003-4660402-5646911

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 032 (2014) 05.02.2014 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21 judgments on Tuesday 11 February 2014 and four judgments on 13 February 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 11 February 2014 G�bor Nagy v. Hungary (application no. 33529/11) The applicant, G�bor Nagy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1990 and lives in Budapest. He was placed in detention on remand on 6 December 2010 on charges of multiple thefts by breaking into three cars. His appeals against the detention order and against the prolongation of his detention were repeatedly dismissed until he was released on 13 April 2011. Relying in substance on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security � entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Nagy complains that his detention was unjustified and its prolongation undue, since the courts failed to demonstrate its necessity and because his lawyer was not present at the first hearing concerning his detention on remand. Mr Nagy also complains that the proceedings by which he sought to challenge his detention were in breach of Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of one's detention decided speedily by a court), as his application for release was adjudged without the requisite oral, adversarial procedure. Contrada N� 2 v. Italy (no 7509/08) The applicant, Bruno Contrada, is an Italian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Palermo. The case concerns the dismissal of his requests to have his sentence suspended by the Italian courts despite his advanced age and his state of health. Mr Contrada was sentenced in 1996 to ten years' imprisonment for aiding and abetting a mafia-type organisation (cosa nostra). At the end of lengthy proceedings following which his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Cassation in 2008, he unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a retrial. Between 2007 and 2008 Mr Contrada lodged four applications with the Italian courts for release or suspension of his sentence on health grounds (he was suffering from a number of disorders of his eyes, heart disease and depression). Those applications were systematically rejected at first instance and subsequently on appeal before the court responsible for the execution of sentences. Mr Contrada appealed on points of law but his appeal was dismissed twice: in May and then in August 2008. In the meantime, in July 2008, the courts had once again dismissed his application for suspension of his sentence but authorised his detention at his sister's home for six months. After having his appeal dismissed by the Court of Cassation in 2009, Mr Contrada was released in October 2012 after serving his sentence. He alleges that, on account of his age and state of health, the repeated rejections of his applications for release or suspension of his sentence amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Csnieks v. Latvia (no. 9278/06) The applicant, Valters Csnieks, is a Latvian national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving his sentence in Matsa Prison. The case concerns his conviction of murder on the basis of selfincriminating statements allegedly made under duress. In March 2002 Mr Csnieks was asked to come to a police station, where police officers accused him of a murder and used physical force against him, as a result of which he made a written confession to having committed the murder in question. Together with three other people he was charged with murder. In a first-instance judgment of October 2004 he was acquitted, the court holding that his statements of March 2002 had been made under duress and could not be used to convict him. However, in April 2005 the Supreme Court overturned that judgment and found him guilty in a judgment eventually upheld in August 2005. He was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Csnieks complains that his conviction was unfair as evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) was used at his trial. Sapozkovs v. Latvia (no. 8550/03) The applicant, Aleksandrs Sapozkovs, is a "permanently resident non-citizen" of the Republic of Latvia, who was born in 1959 and is currently serving a prison sentence for a number of offences, including murder, in Jelgava Prison. The case concerns the allegedly excessive use of force used against him by prison officers. Mr Sapozkovs submits that on 1 July 2009, when he was about to be transferred from Daugavgrva Prison to Jelgava Prison, a dispute ensued between him and three prison officers who then brutally beat him until he fell to the ground unconscious. A prison doctor subsequently recorded a number of haematoma on his body. