003-5028879-6178662

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 068 (2015) 04.03.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing eight judgments on Tuesday 10 March 2015 and 42 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 12 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 10 March 2015 Halil Adem Hasan v. Bulgaria (application no. 4374/05) The case concerns the strict prison regime, involving isolation, of a life prisoner. The applicant, Halil Adem Hasan, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole in Lovech Prison (Bulgaria). Mr Hasan has been sentenced 11 times at the end of different sets of criminal proceedings. In particular, he was convicted in October 2000 of robbery and murder and sentenced to a cumulated punishment of life imprisonment without parole. He has since been serving his sentence in either Lovech or Varna Prisons. In Bulgaria life prisoners, such as Mr Hasan, are automatically placed under a heightened security regime and are kept in permanently locked cells. He has lodged two sets of proceedings for damages before the courts concerning his detention conditions (including inadequate toilet facilities, meaning he had to relieve himself in a bucket when in his cell, as well as poor ventilation, heating, hygiene, food and medical care) and the strict regime. His claims were rejected in final decisions by the Supreme Court of Cassation in May 2008 and February 2009, respectively, which found that such conditions of detention were not unlawful under domestic law. In recent years, apart from certain improvements (in particular, toilets and sinks were built in Lovech Prison in autumn 2008), there have been no significant changes in Mr Hasan's conditions of detention. Mr Hasan also made a complaint to the prosecuting authorities that, a Muslim of Turkish origin, he was regularly subjected to racial insults by the Varna prison authorities and in particular by one of the prison officers. In February 2005 the prosecuting authorities refused to open criminal proceedings against the officer concerned, finding that Mr Hasan should have brought a private criminal complaint before the courts. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Hasan alleges that the conditions of his detention in Lovech and Varna Prisons are/were inhuman and degrading, notably on account of the strict prison regime in which he is/has been held in both prisons without human contact or the possibility of activity outside of his cell. Also relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 3, he complains that he does not have effective remedies under national law with which to complain about the prison regime or conditions he is held in. Furthermore, under Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), he alleges that the prison authorities systematically monitored his correspondence with his lawyer while he was held in Varna Prison. Lastly, he complains under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 3 about the racial insults he was subjected to by the Varna prison authorities and one of the prison officers. Varga and Others v. Hungary (nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13) The applicants are six Hungarian nationals. At the time their applications were introduced they were detained in prisons in Baracska, Szolnok, Budapest, Sopronkhida, P�lhalma and Szeged (all in Hungary), respectively. The case concerns allegations of widespread overcrowding in Hungarian detention facilities. The six applicants have been detained in various periods between 2006 and the present day in a number of different Hungarian detention facilities with personal living space in their cells varying between 1.5 to 3.3 square metres. Mr Pesti notably complains about his detention for three years in M�rianosztra Prison where living space per inmate was maximum 2.86 metres. The remaining applicants also complain about other aspects of their detention, including the fact that only a curtain separated the rest of their cell from the lavatory, that some cells were infested with insects and that there was inadequate ventilation, sleeping arrangements as well as limited possibilities for detainees to shower or to spend time away from their cells. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain that the conditions of their detention in different prisons are/have been inhuman and degrading and that there is no effective remedy in Hungarian law with which they can complain about their detention conditions. The European Court of Human Rights currently has approximately 450 applications pending against Hungary concerning complaints about inadequate conditions of detention. Beh�et Ta v. Turkey (no. 48888/09) The applicant, Beh�et Ta, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Mu (Turkey). The case concerns the damage sustained by Mr Ta when an anti-personnel mine exploded and injured him and the proceedings subsequently instituted by him for compensation for the loss incurred. On 17 September 1997, while Mr Ta was gathering wood, an antipersonnel mine exploded and injured him. He ended up losing his left leg. An investigation was carried out and established that PKK terrorists were responsible. In 1999 Mr Ta unsuccessfully lodged an application for compensation with the Ministry of the Interior. He then brought proceedings in the Van Administrative Court seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 3 March 2001 the court dismissed his claim in respect of pecuniary damage on the ground that his capacity for work had remained intact, but awarded him the equivalent of 1,095 euros for non-pecuniary damage. In a judgment of 25 December 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Administrative