003-4564868-5514992

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 330 (2013) 13.11.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing seven judgments on Tuesday 19 November 2013 and two on Thursday 21 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 19 November 2013 Avdi and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (applications nos. 28357/11, 31549/11 and 39295/11) The applicants, Sulejman Avdi, Vlado Adamovi and Drago Kovacevi, are nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina who were born in 1949, 1959 and 1962 respectively and live in Sarajevo (Mr Avdi and Mr Adamovi) and Banja Luka (Mr Kovacevi). The case concerns the applicants' complaints about being denied access to court. They were involved in civil (Mr Avdi and Mr Kovacevi) and disciplinary (Mr Adamovi) proceedings with regard to employment disputes, where they made appeals to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The rules of that court state that, when fewer than nine judges hear an appeal, an aspect of the appeal will be rejected if at least five judges cannot agree upon it. Each of the applicants had some or all of their appeal rejected by the Constitutional Court because a majority of five could not agree. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain that the rejection of their appeals because the Constitutional Court could not reach a majority vote meant that the court effectively declined to decide on their cases. El Kashif v. Poland (no. 69398/11) The applicant, Karol El Kashif, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Warsaw. He was fined EUR 500 for unlawfully operating on-line lotteries. His conviction was set aside on an appeal and, as Mr EL Kashif was not resident at any of the addresses he had given to the authorities, the court issued a search warrant and ordered his detention for three months pending a new trial. On 30 May 2011, Mr El Kashif was arrested and imprisoned in Warsaw. On 14 June 2011 the court ordered his release and replaced the detention measure by one of supervision, requiring him to report to the police station every 7 days � a condition with which Mr El Kashif did not comply. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 (c) and 3 (right to liberty and security) Mr El Kashif alleges that his placement in pre-trial detention was in breach of the Convention, as was the fact that he was not brought promptly before a judge. Bogdan Vod Greek-Catholic Parish v. Romania (no. 26270/04) The applicant is the Bogdan Vod Greek-Catholic Parish, which belongs to the Maramure GreekCatholic Diocese United with Rome and is located in the village of Bogdan Vod, Romania. The case concerns a dispute between two Christian religious groups in Bogdan Vod, namely the GreekCatholic Church and the Orthodox Church. The Greek-Catholic Parish complains in particular about the non-enforcement of a judgment awarded by a Romanian court in its favour in January 1998. The judgment obliged the village's Orthodox Parish to allow the Greek-Catholic Parish to conduct religious services in one of the local churches, which had formerly belonged to the Greek-Catholic Parish but had been owned by the Orthodox Church after the Greek-Catholic Church was forcibly abolished in 1948. Following the rejection of an extraordinary appeal of the judgment in December 2000, the Greek-Catholic Parish secured an enforcement order in January 2001. However, since that time attempts by bailiffs to carry out the judgment have been stopped by violent protests of around 300 Orthodox villagers. A complaint by the Greek-Catholic Parish to the local Prosecutor's office made in November 2002 has gone unanswered, and most recently � in January 2009 � the attempts to enforce the judgment were stopped because the village's Orthodox priest refused to comply with the judgment. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (access to court), the Greek-Catholic Parish complains that the judgment has to date still not been enforced. Enculescu v. Romania (no. 20789/07) The applicant, Marian Enculescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Drobeta-Turnu Severin (Romania). The case concerns the proceedings brought by Mr Enculescu against a third party for forgery and use of forged documents, which he began in August 1996. Between the first hearing in November 2002 and the final dismissal of the case in April 2010, the Romanian courts made a total of 11 judgments in relation to Mr Enculescu's civil claim. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Enculescu complains that the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy and had lacked impartiality, because two of the judges sitting on a three-judge panel examining his final appeal had already adjudicated on an earlier appeal. Macovei v. Romania (no. 28255/08) The applicant, Mihai Macovei, is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and is currently detained in Aiud Prison. In 2007 Mr Macovei was sentenced, as a repeat offender, to 20 years' imprisonment for murdering his partner. He was imprisoned from February to June 2008 in Bucharest-Jilava Prison, and since then has been serving his sentence at Aiud. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Macovei complains of poor conditions of detention in Bucharest-Jilava and Aiud prisons. Somean and Butiuc v. Romania (no. 45543/04) The applicants, Claudiu-Horaiu Somean and Gina-Ioana Butiuc, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1969 and 1971 respectively and live in Oradea (Romania). The case concerns a five page article, implicating the applicants in a sex scandal, which was published in May 2002 by the local newspaper Bihoreanul, and the subsequent defamation proceedings. Following the publication of the article, the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against the journalist and her source for slander and defamation. However, this was rejected in May 2003 on the grounds that the contents of the articles were true and the journalist had not intended to insult or defame the applicants. An appeal was rejected in June 2004. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Somean and Ms Butiuc complain that their right to reputation was breached by false allegations in the article, and that the Romanian courts failed to remedy this in finding that they had not been defamed � in particular, because the courts did not take into account the fact that they were not public figures, and the allegations in the article did not contribute to a debate of general public interest. Ulariu v. Romania (no. 19267/05) The applicant, Dan Gabriel Ulariu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Braov. Mr Ulariu, the managing director of a company, was prosecuted by the National Anti-corruption Office for causing a loss to the Treasury and for acts of corruption. He was given a suspended prison sentence of one year for bribery: the court found that the charges were substantiated in particular by intercept evidence. Relying mainly on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Ulariu argues that the tapping of his telephone constitutes an interference with his right to respect for his private life and that, as a victim of police entrapment, he was convicted on the basis of unlawfully obtained evidence, namely recordings of his telephone conversations and a video of a meeting that was filmed without his knowledge. Thursday 21 November 2013 Bouyid v. Belgium (no. 23380/09) The applicants, Sa�d and Mohamed Bouyid, are two brothers, Belgian nationals, who were born in 1986 and 1979 and live in the municipality of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, part of the Bruxelles-Capitale district. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain that they were slapped on the face by police officers, one on 8 December 2003, the other on 23 February 2004, when they were in the Saint-Josse-ten-Noode police station, and point out that these incidents occurred in a context of tense relations between their family and certain police officers in that station, of which they were neighbours. Putistin v. Ukraine (no. 16882/03) The applicant, Vladlen Putistin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Kyiv. The case concerns Mr Putistin's complaint about defamation of his father, a former Dynamo Kyiv football club player, who took part in 1942 during the Second World War in the legendary "Death Match" between the Start football team, involving some of the Dynamo Kyiv footballers, and a team from the German Luftwaffe, "Flakelf". The Ukrainians won, against the odds (including allegedly unfair SS refereeing), and the team allegedly suffered reprisals; some of the players were arrested and taken to a local concentration camp where four of the players were later executed. In April 2001 the newspaper Komsomolska Pravda published an article reporting on a film which was to be made about the match. Mr Putistin considered that his and his father's reputation had been discredited because of the suggestion in the article that some of the Dynamo Kyiv footballers, among them his father, had collaborated with the Gestapo or the police. Mr Putistin complains about the national courts' refusal to order a rectification of the information about his father in the article. He complains in particular that the courts found that he had not been directly affected by the publication: his father was not mentioned in the text, and it was not possible to read his name on the photograph of the match poster published along with the article. The Court will examine the applicant's complaints under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). 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. 3