanent residence was in Argentina, but they travelled frequently on account of Mr Ferraris work
assignments as a military pilot. After having lived together in Cyprus for several months in 2006,

Mr Ferrari agreed with his wife that she would go to Romania for a few months and return to
Buenos Aires at the end of his contract in Cyprus in October 2007. However, his wife informed him in
November 2007 that she would not be returning with the child to Argentina. She subsequently filed
for divorce and custody of the child before the Romanian courts. The Romanian courts granted the
divorce in April 2008 but decided not to rule on the custody issue as, in the meantime, Mr Ferrari
had lodged a request for the return of his child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction and those proceedings were still pending. The Hague proceedings
before the Romanian courts lasted from March 2008 to May 2009 when the courts issued their final
ruling on the case, finding that the child had not been wrongfully brought to Romania as both
parents had consented to the trip and that the father was unable to take proper care of the child
due to his repeated assignments abroad for his job. In September 2011 the Romanian courts granted
custody of the child to the mother and awarded Mr Ferrari visiting rights.
Mr Ferrari has had contact with his child in Romania on three occasions since late 2009.


Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Ferrari complains
that the length of the proceedings 13 months before the Romanian courts concerning the return
of his child meant that the family ties between him and his child have been broken.

Mateiuc v. Romania (no. 48968/08)

The applicant, Ilie Mateiuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Teslui.
The case concerns the allegation of a lack of fairness in criminal proceedings on corruption charges.
Mr Mateiuc, an inspector with the Department of Public Finance of Olt, was responsible for verifying
the accounting and financial documents of commercial companies and had the authority to impose
administrative or criminal sanctions. In July 2006 Mr Mateiuc and one of his colleagues were
interviewed by police officers from the local inspectorate without any lawyer being present.
Mr Mateiucs colleague confessed to having, together with Mr Mateiuc, accepted sums of money
from company directors, but Mr Mateiuc denied this.


In the first set of criminal proceedings Mr Mateiuc and his colleague appeared before the County
Court. Mr Mateiuc denied the charges. His colleague also denied them, explaining that he had made
his first statements to the police under pressure and without a lawyer. The court nevertheless relied
on those statements to the police and on witness testimony in finding that the charges were made
out, but acquitted Mr Mateiuc on the more serious charge and ordered him to pay an administrative
On an appeal by the public prosecutor, the Craiova Court of Appeal sentenced Mr Mateiuc to one
years imprisonment. His appeal on points of law was dismissed by the High Court of Cassation and
In two further sets of criminal proceedings, Mr Mateiuc was acquitted on the ground that his
colleague had not been assisted by a lawyer when he made his statements incriminating Mr
Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains of a lack of fairness in the first
set of criminal proceedings.

Maslk v. Slovakia (no. 15259/11)

ablij v. Slovakia (no. 78129/11)
Both cases concern complaints about the excessive length of time to take a decision on requests for
release from pre-trial detention.
The applicant in the first case, Miroslav Maslk, is a Slovak national who was born in 1979 and lives
in Pruina (Slovakia). He was arrested in September 2008 on charges of a number of violent

offences, mainly involving organised crime, and remanded in custody. His complaint concerns his
request for release of May 2009, which was first dismissed in July 2009 and then on appeal in August
2009. He lodged a constitutional complaint in November 2009 complaining, in particular, about the
length of the proceedings to decide on his request for release; his complaint was dismissed in June
2010 as manifestly ill-founded. In the meantime in April 2010, Mr Maslk was released; the criminal
proceedings against him are apparently still pending.


The applicant, Nikolaj ablij, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977. He was arrested in
Slovakia in January 2008 on a murder charge and remanded in custody. His complaint concerns his
request for release of September 2010, which was ultimately dismissed in January 2011. He lodged a
constitutional complaint in March 2011, complaining about the length of the proceedings to decide
on his request for release; in June 2011 the Constitutional Court acknowledged that there had been
a breach of his right under the European Convention to have the lawfulness of his detention decided
speedily by a court (Article 5 4) and, awarding legal costs, rejected the remainder of his
compensation claim. Mr ablij was acquitted in July 2011 and his acquittal was upheld on appeal in
April 2013.
Relying on Article 5 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), both
applicants complain about the length of the proceedings 98 days and 154 days, respectively to
decide on their requests for release. Also relying on Article 5 5 (right to liberty and security / right
to compensation), they complain that they have been denied an enforceable right to compensation
in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings for their release.

