003-4184321-4954012

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 441 (2012) 03.12.2012 05.12.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21 judgments on Tuesday 11 December 2012 and two on Thursday 13 December 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 11 December 2012 Ball v. Andorra (application no. 40628/10) The applicant, Toby Nigel Ball, is a British national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sant Julia de Loria (Andorra). Mr Ball complains that, pending his appeal in divorce proceedings, the domestic courts refused to enforce a final judicial decision rendered in June 2008 within the framework of separation proceedings which set up a contact schedule with his two children, born in 1992 and 2003, thus depriving him of any meaningful contact with them. He relies in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Asadbeyli and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 3653/05, 14729/05, 20908/05, 26242/05, 36083/05, and 16519/06) The applicants are eleven Azerbaijani nationals who were born between 1952 and 1984 and live in Sumgayit, Baku, and Gabala (Azerbaijan). The case essentially concerns the applicants' complaints about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against them following their arrest for allegedly participating in an unauthorised demonstration of 16 October 2003 in protest against the presidential elections. The protest had escalated into violent clashes between opposition supporters and the law-enforcement authorities. Relying in particular on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (b), (c), and (d) (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, they allege that there have been serious breaches of numerous fair trial guarantees in the criminal proceedings against them, rendering their trials wholly unfair. They also allege that their convictions were aimed at suppressing their right to assemble peacefully and express views opposing the Government, in breach of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). One of the applicants, Elshad Eyvaz oglu Mammadov, further complains that he was prosecuted in two separate sets of proceedings (administrative and criminal) brought against him for his involvement in the demonstration, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice). Nenkova-Lalova v. Bulgaria (no. 35745/05) The applicant, Antoaneta Nenkova-Lalova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Sofia. The case concerns Ms Nenkova-Lalova's dismissal from her job as a journalist for the State-owned Bulgarian National Radio (the "BNR"), where she hosted a current affairs radio show. She was dismissed on disciplinary grounds, notably for wilfully disregarding an editorial decision as to the choice of BNR employees who were to take part in a radio show on 9 October 1998. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Ms Nenkova-Lalova alleges that the real reason for her dismissal was because she had aired on her show the results of an investigation into corruption of the then ruling political party (the Union of Democratic Forces). Further relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), she also complains about the unfairness and excessive length of the proceedings she brought to challenge her dismissal. Ms Nenkova-Lalova now works for Deutsche Welle in the Bulgarian section. Remetin v. Croatia (no. 29525/10) The applicant, Tomislav Remetin, is a Croatian national who was born in 1989 and lives in Dubrovnik (Croatia). Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Remetin complains about the authorities' failure to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint that, following an argument with another boy over a ball in a school playground, he was physically attacked by the father of the boy. He was 13 years' old at the time. Tarbuk v. Croatia (no. 31360/10) The applicant, Dusan Tarbuk, is a Croatian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Zagreb. In October 1995 Mr Tarbuk was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of espionage during the Homeland war in Croatia (the Croatian War of Independence from 1991 to 1995). He was subsequently amnestied and the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued. Upon his release he instituted civil proceedings for damages against the State for the period of his detention. During the civil proceedings the relevant domestic law was amended in that it excluded the possibility to obtain compensation for detention if the criminal proceedings had been discontinued based on the amnesty. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that the legislative intervention rendered his proceedings unfair. Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia (no. 17012/09) The applicant, Irakli Mindadze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1955 and is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence for drugs offences. Arrested in March 2007, he was ultimately convicted in December 2007 of unlawful purchase and possession of heroin. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges a lack of adequate medical care in prison for his viral Hepatitis C and several other medical problems and that he was only transferred to a prison hospital in May 2011 when the European Court had communicated his case to the Georgian Government. Sampani and Others v. Greece (no. 59608/09) The applicants are 140 Greek nationals from 38 families, all of Roma origin, who were living at the material time on the Psari authorised residential site near Aspropyrgos. 98 applicants were children aged from five and a half to 15, and 42 were their parents or guardians. Some of them were applicants in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Sampanis and Others v. Greece1. This case concerns these children's schooling. On 10 September 2008 Aspropyrgos primary school no. 12, which was supposed to accept both Roma and non-Roma children without distinction, opened its doors � the Roma children had previously been educated in a building annexed to school no. 10. From December 2008, however, the Ombudsman of the Republic described it as a "ghetto school", since no non-Roma child from the region was enrolled in it. He applied unsuccessfully to the regional governor for the fusion of schools nos. 11 and 12. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), the applicants complain that they were educated in school no. 12, installed in a prefabricated building, attended solely by children from their community and providing a level of education inferior to that in the other schools. 