003-3678860-4184885

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 149 (2011) 19.09.2011 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 22 judgments on Tuesday 27 September 2011 and five on Thursday 29 September 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 27 September 2011 Hrdalo v. Croatia (no. 23272/07) The applicant, Niksa Hrdalo, is a Croatian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Dubrovnik (Croatia). Formerly a high-ranking civil servant in the Dubrovnik-Neretva Administrative Office, Mr Hrdalo alleges that, in the course of proceedings concerning his removal from office, the domestic authorities breached the principle of equality of arms, violated his right to be presumed innocent and harmed his reputation. He relies in particular on Article 6 �� 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v. Italy (no. 43509/08) The applicant, A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L., is an Italian company based in Florence (Italy). In 2001, the AGCM (Autorit� Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato), the independent regulatory authority in charge of competition, investigated the company for unfair competition. In a decision of 30 April 2003 it fined the company 6 million euros for unfair competition on the diabetes diagnosis test market, stating that the penalty should serve as a deterrent to all pharmaceutical companies. All the company's appeals against that decision were rejected. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant company complains that it had no access to a court with full jurisdiction or to judicial review of the administrative decision of the AGCM. Cristina Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 25688/09) The applicant, Cristina Boicenco, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1985 and lives in Vulcanesti (Romania). She was given a job in a restaurant on 31 May 2004, but arrested and remanded in custody the very next day, on suspicion of having committed a theft in the restaurant. Released in June 2004, she was subsequently acquitted. The case concerns Ms Boicenco's complaint that she was unlawfully detained and that the compensation awarded by the domestic courts was inadequate and insufficient, in breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security). Karbowniczek v. Poland (no. 22339/08) The applicant, Jaroslaw Karbowniczek, is a Polish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Walbrzych (Poland). Convicted of a number of offences including forgery, battery and robbery and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment in a final judgment in March 2011, he alleges that he was kicked and beaten by police officers while being transported to court to attend a hearing on his case and then in the court building itself. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), he also complains that the length of his pretrial detention was excessive. Archip v. Romania (no. 49608/08) The applicant, Constantin Archip, is a Romanian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Podoleni (Romania). In November 2005 Mr Archip was involved in an incident at Podoleni town hall during which he complained about the amount of sickness benefit he received for his coxarthrosis (arthritis of the hip) and ended up insulting the civil servants present. He alleges that, as a result, he was taken to the local police station, where he was hit by the mayor and then kept handcuffed to a tree for almost three hours in the cold in the courtyard, in full view of passers-by, resulting in the worsening of his medical condition. He also alleges that the ensuing investigation into his complaint was not effective. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Demian v. Romania (no. 5614/05) The applicant, Ioan Tudorel Demian, is a Romanian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Satu Mare (Romania). He was sentenced to four years and two months' imprisonment for theft. He was held in Baia Mare prison but transferred several times to Gherla prison. He complains that as a diabetes sufferer he was not given proper health care and food, and that this and the poor conditions of detention in both prisons adversely affected his health. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). M. and C. v. Romania (no. 29032/04) The applicants, C.M. and A.C., are Romanian nationals who were born in 1965 and 1994 respectively and live in Saint-Priest, France. They complain, in particular, about the failure of the Romanian authorities to ensure adequate protection of the second applicant, a minor, from alleged sexual abuse by his father and about there not being an effective remedy available to them in that respect. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Alim v. Russia (no. 39417/07) The applicant, Mustafa Alim, is a Cameroonian national who was born in 1981. He arrived in Russia in 1995 as a football player. Following his arrest in January 2007 for breaching residence regulations for foreigners, a court fined him and ordered his removal from Russia and his detention pending removal. Released in July 2007 and currently living with his two small children and their mother in the Krasnodar region (Russia), Mr Alim complains about the conditions in which he was detained pending his removal and that his family life would suffer if he were removed from Russia. He relies in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 � 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Beksultanova v. Russia (no. 31564/07) The applicant, Aminat Beksultanova, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in the village of Achkhoy-Martan in the Chechen Republic. She is the mother of Timur Beksultanov, born in 1980, who has not been seen since October 2004 when he was taken away from the family home by an officer from the police special-purpose squad for questioning about terrorist activities. She alleges that her son was detained and killed by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegation. She relies on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino (no. 32250/08) The applicants are Augusta Diamante, an Italian national, born in 1973, and her daughter, Greta Pelliccioni, born in 2004, who has dual Italian and San Marinese nationality. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6 (right to a fair trial), they complain about the care and custody proceedings concerning the second applicant before the San Marino courts, in particular a decision of February 2008 ordering the child to live with her father in San Marino and to be transferred to a nursery there, after having previously lived with her mother. They allege, among other things, that at the relevant hearing Ms Diamante was not duly represented, that the judge based his decision only on statements by the authorities and the father, despite his having previously abducted the child, and that the entire proceedings were excessively long. They further complain, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that they did not have an effective domestic remedy in respect of the abduction as a result of the tribunal's decision to archive the case. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), Ms Diamante complains that, as a result of limitations imposed on her by the courts, her daughter was not allowed to leave San Marino from February to August 2008. Lastly, the applicants allege violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Veysel ahin v. Turkey (no. 4631/05) The applicant, Veysel ahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Edirne. He was sentenced in 1994 to 20 years' imprisonment for belonging to an illegal armed organisation, and for making, possessing and using explosives, and incarcerated in Edirne prison. In December 2000 the prison was the scene of hunger strikes which culminated in violent clashes between the detainees and the security forces. Mr ahin was involved and subsequently charged with rebelling against the prison administration. On 2 February 2005 the Canakkale Assize Court forwarded an order for his release to the Edirne Public Prosecutor's Office, subject to the condition that he was not detained or convicted for any other offence. Mr ahin was not released until three days later. He alleges that his continued detention between 2 and 5 February 2005 was in violation of Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security). iman and Others v. Turkey (no. 1305/05 The applicants, Akin iman, Sedat Altun, Mehmet Necmettin Araz and Hasan Turanli, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1976, 1975, 1962 and 1956 and live in Kocaeli. They are employees of the Alemdar (Kocaeli) and Tepecik (Kocaeli) tax directorates of the Ministry of Finance and at the relevant time they were board members of the local section of the B�ro Emek�ileri trade union, a member of the KESK ("Kamu Emek�ileri Sendikalari Konfederasyonu" � the Trade Union Confederation of public sector employees). Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), they complain that they were reprimanded in May 2004 for putting up trade union posters on their office walls, rather than on the notice board specially reserved for trade union use.. As a result of the reprimand deductions were made from their salaries. Bah v. the United Kingdom (no. 56328/07) The applicant, Husenatu Bah, is a Sierra Leonean national who lives in London. She arrived in the United Kingdom in 2000 and, having been granted indefinite leave to remain in 2005, was joined by her 13-year old son in 2007. Her son was granted leave to remain on the condition that he had no recourse to public funds. Informed by her landlord shortly after her son's arrival that they would have to move out, Ms Bah applied to the borough council for housing. However, the council decided that she did not qualifiy for priority social housing, her son being considered "subject to immigration control". Ms Bah complains that that decision violated her rights under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Agurdino S.R.L. v. Moldova (no. 7359/06) The applicant company complains about the quashing of a final judgment in its favour concerning the payment of value-added tax. It relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Gotcu and Others v. Romania (nos. 35430/03, 21472/04, 44361/05, 472/08, 9421/08 and 18304/08) These cases concern the applicants' complaints about the failure to enforce, or the delayed enforcement of, final domestic court judgments in their favour. The applicants rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Lipanescu and Others v. Romania (17139/04, 19852/04, 36487/04, 45197/04, 14391/05, 1359/06 and 50718/06) The applicants are Romanian nationals who obtained favourable decisions in various sets of civil proceedings concerning different assets. The cases concern their complaint that those final decisions were set aside on appeal for judicial review lodged by the Principal State Prosecutor of Romania. The applicants rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Erciyas v. Turkey (no. 10971/05) The case concerns the applicant's complaint about his dismissal from a public bank. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains of a lack of adversarial process in the related proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court. Tong�n v. Turkey (no. 8622/05) The case concerns the applicants' complaint that they were deprived of their property in Gebze to the advantage of the State Treasury without any compensation. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings. CE.DI.SA Fortore S.N.C. Diagnostica Medica Chirurgica v. Italy (nos. (41107/02 and 22405/03) Tarnowski and Others v. Poland (no. 43939/07) Ortu�o Ortu�o v. Spain (no. 30350/07) Thursday 29 September 2011 Flisar v. Slovenia (no. 3127/09) The applicant, Borut Franc Flisar, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Martjanci (Slovenia). In October 2006 Mr Flisar was involved in an incident during which he allegedly grabbed his half-sister by the neck and slapped her across the face. The police, present at the scene, immediately fined him for violent and aggressive behaviour. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Flisar complains that his ensuing request for judicial review of that decision was dismissed solely on the basis of the police file and without him being heard by a judge. Tretyakov v. Ukraine (no. 16698/05) The applicant, Valeriy Tretyakov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). In September 2007 he was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily injury on a man by hitting him on the head with a frying pan, and stealing from his apartment, and sentenced to five years and seven months' imprisonment. He was immediately released as by that time he had already served the term to which he had been sentenced. He complains about the unlawfulness of his arrest and detention pending trial, as well as the excessive length of his detention before conviction and of the criminal proceedings against him. He further complains that his requests for release pending his trial were not examined. He relies on Article 5 �� 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Lastly, under Article 34 (right of individual petition), he alleges that the domestic courts refused to let him photocopy documents from his case file which he wanted to use in support of his application to the Strasbourg Court. Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicant complains in particular about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings. Mianowicz v. Germany (no. 37111/04) Sp�th v. Germany (no. 854/07) Skorokhod v. Ukraine (no. 47305/06) 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) 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