003-5017142-6160681

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 056 (2015) 18.02.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 judgments on Tuesday 24 February 2015 and 40 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 26 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 24 February 2015 Magy v. Belgium (application no. 43137/09) The applicant, Yolande Magy, is a Belgian national who was born in 1949. She is currently incarcerated in Bruges prison (Belgium). The case concerns the lack of reasons given for the jury's verdict in the Assize Court judgment imposing a prison sentence on the applicant. Ms Magy, who was suspected of having helped poison and murder her co-defendant's wife, was sentenced by a judgment of 17 October 2008 of the Assize Court of Antwerp Province to 23 years' imprisonment. She appealed on points of law against this judgment, but to no avail. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Magy complains of the lack of reasons given for the jury's verdict and of the Assize Court judgment sentencing her to 23 years' imprisonment. Karaahmed v. Bulgaria (no. 30587/13) The applicant, Veli Karaahmed, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Sofia. His case concerns a demonstration by members of the Ataka political party outside the Banya Bashi Mosque in Sofia and the official investigations into this incident. In May 2011 Ataka organised a demonstration outside Sofia's only mosque during Friday prayers. In particular, between 100 and 150 members and supporters of Ataka gathered to protest against what they called "howling" coming from the mosque's loudspeakers. Mr Karaahmed was among the worshippers. The demonstration degenerated into violence with protestors shouting abuse at the worshippers. Police were present and intervened when fighting broke out. The police opened three investigations into the incident. The first two were suspended without anyone being charged. Seven people were charged as a result of the third investigation, although no information was provided as to whether they were prosecuted. The City prosecutor also opened an investigation: that investigation is ongoing and to date no charges have been bought. Mr Karaahmed complains that the authorities' response both during the demonstration and after it was inadequate. He relies in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Mihaylova and Malinova v. Bulgaria (no. 36613/08) The applicants, Ana Mihaylova and Lilyanka Malinova, daughter and mother, were born in 2001 and 1980 respectively. They live in Samokov. Their case concerns the killing of a young Roma man, Boris Mihaylov, by the police in 2004. Boris Mihaylov was the father of Ana Borisova Mihaylova and the partner of Lilyanka Yankova Malinova. In August 2004, a member of the public reported seeing Mr Mihaylov and two others trying to open the doors of a parked lorry. A police vehicle was dispatched to investigate, a chase ensued, at first by car and then on foot. One policeman chased Mr Mihaylov, and following a fight, shot him in the head. The policeman claimed to have acted in self-defence. A criminal investigation was opened on the day of the killing and completed two months later. In line with the investigator's recommendation, the prosecutor issued a decree to discontinue criminal proceedings against the police officer, notably, the prosecutor agreed that the police officer had shot Mr Mihaylov but that this had not been a disproportionate reaction to the alleged attack by Mr Mihaylov and therefore did not constitute an offence. This decree was quashed following a judicial review by the Sofia Military Court and the investigator was instructed to reopen the investigation. This pattern of the prosecutor issuing a decree to discontinue proceedings which was then quashed following a judicial review was repeated in total eight times, with the prosecutors reaching the same conclusion in every subsequent investigation. In December 2009 the policeman requested a judicial review by the Military Court of Appeal. This court ultimately found that he had been faced with a real and imminent attack; he had acted in self-defence and had not, therefore, committed an offence. The Military Court of Appeal therefore upheld the prosecutor's decree to discontinue the criminal proceedings. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Mihaylova and Ms Malinova argue that Mr Mihaylov was killed by the police in a situation where lethal force was not necessary. They also argue that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the matter. Further relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they were denied an effective remedy. Lastly, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2, they argue that Mr Milhaylov's Roma ethnicity contributed to the authorities' failure to conduct proper investigations into his death and meant that the police showed less compunction about using excessive force. Ciobanu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 62578/09) The applicant, Veronica Ciobanu is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1984 and lives in F�rlndeni. Her case concerns the death of her husband and her allegation that the authorities failed to conduct an appropriate investigation into his death. Mr