I incorrectly predicted that there's no violation of human rights in ŠEIKO v. LITHUANIA.
Information
- Judgment date: 2025-09-25
- Communication date: 2018-10-15
- Application number(s): 82968/17
- Country: LTU
- Relevant ECHR article(s): P1-1
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.652416
- Prediction: No violation
Inconsistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Ms Galina Šeiko, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Kretinga.
A.
The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date, the applicant was found guilty in a criminal case against her and was ordered to pay 5,908.24 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
On 6 December 2016 the bailiff sent the applicant a letter asking her to pay the money.
The applicant did not pay and on 22 December 2016 her plot of land of 0.06 hectares was seized.
A letter regarding the recovery of debt was also sent to the Kretinga division of the State Social Insurance Fund Board because the applicant was receiving old‐age pension.
It appears that the applicant is receiving EUR 101.2 in pension every month and that EUR 20.24 is being recovered from her each month.
In January 2017 the applicant asked the bailiff to terminate the recovery of debt from her pension and to annul the seizure of her land.
The bailiff replied on 27 January 2017 that he could not satisfy her request because the interests of the victim would be affected.
The applicant then asked the bailiff to allow her to sell the seized plot of land to a seller of her choice.
The bailiff agreed.
However, she failed to produce the valuation report of the plot of land and the bailiff stated that he would announce a public auction.
On 9 February 2017 the bailiff decided not to terminate the recovery of debt and not to annul the seizure of the plot of land and transferred the case together with the applicant’s complaint to a court.
On 7 March 2017 the Kretinga District Court stated that the Code of Civil Procedure provided that it was not allowed to recover the assets from an amount not exceeding the minimum monthly wage, which was EUR 380.
The applicant was receiving her pension and recovery of debt was possible.
If the allowance did not exceed minimum monthly wage, then only twenty per cent could be recovered every month.
The amount recovered from the applicant’s pension did not exceed twenty per cent.
Domestic law also provided that if the amount to be recovered was intended to cover damage for a criminal offence, and if a person received less than minimum monthly wage, fifty per cent from the payments he or she had received could be recovered.
The domestic law defined the amounts from which recovery was not possible, but the applicant’s allowance was not among those amounts.
The applicant’s complaint against the bailiff was thus dismissed.
The applicant submitted a separate complaint.
On 8 June 2018 the Klaipėda Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.
The court stated that the bailiff had ordered the recovery of the debt from the applicant’s pension, which was lower than a minimum monthly wage.
Old-age pension was not among the amounts from which recovery could not be made, thus the bailiff had a right to order the recovery of the debt.
The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law.
On 13 September 2017 the Supreme Court decided that it did not raise important legal issues and refused to accept it.
B.
Relevant domestic law Article 668 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP) provides that recovery of assets cannot be directed against household supplies, economy, labour, study items or other property of a natural person that is crucial for the subsistence of him or her or his or her family, work or studies.
Also, recovery cannot be directed against amounts lower than the minimum monthly wage, necessary items for children and disabled persons.
Article 688 § 1 of the CCP provides that recovery of a debt can be directed against the debtor’s money and other property that is with other persons, as well as to money and other property that belongs to a debtor from other persons.
Article 736 § 1 of the CCP provides that recovery of debt can be directed against a person’s salary and similar payments lower that a minimum monthly wage in accordance with execution documents until all the relevant amounts are recovered: (1) if damage is done to someone’s health or to life of the main supporter of a family – amounts of up to fifty per cent can be recovered; (2) as regards any other damage – amounts of up to twenty per cent can be recovered; (3) if there are several writs of execution ‐ amounts of up to fifty per cent can be recovered.
Article 739 of the CCP provides that it cannot be recovered from: (1) compensation for normal wear and tear of the employee’s tools and other compensations paid as a result of loss of earnings in normal conditions; (2) from amounts paid to the employee for a business trip or amounts paid to the employee who is moved elsewhere, accepted to a job and sent to work in other places; (3) amounts paid as maternity, paternity and child care allowances; (4) allowances paid to children in accordance with the Law on Children Allowances; (5) burial allowance; (6) amounts paid in accordance with the Law on Allowance Pensions and the Law on Targeted compensations and other allowances and compensations paid from State or municipalities’ budget for social care of indigent persons; (7) various orphans’ pensions; (8) severance payments.
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the recovery of damages from her old-age pension, which constitutes one fifth of it, was unlawful.
