003-5512578-6931524

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 306 (2016) 07.10.2016 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 28 judgments on Tuesday 11 October 2016 and 48 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 13 October 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 11 October 2016 Zubac v. Croatia (application no. 40160/12) The applicant, Vesna Zubac, is a Bosnia and Herzegovina national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bijela (the Republic of Montenegro). The case concerns her complaint that she was denied access to a third-instance court. In September 1992, Ms Zubac's father-in-law concluded a contract for the exchange of his house in Dubrovnik (the Republic of Croatia) for one in Trebinje (Republika Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina). After his death, his son and Ms Zubac's husband brought a civil action in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court in August 2002, seeking to declare the contract null and void on the basis that it was signed under duress, due to circumstances arising from the war in Croatia. During the proceedings, Ms Zubac's husband increased the value of the subject matter of the dispute from 1,300 euros to 14,160 euros, which was opposed by the defendants. The court dismissed the claim in September 2005, ordering the claimants to pay the litigation costs and the expenses of the defendants, according to the increased value of the subject matter of the dispute. Since his petition to the Dubrovnik County Court was also dismissed, Ms Zubac's husband lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Croatia. Further proceedings were taken over by Ms Zubac, after her husband passed away. In March 2011 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, declaring that the value of the subject matter of the dispute was below the statutory threshold. Notably, the Supreme Court considered that the relevant value of the claim under consideration was the original rather than the amended value (whilst the amended value was over the statutory threshold, the original value was below it). A subsequent complaint made by Ms Zubac to the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible in November 2011. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Zubac complains in particular that she was prevented from having access to the Supreme Court. Barcza and Others v. Hungary (no. 50811/10) The applicants, Jenn� Barcza, J�nosn� B�sits, and L�szl� P�vai, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1962, 1957, and 1930 respectively. They live in Solym�r, Dunabogd�ny, and Le�nyfalu (Hungary). The case concerns land they owned which was designated as a protection zone for a water reserve. In a decision of December 2002 the applicants were informed about a decision of the General Directorate of Water Management that the land they owned in the municipality of Le�nyfalu had been designated as a protected water reserve. The reserve was owned by the Hungarian State and the decision foresaw that the same ownership over the water reserve and over the land where it was located should be established. However, despite the applicants making two offers for the sale of their plot of land to the authorities (in November 2005 and October 2009) and a court judgment of October 2009 confirming that the administrative authorities were obliged to conclude the expropriation procedure, the authorities did not expropriate the applicants' land until 2011. They received approximately 126,000 euros in compensation in 2012. In the meantime, the land had been used for water management purposes. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the applicants complain about the authorities' failure to decide on the expropriation of their land for almost nine years, during which time they could neither make use of their property nor obtain compensation. Gaina v. Lithuania (no. 42910/08) The applicant, Liudmila Gaina, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Kaunas (Lithuania). The case concerns a delay in the cancellation of a debt she owed to the State, resulting in her incurring significant banking and legal costs. Ms Gaina obtained two loans from the State in 1994 and 2000, amounting to 34,794 euros. She subsequently bought from a third party the right to restoration of title of a plot of land in Kaunas; in October 2001 the Kaunas County Administration ("the KCA") restored these property rights to her by cancelling her outstanding debt to the State under the two loan agreements. However, in December 2001 � following an internal audit � the KCA suspended the restoration of Ms Gaina's property rights because it was suspected that an error had been committed in previous civil proceedings which had determined the size of the land owned by the third party. For the next three years and two months, there were different sets of court proceedings including a prosecutor's application to reopen the aforementioned civil proceedings, an application to suspend the KCA's decisions, an examination of the merits in the reopened proceedings and revocation of the order suspending the KCA's decisions. After the size of the land owned by the third party had been confirmed, in December 2004, the Ministry of Finance issued a certificate confirming the cancellation of Ms Gaina's outstanding debt to the State. In the meantime, the bank which administered her two loans, did not require Ms Gaina to repay her debt, but continued calculating interest, which she paid but only until September 2002. She was thus contacted by the bank in January 2005 to inform