003-4240445-5044390

issued by the Registrar of the Court {signature_p_1} Forthcoming judgments ECHR 29 (2013) 30.01.2013 The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 16 judgments on 5 February 2013. 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 5 February 2013 Martirosyan v. Armenia (application no. 23341/06) The applicant, Vahagn Martirosyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Vanadzor (Armenia). He was the former manager of the regional branch of a bank and was convicted of abetting embezzlement and of falsification of documents, and sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment in November 2005. Relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains that his pre-trial detention was too long and unjustified. Relying further on Article 7 (no punishment without law), he complains that his conviction was based on an unforeseeable application of the law, as the relevant provision of the new criminal code, which entered into force while the proceedings against him were pending, lacked legal certainty. Pashov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 20875/07) The applicants, Pavel Pashov, Elena Lazova, and Konstantin Nikolov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1944, 1970 and 1946 respectively and live in Sofia. The case concerns their complaint about the authorities' failure to investigate their allegation that they were beaten with batons by the police in January 1997 when a rally taking place in front of the Parliament Building in Sofia turned violent. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. Further relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they also complain about the excessive length of the tort proceedings they brought claiming damages for being ill-treated and the prolonged non-enforcement of the ensuing judgment in their favour. Ipati v. Republic of Moldova (no. 55408/07) The applicant, Gheorghe Ipati, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Pruncul (Republic of Moldova). The case concerns his complaint that he was ill-treated in police custody in September 2006 in order to make him confess to theft and that the authorities' ensuing investigation into his allegation was ineffective. He also complains about the inhuman conditions of his detention following a subsequent arrest, notably on account of severe overcrowding. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), he also alleges that his correspondence with his lawyer as well as judicial and prosecuting authorities was censored by the prison authorities. Andrey Gorbunov v. Russia (no. 43174/10) The applicant, Andrey Gorbunov, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and is serving a five year and three month prison sentence in the Kurgan Region (Russia) for drug trafficking. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about inadequate medical care in detention, especially in view of the fact that he suffers from heart disease. In particular, he alleges that he is in need of surgery and that the authorities have put his life at risk by refusing to let him be transferred to a specialised cardiac hospital in Moscow. Bakoyev v. Russia (no. 30225/11) The applicant, Bafokul Bakoyev, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1953 and currently lives in Moscow. On an international wanted list for large-scale fraud in Kyrgyzstan, he was arrested in June 2010 in Moscow when on a business trip and placed in custody with a view to his extradition to Kyrgyzstan. Released in June 2011, he was however remanded in custody again pending his extradition to Uzbekistan where he was also wanted on fraud charges. Most recently he was released in June 2012 on the undertaking that he would not leave his place of residence. His application for refugee status in Russia was rejected in May 2011. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Bakoyev initially complained that, if extradited to Kyrgyzstan, he would be at risk of ill-treatment and an unfair trial; his present complaint is identical but concerns his extradition to Uzbekistan. He also complains under Article 5 � 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) about the unlawfulness as well as the excessive length of his detention pending extradition. Bubnov v. Russia (no. 76317/11) The applicant, Vasiliy Bubnov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence for murder and attempted murder in a correctional colony in the Kaliningrad region (Russia). He has HIV and hepatitis infections. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about inadequate medical care in detention and alleges that the authorities' refusal to release him, despite his very poor health, amounted to extreme physical and mental suffering. Gurenko v. Russia (no. 41828/10) The applicant, Georgiy Gurenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lived in the Kursk Region (Russia). Convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment in December 2006, he complains of the lack of adequate medical care during his pre-trial detention in Kursk from January 2006 and during his detention in a correctional colony in the Kursk Region from December 2006 until his release in April 2012. Suffering from a serious heart condition, he maintains in particular that his medical care was ineffective, as he was never examined by a cardiologist, and that the prison medical personnel only gave him symptomatic treatment. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment). Mkhitaryan v. Russia (no. 46108/11) The applicant, Telman Mkhitaryan, is a Russian national who was born in 1947 and lived until his arrest in the city of Velikiy Novgorod (Russia). Wanted on suspicion of organising a criminal group and committing two counts of aggravated extortion, he was extradited from Armenia, where he was undergoing medical treatment, to Russia in October 2010 and subsequently admitted to a prison hospital in St. Petersburg on account of his serious heart condition. The criminal case against him is still pending. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the inadequacy of his medical care in detention, which has led to a serious deterioration in his health and severe suffering. He further complains, under Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), of the length of his pre-trial detention and alleges that the orders for his detention were not founded on sufficient reasons. Finally, relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he maintains that his complaints against the detention orders were not speedily examined by the appeal court. Zokhidov v. Russia (no. 67286/10) The applicant, Rustam Zokhidov, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in Uzbekistan. Having lived in Russia since 2005, he was arrested in St. Petersburg in July 2010 and subsequently detained with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan, where he was wanted on charges of public appeals to overthrow the constitutional order in connection with his presumed membership of the illegal religious organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir. In December 2011 he was deported from Russia to Uzbekistan, where he was convicted as charged in April 2012. He complains that his removal to Uzbekistan was in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), in particular since, as a person accused of participating in a banned religious organisation considered extremist by the Uzbek authorities, he ran a real risk of ill-treatment. He further complains that he did not have any effective remedies in respect of that complaint, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Also relying in particular on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he complains that his detention in Russia from July to September 2010 was unlawful and that he did not have the possibility to effectively challenge the detention orders. Finally, he complains that Russia failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 (right of individual petition) by disregarding an interim measure indicated by the European Court of Human Rights to the effect that he should not be extradited to Uzbekistan. Otasevi v. Serbia (no. 32198/07) The applicant, Radojica Otasevi, is a Serbian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Sombor (Serbia). He is an animal welfare activist. The case concerns his allegation that he was kicked and punched by the police following his arrest in August 2003 for getting into a fight during a rescue operation for stray dogs at Sombor dog pound. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges ill-treatment as well as an ineffective investigation into his allegation. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Bashikarova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 53988/07) The case concerns the effects of restitution on third parties. The applicants complain of being deprived of their property arbitrarily, without adequate compensation, and of the excessive length of the related civil proceedings. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Rubortone v. Italy (no. 24891/03) Rubortone and Caruso v. Italy (no. 24892/03) In these two cases the applicants complain about the expropriation of their land for the construction of a road, and about the length of the proceedings. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of civil or criminal proceedings. Apahideanu v. Romania (no. 4998/02) DMF, a. s. v. Slovakia (no. 27082/09) Hauser v. Slovakia (no. 12583/09) 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. 4