Ciobanu, a taxi driver, died in a car accident in 2008. The driver and passenger of the other car were not injured. Two separate witnesses made statements that the vehicle which hit Mr Ciobanu's taxi was travelling at excessive speed on the wrong side of the road and that this car had hit Mr Ciobanu's taxi as he turned into a petrol station. They both stated that Mr Ciobanu had indicated before he turned. The driver of the other vehicle claimed that he had been travelling at a normal speed and that Mr Ciobanu had been parked by the side of the street. He alleged that Mr Ciobanu had suddenly pulled out into the path of his car. The authorities opened a criminal investigation into the accident but eventually decided to discontinue the investigation in 2009, dismissing the statements of two witnesses to the accident and accepting the uninjured driver's version of events. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Ciobanu argues that there has been no effective investigation into the circumstances of her husband's death. Promo Lex and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 42757/09) The applicants, Promo Lex and CREDO, are non-governmental organisations from the Republic of Moldova. Igor Grosu is a Moldovan national who was born in 1972 and lives in Chisinau. Their case concerns their right to freedom of assembly. In 2009 Promo Lex and CREDO organised a demonstration in front of the Prosecutor General's Office in response to the arrest of a protestor a few days earlier. Shortly after the start of the demonstration the group of 20 protestors was attacked by six masked men. The police offered no assistance even though the anti-riot regiment was based nearby and four uniformed policemen sitting in their patrol car nearby witnessed the attack. The attack was filmed by others whom the applicant NGOs believe to have been plain clothed policemen. A police patrol did eventually turn up one and half hours later and took two of the attackers into custody. All six attackers were subsequently identified and two of them received suspended sentences. No action has been taken against the inaction of the police. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Promo Lex, CREDO and Mr Grosu complain that the State failed to take appropriate police measures to protect them from a violent attack and indeed allege that the delay in the police's arrival could only have been deliberate. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they also complain that they were not able to complain about the failure of the police to protect their right to peaceful assembly under domestic law. Mierzejewski v. Poland (no. 15612/13) The applicant, Tomasz Mierzejewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1987 and lives in Loma (Poland).His case concerns the length of his pre-trial detention. Mr Mierzejewski was arrested in 2011 on suspicion of handling drugs and psychoactive substances. He was initially remanded in custody for three months. His pre-trial detention was subsequently repeatedly extended on the basis of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed serious crimes which would receive a severe prison sentence and then, when later charged with involvement in organised crime, on the basis that he would obstruct the proceedings if released on bail. In total he was held in pre-trial detention for 2 years 9 months and 29 days. He was eventually released on bail but was convicted and given a custodial sentence 11 days later. Relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), Mr Mierzejewski complains that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive. Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland (no. 21830/09) The case concerns the conviction of four journalists for having recorded and broadcast an interview of a private insurance broker using a hidden camera, as part of a television documentary intended to denounce the misleading advice provided by insurance brokers. The applicants, Ulrich Mathias Haldimann, Hansj�rg Utz, Monika Annemarie Balmer and Fiona Ruth Strebel, are Swiss nationals who were born in 1953, 1950 and 1969 and live in Uster, Zurich, B�retswil and Nussbaumen respectively. They are journalists. In February 2003 Ms Balmer, the editor of "Kassensturz", a weekly TV programme on consumer protection, which has been a regular feature on Swiss German television (SF DRS) for many years, prepared a documentary on sales of life insurance products, against a background of public discontent with the practices used by insurance brokers. She agreed with the editor responsible for the programme, Mr Utz, and Mr Haldimann, the editor-inchief of SF DRS, to record interviews between customers and brokers, using a hidden camera to highlight insurance broker malpractice. Ms Strebel, an SF DRS journalist posing as a customer, met with an insurance broker from company X on 26 February 2003. Two hidden cameras were placed in the room in which the interview was to take place, transmitting the recording of the conversation to a neighbouring room in which Ms Balmer and an insurance specialist had taken up position. At the end of the interview Ms Balmer entered the room, introduced herself and explained to the broker that he had been filmed. The broker said that he had been suspected