her that she owed 3,805.77 euros in unpaid interest and fines for late payment. The bank then lodged a civil claim against Ms Gaina for payment of this sum. In February 2006 the Kaunas District Court granted the bank's claim in part, finding it justified that Ms Gaina should pay the interest but not the fines. Her appeal against this judgment as well as her counterclaim against the bank were both dismissed. Ms Gaina also brought proceedings for damages, claiming that the delay in the cancellation of her debt from October 2001 to December 2004 had caused her financial loss (consisting of interest, late payment fines and legal costs). Her claim against the KCA was dismissed in June 2007 by the Regional Court, and then by the Supreme Administrative Court in March 2008, on the ground that the decisions to suspend restoration of her property rights had been in accordance with domestic law. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Ms Gaina complains about the delay in the restoration of her property rights as well as in cancelling her debt to the State, and that this had caused her to incur substantial costs. Bagdonavicius and Others v. Russia (no. 19841/06) The applicants are 33 individuals, six of whom are now dead and one of whom is missing, from six Roma families who lived in the village of Dorozhnoye in the Gurievsk district of the Kaliningrad Region. They complain that their homes were demolished and that they were forcibly evicted on account of their membership of the Roma community. In October 1956 the USSR Council of Ministers issued a decree criminalising nomadic living, thus forcing the Roma to become sedentary. The Soviet authorities selected the municipalities in which the Roma were to settle. The applicants submit that as a result of the decree, the village of Dorozhnoye served as a destination for Roma and developed into a settlement almost exclusively populated by Roma families. Various inhabitants of the village continued to live there after the dissolution of the Soviet Union without legalising their dwellings or acquiring title to the land on which they had been built. During 2001 and 2002 the local authorities considered plans to develop Dorozhnoye. In 2001 the authorities allegedly asked residents of the village to assist in the implementation of a development plan whereby a number of houses would be demolished. Some of the residents applied to the courts to have their title to their houses recognised by virtue of acquisitive prescription. Towards the end of 2002 the authorities changed their policy and halted their development plans for the village of Dorozhnoye. According to the applicants, from 2005 onwards the regional authorities made discriminatory statements about the village inhabitants. In February 2002 two of the applicants applied to the courts for recognition of their title to their respective houses, but were unsuccessful. In 2005 and 2006, representatives of the Gurievsk district authorities came to the village to conduct a survey of the buildings. On the basis of the data obtained, the district prosecutor's office instituted judicial proceedings, seeking a declaration that the buildings inspected had been constructed illegally, and a consequent order for their demolition. The court held that the buildings in question were unauthorised and, pursuant to Article 222 � 2 of the Civil Code, ordered their demolition. Some of the applicants appealed against the judgments relating to their homes. The Kaliningrad Regional Court dismissed their appeals. The applicants state that their homes were demolished between 29 May and 2 June 2006, in accordance with binding court decisions. The Government submitted a copy of order no. 288 issued by the Kaliningrad regional government on 28 April 2006, granting financial support (of approximately 166,700 euros) to stabilise the social situation in the village of Dorozhnoye. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants allege that their eviction and the demolition of their homes infringed their right to respect for their private and family life and home. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they complain of a violation of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Relying on Article 34 (right of individual application), they allege that the interviews which some of them had with the police hindered the exercise of their right of individual application. Lastly, they claim to be the victims of violations of their rights under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8. Kasparov v. Russia (no. 53659/07) The applicant is Garri Kasparov, the chess player, writer and political activist. He is a Russian national who was born in 1963. The case concerns his allegation that he was detained at Sheremetyevo airport and thus prevented from travelling to take part in a political rally. On 18 May 2007 Mr Kasparov was travelling to Samara to take part in an opposition rally, planned to coincide with an EU-Russia summit. He alleges that when he attempted to check-in at Sheremetyevo airport his ticket and passport were seized and he was asked to follow a police officer from the check-in hall to a separate room at the airport where, prevented from leaving by an armed guard, he was questioned and searched until 1.30 p.m. Mr Kasparov has submitted two official records on which he had written by hand notes corroborating his version of events and a handwritten note by Mr Kasparov and five other activists (who were also travelling to the rally) declaring that the police had categorically forbade them to leave the room where they had been taken