003-4496768-5422703

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 258 (2013) 18.09.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21 judgments on Tuesday 24 September 2013 and six on Thursday 26 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 24 September 2013 Belpietro v. Italy (application no. 43612/10) The applicant, Maurizio Belpietro, is an Italian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Milan. The case concerns his conviction for defamation after publishing an article by an Italian Senator referring to a "war" between judges and prosecutors on the one hand and the Carabinieri on the other hand, in the contexts of efforts to combat the Mafia. At the relevant time Mr Belpietro was director of a national daily newspaper which in 2004 published an article by Senator R.I. accusing Italian judges and prosecutors in particular of using political strategies in their fight against the Mafia. Two prosecutors, seeing the article as an infringement of their honour, lodged a complaint for defamation against R.I. and the applicant. Separate proceedings were brought against R.I. and ended in 2007 with a finding that there was no case to answer, on the grounds that R.I. had expressed his views in his capacity as a member of the Senate. Mr Belpietro was acquitted the same year. However, in 2009 he was sentenced on appeal to a suspended term of four months' imprisonment and ordered to pay substantial sums to each of the civil parties. He lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed in 2010. Mr Belpietro alleges that his conviction for defamation amounted to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression). De Luca v. Italy (no. 43870/04) and Pennino v. Italy (no. 43892/04) The applicants, Giovanni De Luca and Ciro Pennino, are Italian nationals who were born in 1927 and 1935 respectively and live in Benevento (Italy). The two cases concern their inability to recover the amounts owed to them by the Benevento municipal council after the latter was declared insolvent. In December 1993 the municipal council made a declaration of insolvency. One month later the council's financial management was handed over to an extraordinary board of liquidators ("the board"). In the meantime, in 1992 and 1987 respectively, Mr De Luca and Mr Pennino had brought actions for damages against the municipal council. In July 2002 and November 2003 the council was ordered to pay them damages of around 17,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 6,000 respectively. Subsequently, in a resolution adopted in June 2005, the board recognised that the council owed Mr De Luca and Mr Pennino amounts of approximately EUR 40,000 and EUR 24,000 respectively. In July 2003 Mr Pennino had requested the seizure of a number of assets belonging to the Benevento municipal authorities, but the latter objected to the request. He subsequently lodged an application for enforcement of the 2002 judgment, which was declared inadmissible in 2004. In 2006 the board proposed a friendly settlement to the applicants, offering them a sum corresponding to 80% of the amount owed to them. Both applicants refused. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr De Luca and Mr Pennino complain of their inability to secure the enforcement of the judgments ordering the municipal council to pay them damages. Under Article 6 � 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they further complain of the absence of a remedy by which to obtain redress for their inability to secure enforcement of the judgments. Lastly, they complain of the fact that the winding-up of the municipal council was entrusted to an administrative body, and of the absence of a remedy by which to request a review of the board's activities and of the insolvency proceedings. N.A. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 13424/06) The applicant, N.A., is a Moldovan national who was born in 1984 and lives in Chiinu. The case chiefly concerns the failure of the Moldovan authorities to identify and punish the perpetrators of the gang rape of which she was a victim. On 2 September 1997, when N.A. was thirteen, a group of boys took it in turn to rape her after she had met them in a disused shop in order to drink alcohol. Her mother lodged a rape complaint on her daughter's behalf in September 1997 and the authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators on unspecified dates. In March 2005 five of the accused were found guilty of gang rape of an underage girl and were sentenced, among other things, to a suspended term of five years' imprisonment and one year's probation. In June 2005, however, the Court of Appeal overturned the judgment and terminated the criminal proceedings against the five defendants on the grounds that an order discontinuing the proceedings had previously been made in respect of four of them and had never been set aside. N.A. lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, which was dismissed in August 2005. Without relying on any specific provision, N.A. essentially alleges that the criminal investigation into her rape complaint was ineffective and that her attackers escaped unpunished. Antoneta Tudor v. Romania (no. 23445/04) The applicant, Antoneta Tudor, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns her inability to obtain access to all the documents kept by the former secret services under the communist regime (the Securitate) relating to her deceased father. In 2001 Ms Tudor obtained access from the National Council for the Study of the Archives of the Securitate ("the Council") to the files concerning her father, who had died several years previously in suspicious circumstances while he was under investigation by the Securitate. She applied unsuccessfully to the Council and to the Romanian Intelligence Service for access to two further files concerning him. In 2003 and 2004 the actions brought by Ms Tudor seeking access to the documents were dismissed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the High Court of Cassation and Justice respectively. In 2011, following requests for information made by the Romanian Government's Agent, the Council informed the applicant that it was in possession of one of the two files, and invited her to come and consult it. Ms Tudor alleges that the hindrance of her right of access to the documents in question amounted to a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). She further complains of the incomplete nature of the information supplied by the Council and of the unreasonable length of time taken to send it to her. She also relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Epistatu v. Romania (no. 29343/10) The applicant, Cristian Epistatu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1990 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns Mr Epistatu's complaint about the conditions of his detention, notably on account of overcrowding, from 2 September 2010 to 25 August 2011 in Jilava Prison where he served part of a five and half year prison sentence for attempted aggravated murder. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), he also complains that, a high-school student at the time of his indictment in 2008, he was forced to abandon his last year of high school in order to serve his prison sentence and that the Romanian prison authorities failed to give him the possibility of finishing his studies. Hadade v. Romania (no. 11871/05) The applicant, Mircea Hadade, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Oradea (Romania). In September 2005 Mr Hadade was convicted of organising a criminal group and of unlawfully trafficking migrants, upheld in a final judgment of March 2006 when his sentence was reduced from five to four years' imprisonment. The case concerns his complaint about his related detention and trial. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the cramped conditions of his detention in Oradea Prison as well as the fact that he was brought before the national courts during the criminal proceedings against him in his prison uniform and handcuffs. Further relying on Article 5 �� 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he also alleges that he was placed and maintained in pre-trial detention without adequate justification and for an excessively long time and that, after August 2004, the national courts failed to examine speedily his appeals against decisions to extend his detention pending trial. Sard�n Alvira v. Spain (no. 46090/10) The applicant, Anibal Sard�n Alvira, is a Spanish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Madrid. The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against Mr Alvira in which he was found guilty in March 2008 of the asset-stripping and misappropriation of funds of an investment company, GESCARTERA, for which he was the administrator. He was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment and was ordered, jointly with the rest of those found guilty, to pay nearly 88,000,000 Euros compensation. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (a) and (b) (right to a fair trial), Mr Alvira alleges in particular that the ensuing proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning his appeal on points of law were unfair because he was found liable as an economic beneficiary of the proceeds of a crime, even though he had never actually been formally charged in that capacity. He also alleges that the Supreme Court had wrongfully interpreted the national legislation on civil liability in his case and that neither the Supreme Court nor the Constitutional Court had provided sufficient reasoning in their decisions. Dembele v. Switzerland (no. 74010/11) The applicant, Kalifa Dembele, is a Burkina Faso national who was born in 1975 and lives in Geneva. The case concerns the ill-treatment to which he was allegedly subjected by gendarmes during an identity check and the lack of an effective investigation into the incident. On 2 May 2005 Mr Dembele was approached by two gendarmes who requested him to show his papers. He claims that they then hit him and subjected him to racist abuse before pushing him to the ground in order to immobilise him. He then allegedly bit one of the gendarmes in an attempt to shake him off. Afterwards, a doctor's report found that Mr Dembele was suffering from a distal fracture of the right collarbone. He was placed on sick leave for three weeks as a result. In May 2005 he lodged a complaint against the two gendarmes alleging ill-treatment. An initial investigation instituted by the judicial authorities into the actions of the gendarmes was discontinued. In November 2008 the Federal Court ordered the opening of a fresh investigation on the grounds that the first investigation had not been carried out in compliance with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights. In November 2010 the proceedings were once again discontinued by the Principal Public Prosecutor. That decision was upheld in February 2011 by the Indictment Division. In September 2011 the Federal Court rejected an appeal by the applicant. Mr Dembele alleges a violation of Article 3 in its substantive aspect (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and in its procedural aspect (lack of an effective investigation). He also relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Ayangil and Others v. Turkey (no. 33294/03) Just satisfaction The applicants, Fidan Ayangil, Fatma Ayangil, Mehmet Ayangil and Vildan Tatli (Ayangil), are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952, 1930, 1950 and 1957 respectively and live in Ankara. The case concerned the family's complaint that the authorities had built a primary school on land the applicants owned in the Incesu neighbourhood of Ankara without formally expropriating it and without awarding them compensation. In its principal judgment of 6 December 2011 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date. The Court will deal with the question of just satisfaction in its judgment of 24 September 2013. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Kriston v. Hungary (no. 39154/09) The case concerns the applicant's complaint that criminal proceedings brought against him for fraudulent bankruptcy and forgery of public documents were excessively long, 14 years, and that, during those 14 years, he was subjected to a travel ban as his passport was withdrawn until the proceedings against him were terminated. He relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 2 � 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). Dil v. Turkey (no. 2611/09) smail Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 58231/09) Murat Akta v. Turkey (no. 47359/09) Suut Aydin v. Turkey (no. 1508/08) These cases are concerned chiefly with the allegedly excessive length of the applicants' detention. The applicants rely, among other provisions, on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of civil proceedings. They rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). �gnes Kov�cs v. Hungary (no. 12089/07) Beerler Yapi San. ve Tic. A.. v. Turkey (no. 14697/07) Karamehmet and Elpe v. Turkey (no. 35075/05) Kolukirikolu v. Turkey (no. 21002/06) In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them for fraud, in the first case, and fencing and forgery, in the second case. Both applicants rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Czimbalek v. Hungary (no. 23123/07) Garz� v. Hungary (no. 24485/07) Thursday 26 September 2013 Fernandez Kerr v. Belgium (no. 19328/09) The applicant, Pedro Casimiro Fernandez Kerr, is a Belgian national who was born in Cuba in 1966 and lives in Brussels. The case relates mainly to the ill-treatment to which he was allegedly subjected when he was arrested by the police. In 2003 a fight broke out at a party organised by his employer, an association working on behalf of underprivileged people. Mr Fernandez Kerr claims that he was assaulted by a police officer shortly after the police arrived on the scene. When he pushed the police officer away in order to defend himself, he was allegedly surrounded by other officers who hit him and used pepper spray against him. The medical certificates drawn up afterwards stated that the applicant had several injuries, as a result of which he was declared unfit to work for several days. In 2009, having been charged with forcefully resisting a police officer and assaulting police officers resulting in bloodshed and unfitness for work, he was found guilty by the Brussels Court of Appeal of assaulting and injuring one of the police officers. In the meantime, in 2003, the applicant had made a complaint against a person or persons unknown for assault occasioning bodily harm and applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. However, the Belgian courts ruled that there was no need to commence proceedings. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed in 2008. Mr Fernandez Kerr alleges a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Zambotto Perrin v. France (no. 4962/11) The applicant, Sylvie Zambotto Perrin, is a French national who was born in 1963 and lives in Montreuil-sur-Bois (France). The case mainly concerns a court declaration finding that she had abandoned her daughter, which was followed by the girl's adoption by her foster family. After formally recognising her daughter, G., to whom she had given birth in secret a few months after the death of the child's father, Ms Zambotto Perrin was admitted to hospital in February 2003 suffering from chronic depression. After repeated suicide attempts she was admitted to hospital on numerous occasions between then and April 2007, and from January 2004 to September 2006 a court-appointed adviser managed most of her affairs. In the meantime, in April 2003, G. had been placed temporarily with a foster family. Following a series of court decisions finding that the applicant lacked interest in her daughter, G. was taken into State care in April 2005 and was adopted in April 2006. Ms Zambotto Perrin essentially alleges a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Kvashko v. Ukraine (no. 40939/05) The applicant, Vyacheslav Kvashko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). In April 2007 Mr Kvashko was convicted of burglary and theft and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. The case essentially concerns Mr Kvashko's complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention in connection with those proceedings. He alleges in particular that his initial detention between 1 and 4 May 2005, when placed in administrative detention on suspicion of possessing narcotics, was unlawful as it was obvious that the purpose of his arrest was to question him about the burglary for which he was later convicted. He also alleges that, even though the authorities claim that he was released on 4 May 2005, he was actually immediately arrested again on the burglary charges and not brought before a judge before 6 May 2005. He further submits that he had no right to compensation for this unlawful detention. He relies on Article 5 �� 1, 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security). Further relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was ill-treated � he was kicked in the left eye by a police officer � during his initial administrative detention in May 2005 and that, due to a lack of medical care, he lost the sight in his left eye. Vitkovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 24938/06) The applicant, Vikentiy Vitkovskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kryvyy Rig (Ukraine) following his conviction in criminal proceedings unrelated to his present case before the European Court of Human Rights. The case concerns Mr Vitkovskiy's allegations of police brutality and degrading conditions of detention in connection with two sets of criminal proceedings brought against him in 2004 for burglary and theft. He was ultimately found guilty in both sets of proceedings. He was released in January 2009. He alleges in particular that during his questioning on 28 June 2004 the police punched, kicked and strangled him, put a gas mask on his face so that he could not breathe and gave him electric shocks to his fingers and testicles. He also alleges that the authorities' ensuing investigation into his allegations of illtreatment was inadequate. As concerns the conditions of his detention, he alleges in particular that his cell and bed linen were infested with insects in Dnipropetrovsk pre-trial detention centre and that there was insufficient water in Zhovti Vody prison, meaning that 140 prisoners only had access to 12 water taps for two and half hours per day. He further alleges inadequate medical care during his detention and that, as a result, he lost 16 kilos and his already fragile health � due to duodenal and gastric ulcers � deteriorated. He relies in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Lastly, he also makes complaints under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home and the correspondence) about his cell being searched and correspondence being withheld from him by the prison authorities. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Abad Urkixo v. France (no. 45087/10) Almandoz Erviti v. France (no. 45077/10) These cases concern the allegedly excessive length of the applicants' pre-trial detention. The applicants rely on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security). 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. 6