003-4863896-5941407

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 248 (2014) 10.09.2014 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 judgments on Tuesday 16 September 2014 and eight on Thursday 18 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) Tuesday 16 September 2014 Kar�csony and Others v. Hungary (application no. 42461/13) Sz�l and Others v. Hungary (no. 44357/13) The cases concern complaints by members of the Hungarian Parliament of two opposition parties about having been fined for gravely disturbing Parliament's work. The applicants in the first case, Gergely Kar�csony, P�ter Szil�gyi, D�vid Dorosz, and Rebeka Katalin Szab�, were born in 1975, 1981, 1985, and 1977 respectively and live in Budapest. They are members of the party P�rbesz�d Magyarorsz�g�rt. The applicants in the second case, Bernadett Sz�l, �gnes Osztolyk�n, and Szilvia Lengyel, were born in in 1977, 1974, and 1971 and live in Budakeszi, Budapest and G�d�ll respectively. They are members of the LMP party. During a Parliament session in April 2013, two of the applicants in the first case presented a billboard with the words "FIDESZ [the governing party]. You steal, you cheat and you lie." During the final vote on a law amending certain smoking-related acts in May 2013, two of the applicants showed a billboard stating "Here operates the national tobacco mafia". The applicants in the second case protested against a controversial legislative proposal on the transfer of agricultural lands, during the final vote on the bill in June 2013, by placing a small wheelbarrow filled with soil on a table in front of the Prime Minister and by displaying a banner with a slogan critical of the bill. The applicants were fined between 170 euros (EUR) and EUR 600, respectively, for gravely disturbing Parliament's work. The fines were proposed by the Speaker of Parliament and adopted by the plenary without a debate. The applicants complain that the decisions to fine them violated their rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, stating in particular that the measure was meant to discourage open debate and stressing that they did not endanger the functioning of Parliament. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) read in conjunction with Article 10, they further complain that under Hungarian law they did not have any remedy available in respect of that complaint. They finally allege a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), submitting that they were discriminated against on account of their political opinions. Szk�rits v. Hungary (no. 58171/09) The applicant, Zsigmond Szk�rits, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1929 and lived in Budakal�sz (Hungary). Following his death in March 2012, his daughter has continued his application. The case concerns Mr Szk�rits' inability, for several years, to obtain possession of a plot of land allocated to him in November 1999 by the authorities in the process of land restitution after the socialist regime had ended. The land was occupied and being used by owners of adjacent plots. A civil action brought by Mr Szk�rits was dismissed in December 2006, when, in a parallel set of `remapping' proceedings brought by the owners of the neighbouring plots, the land registries found that he had been granted a plot which had been registered with topographic and editing errors and did not exist in reality. In those `remapping' proceedings, the county land registry designated a new plot for Mr Szk�rits in June 2006. The decision dismissing his claim was eventually upheld in 2009. In the same year he was able to obtain possession of the � newly designated � plot of land. Mr Szk�rits complained that his rights, in particular, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention were violated in that he could not enter into possession of the land allocated to him in 1999. P.F. v. Poland (no. 2210/12) The applicant, Mr P.F., is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Warsaw. The case concerns proceedings for contact arrangements with his twin daughters, born in 2004. Having separated with the mother of the children in 2005, Mr P.F. lodged a motion for the establishment of contact and a contact order in 2007. After an interim contact order had been issued by a district court, the court stayed the proceedings in March 2008, as the children's mother had lodged a motion with the prosecutor, alleging that Mr P.F. had sexually abused the twins. In October 2008, the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings into those allegations for lack of sufficient evidence, finding in particular that a court-appointed expert had established that the children did not have the psychological symptoms of sexually abused children. Subsequently the contact proceedings were resumed and several interim contact orders were issued. Since the children's mother frequently failed to comply with those orders, Mr P.F. brought proceedings for enforcement of the interim contact orders and made several applications for fines to be imposed on the mother. The court ordered her to comply with one of the orders and eventually imposed a fine on her in January 2013. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr P.F. complains that the Polish authorities failed to take effective steps to enforce his right of contact with his daughters. Atudorei v. Romania (no. 50131/08) The applicant, Dana Ruxanda Atudorei, is a Romanian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns her forced hospitalisation in a psychiatric hospital between 3 February and 1 April 2005. According to Ms Atudorei's submissions, she had not been suffering from mental health problems attested by an objective medical expert report, and the hospitalisation took place after her parents had forcibly taken her to the hospital. In 2003 she had already been taken to a psychiatric hospital against her will for a few days by her parents, who were concerned that she was attending yoga classes organised by a "Movement for Spiritual Integration". During her hospitalisation in 2005, she was given psychotropic drug treatment, which included medication normally used in the treatment of schizophrenia. Ms Atudorei complains that her forced hospitalisation in 2005 amounted to a deprivation of liberty in violation of Article 5 � 1 (e) (right to liberty and security). She further complains that the medical treatment provided to her in the hospital interfered with her right to respect for her private life, relying in substance on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Fodor v. Romania (no. 45266/07) The applicant, Cornel Fodor, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Taga (Romania). Following a dispute in a bar, a complaint was filed against Mr Fodor leading to criminal proceedings. He was acquitted by the Gherla District Court, before being convicted by the Cluj County Court on assault charges. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Fodor alleges that his case was not heard fairly as his conviction was based on a manifestly incorrect assessment of certain material facts. Mischie v. Romania (no. 50224/07) The applicant, Nicolae Mischie, is a Romanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in T�rgu-Jiu (Romania). The case concerns criminal proceedings against Mr Mischie for non-compliance with rules governing weapons and ammunition, forgery and contraband, following which he was given a suspended prison sentence by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Mischie complains of a violation of his defence rights during the criminal proceedings against him, alleging that the High Court convicted him on the basis of evidence that had been considered insufficient by the courts that had acquitted him at first instance and on appeal. Plechkov v. Romania (no. 1660/03) The applicant, Iordan Georgiev Plechkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Kavarna (Bulgaria). The case concerns Mr Plechkov's sentence to a suspended prison term together with the confiscation of his boat (including the fittings, tools and cargo on board) for allegedly fishing illegally within the Romanian "exclusive economic zone" of the Black Sea. Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law), Mr Plechkov alleges that his sentence and the confiscation of his boat and tools were unlawful, being incompatible with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. He further argues that such confiscation entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Rozalia Avram v. Romania (no. 19037/07) The applicant, Rozalia Avram, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Arad (Romania). The case concerns a building which belonged to the Catholic diocese of Oradea and which was transferred to State ownership under legislation on prescription. A number of flats in the building were sold to the tenants, including Ms Avram. In 1998 the diocese sought to recover possession of the building before the domestic courts but its claim was dismissed by the Timioara Court of Appeal. The diocese brought a fresh action to have the contracts of sale in respect of those flats declared null and void, and its claim was then upheld by the same Court of Appeal. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms Avram complains of a breach of the principle of legal certainty on the ground that the Timioara Court of Appeal annulled the contract of sale in respect of her flat, thus calling into question the previous judgment of that court. She also alleges that the annulment of the contract of sale in respect of her flat entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Ilfov (District Union of Cooperative Societies) v. Romania (no. 16554/06) The applicant is a cooperative society under Romanian law with its registered office in the municipality of Voluntari (Romania). The case concerns the transfer to local public ownership of a number of buildings belonging to the company. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complains of the transfer to local public ownership of those commercial premises, of which it considers itself the rightful owner, alleging that it was deprived of that property unlawfully and without any compensation. Valerian Dragomir v. Romania (no. 51012/11) The applicant, Valerian Dragomir, is a Romanian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Timioara (Romania). The case concerns the detention in February 2011 of Mr Dragomir, a customs officer at the time, on suspicion of being a member of a criminal group involved in corruption. In the framework of a large-scale criminal investigation, Mr Dragomir was taken by bus from Timioara to Bucharest on 8 February 2011 together with 93 other police and customs officers suspected of the same crime. After arrival at the headquarters of the Anti-Corruption Prosecution Service in the late evening, a number of investigative activities were carried out during the same night. In the morning of 9 February 2011, Mr Dragomir was informed of the charges against him. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (c) (right to liberty and security), he complains that his deprivation of liberty from 9.20 pm on 8 February to 8.15 am on 9 February 2011 was unlawful. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he further complains of the conditions of his subsequent detention at a Bucharest police station detention facility between 10 February and 4 May 2011, in particular because of overcrowded cells and poor hygiene conditions. Mansur Yal�in and Others v. Turkey (no. 21163/11) The applicants are 14 Turkish nationals: Mr Mansur Yal�in, Mr Namik Sofuolu, Ms Serap Top�u, Mr Ali Y�ce, Mr Ali Kaplan, Ms Eylem Onat Karata, Mr H�seyin Kaya, Ms Sevin� Ilgin, Mr smail Ilgin, Mr Cafer Aktan, Mr Hakki Saygi, Mr Kemal Kuzucu, Mr Y�ksel Polat and Mr Hasan Kili�. They are members of the Alevi religious community, a minority and heterodox branch of Islam, and complain that the content of the mandatory religious culture and ethics classes in schools was based on Sunni doctrine. On 22 June 2005 they applied to the Ministry of National Education for the introduction of a consultation with leaders of the Alevi community with a view to reorganising the curriculum of "mandatory classes on religious culture and ethics" and the incorporation into that teaching of Alevi culture and philosophy. As their proposal was refused, they referred the matter to the Ankara Administrative Court which, in a judgment of 1 October 2009, dismissed their application, referring to an expert's report which indicated in particular that the curriculum did not give preferential treatment to any given faith but took a multi-denominational approach. The applicants' appeal on points of law was subsequently dismissed by a judgment served on 2 August 2010 of the Supreme Administrative Court, which found that the judgment of the first-instance court had been compliant with both procedure and legislation. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), the applicants complain about the content of the mandatory classes on religious culture and ethics in schools. Mansur Yal�in, Y�ksel Polat and Hasan Kili� also rely on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in this connection, taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Meryem �elik and Others v. Turkey (no. 3598/03) Revision The case concerned the alleged raid of the hamlet Ormancik in the emdinli district of Hakkari (south-east Turkey) by Turkish security forces on 24 July 1994. The applicants were 14 Turkish nationals of Kurdish ethnic origin who are or were the close relatives (wives, brothers and partners) of 13 people who had gone missing and one person who had allegedly been killed during the raid. In its Chamber judgment of 16 April 2013, the Court held that there had been violations of Article 2, Article 5, and Article 3 of the Convention and made awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage to all applicants and in respect of pecuniary damage to 11 of the applicants. On 16 January 2014 the applicants' representative informed the Court that he had learned that two of the applicants had died in 2011. On behalf of their heirs, he accordingly requested revision of the judgment of 16 April 2013, which he had been unable to have executed, arguing that it should be the two applicants' heirs who should receive the sums awarded to the deceased. The Court will decide upon the revision request in its judgment of 16 September 2014. Thursday 18 September 2014 Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia (no. 74448/12) The applicants are five Croatian nationals who live in Slatina, Osijek, and Josipovac (Croatia). They are the family members (husband, children and sisters) of the late M.B.B., a lawyer who was based in Slatina and who was shot dead on 22 March 2002 in her office by the husband of a client she was representing in divorce proceedings. The man who killed M.B.B. � A.N., who on the same day attempted to kill his wife and later killed himself � was mentally disturbed with a background of violence, unlawful possession of firearms and alcohol abuse. On the day before the incident he was at a police station with his wife, who reported that he had threatened to kill her, and on the morning of the day on which the shooting happened he was visited at his home by the police, who had been contacted by the staff of a bank in whose presence A.N. had behaved strangely. The police later contacted a doctor at a hospital but left A.N. at his home. Following the shooting, criminal proceedings were brought against the commanding police officer on duty on 22 March 2002, who was eventually acquitted in 2006. In disciplinary proceedings, that officer and the officer in charge the previous day were found guilty of having failed to immediately report the respective situations and sentenced to a temporary reduction of salary. A civil action lodged by the applicants against the State, seeking damages for the authorities' failure to protect their relative's life, was eventually dismissed. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that M.B.B.'s death was attributable to the failure of the authorities to take all necessary measures to protect her. In particular, they submit that on the day of the incident the police only contacted the doctor when it was too late and that the police had all too easily discharged A.N. on the day before the shooting. Moreover, the police officer in charge on 22 March 2002 had attempted to falsify the documents concerning the exact time he had contacted the doctor. The applicants further rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), complaining that they were unable to obtain damages for the death of their relative. Ivinovi v. Croatia (no. 13006/13) The applicant, Marija Ivinovi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Zagreb. Since her early childhood she has suffered from cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair. The case concerns proceedings, brought by a social welfare centre, in which she was partly divested of her legal capacity. The decision by the Zagreb Municipal Court of October 2010, which stopped her from disposing of her money and other assets and from making independent decisions concerning her medical treatment, relied exclusively on an opinion by two psychiatrists, which stated in particular that she was unable to adequately protect her own interests and might jeopardise the rights and interests of others. In the appeal proceedings, Ms Ivinovi argued that the decision, based solely on that opinion, was unjustified, as the psychiatrists lacked knowledge of how she spent her money and managed her assets. Moreover, it was unclear what rights and interests of others she might jeopardise. Her appeal and her constitutional complaint were eventually dismissed. She complains that the proceedings and the decision to partly divest her of her legal capacity violated her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). She also maintains that the proceedings were in breach of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing). Brunet v. France (no. 21010/10) The applicant, Fran�ois Xavier Brunet, is a French national who was born in 1959 and lives in Yerres (France). The case concerns Mr Brunet's complaint about his registration in a recorded offences database after criminal proceedings against him were discontinued In 2008 Mr Brunet had a violent row with his girlfriend, who filed a complaint with the public prosecutor of Evry. The applicant was taken into police custody. He in turn filed a complaint against his girlfriend for assault, but it was never followed up. He was released and summoned for criminal mediation, and the proceedings were formally discontinued. Mr Brunet, having been registered in the recorded offences database (the "STIC" system) because of the complaint against him, asked the public prosecutor to delete his details from the database, but was unsuccessful. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Brunet alleges that his registration in the STIC database constitutes a violation of the Convention. Under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights), he also complains about the investigation and the police custody measure in the proceedings against him, together with the failure to follow up the complaint that he himself filed against his girlfriend. Avanesyan v. Russia (no. 41152/06) The applicant, Samvel Avanesyan, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in the Stavropol Region (Russia). The case concerns a search of his house, in his absence, in March 2006, on the basis of a court decision authorising "operational-search measures". The police officers carrying out the search presented the authorisation to Mr Avanesyan's father, who then suffered a heart attack and died before the ambulance arrived. A few days later Mr Avanesyan complained to the district prosecutor, claiming that the officers had carried out an illegal search, but the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings. Mr Avanesyan submits that he only learned for the first time of the judicial authorisation in the prosecutor's reply. His subsequent attempt to lodge a supervisory review against that authorisation � submitting that it did not mention any details as to the suspicion against him � was unsuccessful. The court informed him that judicial decisions under the Operational-Search Activities Act were not liable to supervisory review. Mr Avanesyan's constitutional complaint in this respect was rejected in September 2007. Mr Avanesyan complains that the search of his home was in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) and that he did not have an effective remedy available in respect of that complaint, contrary to Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Makayeva v. Russia (no. 37287/09) The applicant, Ayma Makayeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya (Russia). The case concerns the disappearance of her son, Apti Zaynalov, in July 2009, aged 29 at the time. Mr Zaynalov had previously been convicted of belonging to an illegal armed group, but had later been released from detention. In early July 2009, Ms Makayeva learnt that an anonymous wounded young man, likely her son, had been placed under guard in the Achkhoy-Martan hospital. On 7 July 2009, she applied to the prosecutor's office in Achkhoy-Martan. However, several hours later she witnessed, from a distance, her son being taken away from the hospital by car, accompanied by servicemen. She has not seen him since. Ms Makayeva subsequently applied to the prosecutor's office and other authorities, requesting that an investigation be instituted into her son's disappearance. After having initially refused to open an investigation, the district department of the interior instituted a criminal investigation on 28 July 2009, which remains pending. The investigating authorities refused Ms Makayeva's request that criminal proceedings be opened against the hospital staff for failure to inform the relevant authorities that a patient with gunshot wounds had been admitted and treated there for several days. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Makayeva complains that her son's right to life was violated and that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation. She argues that he must have been unlawfully detained and then killed by State officials. She further complains of violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), on account of the mental suffering caused to her by the disappearance of her son, and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), on account of the unlawfulness of his detention. Finally, she complains of a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 2, since she did not have any effective remedies in respect of her complaints. Petimat Ismailova and Others v. Russia (nos. 25088/11, 44277/11, 44284/11, 44313/11, 48134/11, 49486/11, 52076/11, 52182/11, 55055/11, 56574/11, 64266/11, and 66831/11) The applicants are 43 Russian nationals who were born between 1921 and 2003 and live in various districts of the Chechen Republic (Russia). They are the close relatives of people who disappeared between 2001 and 2006 after allegedly being arrested at their homes in Chechnya by State servicemen. In each case the alleged abductions took place in areas under full control of the Russian federal forces and were carried out during curfew hours, at night or early in the morning. The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. While not challenging the applicants' accounts, the Russian Government submitted that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State officials were involved in the alleged abductions. 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 failed to carry out effective investigations into the events. They further complain of a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), on account of the mental suffering caused to them by the disappearance of their relatives, and of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives' detention. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3, they complain that they did not have any remedies available at national level in respect of their complaints. Two applicants also complain of a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) on account of a search of their house carried out by the men who abducted their relatives. Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia (no. 47837/06) The applicant, Abduali Rakhimberdiyev, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1936. Having accompanied a cargo train as a guard from Tajikistan to Siberia, he was taken to the organised crime department at the Rubtsovsk police station on 1 August 2005, after 73 kilograms of heroin had been found on board the train, concealed in onion skins. After he spent the night at the police station, he was formally remanded in custody on charges of drug smuggling on 2 August 2005. Eventually he was convicted of possession of heroin and sentenced to three years' imprisonment in 2006. Following complaints by his lawyer to the prosecutor about his unrecorded detention from 1 to 2 August 2005, the investigators refused to open a criminal investigation on several occasions. Mr Rakhimberdiyev complains that his unrecorded detention violated Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (noncriminal) proceedings. Pramantiotis and Others v. Greece (nos. 27809/11, 38575/11, 50628/11, 58603/11, 58629/11, 64907/11, 20028/12, 26674/12, and 77124/12) 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. 8