for questioning in the airport. The Government deny that Mr Kasparov's passport was seized or that he was questioned for five hours, maintaining that the police had been carrying out an operation into alleged forged tickets and that 22 people, including Mr Kasparov and his fellow activists, had simply had their aeroplane tickets confiscated. Mr Kasparov complained to the transport prosecuting authorities about having been unlawfully detained by the police, but in June 2007 the prosecutor decided not to open criminal proceedings against the policemen. The prosecutor based his decision on evidence from a police officer stating that he had received intelligence about forged tickets on the eve of Mr Kasparov's flight, as well as from the Ministry of the Interior authorities according to whom forged aeroplane tickets had apparently been discovered in the context of a police operation to identify persons of an extremist nature. Mr Kasparov also brought court proceedings, which were examined and rejected in July 2007 by the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow. He brought a cassation appeal which was also examined and dismissed in August 2007. Relying on Article 5 �� 1, 2 and 4 (right to liberty and security/right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest/right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Mr Kasparov complains in particular about his arrest and detention at Sheremetyevo airport, which prevented him from taking part in an opposition rally. He also relies on Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). Leonid Petrov v. Russia (no. 52783/08) The applicant, Leonid Petrov, is a Russian national who was born in 1978. He is currently serving a 14-year sentence in Novocheboksarsk (in the Chuvash Republic, Russia) following his conviction in 2007 for murdering his cousin. Mr Petrov was arrested on 6 October 2006 in the context of an investigation into the theft of money belonging to his cousin as well as her murder and was taken for questioning at the local police station. He alleges that two police officers punched and kicked him and, shackling a 40kg weight to his hands, threatened to throw him out of a first-floor window if he did not confess; on refusing, they threw him out of the window. He was taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with fractures to both feet as well as concussion and various injuries to his eyes, face, left ear, right tooth, knees and left hip. While in hospital he was shackled to his bed and guarded by a police officer. He was questioned twice, first about the theft and then about the murder. Subsequently charged with both crimes and remanded in custody, he was transferred on 16 October from hospital to a pre-trial detention facility and remained there until his conviction. Mr Petrov's mother lodged a complaint with the prosecuting authorities while her son was still in hospital and the investigating authorities carried out a pre-investigation inquiry. They decided that there was nothing to show that the police had committed any crime and refused to open a criminal investigation. They took 24 such decisions, the higher domestic authorities repeatedly setting them aside as unsubstantiated, unlawful or based on an incomplete inquiry. In the most recent refusal in December 2008 the investigator found that Mr Petrov had jumped out of the police station window in order to escape; that his subsequent hospitalisation made it impossible for the authorities to draw up a record of his arrest until 10 October 2006; that he had been handcuffed in hospital to prevent him from escaping again; and that his allegation of police brutality had not been made out, a forensic medical expert of 14 December 2006 having concluded that it was impossible to determine from Mr Petrov's records whether his injuries had been the result of him falling from the first floor or from being beaten up. The inquiry was ultimately concluded in November 2009 by the domestic courts which found that the investigating authorities had carried out all necessary measures and had taken a reasoned decision on the basis of a full and comprehensive inquiry in accordance with the law. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (c) (right to liberty and security), Mr Petrov complains about being held at the police station and then in hospital, with no formal record of his arrest being drawn up for four days. Further relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the police and that no effective investigation was carried out into his complaint. Ruslan Makarov v. Russia (no. 19129/13) The applicant, Ruslan Makarov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976. He complains about his involuntary placement in a psychiatric facility. Mr Makarov, who has a schizotypal personality disorder, was apprehended by the police on Friday 14 September 2012 and taken to a psychiatric hospital following a request by the local medical services. He had apparently been refusing to have outpatient treatment, despite complaining about his condition having worsened, and had voiced ideas of revenge and murder against certain regional officials. He was examined the next day by a panel of psychiatrists, who found that he was a danger to himself or others. On Monday 17 September 2012 the hospital thus applied for judicial authorisation of his involuntary hospitalisation. Two days later the Town Court, taking into account his personal and medical history as well as his prior criminal behaviour, granted the application and ordered his psychiatric treatment. Counsel for Mr Makarov appealed against this order, arguing that the Town Court had failed to demonstrate a need for hospitalisation and that the application for involuntary hospitalisation had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of 48 hours. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal in November 2012, finding the lower court's order to be wellreasoned and lawful; furthermore it found that the hospital administration � not the courts � had been at fault for any delay in requesting a court order for his hospitalisation. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (e) (right to liberty and security), Mr Makarov alleges that his mental health status did not justify involuntary hospitalisation and that it had therefore been unlawful, complaining also that the application for judicial authorisation of his hospitalisation had been submitted outside of the procedural time-limit of 48 hours. He also alleges under Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) that the hearing on his hospitalisation was closed to the public without valid grounds and that the period for the appeal review was excessively long. Turyev v. Russia (no. 20758/04) The applicant, Sergey Turyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and (until his conviction) lived in Ivdel, a town in the Sverdlovsk Region (Russia). Mr Turyev complains that a media interview given by the local prosecutor before his trial had violated his right to a fair hearing. The applicant was arrested on charges of murder and arson in April 2000. After his arrest, a local newspaper published an interview with the deputy town prosecutor about the spike in murder rates. The prosecutor mentioned Mr Turyev by his first initial and full last name, and labelled him "the murderer" of one victim and "complicit in the murder" of another victim. Mr Turyev requested that the prosecutor be disqualified from his trial, on the grounds that his interview had given the appearance of prejudice. However, the court rejected this application. Mr Turyev was found guilty in January 2003, and he was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. Mr Turyev filed a post-conviction complaint with the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor's Office. The Regional Prosecutor's Office found that the interview by the deputy prosecutor had breached the agency's ethics policy; however, it did not provide Mr Turyev with any redress. Mr Turyev claims in particular that the prosecutor's press interview was in breach of his rights under Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence), as it effectively determined that he would be convicted. Cano Moya v. Spain (no. 3142/11) The applicant, Vicente Manuel Cano Moya, is a Spanish national who was born in 1972 in Villahermosa (Ciudad Real) and is currently serving a prison sentence in Spain. At the relevant time, he was in prison on remand in Foncalent (Alicante). The case concerns his punishment for disciplinary offences whilst in prison, and, mainly, the refusal of the domestic authorities to provide him with a full copy of his case file. Mr Cano Moya was found guilty of a disciplinary offence by the disciplinary board of the Alicante Prison in October 2009. It was found that he had threatened prison officers, disobeyed their orders and damaged prison property. The applicant appealed against the sanction before the Comunidad Valenciana post-sentencing judge, who partially upheld the disciplinary board's decision in November 2009. Mr Cano Moya appealed this decision to the same judge (through a reforma appeal), and he also made an amparo appeal to the Constitutional Court. These appeals were dismissed in February and September 2010, respectively. Mr Cano Moya wished to make a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, and requested a full copy of his case file. However, the authorities repeatedly refused to provide this. The main ground for refusal was that the European Court of Human Rights had the power to request the case file itself. Relying on Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Cano Moya complains that the sanctions imposed upon him had amounted to violations of his right to be presumed innocent and his right to freedom of expression. Relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), he complains that the domestic authorities violated his right of individual petition by refusing to provide him with a full copy of his case file, for the purpose of lodging an application with the European Court. Iglesias Casarrubios and Cantalapiedra Iglesias v. Spain (no. 23298/12) The applicants, Ms Mar�a Paz Iglesias Casarrubios and two of her children, Alba Sabine Cantalapiedra Iglesias and Sonia Cantalapiedra Iglesias, are Spanish nationals who were born in 1964, 1993 and 1996 respectively and live in Madrid. The case concerns the refusal of a judge to interview the children, who were minors at the relevant time, during the proceedings for their parents' divorce. In October 1999 Ms Iglesias Casarrubios's husband made an application to a court for judicial separation. In a judgment delivered in June 2000 the court granted the judicial separation, awarded custody of the two minor daughters to the mother with shared parental responsibility and granted the father a right of contact. In 2006 the husband instituted divorce proceedings, which were opposed by Ms Iglesias Casarrubios, who requested that the two daughters, aged 13 and 11, be interviewed during the proceedings. The judge did not interview them himself but directed that the children were to be interviewed by the psychosocial unit attached to the court. In the end, the