as much, and refused to comment when invited to do so by the editor. On 25 March 2003 sequences from the recording were broadcast on the "Kassensturz" programme, with the broker's face and voice disguised. On 5 November 2007 Mr Haldimann, Mr Utz and Ms Balmer were convicted of having made the recording using a hidden camera and given penalties of 15 day-fines of 350 Swiss Francs (CHF), CHF 200 and CHF 100 respectively, while five day-fines of CHF 30 were imposed on Ms Strebel. The applicants appealed to the Federal Court, which ruled that, while acknowledging the major public interest of securing information on practices in the insurance field, which was liable to be weightier than the individual interests at issue, the journalists could have used a different approach less damaging to the broker's private interests. By a judgment of the High Court of the Canton of Z�rich of 24 February 2009, the applicants were acquitted of the charge of violating the secret or private domain by means of a film camera, and their penalties were reduced slightly to 12 day-fines for the first three applicants and four day-fines for Ms Strebel. The applicants complain that their sentence to payment of fines amounted to a disproportionate interference in their right to freedom of expression as protected under Article 10 (freedom of expression. Mehmet Yaman v. Turkey (no. 36812/07) The applicant, Mehmet Yaman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Aydin (Turkey). The case concerns ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on the applicant during his police custody and the length of the criminal proceedings against the police officers who he contended had been responsible for the violence. At the relevant time, Mr Yaman had been employed as a construction worker in Milas. On 6 March 2000 at about 4 p.m. a violent altercation took place between two groups of workers, including the applicant, outside the Milas law courts. The persons involved were arrested by the police. The applicant was examined in hospital at about 6 p.m., when swellings were noted on his head and around one eye. He was then remanded in custody until 7 March 2000, after which he was re-questioned. He was certified unfit for work for five days. An investigation was launched, and on 17 May 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint for ill-treatment against the police officers in question. By a judgment of 26 February 2013 the Criminal Court declined jurisdiction to deal with the case and referred it to the Assize Court. The case ended with the lapse of the prosecution on 6 September 2013. Mr Yaman alleges that the police officers inflicted on him treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) when he had been taken to the police station after his arrest. Under this provision, as well as Article 13 (lack of an effective remedy), he also complains of the ineffectiveness of the investigation conducted in respect of the police officers. 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. Gavovi v. Serbia (no. 13339/11) Luci v. Serbia (no. 13344/11) Nuhovi and Kurtanovi v. Serbia (no. 57252/13) Tomovi and Others v. Serbia (nos. 5327/11, 5352/11, 5364/11, 5370/11, 5381/11, 5389/11, 5390/11, 13351/11, 13353/11, 17353/11, 17376/11, 17396/11, 17399/11, 17404/11, 17418/11, 17420/11, 17422/11, 17427/11, and 17434/11) Thursday 26 February 2015 Khalikov v. Russia (no. 66373/13) Mr Sokhib Khalikov is an Uzbek national, he was born in 1983. He is currently detained in Moscow. His case principally concerns extradition and expulsion proceedings against him in Russia and his fear that he would be subjected to torture and ill-treatment if he were sent back to Uzbekistan. Mr Khalikov left Uzbekistan for Russia in 2011 after one of his friends was arrested and his flat was searched by the police. In 2012 the Uzbek authorities charged Mr Khalikov, in his absence, with membership of a banned radical Islamic organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and issued an arrest warrant against him. As a result, Mr Khalikov was arrested by the Russian police in 2013 and a public prosecutor authorised his detention for one month pending extradition. The Russian authorities then extended Mr Khalikov's detention for a further five months and the extradition proceedings are still pending. On the expiry of Mr Khalikov's detention order, he was released but immediately taken to a police station and charged with infringing Russian immigration law. The District Court ordered his removal from Russia on administrative grounds, and his detention pending his removal. Whilst in detention Mr Khalikov has also sought refugee status in Russia, a request which has been rejected. In the meantime, in October 2013, Mr Khalikov's removal was suspended on the basis of an interim measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, which indicated to the Russian Government that Mr Khalikov should not be expelled or extradited to Uzbekistan whilst the Court is considering his case. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Khalikov argues that the Russia authorities have failed to assess the risk of ill treatment if he is forced to return to Uzbekistan and that he has no means of challenging the Russian authorities' position. Mr Khalikov also complains under Article 5 � 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) that his continued detention whilst he awaits removal on administrative grounds, following the expiry of the extradition detention order, is unlawful and under Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) that he has been unable to obtain a judicial review of his detention. Yevgeniy Bogdanov v. Russia (no. 22405/04) The applicant, Yevgeniy Bogdanov is a Russian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Akhtubinsk, in the Astrakhan Region. His case essentially concerns his complaint about the appalling conditions of his pre-trial detention. Mr Bogdanov was arrested on suspicion of rape and remanded in custody in December 2002. His pre-trial detention was repeatedly extended and his appeals against the extension rejected, despite his requests to either be released or kept under house arrest to enable him to seek medical treatment, having contracted hepatitis C in 2002. He remained in pre-trial detention until May 2005, a period of two years, five months and ten days. His detention ended with his conviction and sentencing to eight years' imprisonment. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Bogdanov complains about overcrowding and the generally unhygienic and unsanitary conditions he was detained in. During his pre-trial detention Mr Bogdanov also alleges that his hepatitis C worsened, that he contracted tuberculosis and skin complaints due to sharing overcrowded cells with infected people and that the medical care was inadequate. In addition he complains about the transfer journeys between prisons, in overcrowded conditions without adequate food and no sanitary arrangements. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he further argues that he did not have a means to challenge the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention as his complaints were dismissed by the relevant authorities. Lastly, relying on Article 5 �� 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Bogdanov complains that his pre-trial detention, lacking grounds, was unlawful, and continued for an excessively long time and that the judicial review of his detention was too slow. M.T. v. Sweden (no. 1412/12) The applicant, M.T., is an ethnic Uyghur and a Kyrgyz national. He was born in 1985 and is currently in Sweden. His case concerns the availability and access to adequate medical treatment for kidney failure if he were to be expelled to Kyrgyzstan. M.T arrived in Sweden in 2009 and applied for asylum and a residence permit. His asylum claim stemmed from his ties with his business partner, an ethnic Uyghur from China, who had been arrested on suspicion of supporting the Uyghur disturbances in China. M.T had been arrested by the Kyrgyz police in the autumn of 2009 and, although released, was twice summoned to appear in court. At this point he left Kyrgyzstan. M.T suffers from chronic kidney failure and requires regular dialysis. He claims that he had been refused medical treatment in Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan) following his arrest and that there are insufficient dialyses machines in Kyrgyzstan to meet the population's need. His request for asylum was rejected by the Migration Board and, upon appeal, by the Migration Court. In November 2011 the Migration Court of Appeal refused him leave to appeal. In particular, the Migration authorities considered that M.T.'s submissions were not credible and that he had failed to substantiate that, if removed, he would either be at risk of persecution or of not receiving adequate treatment within a reasonable time. In January 2012 M.T.'s removal was suspended on the basis of an interim measure granted by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, which indicated to the Swedish Government that he should not be expelled whilst the Court is considering his case. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), M.T. argues that adequate medical care is not available to him in Kyrgyzstan and he would die within a few weeks if he were forced to return there. Prilutskiy v. Ukraine (40429/08) The applicant, Igor Prilutskiy, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Donetsk. His case concerns the failure of the state to protect his son's safety on the road and the ineffective criminal proceedings which followed his death. Mr Prilutskiy's son was killed in a car crash in 2006 whilst he was participating in an organised driving game in Donetsk. His team's car crashed, resulting in the death of three passengers. The driver sustained injuries. The regional police department immediately opened an investigation into the car crash. In 2007 the police decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the organisers of the driving game. The investigative authorities found that the driver had lost control of the car because he was driving too fast, and that this had resulted in the death of the three passengers. Whilst the authorities agreed that his actions amounted to a crime, the driver had developed a mental disability following the accident, and in consequence they only recommended that the court impose compulsory medical measures on the driver. The case was heard in 2011, appealed in 2012 and further investigations undertaken. The case was