003-5257143-6527134

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 392 (2015) 16.12.2015 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing three judgments on Tuesday 22 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 22 December 2015 Lykova v. Russia (application no. 68736/11) The applicant, Ms Irina Nikolayevna Lykova, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Voronej (Russia). The case concerns allegations of ill-treatment of Ms Lykova's son and his subsequent death after being taken into custody, which was not acknowledged as such by the authorities, and the lack of an effective investigation. Ms Lykova's son, Sergue� Lykov, was stopped by the police in the company of a friend who was suspected of theft. They were both taken to the police headquarters for the Voronej region. A few hours later Ms Lykova's son threw himself out of the window of an office on the fifth floor of the building and died in hospital the next day. According to Ms Lykova, her son and his friend had been taken to the police station without being given any reason and had then been subjected to illtreatment to make them confess to thefts that they had allegedly committed. According to the police, Sergue� Lykov had agreed to accompany them to the police station of his own free will, in particular to "provide useful information", and had not been ill-treated; he had suddenly jumped out of the window, however, after making confessions connected with the theft of a mobile phone. Not having received any news, Sergue� Lykov's cousin made some enquiries and ultimately found Sergue� Lykov's body at the morgue. Noticing numerous injuries, the cousin applied to the Prosecutor General of Russia seeking an investigation. The investigator in the department for the Leninski district of Voronej refused to open a criminal investigation, finding that the death and injuries had been the result of the act of suicide. Another investigator from the same department also refused to open a criminal investigation against the police officers at issue, finding in particular that the death of Sergue� Lykov had been a voluntary act, that his arrest had not been illegal and that the police officers had not ill-treated him. Ms Lykova appealed against that decision. Her claims were rejected by the Leninski District Court of Voronej and then by the Regional Court of Voronej on points of law. In the meantime, a criminal investigation had been opened concerning Sergue� Lykov's friend, leading to his conviction. At a hearing the friend said that he had witnessed the ill-treatment sustained by Sergue� Lykov, naming one of the police officers he claimed to have been involved. An internal investigation was also conducted by the internal security service of the regional department of Voronej and it concluded that Sergue� Lykov had committed suicide, describing as unprofessional the fact that one of the police officers had not sufficiently watched over him. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (b) and (c) (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Lykova complains that her son was deprived of his liberty in conditions that were incompatible with domestic law and that he was taken into custody without any record being drawn up. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she alleges that her son was beaten by police officers in the police station to extract confessions and that the ill-treatment caused his death. She also complains that there was no effective investigation. Stankovi and Trajkovi v. Serbia (nos. 37194/08 and 37260/08) The applicants, Slobodanka Stankovi and Sonja Trajkovi, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1948 and 1970 respectively and live in Bujanovac Municipality (Serbia). The case concerns an allegation of inconsistent domestic case-law for the payment of damages to families whose relatives had disappeared or been kidnapped in the aftermath of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's (NATO) intervention in Kosovo1 in 1999. Slobodanka Stankovi's and Sonja Trajkovi's husbands were kidnapped by the Kosovo Liberation Army in Suva Reka Municipality on 13 June 1999 and were subsequently declared dead. In May 2005 the two women � along with their families � lodged civil claims against the Republic of Serbia, seeking compensation for the mental anguish they had been caused by the disappearances and deaths of their husbands. The municipal and district courts ultimately held in their cases that Serbia was not liable, since it had been up to KFOR, the international security force to whom the Yugoslav and Serbian Governments had transferred control following NATO's intervention, to provide for the safety of all citizens of Kosovo from 9 June 1999 onwards. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to court) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that their claims for damages were rejected, whereas the courts accepted identical claims filed within the same period by other plaintiffs. In those other cases the courts accepted that the Serbian authorities had indeed been responsible for the lives and safety of all persons residing in Kosovo until the actual transfer of effective control to KFOR in respect of the municipalities, considered separately. G.S.B. v. Switzerland (no. 28601/11) The applicant, G.S.B., is a Saudi and US national who was born in 1960 and lives in Miami (USA). The case concerns the transmission to the US tax authorities of his bank account details in connection with an administrative cooperation agreement between Switzerland and the USA. In 2008 the US tax authorities discovered that US taxpayers had been allowed by the bank UBS SA to conceal their assets and income from them and that clients advised by UBS had not declared their accounts to those authorities. Following an agreement which, in its consolidated form with a protocol, was entitled "Convention 10", the Swiss federal tax authority ordered UBS to transmit the applicant's file in the context of that authority's cooperation with the US Internal Revenue Service. On 8 December 2010 the applicant appealed against that measure, arguing that it had no legal basis and that it breached the European Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed his appeals, finding that "Convention 10" was binding on the Swiss authorities, which did not need to verify its conformity with federal law or prior conventions. It declared that the economic interests at stake had been important for the country and emphasised that Switzerland's interest in fulfilling its international commitments prevailed over the individual interest of those concerned by the measure. 1 All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, is to be understood in full compliance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo. On 24 March 2011 the applicant lodged a public-law appeal with the Federal Court on the ground that the reasoning of the Administrative Court's judgment was specific to mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and was not relevant to administrative cooperation. The Federal Court declared the appeal inadmissible, referring to a previous judgment according to which appeals against decisions of the Swiss tax authority pursuant to the agreements with the USA did relate to administrative cooperation. On 14 December 2012 the applicant's bank account details were transmitted to the Internal Revenue Service. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains that the disclosure of his bank-account details was a violation of his right to respect for his private life. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 8, he argues that he has been the victim of discrimination as a client of UBS having the status of US taxpayer in relation to clients of other banks which were not concerned at the time by the administrative cooperation in tax matters. 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. 3