Court's judgment in so far as it awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage but quashed the part in respect of pecuniary damage, requesting that expert reports be obtained establishing the applicant's incapacity for work. Following an expert report assessing the pecuniary damage at the equivalent of approximately 25,000 euros, the Administrative Court awarded the applicant that sum in a judgment of 30 December 2004. However, on an appeal by the authorities, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that judgment on 20 November 2007 on the grounds that no compensation was payable in respect of pecuniary damage as Mr Beh�et Ta was now carrying out functions adapted to his disability and that neither his salary nor any other allowances had been reduced since the explosion. The Supreme Administrative Court's position was followed by the Administrative Court in 2009. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complains that the Turkish State failed to protect his right to life in the face of terrorist threats. Relying, further, on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he alleges that his loss was not fairly assessed by the domestic courts and that the length of the proceedings was excessive. Y.Y. v. Turkey (no. 14793/08) The applicant, Y.Y., is a Turkish national living in Mersin (Turkey) who was born in 1981 and is registered in the civil-status register as being of female sex. Y.Y. became aware very early on in his life that he felt more like a boy than a girl. On 30 September 2005 he applied to the Mersin District Court for authorisation to undergo gender reassignment surgery. On 27 June 2006 the District Court rejected his application on the grounds, supported by medical reports, that he was not permanently unable to conceive and did not therefore satisfy one of the requirements laid down in Article 40 of the Civil Code. The Court of Cassation upheld the District Court's judgment. On 5 March 2013, relying on Article 40 of the Civil Code, Y.Y. lodged a fresh application with the Mersin District Court for authorisation to undergo gender reassignment surgery. On 21 May 2013 the Mersin District Court granted the application and authorised the requested surgery, finding it established that Y.Y. was a transsexual, that protection of his mental health required a change of gender, that the witness evidence had shown that the applicant lived as a man in every respect and suffered from his situation, with the result that the conditions laid down in Article 40 � 2 of the Civil Code were met and his request should be granted. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Y.Y. complains of an infringement of his right to respect for his private life. He alleges that the discrepancy between his perception of himself as a man and his physical constitution was established by medical reports and complains of the refusal by the domestic authorities to put an end to that discrepancy on the grounds that he was able to conceive. 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. Siliqi and Others v. Albania (nos. 37295/05 and 42228/05) Bujkovi v. Montenegro (no. 40080/08) Rambiert v. Poland (no. 34322/10) Wrona v. Poland (no. 29345/09) Thursday 12 March 2015 Adzi v. Croatia (no. 22643/14) The applicant, Miomir Adzi, is a national of the United States of America who was born in 1968 and lives in Charlotte, North Carolina (the United States of America). Mr Adzi's case concerns the length of court proceedings in Croatia in response to his request for the return of his son to the United States of America. Mr Adzi married a Croatian national in 2008 and later that year the couple had a son. His wife and son moved to the United States of America to join him in 2009. In 2011 Mr Adzi's wife and son went to Croatia for the summer. However instead of returning to America, his wife sent him an email informing him that they were to stay in Croatia and that she was seeking a divorce. A week later Mr Adzi began his efforts to have his son returned to him, making a request via the Croatian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare that his wife voluntarily return the boy and later requesting his return under the terms of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. His wife was opposed to returning the child either with or without her. The Ministry forwarded Mr Adzi's request to the Zagreb Municipal Court, which instituted proceedings for the return of his son. In March 2012 this court dismissed Mr Adzi's request. He successfully appealed this decision and argued for the appointment of a new judge in the case. The case was remitted and assigned to a new judge in January 2013 and new reports, expert opinions and information on the child and his welfare gathered. In May 2014 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court again dismissed Mr Adzi's case and the Zagreb County Court upheld the ruling in October 2014. The case is currently pending before the Constitutional Court. In November 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed his parallel case which concerned the length of time it was taking to secure a proper hearing. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Adzi complains about the excessive length of the proceedings � having so far lasted more than three years � for the return of his son under the Hague Convention. Mursi v. Croatia (no. 7334/13) The applicant, Kristijan Mursi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Kursanec (Croatia). Mr Mursi's case focuses on the conditions at Bjelovar Prison where he spent 17 months of his jail term between 2010 and 2012. In 2008 Mr Mursi was sent to prison for two years for robbery and in 2010 an additional charge of theft was brought against him. He was sentenced to a total of two years and 11 months in prison. During his incarceration he lodged numerous complaints with the prison authorities, Bjelovar County Court, the Ombudsman, and the Constitutional Court concerning his detention. His initial request to the prison authorities was for a transfer to another prison closer to his family but his subsequent complaints to the Courts focused predominantly on overcrowding in the cells. During his detention at Bjelovar Prison he was moved between four different cells in the prison which he shared with between two and seven other prisoners and where he had between 3 and 7.39 square metres of personal space. Occasionally his personal space fell slightly below 3 square metres for short, non� consecutive periods of time, including one period of 27 days. He was transferred to another prison in 2011. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Mursi essentially complains about the inadequate detention conditions at Bjelovar Prison. In particular he complains about the lack of personal space, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, the poor quality of the food, a lack of work opportunities, and insufficient access to recreational and educational activities. He further argues that his complaints were not properly examined by the relevant authorities in Croatia. Bouros and Others v. Greece (nos. 51653/12, 50753/11, 25032/12, 66616/12, and 67930/12) The applicants are three Greek nationals, Christodoulos Giatzoglidis, Michail Gavriilidis and Giorgos Pourselantzei, a Romanian national, Vasile Bouros, and a Bulgarian national, Stefan Dimitrov, born in 1962, 1984, 1983, 1972 and 1972 respectively, who either are or were detained in Larissa Prison (Greece). The case concerns their conditions of detention in that prison and, regarding Vasile Bouros, in Korydallos Prison, and regarding Stefan Dimitrov, in Diavata Prison. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain in particular of prison overcrowding and of the very insalubrious sanitary conditions in which they are or were detained. They allege that they were put in unfurnished, unheated and unlit cells measuring approximately 25 m� and containing between 6 and 10 inmates. They also complain of the unbearable smell in the prison caused by rubbish being thrown out of the cell windows into the yard, and of the vermin attracted by the rubbish. Vasile Bouros and Michail Gavriilidis allege, further, that they received insufficient treatment for their medical problems. Almeida Leit�o Bento Fernandes v. Portugal (no. 25790/11) The applicant, Maria de F�tima Almeida Leit�o Bento Fernandes, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1947 and lives in Fundao (Portugal). The case concerns the applicant's criminal conviction, following the publication of a novel, for libelling various members of her husband's family. Ms Fernandes is the author of a novel entitled The Palace of flies, written under the pen name Bento Xavier, which she edited herself before having a hundred copies printed, all of which were distributed free to relatives and friends. The novel tells the story of a family who came from the north of Portugal and emigrated to the United States. In the preface to her book she thanked the people who had inspired her, while stating that the facts narrated in her novel were the product of her imagination and that any resemblance with actual facts was purely fortuitous. The uncle, aunt, cousin, mother and sister of Ms Fernandes's husband ("the complainants") lodged a criminal complaint against her for libel, claiming that the novel related their family history and damaged the family's reputation. On 12 July 2004 the court issued a decision not to prosecute Ms Fernandes. Following an appeal lodged by the complainants with the Court of Appeal, the case was remitted to the Torre de Moncorvo Criminal Investigation Court, which committed Ms Fernandes for trial. On 26 March 2010 she was convicted of libelling the complainants and tarnishing the honour of two deceased members of the family. The Torre de Moncorvo Criminal Investigation Court found that the characters in the novel were exact replicas of Ms Fernandes's in-laws and, in weighing her right to freedom of expression against the right of the complainants to respect for their private life, it held that the applicant had tarnished their honour. She was sentenced to a cumulative sentence of 400 day-fines corresponding to the sum of EUR 4,000, and ordered to pay EUR 53,500 in damages to the complainants, namely, EUR 1,000, EUR 2,500 and EUR 10,000 to her husband's uncle, aunt and cousin respectively, and EUR 20,000 to her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Ms Fernandes unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal. Kopanitsyn v. Russia (no. 43231/04) The applicant, Dmitriy Kopanitsyn, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Moscow. Mr Kopanitsyn's case concerns his pre-trial detention on suspicion of robbery. On 15 July 2004 Mr Kopanitsyn was arrested on suspicion of robbery and claims he was beaten by a police officer who was trying to extract a confession from him. The next day the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow remanded Mr Kopanitsyn in custody and his detention was then repeatedly extended until his trial two years later when he was found guilty and given a prison sentence. Between July and September 2004 he was detained in IZ-77/1 remand prison in Moscow which he claims was overcrowded with poor sanitary conditions in the cells. Mr Kopanitsyn's initial letter of complaint to the European Court of Human Rights of September 2004 was misdirected to the President of Russia's Office and from there transferred to the Moscow Prosecutor's Office. A prosecutor notified Mr Kopanitsyn that his complaint to the European court of Human Rights had been examined and was considered unfounded. He was also informed that he ought to wait until after his case had gone to trial before making a complaint or else it would be considered that he had not exhausted domestic remedies. Mr Kopanitsyn twice lodged complaints about the Moscow Prosecutor's Office examining his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights. The Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow rejected the complaint on both occasions, a decision reaffirmed by the Moscow City Court on appeal. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 �� 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Kopanitsyn complains about the unlawfulness, excessive length and appalling conditions of his pre-trial detention. Further relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), he complains about the Government opening and examining his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights and the authorities' delay in posting two of his letters to his lawyer whilst he was serving his prison sentence. Lyalyakin v. Russia (no. 31305/09) The case concerns a complaint by a conscript about degrading treatment when he was caught trying to escape from the army, including appearing undressed in front of other soldiers. The applicant, Mikhail Lyalyakin, is a Russian national who was born in 1988 and lives in the town of Nizhniy Novgorod (Russia). Mr Lyalyakin was conscripted into the Russian Army in December 2006. After six months preparation in Kovrov, he was sent to Military Unit no. 34605 in Volgograd. He says that he found the atmosphere within the unit to be tense and violent, and as a result he panicked and decided to escape. He made his first attempt to escape on 4 June 2007, accompanied by a fellow junior sergeant. They were apprehended the next day and taken back to the camp. Mr Lyalyakin alleges that the two officers who found them threatened to kill them on their return to the base. Mr Lyalyakin therefore made another attempt to escape during the journey. He was caught and both junior sergeants were forced to undress, allegedly to prevent any further escape attempts. On 6 June they were both brought before the other servicemen on the parade ground and publically reprimanded by the battalion commander. Mr Lyalyakin claims that they were made to stand naked in front of the other servicemen. Mr Lyalyakin claims that he was repeatedly subjected to humiliating and abusive treatment by his fellow soldiers following his return to the camp. He therefore escaped again on 7 June and reached his family in Nizhniy Novgorod, he never returned to the unit in Volgograd. Soon after, he submitted a complaint about his ill-treatment to the Military Prosecutor's Office in Nizhniy Novgorod, who opened a preliminary inquiry. The case was sent to the Volgograd Military Prosecutor's Office for investigation. This office initially refused to open a criminal case, a decision rejected by the Prosecutor's Office of the North Caucasus Military Circuit. The investigators conducted five rounds of investigation, each time they decided against opening a criminal case and each time the decision was quashed by higher authorities and the case sent back for further investigation. There is no information on file concerning developments after the case was remitted for further investigations in 2011. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Lyalyakin complains that servicemen from his unit ill-treated him and that the authorities have failed to conduct a proper investigation into his allegations. 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. Telhai v. Albania (no. 32897/07) Olahovi v. the Czech Republic (no. 59774/09) Alamaras and Others v. Greece (no. 3384/12) Alexandri and Others v. Greece (no. 63400/11) Argyropoulos v. Greece (no. 23979/11) Baltzi-Ikonomopoulou v. Greece (no. 49205/11) Chaini-Konstantinidi v. Greece (no. 20513/11) Chalkidis v. Greece (no. 7834/11) Giannoukakis v. Greece (no. 51570/11) Koutsiouli (Kostouli) v. Greece (no. 52339/11) Liami v. Greece (no. 8845/12) Moutafi v. Greece (no. 46817/11) Papageorgiou v. Greece (no. 74726/11) Papathanasiou-Bouboukioti v. Greece (no. 46822/11) Pipilikakis v. Greece (no. 3300/12) Schinas v. Greece (no. 3920/11) Sofos and Others v. Greece (no. 15675/11) Theodoratos v. Greece (no. 24305/11) Tsakismenou and Others v. Greece (no. 72692/11) Vasdekis and Others v. Greece (no. 3343/12) Zachoulas v. Greece (no. 5126/12) H v. Norway (no. 51666/13) Kaluzna v. Poland (no. 43696/14) Konopacka v. Poland (no. 49044/12) Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 9951/10) Cowgill v. Portugal (no. 42271/13) Santos Goncalves v. Portugal (no. 47775/13) Burmistrova v. Russia (no. 887/06) Fatin and Others v. Russia (nos. 45353/05, 36029/07, 51447/07, 3908/08, 51390/08, 56156/08, 50904/09, 54590/10, 34038/13, and 42023/13) Karpenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 2355/06, 2488/06, 2908/06, 8162/06, 9836/06, 10564/06, 11275/06, 14136/06, 18356/06, 29588/06, 32326/06, 32464/06, 34333/06, 34459/06, 37236/06, 40611/06, 45755/06, 46730/06, 49366/06, 50105/06, 1652/07, 2603/07, 7344/07, 18312/07, and 44713/08) Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 28727/11) Podgornyy v. Russia (no. 52971/09) Pushchelenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 45392/11, 47671/11, 62205/11, 45312/13, and 53366/13) Benville Limited, Podruznica za transport, Ljubljana v. Slovenia (no. 1984/12) Malec v. Slovenia (no. 44070/08) Serdyuk v. Ukraine (no. 61876/08) 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