003-3564846-4031020

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 030 (2011) 06.06.2011 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 27 judgments on Tuesday 14 June 2011 and one on Thursday 16 June 2011. Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on the Court's Internet site (www.echr.coe.int) Tuesday 14 June 2011 Tr�valec v. Belgium (application no. 30812/07) The applicant, Yves Tr�valec, is a French national who was born in 1962 and lives in Luxembourg. He is a reporter. In 2003, while filming a report in Belgium on the work of a special police unit, he was struck in the leg by two bullets fired by police officers. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleges that the police officers who injured him used excessive firepower against him, putting his life at risk, and that the authorities did not take appropriate steps to prevent the incident and failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation. Ivanov and Petrova v. Bulgaria (no. 15001/04) The applicants, Anastas Ivanov and Hristina Petrova, are two Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1961 and 1966 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Ivanov complains about decisions to reject a divorce petition he had filed in order to be able to marry his partner, Ms Petrova. Relying on Article 12 (right to marry), both applicants also argue that they were subjected to an unjustified restriction of their right to marry. Lastly, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain of the lack of remedies available in domestic law in respect of the alleged violations of the Convention. Osman v. Denmark (no. 38058/09) The applicant, Sahro Osman, is a Somali national who was born in 1987 and currently lives in Esbjerg (Denmark). In 1995 Sahro, seven years old at the time, moved to Denmark where she had a residence permit to join her father and sister who had been granted asylum. In 2003 her father took her to Kenya to look after her sick grandmother; in 2005 she applied to the Danish authorities to be reunited with her family in Denmark. The case concerns the refusal to reinstate her residence permit as, under relevant domestic law, she had been absent from Denmark for more than 12 consecutive months. She relies in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home). Zolt�n N�meth v. Hungary (no. 29436/05) The applicant, Zolt�n N�meth, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Szigetszentm�rton (Hungary). Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), he complains about the insufficient measures taken by the Hungarian authorities to enforce access rights to his son, born in 1993. Difficulties in maintaining contact first arose in 1998 when he divorced the child's mother and it appears that he has not seen his son at all since 2005, his former wife totally refusing to let him have access. Leja v. Latvia (no. 71072/01) The applicant, Juris Leja, is a Latvian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Rga. The case concerns Mr Leja's complaint about the conditions of his detention while serving an eight-year prison sentence for burglary and drink-driving. He notably alleges that in September 2005 he was placed in a punishment cell where the conditions were intentionally aggravated and where he was regularly subjected to strip searches. He also alleges that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaints. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), he also alleges that certain letters he addressed to the European Court in 1998 and 2000 were never dispatched, one of them even having been forwarded to the Prosecution authorities who dismissed his complaints about his detention conditions as unfounded. Borisov v. Lithuania (no. 9958/04) The applicant, Jurij Borisov, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 in the territory of Primor Oblast (now in the Russian Federation) and has been living in Lithuania since the age of six when his father was posted there to do his military service. Now a businessman and married since 1977 to a Lithuanian with whom he has two grown-up sons and a young daughter, he complains about the authorities' decision of 2004 to deport him from Lithuania following the withdrawal of his citizenship. In 2003 the Constitutional Court found that Mr Borisov's Lithuanian citizenship granted to him by the newly-elected President Rolandas Paksas had in fact been "bought", Mr Borisov having significantly contributed to Mr Paksas' 2002 presidential campaign. Mr Borisov also claims that the courts' delay, and the resulting uncertainty of his situation, in resolving his case was caused by political pressure. During the deportation proceedings, Mr Borisov was granted temporary residence permits and finally, in 2010, received a permanent residence permit. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home). Aquilina and Others v. Malta (no. 28040/08) The applicants, Victor Aquilina, Sharon Spiteri and Austin Bencini, are three Maltese nationals, born in 1942, 1973 and 1954 respectively, who were at the relevant time the editor, court reporter and printer for the national newspaper The Times of Malta. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), they complain that they were found guilty of defamation in civil proceedings brought against them by a lawyer following their reporting in June 1995 that he had been found guilty of contempt of court at the final stages of a bigamy case. Gatt v. Malta (no. 28221/08) Just satisfaction The applicant, Lawrence Gatt, is a Maltese national, born in 1947, and until his imprisonment on 28 July 2006, lived in Senglea (Malta). The case concerned the imprisonment-in-default system in Malta. In its judgment of 27 July 2010, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) as it found that detaining Mr Gatt � who was facing drug trafficking proceedings � for 2000 days for breaching his bail conditions had been excessive. As a result of that judgment he has since been released, in August 2010. The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) will be decided in the judgment to be delivered on 14 June 2011. Mercieca and Others v. Malta (no. 21974/07) The applicants, Paul Mercieca, Andrew Manduca, Raphael Aloisio, Steve Cachia, Stephen Paris, Malcolm Booker and Edward Camilleri are seven Maltese nationals, who were born in 1952, 1954, 1961, 1960, 1964, 1963 and 1945 respectively and live in Malta. They are certified public accountants and are partners in an audit firm. The case concerns proceedings brought against them concerning accusations of negligence and fraud when drawing up an audit report and financial statements. The time the applicants were given to appeal against the preliminary judgment was reduced from 20 to nine days and they allege that this restrictive interpretation of the rules on time-limits meant that they were effectively denied any right to lodge an appeal, in breach of Article 6 � 1 (right of access to a court). Ciechoska v. Poland (no. 19776/04) The applicant, Teresa Ciechoska, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Warsaw. In July 1999, her husband died after being hit by a tree when out for a walk at a health resort in Kudowa Zdr�j, where he had been staying in a sanatorium. