003-5330895-6644664

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 089 (2016) 18.03.2016 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 17 judgments on Tuesday 22 March 2016 and 42 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 24 March 2016. 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 March 2016 Guberina v. Croatia (application no. 23682/13) The applicant, Josko Guberina, is a Croatian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Samobor (Croatia). The case concerns his complaint about the tax authorities' failure to take account of the needs of his disabled child when determining his eligibility for tax relief on the purchase of property adapted to his child's needs. In 2003 the third child of Mr Guberina and his wife, a son, was born with multiple physical and mental disabilities, including cerebral palsy. In 2008 the child was declared 100 percent disabled by the social services. In 2006 Mr Guberina bought a house in Samobor. According to him, the flat in Zagreb where he and his family had been living and which he had bought three years before the birth of his disabled son � situated on the third floor of a residential building without a lift � did not meet the needs of his son and his family. In 2008 he sold the flat in Zagreb. Following the purchase of the house in Samobor, Mr Guberina submitted a tax exemption request to the tax authorities. He relied on the relevant provisions of the Real Property Transfer Tax Act, which provided for a possibility of tax exemption for a person who was buying a flat or a house in order to solve his or her housing needs, if the buyer or his or her family members did not have another flat or house meeting their needs. Mr Guberina argued that the flat he owned in Zagreb did not meet the family's housing needs, since it did not have a lift and it was becoming impossible to take his disabled child, who was in a wheelchair, out of the flat. He had bought the house in order to accommodate the needs of his son. In 2009 the tax office dismissed Mr Guberina's request, finding that he did not meet the cumulative conditions of the Real Property Transfer Tax Act and stating in particular that the flat he owned satisfied the needs of his family, being sufficiently large and equipped with the necessary infrastructure such as electricity and heating. No consideration was given to the plight of the child and the absence of a lift in the flat. His appeals to the Finance Ministry and the High Administrative Court were dismissed and, in September 2012, the Constitutional Court rejected his constitutional complaint as ill-founded, endorsing the reasoning of the lower bodies. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, Mr Guberina complains of discrimination as a result of an unfair application of the domestic tax legislation. He further relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) of the Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination). Pereira da Silva v. Portugal (no. 77050/11) The applicant, Il�dio Jos� Pereira da Silva, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1934 and lives in Matosinhos (Portugal). The case concerns two sets of proceedings brought by Mr Pereira da Silva against a refusal to grant his claims for reimbursement of mission expenses incurred as a judge. A retired judge (emeritus), Mr Pereira da Silva brought two actions, on 5 April and 5 May 1999 respectively, against two decisions by the President of the Supreme Administrative Court refusing him reimbursement of mission expenses, amounting to 750 euros. Mr Pereira da Silva challenged not only the decisions not to reimburse his costs, but also the jurisdiction of the President of the Supreme Administrative Court to rule on his reimbursement claims, and the fact that he had not been heard as part of the procedure. His claims were dismissed on 13 November 2002. Mr Pereira da Silva subsequently made numerous applications for clarification and review, and also for declarations of nullity, to the Supreme Administrative Court; these were all dismissed. On 2 July 2008, considering that the applicant had abused this type of application in order to delay the proceedings and prevent the dismissal decision from becoming final, the Administrative Proceedings Division of the Supreme Administrative Court, in plenary session, imposed a fine of 1,440 euros for procedural bad faith. Mr Pereira da Silva appealed on points of law on several occasions and on different grounds, alleging, in particular, a lack of impartiality on the part of four judges of the plenary assembly of the Supreme Administrative Court. His appeals on points of law were dismissed. On 14 June 2010 Mr Pereira da Silva lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court concerning the impartiality of the plenary assembly of the Supreme Administrative Court, in that four of its judges had already ruled on his case within the plenary formation of that court's Administrative Proceedings Division. On 7 June 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed Mr Pereira da Silva's claims that there had been a violation of the principle of the impartiality of courts and of his right to a fair hearing. