003-5135879-6341018

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 243 (2015) 20.07.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 23 judgments on Tuesday 21 July 2015 and 51 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 23 July 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 21 July 2015 A.H. and J.K. v. Cyprus (applications nos. 41903/10 and 41911/10) H.S. and Others v. Cyprus (nos. 41753/10, 41786/10, 41793/10, 41794/10, 41796/10, 41799/10, 41807/10, 41811/10, 41812/10, 41815/10, 41820/10, 41824/10, 41919/10 and 41921/10) K.F. v. Cyprus (no. 41858/10) The applications concern the deportation of 17 asylum seekers from Cyprus to Syria. The applicants in the first case are two Syrian nationals of Kurdish origin, who are husband and wife and are currently living in Paphos (Cyprus). The applicants in the second case are 12 Syrian nationals of Kurdish origin and two Ajanib (registered stateless) Kurds of Syria who were all deported in 2012; the majority of them are currently living in Syria, some in Northern Iraq and the others either in Austria, Greece or Cyprus. The applicant in the third case is a Syrian national of Kurdish origin who was born in 1979. He left Cyprus voluntarily in 2012 and is currently living in Northern Iraq. All but one of the 17 applicants entered Cyprus illegally between 2004 and 2011; the other one entered Cyprus on a tourist visa. They all subsequently applied for asylum, basing their claims on fears of ill-treatment and/or persecution if they were returned to Syria. 14 of the applicants' claims were dismissed by the asylum authorities, essentially on the basis that their claims lacked credibility and that they had failed to make a plausible case that they were at risk of persecution and were in need of international protection. The asylum proceedings concerning the remaining three applicants were discontinued and their files closed as they had not showed up to scheduled interviews. The applicants' removal was, however, stayed on the basis of an interim measure (under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) issued on June 2010 by the ECtHR to the Cypriot Government indicating that they should not deport the applicants to Syria pending its examination of the cases. This interim measure was subsequently lifted with regard to the applicants in the second and third cases but remains in force with regard to the first case. The applicants allege that their deportation to Syria has or would put them at risk of ill-treatment and/or torture due to their Kurdish origins, referring in particular to Kurds in Syria as an oppressed minority, and their political activities as members of the Kurdish Yekiti Party. They all also complain that they do/did not have an effective remedy at national level against their planned deportations. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants also make a number of complaints under Article 5 �� 1, 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security). In particular, on 11 June 2010, in the early hours of the morning, the applicants, along with many other Kurds from Syria, were transferred from a street camp in front of Government buildings in Nicosia where they were protesting against the Cypriot asylum authorities' restrictive policies in granting international protection, to police headquarters. Some of the protestors were deported on the same day and those who were found to be lawfully residing in the Republic were allowed to leave. The majority of the applicants were charged with unlawful stay and then detained on the basis of detention and deportation orders issued against them on the same day. The rest of the applicants were detained on the basis of detention and deportation orders that had been issued earlier on. The applicants in the first case were detained for just over 11 months and released in May 2011. Nine of the applicants in the second case were detained for just over three months and were deported in late September/early October 2010, just after the ECtHR interim measure in their case was lifted; the remaining five applicants were kept in detention following the lifting of the interim measure and were deported nearly three months later, in December 2010. The applicant in the third case was detained for just over ten months and released in April 2011. The applicants' complaints under Article 5 �� 1 (lawfulness of detention) and 2 (right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest) concern their transfer and stay at police headquarters and their ensuing detention and, under Article 5 � 4, the alleged lack of an effective remedy at their disposal to challenge the lawfulness of this detention. One of the applicants in the first case makes a further complaint under Article 5 � 1 about the lawfulness of his detention from 29 November 2012 until 20 December 2012 following his arrest at Paphos airport for trying to leave Cyprus with a false passport and without a valid residence permit. Lastly, they all rely on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) complaining that the authorities were going to deport them collectively without carrying out an individual assessment of their cases. Satakunnan Markkinap�rssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland (no. 931/13) The applicant companies, Satakunnan Markkinap�rssi Oy and Satamedia Oy, are Finnish limited liability companies based in Kokem�ki (Finland). Both companies published the magazine Verop�rssi, which reported on taxation information, in particular on persons' taxable income and assets. The case concerns the ban on the applicant companies' processing of taxation data. In 2003 the second applicant company, together with a telephone operator, started an SMS-service permitting people to obtain taxation information from a database. The database had been created using information already published in 2002 in the magazine Verop�rssi on 1.2 million persons' income and assets, namely a third of all taxable persons in Finland. In February 2004 the Data Protection Ombudsman brought administrative proceedings concerning the manner and extent of the applicant companies' processing of taxation data and in November 2009 the Data Protection Board forbade the applicant companies from processing taxation information to the extent that they had in 2002 and from passing such data to the SMS-service. Ultimately in June 2012, the Supreme Administrative Court, essentially taking issue with the extent to which the information had been published, found that the publication of the whole database could not be considered as journalistic activity but as processing of personal data, which the applicant companies had no right to do. That court, also taking into account the ECtHR case-law, balanced the applicant companies' right to freedom of expression against the tax-payers' right to privacy. As a result of the ban, Verop�rssi magazine published significantly reduced taxation data in the autumn of 2009 and since then has not appeared. The SMS-service had already been shut down before then. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant companies complain about the ban on them processing taxation data, alleging that it amounted to censorship as well as discrimination vis-�-vis other newspapers which were able to continue publishing such information. Also relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the companies complain about the excessive length � six years and six months � of the related administrative proceedings. G.S. v. Georgia (no. 2361/13) The applicant, G.S., is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). The case concerns proceedings in Georgia for the return of her son to Ukraine. G.S.'s son, L., born in 2004 and living in Ukraine with her at the time, underwent therapy after having witnessed the death of his younger sister in an accident in 2010. In July 2010 G.S. allowed her former partner and father of her children, G. Ch., � a dual Georgian-Ukrainian national, who had moved to Russia in 2005 � to take L. to Georgia for the summer holidays. According to her submissions, L. was expected to return to Kharkiv by the end of August to start primary school there. However, G. Ch. wanted L. to stay in Georgia with his family, while G. Ch. himself lived in Russia, occasionally visiting his son in Georgia. G.S. brought child return proceedings under the Hague Convention via the Ministries of Justice of Ukraine and Georgia in October 2010. In parallel proceedings, a district court in Ukraine, in March 2011, ordered her son's return to Ukraine. In the proceedings under the Hague Convention, in May 2011, the Tbilisi City Court, having regard to a report by two social workers and a psychological examination, rejected G.S.'s request. The court concluded that L.'s return to Ukraine would expose him to a psychological risk. The appeal court overturned the judgment, finding that it would be in L.'s best interest to be reunited with his mother, but the Supreme Court eventually reversed that judgment in August 2012, concluding that L.'s interests were better protected if he was not returned to Ukraine. L. thus continued to live with his uncle and grandfather in Tbilisi. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), G.S. complains about the refusal of the Georgian courts to order the return of her son to Ukraine and about the length of the return proceedings. Galambos v. Hungary (no. 13312/12) The applicant, Lajos Galambos, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest. Mr Galambos, a retired army general, was convicted of spying in July 2013 and sentenced to two years and 10 months' imprisonment. The case concerns his pre-trial detention for almost nine months (between July 2011 and April 2012) and subsequent house arrest for 12 months (until March 2013) on those charges. During that time, he made a number of requests for release, arguing that he had no criminal history and was nearly 60 years old with a settled background and family situation. The courts however repeatedly refused his requests, referring to the risk of his absconding. He was ultimately released from house arrest in March 2013 and restricted to the village of Szada. Relying on Article 5 �� 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), he alleges that his prolonged pre-trial detention and house arrest were unjustified. Further relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he complains about the unfairness of the written proceedings concerning the judicial review of his pre-trial detention as neither he nor his lawyer received the prosecutor's motions on the prolongations and requests for release prior to the court sessions on his case. Oliari and Others v. Italy (nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11) The applicants are three homosexual couples: six Italian men who were born between 1959 and 1976 and live in Italy. The case concerns their complaint that under Italian legislation they do not have the possibility to get married or enter into any other type of civil union. Mr Oliari and Mr A., who were in a committed stable relationship with each other, requested the Trent Commune Civil Status Office to issue their marriage banns in July 2008. Following the rejection of their request they challenged that decision before the Trent Tribunal, arguing that Italian law did not explicitly prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex and that even if that was the case, such a position would be unconstitutional. The Tribunal rejected their claim, noting that under the Civil Code one requirement for contracting marriage was that spouses be of the opposite sex. Following the applicants' appeal, the appeal court made a referral to the Constitutional Court with a view to their claims of unconstitutionality of the law in force. In April 2010, the Constitutional Court declared their constitutional challenge inadmissible, concluding that the right to marriage did not extend to homosexual unions and was intended to refer to marriage in its traditional sense. As a consequence of that judgment, the court of appeal rejected the applicants' claim in September 2010. Mr Felicetti and Mr Zappa, who had been living together as a couple for more than five years, requested in February 2011 that their marriage banns be issued. In April 2011 their request was rejected. They did not pursue any legal remedies, considering that they would not be effective, having regard to the Constitutional Court's judgment of April 2010 in the case of Mr Oliari and Mr A. Mr Cippo and Mr Zaccheo, who also had been living together as a couple for a number of years, requested their marriage banns to be issued in November 2009. Their request being rejected, they challenged that decision before the Milan Tribunal, which rejected their claim in June 2010. They did not appeal further, considering that it would not be effective, having regard to the Constitutional Court's judgment of April 2010. All applicants complain that under Italian legislation they do not have the possibility to get married or enter into any other type of civil union, and that they are being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation. They allege a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 12 (right to marry) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Schipani and Others v. Italy (no. 38369/09) The applicants are 15 Italian nationals, all doctors, who had signed up for medical specialisation courses prior to the 1991/1992 academic year. The case concerns a complaint concerning the tardy transposition into domestic law of European Union directives, with the alleged result that the applicants, as trainee doctors, were deprived of their entitlement to remuneration as provided for in those directives. In July 1996 the applicants summoned the Italian President of the Council of Ministers to appear before the domestic courts, with a view to obtaining compensation for the damage allegedly sustained on account of the State's inertia in transposing two EU directives into domestic law. They submitted that, under the provisions of those two directives, doctors were entitled to remuneration during their periods of professional training and that the EU Member States had been required to incorporate the principles set out in these directives into their legal systems by the deadline of 31 December 1982. They stated that Italy had complied with this obligation only through the legislative decree of 8 August 1991. The court dismissed the applicants' request. It found that the applicants did not have a full and absolute right to compensation, but only a legitimate interest. The court acknowledged that the delay in transposing the