still pending in 2013. Relying principally on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Prilutskiy complains that the State failed to take appropriate steps to protect his son's life during a driving game. He also complains that the criminal proceedings in connection with the accident have been ineffective. Zaichenko v. Ukraine (no. 2) (no. 45797/09) The applicant, Vladimir Zaichenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk (Ukraine). His case concerns his involuntary psychiatric confinement and the collection of personal information about him by the police. Mr Zaichenko was a frequent litigant before the domestic courts in Ukraine and in 2009 he sent several rude letters to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administrative Court. In response the court prepared a report arguing that Mr Zaichenko was in contempt of court. The District Court heard the case and ordered a psychiatric examination of Mr Zaichenko to determine whether he could be held legally accountable. Mr Zaichenko spent a night at the psychiatric hospital but the hospital claimed it could not conduct the examination due to a lack of information in the case file. The Court president instructed the police to gather information about Mr Zaichenko (including any psychiatric treatment or medication he had received as well as information about his character from his relatives, neighbours and colleagues) in order to complete the case file for the hospital. Mr Zaichenko was then taken back to the hospital, but the hospital again stated that the examination could not be conducted without the provision of extra background information. This time Mr Zaichenko was detained in the hospital whilst additional information was gathered. A group of experts eventually produced an inconclusive report recommending a further examination and Mr Zaichenko was discharged. The Court continued to try and obtain a psychiatric examination of Mr Zaichenko but without success. The contempt of court proceedings were eventually dropped in 2010 as too much time had elapsed, a decision Mr Zaichenko appealed unsuccessfully on the basis that no administrative offence had been committed in the first place. Mr Zaichenko initiated various proceedings against the psychiatric hospital, arguing that his hospitalisation and confinement were unlawful and that the hospital had refused to provide him with a copy of its report. Mr Zaichenko also lodged a complaint against some judicial officials and the police involved in taking him to the psychiatric hospital. He was notably awarded 40 compensation for the hospital's failure to provide him with a copy of the examination report, his other complaints were rejected. Relying chiefly on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Zaichenko complains that he was taken to and detained in a psychiatric hospital against his will for 25 days. Also relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Zaichenko complains about the collection of personal information about him by the police. 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. Aleksic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 38233/05) Borg and Vella v. Malta (no. 14501/12) M.O.S.H. v. the Netherlands (no. 63469/09) O. v. the Netherlands (no. 24716/14) Prandota v. Poland (no. 29055/09) Wilczynska v. Poland (no. 16572/13) Butnaru v. Romania (no. 17578/08) C.O. v. Romania (no. 17175/14) Gheorghiu v. Romania (no. 72761/13) Giurgiu v. Romania (no. 3800/10) Hutanu v. Romania (no. 50858/09) Ion Mircea v. Romania (nos. 6314/09, 58801/09, 58808/09, and 58813/09) `Les Paroisse orthodoxe Pecica I et la Paroisse orthodoxe Pecica II' v. Romania (no. 54981/07) Neagu v. Romania (no. 5428/14) `Paroisse Evangelique C. A. Sebes � Petreti' v. Romania (no. 26254/04) Praisler v. Romania (no. 44676/08) Traian tefni Popa v. Romania (no. 3216/05) Vcaru and Others v. Romania (nos. 22994/08, 23400/08, 41315/08, 17802/10, 49565/11, and 71791/12) Acimovic and Others v. Serbia (nos. 8397/08, 46608/14, 46622/14, 46642/14, 46653/14, 46656/14, 46658/14, 46662/14, 46666/14, 46669/14, 46674/14, 46676/14, 46678/14, 46680/14, 46683/14, 46686/14, 46689/14, 46690/14, 46759/14, 46762/14, 46764/14, 46766/14, 46767/14, 46770/14, and 46772/14) Hristov v. Serbia (no. 46827/13) Jovanovic and Others v. Serbia (nos. 38535/07, 43343/07, and 60526/12) Kladnicanin v. Serbia (no. 137/10) Krndija and Others v. Serbia (nos. 16285/10, 53649/10, 53652/10, and 33539/11) Radovanovic v. Serbia (no. 73685/12) Spasic v. Serbia (no. 21477/13) Stankovic and Others v. Serbia (nos. 80131/12, 80160/12, 7630/13, 7749/13, 7756/13, 7773/13, 8177/13, 8424/13, 8778/13, 8785/13, 14998/13, 15167/13, 15169/13, 16915/13, 16932/13, 28852/13, 30027/13, 30032/13, and 30033/13) Stanojevic and Others v. Serbia (nos. 62019/11, 4551/12, 18101/12, 40265/12, 52157/12, and 80754/12) Stojkovic and Others v. Serbia (nos. 80775/12, 81037/12, 3145/13, 5308/13, 5348/13, 5650/13, 5657/13, 5663/13, 5669/13, 8786/13, and 9190/13) Terzic v. Serbia (no. 57324/13) Janjic v. Slovenia (no. 16706/14) Pajk v. Slovenia (no. 33091/14) Skero v. Slovenia (no. 25555/14) Skero v. Slovenia (no. 2) (no. 35142/14) Barsukovy v. Ukraine (no. 23081/07) Baryshevskyy v. Ukraine (no. 71660/11) 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