Judgment
SECOND SECTIONCASE OF DEMİRHAN v. TÜRKİYE
(Application no. 47065/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 September 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Demirhan v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Gediminas Sagatys, President, Stéphane Pisani, Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 18 September 2015. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr E.E. Biçer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 3. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. THE LAW
6. The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention, and in particular, the lack of speediness of the review of detention by the Turkish Constitutional Court. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 7. The Court reiterates that where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, it has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 157, 22 May 2012). That is especially true in the present case, where the proceedings before the Constitutional Court concerning the non-execution of the release orders issued by the Istanbul 32nd Criminal Court of First Instance lasted more than 3 years and 7 months, which is extremely long and cannot be described as speedy within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 8. In the leading cases of Baş v. Turkey, (no. 49548/99, 24 June 2008), Altınok v. Turkey, (no. 31610/08, 29 November 2011), Kavala v. Turkey, (no. 28749/18, 10 December 2019), Ragip Zarakolu v. Turkey, (no. 15064/12, 15 September 2020) and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, (no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the proceedings by which the Turkish Constitutional Court ruled on the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention cannot be considered compatible with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 10. As regards the derogation by Türkiye, the Court notes that the applicant lodged his individual application with the Constitutional Court more than one year and two months before the declaration of the state of emergency, and that the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment approximately five months after the state of emergency was lifted on 18 July 2018. In consequence, the overall duration in question cannot in any way be justified by the special circumstances of the state of emergency (see Kavala, cited above, § 195). 11. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint is admissible, and that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017, Ayboğa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302/08, §§ 28-30, 21 June 2016, Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 87-89, 19 January 2016, Karaosmanoglu and Özden v. Turkey, no. 4807/08, §§ 89-91, 17 June 2014 and Ceviz v. Turkey, no. 8140/08, § 64, 17 July 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Gediminas Sagatys Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the first-instance court
Date of detention order
Appeal court
Date of decision
Other relevant dates
Procedural deficiencies
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
47065/15
18/09/2015
Mustafa DEMİRHAN
1984
Engin Emrah Biçer
Istanbul
Istanbul 1st Magistrates Court
04/09/2014
no appeal court
Date of Constitutional application 11/05/2015
Date of the Constitutional Court decision
12/12/2018
lack of speediness of constitutional review (Kavala
v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, § 196, 10 December 2019)
500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. SECOND SECTION
CASE OF DEMİRHAN v. TÜRKİYE
(Application no. 47065/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 September 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Demirhan v. Türkiye,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Gediminas Sagatys, President, Stéphane Pisani, Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 September 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 18 September 2015. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr E.E. Biçer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 3. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. THE LAW
6. The applicant complained of the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention, and in particular, the lack of speediness of the review of detention by the Turkish Constitutional Court. He relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 7. The Court reiterates that where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, it has very strict standards concerning the State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 157, 22 May 2012). That is especially true in the present case, where the proceedings before the Constitutional Court concerning the non-execution of the release orders issued by the Istanbul 32nd Criminal Court of First Instance lasted more than 3 years and 7 months, which is extremely long and cannot be described as speedy within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 8. In the leading cases of Baş v. Turkey, (no. 49548/99, 24 June 2008), Altınok v. Turkey, (no. 31610/08, 29 November 2011), Kavala v. Turkey, (no. 28749/18, 10 December 2019), Ragip Zarakolu v. Turkey, (no. 15064/12, 15 September 2020) and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, (no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the proceedings by which the Turkish Constitutional Court ruled on the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention cannot be considered compatible with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 10. As regards the derogation by Türkiye, the Court notes that the applicant lodged his individual application with the Constitutional Court more than one year and two months before the declaration of the state of emergency, and that the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment approximately five months after the state of emergency was lifted on 18 July 2018. In consequence, the overall duration in question cannot in any way be justified by the special circumstances of the state of emergency (see Kavala, cited above, § 195). 11. Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the applicant’s complaint is admissible, and that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‐law (see, in particular, Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, §§ 78-80, 11 July 2017, Ayboğa and Others v. Turkey, no. 35302/08, §§ 28-30, 21 June 2016, Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 87-89, 19 January 2016, Karaosmanoglu and Özden v. Turkey, no. 4807/08, §§ 89-91, 17 June 2014 and Ceviz v. Turkey, no. 8140/08, § 64, 17 July 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 September 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Viktoriya Maradudina Gediminas Sagatys Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention)
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the first-instance court
Date of detention order
Appeal court
Date of decision
Other relevant dates
Procedural deficiencies
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
47065/15
18/09/2015
Mustafa DEMİRHAN
1984
Engin Emrah Biçer
Istanbul
Istanbul 1st Magistrates Court
04/09/2014
no appeal court
Date of Constitutional application 11/05/2015
Date of the Constitutional Court decision
12/12/2018
lack of speediness of constitutional review (Kavala
v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, § 196, 10 December 2019)
500
Application no. Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Name of the first-instance court
Date of detention order
Appeal court
Date of decision
Other relevant dates
Procedural deficiencies
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
47065/15
18/09/2015
Mustafa DEMİRHAN
1984
Engin Emrah Biçer
Istanbul
Istanbul 1st Magistrates Court
04/09/2014
no appeal court
Date of Constitutional application 11/05/2015
Date of the Constitutional Court decision
12/12/2018
lack of speediness of constitutional review (Kavala
v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, § 196, 10 December 2019)
500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.