003-5250883-6517235

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 383 (2015) 09.12.2015 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 judgments on Tuesday 15 December 2015 and 39 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 17 December 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 15 December 2015 Raihani v. Belgium (application no. 12019/08) The applicant, Zoubir Raihani, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1963 and lives in Brussels. The case concerns a former prisoner's objection to his contribution to the education and maintenance of his child, which was declared inadmissible as being out of time. Mr Raihani's former wife asked the Justice of the Peace of the third Canton of Li�ge to increase Mr Raihani's contribution to the education and maintenance of their child and to impose a direct debit from his income. The judge granted her request in a decision of 10 February 2004 given in the absence of Mr Raihani, who was serving a prison sentence in Morocco. The decision was served on him at the address he had given for that purpose. The authorisation to debit the contribution directly from Mr Raihani's income was notified to the National Employment Office. After being released on 29 May 2005 Mr Raihani took steps to receive unemployment benefit. The first few payments were withheld in their entirety and other sums were withheld over the following months. Mr Raihani requested legal aid so that he could find a lawyer. On 29 August 2005 his lawyer obtained a copy of the notice of the decision on the basis of which the benefit had been withheld. Mr Raihani lodged an objection on 28 September 2005. Finding it to be out of time, the Justice of the Peace declared the objection inadmissible as the limitation period, in the judge's opinion, had expired one month after 5 August 2005. On appeal, the Court of First Instance upheld the finding that his objection was inadmissible as being out of time, but fixed the starting point of the limitation period at 12 July 2005 and its expiry at 15 September 2005. The court also decided to maintain Mr Raihani's contribution at the amount fixed in the decision of 10 February 2004, which it regarded as final. Mr Raihani did not appeal on points of law, his request for legal aid having been dismissed following a negative opinion of the lawyer at the Court of Cassation concerning its chances of success. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing and right of access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Raihani complains, first, of a violation of his right of access to a court on account of the rejection as belated of his objection to the decision of the Justice of the Peace of 10 February 2004, and secondly, of a breach of the equality of arms principle and the rights of the defence in so far as the Li�ge Court of First Instance had automatically found the decision in question to be final. Bono v. France (no. 29024/11) The applicant, S�bastien Bono, is a French national who was born in 1974 and lives in Paris (France). The case concerns a disciplinary sanction imposed on Mr Bono, as lawyer acting for a suspected terrorist, S.A., for remarks made in his pleadings before the Court of Appeal. S.A. was arrested in Damascus on 12 July 2003 on the basis of charges laid against him in France for participation in a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. On 1 April 2004 the investigating judges handling the case issued an international letter of request to the Syrian military authorities for the purposes of questioning S.A. From 2 to 7 May 2004 one of the investigating judges visited Damascus to execute the letter of request. It was subsequently alleged that S.A. had been tortured during his questioning. S.A. was extradited to France on 17 June 2004. In his pleadings before the Paris Criminal Court, Mr Bono asked the court to order the exclusion from the file of the statements that had been obtained, according to him, through the use of torture by the Syrian secret services, asserting that the French judges had been complicit in that torture. In a judgment of 14 June 2006 the court excluded the statements obtained on the basis of the international letter of request and sentenced S.A. to nine years' imprisonment. S.A. appealed against the judgment, once again requesting that the statements allegedly given under torture should be rejected and restating in his submission that the French judges had been complicit in its use. In a judgment of 22 May 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of S.A. and increased his sentence to ten years' imprisonment, after excluding the documents in question. On 4 February 2008 the Principal Public Prosecutor asked the disciplinary authority for lawyers to bring disciplinary proceedings against Mr Bono for breaching the basic principles of honour, tact and moderation governing the profession of lawyer. The disciplinary board of the Paris Bar Association cleared Mr Bono of all accusations, finding that the remarks were not personal attacks on the judges. The prosecutor appealed against that decision. In a judgment of 25 June 2009 the Paris Court of Appeal overturned the Bar Association's decision, issuing Mr Bono with a reprimand and disqualifying him from professional bodies for five years. Pointing out that freedom of expression of lawyers was not absolute, the Court of Appeal took the view that the offending remarks personally called into question the moral integrity of the investigating judges. It found that the accusation of complicity in acts of torture had been pointless as the relevant statements had been excluded by the court. It concluded that the attacks had not been proportionate to the aim pursued and that the remarks constituted a breach of the essential principles of the legal profession. Mr Bono lodged an appeal on points of law which was dismissed. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Bono complains about the disciplinary sanction imposed on him. Budah�zy v. Hungary (no. 41479/10) The applicant, Gy�rgy Budah�zy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Di�sd (Hungary). The case concerns Mr Budah�zy's blocking of one of the main bridges over the Danube in Budapest in protest against the 2002 legislative elections. A right-wing activist, Mr Budah�zy organised a demonstration on 4 July 2002 in Budapest aimed at forcing the authorities to postpone the destruction of the ballot papers in the recently held elections and to carry out a recount. Along with some accomplices, he completely blocked all six lanes of Budapest's Erzs�bet Bridge by parking six cars across it, with their doors locked. The blockade created a massive traffic jam all over the city from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, when the cars were finally towed away by the police. Criminal proceedings were subsequently brought against Mr Budah�zy for disturbing public works. In June 2008 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to 30 days community work. Given the chaos to traffic his demonstration had caused, affecting approximately 23,000 passengers, the courts considered that his criminal conviction was justified. The courts did not accept Mr Budah�zy's argument that the blockade was a spontaneous demonstration reacting to a political urgency, namely the imminent destruction of the 2002 ballot papers, finding that he had misunderstood the relevant statutory date (the destruction date was actually later than Mr Budah�zy thought). The courts also weighed in the balance Mr Budah�zy's right to express a political concern against the significant inconvenience he had caused to road-users and found that his conduct had been out of proportion. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed Mr Budah�zy's petition for review in December 2009. Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Mr Budah�zy complains that his conviction amounted to an interference with his right to organise and take part in a peaceful demonstration. F�bi�n v. Hungary (no. 78117/13) The applicant, Gyula F�bi�n, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest. The case concerns his complaint that his old-age pension was suspended because he took up post-retirement employment as a civil servant. Mr F�bi�n, already in receipt of an old-age pension, started working as a local civil servant from 1 July 2012. However, following an amendment to the 1997 Pension Act, his pension was suspended from 2 July 2013 on the ground that he could not receive a pension and simultaneously be employed in the public sector. No such rule was put in place for pensioners working in the private sector. Mr F�bi�n made an appeal to the National Pension Board, without success. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr F�bi�n complains that the suspension of his pension was unjustified and discriminatory. He notably alleges discrimination between the private and public sectors and between various State employments (for example, pensioners working as government ministers or mayors are exempt from the new rule). Matczyski v. Poland (no. 32794/07) The applicant, Zbigniew Matczyski, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Suwalki (Poland). The case concerns Mr Matczyski's complaint that he was not allowed to build on land he had bought in Gawrych Ruda in north-eastern Poland on account of the creation of a national park. Mr Matczyski bought his first plots of land in Gawrych Ruda in 1975 and further plots in 1979. The property was classified as farmland. In 1976 a national park, the Wigry Landscape Park, was created and, in 1988, Mr Matczyski's land was incorporated into that park on the basis of an ordinance by the Council of Ministers. Thus, under a new local land development plan adopted by the local municipality in 1994, Mr Matczyski's land could not be used for construction purposes. He retained, however, the property rights to his land and was free to divide his property and to dispose of it, which he did do on several occasions. Mr Matczyski attempted to obtain compensation from the Mayor of Suwalki resulting from the amendments made to the local land development plan and the resulting inability to construct on his land. In March 2003 the Mayor replied that his request was ill-founded as the plan had not changed the designation of his property, which had always been considered as an agricultural area which could not be constructed on. His attempts to obtain construction permits � notably to build a house and an outbuilding on his land � were also unsuccessful. The domestic courts notably observed in 2002 and 2006 that the construction permits granted to the owners of property near Mr Matczyski's land applied solely to the development of already existing buildings and equipment, whereas Mr Matczyski's requests concerned entirely new construction on previously undeveloped land. Most recently, in 2009 Mr Matczyski offered to sell his property to the national park, in return for certain amendments to the land development plan. The director of the park replied that he was interested in buying the land but informed Mr Matczyski that it was not possible to amend the plan. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Matczyski complains that the prohibition of any construction on his land amounts to de facto expropriation, alleging that owners of adjacent plots of land to his have, unlike him, obtained construction permits and built numerous buildings, including guesthouses. Szafraski v. Poland (no. 17249/12) The applicant, Andrzej Szafraski, is a Polish national who was born in 1963. He has been serving a prison sentence in Wronki (Poland) since March 2010. The case mainly concerns Mr Szafraski's complaint about lack of privacy when using the toilet in the various cells where he has been detained during his incarceration. In September 2010 Mr Szafraski brought civil proceedings to obtain compensation for the alleged inhuman and degrading conditions in which he was being held, complaining in particular about inadequate heating and ventilation as well as a lack of privacy when using the toilet. In June 2011 the first-instance court dismissed Mr Szafraski's claim, finding that his cells had been well lit and properly ventilated and that the toilet had been separated from the rest of the cell by fibreboard partitions which, although without doors, ensured that prisoners were out of sight when using the toilet. That judgment was upheld on appeal in December 2011, the Court of Appeal notably finding that the way in which the toilets were fitted in the cells did not exceed the normal difficulties inherent in serving a prison sentence. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life), Mr Szafraski complains about poor sanitary conditions in the cells in which he has been held in Wronki Prison and, in particular, that the toilet facilities were not properly separated from the rest of the cell. Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal (no. 56080/13) The applicant, Maria Isabel Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1969 and lives in Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal). The case concerns the death of her husband and the subsequent procedures opened for various instances of medical negligence. On 26 November 1997 the husband of Ms Lopes de Sousa Fernandes was admitted to the hospital of Vila Nova de Gaia (CHVNG) to undergo a nasal polypectomy (extraction of nasal polyps). Between November 1997 and February 1998 he went several times to the emergencies service of the CHVNG. On 3 February 1998 Doctor J. V. authorised him to leave hospital but, his state of health having worsened, he was admitted on 17 February 1998 to the general hospital of Santo Ant�nio in Oporto. He died on 8 March 1998 from the consequences of septicaemia caused by peritonitis and hollow viscera perforation. In response to a letter from Ms Lopes de Sousa Fernandes wishing to understand the sudden decline in her husband's health, the Inspector General for Health ordered an investigation. The reports of 2002 and 2005 concluded that her husband had been cared for correctly. The Inspector General thus decided to close the case, but Ms Lopes de Sousa Fernandes contested the decision. Following fresh assessments, a report concluded that the decision by Doctor J. V. to send the patient for outpatient treatment had not been adequate and appropriate. The Inspector General thus ordered the opening of a disciplinary procedure against him. The complaint by Ms Lopes de Sousa Fernandes to the Medical Association was, for its part, shelved on 28 December 2001. Ms Lopes de Sousa Fernandes then filed a new complaint for manslaughter with the Oporto criminal investigation and prosecution department. On 15 January 2009 the District Court acquitted Doctor J. V. on the ground that there was no evidence to show that he had been responsible for the death of Ms Lopes de Sousa Fernandes's husband. On 6 March 2003 Ms Lopes de Sousa Fernandes lodged a new application, seeking damages for the loss she has sustained as a result of her husband's death. On 23 January 2012 the court dismissed her claims on the grounds that it had not been proven that her husband had been subjected to treatment that was not adapted to his clinical situation. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Lopes de Sousa Fernandes alleges that there has been a violation of her late husband's right to life. Under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains about the length of the proceedings brought by her at the domestic level and about the fact that she was not informed of the exact cause of death. Cipleu v. Romania (no. 36470/08) Revision The applicant, Dnu Cipleu, now deceased, was a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lived in Timioara (Romania). The case concerns a request for revision of a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in which Mr Cipleu complained about the fairness of his conviction for failure to stop after a drinkdriving accident. The accident occurred on the evening of 17 November 2005 when Mr Cipleu's family car hit a pedestrian crossing the street. The driver fled the scene of the accident. When the police arrived at his home that night Mr Cipleu stated that he had been driving the car, which he confirmed in a written statement later that evening. A medical report later showed that he had been drinking. However, in December 2005 Mr Cipleu and his wife both informed the authorities that she had been driving the vehicle rather than him. The trial court found this evidence unconvincing; it convicted Mr Cipleu as charged in June 2007, and imposed a three-year suspended sentence. Mr Cipleu was later acquitted on appeal, but his acquittal was then quashed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. The High Court chose to re-examine the evidence in the file, and in February 2008 upheld Mr Cipleu's original conviction. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Cipleu complained that, though the High Court had re-tried the case and imposed a conviction, it had not heard any evidence from him. In its judgment delivered on 14 January 2014, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 � 1 and awarded Mr Cipleu 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. On 24 June 2014 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Mr Cipleu had died on 17 October 2012. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment of 14 January 2014, which they had not been able to implement because Mr Cipleu had died before the judgment had been adopted. The Court will examine the Government's request for revision in its judgment of 15 December 2015. Ofensiva Tinerilor v. Romania (no. 16732/05) The applicant association Ofensiva Tinerilor ("Youth Initiative") is an association established under Romanian law in 2004 with the aim of representing the interests of Romanian citizens of Polish origin, with its head office in Arad (Romania). The case concerns the refusal of the Romanian authorities to register the applicant association's list of candidates for the parliamentary elections. On 23 October 2004 the Union of Poles in Romania "Dom Polski", which had been set up to represent the interests of the Polish minority, challenged the presentation of candidates by the applicant association with the Central Electoral Board, which then rejected the applicant's candidates. The applicant association sought the annulment of the Board's decision in the High Court of Cassation and Justice. In a judgment of 28 October 2004 the court's Civil Division declared the association's claim inadmissible. The association appealed on points of law claiming that the Civil Division had not had jurisdiction to examine an administrative matter. It added that it had not been summoned to a hearing when its claim had been examined and its defence rights and right of access to a court had thus been breached. In a final judgment of 15 November 2004 the High Court declared the appeal inadmissible. The applicant association then lodged a new claim for the annulment of the Board's decision in the Bucharest Court of Appeal. The case was transferred to the Civil Division of the High Court which, without summoning the parties, dismissed the action on the ground that the judgment of 28 October 2004 was final. The association lodged an appeal on points of law, which was declared inadmissible. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), taken separately and in combination with Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicant association complains in particular about the decision of the Romanian authorities to refuse to register its list of candidates for the parliamentary elections and its inability to challenge that decision in the domestic courts. It further complains that it has been discriminated against in relation to another association representing the Polish minority and in relation to political parties. S.C. Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 27227/08) The applicants, S.C. Antares Transport S.A. and S.C. Transroby S.R.L., are Romanian commercial transport companies based in R�mnicu-V�lcea (Romania). The case concerns the withdrawal of their transport licences. Following a decision by the local county council in April 2005 adopting a new programme of passenger transport, a public tender took place and the applicant companies acquired licences to provide passenger transport services on a group of seven routes in their local area for a period of three years. However, shortly afterwards two companies which lost their licences for one of the routes in that tender asked the courts to annul the decision of April 2005. In February 2006 the County Court found that the county council had acted arbitrarily by limiting access for other competitors in the public transport market and ordered the council to call a new public tender for the route in question as an individual route. The first applicant company's appeal on points of law was subsequently rejected and, on 6 July 2006, the county council put out to public tender all seven routes as individual routes. As a result, on 26 July 2006 the applicant companies were informed that they had to hand over their licences for the entire group of seven routes. A new public tender was organised, but the applicant companies did not participate in it. The applicant companies lodged two sets of administrative proceedings requesting the annulment of the county council's decision of 6 July 2006 and of the decision of 26 July 2006 to withdraw the licences, without success. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant companies complain about the withdrawal of their transport licences, alleging in particular that the withdrawal of licences for all the routes in the group � instead of just one of the routes as ordered in the court judgment of February 2006 � had been unlawful. They further submit that they had acquired the licences legally and that their withdrawal had reduced their business and caused them significant economic losses. erban Marinescu v. Romania (no. 68842/13) The applicant, erban Marinescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns his complaint of having been ill-treated by the police. In June 2007 Mr Marinescu was taken to a police station against his will by a taxi driver with whom he had had an argument. Mr Marinescu submits that he was then insulted and beaten by three police officers. In particular, they punched him in the face, kicked him in the ribs, then handcuffed him to a metal rail. He subsequently went for examination to a forensic institute, where his injuries were documented. The Romanian Government maintain that Mr Marinescu was drunk and aggressive, and that he already had a bruise under the eye when he arrived at the police station; he was handcuffed but not hit by the police officers. Three days after the incident, Mr Marinescu brought criminal proceedings against the taxi driver, for unlawful deprivation of liberty and insult, and against three police officers for, in particular, abusive behaviour and insult. In July 2009 the Bucharest Prosecutor's Office discontinued the criminal investigation, finding that no unlawful act had been committed. On appeal by Mr Marinescu, the county court eventually ordered the prosecutor to reopen the criminal investigation. It was subsequently discontinued and reopened several times and remains pending. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Marinescu complains of his ill-treatment by the police officers and maintains that the ensuing investigation has been ineffective. Further relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he did not have access to an effective remedy at national level in respect of those complaints. Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08) The applicant, Nikolay Ivko, is a Russian national who, until his arrest, lived in the town of Volzhskiy, Volgograd Region (Russia). He was born in 1973 and died in 2014, while in detention. His partner has informed the Court of her wish to pursue the application on his behalf. The case concerns his complaint that he was not provided with appropriate medical care while in detention. Mr Ivko, who suffered from several illnesses, including a severe form of tuberculosis and hepatitis C, was placed in custody in October 2007. He was convicted of attempted drug trafficking in May 2008, receiving a prison sentence which was eventually reduced to five years and six months by the Supreme Court in January 2010. He served his full sentence and was released in May 2015. In July 2015 he was rearrested on suspicion of another count of attempted drug trafficking, for which he was convicted in September 2013 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He died from tuberculosis in October 2014 while serving his sentence. Mr Ivko was detained in several different detention facilities, including, between June and October 2012, a correctional colony. He maintained that during most of his detention he was not provided with thorough medical examinations. While in the correctional colony, he received no medical care or medication, despite his numerous requests for treatment. The temporary detention facilities, where he was kept between October 2007 and June 2009, and between July and October 2013, were not equipped to accommodate seriously ill detainees. By the time he was transferred to a more appropriate facility, his tuberculosis had become barely curable. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Ivko complained that the authorities had not taken appropriate steps to safeguard his health and well-being, and that he did not have an effective remedy available in respect of these complaints. Khalvash v. Russia (no. 32917/13) The applicant, Vasiliy Khalvash, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lived in St Petersburg until his arrest. He is currently serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Arkhangelsk Region (Russia). The case concerns his complaint of not having been provided with adequate medical care in detention. Mr Khalvash, who has a history of cerebral diseases as a result of having sustained a head injury in 1997, was arrested and placed in a temporary detention facility in July 2010 on suspicion of aggravated kidnapping, extortion and conspiracy. In June 2012 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment in a high-security correctional colony by a judgment eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in November 2012. While the proceedings against him were pending, Mr Khalvash obtained a certificate by a doctor who had previously treated him and who was of the opinion that a detention facility was illequipped to guarantee the neurological supervision that Mr Khalvash's condition called for. Mr Khalvash also argued that his transfer to a northern region to serve his sentence could result in a deterioration of his condition. In December 2011 a medical expert commission concluded that there were no medical grounds for his release from detention. On two occasions, once while in pre-trial detention and the second time while serving his sentence in the correctional colony, Mr Khalvash was hospitalised for examination. Both times he was discharged and placed in detention again with recommendations for his further treatment and/or supervision by a prison doctor. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Khalvash complains that the authorities have not taken appropriate steps to safeguard his health and well-being, and that he does not have an effective remedy available in respect of these complaints. Petrov v. Russia (no. 37311/08) The applicant, Roman Petrov, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and is serving a prison sentence in the Nizhniy Novgorod region (Russia). The case concerns his pre-trial detention. Mr Petrov was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in June 2007 on suspicion of having produced and distributed child pornography. In July 2010 he was convicted of production and distribution of child pornography, child rape and molestation, and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. His conviction was upheld in October 2010 and his sentence was subsequently reduced by one year. After his arrest, Mr Petrov`s pre-trial detention was extended on numerous occasions. Following his appeal, he was released in February 2008 but his detention was subsequently authorised and he was rearrested. In March 2008 he was released after the statutory maximum period for pre-trial detention had expired. The trial court again authorised his detention in April 2010, finding in particular that he had interfered with the administration of justice. Relying in substance on Article 5 � 1 (c) (right to liberty and security), Mr Petrov complains that the court order of April 2010 was not lawful, in particular because it did not specify the duration of his detention. Relying further on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), he complains of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Finally, he complains that his appeal against the detention order of April 2010 was not considered speedily, in breach of Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). Gurban v. Turkey (no. 4947/04) The applicant, Emin Gurban, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the Kocaeli F-Type Prison (Turkey). The case concerns, in particular, his complaint of having no prospects of conditional release. Arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in October 1996, Mr Gurban was charged with membership of an illegal organisation and taking part in two counts of murder for the organisation. In June 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to the death penalty under the Criminal Code in force at the time. The judgment was subsequently quashed on procedural grounds and the case was remitted. In September 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court again convicted Mr Gurban of the same offences but, having regard to recent amendments to the relevant provision, sentenced him to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. The judgment was upheld on appeal in June 2003. Mr Gurban complains that the irreducible life sentence imposed on him, without any prospects of review and release, amounts to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and maintains that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of that complaint. S. S. G�ller B�lgesi Konut Yapi KooP. v. Turkey (no. 35802/02) Just Satisfaction The applicant entity, Sinirli Sorumlu G�ller B�lgesi Konut Yapi Kooperatifi, is a housing cooperative with its registered office in Burdur. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), it complained of the national courts' annulment of its title to a plot of land, which was reregistered as Treasury property without any compensation being paid to it. In a judgment of 23 March 2010 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The question of the application of just satisfaction (Article 41) not being ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant cooperative to submit their observations. The Court will deal with this matter in its judgment of 15 December 2015. Yavuz Selim G�ler v. Turkey (no. 76476/12) The applicant, Yavuz Selim G�ler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1990 and lives in Amasya (Turkey). The case concerns the disciplinary custodial sanction imposed on Mr G�ler, a non-commissioned officer, on 10 October 2012. The sanction consisted of two days' confinement for repeatedly arriving late for work without justification and was imposed by his military superior under Article 171 of the Military Criminal Code. From 26 to 28 December 2012, Mr G�ler served his sentence in a disciplinary cell of the gendarmerie headquarters. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that a disciplinary custodial sanction of two days was imposed on him by his military superior and not by an independent and impartial tribunal. 