003-5202371-6442838

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 317 (2015) 16.10.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 judgments on Tuesday 20 October 2015 and 101 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 22 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 20 October 2015 Saghatelyan v. Armenia (application no. 7984/06) The applicant, Anahit Saghatelyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Vardenis (Armenia). The case concerns her complaint that she was unable to obtain judicial review of her dismissal from the post of judge. Ms Saghatelyan was dismissed from her post at the Gegharkunik regional court in April 2004 by a decree issued by the President of Armenia following a motion filed by the Minister of Justice and approved by the Council of Justice. The motion stated in particular that she had previously been severely reprimanded on three occasions for gross violations of the rules of criminal procedure and that another set of disciplinary proceedings was initiated against her on the same grounds. Ms Saghatelyan lodged a claim with a Yerevan district court seeking to annul the decree. She argued in particular: that the motion for her dismissal had been based on matters which had been the subject of earlier disciplinary proceedings and in respect of which penalties had already been imposed; that the motion did not contain any reasoning and was not accompanied by any supporting documentation; and that the commission of gross violations of the law could only have been found by a higher court and not by non-judicial bodies and officials, such as the Council of Justice or the Minister of Justice. The district court terminated the proceedings on the ground that her claim was not subject to examination by the courts of general jurisdiction. On appeal, the appeal court examined and dismissed Ms Saghatelyan's claim as unsubstantiated. In September 2005 the Court of Cassation eventually quashed the appeal court's judgment and terminated the proceedings on the same grounds as the district court. Relying in substance on Article 6 � 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Saghatelyan complains that she was denied access to court to contest her dismissal. Mulini v. Bulgaria (no. 2092/08) The applicants, Dimitar Mulin and Anka Mulina, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1944 and 1945 respectively and live in the village of Dospey (Bulgaria). The case concerns the investigation into the death of their son Angel Georgiev in 1993, aged 23. On the of evening 25 December 1993, Angel Georgiev was involved in a fight following which he was fatally stabbed. Criminal proceedings in connection with his murder were opened on 26 December 1993. The preliminary investigation was completed in 1999 and two men, who had participated in the fight, were charged with murder. On 5 June 2000 the court convicted one of the men who appealed this decision. During the appeal process, the domestic courts noted a number of failings in the preliminary investigation, notably: that it had not been established whether any of the participants involved in the fight had had a knife; that none of the participants' clothes had been examined; and that the investigating authorities had not carried out a more extensive search of the area where the fight had taken place in order to locate the knife used to kill the applicants' son. Furthermore, the fact that two men had been charged with murder despite it having been established that Mr Geordiev died of a single stab wound indicated that it had been difficult to establish who had dealt the fatal blow even at the preliminary investigation stage. The convicted participant was acquitted in a final judgment of 28 June 2007. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that the investigation into the death of their son had not been sufficiently thorough, alleging in particular that the investigating authorities failed to gather important evidence and that the preliminary investigation had been too lengthy. Finally, they argue that they had not been given an opportunity to participate effectively in the investigation. Simeonovi v. Bulgaria (no. 21980/04) The applicant, Lyuben Filipov Simeonov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1975. He is currently serving a sentence in Sofia Prison. The case concerns Mr Simeonov's complaints regarding his allegedly poor conditions of detention, the detention regime under which he was placed and the alleged failure to provide him with the medical care his condition required. On 4 October 1999 Mr Simeonov was detained for 24 hours on suspicion of having committed an armed robbery and a double murder, together with an accomplice. The following day his detention was extended for a further three days. Despite his express request to that effect, Mr Simeonov did not have the assistance of a lawyer for the first three days of his detention. On 14 June 2001 the District Court found Mr Simeonov guilty of committing armed robbery and double murder at a bureau de change in Burgas, together with an accomplice, and of illegally acquiring a pistol and ammunition. The District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment without commutation, the most severe sentence available under the Bulgarian Criminal Code. The court also ordered Mr Simeonov's placement under the "special" detention regime. The Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment, and the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by Mr Simeonov. Mr Simeonov was imprisoned in Burgas temporary detention centre from 5 October 1999 to 27 January 2000, and from the beginning of March 2000 until 14 April 2000. He was detained in Burgas Prison from 27 January 2000 to early March of that year and from 14 April 2000 to 25 February 2004. On that date he was transferred to Sofia Prison, where he remains to date. In October 2004, following medical tests, he was diagnosed with tuberculosis. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Simeonov alleges that he did not receive the medical care appropriate to his condition while he was in custody, and complains of the physical conditions of detention and of the regime under which he was held in Burgas temporary detention centre and in Burgas and Sofia Prisons. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that he did not have a domestic remedy in respect of the alleged violations of Article 3. Under Article 6 � 3 (c) (right to be assisted by a lawyer), taken together with Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he alleges that he was not assisted by a lawyer during the first days of his detention, and complains that his subsequent conversations with his lawyers in the temporary detention centre took place with an investigator present. Bal�zs v. Hungary (no. 15529/12) The applicant, J�nos Kriszti�n Bal�zs, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1991 and lives in Szeged (Hungary). The case concerns his complaint that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into a racist attack against him. According to Mr Bal�zs, after leaving a club in the early morning of 21 January 2011, he was attacked by a man who presented himself as a police officer (and who later turned out to be a penitentiary officer). The officer had joined a scene during which Mr Bal�zs and his girlfriend had been insulted by three men who made comments about his Roma origin. The officer had then referred to him as a "dirty gypsy". The fight ended as a result of the intervention by three of Mr Bal�zs' acquaintances. Mr Bal�zs, his girlfriend and the penitentiary officer, who had called the police, were then taken to a police station, where they stayed until the next day. Although both men had been injured in the fight, only the penitentiary officer underwent a medical examination. Mr Bal�zs' injuries � bruises on his chest, back, neck and face � were recorded by a general practitioner two days after the incident. Mr Bal�zs lodged a criminal complaint against the penitentiary officer, describing the incident and submitting material he had found on the Internet, namely posts by the officer in a social network, according to which the night before he "had kicked in the head a gypsy lying on the ground". The Public Prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against the officer on suspicion of the offence of "violence against a member of a group". In July 2011 the Prosecutor discontinued the investigation for lack of evidence that the officer had attacked Mr Bal�zs out of racial hatred. Following Mr Bal�zs' complaint against that decision, his lawyer's request that the officer be heard as a suspect or as a witness was dismissed on the ground that in parallel proceedings against the officer, on charges of disorderly conduct, he had already been heard as a suspect. The decision to discontinue the investigation was upheld in September 2011. In May 2012 the officer was convicted of disorderly conduct for becoming involved in a fight and was placed on a one-year probation. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Bal�zs complains that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the racist attack against him, and in particular that they did not take sufficient action to establish a possible racist motive for the assault. Sara v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 45175/08) The applicant, Igor Sara, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1983 and lives in Chiinu. The case concerns the decision to place Mr Sara in pre-trial detention and his continued detention. Mr Sara was arrested together with two accomplices on suspicion of attempting to sell pictures allegedly stolen from the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg. He was placed in police custody for 72 hours. On 6 June 2008 a judge ordered Mr Sara's pre-trial detention for ten days. On 9 June 2008 Mr Sara appealed, arguing that since no charges had been brought against him at the end of his time in police custody, he should have been released and that his continued detention was therefore unlawful. On 12 June 2008 he was charged with attempted aggravated fraud. The courts subsequently extended Mr Sara's pre-trial detention for periods of between 15 and 30 days. On 26 August 2008 a judge replaced the applicant's pre-trial detention with an order prohibiting him from leaving the country for thirty days. On 30 September 2010 the public prosecutor's office suspended the criminal investigation on the grounds that Mr Sara's whereabouts were unknown. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Sara alleges that his pre-trial detention from 6 to 13 June 2008 was unlawful. Under Article 5 � 3 (right to be tried within a reasonable time or released during the proceedings), he alleges that his continued pre-trial detention was based on abstract and insufficient grounds and that the overall duration of that custodial measure was unreasonable. Afet S�reyya Eren v. Turkey (no. 36617/07) Dilek Aslan v. Turkey (no. 34364/08) Both cases principally concern two women's allegations of ill-treatment by police officers and the lack of effective investigations into their allegations. The applicants are Afet S�reyya Eren and Dilek Aslan, Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1984 and live in Istanbul and Kars (Turkey) respectively. The applicant in the first case, Ms Eren, was arrested on 7 June 1999 on suspicion of being a member of an illegal political organisation. She alleges that she was subjected to four days of torture while in custody, notably alleging that she was hung by her arms for approximately 10 minutes, that her head was banged against a wall, that she had been undressed, threatened with rape and beaten. Medical reports describe scrapes, oedema, skin discoloration and swelling on her right clavicle. Ms Eren raised her ill-treatment before the court and filed a complaint with the public prosecutor's office in June 1999. Following a dispute surrounding jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings against the police officers were discontinued in March 2007 by the Istanbul Assize Court on the grounds that the prosecution was time-barred. Ms Eren lodged an appeal which was rejected. The applicant in the second case, Ms Aslan, alleges that she was arrested on 21 October 2006 while distributing leaflets in support of families of persons deprived of their liberty. She alleges that police officers used force, hitting her during the course of the arrest and sitting on her head in the police vehicle, touching various parts of her body and making sexually suggestive comments. She alleges that the beating continued at the police station where she was also threatened with rape. Both Ms Aslan and one of the police officers involved in the arrest were examined by a doctor who observed minor injuries. In March 2009, Ms Aslan was convicted of insulting and obstructing police officers in the execution of their duties. During these proceedings she complained about her illtreatment and also argued that she had been exercising her right to freedom of expression in distributing leaflets. On 11 August 2007, the public prosecutor decided that no proceedings should be brought against the police officers and that the injuries to Ms Aslan had been caused when she resisted arrest. An appeal against this decision was unsuccessful. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), both women argue that they were subjected to ill-treatment by the police and, in Ms Eren's case, that this illtreatment amounted to torture. Furthermore, they argue that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. Ms Aslan also argues under Article 5 �� 1 and 2 (right to liberty and security) that her arrest was unlawful and that she was not informed of the reasons for her arrest and under Article 10 (freedom of expression) that she was prevented by force from distributing leaflets which reflected her opinions. Beh�et S��t and Others v. Turkey (no. 22931/09) The applicants, Beh�et S��t, Ali S��t and Siddik S��t, are three Turkish nationals who were born in 1968, 1972 and 1955 and live in Diyarbakir. The case concerns the death of their father following a gathering that degenerated into a riot. On 28 March 2006, following a gathering in Diyarbakir for the funerals of four members of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, violent clashes broke out between the crowd and the security forces. The crowd blocked off several streets and set vehicles and buildings on fire. Several public establishments, shopping centres and banks were ransacked. Molotov cocktails and stones were thrown at the members of the security forces and their vehicles. The crowd was dispersed at the end of the fourth day using tear gas and water cannons. A total of 378 demonstrators were taken into police custody. Ten people in the crowd died, including Halit S��t, the applicants' 78-year-old father. On the day of the events he was taken to the emergency department of Diyarbakir Civil Hospital. The medical report drawn up at 3.30 p.m. showed that he had sustained injuries caused by stone throwing. On 30 March 2006 he was transferred to Dicle University Hospital, where he died on 2 April 2006. On 19 April 2006 the applicants and their sister, Mrs Halime Y�ksel, lodged a criminal complaint for murder. The public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings on the grounds of lack of evidence against the police officers in question. He issued a permanent search warrant aimed at identifying the perpetrators, which was valid until the prosecution of the offence became time-barred. The Assize Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the decision to discontinue the proceedings. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants allege that their father was subjected to police violence which resulted in his death, and that the ensuing investigation was ineffective. akar and Others v. Turkey (no. 38062/08) The applicants, Nurullah akar, Mehmet G�ne, Bedri Arslan, Mehmet Emin Enmek, �etin Karata, Mehmet Ekinci, Metin Karata and Mehmet Nuri Akta, are Turkish nationals. The case concerns the conditions of their detention after being arrested on 30 January 2008 on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK, an illegal armed organisation, and of disseminating propaganda on its behalf. After questioning the applicants, the judge ordered their pre-trial detention, in view of the nature and classification of the offences with which they were charged. The judge referred to the risk that they might abscond and took the view that supervision by the court would not suffice. The applications for release submitted by the applicants' lawyers were all rejected. In March 2008 the charges against Mehmet Nuri Akta were dropped. At the hearing of 15 April 2008 the Assize Court ordered the release of �etin Karata, Mehmet Ekinci and Metin Karata. Following the hearing of 9 June 2008 it ordered the release of the remaining applicants. On 10 February 2010 the Assize Court found the applicants guilty of separatist propaganda and sentenced them to ten months' imprisonment. The case is still pending. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that they were insulted and threatened while in police custody. They further complain that they were stripped naked on their arrival in prison, and complain of their conditions of detention in the disciplinary cell of Osmaniye Prison, where they were held from 1 February to 1 March 2008. Relying on Articles 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security) and 5 � 5 (right to compensation), they complain of an infringement of their right to liberty on account of the length of their pre-trial detention, alleging that they were detained in the absence of sufficient and relevant grounds. Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom (no. 40378/10) The case concerns the legislative scheme in the United Kingdom under which local authorities have a duty to provide housing to the homeless. The applicant, Fazia Ali, is a British national who was born in 1980 and lives in Birmingham (UK). Ms Ali applied for housing assistance to Birmingham City Council in October 2006. She is a homeless person, and as the mother of two young children, in priority need of accommodation within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. She was subsequently made three offers. In March 2007, after Ms Ali's rejection of a second offer of accommodation, the local council notified her that � because of her refusal � it had discharged its duty to her under the 1996 Housing Act and that she was no longer entitled to accommodation. She requested that the council review its decision, alleging that she had not received a formal letter in writing with regard to the second offer of accommodation. As a result a Homelessness Review Officer employed by the local council conducted an enquiry. In May 2007, the Officer upheld the decision that Ms Ali's refusal of the offer of accommodation had discharged the council's main housing duty to her. The Officer concluded in particular that there was no reason to believe Ms Ali had not received the second offer of housing by letter and that, in any case, even if she hadn't received the letter, she had been well aware of the offer of accommodation, had viewed the property and turned it down. On an appeal to the county court Ms Ali sought to challenge the Officer's finding that she had received the second offer of housing in writing. However, the judge declined to deal with the question because it considered it to be a "purely factual issue" and appeal lay only on `a point of law'. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to court), Ms Ali alleges a lack of a full review on the merits by an independent and impartial tribunal of the decision that she was no longer entitled to accommodation. Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 5201/11) The applicants, Sultan Sher, Mohammed Rizwan Sharif and Mohammed Umer Farooq, are Pakistani nationals who were born in 1987, 1980, and 1983 respectively. The applicants previously resided in the United Kingdom on student visas and now live in Pakistan. The case concerns the arrest and detention of the applicants in the context of a counterterrorism operation. The applicants were detained for 13 days, and brought twice before a court during that period with warrants for their further detention being granted, before being released without charge. They were then taken into immigration detention and have since voluntarily returned to Pakistan. During their detention their homes were searched. On 26 June 2009, the applicants commenced judicial review proceedings challenging the legality of their treatment between 8 and 21 April 2009 but permission to apply for judicial review was eventually refused on 21 July 2009. Relying on Article 5 � 2 (right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest) and � 4 (right to take proceedings to challenge lawfulness of detention), the applicants complain, first, that they were not given adequate information by the police on arrest and during detention to enable them to mount an effective challenge to their detention. Secondly, they complain that the procedure for granting warrants of further detention was incompatible with Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) because it allowed for closed hearings without the provision of special advocates. Finally, they complain that the scope of the search warrants and the manner of their execution violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) 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. Dragi Petrovi v. Serbia (no. 80152/12) Milenkovi and Veljkovi v. Serbia (nos. 7786/13 and 47972/13) Raki and Sarvan v. Serbia (nos. 47939/11 and 56192/11) Serifovi and Others v. Serbia (nos. 5928/13, 32514/13, and 68065/13) Thursday 22 October 2015 Annagi Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (no. 2204/11) The applicant, Annagi Bahadur oglu Hajibeyli, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1955 and lives in Baku. The case concerns in particular his complaint of having been arbitrarily refused registration as a candidate in the 2010 parliamentary elections. Mr Hajibeyli was nominated by a coalition of two parties to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections of November 2010. In October 2010 he submitted a number of signature sheets with 675 voter signatures collected in support of his candidacy to the Constituency Electoral Commission ("the ConEC"), as the electoral code required that each nomination as a candidate