Batrk v. Turkey (no. 49742/09)

The applicant, Ramazan Batrk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Bursa
The case concerns the termination of criminal proceedings for acts of violence during a fight because
the prosecution was time-barred.
On 7 July 1999 Mr Batrk received a head injury during a fight when he was trying to help his
brother. He also allegedly injured another person.


On 15 July 1999 the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against four individuals,
including Mr Batrk, for causing physical injury. Two individuals were convicted for injuring Mr
Batrk and given a suspended prison sentence. Mr Batrk was convicted of wounding and given a
suspended fine. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment against Mr Batrk but quashed those
against the other two, who were subsequently sentenced again to prison.
On 3 October 2005, following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code, the Court of Cassation
quashed the judgment again with a view to re-examination of the offences. A judgment by the lower
court on 14 December 2006 providing for prison sentences was again quashed by the Court of
Cassation on the ground that the prosecution had become time-barred.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant
complains that the criminal proceedings brought against the individuals who had ill-treated him had
been terminated as time-barred. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable
time), and Article 3 (right to compensation for wrongful conviction) of Protocol No. 7 to the
Convention, he complains that the length of the criminal proceedings against those individuals
breached the reasonable time principle.

Galip Doru v. Turkey (no. 36001/06)

The applicant, Mr Galip Doru, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983.

The case concerns an allegation of ill-treatment by the police during his arrest and an excessive
length of detention.
In the evening of 15 February 2003, Mr Doru was arrested by police officers after he threw a
Molotov cocktail at a bank. In his flight, he entered a building site, where he stumbled and fell down
some stairs. The police arrested him and used force to control him when he put up resistance. Mr
Doru was taken to hospital.

On 17 February 2003 Mr Doru gave a statement to the police without being assisted by a lawyer.
He acknowledged that he had thrown the Molotov cocktail with a friend and had taken part in three
demonstrations supporting the PKK (an illegal armed organisation). On 19 February 2003 the State
Security Court remanded him in custody. Before the court Mr Doru retracted the statements he
had given to the police.
He was charged with membership of an illegal organisation and use of explosives. On 26 May 2006
Mr Doru was sentenced to 10 years and 5 months in prison.


Mr Doru lodged an appeal on points of law. The Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance
judgment for a procedural defect. On 31 October 2007 the Assize Court reiterated the position it had
adopted in its first judgment and the Court of Cassation upheld the new judgment.
In parallel, in the days following Mr Dorus arrest, the public prosecutor at the State Security Court
opened an investigation following the applicants allegations of ill-treatment. On 18 December 2003,
the criminal court acquitted the police officers in question.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant
complains that he sustained ill-treatment during his arrest and police custody. Relying on
Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the length of his pre-trial detention,
which he alleges was excessive. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 6 3 (c) (right
to legal assistance), he complains that he was convicted on the basis of his statement in police
custody, which, according to him, had been taken following ill-treatment and in the absence of a


Sultan Dlek and Others v. Turkey v. Turkey (no. 34902/10)

The applicants, Sultan Dlek, Mahmut Dlek, Ahmet Cengiz Dlek, Arife Dlek, Gzide Dlek,
Mahide Dlek, and Mehmet Dlek are Turkish nationals who were born in 1930, 1962, 1965, 1956,
1969, 1973, and 1959 respectively and live in Mersin (Turkey).
The case concerns the investigation into the death of their 55-year-old son and brother, Mustafa
Dleksoy, who was found dead in his summer house near Erdemli in southern Turkey in August
Mr Dleksoys body was discovered on 25 August 2007 by the caretaker and security guard of the
summer complex where he was staying as they had been informed by neighbours of a strong smell
coming from his house. A doctor called to the house, estimating that the death had occurred four to
five days previously, concluded that Mr Dleksoy had died from a head injury as a result of a fall. The
gendarmes and the Erdemli prosecutor were also called to the scene the same day and certain items
of evidence were collected, notably a handful of hair found in Mr Dleksoys hand. In November
2007 forensic experts, basing their conclusions on a post mortem and a toxicological report,
concluded that he had not been poisoned and that it was impossible to establish the exact cause of
his death on account of the advanced state of decomposition of the body but that, in any case, there
was no medical evidence to show any foul play. Those conclusions were also based on an
examination of the hair found in Mr Dleksoys hand and the fact that it had not responded to DNA
analysis. A subsequent examination of the hair revealed that it was human hair and that it had
strong similarities to samples taken of Mr Dleksoys hair. Taking into account these medical reports,
in December 2008 the Erdemli Public Prosecutor decided to close the investigation into the death.

