003-3869243-4453081

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 093 (2012) 07.03.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 14 judgments on 13 March 2012 and five on 15 March 2012. 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 13 March 2012 Raviv v. Austria (application no. 26266/05) The applicant, Martha Raviv, is an Austrian and Israeli national who lives in Petah-Tikva (Israel). Born in Vienna in 1936 to Jewish parents, she survived a concentration camp and emigrated to Israel in 1948, where she worked as a lawyer. In 2002, she applied to the Austrian pension authorities to make use of the possibility of paying retroactive social security contributions at preferential rates and, consequently, to be entitled to an old-age-pension under the General Social Security Act. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights, she complains that the relevant provisions of the General Social Security Act, which did not treat periods of child-raising spent abroad on the same footing as such periods spent in Austria, discriminated against her. Asito v. Republic of Moldova (no. 2) (no. 39818/06) The applicant company, QBE Asito S.A., is a private insurance company registered in the Republic of Moldova. It was ordered by a final Supreme Court judgment of July 2005 to pay a bank a certain amount of compensation for pecuniary damage. However, in August 2005 the Supreme Court amended its judgment to the effect that the company had to pay a higher sum to the bank. By a supplementary judgment of March 2006, the Supreme Court further ordered the company to pay legal fees to a company with which it had signed a contract but which was not a party in the main proceedings. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant company complains that the rules for the formations of judges were not observed as regards the amended judgment of August 2005, and that the judgments of August 2005 and March 2006 breached the principle of legal certainty. The applicant company further alleges a violation of its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Onaca v. Romania (no. 22661/06) The applicant, Nicolae Ioan Onaca, is a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Oradea (Romania). The case concerns his detention in custody, on suspicion of accepting a bribe, in the Bihor Investigation Service detention facility between 28 November 2005 and 31 January 2006. Mr Onaca complains that his detention conditions violated his rights under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He alleges in particular: that he shared a cell with five other detainees and that the toilet in the cell offered no privacy, that the cell was not heated even when the outside temperature reached minus 20 degrees, that hot water was only available for ten minutes per week for all six detainees and that, being a non-smoker, he was detained with cellmates who smoked in the cell all day long. Parascineti v. Romania (no. 32060/05) The applicant, Mihai Parascineti, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Remei (Romania). On 5 July 2005, while he was a patient in the endocrinology unit of Baia Mare County Hospital, he had an acute psychotic episode, as a result of which he was compulsorily admitted to a psychiatric facility. He was admitted as an emergency case to the psychiatric wing of Sighetu Marmaiei Municipal Hospital, with police assistance. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains of the conditions in which he was detained in the municipal hospital. In particular, he alleges that he had to share his bed with other patients and that the standard of hygiene was inadequate, leading to the spread of fleas and of diseases such as scabies. The Romanian Government do not dispute that the conditions in the hospital psychiatric wing at the relevant time were as alleged by the applicant. Under Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that he was detained against his will for a week without any relevant reasons being given. When he left hospital, he embarked on a hunger strike outside the offices of the Ministry of Health in protest at his detention. He also brought an action concerning access to his medical file as well as criminal proceedings against the police officers who had taken him to Sighetu Marmaiei and the hospital staff, in both cases without success. ega v. Romania (no. 29022/04) The applicants, Titus and Ecaterina ega, were Romanian nationals who were born in 1925 and 1935. They died on 12 June 2007 and 25 April 2011 respectively, leaving as heirs their sons, Sorin ega and Dan Laurentiu ega, who expressed a wish to continue with the proceedings before the Court. On 25 May 1990, while on holiday in Germany, Titus and Ecaterina ega were involved in a road traffic accident caused by a third party, also a Romanian national. Their vehicle was completely destroyed and they sustained serious injuries. By means of a registered letter posted on 24 May 1993 they lodged an action for damages, which was dismissed by the Romanian courts for failure to pay the stamp duty � an error recognised by the Supreme Court of Justice in 2000 � and then for expiry of the limitation period. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants allege that they were deprived of access to a court on account of the dismissal of their action for reasons not attributable to them. They also complain about the length of the proceedings. Borisov v. Russia (no. 12543/09) The applicant, Vyacheslav Borisov, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Yekaterinburg (Russia). The case concerns his detention in Yekaterinburg remand centre between September 2008 and June 2010. He complains that his detention conditions violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). In particular, he alleges that the cells were severely overcrowded, poorly lit and ventilated, that there were no walls to separate the toilet, that he did not have an individual bed, that a shower was allowed only every ten days and that the nutrition was inadequate. Relying further on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he alleges that his right to take part in the appeal hearing in his case was violated. Karpenko v. Russia (no. 5605/04) The applicant, Kirill Karpenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a sentence in a correctional colony in the Sverdlovsk Region (Russia). He complains that his conviction of aggravated robbery in May 2003 was based only