003-4154842-4905856

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 420 (2012) 14.11.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing eight judgments on Tuesday 20 November 2012 and four on Thursday 22 November 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 20 November 2012 Goloshvili v. Georgia (application no. 45566/08) The applicant, Giorgi Goloshvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1988 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Geguti no. 8 Prison. Convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery and sentenced to six years' imprisonment, he complains that he was infected with pulmonary tuberculosis in prison and that he was not provided with timely and adequate medical care. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Dachnevic v. Lithuania (no. 41338/06) The applicant, Genoefa Dachnevic, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Salcininkai (Lithuania). The case concerns civil proceedings in which she claimed damages for the death of her grandson, who had lived with her and had died in 2003 at the age of 16 as a result of a traffic accident. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, she complains that she could not effectively raise and defend her claims in court, in particular because of her limited knowledge of legal matters and limited legal assistance and the fact that she speaks only Russian. Kasperovicius v. Lithuania (no. 54872/08) The applicant, Aleksandras Kasperovicius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Vilnius. In October 2006, he was detained for seven days at the Anyksciai Police Remand Facility. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of the poor conditions of his detention, and in particular that there was no toilet in the cell and insufficient drinking water, lighting and ventilation. Alexandre v. Portugal (no. 33197/09) The applicant, Fernando Alexandre, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1970 and lives in Marinha Grande (Portugal). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains about the length of two sets of proceedings, one civil, against an insurance company, and the other in respect of his application not to have his conviction for assault and the resulting 480 euro fine included in his criminal record. With regard to those last proceedings, Mr Alexandre bases his argument on the implications of such an inclusion, as criminal records may be used in Portugal, among other things, for employment purposes. Ghiuru v. Romania (no. 55421/10) The applicant, Gheorghe Ghiuru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Oradea (Romania). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was severely beaten by police officers who had arrested him in the afternoon of 27 November 2006, causing him to lose consciousness and be taken for emergency treatment at hospital. Further relying on Article 5 � 1 and Article 5 � 2 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was unlawfully held in police custody for ten hours and that he was not immediately informed of the reasons for his arrest. Harabin v. Slovakia (no. 58688/11) The applicant, Stefan Harabin, is a Slovak national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava. He has been the president of the Slovak Supreme Court since June 2009 (after having previously held this office between 1998 and 2003) and he was the Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic between July 2006 and June 2009. On 29 June 2011, the Slovak Constitutional Court found him guilty of a serious disciplinary offence, holding in particular that, in July and August 2010, he had prevented a group of auditors of the Ministry of Finance from carrying out an audit at the Supreme Court on four occasions. The Constitutional Court imposed a disciplinary sanction on Mr Harabin, which consisted of a 70% reduction of his annual salary. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were unfair, in particular because: some of the judges who decided on the case were biased; the court erroneously interpreted the relevant provisions as to what the elements of a serious disciplinary offence were; it had disregarded the conclusions reached by the ordinary courts as to the power of the Ministry of Finance to carry out governmental audits at the Supreme Court; it failed to indicate the reasons for its decision to impose the maximum sanction on Mr Harabin; and, the sanction imposed was disproportionate. He further alleges that the sanction violated his rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Also relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains that he was discriminated against in the enjoyment of his rights under Articles 6 and 10. Finally, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he maintains that he did not have an effective remedy at his disposal. Belek v. Turkey (nos. 36827/06, 36828/06 and 36829/06) The applicant, Ahmet Sami Belek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul. He owns the daily newspaper G�nl�k Evrensel (Universal). Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains that he was convicted on three occasions under the Anti-Terrorism Act � which makes it an offence to publish declarations or leaflets emanating from terrorist organisations � for publishing articles that contained statements by members of the illegal armed organisation PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan), including its president, Mr �calan. Under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr Belek also contests the independence and impartiality of the court that convicted him. Erol Arikan and Others v. Turkey (no. 19262/09) The applicants, Erol Arikan, Esral Karag�z, Fazil Ahmet Tamer, Volkan Kartal, Kemal Tufan, Erol Kaplan, Mehmet Hakan Canpolat, Hacer Arikan, Hikmet Kale, G�lderen San, Mehmet �iftci, Mehmet G�kta, Mehmet Boztepe, Sadettin Aydin Balik, T�rker Kazak, lhan Zeyrek, Salih Bal, Sefa G�n�lta, �zlem T�rk, Turhan Tarakci, Haci Aziz Hun, Din�er Otlu�imen, Ridvan Kodak, Yilmaz Yiit, B�lent Yiit and Cem ahin, are Turkish nationals who were born between 1952 and 1977. At the relevant time, they were held in Bayrampaa Prison (Istanbul). The case concerns the injuries sustained by the applicants during the "Return to Life" operation conducted by the security forces on 19 December 2000 in about 20 Turkish prisons, including Bayrampaa Prison, in order to end hunger strikes by prisoners in protest against a plan for F-type prisons, which provided for smaller living units for prisoners. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain about the manner in which the authorities prepared and conducted the operation and allege that the force used on that occasion was disproportionate. They also accuse the State of having failed in its obligation to protect the lives of persons placed under its control. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain about violent treatment during their evacuation and transfer to other prisons, and also about violence in the prisons to which they were transferred. In addition, they allege that they did not receive appropriate care for their injuries. Under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain of the failure to prosecute those responsible for the ill-treatment, about the investigation, which they alleged was slow and ineffective, and about the closure as time-barred of the criminal proceedings brought against the gendarmes for ill-treatment. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they had no effective remedy for those complaints in Turkey. They also complain of discrimination based on their political opinion, allegedly in violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Thursday 22 November 2012 Cadek and Others v. the Czech Republic (nos. 31933/08, 60084/08, 6185/09, 46696/09, 52792/09, 53518/09, 10185/10, 42151/10, 3167/11 and 20939/11) The applicants are five Czech nationals and two corporations established under Czech law. They all purchased restitution claims from owners of land confiscated before 1990, to whom the plots of land could not be returned and who were entitled to compensatory land under the Land Ownership Act. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that under a 2003 amendment to the Land Ownership Act they were no longer entitled to substitute plots of land and that their claims had still not been settled by the end of 2005. They also complain that the financial compensation to which they were entitled constituted only a fraction of the value of the land. Roman Minarik v. the Czech Republic (no. 58874/11) The applicant, Roman Minarik, is a German national who was born in 1965 and lives in Willst�tt (Germany). He was a minority shareholder of a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law until a resolution was adopted at a general meeting in June 2002 on the winding up of the company and the division of its assets between two new companies, thus depriving Mr Minarik of his shares. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains that the Czech courts did not consider the merits of his action challenging that resolution. S�kora v. the Czech Republic (no. 23419/07) The applicant, Milan S�kora, is a Czech national who was born in 1949 and lives in Brno. He has a psycho-social disability and has been treated in psychiatric hospitals in the past. Mr S�kora complains of the removal of his legal capacity between December 2000 and August 2001 and between January 2005 and October 2006 and of his detention in a psychiatric hospital for 20 days in November 2005 with the consent of his guardian. He relies in particular on Article 5 �� 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Tseber v. the Czech Republic (no. 46203/08) The applicant, Igor Tseber, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1981. When his application was lodged, he was serving a prison sentence in P�bram in the Czech Republic (after his release on licence in 2010 he was extradited to Ukraine). On 18 April 2007 he was sentenced to prison, accompanied by an order to leave the country, for, among other things, having intentionally caused serious injury to a man by shooting him in the leg. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial/right to question witnesses), Mr Tseber complains that this criminal conviction was essentially based on a statement given by the victim, whom he had not had the opportunity to question. The statement had been taken from the victim as a matter of urgency in view of the latter's possible departure from the Czech Republic and before the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been opened. 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 here: 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) 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