Sultan Dleks objection to this decision was subsequently rejected and another decision of nonprosecution taken in October 2009.

Mustafa Dleksoys parents, believing that their son had died in suspicious circumstances, informed
the authorities that their son had received threatening phone calls shortly before his death.
Throughout the investigation, they repeatedly urged the authorities, without success, to: question
neighbours in the summer house complex or other witnesses suggested by them, look for
fingerprints in the house and examine both the records of the mobile phone found on their sons
body as well as his clothes. They were particularly dissatisfied with the forensic examination of the
hair found in their sons hand and the authorities failure to clarify why it had not responded to DNA
analysis, and requested hair samples in order to carry out an examination privately at a university;
the Public Prosecutor refused however permission for the hair samples to be handed over.


Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that very few steps were
taken by the national authorities to clarify the circumstances of their relatives death and that those
steps which had been taken were not adequate enough to establish whether their relative had been
killed intentionally or not. They challenge in particular the credibility of the forensic reports used to
close the investigation with a decision of non-prosecution.

The Court will give its rulings in writing on the following cases, some of which concern issues
which have already been submitted to the Court, including excessive length of proceedings.
These rulings can be consulted from the day of their delivery on the Courts online database HUDOC.
They will not appear in the press release issued on that day.
Raki v. Serbia (no. 78761/12)

Thursday 30 April 2015

Kapetanios and Others v. Greece (nos. 3453/12, 42941/12, and 9028/13)


The applicants, Evaggelos Kapetanios, Athanasios Nikolopoulos and Nikolaos Aggloupas, are Greek
nationals who were born in 1952, 1946 and 1943, and live in Tsaggarada Piliou, Patras and Athens
(Greece), respectively.
The case concerns the sentencing to administrative fines of individuals accused of contraband who
were at the same time acquitted of a criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings were brought against each of the three applicants on contraband charges, but
they were acquitted on those charges by the Criminal Court and the Court of Appeal. At the same
time they were ordered to pay administrative fines for illegal imports, or fiscal fines for contraband.
Relying on Article 6 2 (presumption of innocence), and Article 4 (right not to be tried or punished
twice) of Protocol No. 7, the applicants complain that the administrative courts, failing to take
account of their acquittal by the criminal courts, infringed the ne bis in idem principle and their right
to be presumed innocent. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and
Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Kapetanios complains that the length of the proceedings
breached the reasonable time principle and that at the material time there was no effective remedy
in Greece in that connection.
Relying on Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 Mr Nikolopoulos and Mr Aggloupas
allege that the administrative fines imposed on them for contraband were excessive, not complying
with the proportionality principle and thus infringing the right to the protection of property.

Islamova v. Russia (no. 5713/11)

The applicant, Zulay Islamova, is a Russian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Urus-Martan,
the Chechen Republic (Russia). The case concerns her complaint that her two sons were abducted by
State servicemen in 2000.
Ms Islamovas sons, Apti and Said-Emi Islamov, born in 1976 and 1981 respectively, worked as
policemen at a district department of the interior in Grozny. On 14 October 2000, they were driving
from Grozny to Urus-Martan with two colleagues when they were arrested at a checkpoint near the
outskirts of Grozny, staffed by police officers from a special task unit. Later on the same day, several
vehicles with a group of armed servicemen wearing masks arrived at the checkpoint. Ms Islamovas
sons have gone missing since.


Three days after the incident, the Groznya town administration complained to the Grozny
prosecutor on Ms Islamovas behalf about the abduction of her sons by State servicemen. A few days
later the prosecutor interviewed a number of officers who had manned the checkpoint on the day in
question. On 22 December 2000 the Chechnya prosecutors office initiated a criminal investigation
into the abduction. Ms Islamova was granted victim status in May 2003. The investigation was
subsequently suspended and reopened on several occasions, and it remains pending.
In their submissions to the European Court of Human Rights, the Russian Government have not
disputed the circumstances of the abduction as presented by Ms Islamova, but according to them it
was not possible to establish whether her sons had been detained by law-enforcement agencies in
violation of the relevant procedure or whether physical force had been used.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Islamova complains that her sons were abducted and killed by
State officials and that the Russian authorities have failed to carry out effective investigations into
those matters. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right
to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she further complains of the
mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her sons, of the unlawfulness of their
detention, and of the fact that she has not had a legal remedy available at national level in respect of
her complaints, in particular under Articles 2 and 3.


