003-5195439-6432078

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 299 (2015) 09.10.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 judgments on Tuesday 13 October 2015 and 68 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 15 October 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 13 October 2015 Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 17224/11) The applicants, the Brcko Branch of the Islamic Community of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Medzlis Islamske zajednice Brcko), the Bosniac Cultural Society "Preporod" (Bosnjacka zajednica kulture "Preporod"), the Bosniac Charity Association "Merhamet" ("Merhamet" Humanitarno udruzenje graana Bosnjaka Brcko Distrikta) and the Council of Bosniac Intellectuals (Vijee Kongresa Bosnjackih intelektualaca Brcko Distrikta), are four non-governmental organisations from the Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The case concerns defamation proceedings brought against the applicant NGOs following the publication of a letter they had written to the highest authorities of their district to complain about the entertainment editor of a public radio station. In May 2003 the NGOs wrote a letter to the highest authorities of the Brcko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina to complain about the alleged misconduct of an entertainment editor of their district's multi-ethnic public radio station. They wrote that, according to information they had received, the entertainment editor, had been involved in disparaging behaviour towards Bosniacs and Bosniac culture and that this disqualified her from being a candidate for the position of the radio station's director. Soon after the letter was published in three different daily newspapers. As a result, the entertainment editor brought civil defamation proceedings against the applicants. At first-instance the claim was rejected: the court found that the applicants could not be held liable because they had not published the letter in the media. However, in July 2007 the appellate court, after having examined several witnesses, found the applicants liable for defamation due to the inaccuracy of factual statements they had made about the entertainment editor, which had been untrue and damaging to the latter's reputation. The applicants were ordered to retract their statements and publish the judgment against them at their own expense. Having failed to do this, the entertainment editor brought enforcement proceedings and, in December 2007, the applicants paid 2,825 convertible marks (approximately 1,445 euros) for enforcement of the judgment of July 2007. The Constitutional Court upheld the appellate court's judgment in May 2010. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the NGOs complain that the domestic courts' decisions against them breached their right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, they maintain that their intention had not been to publish the letter, which had occurred without their knowledge, but to inform those in authority about certain irregularities in a matter of considerable public interest � the suitability of a candidate for the post of a multi-ethnic public radio station � and to prompt them to investigate their allegations. Riza and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 48555/10 and 48377/10) The applicants are Rushen Mehmed Riza, a Bulgarian national, Dvizhenie za Prava i Svobodi (the Movement for rights and freedoms � "DPS"), a Bulgarian political party, and 101 Bulgarian nationals of Turkish origin and/or of the Muslim faith who exercised their right to vote in 17 polling stations in Turkey where the results of the Bulgarian general elections in July 2009 were subsequently declared null and void. The case concerns respect for the right to stand for election and the right to vote. On 5 July 2009 parliamentary elections were held. Bulgarian citizens living abroad were entitled to vote only for parties and coalitions and their votes were taken into account in the distribution of seats between political formations at national level. The DPS was registered as a participant in the elections. When the results were counted, six parties and coalitions exceeded the threshold of 4% of votes cast and were included in the proportional distribution of seats in the National Assembly, with the DPS obtaining 14.45% of valid votes, giving it the position of third political party in the country. It was the clear winner in 17 polling stations opened in Turkey where the applicants had voted. On 7 July 2009 the electoral board attributed the DPS 33 seats in accordance with the proportional representation system. The attribution was partly amended following an appeal to the Constitutional Court by another political formation. On 21 July 2009 the chairman and three members of the political party RZS (Red, Zakonnost, Spravedlivost � "the Party of Order, Legality and Justice"), asked the Principal Public Prosecutor to submit an appeal to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of the election of seven DPS MPs on account of a number of anomalies which had occurred in the polling stations in Turkey. On 16 February 2010 the Constitutional Court gave its judgment. It rejected the request for the annulment of the election of seven MPs, but decided to deduct from the results obtained by each political party all the votes obtained in 23 polling stations in Turkey, i.e. 18,140 votes for the DPS. It declared that the votes in question were valid under domestic law but had to be deducted from the election results on account of anomalies in the electoral rolls and in the ballot reports. Appeals by Mr Riza and the DPS were declared inadmissible. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the Convention, Mr Riza and the DPS allege that the annulment of the election results in 23 polling stations in Turkey unjustifiably interfered with their right to stand for election and the other applicants allege that the annulment of their ballot papers constituted a violation of their active electoral rights. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Riza and the DPS argue that domestic law did not provide them with any remedy to seek redress for the alleged violation of their rights. �nsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.. v. Bulgaria (no. 3503/08) The applicant company, �nsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.., is a Turkish logistic services company. The case concerns the confiscation of a lorry belonging to the applicant company in criminal proceedings to which it was not a party. On 23 June 2007 a lorry belonging to the applicant company, was stopped for inspection at the Yambol customs post (Bulgaria). The Bulgarian authorities discovered and seized a quantity of drugs with an estimated value of 27,000 euros (EUR). Criminal proceedings were opened against the driver of the lorry and the lorry was seized as material evidence. On 26 June 2007 the applicant company asked the Prosecutor for the return of the lorry. This was refused on the basis that it had to be retained as material evidence until the end of the criminal proceedings. On 3 August 2007 the applicant company renewed its request for the return of the lorry arguing, amongst other things, that the holding of the lorry was no longer justified as a forensic report had already been prepared and the value of the lorry (EUR 83,000) was over three times the value of the drugs seized. Meanwhile, the lorry driver agreed to a plea bargain with the prosecutor; the terms of the plea bargain included the forfeiture of the lorry. On 8 August 2007 the applicant company asked the criminal court not to confiscate its lorry, again arguing that the value of the lorry was three times higher than the value of the smuggled goods and as such, and in accordance with national law, should not be forfeited. However, the plea bargain agreed between the driver and the Prosecutor was accepted by the court on 14 August 2007 and the applicant company's lorry was forfeited. On 26 May 2008 the company brought proceedings in Turkey against the lorry driver, seeking damages. The driver was found liable to pay the company for the damage his actions had caused but the company could not collect any of the compensation awarded as the lorry driver had no assets. �nsped Paket Servisi SaN. Ve TiC. A.. complains, in particular, that the confiscation of its lorry in proceedings in which it was not a party breached its property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Jovi v. Croatia (no. 45593/13) V.R. v. Croatia (no. 55102/13) The applicants are Cedo Jovi, a Serbian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Belgrade (Serbia) and Mr V.R., a Croatian national who was born in 1992. Both cases concern their complaints about the lack of effective judicial review of their pre-trial detention by the Constitutional Court. In the first case, Mr Jovi was arrested in July 2008 on suspicion of war crimes against the civilian population and placed in pre-trial detention. His detention was subsequently extended on a number of occasions by the County Court and the Supreme Court pending his trial and then a retrial. He was ultimately found guilty by the County Court on 1 June 2012 and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, his pre-trial detention being further extended until this judgment became final. In the meantime in April 2012, Mr Jovi had challenged his continued pre-trial detention before the Constitutional Court. However, this constitutional complaint was dismissed in January 2013 on the grounds that a fresh decision extending his detention had been adopted in the meantime on 1 June 2012. In the second case, Mr V.R. was also placed in pre-trial detention, following his arrest on suspicion of sexual abuse and indecent behaviour towards children. His detention was subsequently extended on two occasions in June 2013 and then on 8 July 2013 when Mr V.R. was indicted by the municipal criminal court. Mr V.R. had in the meantime lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court to challenge his continued pre-trial detention. His constitutional complaint was dismissed on 10 July 2013 on the ground that a fresh decision extending his detention had been adopted on 8 July 2013. Ultimately, on 22 July 2013, the municipal court re-examined the reasons for his pre-trial detention and ordered his release. Relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), the applicants allege that the Constitutional Court's practice of declaring a complaint before it inadmissible merely because a new decision on detention had in the meantime been adopted deprived the pre-trial detention review procedure of all meaning. Vrountou v. Cyprus (no. 33631/06) The applicant, Maria Vrountou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1980 and lives in Kokkinotrimithia (Cyprus). The case concerns the failure to grant Ms Vrountou a refugee card. In 1974 the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Cyprus approved the introduction of a scheme for war victims and persons displaced from areas occupied by the Turkish armed forces or evacuated to meet the needs of the National Guard. Under the scheme, displaced persons were entitled to refugee cards, which made them eligible to a range of benefits including housing assistance. In February 2003 Ms Vrountou applied to the migration authorities for a refugee card in respect of occupied Skylloura, the place from which her mother had been displaced. Her request was rejected in March 2003 on the basis that she could not be considered a displaced person because, while her mother was a displaced person, her father was not. In the ensuing judicial proceedings before the Supreme Court, Ms Vrountou's recourse was dismissed at first instance in May 2004 because it was not possible to extend the applicable criteria for granting refugees cards so as to cover the children of displaced women. Notably a proposal to change the law had been placed before the House of Representatives' Committee for Refugees but never approved. The Supreme Court upheld these findings on appeal in March 2006, considering that it did not have jurisdiction to extend the refugee card scheme. Ms Vrountou complains about the refusal of the authorities to grant her a refugee card, alleging that this meant