003-4620367-5590905

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 001 (2014) 02.01.2014 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten judgments on Tuesday 7 January 2014 and 20 on Thursday 9 January 2014. 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 7 January 2014 Cusan and Fazzo v. Italy (application no. 77/07) The applicants, Alessandra Cusan and Luigi Fazzo, are Italian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1958 respectively and live in Milan (Italy). The case concerns the fact that they are unable to give their daughter her mother's surname, namely Cusan. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, alone or taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, and on Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality between spouses), alone or taken together with Article 14. Reformed Church Foundation for Student Housing and Stanomirescu v. Romania (nos. 2699/03 and 43597/07) The first applicant, the Reformed Church Foundation for Student Housing, is an NGO which was set up in 1992 and has its registered office in Odorheiul Secuiesc. The second applicant, Marinic Stanomirescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1929 and died in 2009. In the first case, the applicant association, whose main activity is to promote pupils' education in line with the doctrines of the Reformed Church, had obtained a final judicial decision on 5 October 2000, ordering the administrative authorities to destroy six buildings on its land (they had been put up to provide temporary homes for workers on a construction site then in progress). 12 years later, and after numerous attempts at enforcement, the administrative authorities refused to execute the final judicial decision in the applicant association's favour. In the second case, Mr Stanomirescu had obtained a court order which obliged a legal entity under State authority � the regional centre of the Gorj forestry estate - to assess, mark and evaluate trees on his forest for the purpose of using the timber, and another which ordered that damages and interest be paid to the applicant. Although the first decision was executed with more than a year's delay, the second decision is currently still unexecuted. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about the authorities' failure to execute binding and enforceable judicial decision issued in their favour. Lakatos and Others v. Serbia (no. 3363/08) The applicants, Slavko Lakatos, Lajci Dimovi, Ivica Dimovi, Maas Dimovi (now deceased) and Ramajana Ametov, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1974, 1980, 1980, 1957 and 1979 respectively. The case essentially concerns the five applicants' complaints that they were ill-treated by the police when arrested on suspicion of carrying out a series of robberies, targeting elderly people, in northern Serbia. They allege that they were beaten by the police both during their arrest on 6 November 2007 and then when taken to Novi Sad police station. The Government contend that the applicants were injured because the police had had to resort to force when the applicants resisted arrest and/or tried to escape. On 10 July 2009 the first three applicants were found guilty of 13 robberies and four attempted robberies. The first and second applicants were sentenced to 14 years and six months' imprisonment. The third applicant was also found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer when resisting arrest and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. Their convictions were ultimately upheld by the Appeals Court in June 2012. Their constitutional complaint is still pending. Most recently, in December 2012, the applicants were released under a general amnesty granted by the Serbian Parliament. The last two applicants were never indicted as the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), all five applicants allege that they were ill-treated during police custody and that the investigation into their allegations was inadequate. Further relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), the first three applicants complain that the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of their alleged crime could not justify their being held in pre-trial detention for more than one year and eight months (from their arrest on 6 November 2007 until their initial conviction on 10 July 2009). The first four applicants also all complain that the police referred to them as members of a criminal group at a press conference on the case and released photographs of them to the press, in breach of Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Lastly, the fourth and fifth applicants complain under Article 8 that they have not been able to obtain any information about DNA samples taken from them when they were arrested and, if still kept, to have them destroyed. Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 2) (no. 21666/09) Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 3) (no. 37986/09) The applicant company, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s., is a multimedia publishing house set up in 1999 with its head office in Bratislava. Both cases concern libel actions brought against the applicant company following the publication of articles by the national daily newspaper, Nov� Cas, owned by the legal predecessor of Ringier. Nov� Cas is one of the most widely read newspapers in Slovakia. In the first case, an article published in October 2001 told the story of an accident in a car park where a driver had hit a pedestrian, who later died from his injuries. The pedestrian was the son of a chief prosecutor in the local district, and the driver was detained following the incident. The article focused on the extensive time the Slovakian courts were taking to address the driver's bail request. However, it also contained the name of the chief prosecutor and that of his son. The prosecutor sued Ringier's legal predecessor for libel, submitting that the article had caused him pain and distress. He succeeded, and in February 2005 a Slovakian court ordered the company to publish an apology and make a payment of 100,000 Slovak korunas (SKK) in damages (the equivalent of around 2,600 euros (EUR) at that time). Ringier appealed the judgment in several proceedings, but it was ultimately unsuccessful, and its final application was dismissed in April 2009. In the second case, Nov� Cas published a series of articles in May 2004 about a man who had been a contestant on the television quiz "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" earlier that year. The contestant had answered 13 questions correctly, and had been playing for the equivalent of EUR 50,000 on the fourteenth question. However, he answered this question incorrectly, and he only won EUR 2,500. The articles in Nov� Cas stated that there was a dispute between the organisers of the quiz and the contestant, the organisers claiming that the contestant had been suspected of having cheated using electronic communication and the contestant alleging that the fourteenth question had been ambiguous, and that he had in fact answered it correctly. In February 2005 the contestant launched a claim for libel against Ringier, arguing, among other things, that the Nov� Cas articles had wrongly suggested that he was a cheat and had been charged with a criminal offence. The contestant's claim was successful, and the court ordered Ringier to publish an apology and pay the contestant the equivalent of EUR 1,450 in damages. The company appealed, but it was unsuccessful, and its last application was dismissed in February 2009. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Ringer complains in both cases that the findings of libel by the Slovakian courts were arbitrary and, in particular, that the courts had focused exclusively on the protection of the claimants' privacy, completely disregarding its right to freedom of expression. A.A. v. Switzerland (no. 58802/12) The case concerns the threatened expulsion of a failed asylum seeker from Switzerland to Sudan. The applicant, A.A., is a Sudanese national who claims that he was born in 1985 in Zalingei, a village near the town of Kutum in the region of North Darfur, Sudan. He arrived in Switzerland in August 2004, claiming that he had had to flee his village in Sudan when it was attacked by Janjaweed, the local militia, during which his father and many other villagers were killed and he was mistreated. Since his arrival in Switzerland he has become an active member of the Sudan Liberation MovementUnity and was appointed its human rights officer in 2009. The Swiss authorities dismissed his asylum requests twice, in 2004 and in 2012, because they had doubts about his origins (notably they were not convinced that he came from Darfur), because they found that his story about his flight from Sudan lacked credibility and because he was not at any great risk of persecution if returned as he did not have a high profile as a political activist. Moreover, the Government believed that he had only become a political activist in Switzerland to avoid being expelled to Sudan. The applicant currently lives in the Canton of Zurich (Switzerland) pending an expulsion order against him, the enforcement of which was stayed following an interim measure granted by the European Court (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) in which it requested the Swiss Government to not expel the applicant pending the outcome of the proceedings before it. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that, if expelled to Sudan, he would be detained, interrogated and tortured on account of his political activities in Switzerland. He also complains under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in combination with Article 3 that he has no effective remedy before the Swiss courts to assert his claims that he originated from Darfur. Ka�ak and Ebin� v. Turkey (no. 54916/08) The applicants, Nebi Ka�ak and �mer Ebin�, are Turkish nationals who were both born in 1980 and live in Van (Turkey). They were arrested by the police during a demonstration in Van and placed in police custody. According to the police report of the same day, which was signed by them, they had been arrested on the fringes of an unlawful demonstration, involving the use of force; Mr Ka�ak was accused of having thrown stones and lightly wounded a police officer. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants allege that they were subjected to brutality by police officers during their arrest, and that the authorities did not comply with their obligation to conduct an effective investigation. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Karabin v. Poland (no. 29254/06) The applicant in this case complains about the conditions throughout his detention on remand and imprisonment between October 2002 and July 2007 in Myslowice Remand Centre. He relies in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Prjin v. Romania (no. 5592/05) The applicant in this case alleges that his right to a fair trial was not respected, in that he did not have the time and facilities necessary to prepare his defence, and that he was unable to examine a witness whose statement had been essential in securing his conviction. He relies on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), 3 (b) (right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence) and 6 � 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of civil proceedings. Maxian and Maxianov� v. Slovakia (no. 43168/11) Thursday 9 January 2014 Caryn v. Belgium (no. 43687/09) Gelaude v. Belgium (no. 43733/09) Lankester v. Belgium (no. 22283/10) Moreels v. Belgium (no. 43717/09) Oukili v. Belgium (no. 43663/09) Plaisier v. Belgium (no. 28785/11) Saadouni v. Belgium (no. 50658/09) Van Meroye v. Belgium (no. 330/09) The applicants are Ferdinand Van Meroye, a Belgian national who was born in 1962, Mohamed Oukili, a French national who was born in 1969, Jurgen Caryn, Guy Moreels and Davy Gelaude, Belgian nationals who were born in 1982, 1952 and 1977 respectively, Jamal Saadouni, a Moroccan national who was born in 1970, Stijn Plaisier, a Belgian national who was born in 1984, and Raimond Lankester, a Dutch national who was born in 1943. With the exception of Mr Saadouni, who is detained in Louvain Prison's psychiatric wing, they all are or have been detained in the psychiatric wing of Merksplas Prison. These cases concern the applicants' detention on the basis of court orders following acts of robbery, burglary, fraud and receiving stolen goods, assault, indecency, rape of a minor and/or homicide. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), all the applicants complain that they have been deprived of their liberty in inappropriate premises. Alleging a violation of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) or of Article 5 � 4 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention), taken together with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Van Meroye, Mr Oukili, Mr Gelaude, Mr Moreels and Mr Saadouni also submit that they have not had an effective remedy or guarantees of a fair hearing in order to draw attention to the inappropriate nature of their place of detention. Relying on Article 6 � 1, Mr Caryn and Mr Plaisier complain for their part about the dismissal of their application for legal aid. Finally, Mr Lankester complains that his detention in a prison psychiatric wing, where he has not received treatment or appropriate support for his mental and physical condition, and without any realistic prospect of rehabilitation, amounts to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Maravi Markes v. Croatia (no. 70923/11) The applicant, Dragica Karla Maravi Markes, is a Croatian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Zagreb. The case concerns the fairness of legal proceedings on Ms Maravi Markes's right to severance pay. Ms Maravi Markes was dismissed from her job as inspector of Zagreb Municipal Council from 31 March 1992. She was not provided with severance pay, and in July 2006 she requested payment from the Municipal Office. However, her request was rejected on the grounds that such an application should have been submitted within three years of her dismissal. Her appeal to the Chief of the Municipal Office was also dismissed in November 2006. Ms Maravi Markes brought an administrative action against this decision later that year. The Administrative Court asked the Municipal Office to comment on the matter, and the Office provided observations, raising some new arguments. However, though these were sent to the court, they were not forwarded to Ms Maravi Markes. In May 2009 the court dismissed her action, partly relying on the new arguments of the Municipal Office. Her subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible in March 2011. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Ms Maravi Markes complains that the proceedings before the Administrative Court were unfair, because it had based its decision on the observations of the Municipal Office without giving her a chance to comment on them. Viard v. France (no. 71658/10) The applicant, Gilbert Viard, is a French national who was born in 1947 and lives in Saint-Nazaire (France). A psychotherapist, he was placed under investigation for the sexual assault of four patients, and for abuse of a state of weakness in respect of one of them. He was placed under court supervision and barred from working as a psychotherapist and a psychoanalyst. By an order of 12 February 2010, the Court of Appeal of Rennes upheld an order by the investigating judge, dismissing the applicant's request for partial lifting of the court supervision. On 19 February 2010 Mr Viard appealed on points of law against the judgment of the investigation division, an appeal which was dismissed. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complains that the refusal to examine his appeal as being out of time infringed his right of access to a court. Budanov v. Russia (no. 66583/11) The applicant, Yuriy Budanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lived until his arrest in the town of Morshansk, Tambov Region (Russia). The case concerns the quality of the medical care given to him in the Russian prison system. Since at least the year 2000, Mr Budanov has suffered from a serious medical condition affecting his brain, which has led to symptoms including severe headaches, epileptic seizures, nausea and insomnia. In October 2002 he was arrested on suspicion of committing a murder in a drunken rage. He was convicted in February 2005 and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. Whilst serving his sentence, Mr Budanov has been provided with a wide and varying range of medical treatment by repeatedly changing teams of medical staff in different locations. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Budanov complains that the Russian authorities failed to provide him with adequate medical care as his condition was dealt with only by a prison paramedic and psychiatrist for much of his detention. In particular, he claims that though his condition requires significant medical expertise, the Russian authorities refused to admit him to hospital for neurosurgery. Gorelov v. Russia (no. 49072/11) The applicant, Viktor Gorelov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lived until his arrest in the village of Sushzavod, in the Novosibirsk Region (Russia). He is serving a sentence in a correctional colony in the town of Raisino, in the same region. The case concerns his claim that medical procedures in Russian prison facilities led to his infection with HIV, and that subsequent care provided by the Russian authorities was inadequate. After being arrested in August 2007, Mr Gorelov was convicted of aggravated robbery in January 2008 and aggravated fraud in November 2011. He received prison sentences of nine years and three months for the robbery, and three years for the fraud. Blood tests during his incarceration in 2009 and 2010 produced a negative result for HIV, but a test in February 2011 showed that Mr Gorelov had contracted the virus. He launched a civil action applying for compensation from the prison authorities, but this was rejected on procedural grounds. Mr Gorelov then requested criminal proceedings to be brought against staff at his detention centre. This was also initially rejected in June 2011, but inquiries were later re-opened, and the outcome of these is unknown. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Gorelov complains that he was infected with HIV due to the negligence of prison staff, and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. He also relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) to complain that the subsequent antiretroviral treatment to fight the HIV infection was extremely erratic and insufficient. In particular, he claims that he had to inflict injuries on himself in order to attract the authorities' attention so that they would commence treatment, and that he was not given an enriched diet for his condition. Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia (nos. 53036/08, 61785/08, 8594/09, 24708/09, 30327/09, 36965/09, 61258/09, 63608/09, 67322/09, 4334/10, 4345/10, 11873/10, 25515/10, 30592/10, 32797/10, 33944/10, 36141/10, 52446/10, 62244/10, and 66420/10) The applicants are 90 Russian nationals. Four of them live in Belgium; one of the applicants lives in Norway; the remaining applicants live in various districts of the Chechen Republic (Russia). The case concerns 20 alleged abductions in Chechnya between 2000 and 2006. The applicants are close relatives � wives, children, parents, sisters or brothers � of 36 men who disappeared in various districts of the Chechen Republic after allegedly being abducted from their homes, most of them at night during curfew hours, by groups of unidentified armed men. The applicants believe that the abductors were Russian federal servicemen since they were wearing camouflage uniforms and spoke unaccented Russian. Criminal investigations were opened in all 20 cases. They were subsequently suspended on several occasions and remain pending without having established who was responsible for the abductions or where the applicants' missing relatives had gone. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that their relatives disappeared after having been detained by Russian servicemen and that the authorities' ensuing investigations were ineffective. The applicants further complain of a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance and unlawful detention of their relatives. Lastly, the applicants complain that they did not have any effective remedy at national level in respect of their complaints, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Jevsnik v. Slovenia (no. 5747/10) The applicant in this case complains about the conditions of his detention in the semi-open and closed sections of Ljubljana Prison between July and December 2009. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home and the correspondence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Khaynatskyy and Others v. Ukraine (no. 12895/08 and 249 other applications) Kyselyova and Others v. Ukraine (no. 6155/05 and 22 other applications) Semyanisty and Others v. Ukraine (no. 7070/04) The applicants in these cases 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. Goulioti-Giannoudi and Others v. Greece (no. 33367/10) Katsigiannis and Others v. Greece (no. 35202/10) Tasiouli v. Greece (no. 36169/10) 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