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Sapozkovs complains that excessive force was used against him and that the subsequent investigation of the incident was ineffective. Vella v. Malta (no. 69122/10) The applicant, Francis Vella, is a Maltese national who was born in 1939 and lives in Paola (Malta). The case concerns an alleged breach of his right to be presumed innocent. Mr Vella is a collector of antiques and was charged with multiple counts of theft and/or receiving stolen goods. In October 1992 the first-instance court convicted him of a series of offences of receiving stolen goods, while at the same time acquitting him of the theft of those goods. In October 2001 the criminal appeal court reversed part of the judgment and acquitted him also of most of the charges of receiving stolen goods. His sentence was reduced from five years' imprisonment to a two-year suspended sentence. While the criminal appeal proceedings against Mr Vella were pending, a number of persons alleging to be the owners of the goods in question brought civil proceedings to vindicate their ownership of the items. In three separate judgments delivered in 2004, the appeal court in the civil proceedings found that Mr Vella was not the owner of certain items. He was thus liable to pay damages for the destruction of some of those items. Relying on Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence), Mr Vella complains that the appeal court's civil judgments, in particular statements to the effect that he was responsible for receiving certain stolen goods � despite the fact that he had been acquitted of most of the charges in respect of the stolen goods � were incompatible with his right to be presumed innocent. Sandu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 16463/08) The applicant, Victor Sandu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1958 and lives in Chiinu. He was the manager of a State-owned veterinary clinic. The case concerns Mr Sandu's conviction of soliciting and accepting a bribe from a man, C., in exchange for a vaccination document to allow C.'s dog to travel abroad, without even having seen the dog. In convicting Mr Sandu in April 2007, the criminal court relied on C.'s testimony and on the fact that money which had been previously marked by the police and given to C. had been found in Mr Sandu's pocket. He was ordered to pay a fine and prohibited from working as a veterinary surgeon for two years. The judgment was eventually upheld in October 2007. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Sandu complains that he was a victim of entrapment, as he was incited to commit the crime of accepting a bribe. Vaslca v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 69527/10) The applicant, Elena Vaslca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1965 and lives in Chiinu. The case concerns Ms Vaslca's complaint that the Moldovan authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the death of her 17-year old son, V., on 8 March 2008 when he fell from a balcony in an apartment block. She contests in particular the investigating authorities' conclusion, some two and a half years' later, that her son had committed suicide. She alleges that the authorities failed to examine evidence or question witnesses which would have led them to looking at the possibility that her son had either been pushed or forced to jump from the balcony. Ms Vaslca relies on Article 2 (right to life). Ziaunys v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 42416/06) The applicant, Gintaras Ziaunys, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Vilnius. The case concerns the seizure of old banknotes which Mr Ziaunys had bought for a numismatic company. Having signed a contract with the Educational Coin Company, a numismatic company in the USA, under which he was to deliver 8,500 kg of banknotes issued by the bank of the "Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria" � which were no longer in circulation and had been replaced by new banknotes � he bought more than 13,000,000 roubles of the old banknotes in January 2001. When he submitted them to the Moldovan customs, asking for permission to ship them to the USA, the banknotes were transferred to the tax authorities and have not yet been returned to Mr Ziaunys. He unsuccessfully brought court proceedings seeking to have the banknotes returned. By a final decision of May 2006, the Supreme Court rejected his claims. Mr Ziaunys complains that he was unlawfully deprived of his property, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property). Grmad v. Romania (no 14974/09) The applicant, Liviu Grmad, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bogata (Romania). The case concerns ill-treatment inflicted on Mr Grmad by a police officer during the arrest of a third person. In May 2005, while a police officer, A.C., was chasing a young man who had attempted to avoid being breathalysed, the latter hid in the house belonging to Mr Grmad and his father, who attempted to intervene. A.C., who thought he was being threatened, shot and injured Mr Grmad with a bullet in the thigh. Three days later Mr Grmad lodged a complaint against A.C. for attempted murder. During the proceedings the courts dismissed a number of applications lodged by Mr Grmad, including for a reconstruction of events or a ballistics report. A.C was acquitted by a judgment of February 2008. The courts considered, however, that he had reacted with excessive force and partially upheld M. Grmad's claim for damages. The conviction was upheld on appeal, but A.C. was also ordered to pay Mr Grmad the equivalent of approximately 1,000 US dollars in respect of pecuniary damage. The Court of Appeal's judgment was upheld at final instance by the High Court of Cassation and Justice in October 2008. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr Grmad complains of ill-treatment inflicted by A.C. and of the lack of an effective investigation in that regard. Karoly v. Romania (no. 33682/05) The applicant, Yozsef Karoly, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and was detained at the time of lodging his application in Jilava Prison in Bucharest. He was arrested in October 2003 on suspicion of aggravated homicide and robbery. He was convicted and sentenced to 23 years' imprisonment in September 2005 and this was upheld in a final judgment of May 2006. Relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security � entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), Mr Karoly complains about the repeated extensions of his related pre-trial detention for a period of almost two years, without the national courts taking into consideration his arguments for release such as the fact that he had a clean criminal record and that there was no proof that, if set free, he would be a danger to the public. Mihil v. Romania (no. 66630/10) Nicolae Augustin Rdulescu v. Romania (no. 17295/10) Both cases concern detention conditions in Jilava Prison near Bucharest. The applicants are Daniel Claudiu Mihil and Nicolae Augustin Rdulescu, Romanian nationals who were born in 1973 and 1966, respectively. Mr Mihil lives in Iai and Mr Rdulescu lives in Bucharest. Both applicants complain about the conditions of their detention in Jilava Prison following their convictions of battery and threatening behavior (Mr Mihil) and fraud (Mr Rdulescu). Mr Mihil served his sentence from January 2010 to March 2011 and Mr Rdulescu from September 2008 to November 2010. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), both applicants complain in particular about overcrowding and lack of hygiene. Masirevi v. Serbia (no. 30671/08) The applicant, Milan Masirevi, is a Serbian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Sombor. He is a practicing lawyer. In July 1998 he filed a civil claim seeking payment of fees from a private insurance company for services rendered. The case concerns the Supreme Court's ensuing dismissal of Mr Masirevi's appeal on points of law on the ground that he was not entitled to lodge it on his own behalf as the plaintiff, without being represented by an attorney, even though he is himself an attorney. Relying on Article 6 (right of access to court), Mr Masirevi complains that the Supreme Court's strict interpretation of the national law's requirement of mandatory legal representation precluded his case from being examined by the highest court on the merits. Tesi v. Serbia (nos. 4678/07 and 50591/12) The applicant, Sofija Tesi, is a Serbian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Ledinac. The case concerns defamation proceedings against her. In April 2005 Ms Tesi was convicted of criminal defamation and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended, following the publication of an article in a daily newspaper in December 2002 which was based on information she had provided and which reported that her former lawyer had deliberately failed to represent her properly in a civil case. At the same time, the sentencing court convicted the journalist who had written the article, finding that the assertions in the article lacked any factual basis and only aimed at harming the lawyer's reputation. The appeal proceedings brought by Ms Tesi are still pending before the Constitutional Court. In parallel civil proceedings brought against her by her former lawyer, Ms Tesi was ordered to pay compensation of approximately 4,900 euros (EUR) by a judgment of January 2007, which was eventually upheld by the Constitutional Court in December 2011. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Ms Tesi complains of her criminal conviction, of the defamation judgment in the civil proceedings, and of the way the compensation payment was enforced. She states in particular that the enforcement caused her extreme financial hardship, as after deduction of the monthly installments to pay the compensation, she was left with only one third of her pension amounting to approximately EUR 60. Furthermore, relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), she complains about the fairness and length of the criminal and civil defamation proceedings. She also alleges interference by the State with her correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights, in breach of Article 34 (individual applications). Franek v. Slovakia (no. 14090/10) The applicant, J�n Franek, is a Slovak national who was born in 1964 and lives in Liptovsk� Mikul�s. He is an enforcement officer. The case concerns bankruptcy proceedings against a company whose movable property Mr Franek had previously seized in the context of enforcement proceedings against that company. On application by the administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr Franek was ordered by a court in October 2003 and, after a remittal of the case, again in March 2006, to transfer the property to the administrator. Mr Franek appealed � stating in particular that he had been unable to attend a relevant hearing and that he had no standing in the case as a defendant � but the judgment was upheld and his constitutional complaint was eventually dismissed in September 2009. Mr Franek complains that his rights under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) were breached, in particular because the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint as having been lodged out of time. He also complains that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of that complaint, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). G�lizar Tuncer G�nes v. Turkey (no 32696/10) The applicant, G�lizar Tuncer G�nes, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. In the present case Ms