003-4850535-5922756

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 240 (2014) 28.08.2014 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six judgments on Thursday 4 September 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) Thursday 4 September 2014 Trabelsi v. Belgium (application no. 140/10) The case concerns the extradition, despite the indication of an interim measure by the European Court of Human Rights (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court), of a Tunisian national from Belgium to the United States where he is being prosecuted for terrorist offences and is liable to a life sentence. The applicant, Nizar Trabelsi, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1970 and is currently in Rappahannock Prison in Stafford, Virginia (United States). He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment by the Belgian courts for attempting to blow up a Belgian army base and instigating a criminal conspiracy. On 8 April 2008 the US authorities sent a request to Belgium for extradition of the applicant, who was wanted for terrorist offences and liable to a life sentence in that regard. After declaring the US arrest warrant enforceable against Mr Trabelsi, on 23 November 2011 the Belgian authorities granted the extradition request. In the meantime the Court, which had received a request from the applicant for an interim measure, indicated to the Belgian Government that Mr Trabelsi should not be extradited to the United States for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. However, on 3 October 2013 Mr Trabelsi was extradited to the United States, where he was immediately placed in custody. Mr Trabelsi complains that his extradition to the United States, where he would be a liable to a life sentence irreducible de facto, exposed him to treatment incompatible with Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Also under Article 3, he complains of the conditions of his detention in Belgium. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he submits that he did not have the benefit of a fair trial or the safeguards normally accompanying criminal proceedings during the judicial procedure for enforcement of the US arrest warrant. He also alleges that his extradition resulted in a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not be tried or punished twice). He complains, further, that his extradition to the United States amounts to an interference with his private and family life in Belgium, contrary to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Lastly, relying on Article 34 (right of individual application), he complains that his extradition to the United States infringed the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Drenk v. the Czech Republic (no. 1071/12) The applicant, Christoph Drenk, is a German national who was born in 1966 and lives in Prague (Czech Republic). The case concerns a dispute regarding Mr Drenk's contact rights with his son. In September 2004 Mr Drenk became a father when C. was born, a child he had had with J.S. The parents were no longer living together. On 21 December 2005 J.S. brought proceedings in the Brno Municipal Court for determination of parental responsibility of C. During the proceedings on the merits Mr Drenk was provisionally awarded contact rights, to be exercised sometimes with a social worker present, particularly in specialist establishments, and sometimes without a third party present. On account of Mr Drenk's inappropriate behaviour during meetings with his child, the Municipal Court awarded custody of C. to J.S., ordered Mr Drenk to pay maintenance and granted him two-hour weekly contact rights with a social worker present in a specialist establishment. On appeal by Mr Drenk, the Brno Regional Court gave judgment on 25 February 2011 increasing the maintenance payable and varying the contact order to allow the father to visit C. every other Saturday, without a third party present. On 3 May 2011 Mr Drenk lodged a constitutional complaint, challenging the decisions on the merits. His complaint was rejected as manifestly ill-founded. During that period Mr Drenk contacted the domestic courts several times to inform them that he had been unable to exercise the contact rights awarded by the Regional Court and requesting that these be enforced. His requests for 2011 were rejected by Prague 2 Municipal Court, which had particular regard to the conflictual relationship between the parents and the child's refusal to see his father. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Drenk complains of the excessive length of the proceedings for determination of parental responsibility and of the lack of reasons for the decision fixing the amount of maintenance payments. Under Articles 6 and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), M Drenk alleges that the proceedings for determination of parental responsibility were not fair and impartial. Relying on Article 8, he also alleges that, since 2009, he has been unable to meet his son "in normal circumstances" and complains that the authorities have failed to ensure that he has proper contact with his child. M.V. and M.T. v. France (no. 17897/09) The case concerns the threat of expulsion from France to Russia of two unsuccessful asylum seekers. The applicants, Mr M.V. and Ms M.T., are Russian nationals who were born in 1983 and 1989 respectively and live in Angers (France). Towards the end of 2007 the applicants accommodated Mr M. V.'s uncle, a former Chechen rebel