directives amounted to a clear and serious breach of the State's obligations and that the harm complained of by the applicants resulted from the State's conduct. However, in order to obtain compensation, the applicants were required to prove that the specialisation courses followed by them met the conditions set out in EU law and that the degrees obtained had not been assessed in a manner which was consistent with that legislation. No such evidence having been produced in this case, the applicants' request had therefore to be dismissed. The applicants appealed against that decision. The court of appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the immediate applicability of EU directives in the domestic legal system was the subject of conflicting case-law. It stated that the Court of Cassation, in judgments delivered at a few days' interval, had reached opposite conclusions on this point. The directives relied on by the applicants could not be immediately applicable, in that they set out the principle of "appropriate remuneration" without identifying its amount. In the absence of greater precision in the EU legislation, no liability could be incurred by the State for the delay in transposing the directives in cause. The applicants appealed on points of law, and requested, in the alternative, that a question be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union to determine whether the Italian State's failure to transpose the directives within the time-limit ought to be considered as a serious breach of EU legislation, entailing an obligation for the State to provide redress, and whether the legislative decree of 8 August 1991 made it difficult or impossible to obtain such compensation. In November 2008, finding that the court of appeal had provided logical and correct reasoning on all of the disputed points, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants' appeal. It stated, however, that the delay in transposing the directives gave rise to an entitlement to compensation for damage. This damage consisted in the loss of opportunity to obtain the advantages provided by the directives in question. The Court of Cassation noted that the applicants had not asked the appeal court judge for compensation in respect of this specific harm. The Court of Cassation's judgment made no reference to the request to refer a question to the Court of Justice, as submitted by the applicants. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants allege that the proceedings brought by them were not fair. They also criticise the Court of Cassation for having ignored their request to refer a question to the Court of Justice, in breach of the principles of a fair hearing. Meimanis v. Latvia (no. 70597/11) The applicant, Mairis Meimanis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Riga. The case concerns the interception of his telephone calls when he was working as an official in the Riga economic crime police. Mr Meimanis is currently on trial in criminal proceedings which were brought against him in December 2005 for attempting to take a bribe. The proceedings were brought following an operational investigation by the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption involving the interception of telephone conversations of Riga economic crime police officials suspected of corruption-related offences. In 2009 Mr Meimanis brought a number of complaints with the prosecuting authorities challenging the lawfulness of the operational measures carried out by the Bureau, which were all rejected. He then lodged a constitutional complaint, which was ultimately dismissed in May 2011, the Constitutional Court finding that the relevant domestic law complied with both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. During those proceedings, the Constitutional Court dismissed Mr Meimanis' request for an oral hearing, considering that the case materials were sufficient for examining his case via a written procedure. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life and correspondence), Mr Meimanis complains about the interception of his telephone conversations. He alleges in particular that the way in which the relevant domestic law was applied allowed the interception of his telephone calls without prior judicial authorisation, only requiring that the prosecuting authorities be informed within 24 hours. He further complains under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that there were no effective remedies in the Latvian legal system with which he could complain about this breach of his rights under Article 8, alleging in particular that the review of the measures against him was entrusted to prosecutors and not subject to independent judicial scrutiny. Lastly, relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair and public hearing), he complains that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court were not public, his request for an oral hearing having been refused. Nassr Allah v. Latvia (no. 66166/13) The case concerns the detention of an asylum-seeker. The applicant, Aladdin Nassr Allah, is a Syrian national who was born in 1982. His current whereabouts are unknown. In December 2012 Mr Nassr Allah fled Syria and entered the Russian Federation where he apparently applied for asylum. Without his application having been examined, he then left the country on 5 May 2013, crossing the Latvian border on foot. He was stopped the same day near the border and detained. He was then detained from 7 May 2013 on the ground that his identity had not been determined and there were reasons to believe he had misused the asylum procedure. The Latvian authorities reviewed his detention every two months (in July and September 2013) until his release on 7 October 2013 when, granted subsidiary protection status in the asylum proceedings he had brought, he was issued with a temporary one-year residence permit. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Nassr Allah complains that his detention from 5 May to 7 October 2013 was unlawful, alleging that there was no evidence to suggest that he would flee or obstruct the asylum proceedings, and that he had been detained for a further three days after the decision granting him protection in the asylum proceedings. Also relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he further alleges that the appeal procedure to contest the lawfulness of his detention was ineffective. R.S. v. Poland (no. 63777/09) The applicant, R.S., is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Zurich (Switzerland). The case concerns the retention of his children in Poland by their mother and the Polish courts' refusal to grant their return. In 1994 R.S. moved with his ex-wife, M.S., another Polish national, to Switzerland where they had two children, born in 1998 and 2002. The couple separated in February 2008 but the family continued to live in Switzerland and M.S. kept in regular contact with his children. M.S. filed for divorce with the Polish courts in September 2008 and applied for temporary custody of the children. While those proceedings were still pending, she went to Poland with the children for the school holidays, promising to return on 20 October 2008. R.S. consented to the trip. During that trip, the Polish courts granted temporary custody to the mother. R.S. was neither informed of nor summoned to the court session concerning this decision. The couple's marriage was ultimately dissolved in 2012; full parental rights were granted to the mother and R.S. was authorised visiting rights. In the meantime, in October 2008 when the children's mother failed to come back to Switzerland with the children, R.S. lodged a request with the Swiss authorities for the return of his children under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The request was transmitted to the Polish courts and in June 2009 they refused to grant it as they considered that there had been no wrongful removal from Switzerland and retention in Poland, first because M.S. had given his consent to the children's trip to Poland and then because the mother had been granted temporary custody during that trip. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect of family life), R.S. argues that the Polish courts failed to correctly apply the Hague Convention when deciding on his request for the return of his children to Switzerland. Notably, the courts, basing their decision on the custody decision issued in the divorce proceedings in Poland, failed to take into account the fact that he had never given his agreement to their permanent stay in Poland and that the children's habitual place of residence at that time was in Switzerland. Donprut S.r.l. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 45504/09) The applicant company, Donprut S.r.l. is a taxi cab company based in Chiinu (Moldova). The case concerns its complaint about having to close as a result of the withdrawal of its licence. In December 2007 the licensing chamber withdrew the licence of the company, which at the time employed approximately 90 people, on account of administrative irregularities. In particular, the company had failed to register under the licence several new cars within the prescribed time-limit of ten days. The company challenged the decision before the courts, arguing in particular that the sanction had been disproportionate and it had been impossible to comply with the time-limit for registering the new cars. After the appeal court had initially found for the company, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment and dismissed the company's action in February 2009. The company alleges a breach of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), maintaining that the licensing chamber's appeal was lodged out of time. The company further complains that the withdrawal of its licence was in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Neagoe v. Romania (no. 23319/08) The applicant, Ionel-Ionu Neagoe, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Craiova. He is the manager of a commercial company. The case concerns an explosion in May 2004 which killed 18 people, including one of Mr Neagoe's lorry drivers, injuring 13 others and causing substantial damage. The lorry, carrying 20 tons of chemical fertiliser, skidded on a bend and overturned near a village. It caught fire and exploded an hour later as a result of a reaction between the diesel and nitrate. Mr Neagoe, together with another manager and the company's managing director, was charged with manslaughter, failure to comply with the legal provisions on safety at work and unintentional destruction. The first-instance court sentenced Mr Neagoe to 4 years' imprisonment. The court held that by failing to comply with his legal obligations with regard to safety, Mr Neagoe had enabled the explosion to occur. Mr Neagoe lodged an appeal. The court granted his appeal, and acquitted him on the basis of two expert reports which established that the explosion had resulted from accidental causes which could not be attributed to the applicant, even though he had not met his legal obligations with regard to safety. After the acquittal, the President of Romania stated that the court's decision, which he was not at liberty to discuss, nonetheless struck him as unfair. The prosecution service and the civil parties lodged an appeal on points of law. Having heard the parties, the appeal court ended the proceedings and scheduled delivery of the judgment for 29 February 2008. On that date the appeal court stated that it required additional time to deliberate and postponed delivery; on the same date, judge G.I, as spokesperson of the court, told the press that it was probable that the court would quash the appeal-court judgment. She added that she assumed that the defendants would be convicted and that the first-instance judgment would be upheld. On 3 March 2008 the court of appeal, sitting as a bench of three judges who did not include G.I., set aside the acquittal judgment and upheld Mr Neagoe's conviction. Relying on Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence), Mr Neagoe alleges that there was a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence, on account of the statements made by the Romanian President and by the court of appeal's spokesperson. Grujovi v. Serbia (no. 25381/12) The applicant, Nenad Grujovi, is a Serbian national who was born in 1977 and is currently detained in the Belgrade Central Prison. The case concerns the length of his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him. After having been extradited from Austria to Serbia, where several sets of criminal proceedings had been opened against him, Mr Grujovi was placed in detention on remand on 6 July 2007 on suspicion of aggravated murder, unauthorised use of another person's vehicle and forgery. The investigating judge referred to a number of grounds for his detention, in particular the risk of absconding and of obstructing the course of justice. Subsequently his detention on remand was regularly reviewed and extended every two months. In April 2014 Mr Grujovi was convicted of complicity in aggravated murder, unauthorised use of another person's vehicle and forgery, and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. The judgment was quashed on appeal in October 2014 and the case remitted for a retrial. At the same time, the appeal court ordered Mr Grujovi's continued detention. Several constitutional appeals lodged by Mr Grujovi, complaining that his pre-trial detention was unlawful and its length was excessive, were rejected. Relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Grujovi complains that his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him lasted an unreasonably long time. He further alleges an interference with Article 34 (right to individual petition), complaining about delayed correspondence from the European Court of Human Rights and the opening of his letters by the authorities. Frisancho Perea v. Slovakia (no. 383/13) The applicant, Jose Augusto Frisancho Perea, is a Peruvian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Maryland (the United States). The case concerns proceedings before the Slovak courts for the return of his children to the United States. Mr Frisancho Perea's wife A., a Slovak national with whom he had been living in the United States for about eight years, separated from him in July 2010 and left for Slovakia with their three minor children in August 2010, informing him only once they had arrived there. In October 2010 Mr Frisancho Perea filed an application for the return of the children to the United States as the country of their habitual residence, relying