G�nes complains mainly of assault by police officers during her arrest. In 2000, while she was taking part in a demonstration, Ms G�nes was arrested and then taken into police custody. After the incident she was found to have sustained several bruises and was accordingly declared unfit for work for five days. In 2004, following a complaint lodged by Ms G�nes, three police officers were convicted of employing force in excess of the limits authorised in the course of their duties. In 2006 the Court of Cassation set aside the conviction part of the judgment on account of the entry into force of the New Criminal Code. In 2007 the three police officers concerned were convicted again on the same grounds. Finding that the statutory limitation period had expired, however, the Court of Cassation declared the proceedings statute-barred in 2009. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), Ms G�nes submits that her placement in police custody was arbitrary and unlawful. On the basis of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she also complains of assault by police officers and of the ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings instituted against them. Nural Vural v. Turkey (no 16009/04) Revision The applicant, Nural Vural, was a Turkish national born in 1935. He died in 2010. The case concerns an application by his heirs for revision of a judgment of the European Court of May 2010 in which it had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and awarded Mr Vural 131,449 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage. As the applicant has died, his heirs request the Court to revise the judgment in question, under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, and to give them the sum he had been awarded. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Burczy v. Poland (no. 43129/04) Czy v. Poland (no. 21796/05) Hajduk v. Poland (no. 6210/05) These three cases concern in particular the applicants' complaints about the reopening of social security proceedings with regard to their right to an early-retirement pension, which resulted in the quashing of final decisions granting them the right to a pension. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). iray v. Turkey (no. 29724/08) The case mainly concerns the applicant's complaint of having had no access to a lawyer while in police custody. He relies in particular on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial). Thursday 13 February 2014 Petrina v. Croatia (no. 31379/10) The applicant, Stipe Petrina, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Primosten. The case concerns Mr Petrina's complaint about the unfairness of his conviction of attempted grievous bodily harm. He was indicted of the charges in March 2003, found guilty in December 2007 and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, suspended for one year. This first-instance judgment was upheld in October 2008 and his constitutional complaint was dismissed in April 2010. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Petrina complains that his conviction was unfair since he had not had an opportunity to appear at the hearings on his case due to illhealth. Moreover, he complains that the hearing of December 2007 at which he was convicted was held in the absence of his lawyer. The Government contend that Mr Petrina had every opportunity to attend hearings and considered that he was attempting to the delay the proceedings in order that his prosecution become time-barred. Tali v. Estonia (no. 66393/10) The applicant, Andrei Tali, is an Estonian national who was born in 1977 and is serving a life sentence in prison. The case concerns his complaint about having been ill-treated by prison officers when he refused to comply with their orders on 3 and 4 July 2009. According to Mr Tali, several prison guards used disproportionate force in order to take him to a punishment cell. He submits in particular that they pressed his neck so strongly that he lost his breath and that they broke his rib. On the following day, when Mr Tali refused to hand over his mattress to the prison guards, one guard sprayed pepper spray in his face without prior warning and subsequently hit him on the back after he had been handcuffed. Mr Tali was then strapped to a restraint bed for three and a half hours. In the ensuing criminal proceedings, the guards confirmed that one of them had used pepper spray against Mr Tali and had hit him with a telescopic baton in order to overcome his resistance. The criminal investigation into his allegations of abuse of authority by prison guards was discontinued in June 2010, that decision being eventually upheld in October 2010. Mr Tali complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment amounting to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he further complains that he did not have an effective remedy at national level in respect of that complaint. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Shchukin and Others v. Ukraine (no. 59834/09 and 249 other applications) Vasilyev and Others v. Ukraine (no. 29266/08 and 248 other applications) The above cases concern the applicants' complaints about the lengthy non-enforcement of decisions given in their favour with regard to labour disputes and the lack of effective remedies at national level in respect of those complaints. They rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). 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