issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 267 (2024)
19.11.2024
Judgments of 19 November 2024
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments1:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
four Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can
be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Tsiolis v. Greece (application no. 51774/17)
The applicant, Ioannis Tsiolis, was a Greek national who was born in 1938 and lived in Ioannina
(Greece).
The case concerns the court proceedings that followed his application for an extension to a fish farm
that he owned in the Ambracian Gulf. In its ruling, the Environment Ministry held that the fish farm
was located in the special wetland protection zone of the Gulf and it therefore could not operate in
the zone at all. The Athens Administrative Court of Appeal found that his claim regarding
compensation and loss of earnings fell outside the five-year time-limit for cases against the State. An
appeal on points of law by Mr Tsiolis was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court on
16 January 2017.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, Mr Tsiolis argues, in
particular, that the Supreme Administrative Court’s rejection of his arguments supporting the
admissibility of his appeal on points of law was not reasoned correctly, and complains of how the
Greek courts ruled on the starting point of the limitation period.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 6 000 euros (EUR)
Clipea and Grosu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 39468/17)
The applicants, Eugeniu Clipea and Virginia Grosu, are Moldovan nationals who were born in in 1992
and 1965 respectively and live in Chișinău. They both have intellectual disabilities.
Both of them underwent periodic treatment at the Chișinău Clinical Psychiatric Hospital. The case
concerns the conditions of their treatment while there, including allegations that Mr Clipea was left
unwashed and suffered skin diseases; that he was not able to go for walks outdoors in the fresh air;
that his belongings were occasionally stolen by other patients; that he was beaten by other patients;
1
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
that the facilities were unsanitary and smelled; and that Ms Grosu was made to clean the toilets and
her room; among many other allegations.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination) of the Convention, the applicants complain of Mr Clipea’s treatment by other
patients while in hospital for psychiatric treatment, alleging it was condoned by staff, and that the
investigation into his allegations was ineffective. They also complain that the inhuman treatment
they suffered was because of their psychological disabilities.
Violation of Article 3 in respect of the material conditions of the applicants’ treatment
Violation of Article 3 in respect of the investigation into the applicants’ allegations
No-violation of Article 3 in respect of the first applicant’s ill-treatment
Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,500 to each applicant
Vieru v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 17106/18)
The applicant, Viorel Vieru, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1974 and lives in Chișinău.
Mr Vieru is the brother of T., who was subjected to repeated episodes of domestic violence at the
hands of her husband, despite numerous protection orders, ultimately resulting in her death from a
fall from the fifth floor of a building. The case concerns how the Moldovan authorities dealt with
these events.
Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a
fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, and Article 14 taken in
conjunction with those Articles, Mr Vieru complains, in particular, of a failure on the part of the
authorities to protect his sister from violence leading to her death, and that the authorities’ allegedly
inadequate response was because she was a woman.
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment and investigation)
Violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 20,000
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
https://www.echr.coe.int/home. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:
www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (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)
2
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