003-4438172-5338448

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 221 (2013) 17.07.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 11 judgments on Tuesday 23 July and nine on Thursday 25 July 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 23 July 2013 M.A. v. Cyprus (application no. 41872/10) The case concerns a Syrian national, who entered Cyprus unlawfully in 2005, seeking to avoid removal and is one of 38 similar applications pending before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant, M.A., is of Kurdish origin and was born in 1969. He was granted refugee status in Cyprus in April 2011 and currently lives in Nicosia. He alleges that, if deported to Syria, he would be at real risk of being killed and/or subjected to illtreatment due to his Kurdish origins and his political activities as a member of the Yekiti Party. He also complains that, despite the decision to grant him refugee status, he had no remedy with suspensive effect at his disposal and that the only reason he had not been removed to Syria was because of an interim measure (under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) issued on 14 June 2010 by the European Court to the Cypriot Government indicating that he should not be removed. He relies on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant also makes a number of complaints under Article 5 �� 1, 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security). In particular, on 11 June 2010, in the early hours of the morning, the applicant, along with many others other Kurds from Syria, was transferred from a street camp in front of Government buildings in Nicosia where they were protesting against the Cypriot asylum authorities' restrictive policies in granting international protection, to police headquarters. Some of the protestors were deported on the same day and those who were found to be lawfully residing in the Republic were allowed to leave. The rest, including the applicant, were charged with unlawful stay and detained with a view to their deportation. The applicant was released on 3 May 2011 following the decision to grant him refugee status. His complaints under Article 5 �� 1 and 2 concern his transfer and stay at police headquarters and his ensuing detention for ten months and, under Article 5 � 4, the alleged lack of an effective remedy at his disposal to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. Lastly, he relies on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) complaining that the authorities were going to deport him collectively without carrying out an individual assessment of his case. Aden Ahmed v. Malta (no. 55352/12) The case concerns in particular immigration detention conditions. The applicant, Aslya Aden Ahmed, is a Somali national who was born in 1987 and entered Malta irregularly, by boat, in February 2009. Upon arrival she was immediately served with a deportation order by the immigration authorities and placed in detention pending her removal. In May 2009 she escaped and travelled to the Netherlands where she claimed asylum. She was returned to Malta in February 2011 under the Dublin II Regulation1 and was charged with escaping from public custody and giving false information. She was found guilty and 1 An EC regulation under which EU Member States are required to determine, based on a hierarchy of criteria, which Member State is responsible for examining an asylum application lodged on their territory. sentenced to six months' imprisonment. When she had served this sentence, she was again detained for immigration purposes. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Ahmed essentially complains about the conditions of her detention for more than 14 months from June 2011 when she was released from prison and placed in Lyster Barracks Detention Centre, Hal Far (Malta), to August 2012, the date of the lodging of her application to the European Court of Human Rights. She complains in particular of populated dormitories, an inadequate diet, lack of female staff to deal with women detainees and lack of access to the recreation yard and fresh air. She alleges in particular that these detention conditions caused her to suffer from insomnia and depression, exacerbated by being separated from her son who had remained with her parents when she left Somalia and by a miscarriage suffered while in detention. She also alleges that her detention was unlawful and there was no effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of that detention, in breach of Article 5 �� 1, 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security). Lay Lay Company Limited v. Malta (no. 30633/11) The applicant company, Lay Lay Company Limited, has its registered address in Fgura (Malta). The case concerns the applicant company's complaint about the authorities' refusal to issue a valid building permit for land it had purchased in Ghaxaq (Malta) in 1984. It alleges in particular that, due to the authorities' protracted and irregular procedures in refusing its application for a permit, it was denied the possibility of contesting the refusal in court. It relies on Article 6 � 1 (access to court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It also complains under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that it was discriminated against as adjacent property had benefitted from development permits. Mikalauskas v. Malta (no. 4458/10) The applicant, Tomas Mikalauskas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1981 and was detained in Malta on drug charges in September 2009. He was then repeatedly remanded in custody over a period of ten months, after which he was granted bail subject to high financial guarantees. As he was unable to pay, he remained in pre-trial detention for another 12 months. He was eventually released from detention in July 2011 when the guarantees were reduced. He currently lives in Qawra, Malta, while the criminal proceedings are still pending against him. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Mikalauskas alleges that the conditions of his detention were inhuman and degrading given the health problems (recurring headaches) he suffers from, and that the medical care provided to him in detention was inadequate. He also complains under Article 5 �� 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) about the excessive length of his detention on remand and his inability to effectively contest the lawfulness of his detention on account of the repeated refusals to grant him bail and the high financial guarantees once bail was eventually granted. Suso Musa v. Malta (no. 42337/12) The applicant, Ibrahim Suso Musa, allegedly a Sierra Leone national, entered Malta in an irregular manner by boat in April 2011. Upon arrival, he was arrested by the police and detained. His asylum application was rejected in a decision upheld in April 2012 and he remained in detention with a view to his removal until March 2013. Relying on Article 5 �� 1, 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Suso Musa complains in particular that his detention was unlawful, that on arrival he was not provided with information regarding the specific reasons for his detention and � having unsuccessfully brought lengthy proceedings to challenge its lawfulness � that he did not have an effective means to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed. Gorea v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 6343/11) The applicant, Mihail Gorea, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1962 and lives in Costeti (Republic of Moldova). In July 2008 three police officers searched his home, looking for his son. He alleges that they beat him, took him into custody and continued to mistreat him at the police station where he received a blow to the head and lost consciousness. He was detained for five days before being released. Between July 2008 and April 2011 Mr Gorea made a series of criminal complaints to the Ialoveni prosecutor's office about his ill-treatment, which were dismissed as ill-founded six times before a criminal investigation was formally launched in April 2011. The case remains pending before the District Court. Charges brought against him alleging he insulted the police officers and resisted arrest were dismissed with final effect in March 2009 by the Chiinu Court of Appeal. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Gorea complains that he was ill-treated by the police and that the investigation into this ill-treatment was not effective. Sampaio e Paiva de Melo v. Portugal (no. 33287/10) The applicant, Afonso Joaquim Sampaio e Paiva de Melo, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1964 and lives in Lisbon. The case concerns his conviction for defamation. A journalist and former press attach� of Portugal's national professional football team, he published a book in August 2006 in which he criticised the Chairman of a world-famous football club, M.P.C. Without ever mentioning his name directly, he described him in particular as "the sworn enemy" of the national team and, referring to criminal proceedings in which the Chairman had been involved, described him as the "national champion of prosecutions in Portuguese football". In 2009 the lower courts found Mr Sampaio guilty of defamation and ordered him to pay a fine, together with damages to M.P.C. The sentence was upheld on appeal in February 2010. Mr Sampaio mainly alleges that his conviction for defamation breached Article 10 (freedom of expression). D�mbean v. Romania (no. 42009/04) The applicant, Maria D�mbean, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Deva (Romania). The case concerns her complaint about a lack of effective investigation into the death of her husband following a road accident. After a collision with a van driven by V.M., Mrs D�mbean's husband died from his injuries in July 1999. Three months later, Mrs D�mbean sought compensation for the damage caused to her by her husband's death. Even though in March 2000 an initial expert's report found that liability for the accident was imputable to V.M., this was not the conclusion of a second report by the national forensic institute for criminal investigations in September 2004. The criminal proceedings against V.M. were subsequently dropped and, in a final judgment of October 2006, the Romanian courts dismissed Mrs D�mbean's appeal on points of law. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Mrs D�mbean alleges that the investigation concerning her husband's death was not effective. Scarlat v. Romania (nos. 68492/10 and 68786/11) The applicant, Mihai Scarlat, is a Romanian national who was born in 1977 and is an inmate of Giurgiu Prison (Romania). Having been sentenced to 10 years and 10 months in prison for drug trafficking in 2003, Mr Scarlat has been transferred to three different prisons during his sentence. Having suffered from various heart problems caused by a virus that he caught while in prison, he was released for several months in 2010 for the purpose of undergoing an operation. In the meantime and during 2011, he filed various complaints with the Romanian courts about the poor conditions of his detention, caused particularly by overcrowding in cells and a lack of hygiene and heating. Most of his complaints, however, were rejected. Relying mainly on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Scarlat complains of poor conditions of detention. zci v. Turkey (no. 42606/05) The applicant, Nergiz zci, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns her allegation that she was beaten, subjected to teargas, sworn at and insulted by police officers in March 2005 when she took part in demonstrations in Beyazit Square in Istanbul to celebrate Women's Day. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms zci alleges in particular that as the crowd began to disperse of its own accord, police officers attacked the demonstrators with truncheons, hitting her in the face and body and continuing to beat and kick her when she fell to the ground. She also alleges that such attacks by police are tolerated and go unpunished in Turkey. Notably, the criminal proceedings against 54 police officers charged with causing injuries by using excessive force concluded in May 2011 with the majority being acquitted for lack of evidence. Further criminal proceedings against the officers were discontinued in September 2011 due to the statute of limitations. Also relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Ms zci argues that the actions of the police prevented her from enjoying her right to freedom of expression and assembly. Lastly, she complains under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) that her desire to participate in a demonstration focusing on problems faced by women was obstructed by the actions of the police. �rfi �etinkaya v. Turkey (no. 19866/04) The applicant, �rfi �etinkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). The case concerns the allegedly excessive length of his detention, despite his paralysis, and an alleged breach of his right to be presumed innocent. Suffering from paralysis of his lower limbs, Mr �etinkaya has been held on remand since 2007 in connection with the first series of proceedings brought against him for drug trafficking. The case is still pending. Before that, in May 2000, Mr �etinkaya had also been indicted following an investigation into similar charges. He was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment in February 2007 and the release on licence that he was supposed to be granted for good behaviour was suspended on account of his detention on remand. In that connection, a number of newspapers published articles referring to him as an "international drug trafficker" an expression that had been used in a press release issued by the authorities at the time of his first arrest in 2003. Mr �etinkaya sued several newspapers for defamation but his claims were dismissed in 2003 and 2004. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) Mr �etinkaya argues that his detention is incompatible with his state of health. Under Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), he also complains of the excessive length of his detention. Lastly, he claims that the authorities breached Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence) by providing the newspapers with information on the pending investigation and by describing him as a drug trafficker at a time when he had not yet been found guilty. Thursday 25 July 2013 Castellino v. Belgium (no. 504/08) The applicant, Domenico Castellino, is an Italian national who was born in 1956. The case concerns his complaint about the Belgian courts' lack of reasoning for his sentence of 20 years' imprisonment in 2004 for the murder of a government minister and the attempted murder of the latter's wife. As he had not been notified of the indictment, the first conviction was found unsafe. After being committed to stand trial before the Belgian courts, he was given the same sentence in a judgment of March 2007, and his appeal on points of law was dismissed in June of that year. Relying mainly on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Castellino complains of the unfairness of the proceedings and claims that his conviction was based on an unreasoned guilty verdict. Kummer v. the Czech Republic (no. 32133/11) The applicant, Vladim�r Kummer, is a Czech national who was born in 1956 and lives in As (Czech Republic). The case concerns Mr Kummer's allegation that he was ill-treated in police custody following his arrest for not having his identity papers on him when he was on his way back home from a bar. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges in particular that he was shackled to an iron ring inside the police cell and stretched and that the ensuing investigation into his allegations was inadequate. Rivi�re v. France (no. 46460/10) The applicants, Henri and Solange Rivi�re, husband and wife, together with their son, Florestan Rivi�re, are French nationals who were born, respectively, on 5 February 1941, 13 March 1951 and 27 November 1976. Mr and Mrs Rivi�re live in Andouille and their son in Maisons-Alfort (France). The case concerns a judgment against them after proceedings in which they were unable to appear. In January 2000 a plot of land which Mr and Mrs Rivi�re had leased for several years was sold to their son. In September 2008 the French courts found them guilty of a certain number of offences, in particular for carrying out work on that plot of land without a building permit, and they were ordered to pay a fine and to restore the property to its original state, on pain of a periodic penalty payment. The applicants appealed in September 2008. Despite the fact that they had sought postponement of the hearing because of their inability to attend, it went ahead in their absence and without their being represented. After their appeal was dismissed in January 2009, their appeal on points of law was also dismissed in February 2010. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right of access to a court / right to be assisted by a lawyer) the applicants complain of the fact that the Court of Appeal denied them the right to appear and defend themselves, without giving any explanations on this point in its judgment. Sfez v. France (no. 53737/09) The applicant, G�rard Sfez, is a French national who was born in 1943 and lives in Paris. The case concerns his criminal conviction after a hearing at which he had not been represented by a lawyer. Following a quarrel in July 2007, Mr Sfez injured a neighbour in the eye with a tear-gas canister. One month later he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, including a suspended period of 14 months during which he would be put on probation with obligations to receive treatment. He appealed in September 2007 and for that purpose appointed a new lawyer, Mr V, who explained in a letter to the French courts in January 2008 that he no longer represented his client. Mr Sfez thus appeared alone at the hearing and sought its postponement so that he could be assisted by counsel. His request was found to be dilatory and was rejected on appeal in May 2008. In February 2009 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant's appeal on points of law inadmissible. Relying on Article 6 � 3 (c) (right to be assisted by a lawyer), Mr Sfez complains of a breach of his defence rights. Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia (nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05) The applicants are Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovskiy and Platon Leonidovich Lebedev, Russian nationals, two former top-managers and major shareholders of a large industrial group, including Yukos Oil. They are currently serving prison sentences in the Karelia Region and in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region of Russia following their conviction in September 2005 of large-scale tax evasion and fraud. The case essentially concerns the two men's complaint about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against them. They rely on Article 6 �� 1 and 3(c) and (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for family and home) in relation to their transfer to very remote Siberian penal colonies. Both applicants also allege under Article 7 (no punishment without law) that they suffered from a completely novel and unpredictable interpretation of the tax law and under Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) that their prosecution was politically motivated. Mr Khodorkovskiy further complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), about being ordered to reimburse tax arrears due by Yukos to the State following his conviction and, under Article 34 (right of individual petition), about the authorities' harassment of his lawyers. Mr Lebedev further complains under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) about the conditions of his detention on remand as well as about being placed in a metal cage during court hearings on his case. He also makes a number of complaints under Article 5 �� 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), concerning notably the length of his detention on remand and the delayed examination of detention orders. The domestic proceedings at the heart of the case are commonly known in Russia as "the first trial of Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev". This is the second case lodged by Mr Khodorkovskiy and Mr Lebedev before the Court. Their first two applications concerned the beginning of their criminal prosecution and were examined by the Court in 2011 and 2007, respectively. Rousk v. Sweden (no. 27183/04) The applicant, Jim Rousk, is a Swedish national who was born in 1950. He died in June 2011 and his wife and sole heir, Julia Rousk, decided to pursue the application. She lives in H�sselby (Sweden). The case concerns Mr Rouk's complaints that his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), as well as under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home), was breached by the national authorities when, to collect an enforceable tax debt, they sold his property/home and then evicted him and his wife, without taking into account on-going proceedings relating to, among other things, an appeal against the writ of execution and a request for stay on sale of the property. He considers that the measures were completely disproportionate since he was granted extra time to pay most of his tax debt on the same day that his property was sold by public auction, and his enforceable tax debt thereafter only amounted to approximately EUR 800. Agrokompleks v. Ukraine (no. 23465/03) Just satisfaction The applicant, Agrokompleks JSC, is a private company based in Ukraine which dealt, at the time of the events, with Russian companies in barter trade operations, such as exchanging Ukrainian raw foodstuffs for Russian crude oil and further sale of finished oil products. The case concerned the 1996-2004 insolvency proceedings initiated by the applicant company against the biggest oil refinery in Ukraine, LysychanskNaftoOrgSyntez ("LyNOS"), in an attempt to recover outstanding debts. In its principal judgment of 6 October 2011 the Court found three violations of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Namely, the Court held that the domestic courts dealing with the case could not be regarded as independent or impartial given the blatant interferences of the highest State authorities in the proceedings. It also held that the principle of legal certainty had been violated by the quashing of the final judicial decision determining the amount of the debt owed by LyNOS to the applicant company. Furthermore, the length of the proceedings was found to have been excessive. Lastly, the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) as the proceedings in question had had a direct impact on the property interests of the applicant company. In the judgment of 6 October 2011 the Court reserved the question of just satisfaction in whole. It will rule on this question in its judgment of 25 July 2013. Kobernik v. Ukraine (no. 45947/06) The applicant, Aleksey Kobernik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1971. He was arrested in May 1999 on suspicion of, among other offences, membership of an armed gang, murders and extortion, which concluded in his conviction by the Supreme Court in April 2007. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention in Lugansk prison where he was transferred from June to July 2007 � on account of severe overcrowding and poor sanitary facilities � as well as the conditions in which he was transported to and from that prison in overcrowded trains and vehicles. Further relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complains that the length of both his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him was excessive. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Khvorostyanoy and Others v. Ukraine (no. 54552/09 and 249 other applications) The applicants in this case complain of the lengthy non-enforcement of domestic decisions in their favour. They rely 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). 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 or follow us on Twitter @ECHR_Press. Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) 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