003-4981759-6109017

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 003 (2015) 14.01.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six judgments on Tuesday 20 January 2015 and 23 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 22 January 2015. Press releases and texts of the judgments and decisions will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on the Court's Internet site (www.echr.coe.int) Tuesday 20 January 2015 uri and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (applications nos. 79867/12, 79873/12, 80027/12, 80182/12, 80203/12 and 115/13) The applicants are 18 nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including members of five different families (the uris, the Bosnjaks, the Bojanis, the Colis and the Komljenovis) and two individuals, Danijela Banjac and Neo Lazarevi. The case concerns the settlement plan introduced by Bosnia and Herzegovina for the enforcement of final domestic judgments awarding the applicants war damages. Between 1999 and 2008, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered by six judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance to pay war damages to the five families as well as Ms Banjac and Mr Lazarevi. The judgments having become final but remaining unenforced, the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In January 2013 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in the cases of the uris , Mr Lazarevi, the Bojanis and Ms Banjac. The cases of the Colis, the Komljenovis and the Bosnjaks are still pending before the Constitutional Court. In the meantime, in a leading judgment1 against Bosnia and Herzegovina of November 2009 the European Court of Human Rights held that the non-enforcement of final domestic judgments awarding war damages had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention and, in view of the large number of other similar cases, invited the State to solve the problem. As a result, in October 2012, the Republika Srpska introduced a settlement plan which envisaged the enforcement of final judgments ordering payment of war damages in cash within 13 years starting from 2013. The Republika Srpska also undertook to pay 50 euros non-pecuniary damage. In July 2013 the enforcement time-frame was extended to 20 years starting from 2013. Under the new settlement plan the uris case was scheduled for enforcement in 2014; the Bosnjaks in 2019; the Bojanis and Ms Banjacs in 2030; the Colis in 2024; Mr Lazarevis in 2026; and the Komljenovis in 2017. Relying on Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complain about the continued non-enforcement of the final judgments given in their favour between 1999 and 2008. Manuello and Nevi v. Italy (no. 107/10) The applicants are two Italian nationals, Franca Manuello and Paolo Nevi, who were born in 1943 and 1938 respectively and live in Turin (Italy). The case concerns their inability to see their 1 Coli and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (nos. 1218/07, 1240/07, 1242/07, 1335/07, 1368/07, 1369/07, 3424/07, 3428/07, 3430/07, 3935/07, 3940/07, 7194/07, 7204/07, 7206/07 and 7211/07) granddaughter, firstly because of the non-enforcement of court decisions authorising meetings and secondly on account of a court decision suspending meetings. On 7 August 1997 a daughter, M.C., was born of the marriage between the applicants' son and M.G.T. In May 2002 M.G.T. expressed her wish to petition for judicial separation from her husband. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants' son in June 2002 after M.C.'s headmistress had reported him to the police on suspicion of sexually interfering with the child. On 1 August 2002 the child's mother requested the Turin Youth Court to withdraw parental responsibility from her husband. The applicants have not seen M.C. again since that date. On 16 February 2006 the court authorised meetings between the applicants and their granddaughter once a fortnight in the presence of social workers. The meetings never took place. In June 2007 any possibility of meetings between the applicants and the child was suspended after psychologists' reports indicated that the child associated her grandparents with her father and the suffering she had undergone as a result of the alleged sexual interference. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicants complain of the excessive length of the proceedings for authorisation to meet with the child and of the failure by social services to enforce the court's decision authorising contact. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they complain of the unfairness of the proceedings and in particular of the Youth Court's decision suspending meetings. Arribas Ant�n v. Spain (no. 16563/11) The applicant, Agust�n Arribas Ant�n, is a Spanish national living in Bilbao (Spain). The case concerns his right of access to a court (amparo appeal). In July 2002 the head of Zamudio psychiatric hospital punished Mr Arribas Ant�n, who worked at the hospital as a nursing assistant, for a very serious disciplinary offence. He was debarred from working in psychiatric hospitals for one year for attempting to have sexual activity with non-consenting hospital patients. Mr Arribas Ant�n brought an administrative action, which was dismissed. He then applied to the Administrative Court, which upheld his claim and set aside the punishment imposed on him on grounds of a procedural defect. The health department appealed. The High Court of Justice ordered the proceedings to be resumed and these ended with the same punishment being imposed. Appeals by Mr Arribas Ant�n against punishment were dismissed. In July 2010 Mr Arribas Ant�n lodged an amparo appeal, which was declared inadmissible on the