on statements by his alleged accomplices in the series of robberies and that he was unable to confront them in open court, in violation of Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal), he further complains that the courts which terminated his parental rights refused to give him an opportunity to attend hearings and present his case on an equal footing with his former wife. Kolpak v. Russia (no. 41408/04) The applicant, Sergey Kolpak, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in St Petersburg (Russia). Arrested in July 2001 on suspicion of aggravated theft and robbery and unlawful possession of firearms, he complains that the police beat him on the night after his arrest, and left him overnight chained to a radiator in the squatting position in the corridor of a police station without the possibility to use a toilet. He also alleges that the authorities did not carry out an adequate investigation into his related complaints. Finally, he complains that neither he nor his lawyer were summoned to attend his appeal against a dismissal of his challenge to his arrest. Mr Kolpak relies in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 � 4 (right of a detainee to have the lawfulness of his detention decided speedily by a court). Mogilat v. Russia (no. 8461/03) The applicant, Ruslan Mogilat, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1971. His home address after his release from detention in 2003 was not provided. Arrested in the early morning of 6 November 2001 on suspicion of trying to steal a car, he complains, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), that the police ill-treated him in police custody and that there had been no effective investigation into his related complaints. Further relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he also complains that he was unable to obtain a copy of the appeal judgment in his criminal case. Nefedov v. Russia (no. 40962/04) The applicant, Sergey Nefedov, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Irkutsk (Russia). Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal and to legal assistance of own choosing), he complains that neither he nor his lawyer could attend his appeal in a criminal case against him on suspicion of drug-trafficking, while the prosecutor attended that hearing and was heard by the court. Aysu v. Turkey (no. 44021/07) The applicant, Yunus Aysu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is serving a life sentence in Diyarbakir Prison, the courts having found that he was a member of an armed illegal organisation, the Hizbullah. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was ill-treated while in police custody and that no effective investigation was carried out into his complaints. Relying further on Article 5 �� 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Aysu complains that he was kept in police custody for too long. Finally, relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the criminal proceedings against him were too long. Malik v. the United Kingdom (no. 23780/08) The applicant, Zafar Iqbal Malik, is a British national who was born in 1943 and lives in London. Having started his medical practice as a general practitioner in 1978, he was suspended from the list of doctors authorised to practise for the National Health Service, following a monitoring visit to his practice premises. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains about his suspension from the list. Reynolds v. the United Kingdom (no. 2694/08) The applicant, Patricia Reynolds, was a British national, born in 1935. She died subsequent to lodging her complaint and the case was pursued by her daughter on her behalf. The case concerns the death of Ms Reynolds' son, a psychiatric patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, in 2005 following his fall from the sixth floor of a public care unit. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) alone and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Reynolds complained that no effective mechanism was available to her whereby civil liability could be determined for the alleged negligent care of her son and by which she could have obtained compensation for her loss. Y.C. v. the United Kingdom (no. 4547/10) The applicant, Y.C., is a British national who was born in 1962 and lives in Bridgwater (England). Her case concerns childcare proceedings in respect of her son, born in 2001, which resulted in an order authorising the child to be placed for adoption because of concerns about her relationship with the child's father. She complains that the courts' refusal to order an assessment of her as a sole carer for her son and their failure to have regard to all relevant considerations when making the placement order violated her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Thursday 15 March 2012 Levin v. Sweden (no. 35141/06) The applicant, Eleonor Levin, is a Swedish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Norway. In 2005 her three children were taken into public care and, in 2006, the authorities limited her contact rights with her children. She complains that the contact restrictions were unnecessary and too severe. She relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Solomakhin v. Ukraine (no. 24429/03) The applicant, Sergey Solomakhin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1964 and lived in Donetsk (Ukraine). The applicant died in September 2010 and his mother decided to pursue the application on his behalf. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains that the court proceedings, which he brought in April 1999 seeking compensation from the local department of public health for damage to his health, were too long. Further relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about damage to his health as a result in particular of a vaccination he had had in November 1998, following which he allegedly suffered from a number of chronic diseases. Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Demenova v. Ukraine (no. 21922/07) Papazova and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 32849/05, 20796/06, 14347/07 and 40760/07) Trofimova and Zylkova v. Ukraine (nos. 35909/06 and 50559/06) 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 www.echr.coe.int. 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 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) C�line 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. 5