003-3927950-4542056

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 183 (2012) 25.04.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 20 judgments on Thursday 3 May 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) Mago and Others v. Bosnia (no. 12959/05) The applicants are a Bosnian-Herzegovinian citizen, three Serbian citizens, a BosnianHerzegovinian and Macedonian citizen and a Bosnian-Herzegovinian and Montenegrin citizen. The case concerns their failed attempts to repossess flats in Sarajevo and Mostar which they had been allocated by the military under a social ownership regime and which they had abandoned on the outbreak of the 1992 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. Kleyn and Aleksandrovich v. Russia (no. 40657/04) The applicants, Aleksandr Kleyn and Roman Aleksandrovich, father and son, are Russian nationals, born in 1981 and 2000, respectively, who live in the Pskov Region (Russia). The case concerns their wife and mother, Fatsima Aleksandrovich, a Belarus national of Roma ethnicity, born in 1979, who died in 2002 after jumping out of a second-floor window in a police station where she was being held on suspicion of pick-pocketing. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants allege that Ms Aleksandrovich had died as a result of ill-treatment in police custody and her unconscious body placed in the police courtyard to make it look like she had tried to escape from a toilet window. Nitsov v. Russia (no. 35389/04) The applicant, Valentin Nitsov, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Goryunok, the Kirov Region (Russia). The case concerns his allegation that he was tortured by police officers for several hours in August 2003 when being held in custody on suspicion of the attempted murder of one of their colleagues, despite the fact that he had already voluntarily confessed to the offence. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, later reduced to eight years. Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that he was ill-treated by the police out of revenge for his shooting their colleague and that the subsequent investigation into his allegation was inadequate. Salikhov v. Russia (no. 23880/05) The applicant, Valery Salikhov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lived in Novosibirsk before being arrested in June 2004 on suspicion of rape. The case concerns his complaint that, while being held for questioning on that offence, police officers beat him with truncheons and, pinning him down, forcibly removed his underwear and cut his fingernails in order to obtain evidence of the rape. He was then paraded naked from the waist down around the police station. He also claims that officials subsequently attempted to take a blood sample from him by force. He complains of further illtreatment in October 2004 when taken to a hearing concerning the extension of his detention, alleging that he was beaten beforehand and presented to the judge bloody, barefoot, wet and dirty. He also complains that the investigations into both these allegations of ill-treatment were ineffective. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on this article, he also complains about the conditions of his detention on remand, which he alleges were appalling. Notably, inmates had to use a bucket to go to the toilet and were only given food once per day on weekdays. Lastly, he complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair as he had not been able to examine in open court the key witnesses against him, in breach of Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses). Shafiyeva v. Russia (no. 49379/09) The applicant, Khadizhat Shafiyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1978. The case concerns the abduction on 8 September 2009 of her husband, Sirazhudin Shafiyev, born in 1971, by a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms when he was driving back home from dropping off his children at the kindergarten in Derbent (the Republic of Dagestan). A number of local residents witnessed the men blocking his car in the road and, after hitting his head with a bludgeon, jumping in the car and driving off with him. He has not been seen since. Ms Shafiyeva alleges that Russian servicemen were responsible for her husband's disappearance and presumed subsequent death and that the investigation into her allegations was inadequate. She relies in particular on Article 2 (right to life and effective investigation), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Yevgeniy Kuzmin v. Russia (no. 6479/05) The applicant, Yevgeniy Kuzmin, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Mariinsk, Kemerovo Region (Russia). A police officer, he was arrested in September 2003 on suspicion of aggravated assault and of causing death when extracting a confession from a suspect, following which he was detained awaiting trial. His pre-trial detention was continuously extended thereafter until his conviction and sentencing in November 2004 to five-and-a-half years in prison. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Kuzmin complains that the domestic authorities have not given sufficient reasons for his continued pre-trial detention and that he was detained unlawfully during a seven-day period in November and December 2003. lker Ensar Uyanik v. Turkey (no. 60328/09) The applicant, lker Ensar Uyanik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Durham (United States). He married and settled with his wife in the United States. A daughter was born in February 2006. In August 2007 all three travelled to Turkey for a holiday, but Mr Uyanik's wife ended their relationship and did not return to the United States. Mr Uyanik, who had returned home alone, applied to the Durham County Court seeking to obtain parental authority, and to the American Central Authority seeking the return of his daughter. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Uyanik complains about the unfairness of the proceedings which, he claims, amounts to a failure to comply with the provisions of the Hague Convention. He alleges that the child's return is a binding measure under Article 12 of the Hague Convention and requests that she be returned. Yelden and Others v. Turkey (no. 16850/09) The applicants, Halil Yelden and Tansu Halil Yelden, together with Cennet Yelden and Kudret �ift�i, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1935, 1990, 1943 and 1973 respectively. They live in zmir (Turkey). They complain about the death of a relative, Alpaslan Yelden, on 14 July 1999 in the zmir civilian hospital, to which he had been transferred about ten days previously. He had been arrested on 2 July as part of an investigation into a murder. On 3 July a discharge warrant was drawn up at 8.10 pm, but A. Yelden was not released. At 11 p.m. on the same evening he was transferred to the civilian hospital and admitted under a false name; the doctor who examined him noted that his survival was in doubt. The applicants allege that there have been violations of Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights), Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). M.S. v. UK (no. 24527/08) The applicant, M.S., is a British national who was born in 1970. He was arrested at 4.20 a.m. on 6 December 2004 after the police was called to deal with him because, highly agitated, he was sitting in a car sounding its horn continuously. His detention was authorised under the 1983 Mental Health Act, after which the police found the applicant's aunt at his address, seriously injured by him. Following his arrest, he was kept locked up in a police cell where he kept shouting, taking off all of his clothes, banging his head on the wall, drinking from the toilet and smearing himself with food and feaces. More than three days later, he was taken in hand-cuffs to a mental-health local clinic where eight people were needed to restrain him. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), M.S. complains about his being kept in police custody during a period of acute mental suffering while it had been clear to all that he was severely mentally ill and required hospital treatment as a matter of urgency. Relying also on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the manner in which his case was examined. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Chorobik v. Poland (no. 45213/07) This case concerns the applicant's complaint that he could not bring his case to the Supreme Administrative Court because it had rejected his cassation appeal as out of time. The applicant relies on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court). Bakhshiyev and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 51920/09) Gasimova and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 7867/09) Bobi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 26529/10) The applicants in the above three cases all complain about the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of judgments in their favour. They rely in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) Ta�i and Demir v. Turkey (no. 23623/10) The applicants, Agit Ta�i and Ridvan Demir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1992 and 1993 respectively. The applicants, who were minors at the time of the events in question � a Molotov-cocktail attack on police housing -, complain about the length of their pre-trial detention and the lack of a remedy enabling them to contest that measure. They are currently still being held in pre-trial detention. They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for family and private life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Length-of-proceedings cases Cangelaris v. Greece (no. 28073/09) Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains in particular about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings. In the following cases, relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an affective remedy), the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them. Ioannis Karagiannis v. Greece (no. 66609/09) Seta v. Greece and Germany (no. 30287/09) Sagropoulos v. Greece (no. 61894/08) Zelidis v. Greece (no. 59793/08) Mas�r v. Slovakia (no. 66882/09) 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. 4