003-5041301-6196053

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 084 (2015) 18.03.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 11 judgments on Tuesday 24 March 2015 and 24 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 26 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 24 March 2015 Antonio Messina v. Italy (application no. 39824/07) The applicant, Antonio Messina, is an Italian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Bologna (Italy). The case concerns a reduction in sentence which was allegedly granted to the applicant tardily, with, he submits, the effect of extending the duration of the sentence he had to serve. Mr Messina has been convicted on several occasions for serious offences; the last time was in 2001, by the Palermo Assize Court of Appeal, for membership of a mafia-type criminal organisation. He was imprisoned on several occasions between 1976 and 2007. Mr Messina requested several reductions in sentence on the basis of 45 days per six months of imprisonment, as provided for by law. In 1998, 2003 and 2004 he obtained reductions in sentence from the Naples and later the Bologna judges responsible for the execution of sentences, in respect of periods of imprisonment after May 1998. In contrast, on 14 June 2004 the Bologna court responsible for the execution of sentences refused to grant him a reduction of sentence for the period prior to May 1998, on the ground that the criminal activity in question had been ongoing, and had ended only in September 1998. That decision was subsequently quashed following an appeal on points of law lodged by Mr Messina. The case was transmitted to the Bologna court responsible for the execution of sentences, which upheld the first decision on the same ground. The applicant's second appeal on points of law was dismissed. On 12 July 2007 Mr Messina's criminal record was amended, indicating that the offences for which he had been sentenced until May 1998 had run not until September 1998 but until September 1989. Following a request by the applicant, on 8 October 2007 the Bologna judge responsible for the execution of sentences granted him a reduction of sentence of 405 days, for the period from 1993 to 1998. The applicant was released on the same day. Had this last reduction in sentence been applied earlier, the applicant could have been released from 11 January 2007. Relying on Article 5 � 1 of the Convention (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges that the delay in granting the reduction in sentence had the effect of prolonging the period during which he had to serve his sentence. He also alleges that the judge did not grant a reduction for the period from 23 November 2006 to 8 October 2007. Relying also on Article 5 � 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, he complains that he did not receive compensation for his wrongful imprisonment. Lastly, relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the procedure was unfair. Gallardo Sanchez v. Italy (no. 11620/07) The applicant, Manuel Rogelio Gallardo Sanchez, is a Venezuelan national who was born in 1965 and lives in Cape Town (South Africa). The case concerns the duration of the period of detention imposed on Mr Gallardo Sanchez pending his extradition. On 19 April 2005 Mr Gallardo Sanchez, who had been accused of arson by the Greek authorities, was placed in detention pending extradition by the Rome police, in execution of an arrest warrant issued by the Athens Court of Appel. On 21 June 2005 the prosecutor's office asked the appellate court to grant the request for extradition that had been submitted by the Greek authorities in the interim. On 12 January 2006 the appellate court ruled in favour of Mr Gallardo Sanchez's extradition, after having verified that the request complied with the 1957 European Convention on Extradition and with domestic law. On 11 May 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law against the appellate court's decision, lodged by Mr Gallardo Sanchez on 3 March 2006. His detention continued until 26 October 2006, when he was extradited. Relying on Article 5 � 3 of the Convention (right to liberty and security), Mr Gallardo Sanchez complains of the duration of the detention imposed on him pending his extradition, arguing that it was excessive in view of the straightforward nature of the case. Stettner v. Poland (no. 38510/06) The applicant, Seweryn Stettner, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Lublin (Poland). He was a senior doctor specialising in kidney transplants. The case concerns his detention on remand on charges of corruption. Mr Stettner was arrested in June 2006 on charges of bribe-taking from his patients between 1997 and 2004. He was held in detention on remand for the next six months until the national courts decided to release him on bail. In the meantime, he appealed against his detention, claiming that it could seriously jeopardise his life or health as he suffered from sleep apnoea (a sleep disorder characterised by pauses in breathing during his sleep, requiring him to use a respirator at night). In the first two decisions on Mr Stettner's detention the courts justified keeping him in detention on remand on the basis of the reasonable suspicion against him and the severity of the anticipated penalty against him. In a further decision of August 2006, the courts found that non-custodial measures would be insufficient given the risk that Mr Stettner might obstruct the proceedings. The courts saw no reason to release him on health grounds, finding that he was provided with constant medical care in detention. Ultimately, in November 2006 the courts granted bail given the period that he had already spent in custody and the advanced stage of the investigation. Mr Stettner complains that detaining him put his life and health in danger given his sleep disorder and need for him to use a respirator. He further complains of inadequate medical care during his custody, alleging that his health had seriously deteriorated. He also complains that the authorities' grounds for ordering his detention were not sufficient and that there was a delay in their examination of his appeal against the decision of August 2006 to extend his detention on remand. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) and Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania � Helsinki Committee on behalf of Ionel Garcea v. Romania (no. 2959/11) The case concerns access to proper medical treatment for a prisoner whilst in detention and the difficulties faced by a non-governmental organisation to lodge an effective complaint following his death. The applicant, the Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania � Helsinki Committee (Asociaia pentru Aprarea Drepturilor Omului �n Rom�nia � Comitetul Helsinki, "the APADOR-CH"), is a Romanian NGO, which lodged the present application on behalf of Ionel Garcea, now deceased. Ionel Garcea was born in 1973 and died on 19 July 2007 in Rahova prison hospital. He had no known relatives. In 2002 he was sentenced to seven years in prison, the incidents described in this case took place whilst he was serving this sentence. Mr Garcea was diagnosed with a mental illness as well as other health problems and during his time in prison he was frequently admitted to the psychiatric ward of the prison hospital. He also made suicide attempts, refused to take medication and on three occasions was taken to hospital for surgery after he inserted a nail into his forehead. His prison record states that he was monitored by a psychologist. Mr Garcea complained to APADOR-CH that he had been beaten by the prison guards on several occasions, stating that on one occasion he had lost consciousness and had to be hospitalised. The prison authorities, who denied using physical force, claimed that any restraint had only been in response to Mr Garcea's aggression and served merely to prevent Mr Garcea harming himself or prison staff. In 2007, whilst in Jileva prison hospital, Mr Garcea inserted another nail into his head. He was operated on in a civilian hospital and sent to Rahova prison hospital suffering from post-operative symptoms, sepsis and acute bronchopneumonia. He was returned once to the civilian hospital for further examination as his condition deteriorated, and then continued his course of treatment at the prison hospital. Mr Garcea died in Rahova prison hospital just over a month after the operation. The official investigations following his death are still pending. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), APADOR-CH complains that Mr Garcea was not given a level of medical care compatible with his mental and physical health needs, and that the administrative and criminal investigations after his death were not satisfactory. APADOR-CH argues in particular that certain essential steps were not followed during the investigations. Milena Felicia Dumitrescu v. Romania (no. 28440/07) The applicant, Milena Dumitrescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Bucharest. Her case concerns the inefficiency of the State's investigations following her complaint to the police about an alleged violent attack. Ms Dumitrescu lodged a criminal complaint in 1998, claiming to have been a victim of assault, theft, rape and of being detained against her will. A medical certificate stated she had injuries which could have been caused by blows, but made no mention of rape. Three weeks later the man she accused was arrested and a prosecutor started a criminal investigation into her allegations of theft and detention. In 1999 the investigators proposed charging the accused man with the aggravated theft of Ms Dumitrescu's property deeds, but this was rejected by the prosecutor, who requested the investigators first gather more evidence. The investigation into aggravated theft and unlawful detention was eventually dropped in 2003, but enquiries continued into the accusations of bodily injuries and threatening behaviour. Several hearings were held in 2004 but they were repeatedly adjourned due to the authorities' failure to notify the accused. In 2005 it transpired that he had left Romania for the USA. In 2005 the Bucharest District Court referred the case back to the prosecutor asking him to investigate the allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty and rape, however the prosecutor decided to discontinue the rape investigation in 2006, claiming that the offence had not been proved. Some months later, almost nine years after the date of the alleged offence, the Bucharest District Court dismissed Ms Dumitrescu's criminal complaint because the period for criminal liability had expired in 2002 for the offence of threatening behaviour and in 2005 for bodily injury. Ms Dumitrescu appealed, complaining that she had immediately lodged a criminal complaint following the incident but that it had taken six years before the first court hearing was held and then, even after 11 hearings, the file had been sent back to the prosecutor's office. Her appeal was dismissed. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Dumitrescu complains that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation after she had made a criminal complaint. Pop and Others v. Romania (no. 31269/06) The applicants, Daniel Viorel Pop, Ion Florin Roman, Zoltan Vasile Szilaghyi, and Zoltan tefan Vrasgyak, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1967, 1974, 1953, and 1961 respectively and live in Baia Mare (Romania). The case concerns their complaints about the proceedings brought against them for trafficking in Schengen visas. In April 2001 the military security authorities started secretly monitoring the telephone conversations made by the applicants. The first two applicants were in the Romanian army at the time and the second two applicants were civilians. All four applicants were subsequently indicted in December 2002 for complicity in bribery, the military prosecuting authorities basing the accusations on the transcripts of the applicants' telephone conversations and on statements made by some of the individuals the applicants had allegedly helped to obtain visas as well as statements made by the applicants themselves. In April 2004 the Bucharest Military County Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to prison sentences of between six months and two years. Mr Roman was pardoned and the other three applicants were given suspended sentences. In a final judgment of December 2005 the Court of Cassation, sitting as an ordinary criminal court, upheld the applicants' convictions and sentences and dismissed their appeal on points of law. The applicants make a number of complaints under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) about the unfairness of the proceedings brought against them, namely: they were not able to prepare their defence as the authorities did not disclose all the evidence in the secret surveillance file against them, even though the courts used this evidence � the recordings of their telephone conversations � to convict them; the lower courts which examined the merits of the case against Mr Szilaghyi and Mr Vrasgyak (the second two applicants), who were civilians, were military courts composed exclusively of military judges and therefore lacked impartiality and independence; and, the courts failed to examine an appeal point raised by Mr Vrasgyak. Lastly, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home, and the correspondence), the applicants allege that the authorities' monitoring of their telephone conversations was unlawful. Vere v. Romania (no. 47615/11) The applicant, Cornel Vere, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Livada (Romania). The case concerns the ill-treatment to which he was allegedly subjected by a police officer, and his claims that there was no effective investigation into this ill-treatment. On 27 June 2009 Mr Vere was arrested by a police officer in a bar following a call by the waitresses, who complained that the applicant, who was drunk, had insulted them. On the same date the police officer drew up an official report, indicating that Mr Vere, who was receiving psychiatric medical treatment, had been aggressive and had injured himself seriously during the arrest. On 3 July 2009 Mr Vere complained to the Gherla prosecutor's office, alleging abusive conduct by the police officer and requesting a report by the Cluj Institute of Forensic Medicine. He alleged that the injuries sustained during his arrest had been caused by the police officer, who had punched and kicked him in the head and stomach and had walked on his fingers in order to crush them. On 18 February 2010 the public prosecutor at the Cluj Court held that there were no grounds for sending him for a forensic examination and decided not to bring a prosecution, a decision that was upheld by the head prosecutor and then by the Cluj County Court. Mr Vere lodged a separate complaint about the investigators' refusal to send him to the forensic doctor, and on 13 November 2012 the prosecutors' office at the Cluj Court issued another decision not to bring a prosecution. After the case had been sent back to the prosecutor's office by the Cluj County Court, which ordered additional investigations, further decisions not to bring a prosecution were issued on 24 July and 29 November 2013 by the prosecutor's offices at the Cluj Court and the Cluj Court of Appeal. Those decisions were upheld, respectively, by the Cluj County Court and the Cluj Court of Appeal. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Vere alleges that he was ill-treated by a police officer during his arrest on 27 June 2009. He also alleges that no effective investigation was conducted into this ill-treatment, referring in particular to the repeated refusal to send him for a forensic medical examination. Zaie v. Romania (no. 44958/05) The applicant, Parasca Zaie, is a Romanian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Sv�rin (Romania). The case concerns the annulment of her adoption 31 years later at the instigation of her adoptive sister. Ms Zaie was adopted in February 1972 at the age of seventeen. She also had a sister, H.M., adopted by the same adoptive mother. After the death in 1986 of the adoptive mother, it transpired that the sisters were entitled to a parcel of forest land which had been unlawfully expropriated from their mother's family. Ms Zaie was in principle entitled to inherit a half share. However, H.M. successfully sought the annulment of Ms Zaie's adoption, meaning that she could not inherit. In December 2004 the first-instance court which heard H.M.'s action found that Ms Zaie's adoption had only been intended to serve the economic interests of the adoptive mother and Ms Zaie, and declared Ms Zaie's adoption void. This decision annulling Ms Zaie's adoption was taken 31 years after the act of adoption and 18 years after the death of her adoptive mother. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Zaie alleges that the annulment of her adoption was an arbitrary and disproportionate intrusion into her family life, submitting that she had lived with her adoptive mother since the age of nine and that their relationship had been based on affection, responsibility and mutual support. Also relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, she complains that, after the annulment of her adoption, she lost title to the five hectares of forest she inherited from her adoptive mother. smail Sezer v. Turkey (no. 36807/07) The applicant, smail Sezer, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Kirklareli (Turkey). He is a teacher in a primary school. The case concerns a disciplinary sanction imposed on him for having taking part in a public event, and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of that sanction. On 7 April 2006 a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party invited the trade union in which Mr Sezer was secretary of the local branch to participate in a panel discussion on the theme "Turkey's problems and the means of finding a solution". On 10 April 2006 Mr Sezer was present at this panel discussion. On 17 April 2007 the Director of the Provincial Directorate of National Education imposed a reprimand for having attended a panel discussion organised by a political party. Mr Sezer appealed against this decision to the Kirklareli prefect, arguing, among other points, that he had attended the panel discussion in his capacity as a citizen and leading member of the local branch of his trade union, and not as a civil servant, and that he had refrained from expressing any opinion whatsoever during it. On 28 May 2007 his appeal was dismissed. Relying on Article 11 of the Convention (right to freedom of assembly and association), Mr Sezer alleges that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him amounted to disproportionate interference in his freedoms as guaranteed by that Article. Relying also on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Sezer complains that, under the domestic law in force at the relevant time, he could not challenge the reprimand before a court. K���kbalaban and Kutlu v. Turkey (nos. 29764/09 and 36297/09) The applicants, Ms Ayg�l K���kbalaban and Mr Mehmet Kutlu, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1971 respectively and live in Ankara (Turkey). They are both teachers in State schools run by the Ministry of Education. The case concerns the disciplinary sanction imposed on them for having taking part in an event that was co-organised by the trade union of which they were members, and the failure to communicate the opinion of the State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative Court. On 15 February 2005 the applicants attended an event on the theme "World Peace against World War", organised by a civil-society group bringing together various associations, political parties and trade unions, including the trade union to which they were affiliated. On 14 June 2005 the provincial disciplinary panel imposed a disciplinary sanction, consisting in a one-year freeze on promotion, on the ground that the applicants had taken part in an unauthorised event to commemorate the arrest of the leader on an illegal organisation, and that they were in fact activists in a political party. On an appeal by the applicants, the Gaziantep Administrative Court upheld the disciplinary sanctions on 20 June and 29 September 2006. Ms K���kbalaban and Mr Kutlu appealed on points of law to the Supreme Administrative Court, which upheld the contested judgments, in line with the opinion issued before the deliberations by the judge rapporteur and the State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative Court. Relying on Article 11 (right to freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complain that the sanction imposed on them amounted to disproportionate interference in the freedoms guaranteed by that Article. Relying also on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), they allege that the failure to communicate the opinion of the State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative was a violation of the principle of equality of arms. S�leyman Demir and Hasan Demir v. Turkey (no. 19222/09) The applicants, S�leyman Demir and Hasan Demir, father and son, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1951 and 1973 respectively and live in Hakkari (Turkey). Their case concerns the authorities' inadequate investigation and handling of a case into an allegation of violence at the hands of two gendarmes. Hasan Demir received a telephone call in 2007 asking that his father, S�leyman Demir, report to the �ukurca Gendarmerie Station. Hasan Demir accompanied his father there later the same day and waited whilst he went inside. S�leyman Demir claims he was then beaten and abused by two gendarmes, who also made death threats towards him and his family, for approximately one hour. Hasan Demir reported that his father had to be physically supported when he left �ukurca Gendarmerie Station and he had to call the local village guard to give them a lift home in his car. S�leyman Demir was examined at the �ukurca Hospital the same evening and transferred to the Hakkari State hospital where he was examined again. The day