be supported by a minimum of 450 voters. The ConEC refused his request to be registered as a candidate, finding that a number of the signatures were invalid and that there were less than 450 valid signatures. Mr Hajibeyli's complaint to the Central Electoral Commission against that decision � arguing in particular that the signatures had been deemed invalid on the basis of a mere visual examination, that the members of the ConEC were no experts and that he had not been invited to participate in the process of examination � was dismissed. His appeals to the courts were also unsuccessful, his complaint being eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28 October 2010. While Mr Hajibeyli's case was pending before the European Court of Human Rights, in August 2014, his legal representative was arrested in the context of criminal proceedings against him, in connection with the activities of an NGO headed by him, on charges of tax evasion and abuse of power. During a search of the representative's office, the investigation authorities seized a large number of documents, including the entire file concerning Mr Hajibeyli's case. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), Mr Hajibeyli complains that his request for registration as a candidate in the 2010 parliamentary elections was arbitrarily refused. He further complains that the seizure of the entire file concerning his case before the European Court of Human Rights from his lawyer's office amounted to a hindrance of the exercise of his rights under Article 34 (right of individual petition). Khalikova v. Azerbaijan (no. 42883/11) The applicant, Nuriya Khalikova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1964 and lives in Baku. The case concerns her forced eviction from her flat in the context of a large construction project. In September 2008, the head of the Baku City Executive Authority ("the BCEA") issued an order for the construction of a new park complex in the area where the flat owned and inhabited by Ms Khalikova was located. According to her submissions, supported by several video recordings, in early 2010 the BCEA began to build fences around the building where her flat was located; the BCEA's employees instructed her and other residents to leave their homes in exchange for financial compensation. Following the departure of several residents, some flats and the roof of the building were destroyed. In the morning of 19 November 2010, a group of people, including several police officers, arrived at her flat and ordered her to open the door, which she refused to do, stating that there was no court order for her eviction. The group of people then broke down the door and entered the flat against her will. Ms Khalikova was taken to a police station and was released in the early evening, without any record being drawn up. She returned to her flat, finding that it had been wrecked, and was informed that her belongings had been taken to a warehouse. On her arrival at the warehouse she discovered that part of her belongings and furniture had been damaged or had disappeared. Three days later the building where her flat had been located was completely demolished. According to the Government's submissions, Ms Khalikova was taken to the police station together with a number of people because they had organised an unauthorised demonstration protesting against their relocation. Ms Khalikova lodged a criminal complaint alleging that she had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty by the police. Her claim was dismissed, the decision being eventually upheld by the appeal court in January 2011. Two parallel sets of proceedings brought by Ms Khalikova concerned her complaint that her property rights had been violated by: the BCEA's attempts to make her leave her flat; by her eviction and the demolition of her flat; and by the contract of sale in respect of her flat which she alleged she had been forced to conclude at a time when the flat had already been destroyed. All her claims were dismissed, the relevant decisions being eventually being upheld by the Supreme Court in December 2011. Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Ms Khalikova complains that she was unlawfully arrested and detained by the police and that she had no effective remedy in this respect. She further complains that her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) were violated on account of the unlawful entry of the police into her flat and of her forced eviction from her flat without any court order. She finally complains, in particular, of a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the demolition of her flat and her being unlawfully deprived of her property. Lyubushkin v. Russia (no. 6277/06) The applicant, Konstantin Lyubushkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Khabarovsk (Russia). The case concerns his complaint regarding the length of his pre-trial detention and the speediness of the review of the detention orders. On 6 October 2004 Mr Lyubushkin, then a police officer, was arrested on suspicion of extortion and remanded in custody by the District Court. Mr Lyubushkin's pre-trial detention was extended by the court on multiple occasions on account of the seriousness of the alleged offence and the risk that if he were not in custody he may abscond, put pressure on victims and witnesses or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. The prosecution subsequently submitted the case to the Regional Court for trial and on 23 September 2005 Mr Lyubushkin's detention was once again extended. Mr Lyubushkin appealed arguing that the maximum period of pre-trial detention had expired