grounds that he had not complied with the obligation to prove that his appeal was of "special constitutional importance". Relying on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains about the decision declaring his amparo appeal inadmissible, submitting that the ground of inadmissibility advanced was excessively formal and that the Constitutional Court's interpretation of the criterion of admissibility was contrary to the Convention. He considers that he did not have a right to an effective remedy in that respect or to a fair trial of the merits of the case. Ateolu v. Turkey (no. 53645/10) The applicant, Musa Ateolu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Kars (Turkey). The case concerns his complaint that he was tortured in police custody. On 27 April 2002 Mr Ateolu, who was 17 years old at the time, was arrested by police officers in Kars on suspicion of robbery and taken to the local police station. He alleges that, during his ensuing interrogation, the police beat him and subjected him to falaka (beating on the soles of his feet). He was questioned a few days later by the public prosecutor, who noted his complaint of ill-treatment and then released him. In May 2002 the prosecuting authorities initiated criminal proceedings against four police officers accusing them of ill-treatment and, ultimately, in June 2010 the Kars Assize Court found the officers guilty of torture with the aim of extracting a confession. Each officer was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and banned from public service for six months. The judgment was, however, subsequently suspended in accordance with Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus cancelling the judgment with all its legal consequences, including the sentence, provided that the officers abided by the suspension order. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Ateolu alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and complains about the excessive length of the ensuing criminal proceedings against the police officers as well as the suspension of the resulting judgment against them. G�z�m v. Turkey (no. 4789/10) The applicant, Nigar G�z�m, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey). The case concerns the refusal of her request, as a single adoptive mother, to have her own forename entered on the personal documents for her adopted son E. in place of the name of the child's biological mother. In the proceedings before the Civil Court of First Instance, Ms G�z�m argued that there was a vacuum in Turkish law in relation to single-parent adoption, since there was no regulatory framework for recognition of the adoptive parent's forename in place of that of the child's natural parent, and that the courts should have filled this vacuum themselves (in accordance with Article 1 of the Civil Code) or referred a preliminary question to the Constitutional Court. After losing her case at first instance, she appealed on points of law on 14 April 2008. On 15 March 2009, while her appeal was pending, a legislative reform was introduced, allowing a single adoptive parent to have his or her forename registered in place of that of the biological parent. On 5 November 2009 the Court of Cassation nevertheless dismissed Ms G�z�m's appeal. Finally, in November 2010, the Civil Registry Office officially registered her forename as that of E.'s mother. Ms G�z�m complains that the rules of civil law, as applied to her at the relevant time, infringed Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), read separately and/or in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), she also alleges that the Turkish courts refused to prevent the situation she complained of by filling the legal vacuum in Turkish law in relation to single-parent adoption or by raising a preliminary question. Mesut Yurtsever and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14946/08, 21030/08, 24309/08, 24505/08, 26964/08, 26966/08, 27088/08, 27090//08, 27092/08, 38752/08, 38778/08, and 38807/08) The applicants are thirteen Turkish nationals who were detained in the F-type prison2 in Tekirda (Turkey) at the time of the events. The case concerns decisions by the education committee of the Tekirda F-type prison not to pass on certain editions of the daily newspaper Azadiya Welat to prisoners. These decisions, taken in 2007, were based on the Turkish Law on the execution of sentences and preventive measures, which provides that no publications containing information, written material, photographs or comments which are obscene or likely to endanger the security of the institution may be given to prisoners. The committee noted that the publications in question were in Kurdish, a language which none of the prison staff understood and which, moreover, included a number of different dialects; accordingly, it was not possible to arrange for the translation of the editions concerned or to check whether they satisfied the conditions set out in the aforementioned Law. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain that the authorities refused to give them access to a newspaper because it was written in Kurdish. They also allege violations of Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions of rights). 