in particular on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Bratislava I District Court ordered the children's return to the United States, the decision being upheld on appeal by the Bratislava Regional Court, and thereby becoming final and binding in May 2011. Since A. did not comply with the order, a District Court issued a warrant for its enforcement in November 2011. However, the warrant was quashed on appeal in June 2012 since A. had in the meantime lodged a constitutional complaint against the return order and the Constitutional Court had suspended that order's enforceability. The enforcement was eventually terminated because, meanwhile, the Constitutional Court had found for A. on the merits, quashing the return order and remitting the case to the ordinary courts. The Hague Convention proceedings were ultimately terminated without examination of the case in November 2014, on the ground that A. had moved to Hungary with the children in the meantime and the Slovakian courts had thereby lost jurisdiction in the matter. A constitutional complaint lodged in parallel by Mr Frisancho Perea was declared inadmissible in November 2013. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and, in substance, also on Article 8 (right to respect for family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Frisancho Perea complains in particular that he has not been allowed to take part in the proceedings initiated by his wife before the Constitutional Court, that the Constitutional Court's judgment quashing the return order had arbitrarily frustrated the purpose of the Hague Convention proceedings, and that its decision suspending the return order and other material had not been served on him in the proceedings for the return order's enforcement. Zachar and Cierny v. Slovakia (nos. 29376/12 and 29384/12) The applicants, Martin Zachar and Tibor Cierny, are Slovak nationals who were born in 1989 and 1984 respectively. They are currently serving prison terms in the Dubnica nad V�hom and Hrnciarovce nad Parnou Prisons, respectively. The case concerns criminal proceedings against them on charges of drug trafficking. In November 2009 the police searched premises rented by the applicants as a music studio, finding various items used for the consumption and packaging of drugs and 11.724 grams of cannabis. Both applicants were questioned by the police as accused and subsequently by the remand judge. While they were not assisted by a lawyer and the charges involved were those of an ordinary form of conspiracy to possess and traffic in drugs, which was not subject to mandatory legal assistance, the applicants admitted to having been involved in selling drugs and were remanded in custody on the ground that they might continue their criminal activities if left at liberty. In early 2010 the investigator reclassified the charges against the applicants, who were meanwhile represented by lawyers, to an aggravated form of the same offence, which carried a significantly longer prison sentence, and was subject to mandatory legal assistance. During the trial the applicants pleaded not guilty, stating that the pre-trial questioning had been conducted in a manipulative fashion, that the police had coerced them by promising they would not be remanded in custody and that at the initial stage of the proceedings they had not been properly informed of their rights and the authorities had arbitrarily downplayed the true nature of the charges against them, thus depriving the applicants of mandatory legal assistance. Nevertheless, the applicants' incriminating pre-trial submissions were taken into account for the purposes of their ensuing conviction of the aggravated form of the offence, and they were ultimately sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Their constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible in February 2012. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 taken together with Article 6 � 3 (c) (right to a fair trial / right to legal assistance of own choosing), the applicants complain in particular: that they were not informed in due time of the true nature of the charges against them; that they were deprived of mandatory legal assistance and that at the initial stages of the proceedings they were not properly informed of their procedural rights. Abdullatif Arslan and Zerife Arslan v. Turkey (no. 40862/08) The applicants, Abdullatif and Zerife Arslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1954 and 1965 respectively and live in Istanbul. The case concerns the suicide of their son, Erdal, while performing his compulsory military service. Before being called up for military service, Erdal Aslan had been diagnosed with acute psychosis with delusional periods, and was receiving medication. Following the usual tests, the military recruitment office declared him to be fit for military service. On 11 October 2007 Erdal Arslan was placed under arrest for 14 days for using narcotic drugs inside the gendarmerie command to which he had been assigned. At about 3 p.m. on the same day, he was found seriously wounded by a rifle shot and died while being transferred to hospital. Two months later the military prosecutor issued a decision not to bring a prosecution, on the ground that this was a case of suicide. Mr and Ms Arslan appealed against that decision. A military court upheld the contested decision not to bring a prosecution. In April 2008 the military prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against the head of the company to which Erdal Arslan had belonged. He also brought charges in respect of two sergeants, against one for negligence in the performance of official duties, and against the other for having advised the witnesses about their statements. The three defendants were each given a suspended sentence of 25 days' imprisonment. In 2009 Mr and Ms Arslan brought proceedings for damages before the military administrative court. Those proceedings are still pending. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants allege that the investigation was ineffective and that no appropriate measures were put in place to prevent their son's suicide. Akarsubai v. Turkey (no. 70396/11) The applicant, Mehmet Akarsubai, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Adana. The case concerns a fine which was imposed on Mr Akarsubai for having taken part in a press conference given by a trade union in front of the Adana court building. Mr Akarsubai, a civil servant, is a member of the local branch of the Eitim-Sen trade union, which represents employees working in the fields of education, science and culture, and is attached to the Trade Union Congress of public sector employees. On 13 October 2010 Mr Akarsubai took part in a demonstration, organised by his trade union, in front of the Adana court building. A statement was made to the press, in which the demonstrators called for a cr�che to be set up in their workplace. The police commissioner fined Mr Akarsubai for having been involved in this public statement to the press, in breach of the prefectoral decision establishing the conditions and public areas in Adana where this type of press event could be held. Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Mr Akarsubai complains about being fined for his involvement in the statement made to the press by a trade union to which he belongs. Cingilli Holding A.. v. Turkey and Cingilliolu v. Turkey (nos. 31833/06 and 37538/06) Reisner v. Turkey (no. 46815/09) Both cases concern the transfer and subsequent sale of Demirbank in 2000, Turkey's fifth largest private bank at the time. The applicants in the first case are Cingilli Holding A., a Turkish company located in Istanbul, and Sema Cingilliolu, a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Istanbul. Ms Cingilliolu is one of the main shareholders of Cingilli Holding. The applicants were the main shareholders of Demirbank. The applicant in the second case, Michael Reisner, is a German national who was born in 1961 and lives in Schrobenhausen (Germany). He was a shareholder of Demirbank. In December 2000 Demirbank's management and control was transferred to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund ("the Fund") by a decision of the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board ("the Board"). In that decision the Board held that Demirbank's assets were insufficient to cover its liabilities and that the continuation of its activities would threaten the security and stability of the financial system. In administrative proceedings brought by the main shareholder of Demirbank (namely, Cingilli Holding, an applicant in the first case) against the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency, the Supreme Administrative Court ordered, in a judgment of November 2004, the annulment of the takeover of the bank by the Fund. The court held in particular that the takeover without investigating any further options had been unlawful. The decision was finally upheld in 2006. While the proceedings were pending, in September 2001, the Fund sold Demirbank to the HSBC bank. Ms Cingilliolu brought administrative proceedings against the Fund, seeking the annulment of the agreement to sell the bank. The courts found for her and annulled the agreement by a 2004 judgment eventually upheld in 2006. Ms Cingilliolu thus requested the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency to enforce the court judgments and return Demirbank to its previous owners. In July 2006 the Agency informed her that this would be impossible as, following its sale to HSBC, Demirbank had been struck off the commercial register. In the course of those events, Mr Reisner � the applicant in the second case � brought three unsuccessful sets of proceedings. Following the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund, he first claimed compensation from the Board; and, having received no reply, then brought compensation proceedings against the Agency. That case was dismissed as out of time. Second, following the takeover of the bank by the Fund, he brought proceedings to have that judgment enforced and his rights as a shareholder reinstated. In a decision upheld in 2009, the courts held that enforcement would be impossible as, following its sale to HSBC, Demirbank had been struck off the commercial register. Third, following the annulment of the agreement to sell the bank to HSBC, he again applied to the Fund for compensation. After his request had been rejected, he brought court proceedings against the Fund claiming compensation. That case, too, was dismissed as out of time. The applicants in the first case complain that the prolonged failure of the Turkish authorities to comply with the binding judgments annulling the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund and the bank's subsequent sale breached their rights under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the second case Mr Reisner complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that he has been illegally deprived of his shares in Demirbank and that he has been unable to receive any compensation for the loss. He further complains, in particular, that, as regards the third set of proceedings, he was denied access to court, as his case was rejected as out-of-time, in breach of Article 6 (right of access to a court). Deryan v. Turkey (no. 41721/04) The applicant, Armen Deryan, is a Greek national who was born in 1948 and lives in Kallithea-Attaki (Greece). The case concerns a set of civil proceedings brought against him in Turkey for the recovery of goods he had inherited. Mr Deryan is one of the heirs of an entrepreneur who had purchased certain movable and immovable goods from the bankrupt estate of a company by way of a public tender. The sale was subsequently annulled by a court order since the instalments had not been paid in time, but the entrepreneur did not comply with the request by the bankruptcy office to return the purchased goods. After his death in August 2000, the bankrupt estate of the company brought an action against his heirs, including Mr Deryan. By a court decision eventually upheld in 2003 the heirs were ordered to return the goods or pay for their equivalent value. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Deryan complains: that the Turkish court, in the recovery proceedings, refused to hear two witnesses he had proposed; that the court ordered him to pay interest on the amount payable although the claimant had not made such a request; and that the court had agreed to examine the case although the claim had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit. He further relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Zafer �zt�rk v. Turkey (no. 25774/09) The applicant, Zafer �zt�rk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Denizli. The case concerns the death of his wife following an operation for a uterine fibroid. In February 2001 his wife went to hospital and was examined by a gynaecologist, who found that she had a uterine fibroid. A second gynaecologist confirmed the diagnosis and indicated that Ms �zt�rk ought to be operated on urgently. She underwent an operation on 6 February 2001 and returned home two days later. Four days later, suffering from fever and nausea, she was again hospitalised. Her condition deteriorated significantly and Ms �zt�rk died from toxic hepatitis and sepsis. Mr �zt�rk lodged a criminal complaint against the doctor who had operated on his wife, alleging negligence and carelessness resulting in death. The judges decided to ask the General Medical Council for an expert opinion. The Council submitted its report, which concluded that the doctor had shown professional negligence. The criminal court decided, on the basis of the expert report, to sentence the doctor to six months' imprisonment, which was commuted to a suspended fine. In January 2009 the court, ruling after the case had been referred back to it, held that the limitation period had lapsed, and declared the criminal proceedings time-barred. In parallel to the criminal proceedings, Mr �zt�rk brought a claim for compensation before the district court in respect of the same doctor. Those proceedings were ultimately dismissed. The applicant alleges that the circumstances of his wife's death entailed a violation of the Convention. He submits that the proceedings brought against the doctor who had operated on his wife cannot be considered fair, since they had become time-barred. Lastly, he complains about the length of the proceedings brought before the national courts. The Court will give its ruling in writing on the following case, which concerns issues which have already been submitted