003-4469922-5384455

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 242 (2013) 27.08.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten judgments on Tuesday 3 September 2013 and three on Thursday 5 September 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 3 September 2013 Milen Kostov v. Bulgaria (application no. 40026/07) The applicant, Milen Kostov, is a Bulgarian and Greek national who was born in 1966 and lives in Varna (Bulgaria). Having served a two-year prison sentence, he was released in 2003. The case concerns a travel ban imposed on Mr Kostov in September 2005 because he had a prior conviction and the statutory period for legal rehabilitation had not yet expired. Mr Kostov complains that the travel ban, which was upheld by a final judgment in February 2007 and was only lifted in May 2007, violated his right to leave the country under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) to the European Convention on Human Rights. He also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, and on Article 6 � 1 (access to court) of the Convention. M.C. and Others v. Italy (no. 5376/11) The applicants are 162 Italian nationals. The case concerns their inability to obtain an adjustment of part of the compensation awarded to them after they had received contaminated blood transfusions. After being infected they were awarded a fixed compensation payment and a supplementary payment under a 1992 Act. The Court of Cassation ruled in a 2005 judgment that both payments should be adjusted to take account of the annual inflation rate, but a reversal of the case-law in 2009 meant that this applied only to the fixed compensation payment. In an emergency legislative decree enacted in 2010, the Italian authorities confirmed the impossibility of adjusting the supplementary payment to take account of inflation. In 2010 the Constitutional Court ruled that the legislative decree was unconstitutional and that the supplementary payment should be adjusted annually in the case of certain categories of victims. However, several of the victims allege that the measure was not applied in their case. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain of the fact that the authorities, by issuing the 2010 legislative decree, intervened in a matter which was the subject of legal debate and which had given rise to large numbers of pending cases to which the authorities were a party. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) they further assert that, if not adjusted, the supplementary payment will inevitably lose its value over time. Lastly, they allege a violation of Article 2 (right to life) taken alone and in in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination). Just Satisfaction Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta (no. 26771/07) The applicant, Agnes Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq, is a Maltese national who was born in 1949 and lives in Balzan (Malta). The case concerned an order issued by the Government in 1958 taking control of property she owned in Valetta subject to payment of annual compensation. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant complained about the excessive length � more than 30 years � of the ensuing proceedings and that, although the Constitutional Court eventually found a breach of her property rights, she had not been granted compensation. In its principal judgment of 5 April 2011 the Court found violations of Article 6 � 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It held that the Maltese Government was to pay the applicant 25,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses. The Court will deal with the question of just satisfaction as regards the pecuniary damage in its judgment of 3 September 2013. Roduit v. Switzerland (no. 6586/06) The applicant, Mr Roger Roduit, is a Swiss national who was born in 1946 and lives in V�troz (Canton of Valais). The case concerns his complaint regarding the excessive length of proceedings he brought in the Swiss courts. Mr Roduit was a financial controller and member of the executive board of the Banque cantonale du Valais. He was suspended from his post in 1991 and then dismissed without compensation following a decision of the cantonal government. He appealed against that decision to the Federal Court, which dismissed his appeal in September 1998. The following year he lodged a first application with the Strasbourg Court, which was declared inadmissible in 2001. In 1992, in parallel proceedings, the applicant had brought a civil action against the bank. The action was declared inadmissible in 1993 and in 1995 the case file was sent to the Cantonal Court. After being stayed for around ten years, the proceedings resumed in 2004. In a judgment given in 2005, however, the Cantonal Court declined jurisdiction. A subsequent public-law appeal lodged by the applicant with the Federal Court was dismissed. Mr Roduit alleges primarily a violation of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention. Athan v. Turkey (no. 36144/09) The applicant, Meydin Athan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Diyarbakir (Turkey). Mr Athan was arrested on 30 March 2006 following a demonstration, triggered by the killing of several terrorists by the security forces in Bing�l. He was subsequently charged with involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation, of which he was convicted in 2007. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, he complains of being ill-treated while in police custody and alleges that the investigation against the police officers concerned was ineffective. Cadirolu v. Turkey (no. 15762/10) The applicants, S�leyman, Asiye, emsettin, Enver and rfan Cadirolu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955, 1957, 1977, 1982, and 1989 respectively and live in Van (Turkey). They are the parents and brothers, respectively, of aban Cadirolu, who died in 1999 at the age of 16, while working as a street pedlar, in an incident in the streets of Van involving two police officers who were patrolling to prevent pedlars. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, the applicants allege that aban Cadirolu died in circumstances engaging the responsibility of the State and complain that the investigation into his death was ineffective and inadequate. Durdu v. Turkey (no. 30677/10) The applicants, Halil Durdu and his two children, eref Durdu and Emine Durdu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1954, 1980 and 1986 respectively and live in Istanbul. The case concerns the lack of an effective investigation into the death of Halil Durdu's second son, Hasan Durdu. In October 2008, Hasan Durdu was found dead while he was undergoing military training as a staff sergeant in the army's special forces. In August 2009 the criminal investigation opened immediately after the events ended with an order discontinuing the proceedings. The military prosecutor, basing his conclusions in particular on the findings of the medical reports, according to which a shot fired at medium range had caused Hasan Durdu's death, took the view that the latter had taken his own life. An objection by eref and Emine Durdu against that order was dismissed, as was a similar objection lodged shortly afterwards by Halil Durdu. An internal administrative inquiry conducted in parallel likewise reached a finding of suicide. The applicants allege mainly a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention. Konak v. Turkey (no. 3042/05) The applicant, Nihat Konak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Tekirda Prison (Turkey). Having been convicted of being the leader of an armed organisation and sentenced to 18 years and nine months' imprisonment by a judgment which became final in May 2004, he alleges that his defence rights were violated, as he was denied access to a lawyer during his police custody in 1998. He also maintains that his conviction was based on statements made to the police by some of his co-accused under duress. Mr Konak relies in particular on Article 6 � 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) of the Convention. Tuncer G�ne v. Turkey (no. 26268/08) The applicant, G�lizar Tuncer G�ne, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey). The case concerns her complaint that she was not allowed to keep just her maiden name after her marriage in March 2005. She claims in particular that the fact that Turkish law allows married men but not married women to use only their own surname after marriage amounts to discrimination based on sex. She relies in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. �mit Bilgi� v. Turkey (no. 22398/05) The applicant, �mit Bilgi�, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Adana (Turkey). The case concerns his allegations that the guardianship order made concerning him, his compulsory admission to psychiatric hospitals and the proceedings brought against him for contempt of court were unlawful. In 2002 the Turkish authorities sought a guardianship order in respect of Mr Bilgi�. After being admitted to a psychiatric hospital for observation in January 2003, however, he was found by medical experts to be fit to exercise his civic rights and the Turkish courts rejected the authorities' request. In 2002, meanwhile, Mr Bilgi� had been prosecuted for contempt of court and had spent a short period in pre-trial detention. In 2008, having been found not to be criminally responsible, he was compulsorily admitted to a psychiatric hospital and was subsequently released on condition that he underwent regular medical examinations. In the meantime, proceedings had also been taken against Mr Bilgi� for forgery, in the course of which the institute of forensic medicine found that he was not criminally responsible. On the basis of those findings the Turkish courts resumed the guardianship proceedings and in 2005 Mr Bilgi�'s wife was appointed as his guardian. In 2007 the applicant requested that the guardianship order be lifted. The outcome of those proceedings is not known to date. Without relying on specific provisions, Mr Bilgi� complains of his compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital and of the guardianship order made concerning him. From the standpoint of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, he also disputes the lawfulness of the proceedings brought against him for contempt of court. Thursday 5 September 2013 Cepek v. the Czech Republic (no. 9815/10) The applicant, Zdenk Cepek, is a Czech national who was born in 1954 and lives in Prague. The case concerns his inability to challenge effectively the decision of the Czech courts not to order the reimbursement of his legal costs. Mr Cepek was the legal representative of a company which received a loan of several million euros from the Czech Republic National Environmental Fund ("the Fund"). In 1998 collective proceedings were started against the company, on conclusion of which the Fund succeeded in recovering only a part of the debt. In 2005 it brought an action against Mr Cepek for payment of the balance of the loan. The Fund's claim was dismissed on appeal in February 2009. However, the Court of Appeal decided not to order the reimbursement of Mr Cepek's legal costs, without the applicant having the opportunity to debate the matter during the hearing. He appealed against the decision to the Constitutional Court, which in August 2009 dismissed his appeal. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, Mr Cepek complains essentially that he was unable to challenge effectively the decision of the Czech courts not to order the reimbursement of his legal costs. I v. Sweden (no. 61204/09) The applicants, Mr and Ms I and their child, are Russian nationals of Chechen origin, who were born in 1965, 1978 and 1999 respectively and live in Vilhelmina (Sweden). They arrived and requested asylum in Sweden in December 2007. They claimed that both Mr and Ms I had been tortured in Chechnya and that Mr I was wanted there on account of having documented in photos the execution of villagers by Russian federal troops and on account of his contacts with the journalist Anna Politkovskaja, who had been killed in 2006. The Swedish Migration Board rejected the applicants' asylum request, finding in particular that the situation in Chechnya alone could not justify the granting of asylum and that the applicants' account had been incoherent and partly inconsistent. Upon appeal, the decision was upheld by the migration courts and gained legal force in October 2009. In November 2009, the European Court of Human Rights applied an interim measure in the applicants' case, requesting the Swedish Government to stay their expulsion until further notice. The applicants complain that if removed to Russia they would face a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. K.A.B. v. Sweden (no. 886/11) The applicant, K.A.B., is a Somali national who was born in 1960. He entered Sweden and requested asylum in April 2009, claiming that he had been threatened in Somalia by an Islamist group and that, if returned there, he would risk serious assault by that group. The Swedish Migration Board rejected his asylum request in a decision eventually upheld in July 2010, concluding that he had failed to substantiate a well-founded fear of persecution. His requests for his application to be examined anew were ultimately rejected in 2011. In January 2011, the European Court of Human Rights applied an interim measure in the applicant's case, requesting the Swedish Government not to deport him to Somalia until further notice. He complains that his removal from Sweden would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. 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. 5