003-5076549-6250243

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 143 (2015) 04.05.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing five judgments on Tuesday 5 May 2015 and 16 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 7 May 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 5 May 2015 Doiciu v. Romania (application no. 1454/09) The applicant, Anca Ctlina Doiciu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns ill-treatment allegedly inflicted by the police and the authorities' failure to meet their obligation to conduct an effective investigation following the lodging of a criminal complaint. On the evening of 3 January 2001, H.R.A, who was Ms Doiciu's fianc� at the relevant time, and U.N., his cousin, were taken to a police station. H.R.A. had been arrested by the police following an incident involving a taxi driver; Ms Doiciu was summoned to the police station in order to provide a witness statement. She was struck by one of the four police officers present in the room. On the following day she was examined by a doctor, who noted traumatic lesions requiring twelve to fourteen days of medical treatment. On the same date she also lodged a criminal complaint for wrongful conduct and asked to join the proceedings as a civil party. Her complaint was transmitted to the Brasov military prosecutor's office, which in turn asked the police station in question to complete the investigation. Five police officers were questioned; they denied any act of aggression against Ms Doiciu. On 19 February 2002 charges of wrongful conduct were brought against one of the police officers suspected of having struck Ms Doiciu. The police officer told the prosecutor that Ms Doiciu had attacked him, and that he had merely defended himself. He admitted to having struck her. On 19 April 2002 the military prosecutor dropped the charges, on the ground that the facts were not serious. He ordered the police officer in question to pay an administrative fine and acquitted the other policemen. The case was sent back to the prosecutor's office by a prosecutor at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. On 14 November 2007 the prosecutor's office ordered that the criminal prosecution of the accused police officer be discontinued on the ground that the facts did not reach the level of severity required for application of criminal law, and ordered him to pay an administrative fine. The fine was subsequently cancelled. On 30 June 2008 an appeal on points of law by Ms Doiciu was dismissed. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Doiciu alleges that she was subjected to ill-treatment in the police premises on the evening of 3 January 2001. She submits that the judicial authorities failed in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation following her criminal complaint. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), she complains about the length of the proceedings conducted after she had lodged her complaint. Melnichuk and Others v. Romania (nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10) The applicants, Rostislav Melnichuk, Alla Lyana, Sofiya Demchuk, and Valeriy Shpartak, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1939, 1964, 1951, and 1946 respectively and live in Rivne (Ukraine). Rostislav Melnichuk and Alla Lyana are father and daughter. Valeriy Shpartak and Sofiya Demchuk are husband and wife. Their case concerns the lack of an effective investigation into an army operation in Romania in 1989 which resulted in the death of Mr Melnichuk's wife and left Sofiya Demchuk and Valeriy Shpartak severely injured. In December 1989 Mr Melnichuk and his wife Nadejda Melnichuk were driving through Romania on their way home to the Soviet Union (USSR) after a tourist trip to Yugoslavia. At the time Romania was experiencing a period of unrest. The former President Ceauescu had just been toppled and rumours were circulating of terrorists attempting to reinstate his regime. Mr Melnichuk and his wife were driving in a convoy of five cars; Ms Demchuk and Mr Shpartak were travelling with them. The border police notified a Romanian army unit in Craiova that a convoy of foreign cars was heading towards the town. Suspecting that they might be terrorists, the commander of the army unit dispatched a team of soldiers to block the road and stop the convoy. The cars reached the blockade at the village of Brdeti and the soldiers told the passengers, in Romanian, to get out and surrender. The passengers did not understand what the soldiers said and stayed in their vehicles. The soldiers opened fire on the cars, also hitting a local bus which was behind the convoy. Mr Melnichuk's wife was killed and Ms Demchuk and Mr Shpartak were both injured. Four days later the USSR citizens lodged a complaint with the USSR Embassy in Yugoslavia. The military prosecutor in Craiova also opened a criminal investigation into the incident. Over the years the case was transferred from one prosecutor to another, and opened and closed on several occasions. In 2007 the cases were added to a larger investigation case file which covered several hundred victims of events between 21 and 30 December 1989. In 2010 the military prosecutor decided to discontinue proceedings in respect of the incident at Brdeti, but this decision was quashed and a new case was registered in 2011 with the High Court of Cassation and Justice; investigations are still pending. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention Mr Melnichuk and his daughter Ms Lyana, and Ms Demchuk and Mr Shpartak complain that the Romanian authorities have failed to conduct an effective, impartial and thorough investigation to identify and punish those responsible for the army operation in 1989 in which Ms Melnichuk was killed and Ms Demchuk and Mr Shpartak were severely injured. Arratibel Garciandia v. Spain (no. 58488/13) The applicant, Jon Patxi Arratibel Garciandia, is a Spanish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Etxarri Aranatz (Navarre province). The case concerns his claims that no effective investigation was carried out into allegations of illtreatment sustained while he was held incommunicado in police custody in the headquarters of the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil). On 18 January 2011 Mr Arratibel Garciandia was arrested at his home by Civil Guard officers in connection with the suspected offence of membership of the organisation EKIN, part of the terrorist group ETA. Mr Arratibel Garciandia was transferred to the Pamplona Audiencia Provincial, and then driven by car on the same day to Madrid, where he was taken to the Civil Guard headquarters: there he was placed incommunicado in police custody. While held incommunicado in police custody, he was questioned on several occasions, and claims that he was threatened and insulted. On 22 January 2011 Mr Arratibel Garciandia was brought before the central investigating judge, who ordered that he be remanded in custody. On 11 March 2011 Mr Arratibel Garciandia lodged a complaint, alleging ill-treatment while held incommunicado in police custody. By an order finding that there was no case to answer issued on 27 February 2012, the Pamplona investigating judge held, in the light of reports by the forensic doctors and the statement made by Mr Arratibel Garciandia, that there was no evidence proving that the ill-treatment complained of had genuinely been inflicted. On 6 March 2012 Mr Arratibel Garciandia appealed. The order finding that there was no case to answer was upheld. An amparo appeal before the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible. Mr Arratibel Garciandia was released on bail on 26 July 2012. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Arratibel Garciandia considers that the domestic courts did not conduct an effective investigation into his complaint about the ill-treatment to which he claims to have been subjected while held incommunicado in police custody. 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. Mango v. Italy (no. 38591/06) Russo v. Italy (no. 14231/05) Thursday 7 May 2015 Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (no. 59135/09) The applicant, Emin Rafik oglu Huseynov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1979 and lives in Baku. His case concerns his detention and alleged ill-treatment by the police in Baku. In 2008, Mr Huseynov attended a gathering at a privately owned caf� in Baku to celebrate Che Guevara's birthday. A short while after the event began approximately 30 police officers entered the caf�, suspended the gathering and announced that they would take the participants to the police station. Mr Huseynov claims that he identified himself to the police as a journalist and telephoned a media agency to inform them of the police presence at the caf�. He was then put in a police car and taken to the police station. Mr Huseynov alleges that he was taken to the Deputy Head of the Nasimi District Police Station's office where he was verbally threatened and pushed around before being struck on the back of the neck which caused him to pass out. Later the same day Mr Huseynov was taken from the police station to hospital by ambulance where he was admitted to the intensive care unit following the diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury and contusion to his neck. The Nasimi District Police Station launched a criminal enquiry following his admission to hospital; he was questioned and also examined by a forensic expert whilst in hospital. Some days later the investigator decided not to institute criminal proceedings, stating that Mr Huseynov's admission to hospital was linked to a pre-existing medical condition and there was no evidence that he had been ill-treated by the police. Mr Huseynov only became aware of this decision nine months later, he then lodged a criminal complaint about the alleged ill-treatment, his unlawful detention, the interference with his freedom of expression and assembly and the authorities' failure to conduct an effective investigation. His complaint was dismissed, as was his parallel civil action seeking compensation. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) Mr Huseynov complains that he was ill-treated by the police both during his arrest and whilst in police custody. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) he also complains that the police had no legal basis to arrest and detain him and their intervention at the function in a private caf� was not justified. S.L. and J.L. v. Croatia (no. 13712/11) The applicants, S.L. and J.L., are Croatian nationals who were born in 1987 and 1992 respectively and live in P. They are sisters. Their case concerns the state's protection of the interests of minors in a property deal. Ms S.L and Ms J.L were the registered owners of a house near the sea in P. Their mother V.L and her husband Z.L, who was also J.L's father, wanted to sell the house and as the registered owners were still children at the time, they had to first obtain permission from the Social Welfare Centre. However before any sale occurred Z.L was detained and later sentenced to six years in prison. Shortly after Z.L was sent to prison in 2001 his defence lawyer, M.I, sought the Social Welfare Centre's consent to swap rather than sell the house. The lawyer proposed that S.L and J.L's house be swapped for a flat which belonged to D.M who was in fact his mother-in-law. The Social Welfare Centre interviewed V.L and authorised the swap in 2001. In 2004, Z.L as the sisters' legal guardian brought an action against D.M, asking for the swap agreement to be declared null and void. The Court dismissed the case on the basis that it had been an administrative decision which could only be challenged through administrative proceedings. Subsequent appeals by Z.L and S.L, once she came of age, were also unsuccessful. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) S.L and J.L complain that the State, through the Social Welfare Centre, failed to properly protect their interests as the owners of the house which was of significantly greater value than the flat they were given in exchange. Ilievska v. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 20136/11) The applicant, Marina Ilievska, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Kriva Palanka ("The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"). Her case concerns the manner in which she was taken to a psychiatric hospital in Skopje. In 2009 Ms Ilievska's husband requested medical assistance from Kriva Palanka hospital for his wife who he claimed was anxious and distressed. Dr M. and Dr C.T instructed that she be sent to a psychiatric clinic in Skopje and two police officers and a nurse went in an ambulance to fetch her. Ms Ilievska did not wish to go and so the police forcibly dragged her away from her children and into the ambulance. Ms Ilievska's husband assisted them. Ms Ilievska claims that the police officers put her in handcuffs, beat her, and sat on her legs during the 110 km journey to Skopje although the police officers claim that they used only the degree of restraint necessary to prevent Ms Ilievska from harming herself or others. She was discharged from the psychiatric hospital a few days later at her husband's request, apparently without having been examined or treated. She was then admitted to the Kriva Palanka hospital where doctors noted that she had various injuries, probably caused by blows. In 2010 Ms Ilievska brought criminal charges against Dr C.T, the nurse and the police officers who had been in the ambulance. However they were acquitted and the trial court's decision was subsequently upheld on appeal. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Ilievska complains about the brutal treatment she alleges she was subjected to by the police officers during her transfer from Kriva Palanka to Skopje. Aleksandr Dmitriyev v. Russia (no. 12993/05) The applicant, Aleksandr Dmitriyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in the town of Kozelsk, the Kaluga region (Russia). His complaint concerns the length of time he spent in detention pending trial and the conditions in one of the prisons in which he was held. Mr Dmitriyev was arrested in April 2003 on suspicion of involvement in a violent crime. He was detained until July that year when the prosecutor agreed to release him whilst he awaited trial. In May 2004 he was convicted by the district court and returned to prison. The regional court quashed his conviction on appeal and ordered a retrial but specified that Mr Dmitriyev should remain in detention The court did not provide a reason for keeping him in prison or set a time limit on his detention. He was convicted again by the district court in April 2005, but in June the regional court again quashed this decision on appeal and ordered another retrial. His request for release pending retrial was turned down on numerous occasions. He was finally released in October, but reconvicted in December 2005 and sentenced to seven years in prison. In 2008 during his prison sentence Mr Dmitriyev spent some months at prison IZ-16/1 of Karzan where he alleges that an insufficient number of beds in the cells meant prisoners had to sleep in shifts which had deprived him of sleep. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) Mr Dmitriyev complains about the lack of bed space in prison IZ-16/1 of Karzan and that he was unable to obtain an effective domestic remedy for this complaint. Relying on Article 5 � 3 (entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) he further complains about the length of time he was detained pending his trial. 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. Societe Gsx S�rl and Societe Gsx Groupware Solutions v. France (no. 53222/12) Kikilashvili and Gurashvili v. Georgia (no. 37701/08) Schreurs v. the Netherlands (no. 73058/13) Argasinski v. Poland (no. 47006/13) Grygorowicz v. Poland (no. 57802/10) Hipsz v. Poland (no. 61709/12) P.P. v. Poland (no. 41276/11) Rakowski v. Poland (no. 23133/11) Wloch v. Poland (no. 2042/14) Greek Catholic Parish Pesceana and Others v. Romania (no. 35839/07) Danilov v. Russia (no. 88/05) Kholodkov and Kholodkova v. Ukraine (no. 29697/08) 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. 5