to the Court. This ruling can be consulted from the day of its delivery on the Court's online database HUDOC. It will not appear in the press release issued on that day. Ljaji v. Serbia (no. 58385/13) Thursday 23 July 2015 Novakovi v. Croatia (application no. 32096/12) The applicant, Dragan Novakovi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Sisak (Croatia). The case concerns his complaint that he was not able to bring a claim for damages within the statutory time-limit because he had had to flee Croatia during the 1991-1995 war for independence ("The Homeland War"). Mr Novakovi lodged civil proceedings in September 1999 for payment of money from property investments, stating that he had not been able to lodge the claim within the five-year statutory timelimit as, fearing for his safety on account of his Serbian ethnic origin, he had left Sisak in 1991 only to return in 1996. The lower courts subsequently dismissed his claim as time-barred, finding that Mr Novakovi had left Sisak of his own free will, that the town had never been occupied and that the courts there had remained operational. The Supreme Court and the Constitutional upheld the lower courts' judgments in May 2009 and October 2011, respectively. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Novakovi complains about the refusal of the national courts to examine his claim for damages on the merits. Andonovski v. `the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' (no. 24312/10) The applicant, Vladimir Andonovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Kumanovo (`the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'). The case concerns his allegation of police brutality. According to Mr Andonovski, the incident occurred on 17 September 2004 when he approached a police car to discuss a parking ticket he had been given and two police officers (one of whom was a neighbour and with whom he was not on good terms) insulted him, then punched and kicked him and took him to the local police station where the beating continued until he lost consciousness. An ambulance was subsequently called and he was taken to hospital where he remained for the next 11 days. He underwent extensive medical examinations during his stay in hospital and upon his release, the ensuing reports attesting to a spinal fracture, concussion, head trauma and bruising all over his body. Two sets of criminal proceedings ensued: the first against Mr Andonovski for assaulting police officers and resisting arrest; and the second brought by Mr Andonovski against the police officers for � among other offences � serious bodily harm, abuse of office and false testimony. Mr Andonovski was found guilty as charged in the first set of proceedings in October 2005 and sentenced to five months' imprisonment, suspended for two years. The courts accepted the police officers' statements that they had had to use force against Mr Andonovski who had assaulted them, biting one of the officers on the thumb, and resisted arrest. The other set of proceedings were never heard on the merits, as they were stayed and finally concluded in October 2009, Mr Andonovski having withdrawn the charges against the police officers (which he subsequently contested). Mr Andonovski alleges that he was ill-treated by the police and that the investigation into his allegations of police brutality was ineffective. He complains in particular that, unlike the criminal proceedings against him, the proceedings against the police officers were protracted, alleging that this showed bias on the part of the judges. He also complains about the lack of an effective remedy with regard to the delays to the proceedings against the police officers and the prosecuting authorities' inactivity. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Aleksandr Shevchenko v. Russia (no. 48243/11) The applicant, Aleksandr Shevchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Volzhskiy, Volgograd region. The case concerns his pre-trial detention on suspicion of drug offences. Mr Shevchenko was arrested in October 2010 on charges of attempted drug trafficking and, the charges subsequently being reclassified to purchase and storage of drugs, was convicted in April 2012 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Before the referral of his criminal case for trial, he was detained on the basis of individual detention orders; after referral, he was detained on the basis of a collective detention order, which included his co-defendants. Mr Shevchenko's appeals against his continued detention during the whole period of that detention were rejected, the judicial authorities referring to the gravity of the charges against him (and later also against his codefendants) and the risk that he/his co-defendants might abscond or reoffend. He was ultimately granted early release in February 2013. Relying mainly on Article 5 �� 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Shevchenko alleges that his pre-trial detention for one year and six months was not justified and that his appeals against certain detention orders (made in January and September 2011 and February 2012) were not examined speedily. Bataliny v. Russia (no. 10060/07) The applicants, Vladislav Batalin, born in 1977, and his parents, Igor Batalin and Lyudmila Batalina, born in 1937 and 1938 respectively, are Russian nationals who live in Moscow. The case concerns Vladislav Batalin's involuntary confinement and treatment in a psychiatric hospital between 26 May and 9 June 2005. Having suffered from a number of health issues, including neurological problems, for several months, he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital on 25 May 2005 after he had received emergency aid for having cut the veins on his forearm. He was diagnosed with a number of diseases, including a chronic pain disorder and a personality disorder. When his parents arrived at the hospital on the following day to take him home, as he had requested, they were not allowed to do so and were asked to leave. According to Vladislav Batalin's submissions, during the following night he was beaten by the hospital nurses and then strapped to a bed. He also alleges that he was subjected to scientific research by being treated with a new antipsychotic drug and forbidden all contact with the outside world. After his release on 9 June 2005, an ambulance doctor noted a haematoma under his eye and bruises and contusions on his body. In October 2005, the applicants complained of Vladislav Batalin's involuntary confinement in the hospital and his alleged ill-treatment to the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation. After the district department of the interior had twice refused to open proceedings, criminal proceedings were eventually opened in November 2006. The proceedings concerning the alleged beatings were subsequently suspended and reopened on several occasions and they remain pending. The complaint concerning Vladislav Batalin's involuntary confinement was later removed from the case and separate proceedings were opened in October 2007; they were eventually discontinued in November 2010. Vladislav Batalin and his parents complain that his involuntary confinement in the hospital was in violation of Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and that he had no effective procedure at his disposal by which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, in breach of Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). They further allege violations, in particular, of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of: his forced psychiatric treatment in the absence of an established medical need and in the framework of scientific research; and on account of his beatings during his confinement and the lack of an effective investigation by the authorities in that respect. Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14) The applicant, Artem Patranin, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently detained in the correctional colony no. 2 in the Tatarstan Republic. The case concerns his complaint about receiving inadequate medical care in detention. By a judgment upheld on appeal in September 2013, Mr Patranin was convicted of a number of offences, including membership of an organised criminal group and murder, and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment in a correctional facility under a strict regime. He had been suffering from progressive multiple sclerosis for years and, while in pre-trial detention, from February 2012 onwards, Mr Patranin's health deteriorated significantly as the detention facility where he was placed did not have any medical specialists. In September 2012 he suffered an epileptic seizure which resulted in paralysis of one side of his body. A medical report subsequently found that his serious condition prevented his detention and he was released. Following his conviction, however, he was taken into custody again and placed in a prison hospital in a correctional colony. In January 2014 he was served with a medical opinion which concluded that he did not suffer from a condition serious enough to warrant his release. According to his submissions, he spent the entire day in bed, he could not eat or drink unaided and could not go to the toilet, receiving an enema only once every two weeks. Having received no reply to his complaints to various Russian State authorities that he required constant assistance and medical treatment which the Russian penal system was unable to provide, or to his request to be examined by an independent doctor, Mr Patranin made a request to the European Court of Human Rights for an interim measure, under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court. In February 2014 the ECtHR thus indicated to the Russian Government that Mr Patranin should be examined immediately by independent medical experts, including a neurologist and an epileptologist. The experts were to answer: whether the care and treatment he received was adequate to his condition; whether his current state of health was compatible with detention in the conditions of a correctional colony or prison hospital; and whether his condition required his admission to a specialised hospital or his release. Relying on Article 34 (right to individual petition), Mr Patranin complains that the Russian Government failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court, in that they did not have him examined by medical experts independent of the penal system. He further complains, relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), that he was unable to receive appropriate treatment in detention, which led to a serious deterioration of his condition, placed him in a life-threatening situation and subjected him to severe physical and mental suffering. Finally he complains that he did not have an effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Serikov v. Ukraine (no. 42164/09) The applicant, Sergey Serikov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). The case concerns his complaint of having been ill-treated by the police. Mr Serikov was arrested and taken to a police station in Kharkiv in the evening of 16 May 2008. A report set up by the police stated that a package of marijuana was found on him. According to Mr Serikov's submissions, he was ill-treated by the police to make him confess. In particular, he alleges that he was threatened with rape, kicked and hit on the head, and dropped face down on the floor, causing him to lose consciousness several times. According to the Ukrainian Government, the only violence applied to him was his handcuffing during his arrest, when he attempted to escape. A medical report by a forensic expert, who examined Mr Serikov during the same night, recorded that he had several haematomas and bruises. At a hospital, where he sought medical aid the following day, he was diagnosed, in particular, with concussion. On the day following his arrest, Mr Serikov's mother lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers alleging that they had ill-treated her son. In June 2008 the prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings, finding that no unlawful force had been used by the officers. The decision was later set aside and the investigation was subsequently reopened and closed on several occasions. It has not led to any prosecution. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Serikov complains that he was ill-treated by the police and that the domestic authorities did not effectively investigate 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. Alen Kovacevic v. Croatia (no. 61763/13) Sekul v. Croatia (no. 43569/13) B.K. v. France (no. 65621/11) Batiashvilebi v. Georgia (no. 75737/11) Botchorishvili v. Georgia (no. 652/10) Chantladze v. Georgia (no. 60864/10) Chkhartishvili v. Georgia (no. 2204/12) Dzidziguri v. Georgia (no. 60814/10) Shanidze v. Georgia (no. 56080/10) Studio Maestro Ltd and Others v. Georgia (no. 22318/10) Tchikashvili and Others v. Georgia (no. 61783/11) Truckenbrodt v. Germany (no. 49849/08) Theodoropoulos and Ventouris v. Greece (nos. 35950/09 and 7750/10) Vathiotou and Others v. Greece (nos. 55240/09, 44607/10, and 5614/12) Hauber and Barbato v. Italy (nos. 70124/10 and 44803/11) O.G. (no. 2) v. Latvia (no. 6752/13) Pancers v. Latvia (no. 6670/06) Zikovs v. Latvia (no. 17689/14) Spinu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 18589/11) A.A.Q. v. the Netherlands (no. 42331/05) Jankowski v. Poland (no. 73891/13) Lorbiecki v. Poland (no. 1629/11) Sarria v. Poland (no. 70717/12) Craciun v. Romania (no. 65992/13) Crestin v. Romania (no. 41657/13) Istrate v. Romania (no. 50648/13) Lupu v. Romania (no. 36250/09) Marean v. Romania (no. 61553/08) Radu and Giannikellis v. Romania (nos. 23369/12 and 63410/12) Talaban v. Romania (no. 14367/06) Tudor and Others v. Romania (nos. 60713/10, 12743/11, 23458/11, 26801/11, and 19809/12) Ursu and Others v. Romania (nos. 43967/10, 47996/13, 55699/13, and 69088/13) Arandelovic and Markovic v. Serbia (nos. 42903/10 and 59521/14) Jovanovic v. Serbia (nos. 17197/11 and 44008/14) Marijanovic v. Serbia (no. 4132/14) Markovic v. Serbia (no. 67239/12) Nojkovic and Others v. Serbia (nos. 48550/10, 48551/10, 73051/10, 73053/10, 73058/10, 49965/12, 23331/13, 26409/13, 29194/13, 30711/13, 46811/13, 60832/13, and 63122/14) Simeunovic v. Serbia (no. 48535/09) Stefanovic and Stojanovic v. Serbia (nos. 63163/10 and 63313/10) Ristic v. Serbia (no. 55973/13) Zivkovic v. Serbia (no. 63694/10) Ibragimov v. Slovakia (no. 65916/10) D.P. v. Slovenia (no. 49994/14) Strlekar v. Slovenia (no. 256/14) Osmayev v. Ukraine (no. 50609/12) 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. 17