003-4191041-4965778

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 447 (2012) 10.12.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 36 judgments on Tuesday 18 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 18 December 2012 Meirelles v. Bulgaria (application no. 66203/10) The applicant, Ivana Meirelles, is a Brazilian national who was born in 1986 and lives in Bulgaria. In 2005 she began living with a Bulgarian man. In 2007 she gave birth to a child, and her partner recognised his paternity. Ms Meirelles claims that she was subjected to physical and psychological violence by her partner from the outset of their relationship, and by his family after the child's birth. On 9 September 2009, she was expelled from their shared flat, in application of a judicial decision based on an attestation by her partner, who accused her of domestic violence against him and the child. On the following day he applied to have her deprived of her parental rights, arguing that since the child's birth she had failed to look after him, and that he and his parents had provided the care required by the child, without her help. Relying on Article 8, Ms Meirelles alleges that the Bulgarian authorities breached her right to respect for family life, in that her request for interim measures allowing her to visit the child was not, in her view, examined promptly, and no measures were taken against the father, who had prevented her from exercising those visiting rights that she was granted. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), she complains about the length of the proceedings in the action to deprive her of parental rights. Kudra v. Croatia (no. 13904/07) The applicants, Stjepan, Ruza, Josip and Ivana Kudra, are Croatian nationals who live in Nustar (Croatia). They are the parents and siblings of Ivan Kudra, who died in hospital in October 1993, being treated for a serious head injury he had sustained in an accident while playing near an open construction site. The applicants allege that his death was the result of medical negligence. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), they complain that the civil proceedings which they brought against the construction company, the investors responsible for the construction site and against the hospital failed to meet the requirement of promptness and effective establishment of responsibility for Ivan's death. Relying further on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), they also complain that the proceedings lasted too long, that the failure of the Croatian courts to establish all the relevant facts violated their right to respect for private and family life and that they had no effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints. Baisuev and Anzorov v. Georgia (no. 39804/04) The applicants, Adam Baisuev and Rustam Anzorov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1980 and 1979 respectively. They are of Chechen origin. Residing at the time in Tbilisi (Georgia), where they had refugee status, they were detained for three hours at a police station in the course of a large-scale identity check operation conducted by the Georgian police on 7 December 2002 targeted at Russian citizens of Chechen origin. Relying on Article 5 �� 1, 2, and 4 (right to liberty and security), they complain that their detention had no legal basis, that they were not informed about the reasons for their detention and were denied the opportunity to challenge its lawfulness before the Georgian courts. They further allege that their rights under Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) were breached on account of the failure of the prosecution authorities to initiate a preliminary investigation of the circumstances of their allegedly unlawful detention, and the inability, as a consequence, to bring judicial review proceedings. Dvalishvili v. Georgia (no. 19634/07) The applicant, Revaz Dvalishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1984 and lives in the village of Gvishtibi (Georgia). Arrested in December 2005 on suspicion of breaching public order, of which he was later convicted, he alleges that he was severely beaten at the police department by three police officers, who demanded that he confess to having assaulted a taxi driver. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Dvalishvili complains of having been ill-treated with the aim of extracting a confession and alleges that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into his complaints. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he further alleges that he was wrongly convicted in unfair proceedings. Jeladze v. Georgia (no. 1871/08) The applicant, Genadi Jeladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence for murder in Rustavi no. 6 Prison. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was infected with a chronic form of viral Hepatitis C in prison and that the prison authorities failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment. Relying further on Articles 5 �� 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains about the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest and pre-trial detention and about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. Preziosi v. Italy (no. 67125/01) � Revision The applicants in this case were owners of land which was occupied by the authorities with a view to expropriation, and on which building work was begun. In the absence of formal expropriation and compensation, the applicants brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupation of their land. The applicants alleged that the occupation of their land had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). By a judgment of 5 October 2006, the Court held that the applicants' loss of all ability to dispose of the land, coupled with the lack of a remedy, amounted to a de facto expropriation that was incompatible with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and accordingly reserved it. In a letter sent in September 2012, the Government requested revision of the judgment, on the ground that the applicants had died in 2003 and 2004, before the Court had delivered its judgment, and their heirs had never expressed a wish to take part in the proceedings before the Court. Cuprakovs v. Latvia (no. 8543/04) The applicant, Aleksejs Cuprakovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jelgava Prison (Latvia). Diagnosed with bilateral destructive pulmonary tuberculosis, he was admitted to the prison hospital of the Central Prison in Riga in March 2005, where he spent a total of more than six months. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the detention conditions in the prison hospital, in particular overcrowding, inadequate lighting, draughts and low temperatures in the cell, and inadequate sanitary arrangements. He further complains, under Article 3, that the medical treatment he received there was inadequate. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), and Article 34 (right of individual petition), he lastly complains that one of the letters he received from the European Court of Human Rights was opened by a prison guard. G.B. and R.B. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 16761/09) The applicants, G.B. and R.B., wife and husband, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1968 and 1966 respectively and live in tefan Vod (the Republic of Moldova). Giving birth to a child in May 2000, Ms B., aged 32 at the time, had a Caesarean section, during which the obstetrician removed her ovaries and Fallopian tubes without obtaining her permission. She has been in treatment to counteract the effects of early menopause since 2001 and has had health problems ever since, including depression and osteoporosis. The courts found the obstetrician guilty of medical negligence, but eventually absolved him of criminal responsibility in 2005. Mr and Ms B. brought civil proceedings against the hospital and the obstetrician, and were awarded damages in the amount of 600 euros. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they complain of Ms B.'s sterilisation and of the low amount of compensation they were awarded. Gasanov v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 39441/09) The applicant, Zeinal Gasanov, is a Georgian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Taraclia (the Republic of Moldova). Arrested in February 2007 on suspicion of fraud and trespassing on private property, of which he was later convicted and sentenced to six years and four months' imprisonment, he alleges that while in temporary detention he was ill-treated by the police with the aim of extracting a confession. In particular, he maintains that he was struck on the head with a blunt object, following which he lost consciousness. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was ill-treated and that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation. He also makes some related complaints under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10) The applicants are 16 Russian nationals, belonging to five families, all of whom live in Chechnya. The cases concern the disappearances of their eight male relatives in Grozny or the Grozny District between March 2002 and July 2004. All eight men were arrested by groups of armed and masked men at their homes or in the streets in a manner resembling a security operation. In each case a criminal investigation was opened by the local prosecutor's office without having produced results as to the whereabouts of the applicants' relatives or the identity of the perpetrators of the abductions. The applicants complain that there has been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) in respect of their relatives' disappearance and on account of the authorities' failure to conduct an effective investigation. They further allege a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), in particular as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by their relatives' disappearance and the unlawfulness of their detention. They argue that they did not have any effective remedy in Russia in respect of their complaints. Finally, the applicants point to the systemic nature of the failure to investigate such crimes and refer to Article 46 (binding force of the Court's judgments). Sopin v. Russia (no. 57319/10) The applicant, Aleksandr Sopin, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Moscow. Arrested in May 2010 on suspicion of aggravated fraud, his pre-trial detention was extended a number of times until his release in September 2011, while the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. Relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his right to trial within a reasonable time was breached and that the orders for his detention were not founded on sufficient reasons. B.Z. v. Sweden (no. 74352/11) The applicant, B.Z., is an Eritrean national who was born in 1942. Having arrived in Sweden in April 2006, he applied for asylum, submitting that he had been imprisoned in Eritrea for being unable to inform the authorities of the whereabouts of his sons who had allegedly deserted from military service, and that he had been beaten in prison. His asylum request having been rejected in a decision upheld by the Swedish Migration Court in November 2011, he alleges that he would face treatment in breach of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) if forced to return to Eritrea. F.N. and Others v. Sweden (no. 28774/09) The applicants, Mr F.N., his wife and their two minor children, are Uzbek nationals who were born in 1960, 1970, 1998 and 2006 respectively. Having arrived in Sweden in December 2005, they applied for asylum and residence permits, submitting that Mr and Ms N. had been persecuted in Uzbekistan. In particular, Mr N. had been tortured following his participation in a demonstration in Andijan in May 2005. Their request for asylum and residence permits having been rejected by the Swedish Migration Board in a decision eventually upheld in June 2009, the applicants complain that if deported to Uzbekistan they would be persecuted, arrested, ill-treated and maybe even killed. They also allege that one of the couple's children is in very poor health and would not receive proper medical treatment in Uzbekistan. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment). P.Z. and Others v. Sweden (no. 68194/10) The applicants, P.Z. and her two children, are Afghan nationals who were born in 1975, 1995 and 2004 respectively. Having arrived in Sweden in May 2007, joining P.Z.'s husband and their other children who had arrived there earlier, they applied for asylum, alleging that in Afghanistan the family had been persecuted by the Taliban. The applicants' asylum request having been rejected in a decision upheld by the Swedish Migration Court of Appeal in June 2010, they allege that they would face treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) if forced to return to Afghanistan. Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey (no. 3111/10) The applicant, Ahmet Yildirim, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Istanbul. He is the owner and manager of a website, hosted by the "Google Sites" portal, on which he publishes his academic work and his opinions on various matters. On 23 June 2009 the Denizli criminal court issued a decision ordering that access be blocked to another site; this was presented as a preventive measure, adopted in the context of criminal proceedings brought against the owner of the other site for insulting the memory of Atat�rk. The blocking order was submitted for execution to the Telecommunications and Electronic Data Authority (the PTI), which, shortly afterwards, asked for it to be revised, with a view to blocking access to "Google Sites", which hosted not only the other site in question, but also Mr Yildirim's site. The PTI stated that this was the only means of blocking the other site, as its owner, who lived abroad, did not have a hosting certificate. Mr Yildirim complains that it is impossible for him to have access to his Internet site on account of a measure ordered as part of a criminal case that had no connection with his site. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he considers that this measure breaches his right to freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. Taarsu v. Turkey (no. 14958/07) The applicant, Hacer Taarsu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Adana. On 16 February 2006, with several hundred other persons, she took part in a gathering in Adana for the purpose of making a statement to the press, held in front of a local branch of the DTP, a left-wing party in the pro-Kurdish movement. After a warning not to make this press statement, the police took demonstrators into custody. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Taarsu alleges that she was subjected to ill-treatment while held in police custody. She also complains of the inadequacy of the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Andreyeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 19276/08) Gurbanova v. Azerbaijan (no. 18005/08) Heydarova v. Azerbaijan (no. 59005/08) Yusifova v. Azerbaijan (no. 25315/08) These four cases concern the applicants' complaints of non-enforcement of judgments in their favour. The applicants in the cases of Andreyeva, Gurbanova, and Yusifova are either owners of, or holders of occupancy vouchers for, properties occupied by internally displaced persons from the regions under the control of Armenian military forces. They complain of non-enforcement of domestic judgments which had ordered the occupants' eviction. The applicant in the case of Heydarova complains that the domestic authorities had failed to correct an official document determining the size of her plot of land, despite a judgment to that effect. The applicants rely in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and, in the cases of Andreyeva, Heydarova, and Yusifova, also on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Vuldzhev v. Bulgaria (no. 6113/08) The applicant in this case complains of the prison authorities monitoring the correspondence between him and his lawyers. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Chillemi v. Italy (no. 70800/01) de Gregorio v. Italy (no. 24294/03) Maselli v. Italy (no. 24887/03) Scala v. Italy (no. 70818/01) Uguccioni v. Italy (no. 62984/00) In these cases, the applicants lost their land through constructive expropriation and claimed damages from the State. They allege that they were deprived of their land in a manner that was incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In addition, relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain of the excessive length of the civil proceedings, and of the inadequacy of the redress obtained under the Pinto Act. Collarile and Thirteen Other Applications v. Italy (nos. 10652/02, 21532/05, 37211/05, 6723/06, 12373/06, 13553/06, 23446/06, 28978/06, 29698/06, 29699/06, 29704/06, 23003/06, 25473/06, and 29693/06) Coppola and Others v. Italy (nos. 5179/05, 14611/05, 29701/06, 9041/05, 8239/05) The applicants in these cases were the subjects of bankruptcy proceedings. Relying on Article 8, they complain of a breach of their right to respect for private and family life, on account of the entry of their names in the bankruptcy register and the fact that they could not apply for rehabilitation until five years after termination of the bankruptcy proceedings. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they claim that no remedies were available to complain of the extension of the restrictions arising from their bankruptcies. In addition, they complain about a number of other restrictions of their rights as guaranteed by the Convention, resulting from this situation. Alpatov and others v. Ukraine (no. 7321/05 and 107 other applications) The applicants complain about the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour and about the lack of effective domestic remedies in this respect. They rely in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Beirovi v. Croatia (no. 45379/10) Loncar v. Croatia (no. 42969/09) Marelja v. Croatia (no. 4255/10) Lengyel v. Hungary (no. 34567/08) Purpian sp. z o.o. v. Poland (no. 2311/10) �elikalp v. Turkey (no. 51259/07) Tumlukol�u v. Turkey (no. 33621/09) 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 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. 6