after his summons to the Gendarmerie Station S�leyman Demir made a formal complaint to the Hakkari prosecutor against the two gendarmes. The Hakkari prosecutor decided he did not have jurisdiction so he transferred the file to the �ukurca prosecutor. The �ukurca prosecutor also decided that he did not have jurisdiction and so transferred the file to the Van Military Criminal Court. The Van military prosecutor gathered some statements but in 2008 decided against opening an investigation. Following an appeal lodged by S�leyman Demir, the Ari Military Court ordered criminal proceedings be brought against the two gendarmes. The Van Military Court therefore instigated proceedings but in 2010 decided it did not have jurisdiction to try the case and passed it to the �ukurca Criminal Court of First Instance. However in 2012 the �ukurca Criminal Court of First Instance decided it did not have jurisdiction either and forwarded the case to the �ukurca Magistrates' Court where the case is still pending. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), S�leyman Demir complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment, insults and intimidation at the hands of the two gendarmes and that there had been no effective investigation into his complaints. He also complains about the delays in the court proceedings. Thursday 26 March 2015 Momcilovi v. Croatia (no. 11239/11) The case concerns the condition in Croatian law making access to a civil court dependent on a prior attempt to settle the claim. The applicants, three Croatian nationals, are Barica and Nikola Momcilovi, husband and wife, who were both born in 1938 and Darko Momcilovi, their son, who was born in 1963. They all live in Karlovac (Croatia). On 1 April 1993 the applicants' daughter and sister was killed in a bar by a soldier in the Croatian army. The solider was subsequently found guilty of murder and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment; this judgment was later upheld on appeal in February 1994 and the sentence increased to nine years. In January 1998 the applicants sought to settle their compensation claim for the killing of their daughter with the State Attorney's Office, as required under the Military Service Act in force at the time. When this request was refused, they brought a first set of civil proceedings before the national courts which, due to the applicants' representative not appearing at several hearings on the case and the applicants not ensuring their own participation in the proceedings, ended in a decision that the applicants' civil action was to be considered withdrawn. In May 2005 they brought another set of civil proceedings before the courts claiming damages against the State and their daughter's murderer. However, their claim was ultimately dismissed in April 2013 by the Supreme Court, because they had not attempted to settle the claim with the responsible authorities before introducing the contentious proceedings. According to the terms of the Civil Procedure Act introduced in 2003, a claimant intending to bring a civil claim against the Republic of Croatia must first submit a request for settlement to the competent State Attorney's Office. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants maintain that the condition imposed by the Civil Procedure Act amounted to a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a court. They submit in particular that they had already sought a friendly settlement with the Attorney's Office in 1998 � before bringing both sets of civil proceedings � and it was unreasonable to expect them to seek a friendly settlement again concerning the same claim. Constancia v. the Netherlands (no. 73560/12) The applicant, Julien Hira Bisnudew Constancia, is a Netherlands national born in 1984. The case concerns his complaint about being detained as a person of "unsound mind" following his conviction of the manslaughter of an eight-year old boy. On 1 December 2006 Mr Constancia entered a primary school in Hoogerheide and, finding one of the pupils alone, cut his neck and throat several times and left him dead. In the ensuing criminal proceedings he refused to cooperate in any examination of his mental state, so that no diagnosis of his mental condition was possible. In September 2007 the trial court nonetheless found him to be severely disturbed and imposed a 12-year prison sentence followed by detention as a person of unsound mind ("TBS order"). In May 2011 the appeal court also convicted him of manslaughter and the same prison sentence. In May 2012 the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed on summary reasoning Mr Constancia's appeal on points of law in which he complained that he had not reliably been shown to be of unsound mind. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (e) (right to liberty and security), Mr Constancia complains about being detained as a person of unsound mind even though no precise diagnosis of his mental state was made. Gambulatova v. Russia (no. 11237/10) Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia (no. 40166/07) Both cases concern disappearances in Chechnya. The applicant in the first case, Zulay Gambulatova, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Mayrtup in Shali district, the Chechen Republic (Russia). She alleges that her son Vakhit Gambulatov, born in 1976, was detained on 28 June 2001 at a military checkpoint and taken to a police station in Kurchaloy. Her son's detention at the station was confirmed and over the following weeks she went to the station every day, bringing him food and collecting his laundry from the guards. At the beginning of August, however, she was told by a duty officer that her son had been transferred elsewhere. She has had no news of her son since. The ensuing investigation into her son's disappearance, suspended on several occasions with periods of inactivity, is still pending and has so far failed to establish what exactly happened to her son. The Government submit that Ms Gambulatova's son was released on 26 July 2001 and that it has not yet been possible to establish his whereabouts. The applicants in the second case, Isita Zhebrailova, Shuddi Vakhayev, and their son, Salavdi Zhebrailov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1956, 1954, and 1980 respectively and live in village of Gekhi, the Chechen Republic (Russia). They allege that a group of armed police officers in uniform burst into the family home in Gekhi at midnight on 25 April 2005 and abducted Salavdi (the third applicant) and his brother, Balavdi Zhebrailov, born in 1982. According to Salavdi, he and his brother were then taken for police interrogation in Grozny. The brothers were placed in a basement cell and beaten with rifle butts before being separated; Salavdi was taken later the next day to a market in Grozny and released. The family have had no news of Balavdi since. The family immediately informed the local police of the brothers' abduction and a criminal investigation was opened two months later in June 2005. The applicants complain that there was nothing to justify such a delay in opening the proceedings, which were then carried out with significant shortcomings (superficial inspection of the scene of the abduction and failure to interview any of the police officers involved in the brothers' interrogation) and that this was part of a systematic pattern of refusal to investigate such abductions in the Chechen Republic at the time. The Government submit that the investigation into Balavdi Zhebrailov's disappearance was still ongoing and that there was no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he had been abducted by the police or that he was even dead. All the applicants complain that their relatives disappeared after being placed in unacknowledged detention by Russian servicemen/policemen and that the missing men were to be presumed dead, alleging that this has caused them mental suffering. They also complain that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearances of their relatives. Salavdi Zhebrailov further complains about the ill-treatment he was subjected to following his abduction and that the authorities' investigation into his allegations was inadequate. They rely on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Volkov and Adamskiy v. Russia (nos. 7614/09 and 30863/10) The applicants, Andrey Volkov and Aleksandr Adamskiy, are Russian nationals who were born in 1963 and 1988 respectively and live in Moscow. The case mainly concerns their allegations of police entrapment. Both applicants, who had advertised their computer repair services, were targeted in undercover operations by the police. They were approached by undercover police officers, in December 2007 and December 2008, respectively, who asked them to install software on their computers. Each of the applicants then installed a number of unlicensed computer programmes on the officers' computers. Their conversations with the officers, in which the applicants mentioned that the programmes were not licensed, were recorded. Both applicants were subsequently convicted of copyright infringement. Mr Volkov was sentenced to one year and three months' imprisonment, suspended, and Mr Adamskiy was sentenced to one year and six months' imprisonment, suspended. Their convictions were upheld on appeal in August 2008 and November 2009, respectively. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), both applicants complain that the police incited them to commit the crime of copyright infringement and that therefore their conviction was unfair. Mr Volkov further complains that he was not provided with a legal aid lawyer during the appeal hearing in his case, in breach of Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of own choosing). 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. Kudlicka v. the Czech Republic (no. 21588/12) Ay v. France (no. 6629/12) Mouroux v. France (no. 19471/13) `Soci�t� CRT France International' v. France (no. 29395/09) Scagliarini and Others v. Italy (no. 56449/07) Zborowski v. Poland (nos. 46307/09 and 72932/12) Simsek v. Romania (no. 61697/11) Chervyakov and Others v. Russia (nos. 43443/04, 7749/06, 50340/07, 32208/08, 36990/08, 61475/08, 4527/09, 4532/09, 7922/09, 18948/09, 30003/09, 39826/09, 41103/09, 42108/09, 43315/09, 56159/09, 6973/10, and 21875/10) Balbay v. Turkey (nos. 666/11 and 73745/11) Cicek v. Turkey (no. 72774/10) Dalay v. Turkey (no. 51143/11) Igsiz v. Turkey (no. 16086/12) Metin v. Turkey (no. 77479/11) Ogutcu v. Turkey (nos. 56078/10, 55502/11, 77004/11, 77005/11, 77006/11, 77007/11, 77008/11, 77009/11, 77010/11, 6134/12, 6144/12, 6147/12, 6149/12, 6174/12, 9551/12, and 59095/12) Serebryanskyy v. Ukraine (no. 44054/13) Shevchuk v. Ukraine (no. 43121/09) Tymkovych v. Ukraine (no. 16702/13) J.S. v. the United Kingdom (no. 445/10) Maguire v. the United Kingdom (no. 58060/13) This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court's press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter @ECHRpress. Press contacts [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) C�line Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 10