that she was denied a range of benefits, including housing assistance. She also alleges that denying her a refugee card on the basis that she was the child of a displaced woman rather than a displaced man was discriminatory on the grounds of sex and that no authority in Cyprus, including the courts, had examined the merits of her complaint. She relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Ha�sz and Szab� v. Hungary (nos. 11327/14 and 11613/14) The applicants, �va Ha�sz and Gabriella Szab�, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1981 and 1995 and who live in Si�fok and Leps�ny respectively (both in Hungary). The case concerns the use of excessive, potentially lethal force against the applicants by an off-duty police officer and the subsequent investigation into the incident by the domestic authorities. On 6 August 2012, Ms Ha�sz and Ms Szab�, returning from an excursion to Lake Balaton, decided to spend the night in their car, a Fiat Punto, in the parking lot of a private house in the village of Tagyon (Hungary). During the night a volunteer law enforcer was tipped off about a Fiat Punto driving suspiciously around the village. He then informed an off-duty police officer and together they went in search of the Fiat Punto. They noticed the vehicle in a driveway and stopped about a metre away. Both men got out of their vehicle and started to run towards the car. Ms Ha�sz, frightened when seeing two people in civilian clothes running towards her, attempted to drive away. The police officer waved at the car shouting "Police! Stop!" and fired a warning shot. He then shot twice more at the car, the second shot narrowly missing Ms Szab�'s head. The officer eventually put his gun away and presented his police ID at which point it became clear that the incident was based on a misunderstanding. A criminal investigation was opened by the Prosecutor's Office. Ms Ha�sz and Ms Szab� were questioned, other witnesses were heard and the opinion of a forensic firearms expert was obtained. At the same time, the police officer's superior, investigating the officer's use of his firearm, concluded that while he had no intention of endangering life, his actions had been unprofessional. On 13 July 2013, the Prosecutors Office discontinued the investigation finding that the police officer's use of his firearm had been lawful in face of the danger represented by the car driving towards him and accepting the officer's account that he had fired the shots because he had believed there was a danger to his colleague's life. Ms Ha�sz and Ms Szab� filed a complaint against the discontinuation which was dismissed. This decision was served on them on 29 July 2013. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Ha�sz and Ms Szab� complain that excessive force had been used against them in circumstances where it was not absolutely necessary, putting their lives at risk. Furthermore, they allege that the authorities' investigation into the incident had been inadequate, arguing in particular that it had not been clarified whether the force had been absolutely necessary in the circumstances. Baratta v. Italy (no. 28263/09) The applicant, Mario Baratta, is an Italian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Cosenza (Italy). The case concerns the trial of Mr Baratta, who was charged with offences including homicide and conspiracy and who was tried in his absence in Italy, having been declared as "eluding arrest", when he was actually detained pending extradition in Brazil. Mr Baratta's lawyer asked for the decision to try him in his absence to be rescinded. The domestic courts found that, as he was challenging his extradition, his absence was the result of his own will and not of a legitimate impediment. Mr Baratta was sentenced to life imprisonment. When Mr Baratta was extradited from Brazil to Italy in April 2001, he applied for a stay of execution, alleging that his detention pending extradition had been incompatible with a finding that he was "eluding arrest", seeking the possibility of appealing against the first-instance judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment, even though his lawyer had already exhausted domestic remedies. The court dismissed Mr Baratta's application, finding that the decision to try him in his absence had already become final. Mr Baratta then sought a ruling to re-open the limitation period. The Court of Cassation decided to grant a new time-limit within which he could appeal against his life sentence, observing that Mr Baratta had been wrongly declared as "eluding arrest" when he was actually detained in Brazil. Mr Baratta thus appealed against his life sentence and his conviction was declared null and void in June 2012 on account of the absolute nullity of the proceedings; his detention abroad was to be regarded as a legitimate impediment, even when he was challenging his extradition. Following that decision, the first-instance proceedings were re-opened and the Assize Court decided to discontinue them on the ground that the charges had become time-barred. The public prosecutor appealed and the appeal proceedings are still pending. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of his right to be present at his trial and his right to appeal to a higher court in criminal matters. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also contends that he has no effective remedy by which to submit his complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and that his detention for the enforcement of his sentence was arbitrary. S.H. v. Italy (no. 52557/14) The applicant, S.H., is an Italian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Sacile (Italy). She is the mother of three children, R., P. and J., who were born respectively in 2005, 2006 and 2008. The case concerns the declaration of adoptability of the children of S.H. on account of difficulties encountered by the parents, despite their wish to continue looking after them with the help of the social services. In August 2009 the social services informed the domestic court that, on a number of occasions, the children had been admitted to hospital following the accidental ingestion of medication. Urgent proceedings were opened. The court ordered the removal of the children from their family and their placement in an institution. The parents acknowledged that on account of S.H.'s depression, they had had difficulties looking after the children, but said that they could look after them with the help of the social services. A psychiatrist proposed the return of the children to their parents with home help, a solution that the court accepted. The children were, however, removed again from the family, on the ground that S.H. had been admitted to hospital and the father had left the family home. The public prosecutor applied for the opening of a procedure to declare the children adoptable. The parents stated that the children's father was available to look after them and that, consequently, they had not been abandoned. The court ordered an expert's report. The expert proposed that the children's placement in an institution be maintained. The court, however, declared the children adoptable. The parents lodged an appeal against that decision. In July 2011 the children were, however, placed in a foster family and the appeal court confirmed their adoptability, on account of the parents' incapacity to exercise their parental role in spite of the help of the competent authorities. The parents appealed, in vain, to the Court of Cassation. S.H. asked the court to revoke the declaration of adoptability, but the court dismissed her request. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant alleges that the domestic authorities failed in their positive obligation to use all the necessary efforts to preserve the parent-child relationship. She complains that they declared her children adoptable when there was no abandonment, only transitory family difficulties. Manea v. Romania (no. 77638/12) The applicant, Constantin Manea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and is currently in Bacu prison serving a sentence for attempted murder and conspiracy. The case concerns Mr Manea's allegation about poor conditions of detention and of prison visits. Mr Manea claims that since May 2011 he has had to share cells of 30 to 35 sq.m with about 20 prisoners, the vast majority of whom are smokers. He says that hot water is available only twice a week and that the cells have only one shower cubicle. The mattresses are infested with fleas and the meals are served on the beds, as there are no tables in the cells. His two-hour daily exercise is confined to a 50 sq.m rat-infested courtyard, with 40 to 50 other prisoners at the same time. Because of the humidity, cigarette smoke and dust, Mr Manea is suffering from lung problems. The Government argue that the cells have windows, electric ventilation and hearing, together with a bathroom fitted with a number of basins, toilets and showers. The cleanliness of the cells is the responsibility of the prisoners. In their submission, Mr Manea has never asked to be moved to a nonsmoking cell. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Manea complains about the conditions of his detention in Bacu prison and also his inability to see his two minor sons in appropriate conditions, i.e. without being separated by a partition. Miclea v. Romania (no. 69582/12) The applicant, Alexandru Miclea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1989 and who lives in Arad (Romania). The case concerns the alleged ill-treatment of Mr Miclea in police custody and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint of this ill-treatment. On 8 August 2010, Mr Miclea was involved in a fight outside a bar. Mr Miclea was taken by the police to the police station to provide a statement. Mr Miclea alleges that once at the station, he was handcuffed to a radiator and punched and kicked by officers. On 15 September 2010, Mr Miclea lodged a complaint against the two officers whom he alleged had assaulted him. Soon after Mr Miclea made a statement to the Prosecutor and submitted a forensic medical certificate, dated 9 August 2010, showing in particular injuries to both his wrists. Statements from witnesses corroborating his account were taken in February 2011. In June 2011 witness statements were taken from the two police officers who denied any wrongdoing and alleged that Mr Miclea's injuries had been sustained during the fight outside the bar. In January 2012 the Prosecutor's Office decided not to pursue criminal proceedings against the officers on the basis that their statements contradicted those of Mr Miclea and his witnesses. Mr Miclea contested this decision before the court complaining, in particular, that the prosecutor had overlooked important evidence. His case was ultimately dismissed. Relying in essence on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Miclea complains that he was ill-treated in police custody and, furthermore, that the authorities were ineffective in clarifying the circumstances in which he had been physically assaulted. Akkoyunlu v. Turkey (no. 7505/06) The applicant, Hayrullah Akkoyunlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns Mr Akkoyunlu's allegation that he lost the sight in his left eye during his military service due to delays in access to medical care. Mr Akkoyunlu, who had recently started his compulsory military service in irnak, went to the infirmary of his regiment on 25 July 2001, complaining of severe pain in his left eye. According to Mr Akkoyunlu, the military doctor was absent and he was seen by a soldier who sent him away with eye drops. The Government dispute this allegation, stating that Mr Akkoyunlu had in fact been examined by a military doctor. Having then gone once more to the infirmary and told to rest in his dormitory, he was eventually referred to hospital on 2 August 2001. Diagnosed with a corneal ulcer, he started treatment but completely lost the sight in his left eye. He was deemed no longer medically fit for military service in July 2002 and discharged from the army. He is now entitled to a disability pension. In October 2002 Mr Akkoyunlu brought compensation proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the damage he had suffered to his eye during his military service on account of the delay in his treatment. He had notably been informed by the medics at the hospital where he had been treated that it was crucial in corneal ulcer cases to have immediate treatment to prevent scarring of the cornea. In May 2005 the administrative court dismissed his claim. It based its decision on an expert report drawn up during the proceedings which concluded that the cause of Mr Akkoyunlu's corneal ulcer could not be determined and no fault could be attributed to the military authorities in his transfer, diagnosis or treatment. Neither the administrative court nor the experts appointed by it sought to question the doctor who had allegedly examined Mr Akkoyunlu when he had first gone to the infirmary complaining of eye pain. Mr Akkoyunlu's request for rectification of that decision was refused in September 2005. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Akkoyunlu alleges that because his regiment had not immediately referred him to hospital, he had been delayed access to appropriate medical treatment and this had resulted in him losing the sight in his left eye. Bremner v. Turkey (no. 37428/06) The applicant, Dion Ross Bremner, is an Australian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Strathfield (Australia). The case concerns the broadcasting of a television documentary in which Mr Bremner appears as a "foreign pedlar of religion" engaged in secret activities in Turkey. In June 1997 the producers of the programme had been contacted by a certain A.N., who had responded to an advertisement offering books free of charge. In return he had received books about Christianity. Following telephone calls between A.N. and the sender, Mr Bremner, a meeting was filmed with a hidden camera. According to the voice-over commentary, Mr Bremner then presented the teachings of the Bible and compared Christianity with other religions, promoting his own beliefs. The programme's presenter was then seen entering the room during a second meeting. She interviewed Mr Bremner, who stated that he was explaining Christianity on a voluntary basis. He was presented on the programme as a "pedlar of religion". According to Mr Bremner, he was taken into police custody after the broadcast and the public prosecutor brought proceedings against him for insulting God and Islam. In April 1998 the criminal court found him innocent, taking the view that no offence had been made out. Mr Bremner subsequently sued the presenter and producers of the programme claiming damages. His claim was dismissed by the domestic courts on the ground that the footage in question did not concern details of Mr Bremner's private life but was part of a documentary on a topical issue of interest to public opinion and that there had been an important general interest in the broadcasting of the programme. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Bremner alleges that the broadcasting of the documentary and the refusal of the judicial authorities to grant his request for compensation breached his right to respect for his private life. Thursday 15 October 2015 Gafgaz Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 60259/11) The applicant, Gafgaz Suleyman oglu Mammadov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1953 and lives in Baku. The case concerns Mr Mammadov's arrest, conviction and detention for five days for participating in a political rally. On 19 June 2011 Mr Mammadov attended a demonstration in central Baku organised by the opposition group Ictimai Palata. The participants notably demanded free and fair elections, democratic reforms and the release of certain people arrested during previous rallies. The authorities, informed beforehand about the demonstration by the organisers, had refused to give their authorisation. Shortly after the start of the rally, the police therefore started to disperse the participants. Mr Mammadov was arrested in the early evening and taken to a police station for questioning. An administrative-offence report was drawn up for his failing to comply with the lawful order of the police during a demonstration. According to Mr Mammadov, he was never served with a copy of this report and was not given access to a lawyer after his arrest or while in police custody. After spending the night in custody, he was brought before a court which sentenced him the same day to five days' administrative detention for refusing to stop participating in an unlawful demonstration. At the hearing, which was very brief and not open to the public, Mr Mammadov was represented by a State-appointed lawyer despite his request to hire a lawyer of his own choice. In their decision the first-instance court principally relied on the police administrative-offence report and on the statement made by one of the arresting police officers, the sole witness at the hearing. Mr Mammadov's appeal against his conviction was dismissed on 24 June 2011. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Mr Mammadov complains about the police's dispersal of the demonstration and his arrest, conviction and ensuing detention for five days. He also alleges that, in the administrative proceedings against him on account of his participation in the rally, he had not had a fair or public hearing. He relies on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial/ right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence and right to legal assistance of own choosing). Karambelas v. Greece (no. 50369/14) The applicant, Theodoros Karambelas, is a Greek national who was born in 1967 and lives in Athens. The case concerns Mr Karambelas' placement in pre-trial detention on 10 January 2014, on suspicion of committing a number of offences as part of a gang, after he had been diagnosed in 2013 with lung cancer requiring chemotherapy. Mr Karambelas sought the lifting of the detention measure or conditional release, but the investigating judge refused. His appeal was also dismissed. He then filed with the indictments division a medical report certifying that he was in the terminal phase of his illness and required perfect conditions of hygiene, avoiding close contact with others � conditions which were not satisfied in a