2 Prison with living units for one to three prisoners. Thursday 22 January 2015 Pinto Pinheiro Marques v. Portugal (no. 26671/09) The applicant, Alfredo Pinto Pinheiro Marques, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1956 and lives in Figueira Da Foz (Portugal). The case concerns his conviction for damaging the reputation of a municipal council. Mr Pinto Pinheiro Marques, who is a historian and the chairman of a cultural association, had signed an agreement with Montemor-o-Velho Municipal Council regarding publication of the works of a poet from the region. An initial volume was published in 2003. In 2005 the Montemor-o-Velho Municipal Council published another book on the poet's works. Mr Pinto Pinheiro Marques, who considered that the council had acted wrongfully in publishing the book on its own initiative, had an article published in a regional newspaper for which he was subsequently punished for insulting a legal entity exercising public authority. He was sentenced to 290 day-fines � amounting to a total of 2,320 euros (EUR) � and ordered to pay EUR 1,000 in damages to the municipal council and to have published at his own expense a notice in the regional press reporting the conviction. The Coimbra Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Mr Pinto Pinheiro Marques in November 2008, specifying that the municipal council's right to protection of its reputation prevailed over the right of the applicant � who had not acted in good faith and had sought, with malicious intent, to harm the municipal council's image � to freedom of expression. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains about his conviction for defamation. Under Article 6 � 3 (d), he also complains about the failure to examine a witness in his trial and the way in which a number of hearings were held. Kitanovski v. `The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' (no. 15191/12) The applicants, Tihomir and Aleksandar Kitanovski, father and son, are Macedonian nationals. Aleksandar Kitanovski was born in 1988. Both applicants live in Skopje. The case concerns their allegation that Aleksandar Kitanovski's life was put at risk when police officers opened fire on his father's car during a car chase through the streets of Skopje. According to the applicants, Aleksandar Kitanovski, who was driving his father's car at about 2 a.m. on 10 June 2009, drove backwards in order to reach a fast-food restaurant. Police officers started chasing him in a police car. After he had driven around a roadblock set up to stop him, police officers started firing at the car with a pistol and an automatic rifle. When the officers subsequently arrested him, they allegedly beat him with truncheons, punched and kicked him in the face, head, stomach and back. According to the Government's submissions, Aleksandar Kitanovski attempted to go around a second roadblock by driving on the sidewalk, where a police officer was standing, who then lost his balance and fired at the car's tyre while falling. One of the bullets passed through the rear door of the car and hit the front passenger seat. Following a criminal complaint by Tihomir Kitanovski, on behalf of his son, against unidentified police officers on account of endangerment, torture and ill-treatment, the prosecutor eventually decided in January 2013 that there were no grounds for prosecution. Following a criminal complaint by the Ministry of the Interior against Aleksandar Kitanovski, the first-instance court found him guilty of an assault against a police officer in performance of his duties and sentenced him to a suspended prison term of a year and a half in December 2013. On appeal the case was remitted for fresh examination and the proceedings remain pending. Relying in substance on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain that Aleksandar Kitanovski's life was put at risk; that he was ill-treated by police officers; that there was no effective investigation into the allegations; and that they had no effective remedy in respect of their complaints. Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 65656/12) The applicant, Yuliya Tymoshenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Kyiv. She is the former Ukrainian Prime Minister. The case � the second application brought by Ms Tymoshenko before the ECHR � mainly concerns the criminal proceedings brought against her in April 2011 relating to contracts for the supply of gas (see press release on the communication of the case). In her application Ms Tymoshenko raises complaints under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 7 � 1 (no punishment without law), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights), Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home and the correspondence), Article 10 (freedom of expression) in conjunction with Article 18 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice). The Court will give its rulings in writing on the following cases, some of which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court, including excessive length of proceedings. These rulings can be consulted from the day of their delivery on the Court's online database HUDOC. They will not appear in the press release issued on that day. Melengu v. Albania (no. 28138/11) Stjepanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 13207/12) Ercan and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 21470/10) A.K. v. France (no. 56877/11) Alonzo v. France (no. 8766/14) Amiot v. France (no. 20790/14) M.S. v. France (no. 26101/13) S.A. v. France (no. 21608/14) Suberviola Zumalde and Salaberria Sansinenea v. France (no. 31259/14 and 31267/14) Baranska v. Poland (no. 46863/09) Kaliszczak v. Poland (no. 60389/11) Zieleniewski v. Poland (no. 33545/11) Ziobro v. Poland (no. 29686/10) S.J.P. and E.S. v. Sweden (no. 8610/11) Buechel v. Switzerland (no. 6830/08) Akan v. Turkey (no. 40791/08) Balta v. Turkey (no. 51359/09) Taner v. Turkey (no. 61020/11) Dikiy v. Ukraine (no. 2399/12) Zolotyuk v. Ukraine (no. 3958/13) This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress. Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) 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. 6