003-5366778-6701742

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 148 (2016) 04.05.2016 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing five judgments on Tuesday 10 May 2016 and 21 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 12 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 10 May 2016 Topekhin v. Russia (application no. 78774/13) The case concerns the conditions of detention and medical care of a paraplegic inmate. The applicant, Vladimir Topekhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and until his arrest lived in Moscow. Mr Topekhin was arrested in July 2013 on suspicion of aggravated fraud and placed in police custody. His detention was repeatedly extended pending investigation and trial, the courts citing the seriousness of the charges against him as well as the risk of him absconding, as he had gone on the run previously and had been found in the possession of a forged passport. He was convicted as charged in January 2014 and sentenced to six years' imprisonment in a correctional colony. This judgment was upheld in February 2014, and the sentence reduced to four years. He was held in various remand prisons in Moscow until his transfer in March 2014 to serve his sentence in a correctional colony in Kostroma, over 300 kilometres away. Mr Topekhin suffered from back disorders, having sustained serious back injuries in 2008 and 2010, which were aggravated by a fall in August 2013 in detention. This new injury in detention resulted in him losing the use of his legs. In October 2013 he complained to the prison doctor of pain in his back and abdomen as well as headaches and was prescribed with drugs. Shortly afterwards, he was admitted to the prison medical unit, seen by various doctors including a neurologist, and prescribed with comprehensive treatment. His treatment continued throughout his ensuing detention on remand and included several courses of inpatient treatment in various medical institutions. Mr Topekhin makes a number of complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned: the alleged inadequate medical care he received in detention, claiming that his health significantly deteriorated as a result; the conditions of his detention on remand, submitting in particular that, following the paralysis in his legs from August 2013, he was confined to bed and was only assisted by other inmates for his daily needs; and, the conditions of his 16-hour transfer to the correctional colony in March 2014 in standard train carriages and prison vans without special equipment for a partly paralysed detainee such as himself. Further relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial) and Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he also complains about the excessive length of his detention, which was continually extended despite the serious state of his health, as well as about delays in the examination of his appeals against two of his detention orders of July and September 2013. Derungs v. Switzerland (no. 52089/09) The applicant, Rudolf Derungs, is a Swiss national who was born in 1961 and lives in Regensdorf (Switzerland). The case concerns the length and conduct of the judicial proceedings brought by Mr Derungs to end his internment, which had been decided by a judge for psychiatric reasons. Mr Derungs was sentenced in 2002 to five months' imprisonment for drunken driving, by a judgment of the Zurich District Court, partly upheld by a higher court, under which his internment was also ordered on psychiatric grounds. His applications for release were unsuccessful, as were his appeals against the refusal decisions. On 21 August 2008 the Judicial Enforcements Office interviewed Mr Derungs, who made a number of requests of which almost all, including a fresh application for release, were rejected. He subsequently appealed to the Administrative Court against the decisions of the cantonal Justice Department confirming those rejections, but his appeal was dismissed on 15 July 2009. As Mr Derungs had already given evidence on 21 August 2008, the court refused to hold a public hearing. He appealed against that decision to the Federal Court but was once again unsuccessful. He obtained his release on parole on 17 January 2012. Relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention), Mr Derungs complains that the length of time between his application on 21 August 2008 to end his internment and the Administrative Court's decision of 15 July 2009 was excessive. Under the same Article, he complains about the Administrative Court's refusal to hold a hearing. Babajanov v. Turkey (no. 49867/08) The case essentially concerns the alleged forced illegal deportation of an Uzbek asylum seeker from Turkey to Iran. The applicant, Mohammad Kuranbay Babajanov, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1975 and lives in Turkey. Mr Babajanov entered Turkey illegally in November 2007, having fled Uzbekistan in 1999 out of fear of persecution because he is a Muslim. Travelling via Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, he eventually settled in Zahedan in Iran from 2005 to 2007 before fleeing for Turkey. On arrival in Turkey he applied for refugee status to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as well as to the Turkish authorities. He was given a temporary residence permit until 24 September 2008 and ordered to report to the police station three times a week for signature. Mr Babajanov claims that on 12 September 2008, when going to the police station for signature, he was placed in detention along with 29 other asylum seekers. They were driven to the border the same evening and forcibly deported to Iran. Captured by people smugglers and made to pay a ransom, they eventually managed a few days later to enter Turkey illegally again. He submits that, since then, he has been living in hiding in Turkey. His application for refugee status from the UNHCR is still under consideration and he has not received any information from the Turkish authorities as to his asylum request. The Government submit that Mr Bajanov was deported to Iran, a safe third country, in accordance with domestic law following an assessment of his asylum claim. Furthermore, if he was still in Turkey, it was open to him to claim international protection under new legislation which had entered into force in April 2014 (the Foreigners and International Protection Act, Law no. 6458). Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Babajanov complains about his summary deportation to Iran in September 2008 without an assessment of his asylum claim and without a deportation order, despite the fact that he had a valid residence permit. He also alleges under Article 3 that he is currently still under a threat of deportation to Iran or Uzbekistan where he would be at a clear risk of death or ill-treatment on account of his political opinions and religious beliefs. Further relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the lack of domestic remedies to challenge his deportation, arguing also that he cannot appoint a lawyer to take the necessary legal steps on his behalf as his identity documents were confiscated from him by the police when he was detained and deported. Lastly, he makes a number of complaints under Article 5 �� 1, 2, and 4 (right to liberty and security), namely that: his detention prior to his removal on 12 September 2008 was unlawful; he was not informed of the reasons for his detention pending deportation; and, he had no means of challenging the lawfulness of his detention. Kalkan v. Turkey (no. 37158/09) The applicant, Ramazan Kalkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Mardin (Turkey). The case concerns the death of Mr Kalkan's son, Nusret Kalkan, who was shot dead by a gendarme, and the ensuing criminal proceedings. On 28 August 2008, while he was going to meet his family at a picnic area, Nusret Kalkan was wounded by a shot fired by the security forces; he died from his injuries on the way to hospital. Nusret Kalkan had been wanted, since 3 July 2007, for being an active member of the illegal armed organisation PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party) and for participating in a number of terrorist acts. The public prosecutor's office opened an investigation of its own motion and interviewed the members of Mr Kalkan's family who had been present at the scene of the incident, together with two gendarmes who had taken part in the operation. Mr Kalkan's relatives pointed out in particular that they had heard a single shot, without any warning. The gendarmes explained, among other things, that the deceased had been warned before the shot was fired. The official report by the gendarmerie also stated that Nusret Kalkan had been loudly ordered to surrender immediately, but that he had tried to escape and that a gendarme had injured him with a single shot. On 25 September 2008 Mr Kalkan filed a criminal complaint, asserting that the security forces could have arrested his son by a different means, in particular without firing at him. On 12 January 2009 the public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the police had used force in accordance with the anti-terrorism legislation. Mr Kalkan challenged that decision and the Mardin Assize Court quashed the discontinuance order. On 15 October 2009 the Midyat Assize Court decided to grant a discharge to the gendarme who shot Nusret Kalkan, finding that he had acted within the law. That same day Mr Kalkan, who had intervened in the criminal proceedings as a third party, appealed on points of law. On 4 July 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the court below, interpreting it as a decision of acquittal. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Kalkan complains about the death of his son, which, in his opinion, was caused by an excessive use of force. He alleges that the security forces used lethal force against his son, without that being absolutely necessary. In addition, Mr Kalkan argues that the criminal proceedings initiated by the authorities were not conducted expeditiously. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Kalkan further alleges that his relatives were deprived of their liberty and held in police custody for a whole day in conditions which, in his view, were tantamount to inhuman or degrading treatment. 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. Martins Sousa and Others v. Portugal (nos. 23741/13, 45190/13, 63611/13, 3157/14 and 28637/14) Thursday 12 May 2016 Gaysanova v. Russia (no. 62235/09) The applicant, Lida Gaysanova, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Nazran, the Republic of Ingushetia (Russia). The case concerns the disappearance of her daughter, Zarema Gaysanova, born in 1969, following a special operation by Russian servicemen at the family home in Chechnya. On 31 October 2009 the law-enforcement authorities launched a special operation at Lida Gaysanova's property in Kalinin, a village in the Leninskiy district of Grozny (Chechnya), aimed at eliminating members of illegal armed groups. The property was cordoned off and shelled until it caught fire. Shortly after, a man's body was recovered from the burnt down house. The operation received much publicity on the day itself, notably the Chechen President gave an interview to the local media at Lida Gaysanova's house confirming the killing of a member of an illegal armed group, the Ministry of the Interior issued an official press release and a video was released of the house burning down. Lida Gaysanova was not living at home at the time as the house, heavily damaged during a military campaign, was under reconstruction. Her daughter, however, who worked for a Dutch NGO in Grozny, regularly stayed at the house and there has been no news of her since the special operation. During the subsequent investigation, officially opened on 16 November 2009, numerous witnesses � neighbours and