prison. The indictments division extended his pre-trial detention, finding that he could be treated in the prison hospital or, should his state of health so require, in a public hospital. It also observed that Mr Karambelas had pursued his criminal activity when he had been granted conditional release in the past and that his presence was necessary for an investigation into new offences. Mr Karambelas applied for the lifting of his detention measure or its replacement by less restrictive measures, attaching a certificate attesting to his 85% degree of disability. The investigating judge decided to grant Mr Karambelas conditional release, ordering 150,000 euros in bail and house arrest. The applicant appealed as he could not afford the bail, but the indictments division claimed that he was concealing his income. Mr Karambelas applied again for conditional release, based on his state of health, the poor conditions of his detention and his inability to pay the bail. On 17 March 2015 the indictments division ordered that he be placed under house arrest with a prohibition on leaving the country; he was thus released on the same day. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Karambelas complains about the authorities' refusal to provide him with treatment and the necessary care, in view of the terminal phase of his illness. Abakarova v. Russia (no. 16664/07) The applicant, Taisa Abakarova, is a Russian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya (Russia). The case concerns an aerial attack by the Russian military on a village in Chechnya in February 2000 which killed Ms Abakarova's family and left her injured. Together with her family, Ms Abakarova, eight years old at the time, attempted to leave Katyr-Yurt, after there had been airstrikes on that village. The family's car was hit by shelling. Ms Abakarova sustained a number of injuries; she lost consciousness and was taken to hospital. Only a month after the incident did she learn that her entire family � her parents, two brothers and one sister � had died as a result of the attack. A criminal investigation into the attack was opened in September 2000. Two applications have already been considered by the European Court of Human Rights concerning the airstrike of February 2000 and the inefficiency of the criminal investigation (Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, Chamber judgment of 24 February 2005 and Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, Chamber judgment of 2 December 2010). The investigation was terminated on several occasions, on the basis of the conclusions that the airstrikes had been absolutely necessary and proportionate to the resistance of insurgent fighters, and then reopened pursuant to the victims' complaints. In 2006 Ms Abakarova, who was being brought up by her grandmothers, learned that a criminal investigation had been opened into the attack. She informed the military prosecutor of the deaths of her five family members and of the injuries she had suffered. A minor at the time, she was then questioned and granted victim status. Ms Abakarova was not informed of the 2007 decision to close the case. The investigation was reopened in 2012, but closed again in March 2013. A summary of an expert report included in the case file concluded that the measures, which had resulted in civilian casualties, had been absolutely necessary. A list of 47 individuals killed by the airstrike contained in the document did not include the names of Ms Abakarova's family members. The appeals by another victim against the decision to close the case were ultimately unsuccessful. Ms Abakarova complains that there was a violation of Article 2 (right to life), in respect of herself and of her relatives who died as a result of the attack, and on account of the ineffectiveness of the investigation. She also complains, in particular, that she did not have an effective remedy in respect of those violations, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine (no. 43611/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Belozorov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Feodosiya (Crimea, Ukraine). The case concerns his arrest in Ukraine and his subsequent detention and forced transfer to Russia in 2000. Mr Belozorov was arrested at his apartment in Feodosiya, Ukraine, on 3 November 2000 by a Ukrainian and two Russian police officers in the context of a criminal investigation in Russia into the murder of a businessman. Mr Belozorov was handcuffed and his apartment was searched. According to Mr Belozorov's submissions, he then remained in the custody of the Ukrainian and Russian police, who on the next day escorted him to a local airport, where the Russian officers took the next flight to Moscow together with him. On arrival, he was formally arrested and detained on suspicion of murder. According to the Russian Government, Mr Belozorov had been taken to the Ukrainian police after the search of his apartment and released shortly after. On the next day he had bought a ticket and taken a flight to Moscow. The two Russian police officers had been tipped off about his plans and had taken the same flight; they had then arrested him at the airport in Moscow. Mr Belozorov's detention was authorised by a decision of the district prosecutor's office in Moscow on 7 November 2000, referring to the charges of murder against him. His detention pending investigation, and later pending trial, was subsequently extended on numerous occasions. In January 2003 he was convicted of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to eight years and six months' imprisonment, the judgment being upheld on appeal in November 2003. Following his arrest, Mr Belozorov's parents lodged complaints with various Ukrainian authorities, alleging, in particular, abuse of power and the unlawfulness of the search, arrest and detention. In response, the prosecutor brought administrative proceedings against the officials involved, and the Ukrainian police officer who had been involved in arresting Mr Belozorov was reprimanded. However, no criminal proceedings were opened. Following a similar complaint by Mr Belozorov, the Russian prosecutor's office decided not to open criminal proceedings on the grounds that Mr Belozorov had travelled to Moscow of his own free will. His appeals were unsuccessful. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (c) and (f) (right to liberty and security), Mr Belozorov complains that his arrest in Feodosiya, his subsequent detention and forced transfer to Moscow were unlawful and arbitrary. Further relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), he complains of the search of his apartment. He also complains under Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) about the length of his pre-trial detention in Russia; and, under Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), that he was unable to attend two hearings concerning his detention and that there had been significant delays in examining his appeals against two of the detention orders. L.M. and Others v. Russia (nos. 40081/14, 40088/14, and 40127/14) The applicants, L.M., a stateless Palestinian from Syria, and A.A. and M.A., Syrian nationals, were born in 1988, 1987, and 1994 respectively. At the time of lodging their applications they were detained in a detention centre for foreign nationals in Maloyaroslavets, Kaluga Region (Russia). The case concerns their impending expulsion to Syria and their detention in Russia. The applicants entered Russia in 2013. In March 2014 A.A. sought refugee status in Russia and, according to the Russian Government, the request was dismissed. In April 2014 all three applicants were arrested at a clothing factory in Maloyaroslavets. The district court subsequently found them guilty of administrative offences, namely the breach of residence rules and working without a permit. The court ordered their expulsion to Syria and their detention pending expulsion. L.M. and M.A. have since then remained in the detention centre for foreign nationals, while A.A. escaped in August 2014, his subsequent whereabouts being unknown. In May 2014 the regional court rejected the applicants' appeals against the expulsion orders, following which the orders became enforceable. Their expulsion was stayed, however, in view of an interim measure applied by the European Court of Human Rights (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) indicating to the Russian Government that the applicants should not be expelled to Syria for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. In parallel to the expulsion proceedings, following their arrest, all three applicants applied for refugee status and submitted requests for temporary asylum. They indicated that their reasons for leaving Syria were the war and danger to their lives. It appears that the proceedings in respect of L.M. and A.A. were terminated by the Federal Migration Service in December 2014. M.A.'s requests for refugee status and temporary asylum were both refused and his appeal was rejected by the regional court in November 2014 The applicants complain that their expulsion to Syria, if carried out, would be in breach of their rights under Article 2 (right to life) and/or Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), and that they have no effective domestic remedies available in respect of these complaints, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). They further complain that the conditions of their detention have been in breach of Article 3. The applicants moreover rely on Article 5 � 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), complaining that they have no access to effective judicial review of their continued detention and that the court decisions ordering their detention did not stipulate the maximum length of that detention. Finally, relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), the applicants complain that restrictions placed on their contact with their representatives and a lack of interpreting services interfered with their ability to communicate effectively with the European Court of Human Rights. Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia (no. 8474/14) The applicant, Nabid Mamadzhanovich Abdullayev, is a Kyrgyz national who was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Artyom (Primorye Region, Russia). The case concerns his complaint that his extradition to Kyrgyzstan would expose him to the risk of ill-treatment. Mr Abdullayev, who is of Uzbek ethnic origin, left Kyrgyzstan for Russia in March 2012 and, after obtaining a work permit, started to work in the Primorye Region. According to Mr Abdullayev, he had been considered a leader of the local Uzbek community while living in Kyrgyzstan. Following inter-ethnic clashes in the region of Osh in June 2010 he was charged, in June 2011, with violent crimes. According to his submissions, law-enforcement officers started to extort money from him, threatening him with imprisonment. In March 2013 Mr Abdullayev was arrested in Russia and placed in detention with a view to his extradition to Kyrgyzstan where an arrest warrant had been issued in the criminal proceedings against him. His appeal against the Russian authorities' extradition order was rejected in November 2013 by the regional court. The decision referred in particular to assurances by the Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan to the effect that Mr Abdullayev would not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Russian Supreme Court in January 2014. However, in the meantime the European Court of Human Rights had applied an interim measure, under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, indicating to the Russian Government that Mr Abdullayev should not be extradited for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The order for Mr Abdullayev's detention of March 2013 was extended twice and his appeals against those orders were rejected. He was released in March 2014 in view of the interim measure applied by the European Court of Human Rights. In parallel, Mr Abdullayev lodged a request for refugee status with the Russian Federal Migration Service in April 2013, which was rejected and his appeal eventually dismissed in May 2014. However, he was granted temporary asylum in Russia in view of the interim measure applied by the European Court of Human Rights. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Abdullayev complains that, if extradited to Kyrgyzstan, he would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because he belongs to the Uzbek ethnic minority. He further complains, under Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), that his appeals against two of the detention orders were not examined "speedily" and that there was no effective procedure by which he could have challenged his detention. Mitkova v. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 48386/09) The applicant, Maja Mitkova, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ohrid (`the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'). The case concerns the reimbursement of Ms Mitkova's medical expenses for treatment she had received abroad for multiple sclerosis. Ms Mitkova underwent medical treatment for multiple sclerosis in a hospital in the United States from May to June 1994. The medical expenses were covered by a bank, which had been authorised by the Ministry of Health to transfer � from the foreign currency savings account of Ms Mitkova's father � 20,000 United States dollars to the hospital in the US on the basis of a medical report issued by a clinic in Skopje stating that all possibilities for Ms Mitkova's treatment in her own country had been exhausted. On returning to `the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' after her treatment, Ms Mitkova brought two sets of administrative proceedings concerning both her request for referral for treatment abroad (which had been dismissed by the Health Insurance Fund in December 1994) and reimbursement of her medical expenses (which the insurance fund had ordered in part in September 1995). Those proceedings were joined in November 2000. After several remittals of the case by the Supreme Court due to contradictory evidence as to whether Ms Mitkova could have been treated in `the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia', the Administrative Court ultimately � in January 2009 � examined her case and dismissed her claim. It found that she had gone for treatment abroad without having obtained a decision from the insurance fund; and that expert medical reports from the Skopje clinic had made a proposal, not a decision on her referral. It further pointed out that she had not obtained the right to be treated abroad, as the insurance fund had found that her condition was treatable in her own country. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Ms Mitkova alleges that the administrative proceedings concerning her medical expenses abroad were excessively long � almost 14 years � and unfair, notably because no oral hearing had been held in her case. Further relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she also complains about the national courts' decisions for only partial reimbursement of her medical expenses. 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. Bejko v. Albania (no. 18439/05) Bakhshaliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 53072/13) Elmura Musayeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 53046/13) Gadirov v. Azerbaijan (no. 53064/13) Matlab Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 53031/13) Pirazi v. Azerbaijan (no. 16505/12) Yashar Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan (no. 53094/13) Klaedes v. Cyprus (no. 72491/12) Hammond v. the Czech Republic (no. 30741/15) A.E. v. Finland (no. 30953/11) Al Ahmad v. Greece and Sweden (no. 73398/14) Askotiris and Others v. Greece (nos. 24681/10, 49740/10, 54322/10, 54627/10, 67449/10, 62737/11, 10003/12, 32768/12 and 31085/13) Chasirtzoglou and Others v. Greece (nos. 1147/10, 3936/11 and 59397/11) Cs�k v. Hungary (no. 25749/10) Istv�n Nagy v. Hungary (no. 121/11) Patyi (no. 3) v. Hungary (no. 1936/10) Pe�gics v. Hungary (no. 18699/11) Pint�r v. Hungary (no. 13204/11) Urb�n v. Hungary (no. 60214/13) Bialek v. Poland (no. 70580/12) Biernaciak v. Poland (no. 80170/12) Cardona Giraldo v. Poland (no. 20731/14) Dejnek v. Poland (no. 62395/12) Hofman v. Poland (no. 20081/10) Kosakowicz v. Poland (no. 73177/12) Kozlowski v. Poland (nos. 44400/13, 45295/13 and 50822/13) Kursa v. Poland (no. 21296/09) Nowinski v. Poland (no. 17320/14) Pawlowski v. Poland (no. 61105/13) Slabosz v. Poland (no. 26802/13) Wawrzyniak v. Poland (no. 5894/13) Witkowski v. Poland (no. 28722/13) Zbrzezny v. Poland (no. 45163/14) Aubert Mendes de Morais v. Portugal (no. 59116/12) Vilares Lopes v. Portugal (no. 40578/11) Borcea v. Romania (no. 55959/14) Andreyeva v. Russia (no. 58788/09) Antipenkov v. Russia (no. 28438/07) Artemyeva v. Russia (no. 41511/06) Dronov v. Russia (no. 4968/05) Dubov v. Russia (no. 16747/12) Feytlikher v. Russia (nos. 34981/10, 34995/10, 36473/10 and 45255/10) Istomin v. Russia (no. 31691/10) Katsurin v. Russia (no. 55244/08) Khimiy and Others v. Russia (nos. 4100/08, 22219/09, 70649/10 and 74449/10) Kurushin v. Russia (no. 4963/06) Minochkina v. Russia (no. 44823/10) Nagovskaya and Others v. Russia (nos. 21148/08, 21524/08, 24532/08, 24802/08, 25091/08, 25557/08, 27545/08, 28029/08, 28033/08, 30517/08, 30804/08, 33635/08, 45121/08, 45122/08, 45125/08, 45126/08, 45136/08, 45138/08, 45140/08, 45162/08, 45170/08, 45177/08, 45180/08 and 45182/08) Noskov and Others v. Russia (nos. 7421/09, 10892/09, 12159/09, 46635/09 and 16858/10) Petrov v. Russia (no. 55644/07) Popov v. Russia (no. 38990/08) Rakhmatullin and Others v. Russia (nos. 20286/12, 15448/13 and 53229/13) Rodionov v. Russia (no. 61673/13) Shumeyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 29474/07, 8669/09, 55413/10 and 14408/12) Stupin and Others v. Russia (nos. 43121/05, 45754/05, 5212/06, 5216/06, 5219/06, 5701/06, 19011/07, 55587/07, 61176/08, 54669/10 and 60005/10) Sych and Others v. Russia (nos. 4736/08, 5861/09, and 39568/09) Titov v. Russia (no. 26524/07) Voronenko v. Russia (no. 33306/06) Yeliseyev v. Russia (no. 59483/09) Markovski v. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 25300/11) Samotiy v. Ukraine (no. 8564/13) 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) 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. 14