003-4726600-5742205

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 096 (2014) 09.04.2014 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 judgments on Tuesday 15 April 2014 and 12 on Thursday 17 April 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 15 April 2014 Stefanetti and Others v. Italy (applications nos. 21838/10, 21849/10, 21852/10, 21822/10, 21860/10, 21863/10, 21869/10, and 21870/10) The applicants, Emilio Stefanetti, Giovacchino Rodelli, Roberto Negri, Luigi Della Nave, Gottardo Del Maffeo, Rinaldo Cotta, Fausto Curti, and Luigi Andreola, are Italian nationals who were born in 1940, 1942, 1937, 1933, 1938, 1944, 1942, and 1944, respectively, and live in the province of Sondrio, the Lombardy region (Italy). The case concerns the calculation of the applicants' old-age pensions. In 1982 Italy changed its pension system from a contributory one to an earnings- or remunerationbased one. Following that change the applicants, who had worked in Switzerland and eventually moved to Italy (where they transferred their contributions paid in Switzerland), started receiving lower pensions as a result of a specific interpretation being used by the Italian welfare entity (INPS) concerning the calculation of pensions. The applicants brought judicial proceedings challenging this interpretation. While those proceedings were still pending Law no. 296/2006 was enacted confirming the interpretation used by the INPS. Their claims were therefore rejected in 2009 and 2010 in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants allege that the legislative intervention � namely the enactment of Law no. 296/2006 � while their proceedings were still pending before the Italian courts breached their right to a fair trial. They also allege under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention that, according to their calculations, they have lost 67% of their actual pensions. Djundiks v. Latvia (no. 14920/05) The applicant, Ivans Djundiks, is a `permanently resident non-citizen' of the Republic of Latvia who was born in 1939 and lives in Liepja (Latvia). The case concerns Mr Djundiks' allegation of illtreatment in custody when taken to the local police station for sobering-up. Mr Djundiks claims that he was sitting on a bench drinking beer on 19 August 2003 when the police requested that he go with them to the local station and that he sustained injuries once at the station when an officer dragged him down some stairs to the sobering-up room. According to the Government, the applicant, heavily inebriated and unable to communicate or move, had been found by police officers and taken to the station for sobering up. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he was ill-treated in police custody and that the ensuing investigation into his allegations was ineffective. Further relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), he also alleges that there was no legal basis in national law to justify his detention. Radu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 50073/07) The applicant, Liliana Radu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1969 and lives in Chiinu. The case concerns her complaint about a State-owned hospital's disclosure of medical information about her to her employer. She was a lecturer at the Police Academy and in August 2003, pregnant with twins, was hospitalised for a fortnight due to a risk of her miscarrying. She gave a sick note certifying her absence from work. However, the Police Academy requested further information from the hospital concerning her sick leave, and it replied in November 2003, providing more information about her pregnancy, her state of health and the treatment she had been given. The information was widely circulated at Ms Radu's place of work and, shortly afterwards, she had a miscarriage due to stress. She brought proceedings against the hospital and the Police Academy claiming compensation for a breach of her right to private life, which were ultimately dismissed in May 2007 by the Supreme Court as it considered that the hospital had been entitled to disclose the requested information to Ms Radu's employer. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Radu complains about the hospital's disclosure of sensitive information about her health to her employer. She also alleges under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) that the proceedings she had brought against the hospital were unfair. Krasicki v. Poland (no. 17254/11) The applicant, Artur Krasicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Warsaw. The case concerns Mr Krasicki's complaint about the Polish authorities' failure to enforce his contact rights with his two sons, born in January 1999 and December 2000. Mr Krasicki has never cohabited with his children or their mother but, until early 2005, had no problems in seeing his children. Difficulties subsequently arose and the national courts set out contact arrangements in an order of 8 February 2006. Various authorities � the courts, court-appointed guardians, the police and the children's school � have been involved in attempting to ensure that those arrangements be enforced, with limited success due to the mother's hostility towards the applicant. Most recently, the courtappointed guardian recommended that the children be taken into emergency care as they had not been attending school regularly and as the mother was apparently living in seclusion and unable to cope with her children. Proceedings brought by the mother to revoke the emergency care order are currently still pending. In the meantime, the children remain with their mother. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Krasicki alleges that the measures taken by the authorities to ensure his contact rights were insufficient and had resulted in a situation where he would very likely never rebuild a relationship with his sons. Tomaszewscy v. Poland (no. 8933/05) The applicants, Sebastian Tomaszewski (born in 1981), Artur Tomaszewski (born in 1983), Zbigniew Tomaszewski (who was born in 1989 and died in a road accident in 2004) and Boena Tomaszewska, their mother, are Polish nationals who live in Ostr�da. The case concerns the applicants' deprivation of liberty after being arrested by the police on leaving a discotheque and their subsequent detention in a police station for about two hours. According to their own version of events, during the night of 30 to 31 August 2003 the three brothers and a friend of theirs had been at a discotheque from 10 p.m. until 4 a.m. They were arrested by a police patrol at about 4.15 a.m. and taken to Ostr�da police station. At the station the three brothers were made to undress and undergo a body search. They were kicked, punched and beaten with a truncheon. The youngest brother was hit in the face and fell unconscious. They were beaten for approximately half an hour. According to the police officers' version, an altercation at around midnight had required their intervention and they had identified the applicants as the most aggressive individuals involved, intercepting them later when they left the discotheque where they had taken refuge. No report on the arrest was drawn up. The applicants complained to the Ostr�da district prosecutor, who decided not to prosecute in March 2004 on the grounds that no offence attributable to the police officers could be made out from the evidence gathered during the investigation. The applicants lodged an objection but in June 2004 the district prosecutor decided to discontinue the proceedings on the same grounds. Following a further appeal, the case was referred to the Ostr�da District Court, which upheld the decision of June 2004. At the same time, a police investigation established that the officers had identified the Tomaszewski brothers as having been involved in disturbances to public order. In March 2004 Sebastian and Artur Tomaszewski were both sentenced to 20 hours' community service. They appealed, and in May 2005 and August 2005 the court upheld the guilty verdict against them. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 5 �� 1 (right to liberty and security), 4 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention) and 5 (right to compensation), the applicants complain that they were ill-treated by the police officers, that their arrest and detention at the police station were arbitrary, that no judicial review was available to them and that they were unable to obtain compensation for the damage they suffered. Florin Andrei v. Romania (no. 33228/05) The applicant, Florin Andrei, is a Romanian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Constana. The case concerns the physical conditions of the applicant's detention in a cell at Constana police station for two months in 2005. In May 2005 Mr Andrei, together with three other people, was accused of assault and extortion. On 19 July 2005 he was taken into police custody on charges of kidnapping, false imprisonment and extortion. The following day, the court ordered his detention pending trial. Mr Andrei was released on 21 October 2005 and barred from leaving the city of Constana for the duration of the investigation. He was convicted on 11 February 2008 and given a suspended sentence of one year and ten months' imprisonment, which was upheld on appeal and subsequently by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complains of the poor conditions of his pretrial detention at Constana police station, prison overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions, the lack of access to a toilet and exposure to passive smoking. Remus Tudor v. Romania (no. 19779/11) The applicant, Remus Tudor, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment for manslaughter in Giurgiu Prison. The case concerns his complaint about the conditions of his detention from April 2009 to November 2011 when serving his sentence in Jilava Prison. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges in particular overcrowding, poor hygiene and a failure to segregate smokers from non-smokers. Asalya v. Turkey (no. 43875/09) The applicant, slam H.M. Asalya, is a Palestinian who was born in 1988 and lived in the Gaza strip until March 2008. He currently lives in Istanbul. He is a paraplegic and wheel-chair bound, which he alleges was the result of injuries he sustained in an Israeli missile attack on his house in Gaza in 2007. He was taken to Turkey by a humanitarian organisation in March 2008 to enable him to have access to better medical care. He married his physiotherapist, a Turkish national, in April 2009 and on that basis was granted a temporary residence permit. The case essentially concerns Mr Asalya's threatened deportation from Turkey due to national security concerns. On 12 August 2009 he was taken to Istanbul Police Headquarters for questioning and, informed of a decision to deport him as he was suspected of being involved in international terrorism, was placed in Kumkapi Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre pending his deportation. On 14 August 2008 the national courts granted a stay of execution of the deportation order, without pronouncing on the lawfulness of the applicant's detention, and on 18 August 2008 he was released by a decision of the Ministry of the Interior. The order was ultimately quashed on 22 April 2010, following a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (interim measures), to indicate to the Turkish Government that the deportation should be suspended. Most recently, in March 2013 Mr Asalya was granted a long-term temporary residence permit, valid for one year with the possibility of renewal, on the strength of the genuine family life he had in Turkey. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Asalya complains about the conditions of his detention in Kumkapi Centre, principally because of the inadequate facilities � no lifts and squat toilets � for wheel-chair bound detainees like himself. He also made a number of complaints under Article 5 �� 1, 4, and 5 (right to liberty and security) about the unlawfulness of his detention without effective judicial review and the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for those complaints. Lastly, he alleges that, if deported to Israel or the Gaza strip, he would be at real risk of being ill-treated and/or killed, particularly given that he was wanted in Israel and that he and his family had previously been targeted by the Israeli forces. He also claims that, if returned to the Gaza strip, he would not have the same medical care and he would be separated from his wife who provides him with constant assistance for his daily needs. He further alleges that he had no effective remedy at national level for those complaints. He relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3, 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). C�laz and Others v. Turkey (nos. 7524/06 and 39046/10) The applicants are 18 Turkish nationals, all of whom live in Silopi (Turkey), except for one who lives in Brussels (Belgium). The case concerns relatives of the applicants who were arrested and taken to G�r�ml� gendarmerie station; their families have had no news of them since. During the night of 13 to 14 June 1993 there was an armed clash in the vicinity of G�r�ml� gendarmerie station between members of the PKK and the security forces. The village of Sel�ik, several kilometres away, was destroyed by the armed forces and the villagers were forced to flee. On 14 June 1993 the applicants' relatives were arrested in front of the villagers and taken into custody at G�r�ml� gendarmerie station. The applicants asked the gendarmerie in G�r�ml�, Silopi and irnak whether there was any news of their relatives following their arrest, without success. On 19 July 1993, on the initiative of the lawyer Tahir El�i, the non-governmental organisation Amnesty International launched a campaign concerning the people who had disappeared after being taken into custody in G�r�ml� in June 1993. An initial complaint lodged by one of the applicants with the Silopi public prosecutor in December 1993 gave rise to a decision not to prosecute in September 1995. In June 2003, eight of the applicants lodged a fresh complaint with the Silopi public prosecutor in relation to the disappearances. In August 2009 an additional investigation was opened following the discovery of new evidence. Criminal proceedings were instituted against members of the armed forces, some of whom were charged with murder. The proceedings are still pending before the Ankara Assize Court. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants allege that their relatives disappeared while in military custody. Murat �zdemir v. Turkey (no. 60225/11) The applicant, Murat �zdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Gaziantep. The case concerns the applicant's pre-trial detention, which lasted five years. Following monitoring of telephone conversations and audio and video surveillance at the workplaces and public places frequented by several suspects, Mr �zdemir, who was a police officer, was arrested on 16 October 2006 and taken into police custody. According to police reports, he was caught in the act of committing the offences of kidnapping and extortion. On 19 October 2006 he was detained pending trial. In January 2007, together with ten other individuals � some of whom were likewise police officers � he was charged with criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, false imprisonment and extortion, carried out as part of a gang. Mr �zdemir applied several times to be released, but his requests were denied in view of the persistence of reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged. He was released on 17 October 2011 further to an order by judges. The case is currently pending before the Istanbul Assize Court. Relying in particular on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant submits that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive. Oran v. Turkey (nos. 28881/07 and 37920/07) The applicant, Baskin Oran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Ankara (Turkey). The case mainly concerns restrictions on the right to vote of Turkish citizens living abroad during the general elections of 22 July 2007. Under a Law of 1986 on the fundamental provisions on elections and voter registration, voters living abroad were only authorised to vote for political parties, and not for independent candidates. By a decree of May 2007, the National Electoral Commission fixed the dates of the general elections of 2007 and confirmed that voters living abroad could not vote for independent candidates. In July 2007 the National Electoral Commission rejected a request by Mr Oran, an independent candidate in the general elections, to have the decree annulled. In accordance with the 1986 Law, only political parties participating in the elections were authorised to run electioneering broadcasts on national radio and television. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) taken in conjunction with Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Oran complains of the inability of Turkish citizens living abroad to vote for independent candidates like himself and of the inability to run electioneering broadcasts on radio or television during the general elections of 2007. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also complains that he was unable to challenge at domestic level the alleged interference with his right to free elections. Yazici v. Turkey (no. 40877/07) The applicant, Hasan Yazici, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns Mr Yazici's complaint that he was ordered to pay damages for defamation of an influential academic who he had accused of plagiarism in a newspaper article. On 15 November 2000 an article was published in the daily newspaper, Milliyet, in which the applicant, an academic and former head of the ethics committee of the Turkish Academy of Sciences, accused a prominent academic and former president of the Higher Education Council, Professor Dr I.D., of plagiarising another professor's work to write one of his books, Mother's Book. On 29 November 2000 Professor Dr I.D. brought proceedings against Mr Yazici claiming that his assertions in the article constituted a personal attack. Ultimately, in May 2006 the national courts ordered Mr Yazici to pay the professor compensation, finding that the allegations of plagiarism were untrue and that Mr Yazici's opinions in the Milliyet article amounted to insult. Mr Yazici's request for rectification of this judgment was then dismissed in March 2007. Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Yazici complains that the ruling against him amounted to an unjustified interference with his freedom of expression. He criticises in particular the related proceedings, which he alleges were not impartial as the courts were unduly influenced by the prominent status of Professor Dr I.D. He also relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complaining about the excessive length � more than six years � of the proceedings against him. Thursday 17 April 2014 Paposhvili v. Belgium (no. 41738/10) The applicant, Georgie Paposhvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Brussels. The case concerns a decision to return the applicant to Georgia and ban him from re-entering Belgian territory. Mr Paposhvili arrived in Belgium on 25 November 1998, accompanied by his wife and the latter's six-year-old child. The couple subsequently had a child in August 1999 and another one in July 2006. Between 1998 and 2007 Mr Paposhvili was convicted of a number of offences, including robbery and participation in a criminal organisation. While serving his various prison sentences, Mr Paposhvili was diagnosed with a number of serious medical conditions, including chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and tuberculosis, for which he was treated in hospital. In addition, he submitted several unsuccessful applications for regularisation of his administrative status on exceptional or medical grounds. In August 2007 the Minister for the Interior issued an order for Mr Paposhvili's expulsion from Belgian territory and barred him from re-entering the country for ten years on account of the danger he posed to public order. The order became enforceable once Mr Paposhvili completed his sentence but was not in fact enforced, as he was still undergoing medical treatment. On 7 July 2010 the Aliens Office issued an order for him to leave the country, together with an order for his detention. He was transferred to a secure facility for illegal immigrants with a view to his return to Georgia and a laissez-passer was issued for that purpose. On 23 July 2010 Mr Paposhvili applied to the European Court of Human Rights for an interim measure under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court suspending his removal; the request was granted. He was subsequently released. The order for him to leave Belgian territory was postponed several times. In November 2009 his wife and her three children were granted indefinite leave to remain. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant alleges that, if deported to Georgia, he would face a risk of premature death as well as a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on the ground that the medical treatment he needs does not exist or is unavailable in the country. Lastly, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that his return to Georgia and exclusion from Belgium for 10 years would result in separation from the rest of his family, who have been granted leave to remain in Belgium. Guerdner and Others v. France (no. 68780/10) The applicants are twelve French nationals who were born between 1958 and 2007 and belong to the Traveller community. The case concerns the death of Joseph Guerdner, a member of the applicants' family, who had been taken into police custody and was killed by a gendarme while attempting to escape. In May 2008 Joseph Guerdner was arrested and taken into custody at Brignoles gendarmerie station following an investigation into offences of armed robbery, kidnapping and false imprisonment, committed as part of a gang. At the end of a police interview, he managed to open a window and jump out of the building where he was being held. A gendarme fired several shots in his direction. Joseph Guerdner died of gunshot wounds shortly afterwards. In a judgment of 17 September 2010 the Assize Court acquitted the gendarme on the grounds that his actions had been prescribed or authorised by legislation or regulations. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants allege that their relative was killed without any justification and that no independent investigation or impartial trial took place to establish the circumstances of the death. Brosa v. Germany (no. 5709/09) The applicant, Ulrich Brosa, is a German national who was born in 1950 and lives in Am�neburg (Germany). The case concerns a court injunction prohibiting him from distributing a leaflet. In the run-up to the Am�neburg elections for mayor in 2005, Mr Brosa drew up and distributed a leaflet in which he stated that several neo-Nazi organisations were active in the town and called not to vote for one particular candidate for mayor as he was providing a cover for one of those organisations. At the candidate's request, the district court issued an injunction, upheld in a judgment of August 2005, prohibiting Mr Brosa from distributing the leaflet. The court held in particular that the statement infringed the candidate's personality rights and that Mr Brosa had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegation. Finally, in July 2008 