003-5379897-6723255

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 158 (2016) 20.05.2016 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 judgments on Tuesday 24 May 2016 and 29 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 26 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 24 May 2016 Przydzial v. Poland (no. 15487/08) The applicant, Radoslaw Przydzial, is a Polish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Olawa (Poland). The case concerns Mr Przydzial's conviction for the rape of a minor and his inability to have questions put to the victim, whose statements, he claims, constituted the main evidence on which his conviction was based. In March 2004 Mr Przydzial and two other individuals were arrested on suspicion of rape. An investigation had been launched after the alarm was raised by a secondary school teacher in whom the girl had confided. The alleged incident occurred in July 2002. The girl, then aged 14, was allegedly taken by Mr Przydzial and two other individuals (M.K. and P.H.) to a house, where they took it in turns to rape her, in the presence of an eyewitness (W.H.), the brother of P.H. and a minor at the relevant time. On 12 March 2004 the girl gave evidence to a judge in the presence of the public prosecutor and a psychologist. She recognised Mr Przydzial from a photograph and identified him as one of her attackers. In a report of 18 March 2004 the psychologist who had attended the interview found the girl's account to be highly credible; she also observed that it would be preferable, in view of the girl's psychological state and in particular her suicidal tendencies, to exempt her from attending the trial and to admit her to hospital. On 23 March 2004 the girl took part in the inspection of the crime scene. On 18 May 2004 she was admitted to a psychiatric clinic following a suicide attempt. In a report of 28 May 2004 the psychologist stated that, in view of the girl's condition, she was not fit to participate in the trial; this finding was confirmed by the senior doctor. On 26 May 2004 the girl was questioned at the clinic by a judge with the prosecutor and the psychologist in attendance. In a judgment of 23 December 2005 Mr Przydzial and two co-defendants were found guilty as charged. Mr Przydzial was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. Taking into consideration the fact that the girl's psychological state prevented her from attending the trial, the court read out her statements at the hearing and found that those statements, taken in conjunction with the other items of evidence, confirmed the case against the applicant. The court considered, in particular, that the girl's testimony was corroborated by W.H.'s statements and by the confession of the applicant's co-defendant P.H., who had admitted the offence during the preliminary investigation and had provided the investigators with a detailed description of the offence, the victim and the role of each of the co-defendants. The court rejected the allegations of ill-treatment made by P.H. and W.H. � who had subsequently retracted their confessions and statements � finding that the allegations were not credible or substantiated. On appeal, the Wroclaw Regional Court upheld the main findings of the first-instance judgment and reduced Mr Przydzial's sentence to five years' Imprisonment. It observed, among other findings, that Mr Przydzial's conviction had not been based solely on the girl's testimony, but had been borne out by other items of evidence, in particular by P.H.'s confession and the statements of the eyewitness W.H. On 28 September 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant as being manifestly unfounded. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial/right to question witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Przydzial complains that the proceedings were unfair, alleging that the authorities made it impossible for him to question the victim, whose statements, he claims, formed the main evidence on which his conviction was based. I.C. v. Romania (no. 36934/08) The case concerns a complaint about the inadequacy of the investigation into a 14-year old girl's allegation of rape. The applicant, Ms I.C., is a Romanian national who was born in 1992 and lives in Cotiglet (Romania). Ms I.C., 14 years old at the time, alleges that she was raped on 13 January 2007. Attending a funeral wake, she claims that she was grabbed by three teenage boys in the road and taken to a man, M.C., who was waiting for her in the garden of a deserted building and raped. Two other men were also present; one, A.C.L., attempted to rape her and the other, although intending to have intercourse with her, finally decided to help her and take her back to the house where the wake was taking place. Ms I.C.'s father, on learning that his daughter had been raped, immediately alerted the police and the next day they lodged a formal complaint. During the subsequent investigation, the six men involved in the incident claimed that the young girl had consented to having sexual intercourse. The prosecutor, accepting this explanation, indicted M.C. for the crime of sexual intercourse with a minor and A.C.L. for attempting to commit the same crime. Furthermore, the prosecutor considered that the three teenage boys involved could not have known M.C.'s intentions and therefore found that they had no criminal responsibility in the case. The criminal proceedings against the remaining man were discontinued as he