interview did not take place. On 17 December 2007 the court granted the divorce and awarded custody to Ms Iglesias Casarrubios with shared parental responsibility. Ms Iglesias Casarrubios appealed to the Audiencia Provincial. In an order of 12 June 2008, having regard to the disagreement between the parents, the judge requested a report on whether it would be appropriate to award custody of the children to their father, a third party or a public institution. Ms Iglesias Casarrubios applied to have the order set aside (reposici�n) and attached two letters from the children to the judge, in which they complained that he had not personally interviewed them during the proceedings and that he only knew of their relationship with their father through other people. Ms Iglesias Casarrubios stated that her two daughters wished to be interviewed by the judge and a representative of State Counsel's office. The judge did not reply. On 30 September 2010 the Audiencia Provincial dismissed Ms Iglesias Casarrubios's appeal. In November 2010 the Audiencia Provincial declared an extraordinary appeal lodged by Ms Iglesias Casarrubios � in which she had expressly relied on the right of the children to be interviewed by the judge � inadmissible for a breach of the rules of procedure. Her subsequent amparo appeal to the Constitutional Court was declared inadmissible as lacking special constitutional significance. The first applicant and her two daughters, who were minors at the time of the events, complain of a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the refusal of the domestic courts to hear the children in person during the proceedings for their parents' divorce, and the failure of the domestic courts to respond to their request. Hasan Yaar and Others v. Turkey (no. 50059/11) The applicants, Hasan Yaar, Ayie Yaar, Halime Yaar, Harun Yaar and Devran Yaar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1944, 1952, 1980, 2002 and 2004 respectively and live in Hakkari (Turkey). The case concerns the death of their relative kbal Yaar during an unauthorised demonstration. On 23 March 2008 the security forces were deployed near sensitive areas in Y�ksekova town centre (Hakkari) because an unauthorised demonstration was being held to celebrate the Nevruz festival. According to the authorities, the demonstrators chanted slogans in support of an illegal organisation, attacked the security forces by throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and put up barricades in the streets, as a result of which the security forces had to intervene with water cannons and tear gas. On the same day, kbal Yaar, who was one of the demonstrators, was hit by a bullet and died on the way to hospital. The Y�ksekova public prosecutor immediately opened a criminal investigation, which is still ongoing. In January 2010 the public prosecutor also issued a permanent search warrant on the grounds that it had proved impossible to identify those responsible for the death, despite the investigations that had been carried out. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the deceased's relatives allege that kbal Yaar was killed by the security forces and that the authorities did not carry out an effective investigation into the death. Sayan v. Turkey (no. 81277/12) The applicants, Davut Sayan, Eylem Sayan, Devrim Sayan and Bahar Sayan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1970, 1996, 1998 and 1999 respectively and live in zmir (Turkey). They were the partner and the three children of Leyla Karata. The case concerns the death of Leyla Karata in a public hospital where she had been admitted for treatment while nine months pregnant. Ms Karata went to Yeilyurt Hospital on 26 September 2001 suffering from a sore throat and breathing difficulties, and then returned home. The following day she again felt unwell and went back to the hospital, where she died at about 8.55 a.m. The doctors performed a post-mortem Caesarean section in an attempt to save the life of the child, who was declared stillborn. Mr Sayan filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor's office on account of the conditions in which his partner had been treated. He alleged that he had been asked to pay admission fees but had been unable to do so, with the result that his partner had had to wait several hours without receiving treatment; that the doctors had made an incorrect diagnosis; and that they had given her inappropriate medication and an excessively powerful dose of narcotics. During the proceedings, 10 doctors from Yeilyurt Hospital were charged with reckless and negligent homicide and were acquitted in March 2007 by the Criminal Court, which based its decision on a report by the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute concluding that the death had been caused by a pre-existing lung condition and that the doctors had not been at fault. However, that judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation in June 2008, and in July 2009 the Criminal Court discontinued the criminal proceedings on the grounds that they were time-barred. Mr Sayan also brought a compensation claim in the administrative courts and applied to the Medical Association to institute disciplinary proceedings, but without success. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Sayan and his children complain about the death of Ms Karata and the child she was bearing. They also complain, under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), that the proceedings were unfair and excessively lengthy and that no effective remedy was available to them. 