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, Mr Pereira da Silva alleges that there was a breach of his right to an impartial court, arguing that four of the seven judges making up the plenary assembly of the Supreme Administrative Court had already examined his case in Administrative Proceedings Division of the same court. He also complains about the length of the proceedings. Pinto Coelho v. Portugal (no. 48718/11) The applicant, Sofia Pinto Coelho, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1963 and lives in Lisbon (Portugal). The case concerns the criminal-law fine imposed on Ms Pinto Coelho, a journalist, for having broadcast in a news report excerpts which included sound recordings from a court hearing, obtained without permission from the judge. On 12 November 2005 the news programme on the Portuguese television channel SIC (Sociedade Independente de Comunica��o), for which Ms Pinto Coelho worked as a journalist and legal affairs correspondent, broadcast a report prepared by her about the criminal conviction of an 18-year-old man for aggravated theft of a mobile phone. Defending the young man's innocence and alleging a judicial error, Ms Pinto Coelho backed up her argument with interviews with several of the jurists. She included in her report shots of the courtroom, extracts of sub-titled sound recordings and the questioning of prosecution and defence witnesses, in which their voices and those of the three judges were digitally altered. The excerpts were followed by Ms Pinto Coelho's commentary, in which she attempted to prove that the victims had not recognised the young man during the trial; indeed, he alleged that he had been at work at the time of the incident. After this report was broadcast, the president of the division which had judged the case lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor against Ms Pinto Coelho, complaining that permission had not been given to broadcast extracts of the sound recording of the hearing and film shots of the courtroom. The prosecutor's office brought proceedings for non-compliance with a legal order against Ms Pinto Coelho and three managers of the 8 o'clock evening news programme, on the ground that the failure to obtain authorisation was in breach of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and of the Criminal Code. Before the court, Ms Pinto Coelho alleged an infringement of the freedom of the press, but in a judgment of 6 August 2008 she was convicted of non-compliance with a legal order and ordered to pay a fine of 1,500 euros; the court considered that the scenes from the hearing that had been broadcast were not essential for the report, that the freedom of the press was not absolute and that the applicant, a lawyer by training, had been aware that unauthorised transmission of the hearing was prohibited. This judgment was upheld by the Lisbon Court of Appeal on 26 May 2009. On 15 February 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal by Ms Pinto Coelho. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Ms Pinto Coelho complains about her criminal conviction for non-authorised use of the recording of a court hearing. Sousa Goucha v. Portugal (no. 70434/12) The applicant, Manuel Lu�s Sousa Goucha, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1954 and lives in Fontanelas (Portugal). He is one of the best-known television hosts in Portugal, having worked in the media for almost 40 years. The case concerns the Portuguese courts' decisions dismissing a defamation case Mr Sousa Goucha had brought against a television company. He notably alleges that the decisions were discriminatory as they were based on his homosexuality. Following a joke made during the broadcast of a late-night comedy show in December 2009, Mr Sousa Goucha lodged a criminal complaint for defamation and insult against the State-owned television company, RTP, the production company, the television presenter and the directors of programming and content. Notably, Mr Sousa Goucha alleged that the joke, which had included him in a list of best female television hosts, damaged his reputation as it had mixed his gender with his sexual orientation. In April 2012 the Portuguese courts ultimately dismissed his claim for damages as ill-founded. They considered that for a reasonable person, the joke would not be perceived as defamation because it referred to Mr Sousa Goucha's characteristics, behaviour and way of expressing himself which could be seen as feminine. Furthermore, the courts, taking into account the playful and irreverent style of the show, considered that the defendants had not intended to criticise Mr Sousa Goucha's sexual orientation. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Goucha Sousa complains that the domestic courts based their decisions to dismiss his case on discriminatory grounds, namely his sexual orientation. Revision Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v. Romania (no. 47732/06) The applicants in this case are Rodica Neagu, Virgil Radu, Valentin Turigioiu, C. Gheorghe Lupan, Viorica Alda, Eugen Neagu, Maria Nicolau, Domnica Turigioiu and Valerica ugubete, nine Romanian nationals, and the Association of Victims of Romanian Judges. The case concerns the request for revision of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the Romanian authorities' refusal to register the Association of Victims of Romanian Judges in the country's Register of Associations and Foundations. The Bucharest District Court first refused to register the association in November 2005, finding that registration would be unconstitutional. This was on the ground that the association's articles stated an intention to declare certain court rulings to be unfair; the court held that this would encourage non-compliance with court judgments and represent an attack on a State power. An appeal of the decision was dismissed in February 2006. In its judgment of 14 January 2014 the Court found a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) on account of the refusal of the Romanian authorities to carry out the registration. The Court awarded the applicants jointly 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Government have now requested revision of the judgment of 14 January 2014, which has not yet been enforced because one of the applicants, Maria Nicolau, died before the judgment had been adopted. The Government's request for revision will be examined by the Court in its judgment of 22 March 2016. Botin v. Romania (no. 612/13) The applicant, Ctlin Marius Botin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Curtea de Arge (Romania). The case concerns custody arrangements for Mr Botin's son. The applicant, a lawyer by profession, alleges that the national authorities failed to intervene to assist him in exercising his contact rights in respect