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Ciechoska complains that the State failed in its positive obligation to protect her husband's life and failed to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of his death. Mocicki v. Poland (no. 52443/07) The applicant, Jacek Mocicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Koszalin (Poland). The case concerns so-called "lustration proceedings" brought against him in 2005, which, introduced in Poland in April 1997, aimed at exposing those who had worked for or collaborated with the State's security services during the communist period. As a result, Mr Mocicki, a lawyer, lost his right to practice as an advocate. Relying in particular on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the lustration proceedings against him were not fair, as he had only restricted access to the classified documents in the case file and as the courts refused to hear a number of witnesses he had named. Miroslaw Garlicki v. Poland (no. 36921/07) The applicant, Miroslaw Garlicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Krak�w (Poland). A renowned cardiac surgeon, he was arrested in a spectacular manner by masked and armed officers from the Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CAB) in February 2007 and detained on remand on charges of a number of offences, including homicide of a patient and taking bribes from patients; the criminal proceedings are still pending. Following the decision to remand him, a press conference was held, broadcast live on radio and television, during which the Prosecutor General stated that "no-one else will ever again be deprived of life by this man". Mr Garlicki successfully brought civil proceedings against the Prosecutor General, who was ordered by the courts to publish an apology broadcast on three national television stations and to pay compensation. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 �� 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Garlicki complains in particular that during his arrest he was subjected to degrading treatment, that his detention on remand was not imposed by an independent judicial officer and that his right to be presumed innocent was violated. Denisova and Moiseyeva v. Russia (no. 16903/03) Just satisfaction The applicants, Nataliya Denisova, and her daughter, Nadezhda Moiseyeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1978 respectively. They are the wife and daughter of Valentin Moiseyev, who was also an applicant before the Court (application no. 62936/00). In a judgment of 1 April 2010, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) because the applicants had not had an opportunity to challenge effectively a confiscation measure � in respect of the spousal portion of the first applicant and of the computer owned by the second applicant � issued in 1998 in criminal proceedings against the applicants' husband and father for treason to which they had not been parties. The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) will be decided in the judgment to be delivered on 14 June 2011. Khanamirova v. Russia (no. 21353/10) The applicant, Diana Khanamirova, is a Russian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Gereykhanova (Republic of Dagestan, Russia). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), she complains that the authorities failed to enforce a 2008 judgment granting her custody of her son, born in 2007. The child continues to live with Ms Khanamirova's former husband, whom she divorced in 2008 and who refused to transfer the child to her. Movsayevy v. Russia (no. 20303/07) The applicants are two Russian nationals who live in Chechen-Aul (Chechnya). They are the widow and brother of Salambek Movsayev, born in 1966. Relying in particular on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy, they allege that their relative was abducted in February 2006 and killed by Russian servicemen, and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. Petr Sevastyanov v. Russia (no. 75911/01) The applicant, Petr Sevastyanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow. Convicted of a drug-related offence in 2001, he complains, under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. In particular, he alleges that the composition of the trial court was unlawful and that one of the lay judges sitting in his case was not independent, as he worked at the same court as a clerk and had not been discharged of his functions during the trial. Ayg�n v. Turkey (no. 35658/06) The applicants, Z�lf� Ayg�n and Sira� Ayg�n, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1946 and 1956 respectively and live in Diyarbakir (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain that they lost all use of their land, which had become inaccessible following the building of a dam in Dicle, and that the administrative authorities did not formally expropriate the land or award them compensation. They also complain about the national courts' assessment of evidence. at v. Turkey (no. 34993/05) The applicant, Mahir at, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in zmir (Turkey). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains that the administrative authorities occupied his land for many years without a formally valid expropriation order. He further alleges that the domestic courts' decision to apply the statutory rate of default interest to the sum he was owed instead of the maximum rate applicable to public debts, as defined in Article 46 of the Constitution, led to a reduction in the amount of compensation payable to him. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, he also complains of the late payment by the authorities of the compensation awarded to him in a final court decision. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Casolaro Cammilletti v. Italy (no. 37178/02) de Stefano and Others v. Italy (no. 72795/01) Iandoli v. Italy (no. 67992/01) Rivera and di Bonaventura v. Italy (no. 63869/00) In these cases, the applicants complain that the authorities unlawfully occupied their land without any formal expropriation or compensation. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing). Skurat v. Poland (no. 26451/07) This case concerns the applicant's complaints about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention for drug trafficking as well as of the criminal proceedings brought against him for assisting in counterfeiting a secondary education diploma. He relies on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of legal proceedings. Criminal proceedings Bodor v. Hungary (no. 31181/07) This case concerns in particular the applicant's complaint concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud and forgery. Non-criminal proceedings Hegyi v. Hungary (no. 9254/07) Kelemen v. Hungary (no. 16033/06) Thursday 16 June 2011 Pascaud v. France (no. 19535/08) The applicant, Christian Pascaud, is a French national who was born in 1960 and lives in Saint-Emilion (France). Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that he was unable to secure judicial recognition of his true relationship with his biological father, who died in 2002 and was the owner of vineyards that were ultimately bequeathed to the municipality of Saint-Emilion. 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 its Internet site. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe to the Court's RSS feeds. Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Fr�d�ric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) 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. 6