003-4028802-4700699

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 307 (2012) 23.07.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 judgments on Tuesday 31 July 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) Manushaqe Puto and Others v. Albania (nos. 604/07, 43628/07, 46684/07 and 34770/09) The applicants are 20 Albanian nationals who live in Albania. They all complain that, despite their inherited title to plots of land having been recognised by the authorities, final administrative decisions awarding them compensation in lieu of restitution have never been enforced. They rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. There are currently 80 similar cases pending before the Court. Sholokhov v. Armenia and Republic of Moldova (application no. 40358/05) The applicant, Valentin Sholokhov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1945 and lives in Chisinau. Disabled and in need of constant nursing since he fractured his spine in an accident at work in the Yerevan Meat Factory (Armenia), he was awarded compensation by the Armenian courts in judgments of January 1988 and March 2003. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, he complains about the failure of the Armenian and the Moldovan authorities to enforce both those judgments. Mahmundi and Others v. Greece (no. 14902/10) The applicants - Ibrahim Mahmundi, Zaharo Huseini, Kobra Huseini, Fatima Huseini and Mohamad Reza Huseini � are Afghan nationals who were born in 1967, 1986, 1973, 1973 and 1987 respectively. They left Greece in 2010 and are currently seeking asylum in Norway. The case concerns their detention in the Pagani detention centre on the island of Lesbos. Mr Mahmundi and Ms Zaharo Huseini, a married couple, were accompanied by their children aged two and six. Ms Husaini was eight months pregnant and gave birth in Lesbos Hospital while in detention. Her sister, Fatima Huseini, was accompanied by her 14-year-old twins. After being rescued by the maritime police from a boat that was starting to sink off the island of Lesbos, they were taken into detention pending deportation and were separated (in particular, Mr Mahmundi from his wife and children). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain about the conditions of their detention, in particular overcrowding, poor hygiene, inadequate sleeping facilities, the lack of medical care for Zaharo Huseini during her pregnancy and for her children, and their separation from each other. They further complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that the Greek legal system does not give aliens the possibility of complaining about the conditions of their detention pending deportation. In addition, they allege violations of Article 5 �� 1, 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security; right to be informed promptly of the charges; right to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). Lastly, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they complain that the birth of Zaharo Huseini's child was not registered at the hospital. M. and Others v. Italy and Bulgaria (no. 40020/03) The applicants, L.M., S.M., I.I. and K.L, are a Roma family of Bulgarian nationality who were born in 1985, 1959, 1958 and 1977 respectively and live in the village of Novo Selo in the Vidin region (Bulgaria). The case concerns alleged human trafficking. On 12 May 2003 the first three applicants, daughter and parents, went to Milan (Italy) following an alleged promise of work in the villa of a Roma man of Serbian origin. L.M.'s parents allege that six days later, beaten and threatened with death, they were forced to go back to Bulgaria, leaving their daughter � who was a minor at the time � at the villa. She was then allegedly kept under constant surveillance, forced to steal, beaten, threatened with death and repeatedly raped. On 24 May 2003 L.M.'s mother returned to Italy � with the fourth applicant, L.M.'s sister-in-law � and reported that her daughter had been kidnapped. On 11 June 2003 the Italian police raided the villa and rescued L.M. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants allege in particular that the Italian authorities failed to ensure L.M.'s swift release, which would have prevented her further ill-treatment by the Serbian family in the villa, and that the ensuing investigation both in Italy and Bulgaria into their allegations was ineffective. They also claim under Article 4 (prohibition of, among other things, forced labour) that L.M., forced to take part in organised crime, was a victim of trafficking in human beings for which both Bulgaria and Italy were responsible. Lastly, relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they submit that the handling of their case in both countries was prejudiced on account of their Roma origin. Draksas v. Lithuania (no. 36662/04) The applicant, Algirdas Draksas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Vilnius. A politician (one of the founding members of the Liberal Democrats political party, led by former President Rolandas Paksas), he complains that the authorities authorised the tapping of his telephone and then leaked to the media one of his conversations recorded in March 2003 with Jurij Borisov, a major contributor to the then President Paksas' electoral campaign. He also complains that this conversation was aired again on national television in March 2004 during the constitutional proceedings on President Paksas' impeachment case. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence). Further relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also complains about the lack of judicial review available to him to complain about the telephone tapping. Liuiza v. Lithuania (no. 13472/06) The applicant, Laimutis Liuiza, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Rokiskis (Lithuania). A schizophrenic, he alleges that his arrest in June 2004 on suspicion of theft as well as his subsequent placement in a psychiatric institution were unlawful. He relies on Article 5 �� 1 and 2 (right to liberty and security � right to be informed promptly of the reasons for the arrest). Further relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he also complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him were not fair. Van der Velden (II) v. the Netherlands (no. 21203/10) The applicant, Hendrik Jan van der Velden, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1965. Suffering from a schizoid personality disorder, he was detained in a custodial clinic in Groningen (the Netherlands) after having been convicted of extortion and theft in April 2003. He is apparently still detained there. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 7 (no punishment without law), he complains that, in the circumstances of his case, his continued confinement in the clinic is unlawful as he claims it has been extended beyond the four year limit permitted under domestic law. Alikhonov v. Russia (no. 35692/11) The applicant, Ebodulla Alikhonov, is an Uzbekistani national who was born in 1972 and lives in Artemovskiy, Sverdlovsk Region (Russia). He moved to Russia from Uzbekistan in July 2009. On a wanted list in Uzbekistan for participating in an extremist religious organisation, he was arrested in Russia in October 2010. He was released on 30 April 2011 as the maximum period that he could be lawfully detained had expired and is currently awaiting the outcome of his application for asylum. Relying in particular on Article 5 �� 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he alleges in particular that the extension of his detention with a view to extradition authorised by the Russian courts on 17 December 2010 was unlawful and that he could not obtain effective judicial review of that decision. Makhashevy v. Russia (no. 20546/07) The applicants, Ibragim, Adam and Islam (now deceased) Makhashev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1972, 1974 and 1979, respectively. Ibragim and Adam live in Nalchik (Russia). Brothers, they are ethnic Chechens who moved to Nalchik from Grozny in October 1996 when their house was destroyed during the hostilities. The case concerns the first two brothers' complaint that they were unlawfully detained and then kicked and beaten by the police when taken to the local police station after getting involved in a fight in a nightclub. The third brother, Islam, alleged that he was also beaten when going to the police station to enquire about his brothers. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they allege/d that they were tortured on account of their ethnic origin and that the ensuing investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment and discrimination was inadequate. Mikryukov and Others v. Russia (nos. 34841/06, 59954/09, 746/10, 1096/10, 1162/10 and 1898/10) The applicants - Andrey Mikryukov, Yuriy Tkachev, Denis Oleynik, Aida Shelepova, Vyacheslav Slavnyy and Yevgeniy Dmitriyev � are Russian nationals who were born in 1980, 1942, 1980, 1958, 1963 and 1956 and live in Chelyabinsk, Volzhskiy, Tyumen, Kislovodsk, Volgograd and Kostomuksha (Russia) respectively. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain that they were not duly summoned to appeal hearings in proceedings concerning labour and property disputes. Mr Tkachev and Mr Slavnyy also complain that the principle of equality of arms was not observed in that the public prosecutor made submissions on behalf of the respondents. The applicants further challenge the courts' assessment and allege a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No.1). Tyagunova v. Russia (no. 19433/07) The applicant, Tatyana Tyagunova, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Chelyabinsk (Russia). The case concerns her complaint that the authorities failed to properly investigate her allegation that she was raped by a group of men in June 2005 on her way back home from a party at a lake. She relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to private and family life). Umarova and Others v. Russia (no. 25654/08) The applicants, Aset Umarova, Laura Alkhastova, Luiza Umarova, Ibragim Umarov, SaidIbragim Umarov and Larisa Umarova are Russian nationals who were born in 1959, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1991 and 1985 respectively and live in Achkhoy-Martan (Chechnya). The case concerns the disappearance of their husband and father, Khamzat Umarov, born in 1956. They have not seen him since the early hours of the morning of 30 July 2001 when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into their house and took him away. The applicants allege in particular that Khamzat was abducted and subsequently killed by Russian servicemen and that the ensuing investigation into their allegations was inadequate. They rely in particular 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). Durmu and Tanancik v. Turkey (no. 54625/09) The applicants, Nihat Durmu and Azmi Tanancik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1971 and 1975 respectively. They were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in 1999 and were prosecuted for their alleged activities on behalf of an illegal armed organisation. They were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2009. The criminal proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain about the length of their pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings. Er and Others v. Turkey (no. 23016/04) The applicants, Mehmet, G�len, slam, Adnan, Hizir, Hatice, Belkisa, Ali and Mumi Er, are nine Turkish nationals who were born in 1980, 1974, 1978, 1984, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1954 and 1953 respectively and live in Hakkari (Turkey). The case concerns the disappearance in July 1995 of their 44-year old father and brother, Ahmet Er. The applicants allege that Ahmet was arrested following a military operation in the village of Kurudere and taken to the local gendarmerie station; they have had no news of him since. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they allege that the Turkish armed forces were responsible for Ahmet's unacknowledged detention, subsequent disappearance and presumed death and that the authorities failed to carry out any meaningful investigation into their allegations. They also complain about the suffering caused by their inability to find out what has happened to their relative, in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Lastly, they allege under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they have no means available to them to obtain either an investigation into Ahmet's disappearance and death or compensation. Muta v. Ukraine (no. 37246/06) The applicant, Ivan Muta, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1988 and lives in the village of Aleksandrovka (Ukraine). In June 2000, when he was 11 years old, Mr Muta went blind in one eye as a result of having a stone thrown at him by a youth during a dispute. The case concerns Mr Muta's complaint about the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation into the incident as well as the excessive length of the criminal proceedings � more than eight years � brought against the youth who had thrown the stone. He relies in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment � lack of an effective investigation). Prynda v. Ukraine (no. 10904/05) The applicants, Olga (now deceased) and Myron Prynda, husband and wife, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1944 and 1942 respectively. Myron Prynda lives in the town of Stryy (Ukraine). The case concerns the couple's complaint about the ineffectiveness and excessive length � almost seven years � of the investigation into the death of their son who was hit and killed by a car on 6 October 2003. They rely in particular on Article 2 (right to life). Shapovalov v. Ukraine (no. 45835/05) The applicant, Oleksandr Shapovalov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Kherson (Ukraine). A journalist and human rights activist, he alleges that the authorities prevented him from having access to information about the 2004 presidential elections, thus hindering his coverage of the event. He further alleges that he was not able to challenge in court the authorities' refusal to provide him with information. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article 6 (right of access to court), he also alleges that the national courts refused to examine his complaint about the refusal to give him copies of the electoral commission's decisions and minutes as well as voting results for each polling station. Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Nezihe Kaymaz v. Turkey (no. 12021/06) Yuryeva and Yuryev v. Ukraine (no. 3431/03) 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 www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en. 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