had not had sexual intercourse with the girl. The national courts, in a judgment of October 2007, found M.C. and A.C.L. guilty as charged and gave them suspended sentences, subsequently increased on appeal to three years' and 18 months' imprisonment, respectively. The prosecutor and the courts essentially based their conclusions on the statements by the alleged rapists, who claimed that they had not forced the girl in any way, taken together with the fact that Ms I.C.'s body showed no signs of violence, as attested to by a medical certificate, and that she had not called for help or immediately told her girlfriends about the alleged abuse on returning to the wake. The authorities did not address the extensive medical evidence submitted with regard to the trauma suffered by Ms I.C., who was admitted to a psychiatric hospital on three occasions since the incident with stress-related anxiety, a sleep disorder, headaches and depression and, in February 2007, diagnosed with a slight intellectual disability (IQ of 68). Nor did they address her requests for the incident to be examined as rape. Ms I.C. complains that, there having been no physical evidence of assault, the criminal justice system in Romania had been more inclined to believe the men involved in the abuse, rather than her. Furthermore, the authorities, refusing to take into consideration her young age and physical/psychological vulnerability, showed no concern for the need to protect her as a minor. The case will be examined under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention. S�rghi v. Romania (no. 19181/09) The applicant, Marinic S�rghi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Verbania (Italy). The case concerns the fact that Mr S�rghi was not assisted by a lawyer when he made his initial statements at the police station in the context of criminal proceedings against him, and his allegation that he was not informed of the charges against him. While driving a tractor on the public highway during the night of 8 July 2006 Mr S�rghi was stopped by police officers in order to undergo a breathalyser test. As Mr S�rghi attempted to flee, the police officers immobilised him and took him to Arad County Hospital, where he was breathalysed. A police report was drawn up on 9 July 2006 in the presence of Mr S�rghi and two witnesses; the applicant refused to sign the report. He also made a handwritten statement, which was added to the file, in which he said that he had been driving the tractor to a car wash, had drunk one beer and did not have a valid driving licence. On 9 August 2006 the public prosecutor's office opened criminal proceedings against Mr S�rghi for theft and for driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and without a driving licence. He was summoned to appear for questioning before the public prosecutor on 18 May and 8 June 2007, but did not attend. On 8 November 2007 Mr S�rghi denied the allegations against him in the Arad Court of First Instance, stating that he had not been driving the vehicle but had been accompanying a colleague whose name he could not disclose. He said that he had been stopped by the police officers while he was checking that the tractor doors were closed, altering his previous statement, which he claimed had been given under duress. In a judgment of 31 January 2008 Mr S�rghi was found guilty and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. He appealed against the judgment, claiming in particular that his defence rights had been breached because he had not been informed of the charges against him and had not been assisted by a lawyer when he gave a statement at the beginning of the investigation. In a judgment of 29 May 2008 the Arad County Court dismissed his appeal. Mr S�rghi lodged an appeal on points of law which was dismissed by the Timioara Court of Appeal on 11 December 2008. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (a) and (c) (right to a fair trial/right to be informed promptly of the accusation/right to the assistance of a lawyer), Mr S�rghi complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, alleging that he was not informed of the charges against him and of the possibility of being assisted by a lawyer. Makshakov v. Russia (no. 52526/07) The case concerns the conditions of detention and medical care of an inmate suffering from tuberculosis. The applicant, Nikolay Makshakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and until his arrest lived in Sarapul (the Republic of Udmurtiya, Russia). Mr Makshakov was convicted in May 2007 of, among other things, aggravated robbery and sentenced to six years and ten months' imprisonment. Shortly after his arrest � in October 2006 � he was admitted to a prison hospital with tuberculosis; his complaints focus on the period he spent there between March and October 2007, referring to overcrowding, poor lighting and ventilation as well as inadequate hygiene and sanitary conditions. He also argues that, having contracted tuberculosis in detention, he did not receive regular and systematic medical care. In particular he received no special anti-tuberculosis therapy during the initial period of his stay in hospital between March 2007 and March 2008, only being given basic medicine to reduce fever as well as painkillers. He claims that following that period, medicine was prescribed to him but it was often out of stock. From late 2009 to late 2010 his condition was, however, brought under control. He made numerous complaints to various authorities from 2006 to 2010, which were all dismissed. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Makshakov complains about the appalling conditions of his detention and inadequate medical care, arguing that there were no effective remedies for such complaints in the Russian legal system. Manzhos v. Russia (no. 64752/09) The case concerns an allegation of ill-treatment in police custody. The applicant, Pavel Manzhos, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Voronezh (Russia). Arrested on 7 March 2008 for using offensive language in public, Mr Manzhos claims that he was interviewed by police officers who then handcuffed his hands behind his back, suspended him from a metal bar by the handcuffs and beat him up. He was released a few hours later and, the next day, went to the local hospital where it was recorded that he had a bruised chest. This was confirmed by two other expert reports carried out shortly afterwards, which recorded a number of bruises and scratches to his face and body and diagnosed him with periarthritis as a result of trauma to the wrist joints. Mr Manzhos lodged an application requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted against the police officers who had ill-treated him. However, between March 2008 and August 2009 five decisions were taken by the authorities refusing the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers due to lack of evidence. All these decisions were subsequently set aside by the supervising authority and additional pre-investigation inquiries were ordered. Criminal proceedings were eventually opened in March 2011 and during the ensuing investigation Mr Manzhos was questioned as a victim and invited to attend an identity parade of the police officers. As he did not recognise any of the officers, the investigation was suspended in July 2011 for failure to identify the alleged perpetrators. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Manzhos complains that he was ill-treated by the police and that there was no effective investigation into his allegation of illtreatment. Sadretdinov v. Russia (no. 17564/06) The case concerns the conditions of detention and medical care of an inmate suffering from epilepsy. The applicant, Fail Sadretdinov, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lived until his arrest in Moscow. Mr Sadretdinov, a notary, was tried and acquitted of organising the murders of Paul Khlebnikov, the founding editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine, and Yan Sergunin, a former deputy prime minister of Chechnya. He was arrested in May 2005 and his detention was repeatedly extended on the grounds of the gravity of the charges against him and the possibility of his absconding and obstructing justice. He was acquitted in May 2006 and immediately released. Shortly after, he was arrested again on charges of aggravated fraud, abuse of position and property laundering. He was convicted in January 2007 and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment, subsequently reduced to eight years' imprisonment. Before his detention, Mr Sadretdinov had a medical history of epilepsy, having suffered a craniocerebral injury in 1998. According to the Government, Mr Sadretdinov did not have any particular health problems in detention, submitting that his medical records � drawn up by a prison paramedic � did not contain any entries related to his epilepsy. Mr Sadretdinov, on the other hand, challenged the validity of these medical records, referring to a written complaint lodged by his cellmates with the detention authorities as well as interviews they gave to his lawyer in which they confirmed his epileptic seizures, and requested that he be provided with adequate medical care. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Sadretdinov complains about the appalling conditions of his detention between January and February 2006, notably on account of overcrowding and lack of hygiene, and the inadequate medical care. 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 that the length of his detention on remand was excessive and lacked justification and that two of his appeals against detention orders issued in February and April 2006 were not examined. Paunovi and Milivojevi v. Serbia (no. 41683/06) The case concerns the practice of party-controlled mandates in Serbia. The applicants, Goran Paunovi and Ksenija Milivojevi, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1965 and 1975 and live in Novi Sad and Belgrade (both in Serbia), respectively. Parliamentary elections in Serbia are held on the basis of a proportional representation system in which candidates for Parliament are included on lists put forward by political parties or coalitions. Voters choose between these lists, without voting directly for individual candidates. In 2003 the applicants were elected as members of parliament for a political party called G17PLUS. Before the elections, all candidates, including the applicants, had been required by their party to sign undated letters of resignation and hand them in to the party. The documents also authorised the party to appoint other candidates in their place if necessary. On 5 May 2006, following political differences with their party, the applicants explicitly expressed their wish to keep their seats in Parliament in a signed, officially certified statement. Despite this statement, on 15 May 2006 the head of G17PLUS dated the applicants' resignation letters and submitted them