construction workers at the house � confirmed that Lida Gaysanova's daughter was last seen in the area cordoned off by the law-enforcement authorities during the special operation. One neighbour in particular claimed having seen Lida Gaysanova's daughter being forced into a UAZ vehicle and taken away. It was also revealed during the investigation that the authorities suspected Lida Gaysanova's daughter of cohabiting with the man killed during the operation. A number of investigative steps were taken by the authorities including: the questioning of witnesses, notably in February 2010 of the servicemen who had participated in the special operation, and in April 2010 of a construction worker who had been present in Lida Gaysanova's house during the operation; verifying in 2011 whether Ms Gaysanova's daughter had been detained on the premises of the local police department; and obtaining in 2011 video footage of the special operation. The investigation, suspended and resumed on a number of occasions following criticism by the supervising prosecutors, is however currently still pending. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Lida Gaysanova alleges that her daughter was abducted by Russian servicemen during a special operation and subsequently killed, claiming also that the police had effectively sabotaged the ensuing investigation into her daughter's disappearance. Further relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 �� 1 (c), 2, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), she complains about mental suffering caused to her by her daughter's unlawful detention and disappearance. Lastly, she complains under Article 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case) about the Government's refusal to disclose the entire contents of the investigation file into her daughter's abduction. Poletan and Azirovik v. "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" The applicants, Stanislava Poletan and Alija Azirovik, are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1968 and 1973 and live in Belgrade and Skopje respectively. The case concerns their complaint that criminal proceedings in which they were convicted of drug trafficking were unfair. In January 2007 a court in Skopje opened a criminal investigation against the applicants on suspicion of having trafficked over 400 kg of cocaine. Detention orders were issued in their respect. The suspected drugs had been found hidden in sealed cans of paint on a truck driven by Mr Azirovik during a search carried out by the Macedonian customs at a border crossing. When questioned by the investigating judge, Mr Azirovik stated that he had been requested by Ms Poletan to transport the paint from Montenegro to Greece and that he had been unaware that he had been transporting drugs. After an international arrest warrant had been issued in respect of Ms Poletan, she was arrested in Serbia and subsequently extradited to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, where she was placed in detention. When questioned by the investigating judge in the presence of her lawyer, she confirmed that she had agreed with Mr Azirovik that he would transport the paint for her from Montenegro to Greece for 1,100 euros, and she denied being aware that drugs had been planted in the cans. At a court hearing during the trial, in August 2007, she specified that a business partner in Greece who owed her money had offered to provide her instead with paint from Venezuela, which was shipped to Montenegro. In November 2007 both applicants were convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 14 years and six months' imprisonment. The judgment was based, in particular, on the following evidence: the applicants' statements; statements from several witnesses and customs officials; material evidence, including three expert reports assessing the quality and quantity of the substance found, confirming that it was pure cocaine; and a detailed list of phone calls from the applicants' mobile phones. The judgment was upheld on appeal, the final decision being delivered by the Supreme Court in October 2009. Relying in particular on Article 6 �� 1, 2, and 3 (b) and (d) (right to a fair trial / presumption of innocence / right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence / right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), the applicants complain that their trial was unfair. Ms Poletan notably alleges that she was not allowed to consult the case file during the investigation, which affected her ability to prepare her defence, and that she had no opportunity to examine two of the witnesses. Both applicants complain about the domestic courts' refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of the substance found in the cans, despite the applicants' request, alleging that the experts who examined the suspected drugs were biased. Finally, Mr Azirovik complains that the domestic courts failed to provide any reasoning to demonstrate that he knew that there were drugs in the cans. The applicants further rely on Article 7 (no punishment without law). 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. A.N. v. France (no. 12956/15) D.S. v. France (no. 18805/13) Kalwat v. Germany (no. 6099/15) Thumm v. Germany (no. 54307/13) Clements v. Greece (no. 76629/14) Kotsochilis v. Greece (no. 45847/15) Jambor v. Hungary (no. 75775/11) Galla v. Poland (no. 57405/13) Stefaniak v. Poland (no. 56941/11) CDP Cal�ado de Portugal - Importa��o e Exporta��o, Lda v. Portugal (no. 15278/13) Da Concei��o Junqueira v. Portugal (no. 13487/13) Luwisch and Marini Luwisch v. Portugal (no. 8322/13) Pereira dos Reis Nabais Martins v. Portugal (no. 63601/13) Rodrigues Fonseca v. Portugal (no. 3357/14) Dubrovskiy v. Russia (no. 50724/09) Kashlan v. Russia (no. 60189/15) Soyupova v. Russia (no. 37957/15) X v. San Marino (no. 76795/13) Perelygina and Yatsenko v. Ukraine (no. 17036/06) 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. 6