1 Judgment of 5 June 2008 Relying also on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they had no effective access to a court in Greece. Anna De Rosa and Others v. Italy (no. 52888/08, 58528/08, 59194/08, 60462/08, 60473/08, 60628/08, 61116/08, 61131/08, 61139/08, 61143/08, 610/09, 4995/09, 5068/09 and 5141/09) The applicants are 35 Italian nationals. Formerly employed by the Province of Milan as administrative assistants, officials, technical assistants and heads of administration in schools, they were employed from 31 December 1999 by the Ministry of National Education, following the transfer of staff from the regional civil service to the State civil service. The case concerns a legislative measure that was unfavourable to the applicants, enacted in the course of the civil proceedings brought by them seeking recognition, for all legal and financial purposes, of the length of their service with the Province of Milan. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants allege that had this law (Law no. 266 of 2005 on the 2006 Finance Act) not been applied, they were almost certain to have won their case. They consider that the legislative measure in question was motivated solely by the authorities' financial interests. Vovrusko v. Latvia (no. 11065/02) The applicant, Aleksejs Vovrusko, is a Latvian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Rga. The case concerns his allegation that he was ill-treated in April 1998 while in police custody on suspicion of assault, and in particular that police officers had put a plastic bag and a gas mask over his head in order to extort a confession from him. He also alleges that the authorities' ensuing investigation into his complaint, plagued by excessive delays, was inadequate and showed that they had no intention of finding out the truth. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment). Timofejevi v. Latvia (no. 45393/04) The applicants, Zintis and Jevgenijs Timofejevi, son and father, are Latvian nationals who were born in 1958 and 1984 respectively and live in Drabesi parish, Amata municipality (Latvia). In June 2004 both applicants were arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer. Zintis Timofejevs, stopped by the police for driving without a valid driving licence, had tried to escape and resist arrest and Jevgenijs Timofejevs had attempted to obstruct his son's arrest. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Zintis Timofejevs alleges that excessive use of force was used against him during his arrest and that the investigation into this allegation was inadequate. Both applicants further complain under Article 3 about the conditions of their detention in a short-term facility in Csis, alleging there had been buckets in their cells instead of toilets and that no blankets were provided. Jevgenijs Timofejevs was released in July 2004 and his son in August 2004. Venskut v. Lithuania (no. 10645/08) The applicant, Maryt Venskut, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Vilnius. The case concerns her complaint that the State Border Guard Service investigators arrived at the restaurant where she was working on 25 May 2005 to question her in an insurance fraud case and that she was then taken to their headquarters for questioning. She was released the following day and the investigation against her of fraud subsequently discontinued. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), she alleges that she was in fact detained as a suspect in the case and that her detention, not properly recorded, was in fact to harass and intimidate her into giving information. She also complains under Article 5 � 5 (enforceable right to compensation) about the dismissal of the compensation claim she brought for unlawful detention. Banu v. Romania (no. 60732/09) The applicant, Gheorghe Banu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Targovite. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains about his conditions of detention in Jilava Prison between 2 December 2008 and 18 May 2010. He complains in particular about prison overcrowding, the sanitary conditions and the lack of drinking water, and alleges that he contracted numerous chronic infections during his imprisonment. Gina Ionescu v. Romania (no. 15318/09) The applicant, Gina Ionescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), she complains of shortcomings in the investigation into her husband's accidental death, and especially of its length. Employed by a company specialising in industrial climbing, he was electrocuted by a metal beam while working ten metres above the ground on a project to install advertising signs. The investigation, which was opened on the day of his death in 2002, is still pending, the file having been transferred several times between various police departments and the prosecutor's office. Ileana Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 32563/04) The applicant, Ileana Constantinescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bucharest. A foreign languages teacher at the Academy of Economic Sciences in Bucharest, she is the daughter of the economist N.N. Constantinescu, who was, among other things, a professor and member of the Romanian Academy. The case concerns Ms Constantinescu's criminal conviction following the publication of a book on her father's life, published after his death. I.E., a former colleague of N.N. Constantinescu and deputy president of the Romanian Association of Economists, filed a criminal complaint against Ms Constantinescu, arguing that he had been defamed by certain passages in the book, particularly those calling into question his management of the Economists' House and implying that he had taken advantage of N.N. Constantinescu's ill health. The applicant relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia (nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08) The case concerns the practice of keeping criminal defendants detained on remand in metal cages during hearings on their cases. The applicants, Aleksandr Svinarenko and Valentin Slyadnev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1968 and 1970 respectively and live in the settlement of Sinegorye in the Yagodninskiy District of the Magadan Region (Russia). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), both applicants, accused of violent crimes including robbery, allege that they were subjected to humiliating treatment when having to appear in court in a metal cage during their trial. They also complain under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them. Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 27610/05) The applicant, Timur Tangiyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is serving a 23 year and 10 month prison sentence in the Vladimir Region (Russia) for, among other things, the murder of two police officers. The case concerns his allegation that he was tortured both during his arrest � he was beaten and burnt with cigarette butts and matches � and subsequently in police custody � he was subjected to electrocution � in order to make him confess to the murders. He also complains that the ensuing investigation into his allegations was inadequate. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, notably because his conviction was based on a forced confession. Lastly, he alleges that his family were persecuted and their house was set on fire in February 2010 as a result of him bringing his application before the European Court, in violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition). Athary v. Turkey (no. 50372/09) The applicant, Hamid Athary, is an Iranian national who was born in 1973 and lives in the Netherlands. He arrived in Turkey in December 2004 and, a political dissident in Iran, was granted a temporary residence permit pending his asylum claim. In 2007 he was convicted of a drugs offence and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. His case essentially concerns his complaint that, following his release from prison in December 2008, he was immediately detained in the Kumkapi Foreigners' Removal Centre. He was released from the removal centre in April 2010 when he left Turkey for the Netherlands where he had been granted refugee status. Relying in particular on Article 5 �� 1, 2, and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he notably alleges that his detention in the removal centre was unlawful, that he was not informed of the reasons for his detention, that he had not had an effective remedy in domestic law to effectively challenge the lawfulness of his detention there and that, if he had been Turkish, he would not indeed have been detained there. Further relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also complains that if deported from Turkey to Iran he would be at real risk of death or ill-treatment. Halil Y�ksel Akinci v. Turkey (no. 39125/04) The applicants are six Turkish nationals, Mr Halil Y�ksel Akinci, Mr Y�cel Akinci, Mr Ufuk Akinci, Mr Ouz Akinci and Mr G�khan Emre Akinci, and Ms Hatice Akinci, who were born in 1945, 1944, 1968, 1970, 1973 and 1981 and live in Mula. Mr Halil Y�ksel Akinci and Ms Hatice Akinci are the parents of L�tfi Volkan Akinci ("L�tfi Volkan"), and the other applicants are his brothers. The case concerns L�tfi Volkan's death in the course of obligatory military service. On 6 June 2002 he was found alone in a room, seriously injured, and died the same day in hospital. According to the applicants, their relative ought to have been dispensed from military service by the army, given the psychological problems from which he suffered. They relied on Article 2 (right to life). They also allege that shortcomings in the investigation had not enabled the possibility of a murder to be eliminated. Finally, they complain that they were unable to obtain damages from the Supreme Military Administrative Court, a court that, they allege, was neither impartial nor independent, and against whose decisions no appeal lay. They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) taken together with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 19988/06) This case concerns the applicant's complaint about the authorities' failure to take the necessary steps to restore a vineyard � formerly owned by his father and partially expropriated in 1963 � to him despite a decision in his favour of 1992. He relies in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Mili v. Montenegro and Serbia (no. 28359/05) The applicant in this case complains about the non-enforcement of a final judgment ordering his reinstatement to his job in a State-run medical institution. He relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Length-of-proceedings case In the following case, the applicant complains in particular about the excessive length of civil proceedings. Gassner v. Austria (no. 38314/06) Thursday 13 December 2012 Flamenbaum and Others v. France (nos. 3675/04 and 23264/04) The applicants are 18 French nationals Mr Bernard Flamenbaum, Ms R�gine Akierman, Mr and Mrs Guy and Marie-Th�r�se Beausire, Mr and Mrs Bruno and Christiane C�lice, Mr Marcel Konstantyner, Mr Daniel and Mr Michel Leplanche, Mr and Mrs Bernard and R�gine Larbaour, Mr and Mrs Jacques and Claudine Leli�vre, Mr Charles Loisy, Mr Claude Marie, and Mr and Mrs Paul and France Trocm�, and an Italian national, Mr Danilo Morandi. The case concerns circumstances surrounding the extension of the DeauvilleSaint-Gatien airport. The applicants are owners or joint owners of homes located in or near the Saint-Gatien forest, which is not far from the seaside resorts on the Normandy coast and is classed as a natural area which is of particular interest in terms of ecology, fauna and flora. These homes are all at a distance of between 500 and 2,500 metres from the Deauville-Saint-Gatien airport's main runway. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for family life), the applicants complain, in particular, about the noise disturbance caused by the extension of the airport's main runway and of shortcomings in the related decision-making process. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they also complain about the loss in value of their properties, and about the insulation costs that they have had to bear. Volk v. Slovenia (no. 62120/09) The applicant, Milena Volk, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Prem (Slovenia). The case concerns the suicide of Ms Volk's son, a drug addict, in Dob prison where he was serving a three year and four month prison sentence for rape, grievous bodily harm and deprivation of liberty. She alleges in particular that the prison authorities were responsible for her son's death as, despite her regular warnings about his worsening mental health, they had not transferred him to a psychiatric hospital where he would have been protected both from himself as well as repeated attacks from other prisoners. She also complains that the ensuing investigation into her son's suicide was inadequate. She relies on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment). 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. 7