Shamardakov v. Russia (no. 13810/04)

The applicant, Mr Pavel Mikhaylovich Shamardakov is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and
lives in Vladikavkaz.
The case concerns allegations of inhuman and degrading treatment on the part of the police and of
an unfair trial leading to the applicants conviction.
Suspected of murdering a young woman, Mr Shamardakov was arrested on 21 May 2003 and taken
to the Zaterechniy police station in the city of Vladikavkaz where, according to him, he was severely
beaten by police officers to make him confess. He did not confess but gave a detailed account of his
day to the officers. Subsequently, assisted by a lawyer, he chose to remain silent.
On 30 May 2003 Mr Shamardakov filed a complaint with the public prosecutors office about the
alleged ill-treatment. After preliminary and additional investigations, the complaint was dropped
and the discontinuance of proceedings was confirmed by the domestic courts, ultimately by the
Supreme Court of North Ossetia-Alania on 22 September 2004.
In a judgment of 30 December 2004 the Supreme Court of North Ossetia-Alania, based on
circumstantial evidence and the initial statements given by Mr Shamardakov to the police after his
arrest, found him guilty of voluntary homicide and sentenced him to 13 years imprisonment. Two
reviews of the applicants case, on 15 October 2009 and 30 December 2010, after notice of the
application had been given to the Government, led to his conviction being upheld. Although those

judgments no longer contained any express reference to the applicants initial statements, they
reiterated that the applicant had not been subjected to any ill-treatment.
The applicant alleges that following his arrest he was subjected to treatment that was incompatible
with Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and that the authorities
did not carry out an effective investigation in this connection. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair
trial) and Article 6 3 (c) (right to the assistance of a lawyer), he argues that he was deprived of a
fair trial on account of the use, for the purposes of his conviction, of statements obtained by means
of ill-treatment, and the absence of a lawyer when he was held in police custody.

Mitrinovski v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 6899/12)

The applicant, Jordan Mitrinovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1950 and lives in
Skopje. He is a former judge of the Skopje Court of Appeal. The case concerns his dismissal from
office on the grounds of professional misconduct.


As a member of a three-judge panel of the Skopje Court of Appeal, Mr Mitrinovski voted for a
decision, in December 2010, to replace the order for detention on remand of an accused with an
order for house arrest. The Supreme Court subsequently found that the Court of Appeal had no
jurisdiction to examine the detainees request on the merits. In May 2011 the plenary of the State
Judicial Council, which included the President of the Supreme Court, took a decision dismissing
Mr Mitrinovski from the office of judge, referring in particular to the decision he had taken in
December 2010 and stating that his conduct had been unprofessional. Mr Mitrinovskis appeal
before an appeal panel of the Supreme Court was dismissed in September 2011.
Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Mitrinovski complains, among other things, that the
State Judicial Council was not an independent and impartial tribunal, since one of its members who
had taken part in the decision dismissing him was also the President of the Supreme Court, whose
request had set in motion the proceedings which led to his dismissal.

Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 66338/09)


The applicant, Oleksandr Yaremenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and is currently
serving a life sentence in Zhytomyr Prison (Ukraine). The case concerns a review of his criminal case
by the Supreme Court of Ukraine following a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in a
previous case concerning his conviction (Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 32092/02)).
Mr Yaremenko was convicted of two counts of murder, allegedly committed in 1998 and 2001, and
sentenced to life imprisonment in a judgment eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of Ukraine in
April 2002. In his previous case before the European Court of Human Rights, he complained in
particular: that he had been ill-treated in police custody and that his complaints in that regard had
not been given due consideration; that he had been deprived of legal assistance of his own choosing
during part of the proceedings; and that he had been forced to incriminate himself. In its Chamber
judgment of 12 June 2008, the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 3
(prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment obligation to conduct an effective investigation)
on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into
Mr Yaremenkos allegations that he had been ill-treated by the police. It also found a violation of
Article 6 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and to legal assistance), in particular on account of the fact
that his lawyer had been dismissed from the case by the investigator after having advised
Mr Yaremenko to remain silent and not to testify against himself; on account of the fact that there
had been no adequate investigation into his allegations that the statement had been obtained by
illicit means; and taking into consideration that his conviction for the 1998 crime had been based
mainly on his confession, which had been obtained by the investigators in the absence of a lawyer
and which he had retracted the very next day.

