003-4558848-5506620

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 322 (2013) 06.11.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing nine judgments on Tuesday 12 November 2013 and 13 on Thursday 14 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 12 November 2013 Galina Kostova v. Bulgaria (application no. 36181/05) The applicant, Galina Georgieva Kostova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Sofia. Ms Kostova is a lawyer, who was included in the list of persons qualified to act as a liquidator of insolvent companies. The case concerns the removal of Ms Kostova from that list by the Minister of Justice on 2 August 2004. Among the reasons given for this removal was that, after she had been appointed as the liquidator of a state-owned company, she had failed to submit a list of creditors of the company within the statutory time limit. The judicial review of the decision to remove her from the list was dismissed in October 2004, and her final appeal was also dismissed in March 2005. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms Kostova complains that the Bulgarian courts refused to properly review the Minister of Justice's decision to strike her off the list, because they had held that they did not have jurisdiction to examine the harshness of this decision. She also relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to complain that the Minister's decision had deprived her of her future income. Joksas v. Lithuania (no. 25330/07) The applicant, Alvydas Joksas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Tryskiai (Lithuania). The case concerns the discharging of Mr Joksas from the Lithuanian military. In March 2006 the daily Kauno Diena published an article in which Mr Joksas criticised new legislation for not adequately protecting the rights of servicemen in disciplinary proceedings. Despite having an ongoing contract, in June 2006 he was dismissed from his position and discharged on the grounds that he had reached retirement age. Mr Joksas challenged this in the Lithuanian courts, but he was unsuccessful; his final appeal was dismissed in May 2008. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Joksas complains that he was dismissed because of his opinions and that other servicemen were allowed to continue in military service beyond pension age. Further relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), he also alleges that the administrative proceedings concerning his dismissal were unfair, in particular because the Lithuanian courts had refused his request to obtain and analyse evidence of other soldiers in his battalion who should also have been dismissed on grounds of age, without even giving reasons. Pyrantien v. Lithuania (no. 45092/07) The applicant, Kotrina Pyrantien, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Akademija, Kaunas Region (Lithuania). The case concerns Ms Pyrantien's complaint about the level of compensation she received when the Lithuanian authorities repossessed a plot of land she owned to grow vegetables to sell at market. In 1996 Ms Pyrantien acquired the 0.5 hectare plot of land from the State. However, a number of years later the sale was quashed by the Lithuanian courts because it was found that the State did not have the right to sell the property. A valuation of the property in 2005 found that it was worth 112,500 Lithuanian litai (LTL � approximately 32,580 euros (EUR)). Yet in October 2006 the Lithuanian courts held that Ms Pyrantien would only receive LTL 1,466 in compensation (approximately EUR 430), as this was the value of the investment vouchers she had used to buy the land in 1996. Her appeal of this level of compensation was dismissed by the Lithuanian Court of Appeal in February 2007. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Pyrantien complains that as a legitimate owner who had acquired the property in good faith, she was not properly compensated for the deprivation of her land as the Lithuanian courts had not taken into account the plot's market value in 2005 but had instead relied on its nominal value in 1996. Varnien v. Lithuania (no. 42916/04) The applicant, Elena Varnien, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1920 and resides in Vilnius. The case concerns her rights to a plot of land in Valakupiai, a neighbourhood in Vilnius. In 2000 local authorities restored her rights to part of this plot, which had belonged to her mother but had been nationalised in the 1940s. Ms Varnien launched an action to have 0.33 hectares of the plot, which remained as government property, returned to her also. However, it was dismissed in December 2001 because the relevant land had been designated as a forest of national importance which was to be bought out by the State. This decision was quashed by the Supreme Administrative Court in February 2002, and Ms Varnien obtained an order obliging the local authority to return the land to her in October 2003. However, the local authority appealed the execution order, and in May 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that its previous judgment ordering the land to be returned to Ms Varnien had been made in error. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Varnien complains that the land has not been returned to her in kind, and that the Supreme Administrative Court quashed its earlier decision, despite that ruling being final. Benzer and Others v. Turkey (no. 23502/06) The applicants in this case are 41 Turkish nationals born between 1907 and 1984. The case concerns the applicants' allegation that the Turkish military bombed their two villages by aircraft, killing 34 of their close relatives. The applicants claim that, during the Turkish government's attempts to combat the PKK in 1994, the residents of the villages of Kukonar and Ko�aili had refused to become village guards, and that the military believed that they gave assistance to the PKK. They allege that on 26 March 1994 a range of Turkish military aircraft fired on and bombed their villages, killing a large number of the inhabitants, injuring many others and destroying most of the property and livestock. The Turkish government maintains that the PKK attacked the villages because the inhabitants had refused to help the organisation, and that there was no evidence of the State's involvement in the incident. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain of the killing of their relatives and the injury caused to some of them during the attack, and that there has been no effective investigation into it. They also rely on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) to complain of the terror caused by the bombing, and the failure of the national authorities to help the villages in the aftermath. Halil G��men v. Turkey (no. 24883/07) The applicant, Halil G��men, is a Turkish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Thiers (France). The case concerns the expropriation of land owned by Mr G��men. In 1998, without informing the applicant, the administrative authorities issued an expropriation order in respect of a plot of land belonging to him and proceeded to take possession of it. Mr G��men lodged a claim for damages with a view to obtaining compensation for the harm caused by the de facto expropriation of his land. In a judgment of June 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance judgment in the applicant's favour on the grounds that the expert report on which the court had based its conclusions had been flawed. In a final judgment of 17 May 2007 the court to which the case was remitted ordered the authorities to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 420, corresponding to the value of the land as estimated by a new expert report. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr G��men complains of the fact that the administrative authorities took possession of his land without a properly constituted expropriation order. He also alleges that he was deprived of his property in the absence of any reasons in the public interest and that the amount of damages awarded by the courts of first instance did not correspond to the actual value of his land. Sepil v. Turkey (no. 17711/07) The applicant, Hasan Sepil, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in anakkale (Turkey). The case concerns Mr Sepil's complaint that he was convicted for trafficking drugs following police incitement. According to official records, on 26 June 2005 two undercover police officers contacted Mr Sepil by telephone to buy heroin. After meeting at an agreed location, the officers purchased some heroin, and Mr Sepil was arrested immediately afterwards. According to Mr Sepil, he did not sell the heroin, and the police officers only found drugs after searching him. He also maintained that he did not sell drugs, but only bought small quantities for his own personal use. However, Mr Sepil was convicted of drug trafficking in May 2006, and sentenced to six years and three months' imprisonment. The Court of Cassation upheld this judgment in December 2006. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Sepil complains that he was convicted on the basis of unlawful evidence provided by undercover policemen, who had acted without judicial supervision, and had incited him to commit a crime. He further argues that the Turkish court failed to take account of substantial evidence, because it had refused to examine records of his telephone conversations prior to his arrest, which might have established that the police had not in fact tried to buy heroin from him. Yabansu and Others v. Turkey (no. 43903/09) The applicants are eight Turkish nationals who were born between 1936 and 1987 and live in Mu (Turkey). The case concerns the murder of one of their relatives, Sel�uk Yabansu, on 29 March 2007 during his military service. The investigation by the military prosecutor's office revealed that Mr Yabansu had been killed by a fellow conscript, M.F.E., who had been declared unfit to use firearms owing to psychological problems but who had been issued with a weapon by Staff Sergeant C.T., contrary to the instructions of his superior officers. In a judgment of 25 July 2008 the military court acquitted C.T. In January 2009 M.F.E. was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. The case is apparently still pending before the Court of Cassation. In parallel with the criminal proceedings, the applicants lodged an administrative appeal with a view to obtaining compensation for Mr Yabansu's death. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Military Administrative Court for failure to comply with the time-limit for lodging it. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain of the dismissal of their administrative appeal. They also allege a violation of Article 2 (right to life). Repetitive case The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Sainz Casla v. Spain (no. 18054/10) This case mainly concerns the fact that the applicant was convicted on the basis of new factual information without having had an opportunity to give evidence at a public hearing. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains in particular of the fact that the Audiencia Provincial re-examined the evidence given before the first-instance judge; in his view, this should have led the Court of Appeal to hear evidence from him at a public hearing. Thursday 14 November 2013 Chankayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 56688/12) The applicant, Gaji Chankayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and is currently detained in Baku. The case concerns the extradition of Mr Chankayev to Russia to serve a prison sentence imposed by the Russian courts. After fighting as a Chechen rebel in Russia, Mr Chankayev fled to Azerbaijan in 2002. He was convicted in 2006 for acts committed while in Azerbaijan, including founding an illegal armed group and illegal possession of firearms. Later that year he was temporarily extradited to Russia, in order to face charges for his activities as a Chechen rebel. He was convicted of a number of offences, including being a member of an armed group that fought against the Russian state, and sentenced to a total of six years in prison. He was then returned to Azerbaijan to serve the remainder of the sentence imposed by the Azerbaijani courts. In June 2012 the Russian authorities requested that Mr Chankayev be extradited in order to serve his Russian sentence, and this request was granted in August 2012. Mr Chankayev challenged the extradition, claiming that there was a real risk that he would be subjected to ill-treatment if extradited to Russia. However, he was unsuccessful in the Azerbaijan courts, and his final appeal was dismissed on 3 September 2012. The enforcement of his extradition was stayed following an interim measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) indicating to the Azerbaijan government that Mr Chankayev should not be extradited to Russia for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Chankayev complains that his extradition to Russia would put him at imminent risk of torture and that he had no effective remedy to challenge his extradition in the Azerbaijani courts on this ground. M.D. v. Belgium (no. 56028/10) The applicant, M.D., is a Guinea-Bissau national who was born in 1979 and lives in Brussels. The cases concerns his placement in a closed centre with a view to his deportation to Greece, which he claims would put him at risk of ill-treatment. On 26 April 2010, after he had lodged an asylum request with the Belgian authorities, a decision was issued refusing M.D. permission to remain and ordering him to leave the country. He was placed in a closed centre. On 6 May 2010, after he had appealed against the order for his removal to Athens, the applicant was made the subject of a second detention order. On 2 July 2010, after his first two applications for release had been rejected, his detention was again extended for a maximum of two months. On 12 July 2010 he lodged a third request for release, citing the extension order of 2 July 2010. Although the Court of Appeal ordered his immediate release, he was kept in detention because of an appeal on points of law lodged by the Belgian State. In a judgment dated August 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the Court of Appeal judgment on procedural grounds and remitted the case to the Indictments Chamber. M.D. was eventually released on 3 September 2010 on expiry of the statutory two-month period. On 15 September 2010 the Indictments Chamber observed that the applicant's request for release had become devoid of purpose following his release. Relying, among other provisions, on Article 5 � 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention), the applicant alleges that the remedies he attempted in order to challenge the lawfulness of his detention did not enable him to obtain a speedy judicial decision concerning his detention and were not effective. He further alleges that his deportation to Greece would place him at risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Topci-Rosenberg v. Croatia (no. 19391/11) The applicant, Diana Topci-Rosenberg, is a Croatian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb. The case concerns Ms Topci-Rosenberg's right to paid maternity leave. While working as a self-employed businesswoman, she adopted a three year-old child in October 2006. Shortly afterward she applied to the Croatian Health Insurance Fund for paid maternity leave. However, her application was rejected, on the grounds that this was only available for biological mothers until the child's first birthday, and adoptive parents had to be treated equally to biological mothers. Ms Topci-Rosenberg appealed the decision multiple times, arguing that it was incompatible with Croatian legislation and that she had been discriminated against. However, she was unsuccessful, and her final appeal was dismissed by the Croatian Constitutional Court in February 2011. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Topci-Rosenberg complains that she has been discriminated against as an adoptive mother and a self-employed businesswoman. Z.M. v. France (no. 40042/11) The applicant, Z.M., is a Congolese national who was born in 1958 and lives in Orl�ans (France). The case concerns his expulsion from France to the Democratic Republic of Congo ("the DRC"), which he claims would place him at risk of ill-treatment. After officially joining the Mouvement de Lib�ration du Congo ("the MLC") in 2005, Z.M. produced several political cartoons on the party's behalf. He claims that he was arrested in July 2006 and detained for three weeks in an overcrowded prison cell where he was denied access to a judge or lawyer and, among other things, was deprived of sleep and food. He also claims to have undergone a series of interrogations during which he was burned with cigarettes and then whipped. After escaping from prison he took refuge in Matadi in a bid to evade the authorities, who were actively searching for him. He then resumed his activities as a cartoonist and