003-4553402-5498925

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 313 (2013) 30.10.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 judgments on Tuesday 5 November 2013 and 11 on Thursday 7 November 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 November 2013 Izet Haxhia v. Albania (application no. 34783/06) The applicant, Izet Haxhia, is an Albanian national who was born in 1966. At the time of the introduction of the application, he was detained in Turkey pending the outcome of his extradition to Albania. In January 2001, the Albanian prosecutor issued an arrest warrant in respect of Mr Haxhia, who used to be the bodyguard of the then President of Albania, on suspicion of Mr Haxhia's involvement in the assassination of a Member of Parliament and his bodyguard in September 1998. In March 2001, Mr Haxhia, who was declared fugitive after unsuccessful attempts to locate him, was charged with having participated in the assassination. He was subsequently convicted in his absence and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment in a judgment eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in February 2003. In June 2006 Mr Haxhia was arrested in Turkey following a request by the Albanian authorities for his extradition. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains that the criminal proceedings and conviction in his absence were unfair. JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania (no. 3330/12) The applicants in this case are JGK Statyba Ltd, a private construction company registered in Lithuania, and Jurijus Guselnikovas, a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Vilnius. Mr Guselnikovas is a shareholder and a member of the board of JGK Statyba Ltd. The case concerns the length of two sets of civil proceedings relating to the ownership of two houses and restriction of the company's property rights by the domestic courts which seized those houses in order to secure satisfaction of civil claims lodged by private individuals. The applicant company, whose main activity is construction and real estate, was prohibited for over ten years from selling or transferring the disputed property until the cases had been examined. Initially, a final and binding court decision of 1995 had recognised the company's ownership of the same houses and dismissed the action by several private individuals for attribution of ownership rights. In July 1996 the company lodged a civil claim for the eviction of one of the unsuccessful claimants from one of the houses. The courts eventually allowed the company's claim and dismissed the counterclaim in a decision ultimately upheld in February 2010, and the house was returned to the company in July 2010. The second set of proceedings was brought in June 1996 by another unsuccessful claimant, seeking acknowledgment of his ownership rights to one of the houses. The latter claim was eventually dismissed by a final decision in January 2006. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants complain that the proceedings had been unreasonably long and that, as a result of the prolonged seizure of the houses, they had been unable to use their property, leading to considerable financial losses and an interference with the company's activity. Pauliukien and Pauliukas v. Lithuania (no. 18310/06) The applicants, Zita Pauliukien and Vytautas Pauliukas, are Lithuanian nationals, wife and husband, who were born in 1954 and 1953 respectively and live in Kaunas (Lithuania). Mr Pauliukas is an official of the Kaunas city municipality. The case concerns an article published in November 2003 by the daily newspaper Respublika about disputes between the applicants and their neighbours after Ms Pauliukien had acquired a plot of land. Ms Pauliukien was involved in a number of administrative and civil proceedings with one of the neighbours and the municipal authorities concerning the boundaries of the plot and the reconstruction of the applicants' house. The article stated in particular that the applicants were illegally building on their land and had occupied part of the plot belonging to other owners and the State. Following the article's publication, Mr Pauliukas brought proceedings seeking rectification of part of the article, which he considered erroneous and damaging to his reputation, and compensation for damages. His claim was rejected in a decision ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in November 2005. Mr Pauliukas complains that the article tarnished his reputation and thus breached his rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Branite v. Romania (no. 19099/04) The applicant, Ion Branite, is a Romanian national who was born in 1929 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns his inability to peacefully enjoy land of which he became a joint owner. By a final judgment of 2002 Mr Branite and his brothers and sisters had been awarded title to land that had formerly been nationalised; however, they were prevented from taking possession of the land on account of the presence of buildings on it that had previously been erected by two cooperative societies under a right of free use. On account of the dispute between the cooperatives and Mr Branite, the request to register the property in the land register was rejected by a final judgment of 2006. In the meantime a counterclaim lodged by Mr Branite for payment of rent for occupation of the land had been dismissed and no appeal lodged. By two final judgments of 2007 and 2008, the Romanian courts respectively dismissed an application by the two societies to have the property title annulled and upheld the validity of that title. Mr Branite complains of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Ertu v. Turkey (no. 