003-5023780-6170204

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 062 (2015) 25.02.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten judgments on Tuesday 3 March 2015 and 20 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 5 March 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 3 March 2015 Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria (application no. 12655/09) The applicants, Angelina Dimitrova and Konstantin Dimitrov, mother and son, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1973 and 2004 respectively and live in Sofia. Their case concerns the seizure of some of their assets by the state. Angelina Dimitrova and Konstantin Dimitrov are the widow and the son of Konstantin Dimitrov who died in 2003. In 2001 the Sofia regional public prosecutor opened a first set of proceedings against Ms Dimitrova and her husband under Chapter 3 of the Citizen's Property Act. Chapter 3 of this act covered the "forfeiture of unlawful or non-work related income received by citizens". Although most of the act was repealed in 1990, Chapter 3 remained in force until 2005. The investigation examined the couple's income between 1990 and 2001, but in 2002 the prosecutor decided to discontinue proceedings. At a later date the Sofia regional public prosecutor decided to open new proceedings, once more looking at their income over the same period. In 2004 the prosecutor brought a case against Ms Dimitrova and her son under Chapter 3 of the Citizen's Property Act, demanding the forfeiture of two flats, an office, some land, a holiday house and a car. Following an appeal, the State seized the flats, the office and the land in 2010 and obliged Ms Dimitrova and her son to pay the State the equivalent value of the holiday house and the car which had been transferred to other people during the course of the proceedings. Relying in particular on Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Dimitrova and her son argue that the forfeiture of their properties was unfair, alleging that the relevant law was flawed both in principle and in the way it had been applied in their case. Notably, the law provided for no time limits, meaning that the forfeiture proceedings could be opened, closed and reopened at any point, and placed a disproportionate burden on the defendants, there being no reliable method of calculating income and expenditure over a lengthy period of time which, in their case, had been marked by economic transition and galloping inflation. They also argue that the law served no particular purpose as cases related to tax evasion or criminal behaviour were specifically excluded; indeed, the applicants allege that they had never been charged with, prosecuted for or convicted of a criminal offence. S.Z. v. Bulgaria (no. 29263/12) The applicant, S.Z., is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Sofia. The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against individuals responsible for the illegal confinement and rape of the applicant. On 19 September 1999 S.Z., who was then a student aged 22, left Sofia for Blagoevgrad in a car with two young men, who during the journey told her that they intended to "sell" her as a prostitute. She was taken to a flat where she was held against her will and repeatedly beaten and raped by several men for about 48 hours before managing to escape. In the course of being interviewed by the police, who had been alerted by the occupants of the flat where S.Z. had taken refuge, the applicant attempted to throw herself out of the window. A criminal investigation was instituted. S.Z. identified two of her assailants in particular and two police officers with whom they had allegedly spoken before holding her against her will. She also stated that the men were part of a criminal gang involved in human trafficking who wanted to force her into prostitution in western Europe. The investigation was closed four times and the case sent back for further investigation on the grounds that the necessary investigative measures had not been carried out or that procedural irregularities had been committed. In 2007 seven defendants were committed for trial in the Blagoevgrad District Court on charges of false imprisonment, rape, incitement to prostitution or abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution. Twenty-two hearings were held, about ten of which were adjourned mainly on grounds of irregularities in summoning the accused or witnesses. In a judgment of 27 March 2012 five of the accused were convicted and given prison sentences and fines. Of the two other accused, one was acquitted and the proceedings against the other one were declared time-barred. In a final judgment of 11 February 2014 one of the convictions was set aside on the grounds that it was time-barred and the prison sentences of some of the other convicted prisoners were reduced. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention, the applicant complains of the ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings for the false imprisonment, assault, rape and trafficking in human beings perpetrated against her. She complains in particular of the lack of an investigation into the possible involvement of the two police officers and the failure to prosecute two of her assailants, and of the excessive length of time taken to investigate and try the case. She also submits that the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, in as far as they concerned her claim for damages, infringed the requirements of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). She submits, lastly, that her case is illustrative of a certain number of recurring problems regarding the ineffectiveness of criminal proceedings in Bulgaria, in particular in cases of human trafficking. Pisaroglu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 21061/11) The applicant, Natalia Pisaroglu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1987 and lives in Chiinu. Her case concerns poor conditions in the prison where she is detained. Ms Pisaroglu was arrested in 2010, charged with trafficking in human beings and detained on remand. She was still detained at Prison 13 in Chiinu in mid-2014. She complains that the prison cells are overcrowded, dirty and cold with no access to daylight or fresh air, no bedding, poor quality food and showers only once a week. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Pisaroglu argues that the conditions of her detention on remand in Prison no. 13 are inhuman and degrading. M.C. v. Poland (no. 23692/09) The applicant, Mr M.C., is a Polish national who was born in 1987 and currently lives in Skierniewice (Poland). His case concerns his allegation that he was subjected to ill treatment by his fellow inmates whilst in prison and that there was no effective investigation of his complaint. Mr M.C. was remanded in custody in 2007 following his arrest on suspicion of robbery. He was later charged with sexual abuse of a minor and in 2008 he was sentenced to seven years in prison. He complains that he was abused by two fellow inmates over a weekend in 2007 whilst in the psychiatric wing of the Warsaw-Mokot�w Remand Centre. He claims that the inmates' abuse included attempting to rape him with a broom, pouring cold water over him, spitting on him and scrubbing his head with a toilet brush. He says that he attempted to alert staff over the weekend but to no avail. He reported the incident to a doctor on the Monday morning and was quickly moved to a different cell. An internal investigation made light of the incident, with the prison authorities accepting the claim by the alleged perpetrators that they had merely been teasing him. They were deprived of their privileges to use the remand centre shop for one month and three months respectively. The internal investigation found no shortcomings in the behaviour of the guards or medical staff on duty over the weekend. Unsatisfied with this outcome, Mr M.C. filed criminal complaints against the alleged perpetrators and the prison officials. He also pursued a private prosecution; however this was subsequently discontinued on the expiry of the limitation period. The alleged perpetrators were initially charged in the criminal case, but the prosecutor eventually dropped the case in 2012, arguing that they could not be tried twice for the same offence and that there had already been a private prosecution. The prosecutor found that no criminal offence had been committed by the prison staff. In 2009 Mr M.C brought a civil case against the two alleged perpetrators and the State. The Warsaw Regional Court agreed that his rights had been infringed and he was awarded compensation payments from the State and one of the alleged abusers; Mr M.C settled with the other alleged abuser who agreed to make a payment to him. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr M.C. complains that he was physically and psychologically ill-treated by his fellow inmates in the remand centre and that the prison administration failed to ensure his safety. He also complains that, despite his fellow inmates partially admitting what they had done and being disciplined by the prison authorities, the prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation. Radovancovici v. Romania (no. 45358/13) The applicant, Omer Radovancovici, is a Romanian national who was born in 1965. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for smuggling and criminal conspiracy in February 2013 and is currently serving his sentence in Timioara Prison (Romania). Mr Radovancovici complains of his conditions of detention, and in particular sharing a 20 m2 cell with 17 other inmates. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). S.C. Asul de Aur � Aranyaszok S.R.L. and Fodor Barabas v. Romania (no. 35720/06) The first applicant, Alimentaie Public "Asul de Aur � Aranyaszok", was a commercial company incorporated under Romanian law having its registered office in Sf�ntu Gheorghe (Romania). It was set up in 1991 and removed from the commercial register in 2009. Its main activity had been food distribution. The second applicant, Magdolna Barabas, who is a Romanian national, was the sole shareholder and administrator. The case concerns the court-ordered liquidation of the applicant company following proceedings that the applicants consider to be unfair. In July 2004, when it became insolvent, the applicant company requested the institution of judicial reorganisation proceedings. At the request of Ms Barabas, the insolvency judge appointed C. company as judicial administrator. On 27 June 2005 the insolvency judge formally noted the opposition expressed by the majority of the creditors to the proposed recovery scheme and ordered liquidation proceedings. On appeal by the applicants, the case was referred to the County Court, which allocated it to the same insolvency judge. An application by Ms Barabas to the court challenging the insolvency judge and requesting the replacement of the judicial administrator was rejected. As the majority of the creditors again opposed the new recovery scheme, the insolvency judge ordered a second liquidation procedure. Appeals by the applicants were unsuccessful. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial / right of access to a court), the applicants allege a lack of impartiality on the part of the insolvency judge and complain of a failure to examine their request for replacement of the judicial administrator. Sandu Voicu v. Romania (no. 45720/11) The applicant, Sandu Voicu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Gneasa, in Ilfov County (Romania). The case concerns alleged shortcomings in Mr Voicu's conditions of detention while serving his sentence from May 2006 to January 2012, when he was suffering from functional deficiency due to his epilepsy and multiple spinal disorders. At around the end of 2010 it was established that Mr Voicu, who had been declared clinically healthy by doctors when taken into prison in 2006, was suffering from a second-degree disability. He had been diagnosed with a number of disorders from 2009. One of these was his epilepsy, and according to Mr Voicu he had numerous epileptic fits while in detention. He also suffered a stroke in September 2010. In December 2010 he was granted one-off assistance for the purpose of moving his personal effects, but a medical recommendation of 2011 that he be given permanent assistance was not followed up. While in detention Mr Voicu obtained an interruption of his sentence on health grounds for two periods (24 November 2008 - 1 July 2009 and 19 May - 26 August 2010). He underwent an operation on his spine in 2009 during the initial period. Physiotherapy sessions and a second operation, initially recommended by the doctors, could not take place on account of Mr Voicu's state of health. In a judgment of 25 November 2010 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed an application by Mr Voicu for an extension of the second interruption of sentence. All his other applications were dismissed, including his requests for a less severe prison regime. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Voicu alleges in particular that he was detained without receiving adequate personal treatment or assistance and that, on account of his medical disorders, the conditions of his detention amounted to inhuman treatment. Tocu and Others v. Romania (no. 36900/03) Just Satisfaction The applicants are seven Romanian nationals who were born in 1943, 1945, 1956, 1933, 1959, 1922 and 1945 and live in Bucharest. The case concerned the applicants' complaint that the domestic courts had annulled their title deeds in respect of plots of land for which they had not received any compensation. They relied on Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1. In its principal judgment of 25.11.2008 the Court found that the annulment of the applicants' title deeds had been based exclusively on acts attributable to the Romanian authorities and that no compensation or equivalent land had been granted. Accordingly, even supposing that the deprivation of property could be shown to have been in the public interest, the Court considered that the applicants had borne an individual and excessive burden as a result of having been deprived not only of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of two plots of land, but also of any compensation or redress. The Court thus held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicants 4,000 euros for costs and expenses. As to damage, it considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date. The Court will deal with this question in its judgment of 3 March 2015. 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. Trofim v. Romania (no. 1193/08) � Just satisfaction Gareth Taylor v. the United Kingdom (no. 2963/12) Thursday 5 March 2015 Tsitsiriggos v. Greece (no. 2) (no. 18230/09) The applicant, Dimitrios Tsitsiriggos, is a Greek national who was born in 1958 and lives in Piraeus (Greece). The case concerns in particular his pre-trial detention. On 4 February 2008 Mr Tsitsiriggos was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having set up an illegal investment fund and misappropriating several million euros. On 27 June 2008 the Indictment Division of the Athens Court of Appeal committed him for trial with 17 co-accused. His request to appear in person in order to support his request for release was refused on the ground that there was no provision for this in the relevant legislation. The merits of his request were also rejected by the Indictment Division, which, having regard in particular to the complexity of the case, the hundreds of people involved, the fact that Mr Tsitsiriggos had escaped arrest in the past and might commit further offences, considered that there were reasons not to terminate his detention or replace it by more flexible measures. That decision was upheld on 3 February 2009. In May 2009 Mr Tsitsiriggos was granted release on bail, for health reasons, on condition that he report regularly to the police station. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 c), 3, and 4 (right to liberty and security and right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily), Mr Tsitsiriggos complains of the refusal to grant his request for release, alleging that it lacked reasons, and of a violation of the principle of equality of arms in that his request to appear in person was rejected whereas the prosecutor had been heard. Kotiy v. Ukraine (no. 28718/09) The applicant, Andrey Kotiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1974. In 2003 he settled with his family in Germany where he held various managerial positions in German companies and from where he continued to co-own a company based in Ukraine. The case concerns his arrest and detention on fraud charges when travelling to Ukraine in 2008. Mr Kotiy alleges that he was arrested in Kharkiv (Ukraine) on 13 November 2008 when going to the migration authorities to renew his international travel passport and, previously put on the national list of wanted persons on account of criminal proceedings brought against him for financial fraud involving his company based in Ukraine, was escorted to Kyiv for questioning the next day. On 20 November a further set of criminal proceedings were brought against him and he was held in detention until 24 November 2008 when a hearing was held to examine the investigating authorities' request to detain Mr Kotiy in custody; the District Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that he might abscond, obstruct the investigation or continue any criminal activity and Mr Kotiy was therefore released. On his release, the investigating authorities obtained a written undertaking from Mr Kotiy not to abscond from his place of residence in Kharkiv and seized his international travel passports. Ultimately, in December 2011, the investigator closed both sets of criminal proceedings against Mr Kotiy, finding that the charges against him had not been proved. The written undertaking not to abscond was lifted and Mr Kotiy's passports were returned to him. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Kotiy alleges that both his initial arrest and detention between 13 and 14 November 2008 as well as his official arrest on 14 November and further detention until 24 November were unlawful and arbitrary; in particular, the initial arrest and detention had not been recorded and his further detention was neither based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence or sufficiently justified. He also alleges under Article 5 � 5 that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation in the domestic legal system for his unlawful arrest and detention. Lastly, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 2 (freedom of movement) of Protocol No. 4, he complains about the restriction on his right to leave Ukraine for more than three years. He alleges in particular that the obligation not to abscond and the seizure of his passports were unlawful � as they were not subject to judicial review � and disproportionate, given that his family life was largely concentrated in another country. 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. Danailov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 47353/06) Ogden v. Croatia (no. 27567/13) M.Is. v. Cyprus (no. 41805/10) Khemiri v. France (no. 44445/14) M.D. v. France (no. 15148/14) Morreale v. France (no. 41614/11) Ozaeta Mendicute v. France (no. 42906/14) Toualbia v. France (no. 31331/10) Mzekalishvili v. Georgia (no. 8177/12) Muller v. Germany (no. 264/13) Holownia v. Poland (no. 10824/11) Kowalczyk v. Poland (no. 10448/07) Kwiek v. Poland (no. 12120/11) Misztal v. Poland (no. 59585/11) Polak v. Poland (no. 34427/11) Zawadzki v. Poland (no. 50868/12) Ziolkowski v. Poland (no. 53411/11) Ryl v. Ukraine (no. 40614/10) 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. 7