and he should, therefore, be released. His appeal was examined and dismissed. Further detention orders were made on 24 November and 27 December 2005 which Mr Lyubushkin also appealed and which were considered and subsequently dismissed. Mr Lyubushkin was acquitted of the offence and released on 27 October 2006. His acquittal was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. Relying in particular on Article 5 �� 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial / right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Mr Lyubushkin complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length � from October 2004 to October 2006 � of his detention, without swift review of his appeals against the detention orders of September, November and December 2005. S.M. v. Russia (no. 75863/11) The applicant, Ms S.M., is a Russian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Derbent (Republic of Dagestan, Russia). The case concerns the lack of effective investigation into her reported rape. Between 10 and 17 July 2009, Ms. S.M., who was 17 years old at the time, alleges that she was raped on several occasions by an official of the Derbent town administration, who had promised to hire her as his personal assistant. The official had then threatened to kill her family should she complain to anyone. On 21 July 2009 she told her father who informed the authorities and requested that a criminal investigation be opened. Initially, on 2 August 2009 the investigator refused to open an investigation into the rape, noting, among other things, that the official had stated that they had not had intercourse and alleged that Ms. S.M. had accused him of rape to cover that she had stolen from him. On numerous occasions over the course of the following five years the pre-investigation inquiry was found to be inadequate by both the domestic courts and the investigators' hierarchial superiors and the decisions not to open an investigation were quashed and further investigations ordered. Most recently, in June 2014 a decision of December 2012 refusing to open a criminal investigation was quashed. To date, however, no criminal investigation has ever been opened. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms. S.M argues that there was a lack of an effective investigation into her rape by the domestic authorities. Turgunov v. Russia (no. 15590/14) The applicant, Botir Turgunov, is a national of Kyrgyzstan who was born in 1979 and lives in St Petersburg (Russia). The case concerns his complaint that his extradition to Kyrgyzstan would expose him to the risk of ill-treatment. Mr Turgunov, who is of Uzbek ethnic origin, left Kyrgyzstan for Russia in July 2010, following interethnic clashes in the town of Osh where he lived. In April 2012 the police in Osh charged him in his absence with participation in the mass riots and several other offences. In January 2013 he was arrested in St Petersburg and subsequently remanded in custody; his detention was extended several times. In July 2013 a Russian deputy Prosecutor General granted the request of the Kyrgyz authorities for his extradition. Mr Turgunov's appeal against that decision was rejected by the St Petersburg City Court, the decision being eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in February 2014. Following Mr Turgunov's request, in February 2014 the European Court of Human Rights applied an interim measure, under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, indicating to the Russian Government that he should not be extradited for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. Both Mr Turgunov's application for refugee status and his request for temporary asylum in Russia were rejected. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Turgunov 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 that he does not have an effective remedy in that respect, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Jovanovic v. Sweden (no. 10592/12) The applicant, Ljiljana Jovanovic, is a Serbian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Eskilstuna (Sweden). The case concerns the Swedish authorities' decisions to place her baby son in public care, to restrict her contact rights and not to terminate the care upon her request. In August 2008 the local social authorities in Eskilstuna decided to place Ms Jovanovic's one-monthold son in compulsory public care on a provisional basis following a report on suspected child abuse filed by a physician at the hospital where Ms Jovanovic and her husband had taken the boy. The decision was subsequently confirmed by the county administrative court; and in October 2008 that court granted a care order in respect of the boy, noting that he had bruises on his genitals, probably from being squeezed, and severe brain injuries as a consequence of which he would probably suffer lifelong mental and physical disabilities. The court found that the injuries had occurred while he was in his parents' care. The judgment was upheld on appeal in March 2009 and the boy was placed in a foster family. A criminal investigation in respect of Ms Jovanovic and her husband on suspicion of child abuse was discontinued in December 2008 since it was impossible to prove that either of them had committed the abuse. In 2010 Ms Jovanovic requested the authorities to terminate her son's placement in public care, submitting that she had never ill-treated him nor had she witnessed anyone else doing so. Moreover she and her husband had divorced and she had been granted sole custody of the boy. Following an investigation which found that the boy suffered from "shaken baby syndrome", that it was the social services' responsibility to ensure his safety and that, regardless of which parent had caused his injuries, the other parent had failed to protect him, the local social authorities rejected Ms Jovanovic's request. The decision was upheld on appeal by the administrative courts, in the final instance by the Supreme Administrative Court in June 2011. In June 2009 the authorities decided to reduce the parents' contact rights to one visit every other month, since the visits had a negative effect on the boy's mental state. Ms Jovanovic's appeal against that decision was rejected. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Jovanovic complains that her right to family life was violated by the authorities' decisions to place her son in compulsory public care and to keep him there, and by restricting her right to contact with her son. Lunev v. Ukraine (no. 4725/13) Savinov v. Ukraine (no. 5212/13) Sergey Antonov v. Ukraine (no. 40512/13) Sokil v. Ukraine (no. 9414/13) All four cases concern allegations of inadequate medical care in detention for prisoners suffering from HIV (human immunodeficiency virus). In two of the cases, the applicants also allege that they were put under psychological and/or physical pressure in order to discourage them from bringing their complaints before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants had all already been suffering from HIV for a number of years before their arrest and detention. The applicant in the first case, Andrey Lunev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977. He was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking in January 2012 and sentenced in February 2013 to six and half years' imprisonment. That decision was however subsequently quashed and the criminal case against him remitted for fresh consideration by a court. Ultimately, in June 2013 he was placed by a court under house arrest in the town of Bryanka, Ukraine, given that he required medical treatment which he could not receive in detention. He alleges that, despite being diagnosed as HIV-positive on being placed in pre-trial detention, he was only given a cell count test one year later in February 2013 and prescribed with antiretroviral therapy only in April 2013. The applicant in the second case, Eduard Savinov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970. In June 2008 he was sentenced to a combined term of nine years' imprisonment following convictions of drug-related offences, theft and inflicting grievous bodily harm. He was, however, released in June 2013 in view of his serious health problems. Mr Savinov, HIV-positive for 20 years, alleges in particular that he only started receiving antiretroviral treatment at the end of December 2012 through the assistance of an NGO. The applicant in the third case, Sergey Antonov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975. He was arrested in September 2012 on suspicion of theft and his case was transferred to court for consideration on the merits in June 2013. The last known information as to his whereabouts is that he was transferred to a correctional colony in Buchanska in September 2013 to serve a sentence. Mr Antonov alleges that, despite the prison authorities being aware that he was HIV-positive, the first attempt to find out what kind of medical treatment he required had only been made at the beginning of January 2013, four months after he had been placed in pre-trial detention. He was prescribed with antiretroviral therapy in March 2013. The applicant in the fourth case, Maksim Sokil, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1981. He was placed in pre-trial detention in February 2012 and sentenced in September 2012 to two years' imprisonment for drug-related offences and theft. He was released in January 2014 having served his sentence. Mr Sokil alleges that, although he had been HIV-positive since 2008 and spent the majority of his detention as a patient in various medical facilities, the treatment prescribed to him was mainly symptomatic. He thus only received antiretroviral therapy in August 2013, nearly a year and half after he had been placed in detention. The Government argue, in all four cases, that the applicants had been provided with medical care for their health problems in detention, receiving the treatment necessary and being under the supervision of medical specialists. In the case of Mr Lunev, they further allege that his state of health had been aggravated by his refusals to have blood tests and to be treated; and in Mr Sokil's case that it had been impossible to prescribe antiretroviral treatment because he first had to be treated for tuberculosis. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), all four applicants complain about the inadequate medical care provided to them during their detention. Mr Antonov and Mr Savinov also allege under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that national legislation did not provide for effective remedies with which to complain about inadequate medical care in prison. Mr Antonov also complains under Article 34 that he was subjected to psychological pressure to dissuade him from maintaining his application to the European Court, alleging that, as a result of the intimidation, he signed a note in July 2013 stating that he had no complaints about the prison medical staff. This note was submitted by the Government to the European Court in the current proceedings. Mr Lunev further alleges under Article 3 and Article 34 (right of individual petition) that he was illtreated in detention in January 2013 by two police officers who wanted to intimidate him into withdrawing his complaint to the European Court about the inadequate medical care and that the ensuing investigation into his allegation, terminated after one month due to lack of evidence and then on two further occasions following remittals by a court or the prosecutor due to shortcomings, was ineffective. 