between 2000 and 2006, on several occasions. Following his last stay with them they started being harassed by men close to Kadyrov (current President of the Chechen Republic) who came to their house a number of times, interrogated them regarding Mr M. V.'s uncle, and threatened and maltreated them. Fearing for their safety, the applicants left Russia. After they had left, the Russian authorities started looking for Mr M. V. After arriving in France the applicants applied for asylum on 5 November 2008. As the fingerprints they had provided were unreliable, the Maine-et-Loire prefecture rejected their asylum application, in decisions of 29 January 2009, on grounds of fraud and sent their asylum applications to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons ("the OFPRA") in accordance with the fast-track procedure. On 25 February 2009 the OFPRA gave two decisions rejecting their applications, both of which were subsequently upheld by the National Asylum Tribunal, on the ground that their explanation was not sufficiently detailed. They made two unsuccessful requests to have their applications reviewed. Two removal orders were also made against the applicants, who unsuccessfully challenged them. On 3 April 2009 the Court, having received a request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicated to the French Government that the applicants should not be expelled to Russia for the duration of the proceedings before it. The applicants allege that the implementation of the decision of the French authorities deporting them to Russia would expose them to the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 3, they submit that they did not have an effective remedy because their application was processed under the fast-track procedure. Peter v. Germany (no. 68919/10) The applicant, J. Peter, is a German national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ulrichstein (Germany). Mr Peter complains about the excessive length � four and a half years � of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court concerning his pension rights as the surviving partner in a civil partnership. He had entered into a civil partnership in 2001 and his partner had died in June 2002. He relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Dzemyuk v. Ukraine (no. 42488/02) The case concerns a complaint about the construction of a cemetery. The applicant, Sergiy Dzemyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and lives in the village of Tatariv, which forms part of Yaremche, a resort town in the mountainous region of IvanoFrankivsk in Ukraine. In February 2000 Tatariv Village Council decided to construct a new cemetery on a plot of land located near Mr Dzemyuk's house and garden. The cemetery was opened for use in August 2000. Mr Dzemyuk brought proceedings against the council and, ultimately, in December 2003 the Verkhovyna Court allowed his claims, finding that the plot used to build the cemetery was unsuitable. Notably, the construction was in breach of environmental health laws and regulations in view of its proximity to residential buildings and the risk of contamination of the water supply. The court further ordered Tatariv Council to close the cemetery and pay Mr Dzemyuk compensation. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in October 2006 but remains unenforced to date, council members having refused on several occasions to comply with it. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), Mr Dzemyuk alleges that the construction of the cemetery near his house has led to the contamination of his water supply � both for drinking and gardening purposes � leaving his home virtually uninhabitable and his land unusable. He also complains about the disturbance from the burial ceremonies. He further complains about the authorities' failure to enforce the final and binding judgment declaring the cemetery illegal, submitting that nothing has been done to close the cemetery, discontinue the burials or, despite his requests, offer him a detailed and specific proposal for his resettlement. Lastly, relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he also complains about the unfairness and excessive length of his dispute with Tatariv Council. Rudyak v. Ukraine (no. 40514/06) The case concerns a complaint about ill-treatment in police custody. The applicant, Igor Rudyak, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Gadyach (Ukraine). Mr Rudyak was convicted in November 2008 of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced to five years and six months' imprisonment. The case concerns his allegation that he was ill-treated by the police following his arrest in 2005 on suspicion of those offences. He claims in particular that he was beaten for three days because he had requested the assistance of a lawyer, which left him with serious injuries to the head and body. He also alleges that the subsequent investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was superficial and ineffective, it having been discontinued in June 2006 on the ground that the police officers denied any involvement and without him having been informed of the decision. Lastly, he submits that he was not provided with adequate medical care during his pre-trial detention for, in particular, an eye injury. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). 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) C�line Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) 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. 4