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. Karacs v. Hungary (no. 29143/09) S. A. v. Turkey (no. 74535/10) Thursday 17 December 2015 Kristiansen v. Norway (no. 1176/10) The applicant, J�rgen Kristiansen, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Borgenhaugen (Norway). The case concerns his complaint that criminal proceedings against him were unfair due to the participation of a juror who lacked impartiality. In September 2008 Mr Kristiansen was convicted of attempted rape. The judgment was upheld on appeal by judgment of a High Court, which sentenced him to one year's imprisonment on account of this and other offences. It also ordered him to pay the victim the equivalent of 7,500 euros in compensation for damages. The courts found that Mr Kristiansen, aged 23 at the time, had attempted to rape a 17-year old girl, with whom he had left a party, in a car parked at a petrol station. During the proceedings before the High Court one of the jurors informed the presiding judge that she had previously had contacts with the victim. Mr Kristiansen's counsel thus requested that the juror be disqualified from taking part in the proceedings for lack of impartiality. After deliberations the court decided that the juror ought not to withdraw. It pointed out that a member of the jury might be disqualified especially if he or she had particular reasons for identifying with the victim. It observed, however, that the juror in Mr Kristiansen's case had been in contact with the victim only sporadically many years ago, concluding that her impression of the victim was not capable of influencing the assessment in the criminal case. Consequently the juror continued to take part in the trial before the High Court. Mr Kristiansen's appeal against the High Court's judgment, complaining about the juror's participation, was rejected by the Supreme Court in June 2009. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Kristiansen complains that the juror's participation made his trial unfair. Sobko v. Ukraine (no. 15102/10) The applicant, Oleksandr Sobko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1981 and is currently in prison. The case concerns his complaint that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, in particular on account of not having had access to a lawyer during his questioning by the police. After his four-year old stepson was found dead on 3 October 2008, Mr Sobko was questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer, following which he wrote a statement in which he explained that he had strangled the boy. When questioned as an accused two days later in the presence of a legal aid lawyer, he maintained his confession. Being represented by a different lawyer, he retracted his confession when questioned as an accused in February 2009, claiming his innocence. He maintained that he had incriminated himself under physical and psychological coercion by the police. The prosecutor subsequently refused to open a criminal case in respect of the allegation that Mr Sobko had been coerced by the police, finding that there was no indication of a criminal offence. In May 2009 Mr Sobko was convicted of murder of the child and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. The trial court relied in particular on his statement of 3 October 2008 and the subsequent confessions he had maintained until February 2009. On appeal by Mr Sobko, the Supreme Court held a hearing in his and his lawyer's absence. It upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial and right to legal assistance of one's own choosing), Mr Sobko complains that the lack of access to a lawyer during his initial police questioning and the fact that the appeal hearing took place in his and his lawyer's absence made his trial unfair. 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. Bagirov and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 17356/11, 30504/11, 31959/11, 31996/11, and 32060/11) Gasimli and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 25330/11, 25340/11, 25345/11, 25361/11, and 25645/11) Imanov v. Azerbaijan (no. 186/11) Jahangirov v. Azerbaijan (no. 28371/11) Rafig Huseynov v. Azerbaijan (no. 51435/10) Vugar Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 24853/11, 28465/11, 28502/11, and 31970/11) Trieu and Lam v. Belgium (no. 30191/11) Babic v. Croatia (no. 74338/12) Musulin v. France (no. 80039/12) W.A. v. France (no. 20230/14) Egiazaryan v. Georgia (no. 40085/09) Kokashvili v. Georgia (no. 21110/03) Tedliashvili and Others v. Georgia (no. 64987/14) Bauer v. Germany (no. 64931/14) Nador v. Hungary (no. 443/12) Coroi v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 26931/09) Karalar v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 55809/08) Toma and Codreanu v. the Republic of Moldova (nos. 74514/13 and 74522/13) Brahmi v. Poland (no. 4972/14) Chustecki v. Poland (no. 33558/14) Jarkiewicz v. Poland (no. 78069/11) Krasowski v. Poland (no. 64094/11) Kucharczyk v. Poland (no. 72966/13) Musial v. Poland (no. 27426/13) Wozniak v. Poland (no. 23759/13) Wyzynski v. Poland (no. 32536/13) Barza and Others v. Romania (no. 45234/08) Munteanu v. Romania (no. 39435/08) Mikulovi and Vujisi v. Serbia (nos. 49318/07 and 58216/13) Krzevski v. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'' (no. 49387/11) Akyuz v. Turkey (no. 39813/04) Ayhan v. Turkey (no. 38068/10) Er v. Turkey (no. 36032/05) Polat v. Turkey (no. 28678/05) Sarikaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 20363/07, 42789/07, 53408/07, 35306/08, 37790/08, 18337/09, and 31514/09) Sur v. Turkey (no. 75441/10) Yurdakavusan v. Turkey (no. 34754/03) 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 55 30) 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. 12