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider Mr Brosa's constitutional complaint. Mr Brosa complains that the injunction breached his rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression). Schatschaschwili v. Germany (no. 9154/10) The applicant, Swiadi Schatschaschwili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Georgia. In April 2008 he was convicted by a German court of two counts of aggravated robbery in conjunction with aggravated extortion by means of coercion � committed with others in October 2006 in Kassel and in February 2007 in G�ttingen � and sentenced to nine years and six months' imprisonment. As regards the offence allegedly committed in G�ttingen, the trial court relied in particular on the witness statements by the two victims of the crime in the course of police interrogations at the pre-trial stage, which were read out during the trial. Shortly after their examination, the witnesses had left Germany and subsequently refused to testify at Mr Schatschaschwili's trial, stating that they were traumatised by the crime. Finally, in October 2009 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider Mr Schatschaschwili's constitutional complaint. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), he complains that his trial was unfair as neither he nor his counsel had an opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to question the only direct witnesses of the crime allegedly committed in February 2007. Adamantidis v. Greece (no. 10587/10) The applicant, Athanasios Adamantidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1984 and lives in Salonika. The case concerns the conditions of detention at Lefkos Pyrgos police station and the Salonika police headquarters. In October 2009, criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Adamantidis for attempted robbery. The judge ordered his detention pending trial. He was detained at Lefkos Pyrgos police station until 16 November 2009, before being transferred to the Salonika police headquarters, where he remained until 29 January 2010. The applicant alleges that the conditions of detention at Lefkos Pyrgos police station and the Salonika police headquarters were in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment). Kavouris and Others v. Greece (no. 73237/12) The applicants are seven Greek nationals, a Bulgarian national and a Romanian national, who were born between 1948 and 1989 and were all prosecuted for various criminal offences. The case concerns the conditions of detention at the Salonika prisoner transfers department. On various occasions the applicants lodged complaints with the public prosecutor under Article 572 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of the conditions of their detention. No action was taken on their complaints. The applicants complain that the conditions of their detention breached Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment). They further complain, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that the domestic legal system did not afford them an effective remedy in respect of the conditions of their detention. Lici v. Greece (no. 69881/12) The applicant, Albert Lici, is an Albanian national who was born in 1984 and is currently being held in Salonika Prison. The case concerns the conditions of detention at the police headquarters and the Aliens Directorate premises in Salonika. Mr Lici was arrested on 24 April 2012 on suspicion of involvement in thefts carried out as part of a gang and possession of drugs, and was placed in pre-trial detention at the Salonika police headquarters. He was held there from 24 April to 11 June 2012, and later from 1 August to 12 November 2012. In between these two periods he was detained at the Aliens Directorate premises in Salonika Prison for lack of space. On 4 September 2012 he lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor concerning the conditions of his detention and asked to be transferred to a prison. He received no reply. He was transferred to Salonika Prison on 12 November 2012. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment), Mr Lici complains about the conditions of detention at the police headquarters and the Aliens Directorate premises in Salonika. He further complains, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that the domestic legal system did not afford him an effective remedy. Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia (no. 39093/13) The applicant, Gayratbek Saliyev, is a Kyrgyz national and an ethnic Uzbek who was born in 1988 and is currently staying in the Moscow Region, Russia. The case concerns proceedings for his extradition to Kyrgyzstan. Having arrived in Russia in July 2010, he was arrested by the Russian police in March 2012, as he was wanted in Kyrgyzstan for a number of violent offences allegedly committed during inter-ethnic riots in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010. He was subsequently remanded in detention pending extradition, which was extended on several occasions until his release in September 2013. Mr Saliyev's application for refugee status in Russia was refused and his appeal against the order for his extradition was rejected by a decision eventually upheld in June 2013. His extradition was stayed following an interim measure applied by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, indicating to the Russian Government that Mr Saliyev should not be extradited until further notice. Mr Saliyev complains that his extradition to Kyrgyzstan would expose him to a real risk of treatment in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), in particular because he belongs to a group � of ethnic Uzbeks suspected of involvement in the violence of June 2010 � who is systematically being tortured by the Kyrgyz authorities. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains in particular that he does not have effective remedies available in respect of that complaint. Further relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he complains in particular of the length of the appeal proceedings he brought against two of the orders for his detention. Ismailov v. Russia (no. 20110/13) The applicant, Khamidullo Ismailov, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1980. He is currently detained in a special detention facility in Balakhna, in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region (Russia). He arrived in Russia in April 2011 to look for employment. He was arrested in September 2012 by the Russian authorities in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region at the request of the authorities in Uzbekistan, where he was wanted on suspicion of membership in an extremist organisation and a terrorist organisation. He was placed in detention pending extradition, released in March 2013, only to be re-arrested shortly afterwards. On the day of his re-arrest, a court found that Mr Ismailov had been residing in Russia in breach of the immigration laws. The court ordered his administrative removal, which was suspended following an interim measure applied on 22 March 2013 by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court. The extradition proceedings were discontinued at a later date following the Russian Prosecutor General's refusal to grant the extradition request. In parallel proceedings, Mr Ismailov's application for refugee status in Russia was rejected by a decision of December 2012, eventually upheld in October 2013. He remains in detention pending administrative removal. Mr Ismailov complains that his removal to Uzbekistan would expose him to a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and that he does not have an effective remedy in respect of that complaint, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), and Article 5 � 1 (f) (right to liberty and security), he complains that there is no effective procedure by which he could challenge his continued detention and maintains that his detention since 13 March 2013 � when he was re-arrested � has been unlawful. Stetsenko v. Russia (no. 26216/07) The applicant, Lyubov Stetsenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1923 and lives in Voronezh (Russia). The case concerns the non-enforcement for more than 15 years of a judgment of March 1995 ordering the local town council to provide Ms Stetsenko, a disabled war veteran, with social housing. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Stetsenko alleges in particular that the judgment of March 1995 was never fully enforced as the four-room flat she had eventually been allocated was smaller than what she was entitled to and that, before moving into that flat, she had had to live for more than six years with four other members of her family in a 31 square metre flat. Mladina d.d. Ljubljana v. Slovenia (no. 20981/10) The applicant company, Mladina d.d. Ljubljana, is a Slovenian private company whose registered office is in Ljubljana and is the publisher of the weekly magazine Mladina. The case concerns the applicant publisher's complaint that it was ordered to pay damages for insulting a parliamentarian in an article published in June 2005 reporting on a parliamentary debate on a law concerning legal recognition of same-sex relationships. During the debate, the parliamentarian expressed the opinion that homosexuals were generally undesirable, whether as children, same-sex couples or parents. To prove his point, he imitated a homosexual man picking up his children from school, using effeminate speech and gestures. The author of the article described the parliamentarian's behaviour as that of "a cerebal bankrupt" who, in a country with less limited human resources, would not even be able to find work as a school janitor. The parliamentarian brought proceedings against the applicant publisher in August 2005, claiming that the article was offensive and had caused him severe distress. The Slovenian courts subsequently acknowledged the importance of the applicant publisher's freedom of expression and its right to criticise the parliamentarian but held that "cerebral bankrupt" was offensive and amounted to a personal attack. The applicant company was ordered to pay 2,921 euros in damages to the parliamentarian. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant publisher complains about the national courts' decisions against it and their unwillingness to expose harmful homophobic stereotypes, alleging in particular that they had not taken into consideration that the exaggerated, satirical style of the article was a reaction to the parliamentarian's controversial behaviour. Rudenko v. Ukraine (no. 50264/08) The applicant, Anatoliy Rudenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kryvyy Rig (Ukraine). The case concerns his pre-trial detention and ensuing involuntary psychiatric confinement. Mr Rudenko was arrested in June 2007 and placed in pre-trial detention pending two sets of criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of interfering with gas pipeline repairs and of extortion of a local politician. The national courts ultimately discontinued the proceedings against him in April 2011 on account of his mental health and ordered his psychiatric internment. He was transferred to a hospital in Geykivka, in the Dnipropetrovsk region, where he remained until being discharged in October 2012. Mr Rudenko makes a number of complaints under Article 5 �� 1 (c) and (e), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), alleging that part of his pre-trial detention � from 17 August to 17 September 2007 � was unlawful and without judicial review, that his total pre-trial detention � lasting more than three years � was excessively long and that his confinement in a psychiatric hospital was unnecessary and ordered by the authorities so as to punish him for his political activities. 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. 9