003-3988922-4639048

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 254 (2012) 18.06.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 judgments on Tuesday 26 June 2012 and five on Thursday 28 June. 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 26 June 2012 Malkhasyan v. Armenia (application no. 6729/07) The applicant, Vardan Malkhasyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Yerevan. Arrested in December 2006 and charged with publicly calling for a violent overthrow of the government at a meeting organised by an NGO, the Unity of Armenian Volunteers, Mr Malkhasyan makes a number of complaints about the authorities' decisions to extend his ensuing detention. In particular, he alleges that the domestic courts failed to give reasons for his continued detention, that his detention between 10 and 22 June 2007 had not been authorised by a court and that he had not been present at any of the hearings to decide on the extension of his detention. He relies on Article 5 �� 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). He was found guilty as charged in August 2007 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Piruzyan v. Armenia (no. 33376/07) The applicant, Kamo Piruzyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Yerevan. The case concerns Mr Piruzyan's complaints about criminal proceedings brought against him in October 2006 � when he was arrested � for armed assault; the charges against him were ultimately dropped in December 2007 due to lack of evidence and he was released. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of the humiliation of being placed in a metal cage during his criminal trial. He also makes a number of other complaints under Article 5 �� 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) about the decisions to extend his detention: notably, that his detention between 19 February and 12 March 2007 had not been authorised by a court; that the courts had failed to provide reasons for his continued detention; that his release on bail had not been possible due to the gravity of his alleged offence; that a hearing in December 2006 to decide on the extension of his detention had not been adversarial; that his arguments concerning the lack of a reasonable suspicion had not been adequately addressed; and, that the courts had refused to examine an appeal of January 2007 against a decision to continue his detention. Decheva and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 43071/06) The applicants, Glikeria (Ganka) Decheva, now deceased, and her nieces, Antoaneta Georgieva and Maria Marinova, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1919, 1937 and 1943, respectively. Ms Decheva lived in Sliven and her nieces currently live in Sofia. The case concerns property owned by the applicants' ancestors in the village of Zheravna, an architectural reserve since 1964, which was expropriated by the State in 1968 for tourism purposes. Following the entry into force of a new law on restitution of private property expropriated for public use, the applicants' request that the expropriation be revoked and their property be restored to them was granted in a final judgment of March 1995. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that the domestic courts subsequently re-examined the question of whether they were entitled to restitution and declared the local municipality owner of the disputed property. They notably allege that this decision breached the principle of legal certainty and deprived them of their possessions. Hristova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 11472/04) The applicants, nine Bulgarian nationals, are former employees of the Plama refinery which was partly privatised in the 1990s and converted into a public limited company, Nova Plama AD. Experiencing problems, the refinery went into administration before being wound up by order of the court. It failed to make the payments provided for in the plan for the company's recovery. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain about the delays and obstacles they faced in enforcing court decisions in their favour against their former employer. Zaharievi v. Bulgaria (no. 22627/03) Just satisfaction The applicants are two Bulgarian nationals, Mr Kiril Grigorov Zahariev and Mr Ventzeslav Grigorov Zahariev. They were born in 1926 and 1928 respectively and live in Sofia. In 1998, under the 1997 Law on Compensation for Owners of Nationalised Real Property � which provided, subject to certain conditions, for the possibility of compensation for the expropriation of property where restitution was impossible � the applicants requested that half the compensation due for a wheat mill that had belonged to their father be awarded in the form of compensation bonds and the other half in shares in the M. company. By a judgment of 2 July 1999 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court had reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), which will be decided in a judgment of 26 June 2012. Kostadimas and Others v. Greece (nos. 20299/09 and 27307/09) The applicants, Georgios Kostadimas, Ioannis Charalambopoulos, Georgios Papageorgiou and Panagiota Kyriazopoulou, are Greek nationals who were born in 1923, 1922, 1926 and 1923 respectively. In July 1998 a section of the State Accounts Department carried out a retrospective adjustment of their retirement pensions. Relying on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants allege a violation of their right to protection of property. Borb�la Kiss v. Hungary (no. 59214/11) The applicant, Borb�la Kiss, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Tiszal�c (Hungary). The case concerns excessive force used by the police when called to a family party in Tiszal�c to request that the music be turned down. Ms Kiss, of Roma origin, notably alleges that, when intervening in a heated argument between the police and a man at the party, she had pepper-spray squirted in her eyes and, dragged towards and banged against a police car, her pullover tore and her breasts were exposed to all those present. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she alleges that the police's treatment of her had been inhuman and degrading as well as unnecessary in the circumstances and that the ensuing investigation into her allegations was inadequate. Metalco Bt. v. Hungary (n� 34976/05) Revision The applicant, Metalco BT., is a Hungarian limited partnership which is based in P�cs (Hungary). In a judgment of 1 February 2011, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the unfairness and excessive length of litigation with the Hungarian tax authorities concerning Metalco BT.'s outstanding taxes. The Government have since informed the European Court that, as the applicant company had been liquidated on 2 December 2010, they request revision of this judgment (under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court). Di Pietro v. Italy (no. 73575/01) Milazzo v. Italy (no. 77156/01) Just satisfaction In these two cases, the applicants were the owners of land occupied by the administrative authorities with a view to its expropriation and on which they began building work. In the absence of any formal expropriation or compensation the applicants claimed damages for the illegal occupation of their land. By two judgments of 2 November 2006 the Court held that the interference in the applicants' right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was incompatible with the principle of legality and that, accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Furthermore, it found that there had been a violation of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the length of the proceedings. The Court had reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), which will be decided in a judgment of 26 June 2012. Ciesielczyk v. Poland (no. 12484/05) The applicant, Marek Ciesielczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Tarnow (Poland). A local politician, Mr Ciesielczyk complains about proceedings brought against him in 2004 in which he was fined for defamation of a journalist of a local cable television company, S. Tar TV Malopolska Telewizja Kablowa, at a demonstration and via internet. He accused the journalist of "manipulating information" and of being a "collaborator" with other local politicians. Mr Ciesielczyk was notably referring to a decision by the courts in 2002 that found that the cable TV cable company had broadcast inaccurate information about him when he was campaigning for the post of Tarnow's President. He relies in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Mr Ciesielczyk has since been dismissed from his post as local councillor. Assuncao Santos v. Portugal (no. 6015/09) The applicant, M. Jo�o Assun��o Santos, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1944 and lives in Torres Vedras. On 21 January 2000 an investigation into criminal conspiracy was opened in respect of various people and the applicant was questioned in July 2000 in relation to the case by two judicial police officers. On 21 June 2005 the Central Criminal Investigation Court issued a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested, questioned, placed under examination and detained pending trial. By an order of 13 October 2005 he was released and placed under house arrest, under electronic surveillance. On 11 December 2007 the Lisbon Court set 11 November 2008 as the date for the first hearing. By a judgment of 12 January 2009 he was acquitted by the court on the ground that his guilt had not been established. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings before the Lisbon Court breached the principle of a reasonable time. Ghiera v. Republic of Moldova (no. 15778/05) The applicant, Ion Ghirea, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1956 and lives in Chiinu. A former customs officer, he was accused of accepting bribes. He was acquitted at first instance. The prosecution service subsequently informed the court that the prosecutor in charge of the case file was on leave and had asked for the report on the investigation into the case upon his return. He lodged an appeal the day after his return from leave but the appeal was rejected as being out of time. The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of the prosecution service's appeal and found that only the trial prosecutor could lodge an appeal and that the fact that the prosecutor had been on ordinary leave was indeed a reason to justify an application for leave to appeal out of time. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Ghirea alleges a violation of the principle of legal certainty, a breach of the principle of equality of arms and complains about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. Gaitanaru v. Romania (no. 26082/05) The applicant, Octavian Gitnaru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Focani (Romania). Director of the Focani public contracts department at the material time, Mr Gitnaru was suspected of having accepted bribes while in office and having committed the offences of forgery and using forged documents. On 21 April 2004 he was acquitted of the charge of corruption but found guilty of misuse of authority against the public interest, forgery and using forged documents. The prosecution service lodged an appeal against that judgment. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court. The prosecution service lodged an appeal on a point of law with the High Court of Cassation and Justice which re-examined the case and overturned Mr Gitnaru's acquittal. Relying on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleges that he was not given a fair trial as he was convicted on appeal on a point of law on the basis of evidence that had been deemed doubtful and insufficient by the courts having acquitted him at first instance and on appeal, and without any re-examination of the witnesses. Petrea Chisalau v. Romania (no. 36680/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Petrea Chislu, is a Romanian national who was born in1950. On 11 June 2002 he was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for rape. He was released on 6 June 2007 after having served his sentence in various prisons, including Bacu Prison, Baia Mare Prison and the Dej Prison Hospital. He is currently being held in Iai prison in relation to another criminal case. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleges that he was ill-treated by the Bacu prison guards and complains about the poor conditions of detention at Baia Mare Prison and Dej Prison Hospital. Zubayrayev v. Russia (no. 34653/04) The applicant, Sayd-Akhmed Zubayrayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is serving a 21-year prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region (Russia) for, among other offences, terrorism, including assassinating a law-enforcement officer, trafficking and possession of illegal firearms and rape. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains in particular that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair as he had not been able to participate in an appeal hearing on his case in February 2004. Toniolo v. San Marino and Italy (no. 44853/10) The applicant, Giuseppe Toniolo, is an Italian national who was born in 1949 and lives in San Marino. Arrested in San Marino in August 2009 following criminal proceedings brought against him in Italy for, among other offences, money laundering, Mr Toniolo complains about his preventive detention and subsequent extradition to Italy about a month later. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Toniolo alleges that both San Marino and Italy were responsible for procedural irregularities in his extradition and, in particular, that his preventive detention in San Marino was unlawful. Mustafa Tatan v. Turkey (no. 41824/05) The applicant, Mustafa Tatan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kirehir (Turkey). Mr Tatan was arrested on 29 August 1999 on suspicion of carrying a gun without a licence. The public prosecutor ordered his release the following day after taking down his statement. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that, despite this decision to release him, he was forcibly taken into police custody again and subjected to ill-treatment by certain police officers at the Security Headquarters. He also complains under Article 3 that the ensuing investigation into his allegation was ineffective. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Zulfali Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (no. 56547/10) The case concerns the applicant's complaint about the delay in enforcement of a judgment in his favour ordering the eviction of internally displaced persons � from regions under the control of Armenian military forces � from a flat in respect of which he had tenancy rights. He relies in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Thursday 28 June 2012 Ressiot and Issartel v. France and Labb� and Others v. France (nos. 15054/07 and 15066/07) The applicants, Mr Damien Ressiot, Mrs Dominique Issartel, Mr Labb�, Mr Decugis and Mrs Recasens, are French nationals who were born in 1964, 1967, 1967, 1963 and 1970 respectively. At the material time, they were journalists for l'Equipe (a daily sports paper) and Le Point (a weekly news magazine). In 2004 a judicial investigation was opened into suspicions of doping among members of the "Cofidis" cycle racing team. On 22 January 2004 Le Point published an article containing passages from transcriptions of telephone calls produced in the context of that investigation. On 9 and 10 April 2004 L'Equipe published a series of articles on the same subject, reproducing extracts of the records and evidence in the proceedings. On 15 April 2004 Cofidis and Cofidis comp�tition brought proceedings against a person or persons unknown for violation of the confidentiality of the proceedings and receiving stolen goods. On 13 January 2005 searches were carried out at the offices of L'Equipe and Le Point and at the homes of various journalists. Those journalists allege that the investigations carried out in this case were in breach of the provisions of Article 10 (freedom of expression). S. v. Germany (no. 3300/10) The applicant, S, is a Romanian national who was born in 1961 and is currently detained in Straubing Prison. In 1996, he was found to have committed a number of offences, including dangerous assault and sexual assault. As the sentencing court considered that he was not to be held criminally responsible, it acquitted him and ordered his placement in a psychiatric hospital. His stay there was terminated by the regional court dealing with the execution of sentences in 2007. Mr S was subsequently placed in preventive detention, ordered by the Munich I regional court in 2008. Relying in particular on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the retrospective order for his preventive detention, based on a provision inserted into the Criminal Code in 2004, thus years after he committed the offences on which his preventive detention was based. Sch�th v. Germany (no. 1620/03) Just satisfaction The applicant, Mr Bernhard Josef Sch�th, is a German national. By a judgment of 23 September 2010 the Court held that the German Labour Court had failed to weigh the rights of Mr Sch�th against those of the employer � the Catholic Church -, in a manner compatible with the Convention. It held that the German State had failed to provide Mr Sch�th with the necessary protection and that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). The Court had reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), which will be decided in a judgment of 28 June 2012. Praznik v. Slovenia (no. 6234/10) The applicant, Matjaz Praznik, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Ljubljana. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains about the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison between April 2009 and March 2010, notably on account of severe overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions and excessive restrictions on time spent outside his cell. X v. Slovenia (no. 40245/10) The applicant, Mr. X, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Sp. Duplek (Slovenia). The case concerns the placement in foster care in September 2003 of his two children, born in 2000 and 2002, following criminal proceedings brought against him and his former wife for child neglect and abuse. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that the welfare authorities unjustifiably took his children into care and imposed restrictions on his contact with them and that there had been excessive delays in the related proceedings, leading to his children's complete alienation from him. A.A. and Others v. Sweden (no. 14499/09) The applicants, Ms A.A. and her five children, are Yemeni nationals who are currently living in Sweden pending enforcement of a deportation order to send them back to Yemen. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants allege that, if deported to Yemen, they would face a real risk of being the victims of an honour crime as they had disobeyed their husband/father and had left their country without his permission. They arrived in Sweden in 2006 and immediately applied for asylum and residence permits. Before the Migration Board, Ms A.A. claimed that she had suffered from years of abuse by her husband but that her main reason for leaving Yemen had been to protect her minor daughters, who were either being threatened with or had already been forced into an arranged marriage. Their applications were ultimately rejected in 2009 by the Swedish migration courts, as it was considered that the applicant family's problems mainly concerned the personal sphere, caused among other things by the country's traditions, and had been related to financial matters, rather than to honour. 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. 7