campaigner with the MLC and other opposition parties. In April 2008, after learning that the authorities were once more looking for him, he left the DRC and travelled to France. After his first asylum application was rejected, he lodged an application in August 2011 to have it reviewed. The French authorities refused him leave to remain in France and served him with an order to leave the country. As a result, the applicant learned that his asylum application had been rejected. The appeal he lodged against that decision was declared inadmissible and he was placed in an administrative detention centre. In June 2011 his asylum application was again refused. Following a request for interim measures (under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) made by the applicant, the European Court of Human Rights decided to indicate to the French Government that it was desirable to refrain from deporting him to the DRC for the duration of the proceedings before it. In July 2011 the order for Z.M.'s administrative detention was lifted and he was made the subject of a compulsory residence order. The applicant alleges mainly that his deportation to the DRC would place him at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Blokhin v. Russia (no. 47152/06) The case concerns the detention for 30 days of a mentally disturbed 12-year old boy. The applicant, Ivan Blokhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Novosibirsk (Russia). On 3 January 2005, he was arrested, brought to a police station and asked questions about committing extortion. He was 12 years old at the time, and suffered from both attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and enuresis. No criminal proceedings were brought against him because he had not reached the age of criminal responsibility. However, on 21 February 2005 a Russian court ordered him to be placed in a juvenile temporary detention centre to prevent him from being involved in any further delinquency. Mr Blokhin's grandfather challenged the detention in the Russian courts, claiming that his grandson's state of health was incompatible with detention. The detention order was quashed on appeal on 21 March 2005 and Mr Blokhin was released on 23 March 2005. In May 2006 the same court re-examined the matter, and held that the original detention order had been lawful. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Blokhin complains that the conditions in which he was kept during his detention were inhuman and that he was not provided with adequate medical care for his health problems. He also alleges that his detention in the minor offenders detention centre was incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 � 1 (d) (right to liberty and security) as it was not designed for providing educational supervision. Lastly, relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial), he alleges that the proceedings against him were unfair both because he had allegedly been questioned by the police in the absence of his guardian, counsel or teacher and because he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine two witnesses against him, whose statements represented the only decisive evidence against him. Kasymakhunov v. Russia (no. 29604/12) The applicant, Yusup Kasymakhunov, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1964. His current whereabouts are unknown. The case essentially concerns Mr Kasymakhunov's alleged abduction and transfer from Russia to Uzbekistan where he was wanted on charges of being a member of Hizb-ut Tahrir, a radical Islamic organisation banned in Uzbekistan and Russia. Mr Kasymakhunov left Uzbekistan for Russia in 1995. He was arrested in Moscow in February 2004 and placed in detention pending extradition to Uzbekistan. The extradition proceedings were suspended pending criminal proceedings brought against him in Russia for, among other offences, aiding and abetting terrorism. He was found guilty and sentenced to seven years and four months' imprisonment, upheld in a final judgment of January 2005. He finished serving his prison term in June 2011 but his continued detention was ordered pending the resumed extradition proceedings. His extradition was ordered by the Russian authorities in a decision eventually upheld by the courts in July 2012, but its enforcement was stayed following 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 Kasymakhunov should not be extradited for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. Mr Kasymakhunov was then released on 10 December 2012 as the maximum detention period allowed under domestic law had expired. On 14 December 2012, he telephoned a neighbor to say he needed to borrow a screwdriver but never turned up. His family and legal representatives have had no news of him since. According to Uzbekistan Airways he left Moscow for Tashkent (Uzbekistan) on board a regular flight on 14 December at 11.45 p.m. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 � 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Kasymakhunov initially complained that, if returned to Uzbekistan, he would run a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment and that his detention pending extradition was excessively long. His representatives added to these complaints, also referring to Article 3, alleging that Mr Kasymakhunov was abducted and transferred to Uzbekistan against his will, that the Russian authorities must have somehow been involved in the abduction and that their investigation into the matter was ineffective. The representatives further complain that Mr Kasymakhunov'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). Kozlitin v. Russia (no. 17092/04) The applicant, Vitaliy Kozlitin, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for robbery and aggravated murder in a correctional colony in the Kaliningrad region (Russia). The case concerns Mr Kozlitin's complaint about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, which ended with a judgment by the Supreme Court on 18 December 2003. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to defend oneself in person), Mr Kozlitin complains in particular that the courts refused his request to take part in the Supreme Court's appeal hearing on his case. He alleges that he was therefore deprived of an opportunity to present his arguments that not only did he have an alibi for the crimes of which he stood accused but also that his co-defendant had confessed before the trial court to having committed the murder himself. Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06) The applicant, Oleg Ryabtsev, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Perm (Russia). The case concerns Mr Ryabsev's allegations that he was ill-treated during and after his arrest for robbery, and that the subsequent legal proceedings against him were unfair. On 27 February 2004 he was arrested in a police sting operation during an attempted armed robbery of a shop in Perm. He confessed to his participation in the crime, but Mr Ryabsev claims that this was only after he was beaten by police. Prosecutors refused to start criminal proceedings to investigate Mr Ryabsev's allegations on ten occasions. He was convicted of organised aggravated robbery in February 2005, and the Russian Supreme Court upheld his conviction in August 2005. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Ryabsev complains that he was illtreated by police officers both during his arrest and while in police custody, and that no appropriate investigation into this was carried out. He also relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) to complain that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because his conviction was based on a forced confession. Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine (no. 54755/08) The applicant, Aleksandr Nikonenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Zaporizhzhya (Ukraine). The case concerns the authorities' investigation into Mr Nikonenko's complaint about being beaten up on 21 July 2001 by a private individual at a market. Mr Nikonenko complains in particular that the authorities' investigation into his complaint, which was suspended and reopened on numerous occasions because his aggressor could not be identified, was ineffective. He alleges that as a result his case � which was neither legally nor factually complex � was eventually closed as time-barred on 20 August 2008. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also complains about the excessive length of the related criminal proceedings. Mr Nikonenko was awarded damages in parallel civil proceedings he brought claiming compensation for the injuries he had sustained. Shmushkovych v. Ukraine (no. 3276/10) The applicant, Mykhaylo Shmushkovych, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Odessa (Ukraine). He is the vice-president of a non-governmental organisation and a member of the Odessa City Council. The case concerns in particular the imposition of a fine on Mr Shmushkovych for failing to give the local authorities sufficient advance notification of a peaceful picket which the organisation intended to hold. The picket, which demanded that the construction of some residential buildings contracted by the City Council be completed, was held on 19 March 2009, two days after he had notified the authorities. The judgment imposing the fine was upheld on appeal in July 2009. Mr Shmushkovych complains that the imposition of the fine violated his right under Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Further relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the first-instance court's judgment was not pronounced in public. Skorokhodov v. Ukraine (no. 56697/09) The applicant, Dmitriy Skorokhodov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). The case concerns the investigations by the Ukrainian authorities in relation to an alleged physical attack on Mr Skorokhodov by his colleagues which took place in November 2005. Investigations into the alleged attack were opened in June 2006 after the police, on several occasions, had refused to open them. They were still pending as of 2 July 2012. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Skorokhodov complains that there has been no effective investigation into his ill-treatment and that the proceedings were excessively long without providing him with an opportunity to obtain compensation for the attack. Repetitive case The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Shevchenko v. Russia (no. 11536/04) The applicant in this case complains about the non-enforcement of a judgment in her favour concerning the calculation of her pension. She relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Length-of-proceedings case In the following case, the applicant complains in particular about the excessive length of (noncriminal) proceedings. Triantafyllou v. Greece (no. 26021/10) The case concerns the expropriation by the Greek authorities of land belonging to the applicant. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the allegedly excessive length of the proceedings before the domestic courts by which he sought to have the expropriation order set aside. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he further alleges that he did not have a domestic remedy by which to complain of the excessive length of the proceedings. 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. 8