003-5012193-6153147

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 050 (2015) 11.02.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 judgments on Tuesday 17 February 2015 and 56 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 19 February 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 17 February 2015 Devriendt v. Belgium (application no. 32001/07) Kurt v. Belgium (no. 17663/10) Maillard v. Belgium (no. 23530/08) These three cases concern the lack of reasons given for the jury verdicts in assize court judgments, in which the defendants were sentenced to life or long-term imprisonment for homicide. In the first case, the applicant, Johan Devriendt, is a Belgian national who was born in 1970 and is currently held in Louvain Prison. At the relevant time he was a police inspector. On 25 August 2003 Mr Devriendt's partner was found dead in their shared bed. Mr Devriendt was charged with premeditated intentional homicide. The trial was held from 18 to 26 September 2006 before the assize court of the Province of Flemish Brabant. By a judgment of 26 September 2006, the assize court sentenced Mr Devriendt to life imprisonment. He appealed on points of law. By a judgment of 30 January 2007, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, holding, in particular, that Article 6 � 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not impose on juries any obligation to give reasons for their decisions, and that the right to a fair trial was safeguarded if, as had been the case here, the defendant had an opportunity to put forward his or her defence arguments. In the second case, the applicant, Cevher Kurt, is a Belgian national who was born in 1961 and is currently held in Lantin Prison. Criminal proceedings were brought against Mr Kurt, who was suspected of murder. During the investigation he asked on three occasions to be assisted by a sworn interpreter for Kurmanji (a Kurdish language), his mother tongue. Instead, he was allocated a sworn interpreter for Turkish. As a result, he refused to sign the records of his questioning, on the ground that they did not correspond to what he had wished to say. Those records contained confessions which he subsequently retracted. At the trial the sworn interpreter for Turkish failed to appear at the hearing on account of a trip abroad. Mr Kurt then requested that the contested records be withdrawn from the proceedings. The assize court dismissed his request, considering that the claim that Mr Kurt was unable to express himself in Turkish was not supported by any evidence in the file and contradicted the interpreter's statements. Mr Kurt was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. He appealed on points of law and the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. In the third case, the applicant, Philippe Maillard, is a Belgian national who was born in 1978 and is currently held in Bruges Prison. Criminal proceedings were brought against Mr Maillard and his partner, Mr Maillard being suspected of having committed several robberies against various individuals, one of whom had died as a result of the injuries sustained. The trial was held before the Hainaut assize court from 8 to 11 October 2007. At the hearing of 10 October 2007, Mr Maillard asked the president of the assize court to pose subsidiary questions to the jury. The assize court rejected the applicant's request, holding that the requested questions concerned facts other than those in respect of which Mr Maillard had been committed for trial. The assize court sentenced Mr Maillard to life imprisonment. He appealed on points of law, complaining that the president of the assize court had not put to the jury the questions he had submitted, which concerned the victim's death. He also criticised the decision by the president of the assize court to ask two questions of his own motion, which referred to an aggravating circumstance that did not appear in the order committing him for trial. Lastly, Mr Maillard cast doubt on the impartiality of the president of the assize court. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human RIghts, the applicants allege that, since no reasoning was given for the juries' verdicts, their trials were unfair. Guseva v. Bulgaria (no. 6987/07) The applicant, Lyubov Guseva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Vidin. The case concerns the local mayor's persistent failure to provide Ms Guseva with information she had requested despite three administrative court judgments ordering the mayor to do so. Ms Guseva is a Board member of the Animal Protection Society in Vidin, Bulgaria. Between April 2002 and June 2003 she submitted three requests to the Mayor of Vidin for information related to the treatment and management of stray animals. The mayor refused to provide the information she requested in each instance, referring either to objections of the contracted companies involved in the process or to administrative procedures. Ms Guseva challenged these refusals, eventually obtaining judgments in support of her three requests from the Supreme Administrative Court in 2004. However, Ms Guseva complains that she has still not received the information she sought. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, Ms Guseva complains that the mayor's failure to provide the information she requested amounts to a violation of her right to receive and impart information of public interest. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Ms Guseva argues that the mayor's continued failure to provide her with the information she requested, after the Supreme Administrative Court ruled in her favour, amounts to a breach of her right to access a court and to have a fair hearing. Finally, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 10, Ms Guseva complains that she did not have an effective remedy for her complaint as the rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court have not been enforced. Popov and Chonin v. Bulgaria (no. 36094/08) The applicants, Dimitar Popov and Veselin Chonin, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1930 and 1953 respectively and live in Sofia. The case concerns their complaint that the State authorities have delayed paying them agreed compensation for expropriated forestry land for an unjustifiable length of time. Mr Popov and Mr Chonin are the heirs of the former owners of a forested island in the Danube. Mr Popov's benefactor also owned another island and forest on the shores of the Danube. All of this land was nationalised in 1948. Mr Popov and Mr Chonin's mother initially applied for the restitution of the land in 1998. In 2000, the Valchedram Land Commission acknowledged their right to compensation, since restitution of the land was not possible as the forests had been classified as exclusive State property. Mr Popov and Mr Chonin were entitled to compensation in the form of equivalent state owned land. In 2003 they were allocated various plots of land but following a judicial review in 2007, the Montana District Court conceded that these plots were not equivalent to the land held initially and the land offered should be replaced with other plots. In February 2013 the Government submitted that the identification and transfer of plots was imminent. Relying in essence on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Mr Popov and Mr Chonin argue that the State authorities' delay in providing compensation is excessive and is a result of the authorities' confused and contradictory actions, lengthy periods of inactivity and a lack of willingness to solve the problems. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, they also complain that the authorities have failed to enforce the Montana District Court's judgments allocating alternative plots of land to the heirs. Boman v. Finland (no. 41604/11) The applicant, Alexander Boman, is a Finnish national who was born in 1992 and lives in Jomala (Finland). The case concerns his complaint of having been punished twice for the same offence. Early in 2010 Mr Boman was charged with causing a serious traffic hazard and operating a vehicle without a licence. The prosecutor requested that Mr Boman be banned from driving based on the charge of causing a serious traffic hazard. The District Court convicted Mr Boman in April 2010, and duly sentenced him to a fine and a driving ban up until 4 September 2010. In May 2010 the police imposed a new two month driving ban on Mr Boman, to start on 5 September, for driving a vehicle without a licence. Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the Convention, Mr Boman complains that he has been subjected to two sets of criminal proceedings and two punishments for an offence derived from one set of facts. Bloiu v. Romania (no. 70555/10) The applicant, Ion Bloiu, is a Romanian national who was born on an unspecified date and lives in in tefneti. He is of Roma ethnic origin, and the father of Nelu Bloiu, who died on 5 June 2002 at the age of eighteen. The case concerns the young man's death in prison, which, according to his father, was the result of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected two months earlier by police officers while being held in police custody. During the night of 4 to 5 April 2002 Nelu Bloiu was arrested by the police together with several Roma friends, on suspicion of theft. All escaped, with the exception of Nelu Bloiu, who was taken to a police station and placed in custody. On 5 April he was questioned by the police, then, on the following day, he was placed in pre-trial detention. On 14 May 2002 he was transferred to T�rgu Jiu Prison. On 28 May 2002 Nelu Bloiu experienced discomfort and asked to be examined by a doctor. On the following day he experienced abdominal pain and began to vomit. A prison doctor examined him and prescribed medicine. On 3 June 2002 his state of health deteriorated visibly. The prison doctor decided to transfer him urgently to hospital. He was diagnosed with "basal pleurisy" and it was recommended that he be placed in the Bucharest-Jilava prison hospital. He was transferred there on 4 June. The grounds for hospitalisation were chest pain, temperature and shivering, and oedemas on the lower limbs and the face. The medical records noted that those symptoms had occurred for about two months and that they had worsened in the two weeks preceding hospitalisation. The young man died on the morning of 5 June 2002. In the meantime, the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint with the domestic authorities against the police officers who had questioned his son, accusing them of ill-treating the young man while he was in police custody. Following the death the authorities formed, of their own motion, a committee made up of officers from the General Inspectorate of Police in order to investigate the circumstances of the death. On 18 September 2003 the military prosecutor's office at the regional military court terminated the proceedings in respect of one of the doctors and ordered that the case be transmitted to the prosecutor's office with regard to the complaint against a police officer who had conducted the initial questioning. The applicant appealed against the decision not to bring charges. The military court granted the appeal and sent the case to the prosecutor's office so that criminal proceedings could be brought against the doctor in respect of whom charges had been dropped. In September 2008 the prosecutor's office discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the young man's death had not been the result of medical negligence. In October 2008 the prosecutor's office reopened the criminal proceedings against the police officer, accused of violence, who had conducted the interview in police custody. On 20 March 2009 the prosecutor's office ordered that the case be closed, on the ground that it had been impossible to prove the accuracy of the facts. The High Court upheld the prosecutor's decision in a final judgment. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant alleges that the reason for his son's death was the illtreatment to which he was subjected while detained at the police station. He complains of the lack of an effective investigation into the treatment to which his son was subjected. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that his son was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by the police and that this abuse did not give rise to an effective and adequate investigation. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant considers that the motive for the alleged misconduct lay in the fact that his son belonged to the Roma community. 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. Bal�zs and Others v. Hungary (no. 27970/12) Ilona Kov�cs v. Hungary (no. 47902/08) Domoki v. Hungary (no. 3373/11) J�nos D�niel Szab� v. Hungary (no. 30361/12) N�meth v. Hungary (no. 25411/10) G�nay v. Turkey (no. 31596/07) Thursday 19 February 2015 M.S. v. Croatia (No. 2) (no. 75450/12) The applicant, Ms M.S., is a Croatian national who was born in 1962 and lives in L. The case concerns her involuntary confinement in a psychiatric hospital for one month. On 29 October 2012 Ms M.S. went to see her family doctor complaining of severe lower-back pain. The doctor sent her to the emergency health service, where she was examined by a psychiatrist, who diagnosed her, in particular, with acute psychotic disorder, and prescribed hospitalisation. She was immediately, and against her will, admitted to a psychiatric clinic, where she was tied to a bed in an isolation room for one night. After a county court judge had authorised her involuntary retention, which was subsequently extended by the court, M.S. remained in the clinic � her appeal against that decision being dismissed � until being discharged on 29 November 2012. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms M.S. complains that she was ill-treated during her confinement in the psychiatric hospital, and that there was no effective investigation in that respect. Further relying, in substance, on Article 5 � 1 (e) (right to liberty and security), she complains of having been unlawfully and unjustifiably detained in the hospital, and that the relevant court decision was not accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. Mileusni and Mileusni-Espenheim v. Croatia (no. 66953/09) The applicants in this case, Petar Mileusni and his son Goran Mileusni Espenheim, Croatian nationals of Serbian ethnic origin, were born in 1936 and 1967 respectively. Until his death in March 2013 Petar Mileusni lived in Novska (Croatia). Goran Mileusni Espenheim, who lives in Dieskau (Germany), has subsequently pursued the application on his behalf. The case concerns the applicants' complaint that there was no adequate response by the national authorities to the killing of V.M., the applicants' wife and mother, respectively, and G.M., their daughter and sister, respectively. Both women died after being shot in their home by armed men in uniforms of the Croatian army in December 1991 during the armed conflict in Croatia. In a first set of criminal proceedings following the incident, the charges against two suspects were dropped and the proceedings against three other suspects were terminated in 1992. In a second set of criminal proceedings, following a complaint by the applicants in 2008, four suspects were charged with war crimes against the civilian population. Eventually, the charges against two of the suspects were dropped, and the remaining two men were convicted as charged and sentenced to ten and nine years' imprisonment in a judgment upheld by the Supreme Court in March 2013. In separate civil proceedings brought by the applicants, their claims for compensation for the deaths of their relatives were dismissed, but, following a friendly settlement between Mr Mileusni Espenheim and the Military of Defence he was awarded and paid compensation for the killing of his relatives in 2014. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate steps to investigate the death of their close family members and to bring the perpetrators to justice, and they alleged that their relatives had been killed because of their Serbian ethnic origin. They further relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), complaining that they had no effective remedy as regards the investigation into the death of their close relatives and that the national courts had dismissed their claim for damages. Helhal v. France (no. 10401/12) The applicant, Mohamed Helhal, is an Algerian national who was born in 1972. He is serving a thirtyyear prison sentence and has been held since September 2014 in the Poitiers-Vivonne Prison. The case concerns the compatibility of the applicant's health with his continued detention, and the arrangements for his treatment in prison. In March 2006, while he was imprisoned in Nancy, Mr Helhal attempted to escape; he fell several metres and fractured his spine. Having become disabled, he was initially treated in Fresnes Prison, and then transferred to various establishments. From May 2009 and until September 2014, he was held in the Uzerche detention centre. In August 2010 Mr Helhal applied to have his sentence suspended on medical grounds. The judge responsible for the execution of sentences appointed two medical experts. On 3 February 2011, taking into consideration the two concurring medical reports, the court responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant's request, finding that his health was compatible on a long-term basis with his imprisonment. However, the court held that the Uzerche detention centre was not adapted to his disability and that there were prisons which were equipped to receive people with disabilities, such as the Fresnes or Roanne prisons. Mr Helhal appealed against the judgment. The appeal court upheld the first-instance judgment. Mr Helhal appealed on points of law. The Court of Cassation declared his appeal inadmissible. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant submits that he was subjected to treatment in breach of that Article on account of the fact that he lacked access to treatment in prison. Bohlen v. Germany (no. 53495/09) Ernst August von Hannover v. Germany (no. 53649/09) These two cases concern the unauthorised use of the first names of two German public figures, and of news events concerning them, in humorous advertisements for cigarettes. The applicant in the first case, Dieter Bohlen, is a German national who was born in 1954 and lives in Rosengarten. He is a musician and artistic producer. On 23 October 2003 the company British American Tobacco used his first name in a cigarette advertisement, referring, in an ironic manner, to the partial censorship of a book by him, published in 2003. The applicant in the second case, Ernst August von Hannover, is a German national who was born in 1954 and lives in Monaco; he is particularly well-known as the husband of Princess Caroline of Monaco. On 27 March 2000 the same tobacco company launched an advertising campaign which also used the applicant's first names and exploited, in a satirical manner, the violent altercations between him and a cameraman and a disco manager in 1998 and 2000. In both cases, after having obtained orders prohibiting the distribution of the advertisements in question, Dieter Bohlen and Ernst August von Hannover each claimed remuneration under a fictitious licence and compensation for unauthorised use of their first names. The regional court and, subsequently, the Hamburg Court of Appeal upheld their claims, basing their decisions, in particular, on the purely commercial and for-profit nature of the advertisements, whose contribution to public debate had been marginal. However, in two judgments of 5 June 2008, the Federal Court of Justice, on an application by the company British American Tobacco, quashed the previous decisions and refused Mr Bohlen's and Ernst August von Hannover's claims under fictitious licences. Unlike the lower courts, the Federal Court of Justice considered, among other points, that in spite of their commercial nature, the contested advertisements could contribute to forming public opinion and, further, that they did not exploit Mr Bohlen's and Mr von Hannover's brand image or contain elements that were offensive to them. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Bohlen and Mr von Hannover allege that the Federal Court of Justice breached their right to private life, especially their right to their own names. Dzhabbarov v. Russia (no. 29926/08) The applicant, Ramazan Gardashkhan-Ogly Dzhabbarov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Tomsk. The case concerns his complaint of having been ill-treated in State custody. Mr Dzhabbarov was asked to appear at a regional office of the security service (FSB) in May 2006, where, according to his submissions, he was ill-treated by FSB officers in order to make him confess to a murder. In particular, he alleges that he was beaten for several hours and had a bag put over his head. He was subsequently placed in remand custody. Following Mr Dzhabbarov's complaint of being in pain and his allegations of having been beaten up in FSB custody, the governor of the remand prison informed the prosecutor's office. In July 2006, the military investigator decided not to open criminal proceedings into his complaint of ill-treatment, the decision being upheld on appeal. Following a new complaint by Mr Dzhabbarov, the investigator again refused to open criminal proceedings, but the decision was quashed and a new inquiry was ordered. Eventually, a decision not to open proceedings was confirmed by the supervising prosecutor in February 2009. In the meantime, Mr Dzhabbarov was convicted of manslaughter in July 2007. The conviction was quashed on appeal. In June 2009 he was found guilty of battery and sentenced to 140 hours of compulsory labour, and released from detention. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Dzhabbarov complains that he was ill-treated in State custody and that the ensuing investigation was not effective. Zhyzitskyy v. Ukraine (no. 57980/11) The applicant, Valentyn Zhyzitskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1971. He is currently serving a prison sentence. The case concerns Mr Zhyzitskyy's complaint of having been ill-treated by the police after being arrested on 1 May 2007, in order to make him confess to the murder of his wife from whom he was separated. He alleges in particular that he had a cap pulled over his head, was tied to a chair, and that electric shocks were administered to him, including to his genitals. Mr Zhyzitskyy confessed to the murder, but retracted the confession a few days later when represented by a lawyer whom he trusted. Following his complaint of ill-treatment, the prosecution authorities refused on several occasions to open criminal proceedings against the police officers involved in the alleged illtreatment. Mr Zhyzitskyy was convicted of murder and sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment in February 2008. The judgment was subsequently quashed, but his conviction was eventually upheld in March 2011. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Zhyzitskyy complains that he was ill-treated by the police and that there was no effective domestic investigation into the matter. He also complains, under Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of own choosing), that he did not have a fair trial on account of his selfincrimination under duress and in the absence of legal assistance. 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. Xhemalaj and Others v. Albania (no. 11994/05) Raljevic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 32148/11) Todorova v. Bulgaria (no. 52035/07) Akerlund v. Finland (no. 20998/13) Hanna Riikka Alasippola v. Finland (no. 39771/12) Robert Alasippola v. Finland (no. 49509/12) Malinen v. Finland (no. 20237/12) Fuchs v. Germany (nos. 29222/11 and 64345/11) Fessas v. Greece (no. 13787/13) Parmiciano v. Italy (no. 41360/04) Czechowski v. Poland (no. 42111/12) Duchnowski v. Poland (no. 56271/10) Foerster v. Poland (no. 56494/12) Krzeminski v. Poland (no. 52046/11) Macander v. Poland (no. 4172/13) Makulski v. Poland (no. 36199/13) Powalka v. Poland (no. 7068/11) Pyzlowski v. Poland (no. 4105/10) Suchecki v. Poland (no. 23201/11) Szarejko v. Poland (no. 17181/10) Wojcik v. Poland (no. 71265/13) Dias Campos v. Portugal (no. 36422/13) Goncalves Almeida Lopes v. Portugal (no. 46617/13) Maciel Rajao Pereira and Others v. Portugal (no. 37693/13) Moinhos De Trigo De Setubal, S.A. v. Portugal (no. 43460/13) Neves Goncalves v. Portugal (no. 42246/13) Rodrigues v. Portugal (no. 35494/13) Soares Miguel Ferreira Dos Santos v. Portugal (no. 47578/13) Istroiu v. Romania (no. 56556/10) Liana Radu v. Romania (no. 12899/06) Sgaiba v. Romania (no. 6005/05) Stefan v. Romania (no. 38836/06) Bruyeva v. Russia (nos. 6182/07, 9801/07, 11784/07, and 37887/07) Doroshenko v. Russia (nos. 39781/07, 44347/09, and 63160/09) Druzhinin v. Russia (no. 13620/07) Glushchenko v. Russia (nos. 32476/07, 11642/10, 18605/10, 41832/12, 41853/12, 41857/12, and 64834/12) Goloshchapov v. Russia (nos. 4627/06, 31290/06, 2369/07, 6234/07, 8545/07, 10114/07, 14545/07, 21634/07, 25837/07, 28938/07, and 35716/07) Kalinin v. Russia (no. 54749/12) Koval v. Russia (no. 25856/07) Lantukh v. Russia (no. 49824/07) Liberman v. Russia (nos. 8065/08, 10881/08, 13699/08, 14427/08, 14512/08, 17111/08, 18690/08, 20016/08, 22183/08, 23046/08, 28393/08, 31385/08, 31386/08, 31387/08, 37119/08, 37121/08, 41259/08, 41262/08, 54529/08, 54914/08, 54914/08, 55074/08, and 55207/08) Minkailova and Others v. Russia (nos. 5199/06, 34999/06, 45647/06, 49922/06, 51125/06, 4045/07, and 12730/07) Murtazin v. Russia (no. 41519/04) Ptitsyn v. Russia (nos. 60744/08 and 65419/09) Turishchev v. Russia (no. 34809/05) Zhuravlev v. Russia (no. 3034/07) Dostinoska v. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 755/10) `La Compagnie des Filles de la Charit� de Saint-Vincent-de-Paul' v. Turkey (no. 19579/07) Ozgultekin and Others v. Turkey (nos. 20971/07 and 51777/07) 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