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. Konstantinou and Others v. Cyprus (no. 76807/11) Zoltai v. Hungary and Ireland (no. 61946/12) Bubbalo and Others v. Italy (nos. 33114/08, 26512/10, 28752/10, 61428/10, 63982/10, and 44722/11) Condello and Others v. Italy (no. 1079/09 and 59 other applications) Paladino and Others v. Italy (nos. 15501/10, 63834/10, 70145/10, 70148/10, 10718/11, 50026/11, 6701/12, 11324/12, 23407/12, and 23420/12) X and Others v. Latvia (no. 27773/08) Koturenka v. Lithuania (no. 10646/08) Arend v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 31230/08) Botnaru v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 43346/08) Dobrovolschi v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 27807/07) Duca and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 19604/08) Galupa v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 40338/07) Pejovic v. Montenegro (no. 22668/08) Alexa and Others v. Romania (nos. 56678/13 and 71727/13) Alfieri and Vraciu v. Romania (nos. 36977/13 and 39678/14) Alman and Others v. Romania (nos. 26454/08, 60402/11, 62423/11, 14951/12, 61469/12, 66466/12, 67909/12, 31830/13, 39039/13, 54881/13, 55491/13, and 67646/13) Bolo v. Romania (no. 23625/13) Chisalau v. Romania (no. 6369/14) Cioat and Truculescu v. Romania (nos. 48136/09, 76740/12, 57090/13, and 9112/14) Cormos v. Romania (no. 52796/10) Cristea and Others v. Romania (nos. 30473/10, 73976/10, 20992/12, 22469/12, 44268/13, 53592/13, 69389/13, and 72514/13) Curelariu v. Romania (nos. 45825/13 and 79701/13) Delia Rodica Farca and Others v. Romania (nos. 17798/04, 37591/05, 31919/07, 35888/10, 43067/10, 35109/12, and 61774/13) Dumitrescu v. Romania (no. 55498/13) Eagaru v. Romania (no. 3954/12) Eftimie and Others v. Romania (nos. 66373/12, 67917/12, and 55132/14) Furtun and Others v. Romania (nos. 65628/09, 19427/11, 30060/11, and 58107/11) Giurgiu v. Romania (no. 53450/09) Grigore and Others v. Romania (nos. 20507/08, 19805/10, 22174/10, 58962/10, 38188/11, and 46947/11) Hatr and Others v. Romania (nos. 56761/09 and 3716/11) Hecht v. Romania (no. 49918/10) Horj and Others v. Romania (nos. 16762/10, 26529/11, 21204/12, 34888/12, and 49281/12) Iovi v. Romania (nos. 2664/10 and 55953/13) Iulian Mocanu and Others v. Romania (nos. 20671/04, 41747/08, 861/09, 9811/12, 24755/13, 26433/13, and 55369/13) Liu and Others v. Romania (nos. 47992/13, 26307/14, and 34301/14) Mantu v. Romania (no. 10639/14) Marin Teodorescu and Others v. Romania (nos. 23777/06, 41239/07, 9129/09, 24290/12, 35520/13, 48755/13, and 56851/13) Mecea and S.C. Oligopol S.R.L. v. Romania (nos. 6170/13 and 61337/13) Mihnea and Others v. Romania (nos. 60776/10, 41150/11, 17503/11, 49810/11, 58496/11, 61485/11, 77978/11, 11251/12, 34121/12, 34139/12, 34152/12, 52995/12, 60481/12, and 53262/14) Mischie v. Romania (no. 68820/13) Mitican v. Romania (no. 50803/10) Moldovan v. Romania (no. 52788/10) Mooc and Tatovici v. Romania (nos. 13150/12 and 37862/13) Nagy v. Romania (no. 56594/13) Nicolae Sorinel Niu and Others v. Romania (nos. 66434/09, 65297/13, 66008/13, and 10534/14) Niculescu v. Romania (no. 12223/06) Punescu and Ghaziri v. Romania (nos. 37959/13 and 33801/14) Rchit and Others v. Romania (nos. 68562/12, 26600/13, 56709/13, 71337/13, 75982/13, 253/14, and 1133/14) Rostas v. Romania (no. 78971/13) Roiu and Others v. Romania (nos. 56276/10, 8045/13, 39307/13, 46005/13, 62014/13, 69007/13, 77819/13, 80145/13, 1663/14, 1670/14, 11291/14, and 15036/14) S.C. Rosemarie Trade S.R.L. and Others v. Romania (nos. 16502/10, 30286/10, 33507/10, 11952/11, 17509/11, 29562/11, and 44933/13) Sissanis v. Romania (no. 20943/11) Stuparu v. Romania (no. 39507/11) Terean v. Romania (no. 42743/13) Turcu v. Romania (no. 52013/10) Voinea v. Romania (no. 64002/13) Antic v. Serbia (no. 34835/08) Arizanovic v. Serbia (no. 48181/13) Blaga v. Serbia (no. 33866/11) Bogucanin v. Serbia (no. 76639/12) Bukvi and Jankovi v. Serbia (nos. 9990/12 and 76373/14) Jovanovic v. Serbia (no. 33265/12) Jovi and Zivanovi v. Serbia (nos. 15833/13 and 43043/13) Mitic v. Serbia (no. 28855/13) Mladenovic v. Serbia (no. 23404/08) Stojickov and Others v. Serbia (nos. 1699/13, 1707/13, 5873/13, 9892/13, and 28912/13) Radulovic Sofronic v. Serbia (no. 53059/10) Samardzic v. Serbia (no. 20147/13) Durbak v. Slovakia (no. 73497/12) Durdovic v. Slovakia (no. 71948/11) Focko and Others v. Slovakia (no. 65989/11) Incheba, Akciova Spolocnost v. Slovakia (no. 70899/14) Kostrejova and Demko v. Slovakia (no. 44298/13) Kovacik v. Slovakia (no. 64382/12) Kroslakova v. Slovakia (no. 63865/14) Kudela v. Slovakia (no. 34877/13) Perhacs v. Slovakia (no. 63158/14) Spodniakova v. Slovakia (no. 7875/13) Vyskoc v. Slovakia (no. 23479/12) D.O.R. and S.E. v. Spain (nos. 45858/11 and 4982/12) I.A.B.G. v. Spain (no. 45938/11) Akat v. Turkey (no. 40375/13) Bulbul v. Turkey (no. 49103/12) Finci v. Turkey (no. 31936/10) Gozoglu v. Turkey (no. 48969/12) Gumus v. Turkey (no. 62079/12) stanbullu and Aydin v. Turkey (nos. 20793/07 and 29240/07) Ozbil v. Turkey (no. 45601/09) Sokur v. Turkey (no. 63722/12) �nal Akpinar naat, Sanayi, Turizm, Madencilik ve Ticaret S.A. v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 55142/11) Gudz v. Ukraine (no. 25032/11) 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) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) 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