003-5359403-6689993

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 140 (2016) 27.04.2016 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing four judgments on Tuesday 3 May 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 3 May 2016 Letinci v. Croatia (application no. 7183/11) The applicant, Kristijan Letinci, is a Croatian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Zagreb. The case concerns the dismissal of his request for family disability benefit. In 1993, when Mr Letinci was five years old, his father, a war veteran, killed his mother and maternal grandparents and then committed suicide. Represented by his paternal grandmother, he sought family disability benefit in 1996, arguing that his father had committed suicide as a consequence of mental derangement following his wartime service. His request was examined by several bodies, notably by the administrative authorities (the Zagreb Municipality Office with responsibility for war veterans' affairs and the Ministry in charge of war veterans' affairs) and then by the judicial authority with power to review, namely the Administrative Court. Both the administrative authorities, and subsequently the Administrative Court, dismissed Mr Letinci's request, basing their decision on a report drawn up in June 2007 which had concluded that the suicide of Mr Letinci's father could not be attributed to his wartime service. On becoming aware of the report's findings in September 2007, Mr Letinci attempted to bring a challenge before the Ministry and the Administrative Court, arguing in particular that he had not had an opportunity to effectively participate in the proceedings and that the report had failed to take into account the triple murder and suicide. His challenges were rejected, ultimately by the Administrative Court which found that his specific complaints were irrelevant for the decision as to whether he could receive family disability benefit. His constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible as manifestly illfounded in May 2010. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Letinci alleges that the proceedings concerning his request for family disability benefit were unfair, in particular as concerned the expert report on his case. Abdi Mahamud v. Malta (no. 56796/13) The case concerns an asylum seeker who was held in an immigration detention centre for more than 16 months. The applicant, Sagal Abdi Mahamud, is a Somali national who was born in 1992 and at the time of the introduction of her application was detained in Lyster Barracks Detention Centre, in al Far (Malta). Ms Abdi Mahamud arrived in Malta by boat in May 2012 and, intercepted by the immigration police, was immediately detained in Lyster Barracks under the relevant provisions of the Immigration Act. Having been presented with an order for her removal as a prohibited immigrant, she lodged an asylum claim. Her claim was ultimately rejected in December 2012 on the ground that, as a Somali national, there was a possibility of her returning safely to Mogadishu. In the meantime, in October 2012 Ms Abdi Mahamud, suffering from a number of medical problems � including headaches, earaches and fainting � which resulted in her frequent hospitalisation, was referred to the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers with a view to obtaining her release on the grounds of vulnerability due to physical and psychological ill-health. She was interviewed in December 2012 and then verbally informed in August 2013 � with confirmation from the Government � that she would be released. She was actually released in September 2013. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention, Ms Abdi Mahamud complains about the conditions of her detention from May 2012 to September 2013, notably on account of overcrowding, limited access to outdoor exercise, lack of proper arrangements against the heat and cold as well as lack of female staff and little privacy. Furthermore, she makes a number of complaints under Article 5 �� 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) notably concerning the length of her detention, more than seven months of which pending a decision on her asylum request and the rest allegedly pending her removal, without any steps being taken to remove her or any effective judicial review being available with which she could have challenged the lawfulness of her detention. She also claims that her detention had been governed by laws and policies, which were vague as to the exceptions to detention for vulnerable persons such as herself. Alexe v. Romania (no. 66522/09) The applicant, Elena Alexe, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Galai (Romania). The case concerns the restitution to Ms Alexe of a building confiscated improperly by the totalitarian regime and the ensuing civil proceedings, leading to a judgment in which Ms Alexe was ordered to pay damages on the basis of a legislative amendment which had been made after the proceedings at first instance. In a final decision of 22 February 2006 Ms Alexe recovered the ownership of a house which, having belonged to her mother, had been confiscated improperly by the totalitarian regime and then unlawfully sold to the tenant. After she had taken possession of the house, civil proceedings were brought against Ms Alexe by the former tenant, on 11 March 2008, to obtain the reimbursement of costs incurred by the tenant in refurbishing the property. In her reply Ms Alexe sought the dismissal of the suit, relying on section 48(3) of Law no. 10/2001 on the legal arrangements for property taken improperly by the State, under which it was for the State to compensate the tenant for any costs incurred for work on an unlawfully nationalised building. In a judgment of 27 January 2009 Ms Alexe was ordered at first instance to pay 15,661 Romanian lei (RON) to the tenant. Ms Alexe appealed, complaining about the fact that the first-instance judgment mentioned no legal basis and relying on section 48(3) of Law no. 10/2001. In a final judgment of 29 May 2009, the County Court partly upheld her claim, reducing the sum to RON 15,086. The court noted, however, that while at the time the claim was originally brought the former section 48(3) of the law provided that the State had to compensate the tenant for any expenses incurred, after a legislative amendment which entered into force on 3 February 2009 the law provided that such expenses were to be reimbursed by the former owner, regardless of whether or not the nationalisation had been unlawful. On 9 September 2010 Ms Alexe paid the sum due to the tenant, plus the enforcement costs. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms Alexe complains that she did not have a fair hearing since section 48 of Law no. 10/2001 had been amended during the proceedings and applied to her detriment, without the issue of its application having been raised adversarially in court. Cerf v. Turkey (no. 12938/07) The applicant, Yaar Cerf, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Adana (Turkey). The case concerns the shooting of her husband, Sefer Cerf, a local politician for HADEP (the People's Democracy Party) on 3 October 1994 outside a caf� in the town of Y�reir. He died on the spot. On the day of the killing the prosecuting authorities concluded an incident scene investigation and launched an investigation. 17 days later they issued a standing search order in relation to the killings. Eventually, in January 2000 following a number of operations carried out against Hizbullah, an outlawed organisation in Turkey, a man, M.D, was arrested who confessed to killing Ms Cerf's husband. On various dates in 2000 criminal proceedings were thus instituted against M.D., as well as against four other suspects, for membership of Hizbullah and for carrying out illegal acts on behalf of that organisation. They were all convicted between 2009 and 2013 and given sentences of imprisonment varying between five and a half years and life. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Cerf alleges that her husband was killed because of his political affiliation, either by the security services or by Hizbullah aided by the authorities, and that the ensuing investigation was ineffective. She alleges in particular that, on the day of the killing, neither the police nor anti-terrorism officers were patrolling in the area, which was unusual and that eyewitnesses to the incident, as well as herself and her daughter, were subsequently harassed and threatened by the police. She also submits that the suspects' confessions, which were the only significant evidence revealed by the State during the criminal proceedings against them, were dubious as four of them subsequently retracted, alleging that the statements they had made were extracted from them under torture. 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