of his underage child. In January 2011 Mr Botin's wife, also a lawyer by profession, applied for divorce and for parental responsibility in respect of their son, who was born in 2010. By a judgment of 17 June 2011, the court granted the divorce and assigned parental responsibility to the mother, awarding the father the right to visit the child's home on two Saturdays and two Sundays per month. Mr Botin lodged an appeal with the county court, which allowed his claims in part, by assigning parental responsibility to both parents, holding that the child was to live with his mother and awarding Mr Botin visiting rights in his own home on two Saturdays and two Sundays per month. The mother appealed against that decision and, by a final judgment of 18 June 2012, the court of appeal allowed her appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. In the meantime, an order issued on 27 June 2011 had required the mother to enable Mr Botin to take his son to his own home, or elsewhere, on two Saturdays and two Sundays per month until such time as a final decision was delivered in the divorce proceedings. At the close of the divorce proceedings, the court attached an order for enforcement to the judgment of 17 June 2011. Mr Botin lodged a number of criminal complaints against his former wife for refusal to execute both the order of 27 June 2011 and the final judgment of 18 June 2012. These complaints concerned 15 attempts to obtain enforcement in 2012 and 2013. The prosecutor's office committed the mother for trial before the court of appeal, which acquitted her on the ground that she had not acted with intent to alienate the child from his father, but that implementation of the visiting rights had been rendered impossible by objective reasons such as the child's sickness or his fear of seeing his father. Mr Botin apparently lodged an appeal, and that appeal is apparently pending before the High Court of Cassation and Justice. On 20 March 2014 the prosecutor's office instituted criminal proceedings against the mother with regard to the other criminal complaints filed by Mr Botin, for refusal to enable the child to see the father on six other occasions in 2013. The case is still pending before the prosecutor's office. Throughout the entire proceedings, Mr Botin and his former wife have received psychological assistance from the County Department for Social Assistance and Child Protection. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Botin complains that he is unable to exercise his contact rights with his underage child. Elena Cojocaru v. Romania (no. 74114/12) The applicant, Elena Cojocaru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Roman (Romania). The case concerns Ms Cojocaru's complaint about the death of her daughter and granddaughter due to medical malpractice. Ms Cojocaru's daughter, who was eight months' pregnant, was admitted to hospital in Suceava on 8 October 2001 following her gynaecologist's diagnosis of imminent premature birth. She was transferred to intensive care when, suffering from pain in the lumbar region, her condition worsened. Another doctor, a university professor working in a clinic in Iai, then diagnosed her with Hellp syndrome (an exceptionally serious pre-natal condition), recommending an emergency Csection to save the mother's life. According to Ms Cojocaru, her daughter's doctor refused to perform the operation, but eventually agreed that she could be transferred to the clinic in Iai for surgery. Unaccompanied by a doctor, she was transferred by ambulance to the clinic, 150 km away, where the emergency C-section was carried out on 10 October 2001. Ms Cojocaru's daughter died ten minutes after the surgery from cardiac arrest; the newborn also died of cardiac arrest two days later. The case was initially investigated by way of preliminary investigation measures and ended in decisions by the prosecuting authorities in July 2002 and May 2004 refusing to institute criminal proceedings. Those decisions found that Ms Cojocaru's daughter had not been the victim of any medical error, having died of natural causes, and that the Suceava hospital gynaecologist was not guilty of involuntary manslaughter. During the investigation a review commission also suggested that Ms Cojocaru's daughter had been transferred to Iai clinic, with the agreement of her gynaecologist, because of the lack of facilities at Suceava hospital to treat her. In March 2010 these prosecuting authorities' decisions were quashed by the national courts and the opening of criminal proceedings against the Suceava hospital gynaecologist was ordered. The courts observed a number of shortcomings in the investigation, notably that the investigation authorities had failed to produce a forensic expert report, an essential piece of evidence in cases of suspected medical negligence. They also noted that essential aspects of the case had not been clarified, such as: the cause of death; whether the Suceava hospital gynaecologist had failed to fulfil his professional responsibilities by refusing to carry out emergency surgery in order to save his patient's life; and why Ms Cojocaru's daughter had been unaccompanied by a doctor during her transfer by ambulance. However, the criminal investigation was subsequently closed on the ground that the gynaecologist's criminal liability had become time-barred. This decision was upheld by the courts in a final judgment of June 2012 and Ms Cojocaru's action was dismissed as ill-founded. Her appeal on points of law was dismissed in September 2012. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Cojocaru alleges that the Suceava hospital was responsible for her daughter's and grandaughter's deaths following the medical malpractice of one of their gynaecologists. She also alleges that the ensuing investigation into the deaths, having lasted ten years, was ineffective and superficial. Gomoi v. Romania (no. 42720/10) The applicant, Adrian Mircia Gomoi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in S�ntana (Romania). The case concerns Mr Gomoi's conditions of detention in Arad police station and Arad Prison. In 2010 criminal proceedings were instigated against Mr Gomoi for tax fraud. He was remanded in detention at the Arad police station from 10 May to 8 June 2010, and then transferred to Arad Prison, where he was held until 14 December 2010, the date of his release. According to Mr Gomoi, in the Arad police station he was placed in a cell measuring 12m2; it had no toilet facilities, and the detainees were obliged to relieve themselves in a bucket, as they were allowed to use the toilets only twice per day, at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. He alleges, among other points, that he did not receive any products for personal hygiene, that the food was of poor quality and that he had access to a shower only twice per week. In Arad Prison, he was allegedly held in a cell measuring 16 m2, infested with fleas and cockroaches and containing six bunk beds for five persons. He was transferred from prison to court in police vans which held 40 persons and had only two small windows; it was impossible to breathe in them. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Gomoi complains about his conditions of detention in Arad police station and Arad Prison. Grosu v. Romania (no. 60113/12) The applicant, Ulisei Grosu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Focani (Romania). The case concerns Mr Grosu's removal from the Focani Cultural Centre, where he was waiting for a representative of a political party so that he could speak with him, and his transfer by the police to a psychiatric hospital. On 11 December 2010 Mr Grosu went to the entry hall of the Focani Cultural Centre in order to speak with a representative of a political party. While he was waiting, he was arrested by police officers who asked him to produce his invitation and identity papers. As he had neither an invitation nor his identity papers with him, he was taken to the police station, where one of the police officers checked his identity while Mr Grosu waited in the car with another officer, and was then driven to the psychiatric hospital. The report prepared by one of the officers who accompanied him to the hospital stated that Mr Grosu was arrested in the Cultural Centre and taken to the psychiatric hospital after having claimed that he wished to plant a bomb in the centre. As the duty doctor did not consider it necessary to admit him to hospital, Mr Grosu was authorised to leave after having written "refuses to be admitted" in the hospital's admissions book. Considering that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty on 11 December 2010, Mr Grosu lodged a complaint on 21 February 2011 against the police officers and a leader of the political party, who, in his view, had given the order to evacuate the building while the event was going on, as he feared that Mr Grosu would mention new complaints in respect of various abuses of power by representatives of the political party, described by the applicant in a petition that he had previously sent to members of parliament in his county. By a decision of 10 June 2011, the prosecutor's office held that there was no case to answer, holding that it had been correct to take Mr Grosu to the psychiatric hospital. However, Mr Grosu challenged that decision before the county court, which granted his claim, noting in particular that the prosecutor's office had not established the grounds on which he had been removed from the Cultural Centre and taken to the psychiatric hospital. On 30 December 2001 the prosecutor's office again held that there was no case to answer, a decision confirmed by the hierarchical superior and subsequently by the county court, sitting as a different bench, on 26 March 2012. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Grosu complains that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty on 11 December 2010 by the police officers who drove him to the Focani psychiatric hospital with a view to his involuntary confinement. Relying also on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Grosu alleges that his reputation was damaged, in that he was removed by force from a public place and taken to the psychiatric hospital with a view to his involuntary confinement, although he had not been causing a disturbance and had no history of psychiatric problems. He also considers that the criminal proceedings initiated following his complaint against the police officers had not been fair and that his right of access to information of a public nature was unduly restricted. Butrin v. Russia (no. 16179/14) The applicant, Sergey Butrin, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 in the Khabarovsk Region (Russia). He is serving a 19-year prison sentence in a correctional colony in the village of Kochubeyevskoe, Stavropol Region (Russia), for aggravated murder, robbery and possession of firearms. The case concerns Mr Butrin's allegation that the conditions of his detention in the correctional facility where he has been serving his sentence since February 2010 are unsuitable for him because he is blind. His blindness developed during his detention due to cataracts. He notably complains of overcrowding, submitting that each of the 46 inmates in the dormitory where he is being held only has 2.82 square metres of living space. He alleges that he faces particular difficulties in orientating himself in the colony and, as he has no prison work, is confined to the dormitory most of the time. Another inmate was assigned to assist him (to move about and take showers) but, after this inmate's release in September 2014, he has been left to fend for himself. In April 2013 Mr Butrin lodged an application with the domestic courts for release on health grounds. He relied on the conclusions of a medical commission that he could be relieved from serving his sentence on account of his blindness. His application was however dismissed. The courts considered that, given the gravity of his crimes and the length of the prison term he still had to serve, he should remain in the correctional colony. Ultimately in July 2014 the Supreme Court of Russia rejected his cassation appeal as it found that Mr Butrin had failed to lodge the appeal within the time-limit. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Butrin alleges that, in view of his disability, his detention is inhuman and degrading and that he does not have an effective domestic remedy for his grievances. Kolesnikovich v. Russia (no. 44694/13) Litvinov v. Russia (no. 32863/13) Both cases concern allegations of inadequate medical care in detention. The applicants are Vladimir Kolesnikovich and Sergey Litvinov, two Russian nationals who were born in 1978 and 1964. Until their arrests, they lived in Krasnoyarsk and St Petersburg (Russia), respectively. They are both currently serving sentences in correctional colonies following their convictions for a number of serious offences. Notably, Mr Kolesnikovich was found guilty of aggravated kidnapping, murder, fraud and conspiracy in December 2007 and sentenced to 24 years and 11 months' imprisonment; and, Mr Litvinov was found guilty of aggravated kidnapping and extortion in June 2012 and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment. Both men had histories of illness before their arrests: Mr Kolesnikovich from problems with an ulcer as well as brain and spinal injuries; and Mr Litvinov from heart and kidney diseases. Mr Kolesnikovich alleges that his health has deteriorated in detention, in particular because of the failure to provide him with the medication he has been prescribed with for treating his illnesses, it being left to his mother to send the drugs recommended by doctors. He also submits, more generally, that the prison doctors have merely provided symptomatic treatment to him and have failed to adopt a long-term therapeutic strategy. According to the Government, Mr Kolesnikovich has had regular medical check-ups in detention and has been seen by prison doctors and admitted to hospital when necessary. Mr Litvinov also alleges that on several occasions he has not been given some of the drugs prescribed to him. He further complains that his first prescribed coronary angiography examination was significantly delayed, as was his recommended heart surgery, the installation of a coronary stent eventually being installed in January 2014. Moreover, he claims that his frequent transfers between medical and detention facilities have run counter to doctors' recommendations. The Government argues that Mr Litvinov has been provided with drug therapy, but has refused on several occasions to take his prescribed medication. Furthermore, he has been monitored by medical specialists, including cardiologists and nephrologists, and has been allowed to consult independent medical consultants whose opinions have been taken into account by prison doctors. Lastly, he has had regular medical examinations and tests while in detention, including coronary angiographies. Mr Kolesnikovich filed a complaint against the prison administration concerning his medical care in detention, which was dismissed by the courts in October 2013. Mr Litvinov's wife complained in April 2013 to various authorities of the failure to properly diagnose and treat her husband; she received no response. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), both applicants complain that the authorities have not taken steps to safeguard their health and well-being and that they have not had effective avenues through which to complain about the inadequacy of their medical care in detention. Kars and Others v. Turkey (no. 66568/09) The 22 applicants are Turkish nationals. The case concerns an operation conducted by security forces in Bayrampaa Prison on account of hunger strikes and a death fast begun by the prisoners, including the applicants, and its consequences. Throughout the year 2000 prisoners in various Turkish prisons, including Bayrampaa Prison, began hunger strikes and death fasts to protest against the introduction of "F-type" prisons, which provided for smaller living units for prisoners. In spite of attempts by various interlocutors, the prisoners refused to end the death fasts; they also refused to be examined by doctors sent by the Medical Council, who noted alarming weight loss in the prisoners and deterioration in their heath, which could affect their vital functions and entail their deaths within a few days. On 18 December 2000 the governor of Bayrampaa Prison submitted for the prosecutor's approval a request for intervention by the security forces, in order to provide the necessary treatment and prevent the deaths. On 19 December 2000 the security forces intervened in the prison, but they were met with resistance from certain prisoners, carrying firearms and inflammable products. The operation gave rise to violent confrontations; 12 prisoners were killed and about 50 prisoners were injured, including the applicants. On 20 April 2010 39 gendarmes were charged; their trial, opened before the Bakirk�y Assize Court, has apparently not yet ended. On 16 July 2001, the State prosecutor also charged 155 members of the prison staff, on the ground that they had allowed firearms to be brought into the prison, and 1,460 gendarmes who had evacuated the prisoners at the close of the operation, accusing them of ill-treating the prisoners during their evacuation. On 23 June 2008 the criminal court declared that the prosecution of the gendarmes and the prison staff was time-barred, in two separate judgments. On 27 February 2001 criminal proceedings were brought against 167 prisoners on a charge of rebellion. Those proceedings were also declared time-barred in a decision issued by the Ey�p Criminal Court on 28 April 2009, upheld by the Court of Cassation. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants allege an excessive and disproportionate use of force by the authorities during the operation conducted in Bayrampaa Prison. They also complain of the lack of an effective investigation into how the operation was conducted, and allege that they were ill-treated during the operation and during their evacuation and transfer to other prisons, as well as in those new prisons. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they complain that the proceedings brought against them for rebellion were unfair and excessively long. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they allege that no effective investigation was carried out into the prison operation, and complain that the proceedings brought against the security forces for ill-treatment became time-barred and that no action had been brought against the members of the security forces who carried out the operation. M. G. v. Turkey (no. 646/10) The applicant, M.G., is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey). The case concerns the domestic violence experienced by M.G. during her marriage, the threats made against her following her divorce and the subsequent proceedings. On 18 July 2006 M.G. lodged a complaint against her husband with the public prosecutor, stating that she had fled from her home on account of the domestic violence to which she had been subjected since the beginning of her marriage in 1997. A report detailing M.G.'s injuries was drawn up by the institute for forensic medicine; she was referred to the psychiatric department of the Medical Faculty of Istanbul University, which also submitted a document to the prosecutor's office, indicating that she was suffering from depressive disorder and chronic post-traumatic stress, related to her experiences. Her husband denied the accusations against him, in pleadings submitted to the prosecutor on 6 November 2006 and during his questioning on 15 December 2006. On 22 February 2012 he was charged with injuring his wife. In the meantime, on 31 August 2006 M.G. instituted divorce proceedings in the family affairs court and requested protection measures. The court prohibited M.G.'s husband from behaving in a violent or frightening manner towards her and her children and from disturbing them by communicating with them, and ordered that he be removed from the family home. The divorce was pronounced on 24 September 2007 and parental responsibility was awarded to M.G.; however, the children were placed under the protection of the social services. On 1 November 2012, 10 October 2013 and 19 June 2014 M.G. again applied to the family affairs court, requesting preventive measures in respect of her former husband and alleging that he was constantly threatening her with violence and death. The court granted her requests, including by ordering the ex-husband not to approach M.G.'s home or to disturb her by communicating with her. On 6 March 2014 the foundation "Purple Roof", which had provided refuge to M.G. and her children, submitted a social welfare report, specifying in particular that she was living under a continual threat and that her safety was still a problem. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), M.G. criticises the domestic authorities for failing to prevent the violence to which she had been subjected. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and 5 (right to liberty and security), M.G. complains that she has been unable to live in peace and safety with her children on account of the threats hanging over her, and of the excessive length and ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings which are still pending, and submits that she was not protected from very serious violence. Further relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 3, she complains of permanent and systematic discrimination with regard to violence against women. 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. Partners 2000 Kft and Others v. Hungary (no. 966/14) Varga v. Hungary (no. 42329/09) Akulin and Others v. Russia (nos. 14313/07, 28826/07, 34975/07, 5638/09, 29575/09, 66628/09, 75503/10, 4301/11 and 9924/11) Thursday 24 March 2016 Sakir v. Greece (no. 48475/09) The applicant, Rafi Sakir, is an Afghan national who was born in 1985 and lives in Athens. The case concerns an assault against him by several individuals in 2009 in the centre of Athens, which led to his admission to hospital, and also the conditions in which he was detained in the Aghios Pantele�mon police station in central Athens when he left hospital. On 27 August 2009 Mr Sakir was attacked by a group of masked individuals, dressed in black and armed with knives and metal bars. He was taken to hospital. A preliminary investigation was opened. A.S., another Afghan national who had been present at the incident, identified two individuals, A.P. and T.P., as the main assailants, but withdrew his statement a few hours later. A criminal charge was then brought against him for perjury, making false statements and defamation. Faced with this threat, A.S. then confirmed that he had not lied in his first statement. The criminal proceedings were ultimately abandoned. In his witness statement, P.P., a police officer based at the Aghios Pantele�mon police station, also claimed that A.S.'s allegations that A.P. and T.P. were wearing masks and black clothing were false. The preliminary investigation was then closed and the perpetrators considered to be unidentified. Mr Sakir left hospital four days after the attack. He was immediately placed in detention in the Aghios Pantele�mon police station and an expulsion procedure was opened. He lodged an asylum application and submitted a request to the Attica Aliens Sub-Directorate not to deport him. He also asked that his detention be lifted, considering that he had not received adequate medical support. Mr Sakir also complained about the investigation procedure, explaining that he had not been invited by the police to identify the two individuals recognised by A.S. He received no reply to his complaints. On 19 September 2009 he was released and ordered to leave Greece within 30 days. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, Mr Sakir complains that the national authorities failed to meet their obligation to conduct an effective investigation following the attack against him. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he also complains about the conditions of his detention in the police station and of shortcomings in his medical treatment. Lastly, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he considers that he did not have an effective remedy that would have enabled him to complain about his conditions of detention. Sharma v. Latvia (no. 28026/05) The applicant, Pradeep Sharma, is an Indian national who was born in 1973 and lives in New Delhi (India). The case concerns his expulsion from Latvia to India. After having previously studied in the country, Mr Sharma arrived in Latvia in 1999. In the same year, he married a Latvian woman, with whom he has two children. In 1999 and 2000 he was issued temporary residence permits, the latter being valid for four years. In November 2004 a permanent residence permit, valid until 2010, was issued for him. In December 2004 his wife reported a domestic conflict to the police and applied to the migration authorities with a view to withdrawing his permanent residence permit and expelling him from Latvia on the grounds that he presented a threat to her and their children. The Ministry of the Interior decided to include Mr Sharma on a list of persons prohibited from entering Latvia ("the blacklist") in January 2005, on the ground that he constituted a threat to public order and safety. Although his wife informed the Ministry, in April 2005, that her relationship with her husband had improved and she wished for him to stay in the country, the Ministry eventually decided, in June 2005, that he was to remain on the blacklist. It relied in particular on a letter from the security police which had confirmed that he constituted a threat. In February 2005 the migration authorities withdrew Mr Sharma's permanent residence permit on the grounds that he had been included on the blacklist. While his appeal against that decision was pending before the courts, in June 2005, he was placed in detention, and an expulsion order was issued against him. In July 2005 his appeal against the expulsion order was dismissed and he was expelled to India. Mr Sharma complains that his expulsion was in breach of his rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). He also alleges that the expulsion was carried out in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens). Relying further on Article 5 � 2 (right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest), he complains that he was not informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest in June 2005. Finally, he relies on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), complaining that he was unable to have the lawfulness of his arrest reviewed by a court. Zherebin v. Russia (no. 51445/09) The applicant, Pavel Zherebin, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Tula (Russia). The case concerns his pre-trial detention. In March 2009 Mr Zherebin was arrested on suspicion of a breach of public peace and order, committed in December 2008 together with an organised group. He was remanded in custody by order of a district court, which referred in particular to the serious offence with which he had been charged and to the risk that he might abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. His pre-trial detention was subsequently extended, and in May 2009 the trial court ordered that Mr Zherebin should remain in custody pending trial. His appeals against the detention orders were rejected by the courts. In October 2009 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The conviction was upheld on appeal in December 2009. Relying in substance on Article 5 � 3 (entitlement of a criminal suspect in detention to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), Mr Zherebin complains that he was detained during the investigation and trial without relevant and sufficient reasons. Tabbane v. Switzerland (no. 41069/12) The applicant, Noureddine Tabbane, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1944 and lives in El Menzah (Tunisia). The case concerns a challenge to a decision settling a dispute before the International Chamber of Commerce's International Court of Arbitration. M Tabbane, a Tunisian businessman, decided to enter into an industrial and commercial partnership with Colgate-Palmolive, a company incorporated under French law which has its registered office in France. To establish this partnership, a contract was signed between the parties, containing a clause in case of dispute. On 4 August 2008 the company Colgate filed a request for arbitration against Mr Tabbane and his three sons before the International Court of Arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce. During the procedure, Mr Tabbane asked the court of arbitration to appoint a financial expert to carry out an audit of the finances of the companies owed by him, or to let his own financial expert carry out the audit. The court of arbitration dismissed the request, finding that Colgate had already submitted financial evidence prepared by an expert, and that it was sufficient to consult that information. On 9 March 2011 the arbitration court issued its final verdict and ordered Mr Tabbane and his sons to transfer all their shares to Colgate and to pay costs and the legal fees. Mr Tabbane lodged a civillaw appeal with the Federal Court in order to have that decision set aside. On 4 January 2012 the Federal Court declared his appeal inadmissible on the ground that the parties had validly waived the right to appeal against any decision issued by the court of arbitration, in accordance with the federal law on private international law. Relying on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Tabbane complains that he was deprived of access to a court in Switzerland in order to challenge the arbitration procedure. He alleges that the provision of the federal law on private international law, in the part referred to by Federal Court, was not compatible with Article 6 � 1 of the Convention. Lastly, he complains that the court of arbitration's refusal to order an expert report at his request was in breach of his right to a fair hearing. Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine (no. 56660/12) The applicants, Viktoriya Korneykova and Denis Korneykov, mother and son, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1990 and 2012 respectively and live in Kharkiv (Ukraine). The case concerns a pregnant detainee, who alleges that she was shackled in the maternity hospital where she gave birth and that she and her new born were subsequently held in very poor conditions in a pre-trial detention centre, without adequate medical care. In January 2012 Ms Korneykova, who was five months pregnant, was detained by the police on suspicion of robbery and placed in detention pending trial. In May 2012 she was taken to Kharkiv maternity hospital where she gave birth to a baby boy. She alleges that, guarded on the ward by three security officers, she had been shackled at all times to her hospital bed or to a gynaecological examination chair, except for during the delivery of the baby. She also makes a number of complaints about the ensuing conditions in which she and her baby were held until their release in November 2012. Notably, she alleges that they were held in a cold, damp and poorly-lit cell which was not equipped for women with babies, there being no hot water and an irregular supply of cold water. She further complains about insufficient food as well as outdoor walks and inadequate medical care for her son, who she alleges was not examined by a paediatrician from 28 May to 10 September 2012. About a month after Ms Korneykova's release with her baby, the prison authorities carried out an internal investigation in response to media coverage of the case (including the publication of an online article and the broadcasting of a television programme). Six maternity hospital staff were thus questioned, most of whom confirmed that they had witnessed Ms Korneykova being shackled to a gynaecological examination chair or her bed. The security officers who guarded her denied that she had either been handcuffed or shackled in hospital. In December 2012 and January 2013 Ms Korneykova complained to the prosecuting authorities about her shackling in the maternity hospital and about the conditions of her detention pending trial, including inadequate medical care for her and her baby. The authorities discontinued the criminal investigation in April 2013 for lack of evidence of a criminal offence. According to the Government, Ms Korneykova was never handcuffed or shackled in the maternity hospital. Furthermore, they submitted that her conditions of detention had been adequate in a cell specially designed for pregnant women and women with children, referring to several statements by detainees who had shared the cell with Ms Korneykova and had been satisfied. She received three hot meals per day, except on days when she had to attend hearings on her case and missed lunch, and there had been no restrictions on her receiving food parcels from her mother. Furthermore, her son had been under constant medical supervision. Ms Korneykova makes a number of complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), namely about: her shackling in the maternity hospital; the poor conditions of detention; inadequate medical care for her son; and, her placement in a metal cage during the six court hearings on her case, first when she was heavily pregnant and then as a nursing mother. 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. Schmitzberger v. Austria (no. 42571/12) Schneider v. Austria (no. 30012/12) Traunmuller v. Austria (no. 72366/12) J. v. Croatia (no. 18572/12) Klobucar and Others v. Croatia (nos. 1067/15, 5122/15 and 27657/15) A.A. v. France (no. 28496/15) Borrero Toribio v. France (no. 40288/15) Garitagoitia Salegui v. France (no. 40285/15) Cerchez and Others v. Romania (nos. 39518/13, 58879/13, 77880/13, 10672/14, 15864/14, 40197/14, 41174/14, 47026/14, 47592/14, 58541/14, 65128/14, 77736/14, 2691/15 and 4075/15) Cioffi and Staicu v. Romania (nos. 26676/14 and 30999/14) Hauta and Others v. Romania (no. 4982/05) Mischie v. Romania (no. 59133/09) Papdi v. Romania (no. 33928/10) Belov v. Russia (no. 45705/13) Fedotov v. Russia (no. 20920/13) Kolesnikova v. Russia (no. 8133/05) Legal and Others v. Russia (nos. 48084/07, 14735/08, 19505/08, 21551/08, 11531/09 and 32927/09) Pankov and Others v. Russia (no. 10139/13) Svirin and Kulakov v. Russia (nos. 5257/08 and 38242/08) Dordevic v. Serbia (no. 16919/13) Mijajlovic v. Serbia (no. 12611/13) A.Y. v. Slovakia (no. 37146/12) Bektas v. Turkey (no. 38683/11) Demiral v. Turkey (no. 56686/10) Gunes v. Turkey (no. 24494/06) Ugur v. Turkey (no. 63819/10) Uzun v. Turkey (no. 38679/07) Yildiz v. Turkey (no. 59241/10) Biloshapka and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 67525/09, 21383/10, 64752/10, 72629/10, 1976/11, 4446/11, 28694/11, 33423/11, 23836/13, 42133/13, 53356/13 and 18173/15) Bogdalov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 30400/12, 30749/14 and 38948/14) Buza and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 11288/07, 11968/09, 42681/10, 59424/10, 69041/10, 74580/10, 2707/11, 36104/11, 33620/12 and 59318/13) Fedorova v. Ukraine (no. 43768/12) Parshyn v. Ukraine (no. 28686/11) Sofiyuk and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 47431/11, 38844/13, 55372/13, 63864/13, 72644/13, 1169/14, 27892/14, 47096/14, 69907/14, 74356/14, 11744/15 and 12525/15) Tarasov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 26662/13, 30007/13, 46998/13, 54575/13, 77142/13, 21361/14, 30520/14, 45784/14 and 46337/14) J.J. and S.U. v. the United Kingdom (nos. 31127/11 and 8114/13) Le Lievre and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 36522/15) 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. 14