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. Belyayev v. Russia (no. 40610/07) Burykin v. Russia (no. 57215/09) Chugunov v. Russia (no. 18883/12) Gusakova v. Russia (no. 56146/07) Kryukov and Lantsev v. Russia (no. 21791/05) Lyubimov v. Russia (no. 60249/13) Mandrykin v. Russia (no. 54929/09) Martov and Others v. Russia (no. 14523/08) Plotnikov v. Russia (no. 22727/08) Pulyayev v. Russia (no. 43603/09) Ryzhikov and Others v. Russia (nos. 5969/09, 51884/10 and 38785/13) Semenov and Bachurina v. Russia (nos. 7723/07 and 56124/07) Tumanov v. Russia (no. 38911/07) Urmanov v. Russia (no. 19857/09) Zakharov v. Russia (no. 676/09) Smigi v. Serbia (no. 41501/08) Thursday 13 October 2016 Cervenka v. the Czech Republic (no. 62507/12) The applicant, Jaroslav Cervenka, is a Czech national who was born in 1956 and lives in Prague. The case concerns Mr Cervenka's placement in a social care home against his wishes. In January 2005 the Prague 4 District Court deprived Mr Cervenka of legal capacity, on the basis that he was suffering from alcoholic dementia and was unable to perform any legal acts of his own. Mr Cervenka attempted to regain his legal capacity on numerous occasions, but his requests were always refused. Between 2004 and 2010 he was repeatedly admitted to Prague-Bohnice psychiatric hospital, for a total period of over 27 months. Between February and August 2011 he was held against his will in a social care home in Letiny, which was a private institution. He was not permitted to leave the home. In August 2011 he was transferred to the Horazovice Convalescent Home � Long-term Care Hospital, which he was discharged from in September 2011. Mr Cervenka made numerous complaints about his placement in the social care home; to his public guardian, the police, the director of the care home and the courts. None of these were successful. In July 2011, he signed power of attorney to a lawyer from the Mental Disability Advocacy Centre. Mr Cervenka engaged in a wide array of litigation (including constitutional complaints), requesting his release from the care home, a review of the lawfulness of his detention, and claims for damages against the State on the grounds that his detention had been unlawful and the courts had followed incorrect procedures. None of these complaints were successful: often on the grounds that Mr Cervenka and his appointed representatives lacked legal capacity to make such claims, and/or because the courts found that his containment had not been unlawful. Relying in particular on Article 5 � 1 (e) (right to liberty and security), Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), and Article 5 � 5 (right to compensation), Mr Cervenka complains that his involuntary placement in the social care home had violated his right to liberty; that he had been unable to institute any court proceedings to challenge it; and that he did not have any enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention. B.A.C. v. Greece (no. 11981/15) The applicant, B.A.C., is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Athens (Greece). The case concerns an asylum-seeker waiting for a decision from the authorities since 2002. While studying in Turkey (1994-1999), Mr B.A.C. became a political activist supporting proCommunist and pro-Kurdish causes. In 2000 the Turkish authorities arrested him and charged him with undermining the constitutional order of the State. He was detained in solitary confinement and went on hunger strike for 171 days. The Turkish authorities agreed to release him in view of the deterioration in his health. In 2002 Mr B.A.C. fled the country and sought asylum in Greece. The secretary-general of the Ministry of Public Order summarily rejected his application. However, Mr B.A.C. subsequently applied to the Consultative Asylum Committee, which expressed a favourable opinion. Accordingly, the Minister for Public Order was required to decide within 90 days whether or not to grant the applicant international protection. However, by the date of the application to the Court, the Minister had not taken any decision and had neither endorsed nor rejected the Committee's opinion. Between 2003 and 2015 Mr B.A.C. lived in Athens and reported to the police every six months to renew his asylum-seeker's card. The card was not a residence permit and thus did not confer all the rights associated with such a permit; it simply guaranteed that the asylum-seeker would not be deported and could remain in the country with "tolerated status" pending the determination of the asylum application. In 2005 the Interpol bureau for Turkey submitted a request for the extradition of Mr B.A.C. on the basis of similar accusations to the charges brought against him in 2000. The Indictment Division of the Patras Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the request. It based its decision on the risk that Mr B.A.C. might be subjected to ill-treatment in the event of his extradition, on account of his political views. It also observed that the nature of the offences for which the extradition had been sought was set out in a vague and abstract manner in the Turkish authorities' request. On 26 April 2013 the Court of Cassation upheld that decision. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), read separately and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that his private life was adversely affected by living in Greece with an uncertain status for 12 years, despite the favourable opinion expressed by the Consultative Asylum Committee on his application for asylum in Greece. Relying on Article 8 in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant also complains that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his nationality. Talmane v. Latvia (no. 47938/07) The applicant, Lilija Talmane, is a Russian national who was born in 1966. At the time she submitted her complaint she lived in Madona Region (Latvia). The case concerns her complaint about her conviction for a traffic offence. In November 2006 Ms Talmane was found guilty of a traffic offence which had caused moderate bodily injury. The first-instance court relied on statements by the victim and witnesses as well as a medical report on the victim's injuries. In her subsequent appeals Ms Talmane raised several complaints concerning the procedure followed in establishing the evidence in her case: notably, there had been no confrontation between the witnesses and the victim; and no inspection had been ordered of her vehicle. Ultimately, in April 2007 the Senate of the Supreme Court refused to admit her appeal on points of law for examination in cassation proceedings, finding that it was not within the Senate's competence to re-examine the existing evidence or to obtain new evidence. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Ms Talmane complains about the refusal of the Senate of the Supreme Court to examine her appeal on points of law without a reasoned decision. Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (no. 2319/14) The applicants, Olga Kitanovska Stanojkovik, and her daughters, Svetlana Audigier and Olivera Menart, are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1936, 1967, and 1970, respectively. They live in Ponthierry and Massy (in France). The case concerns the delayed enforcement of the sentence imposed on one of the assailants found guilty of seriously assaulting Ms Kitanovska Stanojkovik and her husband during a robbery of their home. Ms Kitanovska Stanojkovik was very seriously injured during a robbery of her home on 25 October 2011 and spent ten days in intensive care. Her husband, also attacked during the same incident, later died from his injuries. The assailants were subsequently convicted in June 2012 of aggravated robbery and were sentenced to six and five years' imprisonment, respectively. The trial court notably considered that incarceration was necessary on the grounds that the assailants posed a risk to public security. This judgment was upheld by the Skopje Court of Appeal (in November 2012) and by the Supreme Court (in March 2013). However, one of the assailants � a minor who had been released from pre-trial detention in December 2011 � continued to live in the vicinity of the applicants' neighbourhood for a period of 18 months before starting to serve his sentence. Two incarceration orders were issued against him in January 2013 and March 2014. When he failed to report to the detention facility, the competent enforcement judge wrote on three occasions between February and May 2013 to the minors' department of the trial court in order to obtain further instructions; but the judge's letters received no reply. Furthermore, no action was taken by the authorities for the next 10 months because there was no enforcement judge who could deal with the case. Finally, following an order by the enforcement judge, he was arrested and incarcerated in July 2014. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants allege that the continuing threat which their aggressor posed to them and the sense of impunity he had been free to enjoy until the authorities enforced his custodial sentence had forced them to leave their village and move to France. Irina Smirnova v. Ukraine (no. 1870/05) The applicant, Irina Smirnova, is a Ukrainian national. She was born in 1940 and lives in Donetsk (Ukraine). The case concerns the systematic abuse carried out against her by a criminal group, and the alleged failure of the Ukrainian authorities to prevent it. Ms Smirnova lived in a flat in Donetsk, which she had occupied for several decades. It was halfowned by her, and half-owned by her son. In December 2001, her son signed a notarised gift deed in which he transferred his share of the title to V.S., a stranger to Ms Smirnova. From November 2001 onwards, V.S. and another stranger, A.N., had started to visit the flat, demanding that Ms Smirnova sell her share for a sum extraordinarily below market value, and threatening to make her life there intolerable. Subsequently a part and then the whole of V.S.'s share was transferred to A.N.. However, both V.S. and A.N. continued to act in concordance for over five years, by carrying out a campaign of harassment, intimidation and physical abuse against Ms Sminova. In particular, they or their associates repeatedly broke the locks and occupied the premises; arranged for destructive tenants to occupy the flat without her consent; and also repeatedly assaulted her, causing her injuries such as concussion and internal traumas, which required her to have inpatient treatment on a number of occasions. Ms Smirnova later complained that the attacks on her were part of a systematic, premediated and organised criminal association, with the aim of extorting flats from Donetsk residents. Starting in October 2003, Ms Smirnova became involved in two sets of civil proceedings, where she sought rescission of the gift deed between her son and V.S., and dispossession of V.S and/or A.N. Though she was successful at first instance, both judgments were overturned on appeal. Following an unsuccessful request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in January 2006, the final order of the civil courts was that A.N. still had a right to possession of the flat, on