In December 2008 Mr Yaremenko requested an extraordinary review of his criminal case before the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined his case in July 2009 in his absence but in the
presence of his lawyer. It found that his written confession of the 1998 crime had been obtained in
violation of the requirements of criminal procedure law and thus should be excluded from the
evidence. However, that exclusion did not change the conclusions of the court, as there were other
pieces of evidence to prove his guilt. It was therefore not necessary to quash the judgment in his


Relying on Article 6 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial / right to legal assistance), Mr Yaremenko
complains that the Supreme Court, instead of referring the case to a trial court for fresh
consideration, reassessed the facts and evidence in his case, despite having no jurisdiction to do so.
He further complains that his right to remain silent and his right to defence was violated again, given
that the Supreme Court while excluding part of the evidence obtained in breach of these rights
relied on other pieces of evidence obtained in the same manner. Finally, he complains that the
retrial was conducted in his absence; and that he did not have adequate facilities to prepare his
defence as he was not informed of the evidence on which the prosecution intended to rely in view of
his initial confessions being excluded.

The Court will give its rulings in writing on the following cases, some of which concern issues
which have already been submitted to the Court, including excessive length of proceedings.
These rulings can be consulted from the day of their delivery on the Courts online database HUDOC.
They will not appear in the press release issued on that day.


E.T. and Others v. Austria (no. 69091/14)

Rezai and Others v. Austria (no. 70162/14)
Shala v. Austria (no. 33072/10)
Khachatryan v. Belgium (no. 72597/10)
M.B. and Z.A. v. Belgium (no. 68273/11)
Musa v. Belgium (no. 41798/12)
Yilmaz v. Belgium (no. 80033/12)
Borvicanovic v. Croatia (no. 37421/13)
Coc-Stokic v. Croatia (no. 27951/13)
Dubravcic v. Croatia (no. 68326/13)
B.M. v. France (no. 5562/11)
E.S. v. France (no. 59345/11)
J.K. v. France (no. 7466/10)
N.S. v. France (no. 68444/14)
T.T. v. France (no. 8686/13)
Karatza and Karamanoglou v. Greece (no. 66529/09)
Hir v. Hungary (no. 40950/08)
Hollosi v. Hungary (no. 68392/14)
Martin v. Hungary (no. 69582/13)
Nagy v. Hungary (no. 13071/11)
Rekultim Kft v. Hungary (no. 34306/10)
Rozsa v. Hungary (no. 53815/11)
Szamosi v. Hungary (no. 27070/10)
Tartally v. Hungary (no. 724/11)
Weimber v. Hungary (no. 5454/11)
Bonomo and Others v. Italy (no. 17634/11 and 164 other applications)
Della Marca and Others v. Italy (no. 52301/08 and 59 other applications)
Alves v. Portugal (no. 79925/12)
Cunha Martins Da Silva Couto v. Portugal (no. 66436/12)



Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (no. 78165/12)

Rodrigues de Freitas and Others v. Portugal (no. 20186/13)
Santos Silva v. Portugal (no. 52246/12)
Aleksandrova v. Russia (no. 39655/07)
Grib v. Russia (no. 41174/11)
Misyukevich v. Russia (no. 63053/09)
Sergey Lebedev and Others v. Russia (nos. 2500/07, 43089/07, 48809/07, 52271/07, and 54706/07)
Tamarovichus v. Russia (no. 62413/09)
Kokovic and Others v. Serbia (nos. 24769/09, 27264/09, 66833/09, 51279/10, 13288/11, 25385/11,
66080/11, 5053/12, 14189/12, 45957/12, and 62911/12)
Vujanovic v. Serbia (no. 53799/13)
Dorolojkova v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 416/10)
Saglik Insaat Turizm Sanayi Taahhut Ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkey (no. 55549/11)
Schmick v. Turkey (no. 25963/14)
Yildiz v. Turkey (no. 34442/12)
Buchynska v. Ukraine (no. 35493/10)
Galenko v. Ukraine (no. 61172/12)

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 Courts press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
Press contacts
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08


Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)

Cline 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.