37871/08) The applicant, C�neyt Ertu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1993 and lives in Hakkari (Turkey). The case concerns his alleged ill-treatment by the police on 22 March 2008 when he was arrested in Hakkari for taking part in an unlawful demonstration in support of an illegal organisation (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan � PKK). He was 15 years old at the time. Mr Ertu submitted a video, where he is seen crying in the street, as a police officer holds his arm behind his back and then twists it so that he bends forward. His parents filed a criminal complaint against the officers involved in the arrest, but the Hakkari public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings. An objection by Mr Ertu against this decision and a claim for compensation were both dismissed. In June 2010, he was acquitted of the charges of taking part in an illegal demonstration, brought against him in May 2008, due to a lack of evidence. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Ertu complains that he was ill-treated during his arrest, and that his allegations were not properly investigated by the Turkish authorities. Mesut Deniz v. Turkey (no. 36716/07) The applicant, Mesut Deniz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in Sincan prison (Turkey). The case concerns ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on him, following his arrest on 5 October 1999. Medical reports undertaken on the same day and during the following days all record a large number of injuries on Mr Deniz's body. Mr Deniz alleges that the police subjected him to ill-treatment, including giving him electric shocks, hanging him by his arms, beating him severely, twisting and squeezing his penis and making him lie on an icy surface. An investigation was launched by a prosecutor in 2000, and a police officer was charged, but he was eventually acquitted in September 2007. Mr Deniz attempted to appeal the decision, but the Turkish courts refused to allow him to do so because he had not made himself a civil party to proceedings. This refusal was upheld by Court of Cassation in May 2012. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Deniz complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody, that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into these allegations and that he was therefore denied the opportunity to claim compensation. Nezir Adiyaman v. Turkey (no. 6042/09) The applicant, Nezir Adiyaman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns his complaint that he was ill-treated by police, after being arrested on suspicion of using explosives in a demonstration. Mr Adiyaman maintains that he was taken into police custody while running an errand in the course of his business. He subsequently made a complaint to the Istanbul public prosecutor that he had been ill-treated by officers following his arrest. In March 2008 the prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute. Mr Adiyaman lodged an objection to this decision, but this was rejected in May 2008. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Adiyaman complains that he was punched, slapped and pushed against a wall by ten to 15 officers for about 20 minutes, and that there had not been a proper investigation into this allegation. T�z�n v. Turkey (no. 24164/07) The applicant, Kamuran T�z�n, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in zmir (Turkey). In May 2006 police conducted a drugs search of the house of the brother of Mr T�z�n's fianc�e, while Mr T�z�n was present. According to the police report, he injured two police officers while resisting arrest and then injured himself by falling into a door. Mr T�z�n denies that he resisted arrest, claiming that he was beaten and injured by officers when they arrested him during the search. In June 2006 he was charged with resisting police, insulting public officials and possessing a firearm without a license, of which he was convicted, and sentenced to two years and nine months' imprisonment, in March 2010. The judgment was eventually upheld in May 2012. In July 2006 Mr T�z�n made an application to the public prosecutor, complaining that the officers who arrested him had used excessive force. The prosecutor decided not to issue proceedings against the officers, and Mr T�z�n's objection to this decision was dismissed in January 2007. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr T�z�n complains that during his arrest officers hit his head with a weapon, and that he was beaten with truncheons and guns. He also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), complaining that the investigation into this ill-treatment was ineffective. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Brany and Jugokoka v. Serbia (no. 60336/08) Jovcova v. Serbia (no. 49198/10) Majs Eksport-Import v. Serbia (no. 35327/09) These cases concern the applicants' complaints about non-enforcement of judgments given in their favour against socially/State-owned companies. The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (noncriminal / civil) proceedings. Ascierto and Buffolino v. Italy (nos. 20619/03 and 23751/03) Bencivenga and Others v. Italy (nos. 15015/03, 19419/03, 19436/03, 19448/03, 19469/03 and 19470/03) In these cases, relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complain of the length of the main proceedings and of the inadequacy of the "Pinto" compensation. In the case of Bencivenga and Others v. Italy, the applicants also complain, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), of the ineffectiveness of the "Pinto" remedy on account of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the courts of appeal under the Pinto Act. Thursday 7 November 2013 E.B. and Others v. Austria (nos. 31913/07, 38357/07, 48098/07, 48777/07 and 48779/07) The applicants, E.B., H.G., A.S. and A.V., are four Austrian nationals who were born between 1947 and 1968 respectively. They were all in the past convicted of the offence of having, as a male adult, had sexual relations with a male minor aged between 14 and 18 years. Following the Austrian Constitutional Court's finding that the relevant provision of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional, and its subsequent abolition, the applicants individually requested to have their respective convictions deleted from their criminal records. Their requests were dismissed by the courts. The applicants complain that those decisions � in spite of the fact that the provision had been found to be unconstitutional and the fact that the European Court of Human Rights had found it to be discriminatory � amounted to a breach of their rights under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). They further complain that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of those complaints, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Matrakas and Others v. Poland and Greece (no. 47268/06) The applicants, Dawid Matrakas, Lukasz Mitroudis and their mother Beata Mitroudis, are three Polish nationals who were born in 1987, 1992, and 1968 respectively and live in Krak�w (Poland). The case concerns three sets of proceedings before the Polish and Greek courts brought by the applicants with a view to recovering maintenance in Greece from the fathers of Mr Matrakas and Mr Mitroudis, who are both Greek nationals, one of whom is Ms Mitroudis' former husband. The proceedings, which started in 1988 in respect of Mr Matrakas, in 2005 in respect of Mr Mitroudis and in 2003 in respect of Ms Mitroudis, have so far only resulted in the payment of part of the debt. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complain that the Polish and Greek authorities failed to effectively recover the maintenance payments and that the length of the proceedings was excessive. Bopayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 40799/06) The applicants are ten Russian nationals from three families, who were born between 1917 and 1970 and live or lived in the village of Martan-Chu, Urus-Martan district and Grozny, Chechnya (Russia). The case concerns the disappearance of their close family members: Luiza Dagayeva (maiden name Bopayeva), born in 1972; Sharip Khaysumov, born in 1956; and Ramzan Alaudinov, born in 1963. All three of them were detained on 17 April 2000 in Grozny and taken to the temporary department of the interior of the Oktyabrskiy district (the Oktyabrskiy VOVD); the families have had no news of them since. The applicants immediately started to look for their relatives and contacted the authorities about their disappearance. In August and September 2000, criminal investigation files were opened. The investigation was subsequently adjourned and reopened on a number of occasions and has been pending for years without having established the identities of the perpetrators or the fate of the applicants' missing relatives. The domestic criminal investigation established that at the same time a number of other suspicious "disappearances" and an incident of torture had occurred at the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that State officials were responsible for the disappearance of their relatives and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation. They further complain of a breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security) as a result of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives and the unlawfulness of their detention. Finally, they allege a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), as they had no effective remedy in respect of those complaints. Ermakov v. Russia (no. 43165/10) The applicant, Azamatzhon Ermakov, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1972. He is currently held in detention in Andijan (Uzbekistan). The case concerns Mr Ermakov's complaint that, if returned to Uzbekistan, he would run a real risk of being ill-treated and his subsequent allegation of his forcible and secret transfer from Russia to Uzbekistan. Having arrived in Russia in March 2009, he was arrested in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region in November 2009 and placed in detention pending his extradition to Uzbekistan, where in the meantime he had been charged with a number of offences he had allegedly committed as a member of a religious extremist group. His extradition was ordered by the Russian authorities in a decision eventually upheld by the courts in September 2010, but its execution was stayed pursuant to an interim measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) indicating to the Russian Government that Mr Ermakov should not be extradited for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. He remained in detention for 18 months and was then placed under house arrest. Subsequently, he spent another 16 months in detention � following his arrest on suspicion of the possession of arms and his subsequent conviction � until his release in the early morning of 2 November 2012 when he alleges he was put on a plane to Uzbekistan. He was later detained there. Mr Ermakov intially complained, in particular, under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 � 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court): that if returned to Uzbekistan he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment; that his detention pending extradition was excessively long; that his detention pending extradition was reviewed by the Russian courts at unreasonably long intervals; and, that the courts had failed to deal