to the President of Parliament. On the same day Mr Paunovi personally informed the Parliamentary Committee on Administrative Affairs that he had no intention of resigning and that he considered his prior resignation null and void, submitting the certified statement of 5 May. The committee concluded, however, that both applicants had resigned and held that their mandates had come to an end. The applicants were replaced with other G17PLUS candidates. The applicants filed two separate complaints with the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, which were dismissed in May 2006 and May 2008. Relying in particular on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants allege that the termination of their parliamentary mandates was unlawful and that they had no effective remedy to challenge this breach of their rights. Abdulgafur Batmaz v. Turkey (no. 44023/09) The applicant, Abdulgafur Batmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973. He was being detained in Diyarbakir Prison (Turkey) at the time the application was lodged. The case concerns allegations of ill-treatment in police custody made by Mr Batmaz, who was not assisted by a lawyer and who claims that the confession that formed the basis for his conviction was made under duress. On 12 September 1994 Mr Batmaz was arrested and taken into police custody for assistance to, and membership of, the illegal organisation Hizbullah. On 28 September 1994, when interviewed by the police, Mr Batmaz admitted belonging to the illegal organisation and gave details of his activities within it; he was not assisted by a lawyer. The applicant was likewise not assisted by a lawyer during the reconstruction of the events on 22 September 1994, or during questioning by the judge of the Diyarbakir State Security Court on 4 October 1994, when he denied having been involved in any armed actions and claimed that the testimony he had given in police custody had been obtained under duress. The applicant's allegations of ill-treatment resulted in a decision to discontinue the proceedings on 24 October 1995. Mr Batmaz did not appeal. On 24 October 1994 the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against Mr Batmaz on charges of membership of the illegal armed organisation Hizbullah and undermining the established constitutional order. The proceedings commenced in the Diyarbakir State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, and continued in the Diyarbakir Assize Court following the final abolition of the State Security Courts. Mr Batmaz was assisted by a lawyer and contested the charges. He alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody, leaving him without the use of his left arm, and submitted medical reports in support of his allegations. He stated in particular that he had accepted the charges in order to put a stop to the ill-treatment and had signed the statement while blindfolded. Arguing that the prosecutor's indictment had been based solely on evidence obtained under duress while he was in police custody, when he had not been assisted by a lawyer, he requested that the evidence in question should not be taken into consideration. The Assize Court requested the public prosecutor to carry out an investigation into these allegations; on 24 October 1995 the prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Taking into consideration both the decision not to prosecute and the medical report submitted by Mr Batmaz, the Assize Court rejected his statements to the effect that he had given testimony under duress while in police custody. On 26 February 2007 Mr Batmaz was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Assize Court. He lodged an appeal on points of law which was dismissed on 29 April 2009. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 � � 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial/right to be assisted by a lawyer), Mr Batmaz complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody, that he was not assisted by a lawyer and that the proceedings were unfair. He alleges that he was convicted on the basis of the testimony he gave while in police custody which, he claims, was obtained as a result of ill-treatment. The applicant further alleges that he was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal owing to the presence of a military judge during part of the proceedings in the State Security Court. Jehovah's Witnesses Solidarity Association and Others v. Turkey (nos. 36915/10 and 8606/13) The applicants are H�seyin Sami G�l and Levent Sarkut, preachers and leaders of the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses of the city of Mersin (Turkey), born in 1953 and 1952 respectively, and the Jehovah's Witnesses Solidarity Association, established on 31 July 2007 to represent the Jehovah's Witnesses community in Turkey. The case concerns the inability of Jehovah's Witnesses in zmir and Mersin to meet in an appropriate place in order to worship. For many years the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses in zmir and Mersin were allowed to worship on private premises. The administrative authorities in both cities subsequently decided to close down their prayer rooms on the basis of the Urban Planning Act (Law no. 3194) which prohibited the opening of places of worship on premises not designated for that purpose and imposed certain conditions on the building of places of worship. In the present case an apartment in the district of Akdeniz where the Mersin congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses had been meeting since 1988 was searched on 17 December 2000 and was closed down on the ground that it was in breach of the law to hold gatherings there. The members of the congregation were also informed that they could not practise their religious ceremonies in another apartment in the district of Gazi, which was subsequently closed down by the governor's office on 16 August 2003. Finally, on 19 August 2003 the municipal authority's urban planning department informed the congregation that there was no provision in the local urban development plan for any premises that could be used as a place of worship. Mr G�l and Mr Sarkut applied to the Mersin Administrative Court to have that decision set aside, but their claims were dismissed in a final decision of 27 October 2008. They lodged an appeal on points of law which was dismissed on 6 February 2009. The zmir congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, which had been carrying out its ceremonies on the ground floor of a building located in Kariyaka, was informed that it would have to apply for planning permission to build a place of worship and request an amendment to the local urban development plan, following the entry into force of a Law which replaced the word "mosque" with the words "place of worship". Consequently, on 23 February 2004 the congregation applied to the municipal authority for the allocation of a plot of land with a view to building a place of worship. On 3 March and 17 September 2004 it also requested an amendment to the local urban development plan to allow it to use the apartment in Kariyaka as a place of worship. Its applications were refused. The congregation applied to have that decision set aside, but its application was dismissed by the zmir Administrative Court in a final decision of 12 May 2010. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first-instance judgment on 9 November 2010. Relying on Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complain of the refusal of the domestic authorities to confer the status of places of worship on the premises in which they worship, and of the authorities' rejection of their requests to be provided with a place of worship. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they allege that they did not have the benefit of an effective remedy. Lastly, relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention, they allege that they were the victims of discrimination on the grounds of their membership of a minority religious community, namely the Jehovah's Witnesses. S�leyman �elebi and Others v. Turkey (nos. 37273/10, 38958/10, 38963/10, 38968/10, 38973/10, 38980/10, 38991/10, 38997/10, 39004/10, 39030/10, 39032/10, 39034/10, 39037/10, 39038/10, 39042/10, 39049/10, 39052/10 and 45052/10) The applicants are 19 Turkish nationals, including S�leyman �elebi (Chair of the Confederation of Revolutionary Workers' Trade Unions � DISK) and Gen�ay G�rsoy (Chair and representative of the Turkish Medical Union in Istanbul), and the trade union T�rk Tabibler Birlii (Turkish Union of Doctors in Istanbul (TBB)). The case concerns the events that occurred at a rally held in Istanbul on 1 May 2008 to celebrate May Day, during which the security forces intervened to disperse the crowd. On 29 April 2008 the three main Turkish trade unions (DISK, KESK and TURK-IS) and the Turkish Union of Doctors in Istanbul (TBB) jointly informed the governor's office of their plans to stage a demonstration on 1 May 2008 on Taksim Square, to lay a wreath at the monument to Atat�rk and to hold a press conference to commemorate the events of 1 May 1977, when 34 people had died and 126 had been injured. On 30 April 2008 the governor's office banned the demonstration on the square but agreed to allow the members of the board of DISK to lay a wreath. However, the trade unions insisted that they would march on Taksim Square. On 1 May 2008 the governor's office put extensive security arrangements in place, barring all access to Taksim Square from 5 a.m. onwards. According to the police report, people began to gather in front of the DISK premises at 6 a.m., and the police intervened at around 6.45 a.m. to disperse the gathering using water cannons and tear gas. Violent clashes continued until late that night. According to the applicants, the security forces threw tear-gas grenades inside the DISK building and attacked a group of demonstrators who had taken refuge in a hospital, as well as some doctors who were demonstrating outside the emergency department. Large numbers of demonstrators, including the applicants, were allegedly struck by the security forces. Some of them were taken to hospital suffering from the after-effects of the tear gas and the blows administered by the police officers. On different dates the applicants lodged complaints against the then Prime Minister, Mr Tayyip Erdoan, three Government Ministers, the Governor of Istanbul, the Istanbul Chief of Security, his deputy and other senior members of the security department, and against all the members of the security forces who had been involved in dispersing the demonstration. The complaints, which were divided into three categories by the Istanbul public prosecutor's office according to the status of the accused, were all rejected. In the meantime some of the applicants were prosecuted for breaches of the law, but they were all eventually discharged or acquitted. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants � with the exception of the TBB � allege that the police officers used disproportionate force in order to disperse the gathering. They say that they were hospitalised owing to the after-effects of the tear gas they had inhaled and the blows they had received, and claim that the members of the security forces went unpunished. Under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants also complain that they were prevented by the intervention of the security forces from exercising their right to demonstrate. 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. Mardare v. Romania (no. 67591/12) Shepel v. Russia (no. 44815/10) Blagojevi and Others v. Serbia (nos. 61604/10, 62492/10, 62499/10, 62658/10, 62668/10, 63100/10, 63108/10, 63123/10, 63137/10, 63145/10, 63356/10, 63494/10, 63510/10, 63587/10 and 64856/10) Thursday 26 May 2016 Dupr� v. France (no. 77032/12) The applicant, William Dupr�, is a French national who was born in 1967 and lives in Bondy (France). The Treaty of Lisbon, signed on 13 December 2007, increased by 18 the number of members elected to the European Parliament, but did not enter into force until after the European elections of June 2009. In order to correct this anomaly a protocol was adopted laying down, with effect until 2014, the number of additional seats allocated to those countries which, had the Treaty of Lisbon been in force at the time of the European elections in June 2009, would have had a higher number of representatives. As two additional members from France were due to be elected to the European Parliament, the French authorities decided to appoint them from within the national Parliament, on the basis of an ad hoc procedure. Mr Dupr�, who had stood for election to the European Parliament several times, was unable to stand for election on this occasion or to take part in the vote. He applied to the Conseil d'�tat, which normally had jurisdiction in such matters, to have the election annulled. His application was dismissed, as the Conseil d'�tat found that it lacked jurisdiction since the election had been governed by a special procedure. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol no. 1 (right to free elections), Mr Dupr� alleges that, by appointing the two additional members of the European Parliament from within the National Assembly, the French authorities prevented persons other than members of Parliament from standing for election. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains that, by confining the right to stand for election to members of the Assembly, France did not secure to potential candidates from parties not represented in the Assembly the exercise without discrimination of the right to free elections. M.C. and Others v. Italy (no. 5376/11) Just Satisfaction The applicants are 162 Italian nationals. The case concerned their inability to obtain an annual adjustment of the supplementary part of a compensation allowance (IIS) paid to them after they were accidentally contaminated as a result of blood transfusions or the administration of blood derivatives. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained that the Government, in enacting legislative decree no. 78/2010, had intervened in an area which was the subject of legal debate and which had given rise to numerous cases to which the Government themselves had been a party. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they argued that, if not adjusted, the IIS would gradually lose its value. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they complained that they had been victims of discrimination. In its judgment on the merits of 3 September 2013 the Court held that there had been a violation of Articles 6 � 1 and 14 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 since, in intervening to enact legislation while the judicial proceedings against the Minister of Health were pending, the legislature had interpreted the law in a manner favourable to the Government. Lastly, the Court found that question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for future consideration. The Court will rule on this question in its judgment of 26 May 2016. 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. Slaku v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 56666/12) Vranjkovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 51521/10) N.P. and N.I. v. Bulgaria (no. 72226/11) Manukian v. Georgia (no. 49448/08) Lizik v. Hungary (no. 16471/12) Szilagyi v. Hungary (no. 48590/11) Zdorovcevas v. Malta (no. 59815/13) Berecki v. Poland (no. 46366/12) Dworzecki v. Poland (no. 76856/12) Podlecki v. Poland (no. 22457/11) Szustak v. Poland (no. 7084/15) Szyrwinski v. Poland (no. 67320/13) Wiewiora v. Poland (no. 54212/14) Orezeanu v. Romania (no. 26029/08) Predescu v. Romania (no. 72417/10) Kvaratskhelia and Kvaratskhelia v. Russia (no. 14985/07) Yeremenko v. Russia (no. 42372/08) Zisman and Others v. Russia (no. 31903/14) Lazarov v. Serbia (no. 42571/06) Metalex DOO v. Serbia (no. 34176/10) Bitsyura v. Ukraine (no. 45909/06) Gromada Ukrayinskoyi Greko-Katolytskoyi Tserkvy Sela Korshiv v. Ukraine (no. 9557/04) Rymsko-Katolytska Gromada Svyatogo Klymentiya v Misti Sevastopoli v. Ukraine (no. 22607/02) Tuchin and Tuchina v. Ukraine (no. 40458/08) Cusack v. the United Kingdom (no. 1955/14) R.A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 73521/12) Unite the Union v. the United Kingdom (no. 65397/13) 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. 10