003-4625435-5597825

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 002 (2014) 08.01.2014 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 judgments on Tuesday 14 January 2014 and 12 on Thursday 16 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 14 January 2014 Muslija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 32042/11) The applicant, Adnan Muslija, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1969 and lives in Sarajevo. The case concerns his claim that he was tried and punished twice for the same crime. In August 2004, a Minor Offences Court convicted Mr Muslija of affray, finding that at about 6.40pm on 12 February 2003 he entered the flat of his former wife, slapped her in the face and punched her in the body. He was ordered to pay a fine of 150 convertible marks (BAM). On 9 January 2008 a Municipal Court found Mr Muslija guilty of grievous bodily harm, finding that at about 7pm on 12 February 2003 he entered the flat of his former wife, grabbed her by the throat and hit her several times in the head, stomach and face. He was given a prison sentence, but this was later converted into a fine of BAM 9,000. Mr Muslija appealed to the Constitutional Court about his two convictions, but the court rejected his case in January 2011. Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Muslija complains that he was tried and punished twice in respect of the same incident. Lindstr�m and M�sseli v. Finland (no. 24630/10) The applicants, Mark Kristian Lindstr�m and Jouni Kristian M�sseli, are Finnish nationals who were born in 1976 and 1971 and live in �minnefors and Kotka (Finland) respectively. The case concerns overalls that they were temporarily forced to wear in prison when they were placed in isolation on suspicion of attempting to smuggle drugs into prison. Mr Lindstr�m and Mr M�sseli were both serving prison sentences in Riihim�ki Prison in 2004; Mr Lindstr�m had been convicted of drugs, theft and firearms offences and sentenced to two years and eight months imprisonment, while Mr M�sseli was serving a four year and three month sentence for attempted manslaughter. Between 9 and 16 May 2004, Mr M�sseli was put in isolation on returning to prison after leave. Later that year, Mr Lindstr�m was placed in isolation between 13 and 16 November following an unsupervised meeting with his family. While in isolation, they were obliged to wear overalls covering them from feet to neck, which were `sealed' by prison staff with plastic strips. They claim that, because prison guards were not able to escort them to a supervised toilet quickly enough, they were forced to defecate in their overalls; and that they were not allowed to change them afterwards, or to wash during the entirety of their isolation. After Mr Lindstr�m and Mr M�sseli reported the matter to the police, the Finnish authorities pressed charges against the prison director. However these were dismissed by the Finnish courts and the applicants' attempts to appeal the dismissal failed, their final application for leave to appeal being rejected in November 2009. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life) , Mr Lindstr�m and Mr M�sseli complain that the use of the overalls was degrading - particularly after they had been made dirty. They allege in particular that the use of overalls had no legal basis in Finnish law but was only a practice adopted by a few prisons. Ojala and Etukeno Oy v. Finland (no. 69939/10) Ruusunen v. Finland (no. 73579/10) The applicants in the first case are Kari Markus Ojala, a publisher, who is a Finnish national born in 1952 and living in Helsinki, and Etukeno Oy, a publishing company, which is a Finnish limited liability company based in Helsinki. The applicant in the second case is Susan Ruusunen, a Finnish national who was born in 1970 and who also lives in Helsinki. Ms Ruusunen dated the former Prime Minister of Finland for nine months whilst he was still in office, and the cases concern the criminal convictions of Ms Ruusunen and Mr Ojala for writing and publishing an autobiographical work which contained details of the relationship. The Prime Minister was in office between June 2003 and June 2010, and the book was published in February 2007. In October 2007 the Finnish authorities brought criminal charges against Mr Ojala and Ms Ruusunen for disclosing information about the Prime Minister's private life. The Prime Minister supported the charges against Mr Ojala and also lodged a claim for compensation against him, but he did not pursue charges or compensation claims against Ms Ruusunen. The book was withdrawn from sale in February 2008. In March 2008 the charges against both defendants were dismissed by a Finnish court, but this decision was overturned on appeal. In June 2010 the Finnish Supreme Court held that Mr Ojala and Ms Ruusunen were to be convicted of disseminating information violating personal privacy. The court held that, though much of the contents of the book were valid subjects of public debate, the descriptions of the couple's sex life and intimate moments were invasions of the Prime Minister's private life that he had not condoned, and which went beyond anything he had previously disclosed. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), all three applicants complain that their convictions violated their right to freedom of expression, Ms Ruusunen arguing in particular that she had only disclosed details of her own private life, even if they had also concerned the former Prime Minister. Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v. Romania (no. 47732/06) The applicants in this case are Rodica Neagu, Virgil Radu, Valentin Turigioiu, C. Gheorghe Lupan, Viorica Alda, Eugen Neagu, Maria Nicolau, Domnica Turigioiu and Valerica ugubete, (nine) Romanian nationals and the Association of Victims of Romanian Judges. The case concerns the Romanian authorities' refusal to register the Association of Victims of Romanian Judges in the country's Register of Associations and Foundations. The Bucharest District Court first refused to do this in November 2005, finding that registration would be unconstitutional. This was on the ground that the association's articles stated an intention to declare certain court rulings to be unfair; the court held that this would encourage non-compliance with court judgments and represent an attack on a State power. An appeal of the decision was dismissed in February 2006. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complain that the refusal of the Romanian authorities to carry out the registration infringed their right to freedom of association. Birgean v. Romania (no. 3626/10) The applicant, Sorin Birgean, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Timisoara (Romania). The case concerns the alleged use of violence by the police during his arrest. In September 2008 football team supporters organised a demonstration and blocked the traffic in a street. After warning them that force would be used imminently, the gendarmes charged the demonstrators, using tear gas. Mr Birgean complains that despite the fact that he did not take part in the demonstration and did not behave aggressively a gendarme grabbed him and, with the assistance of a colleague, violently twisted his arms behind his back with his truncheon. He alleges that he was then kept in a police vehicle for about thirty minutes before finally being released. Shortly afterwards, Mr Birgean lodged a complaint together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party seeking damages. His complaint was dismissed. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Birgean complains of the ill-treatment inflicted on him by the gendarmes. He also alleges that the investigation carried out by the Romanian authorities regarding that treatment was ineffective. Under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he submits further that this arrest was unlawful. Carpen v. Romania (no. 61258/10) The applicant, Nelu Carpen, is a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Bucharest. The case mainly concerns his conditions of detention. In 2010 Mr Carpen, who was then a judge, was placed in detention on suspicion of various acts of corruption involving lawyers and police officers. His detention was extended at regular intervals until November 2011, when he was released. Whilst the versions submitted by the Government and Mr Carpen differ, the latter alleges that he was detained in cramped, run-down and poorly ventilated cells in the presence of dangerous inmates. On the basis of the transcript of a recording of some of his telephone conversations, Mr Carpen was sentenced in 2012 to six years' imprisonment and stripped of some of his civil rights for accepting bribes, abusing his office and forging documents. An appeal by Mr Carpen against that judgment is still pending before the High Court of Cassation and Justice. In the meantime, in 2010, the Romanian courts had dismissed a complaint he had lodged about being exposed to the public wearing handcuffs during journeys between prison and the court hearing room. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Carpen complains of poor conditions of detention and of being exposed to the public in handcuffs. He also complains of a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the interception of his telephone conversations. Cipleu v. Romania (no. 36470/08) The applicant, Dnu Cipleu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Timioara (Romania). The case concerns the fairness of Mr Cipleu's conviction for failure to stop after a drink-driving accident. The accident occurred on the evening of 17 November 2005 when Mr Cipleu's family car hit a pedestrian crossing the street. The driver fled the scene of the accident. When the police arrived at his home that night Mr Cipleu stated that he had been driving the car, which he confirmed in a written statement later that evening. A medical report later showed that he had been drinking. However, in December 2005 Mr Cipleu and his wife both informed the authorities that she had been driving the vehicle rather than him. The trial court found this evidence unconvincing; it convicted Mr Cipleu as charged in June 2007, and imposed a three-year suspended sentence. Mr Cipleu was later acquitted on appeal, but his acquittal was then quashed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The High Court chose to re-examine the evidence in the file, and in February 2008 upheld Mr Cipleu's original conviction. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Cipleu complains that, though the High Court re-tried the case and imposed a conviction, it did not hear any evidence from him. Lavric v. Romania (no. 22231/05) The applicant, Elena Lavric, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Piatra-Neam (Romania). At the time of the events she was a prosecutor. The case concerns defamation proceedings Ms Lavric brought against a journalist for two articles in a national newspaper reporting on her professional conduct in two sets of criminal proceedings initiated by her. Following a complaint by the defendant in those proceedings, who had been convicted in one case, disciplinary proceedings were brought against Ms Lavric in February 2002. They were discontinued in March 2002 following a decision of the Supreme Court. The articles, published in February 2002 while the disciplinary proceedings were pending, alleged in particular that she had falsified the indictments in the criminal proceedings in question. The first-instance court in the defamation proceedings brought by Ms Lavric found the journalist guilty of defamation and sentenced him to pay a fine, but he was acquitted on appeal in December 2004. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Lavric complains that her right to protection of her reputation was breached by the newspaper articles and the dismissal of her defamation complaint. Mateescu v. Romania (no. 1944/10) The applicant, Mircea Mateescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest. He is a medical doctor with more than 18 years of experience and currently has his own practice as a general practitioner. In 2006, he graduated from law school and subsequently passed the bar exam. His request to be allowed to pursue a two-year legal traineeship, the condition for obtaining a licence to practice as a lawyer, while continuing to work as a medical practitioner in his own practice, was rejected by the Bucharest Bar in March 2008. It held in particular that he was obliged to choose between the two professions. His appeal against the decision was ultimately dismissed by the High Court in June 2009. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Mateescu complains that the refusal to let him practice as a lawyer and as a doctor simultaneously lacked a legal basis. S�ncrian v. Romania (no. 71723/10) The applicant, Maria S�ncrian, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Cluj-Napoca. In November 2006 she was sentenced, in her absence, to three and a half years' imprisonment for fraud. She was arrested in Italy in July 2008 and extradited to Romania, where she was placed in detention. In September 2008 Ms S�ncrian requested that the proceedings resulting in her conviction be reopened. In November 2009 the County Court ordered the reopening of the proceedings, noting that the applicant's defence rights had been infringed during the proceedings conducted in her absence. Ms S�ncrian was released in March 2010. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains of her conditions of detention and the lack of medical assistance. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), she complains that her detention was unlawful following the judgment of November 2009 ordering the reopening of the criminal proceeding against her. Relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily), she complains of the excessive length of the proceedings for her release. Lastly, relying on Article 5 � 5, Ms S�ncrian submits that she was not entitled to compensation for the alleged violations of her rights guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention. Totolici v. Romania (no. 26576/10) The applicant, Mihai Totolici, is a Romanian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Braov. As an officer in the criminal investigation department of Braov, he was accused in November 2008 of accepting bribes by taking money in exchange for persuading the victim of a theft to withdraw the complaint. He was placed in pre-trial detention until October 2009, when he was sentenced to prison for accepting bribes and inciting another to make false statements. Mr Totolici was imprisoned successively in Codlea Prison, Rahova Prison, Jilava prison hospital, Jilava Prison and Miercurea Ciuc Prison. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Totolici complains of the material conditions of detention in Jilava and Codlea Prisons and in Jilava prison hospital. He also complains that he was placed in pre-trial detention in cells housing dangerous inmates who had received final convictions. Schvarc v. Slovakia (no. 64528/09) The applicant, Branislav Schvarc, is a Slovak national who was born in 1978 and habitually resides in Krupina (Slovakia). In May 2009 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of drug-related offences. His request for release, lodged on 22 July 2009, was eventually dismissed by a regional court in a decision served on him on 30 October 2009. In March 2010, the Slovak Constitutional Court found a violation of Mr Schvarc' right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention and awarded him 500 euros in compensation. Relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Mr Schvarc complains that the lawfulness of his detention was not speedily reviewed and that the amount of compensation awarded to him in that respect was inadequate. Kasap and Others v. Turkey (no. 8656/10) The applicants, Resmiye Kasap, Selma Canpolat, Selda Pan, Vildan Pan and eng�l Akg�nl�, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1958, 1974, 1979, 1982 and 1974 respectively and live in Adana and Mersin (Turkey). They are the mother and sisters of Murat Kasap, who died on 29 September 2006 after being shot by a police officer when trying to escape the police who had stopped him while he was riding a motorcycle. In June 2009, the police officer was found guilty by a criminal court of having caused the death by negligence. The criminal court sentenced the officer to one year and eight months' imprisonment but then suspended the pronouncement of the judgment. The applicants complain that the suspension of pronouncement of the judgment was in breach of Article 2 (right to life). Relying on Article 2 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they also complain that the investigation into the shooting had serious shortcomings. Yianopulu v. Turkey (no. 12030/03) The applicant, Maria Yianopulu, is a Greek national who was born in 1924 and lived in Palea Apidavros (Greece). The case concerns the refusal of the Turkish courts to recognise Ms Yianopulu as heir to land situated in Turkey. In 1982, following the death of her mother, Ms Yianopulu was issued with an inheritance certificate by the Turkish courts. In 1984 she asked for the administrative order imposed on a plot of land that had belonged to her mother and was situated in Turkey to be lifted. Her request was dismissed by a judgment of 1985, which was upheld by the Court of Cassation in 1986. Following a judgment of 1995, title to the land was transferred to the Treasury. An appeal on points of law by Ms Yianopulu was dismissed in 1997. In 1999 she lodged a second action for a new inheritance certificate. In April 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance judgment upholding the applicant's request. In a judgment of 2001, delivered following the Court of Cassation's judgment, the Turkish courts dismissed Ms Yianopulu's application. In 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment and dismissed a request for rectification of the judgment of 2000. In the meantime Ms Yianopulu had sought to have the Treasury's property title set aside and the land registered under her name in the land register. Her application was dismissed in 2002. Ms Yianopulu died in March 2009. In July 2010 the Greek courts validated her will. In that will she had made a specific legacy of the land to Ms Ciropulos, who expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court in 2010. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Yianopulu complains of the refusal by the Turkish courts to recognise her capacity as her mother's heir. Jones, Mitchell and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 34356/06 and 40528/06) The applicants, Ronald Grant Jones, Alexander Hutton Johnston Mitchell, William James Sampson, and Leslie Walker, are British nationals who were born in 1953, 1955, 1959 and 1946 respectively. The case concerns the refusal of the UK courts to allow the applicants to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or its officials for compensation for acts of torture allegedly carried out in Saudi Arabia. The applicants all claim that they were arrested in Riyadh in 2000 or 2001, and subjected to beatings, sleep deprivation and anal rape as well as being given mind-altering drugs. In 2002 Mr Jones brought proceedings against Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Interior and the man who he alleges tortured him, claiming damages for torture. His application was struck out in February 2003 on the grounds that Saudi Arabia and its officials were entitled to State immunity. A claim by Mr Mitchell, Mr Sampson and Mr Walker against the four individuals that they considered to be responsible for their torture was struck out for the same reason in February 2004. The applicants appealed the decisions, and their cases were joined. In October 2004 the UK Court of Appeal unanimously found that, though Mr Jones could not sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia itself, the applicants could pursue their cases against the individual named defendants. However, this decision was overturned by the House of Lords in June 2006, which held that the applicants could not pursue any of their claims on the ground that all of the defendants were entitled to State immunity. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (access to court), the applicants complain that the UK courts' granting of immunity to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the individual defendants in their cases was a disproportionate violation of their right to access to court. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Montalto and Others v. Italy (no. 39180/08 and 16 other applications) These cases concern a transfer of local government staff to the civil service. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complain of an intervention by the legislature while proceedings were pending, which, in their submission, infringed their right to a fair hearing. As their seniority of employment with the original local authorities was not recognised, they submit that the intervention by the legislature was motivated purely by the financial interest of the authorities and did not suffice to qualify as a compelling ground of general interest. Pascucci v. Italy (no. 1537/04) In this case the applicant's mother owned building land in Bernalda. By a decree passed by the Region in February 1981, the land was declared to be situated in a public-interest area and the municipal council was given permission to occupy part of the land � which was subsequently extended � to build social housing. The applicant complains that she was deprived of her land contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Premovi v. Serbia (no. 61920/09) This case concerns the applicant's complaints about the non-enforcement of final domestic decisions rendered in his favour against a socially/State-owned company. The applicant relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Thursday 16 January 2014 Brleti v. Croatia (no. 42009/10) The applicant, Ana Brleti, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Veliki Grevac (Croatia). The case concerns two sets of proceedings related to salary arrears owed to Ms Brleti's husband (who died in 2000). In May 2002 the Croatian courts found that Ms Brleti's deceased husband had not received his full salary for the period from May 1998 to January 1999 and ordered the company he had worked for to pay his wife 24,540.81 Croatian Kunas (the equivalent at the time of 3,178.46 euros). The judgment became final in September 2002 and the company paid the debt. However, three years later the company brought civil proceedings against Ms Brleti alleging that the courts had miscalculated the portion of the salary that they had to pay which resulted in them paying the same debt twice. In February 2008 the courts found for the company and ordered the applicant to pay back to her husband's employer the sum awarded to her in the first set of proceedings. Her appeal as well as her constitutional complaint were then subsequently dismissed. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms Brleti complains that the national authorities allowed the company to bring a new set of proceedings against her concerning a matter which had already been adjudicated, and had thus breached the res judicata principle. Tierbefreier e.V. v. Germany (no. 45192/09) The applicant, Tierbefreier e.V., is an association based in Germany which militates for animal rights. The case concerns an injunction preventing the association from disseminating film footage which was secretly taken, in 2003, by a journalist on the premises of a company performing experiments on animals for the pharmaceutical industry. The journalist used his footage to produce documentary films of different length which made critical comments, in particular about the way animals were treated on the company's premises. His films and excerpts of the footage were shown by several TV networks and the applicant association made a film � of about 20 minutes with the title "Poisoning for profit" � available on its website. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the association complains that the German courts, in an injunction eventually upheld by the Federal Constitutional Court in January 2009, ordered it to desist from publicly showing the footage. The association further relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 10, complaining that it was discriminated against in comparison with the journalist, who had merely been prohibited from disseminating specific films, but had been allowed to continue the publication of the footage in other contexts. Lillo-Stenberg and S�ther v. Norway (no. 13258/09) The applicants, Lars Lillo-Stenberg and Andrine S�ther, are Norwegian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1964 respectively and live in Oslo. The case concerns a well-known musician and actress in Norway who complain about press invasion of their privacy during their wedding on 20 August 2005. The wedding took place outdoors on an islet in the Oslo fjord accessible to the public. Without the couple's consent, the weekly magazine Se og Hor subsequently published a two-page article about the wedding accompanied by six photographs. They showed the bride, her father and bridesmaids arriving at the islet in a small rowing boat, the bride being brought to the groom by her father and the bride and groom returning to the mainland on foot by crossing the lake on stepping stones. The couple brought compensation proceedings against the magazine and won before the first two instances. However, on 2 September 2008 the Supreme Court found against the couple. It considered that they had married in a place which was accessible to the public and that the article was neither offensive nor negative. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain that their right to respect for private life was breached by the Supreme Court's judgment of 2 September 2008. Abdulayeva v. Russia (no. 38552/05), Kushtova and Others v. Russia (no. 21885/07), Arkhestov and Others v. Russia (no. 22089/07) and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia (no. 7988/09) All four cases concern the Russian authorities' refusal to hand over to their relatives the bodies of presumed terrorists, who were killed in Russia's North Caucasus region. The cases Arkhestov and Others v. Russia and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia also concern the conditions in which the bodies of the applicants' deceased relatives were stored during the identification process. The applicant in the first case, Tamara Abdulayeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Goyty of the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic (Russia). She is the mother of Sultan Shotovich Vagapov, who was killed during a military operation in the Itum-Kalinskiy District of Chechnya in January 2005. The authorities informed Ms Abdulayeva of her son's death, showing her a copy of his identity card and a photo of a dead body, and told her that he was a rebel whose body would be kept at a military base. Her subsequent requests to see the body and to have it returned to her were refused by the authorities, relying on the Russian legislation on the fight against terrorism. The applicants in the case Kushtova and Others v. Russia are seven Russian nationals who live in the village of Troitskaya, the Republic of Ingushetiya (Russia). They are the mother and the siblings of Isa Kushtov, who died in a military operation carried out by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) on 10 July 2006 in the village of Ekazhevo in the Nazran District of the Ingushetia Republic. According to FSB statements, several "guerilla fighters" were killed during the operation, among them Isa Kushtov. Four of the applicants, who went to the Nazran morgue on the following day, identified his body, but his mother's request to have her son's body returned to her for burial in accordance with the traditions of her family members, who are practicing Muslims, was refused. The seven applicants in the case Arkhestov and Others v. Russia and one of the two applicants in the case Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia live in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya and the second applicant in the latter case lives in the Stavropol Region (both in Russia). All applicants are Russian nationals and relatives of insurgents who were killed in October 2005 during an attack on lawenforcement agencies in Nalchik, the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya, and the ensuing fight between Government forces and the insurgents. The applicants requested various officials, including the prosecutors in a criminal investigation that had been opened into the attack, to return their relatives bodies to them for burial, but their requests either remained unanswered or were eventually refused. The bodies of most of the people killed during the attack and the fights were cremated in June 2006. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants in the cases Arkhestov and Others v. Russia and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia complain about the conditions in which the bodies of their deceased relatives were stored for identification in the town morgue. They state in particular that the bodies were chaotically piled on top of one another. Five of the applicants in the case Arkhestov and Others v. Russia also complain that they were not able to adequately participate in the identification process. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants in all four cases complain about the authorities' refusal to hand over the bodies of their deceased relatives. All applicants further rely, in particular, on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 8, complaining that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of that decision, and on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8, complaining that the authorities' refusal to return to them their relatives' bodies under the terrorism legislation was discriminatory, as this legislation was aimed exclusively at followers of the Islamic faith. Akhmatov and Others v. Russia (nos. 38828/10, 2543/11, 2650/11, 2685/11, 7409/11, 14321/11 and 26277/11) The applicants are 27 Russian nationals who live in various districts of the Chechen Republic (Russia). The case concerns seven alleged abductions in Chechnya between 2001 and 2005. The applicants are close relatives � wives, children, parents, sisters or brothers � of 14 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 armed men. The applicants believe that the abductors were Russian federal servicemen. Criminal investigations were opened in all seven 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 State officials 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). Pelipenko v. Russia (no. 69037/10) Just Satisfaction The applicants, Svetlana and Aleksandr Pelipenko, mother and son, are Russian nationals who were born in 1963 and 1985 respectively and live in the town of Anapa, Krasnodar Region (Russia). Ms Pelipenko has worked at a former State-owned seaside health resort in Anapa since 1989. The case concerned their eviction in 2010 from two rooms in a former administrative building for staff members of the resort � where they had resided for 20 years � following the transfer of the property into private hands. They complained in particular about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in their favour of November 2001, in which the courts had dismissed the action seeking their eviction, finding it established that the rooms had been their permanent place of residence. In its principal judgment of 2 October 2012 the Court found violations of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home) and reserved the question of just satisfaction (Article 41). This question will be dealt with in the Court's judgment of 16 January 2014. Shchiborshch and Kuzmina v. Russia (no. 5269/08) The applicants, Viktor Shchiborshch and Valentina Kuzmina, are Russian nationals who were born in 1939 and 1944 respectively and live in Dubna, the Moscow Region. They are the parents of Kirill Shchiborshch, who suffered from a psychiatric disorder and who died in hospital on 7 July 2006, aged 37, after having been severely wounded when resisting the police who tried with force to take him to a psychiatric hospital. His father had obtained a referral for his son's in-patient treatment and had asked the police for assistance with his placement in the hospital as he was in a delirious state. On the day of Kirill Shchiborshch' death the authorities ordered a forensic examination of his body and a criminal investigation was opened on 3 August 2006. It was closed in April 2010 on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to hold the police responsible for his death. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that the police were responsible for their son's death, in particular because they had not been trained for the situation, and that the investigation into the death had been ineffective. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they further complained that they suffered from mental distress as a result of witnessing the cruel treatment of their son and the authorities' failure to conduct an effective investigation. Finally, they complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective remedy in respect of their complaints. F.G. v. Sweden (no. 43611/11) The applicant, F.G., is an Iranian national who was born in 1962 and is currently in Sweden. He applied for asylum and a residence permit in Sweden in November 2009, stating in particular that he had been active in the opposition movement, that he had been arrested on two occasions, and that he had converted to Christianity after coming to Sweden. He therefore risked persecution if returning to Iran. He also submitted a summons to the Revolutionary Court in Iran ordering him to present himself at Evin prison in Teheran in November 2009. The Migration Board rejected his request in a decision eventually upheld by the migration courts in June 2011. The courts found in particular that the summons to the Revolutionary Court could not in itself substantiate a need for protection, and they doubted that F.G.'s political activities had been of such a nature and extent to lead to a risk of persecution. F.G.'s request to stay the enforcement of his expulsion to Iran was also rejected by the authorities in a decision eventually upheld in November 2011. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), F.G. complains that if expelled to Iran he would be at a risk of being punished or sentenced to death. Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine (no. 6318/03) The applicant, Valeriy Fuklev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Nova Kakhovka (Ukraine). His wife died from peritonitis and sepsis on 18 July 2001, nine days after a gynecological operation to which she had given her consent. A criminal investigation was opened in September 2001. It was eventually discontinued in October 2007 on the grounds that no direct link could be established between possible shortcomings in the treatment she had received and her death. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Fuklev complains that the investigation into his wife's death was ineffective. He further complains about an unrelated incident in October 2003, when a squad of the tax police visited his shop in order to carry out an unscheduled inspection. Mr Fuklev alleges that during that visit he was injured by the tax officers in a scuffle and that there had been no effective investigation into the incident. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13. 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. 10