with, or given insufficient reasons for rejecting, his appeals against the extensions of his detention. Following Mr Ermakov's return to Uzbekistan, his representatives contended, referring to Article 3 of the Convention, that he had been abducted and transferred there against his will and that the Russian authorities must have been involved in the abduction and that the investigation into the incident of 2 November 2012 had been ineffective. The representatives complain that Mr Ermakov's removal to Uzbekistan despite the interim measure indicated by the European Court of Human Rights amounts to a breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition). Belousov v. Ukraine (no. 4494/07) The applicant, Vyacheslav Belousov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). He alleges that on the morning of 18 July 2005, he was taken to a police station, subjected to ill-treatment by officers, and forced to confess to the sexual abuse of minors. Later that evening, police searched his place of residence and confiscated various items. He was then officially arrested. Mr Belousov lodged a formal complaint, and criminal proceedings were undertaken against a number of officers in August 2005. However, the proceedings were stayed and reopened on numerous occasions, and the investigation remains pending. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Belousov complains that police officers twisted his arms, hit and strangled him, and that his allegations of this ill-treatment were not properly investigated. He also relies on Article 5 �� 1 (c) and 3 (right to liberty and security) to complain that his detention on 18 July 2005 was unrecorded and unlawful, that his arrest that evening was made without a court order and that he was not brought before a judge for four days after he was first detained. Finally, he relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), complaining that the police unlawfully searched his home. Gerashchenko v. Ukraine (no. 20602/05) The applicant, Anatoliy Gerashchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Odessa (Ukraine). He was convicted of the illegal possession, production and distribution of drugs and sentenced to five years and two months' imprisonment in a judgment eventually upheld in December 2007. He complains that, on 2 July 2004, he was beaten up by the police � resulting in a contusion of one kidney � and that the police then unlawfully searched his house without identifying themselves or giving reasons for the search. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Further relying on Article 5 �� 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his detention pending trial from December 2005 to June 2007 was unlawful and excessively long and that there was no adequate judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. Further relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial), he complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, in particular because he had incriminated himself under duress and without legal assistance. Lastly, relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), he complains that the prison administration hindered his communication with the European Court of Human Rights. Lobas v. Ukraine (no. 21380/04) The applicant, Sergiy Lobas, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1964 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Sokal Correctional Colony (Ukraine). He was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in a judgment eventually upheld in November 2003. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of having been ill-treated by the police in December 2002 and January 2003 to make him confess to having committed the crime. He maintains in particular that police officers suffocated him using a gas mask, that they beat him up and gave him electric shocks. He alleges that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial), in particular because his conviction was based on false evidence and self-incriminating statements obtained under torture. Finally, relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), he complains that the authorities denied him the opportunity to obtain copies of the case file which he wished to submit to the European Court of Human Rights. Pichkur v. Ukraine (no. 10441/06) The applicant, Anatoliy Pichkur, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Bremen (Germany). He emigrated from Ukraine to Germany in August 2000. In September 2005, the Ukrainian pension authorities decided to terminate his pension payments, which he had been receiving since his retirement in 1996, on the ground that he permanently lived abroad. The provisions on the basis of which the decision had been taken were declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on 7 October 2009. In April 2011, a district court ordered the pension authorities to resume payment of Mr Pichkur's pensions with effect from the date of the Constitutional Court's judgment. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Pichkur complains that he was deprived of his pension on the ground of his place of residence. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Vinnik and Others v. Ukraine (no. 13977/05 and 45 other applications) The applicants in this case complain mainly of the lengthy non-enforcement of decisions in their favour and of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of those complaints. 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). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (noncriminal) proceedings. Sotosek v. Slovenia (no. 33333/11) Zavodnik v. Slovenia (no. 36261/08) 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 @ECHRpress. 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