003-5139666-6347093

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 250 (2015) 24.07.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing one judgment on 28 July 2015 and 36 judgments and / or decisions on 30 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 28 July 2015 The Court will communicate in writing its judgment on just satisfaction in the case of Tutu v. Romania (no. 17299/05, available only in French), which concerns an issue that has already been submitted to it. The judgment can be consulted on HUDOC, the Court's online database, from 28 July 2015. It will not appear in the press release issued on that day. Thursday 30 July 2015 Loisel v. France (no. 50104/11) The applicant, Matthieu Loisel, is a French national who was born in 1985 and is imprisoned in Mont de Marsan (France). On 12 August 2009 Mr Loisel was arrested on suspicion of having raped a 16-year-old boy whom he had arranged to meet over the internet by passing himself off as a woman. He was placed in pre-trial detention to allow investigations to be conducted and to protect the victim from any attempt to exert pressure. Mr Loisel's applications for release were dismissed, as the judges considered that pre-trial detention served to avoid the risks of absconding and reoffending. The pre-trial detention was extended twice, in 2010 and 2011, for six months. Mr Loisel was sentenced at first instance on 7 December 2012 and then definitively by the appeal court appeal on 10 April 2014 to 15 years' imprisonment, accompanied by a judicial and social supervision order imposing compulsory treatment for ten years. Relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Loisel complains about the length of his pre-trial detention, which he considers excessive. E.A. v. Greece (no. 74308/10) The applicant, E.A., is an Iranian national who was born in 1977. The case concerns his detention from 2 August to 8 October 2010, for the purposes of his expulsion, in the premises of the Soufli and Venna border police. The applicant left Iran after having served a prison sentence, and arrived in Greece on 2 August 2010. Mr E.A. claims that he applied for asylum on arrival in Greece, but that his request was not registered. He was held in detention for two months pending expulsion in the premises of the border police in Soufli and Venna. Following an initial dismissal of his complaints regarding his conditions of detention, the administrative court upheld Mr E.A.'s second complaint and ordered his release, considering that he was not being held in "appropriate premises" for detention over a period of six months. The applicant alleges that he learned that his asylum claim had been rejected only once he had left Greece for Sweden, where he was granted refugee status. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr E.A. complains about the conditions of detention in the Soufli and Venna border-police stations, referring in particular to overpopulation, poor hygiene and lack of access to natural light. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Article 3, he complains, firstly, that he did not have an effective remedy to complain about those conditions, and, secondly, of the shortcomings in the Greek asylum system at the relevant time. He also submits that his detention was arbitrary and that he was not informed in a language that he understood about the reasons for his detention and the remedies that existed against the decision to place him in detention, in alleged violation of Article 5 �� 1 and 2 (right to liberty and security). Lastly, under Article 5 � 4, he alleges that the judicial review of his detention was ineffective. Zammit and Attard Cassar v. Malta (no. 1046/12) The applicants, Carmel Zammit and Doris Attard Cassar, are Maltese nationals who were born in 1943 and 1957 respectively and live in Zabbar and Birkirkara (Malta) respectively. The case concerns the capping of rent levels in Malta on commercial properties. In October 2000 the applicants inherited a property from their uncle which had been built in the 1960s in Zabbar and which was leased since the 1970s to a company, E., on the basis of a voluntary lease agreement. Under the relevant law on such leases, eviction and the fixing of rent could only take place subject to the approval of the Rent Regulation Board (the "RRB"), which itself was bound by limitations in the law. After having had the property valued, the applicants decided to increase the rent and informed E. by judicial letter. E. refused the increase and, in May 2004, applied to the RRB to dismiss the claim for the increase in rent. The applicants responded, arguing that the rent should reflect market values. The RRB, referring to the recommendation by two court-appointed architects that the rent should not be increased, dismissed the applicants' request in January 2008. It also held that it had no jurisdiction to decide on the applicants' allegation of a breach of their property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. On appeal the matter was referred to the constitutional jurisdictions. Ultimately, in July 2011, the Constitutional Court found that, given that the original owner � the applicants' uncle � had been fully aware of the legal consequences when leasing the property, he and his successors � the applicants � could not now complain of a breach of their rights under the European Convention. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that the law in Malta did not allow them to seek an increase in rent to reflect market values, meaning that their rent remained tied to fictitious 1914 values. Thus, according to the applicants, the market rental value of the property during the first decade of their rental contract was 7,000 euros (EUR), whereas the rent payable to them was EUR 862 per year; the rent has subsequently been increased (to EUR 1,505 in 2013 with a further 5% increase from 2014 onwards) but only slightly. They allege that these rent law restrictions imposed on them an excessive individual burden, particularly in view of the fact that their property was being leased to a commercial enterprise. Ferreira Santos Pardal v. Portugal (no. 30123/10) The applicant, Jos� Lu�s Ferreira Santos Pardal, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1955 and lives in Braga (Portugal). The case concerns the fairness of proceedings against the State to establish non-contractual civil liability. Mr Ferreira Santos Pardal brought proceedings before the Santo Tirso Court for civil liability against his insurance company, which, after one year, had stopped paying the hospital costs resulting from a car accident, on the ground that he had recovered. Having had his case dismissed on appeal and by the Supreme Court, Mr Ferreira Santos Pardal brought proceedings against the State to establish non-contractual civil liability, alleging a judicial error and incorrect interpretation of the European Union directive which had extended cover for civil liability insurance to personal injuries sustained by the policy holder if he or she was a passenger in his or her own vehicle at the time of the accident1 . The Guimar�es Court of Appeal partly upheld his claim, finding that the Supreme Court had failed to discharge its obligation to refer the question to the CJUE (Court of Justice of the European Union) for a preliminary ruling, thus committing a serious and clear error, in breach of Community law. In consequence, it held that the State's non-contractual civil liability was established. On 3 December 2009 the Supreme Court granted an appeal on points of law submitted by the State Counsel's Office, quashing the appeal court's judgment and upholding the first-instance judgment. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant considers that the interpretation of the domestic law on the State's civil liability when exercising its judicial functions, as given by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 3 December 2009, was contrary to its consistent case-law and was in breach of the principle of legal certainty and the right to a fair hearing. Voronkov v. Russia (no. 39678/03) The applicant, Valeriy Voronkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Samara (Russia). The case concerns the non-enforcement of a final judgment in his favour. Mr Voronkov worked as a store keeper at a car park operated by a municipal unitary company until being dismissed in July 2000 on account of the company's liquidation. He brought proceedings against his former employer in connection with his dismissal and in November 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court found that his dismissal was unlawful � as the company was still being wound up � and awarded him damages. That judgment was subsequently upheld on appeal and became final in January 2002. The enforcement proceedings commenced in February 2002 but were discontinued by the national courts in May 2003 on account of the company's lack of assets as established in the liquidation proceedings (which had been terminated in the meantime in September 2002). Mr Voronkov notably complains that the judgment of November 2001 has still not been enforced, relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). 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. Arapi v. Albania (no. 27656/07) Beevi v. Bulgaria (no. 39020/11) Danash v. Bulgaria (no. 10759/11) Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 34633/08) Ivancheva v. Bulgaria (no. 5452/11) Kotsev v. Bulgaria (no. 18354/07) Mladenov v. Bulgaria (no. 24590/11) Stoyanov v. Bulgaria (no. 6062/11) 1 Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990. Todorova v. Bulgaria (no. 55136/08) Atsaev v. the Czech Republic (no. 14021/10) Vavrova v. the Czech Republic (no. 43562/07) Mirtskhulava v. Georgia (no. 18372/04) Lorenzetti v. Italy (no. 24876/07) Bogurski v. Poland (no. 28653/13) Gorecki v. Poland (no. 30699/13) Gronkiewicz v. Poland (no. 72600/11) Kalisz v. Poland (no. 15753/12) Nowak v. Poland (no. 9599/13) Stozek v. Poland (no. 49676/13) Zelek v. Poland (no. 76137/13) Andrei v. Romania (no. 16053/09) Constantin v. Romania (no. 8050/13) Dariciuc v. Romania (no. 47873/13) Elefteriadis v. Romania (no. 53104/11) Marhamati Jughan v. Romania (no. 65605/13) Prelipcean v. Romania (no. 49326/14) Sas v. Romania (no. 26634/14) Kolicic v. Serbia (no. 18545/10) Veselinovic v. Serbia (no. 15767/12) N.D. and N.T. v. Spain (nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15) Ryzhenko v. Ukraine (no. 55902/11) 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. 4