the grounds that there were no legal grounds upon which to dispossess him. In regard to criminal proceedings, on at least 32 occasions between January 2002 and July 2006, the Voroshylivsky district police in Donetsk attended the flat, listened to Ms Smirnova's complaints, and refused to institute criminal proceedings. This was on the grounds that the matter was a domestic conflict between lawful occupants of the flat � taking place inside the household and not breaching the public peace � and that the parties were attempting to engage the police in a private disagreement. Over the course of many years, the police, the prosecutor's office and the courts engaged in a series of decisions and appeals, regarding the question of whether A.N. and V.S. should be prosecuted. The end result had always been that the pair should not be prosecuted, on the grounds that the matter was a private law dispute, which should not be resolved through criminal proceedings. However, in October 2012 the Kyivskiy Court found A.N., V.S. and one of their associates guilty of extortion, sentencing them to eleven, ten and eight years' imprisonment respectively. It also ordered them to pay the applicant 35,273.47 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in pecuniary damage and UAH 30,000 in non-pecuniary damage. Appeals by the defendants were rejected. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Ms Smirnova complains that for an extended period of time, the Ukrainian authorities failed to protect her from systematic violence and verbal harassment. Relying on Article 8 (right to a private and family life), she also complains that the authorities failed to protect her home and private life from unwarranted intrusion by strangers. Konovalchuk v. Ukraine (no. 31928/15) The applicant, Viktoriya Konovalchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and prior to her arrest had a permanent address in Artsyz in the Odessa Region (Ukraine). The case concerns her allegation of inadequate medical care in detention and the conditions of her transportation between various places of detention. Ms Konovalchuk was convicted in September 2013 of a number of drug-related offences and sentenced to six and a half years' imprisonment. She was transferred to Zbarazh Correctional Colony to serve her sentence. Already diagnosed with HIV before her arrest, she started receiving anti-retroviral therapy ("ART") in 2012 while in pre-trial detention. While serving her sentence a cytology test in October 2014 indicated that she also had cervical cancer. Following a thorough medical examination in December 2014 at a prison hospital specialising in oncology, it was recommended that she be treated at a prison hospital specialising in HIV treatment before being returned to the former hospital again. She was admitted to the HIV facility from 3 to 17 March 2015. On being discharged, she was transferred by rail back to the correctional colony where she continued ART under the supervision of the prison doctor. She was then transferred to Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre and in June 2015 its medical unit expressed the opinion that Ms Konovalchuk's cancer could only be treated with radiation therapy, which could not be provided in the pre-trial detention centre. On 1 July 2015 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided to apply interim measures under Rule 39, indicating to the Ukrainian Government that Ms Konovalchuk should: urgently be examined by a specialist doctor; immediately receive appropriate treatment; and that the Government should inform the ECtHR about her state of health. On 13 July Ms Konovalchuk was thus examined by a gynaecologist who recommended that she be examined by an infectious diseases specialist. A few days later she was examined by a specialist who recommended a change in her ART scheme and radiation treatment; she refused both until 27 August 2015. Eventually, Ms Konovalchuk was transferred from the detention centre to the HIV facility again where her treatment programme resumed on 24 September 2015. Ms Konovalchuk was eventually released in January 2016 on health grounds. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Konovalchuk alleges that she was not provided with adequate medical care following her transfer to the correctional colony and complains about the conditions of her transportation by rail for periods of up to 20 days between detention facilities. Further relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), she complains about the failure to promptly ensure her medical examination and treatment, in breach of the ECtHR interim measure. 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. Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 4276/07) Coretchi v. Bulgaria (no. 14308/05) Dobrodolska v. Bulgaria (no. 34272/09) Mihaylov v. Bulgaria (no. 50371/09) Miteva v. Bulgaria (no. 20229/10) Petrovi v. Bulgaria (no. 9504/09) Raykova v. Bulgaria (no. 5442/11) Velyov and Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 64570/10) Biloglav v. Croatia (no. 77742/13) Frlan v. Croatia (no. 2545/14) Lalic v. Croatia (no. 63081/14) Nazari v. Denmark (no. 64372/11) Van Beukering and Het Parool B.V. v. the Netherlands (no. 27323/14) Akberov v. Russia (no. 7515/09) Bogdanova v. Russia (no. 2576/10) El Khuri v. Russia (no. 69572/10) Gildeyev v. Russia (no. 3873/09) Gogitidze v. Russia (no. 36985/07) Ilyin v. Russia (no. 36165/11) Ivanov v. Russia (no. 10851/09) Kanev and Bochek v. Russia (nos. 13892/13 and 15573/13) Kirushev v. Russia (no. 58789/09) Kravchenko v. Russia (no. 32028/12) Kruk v. Russia (no. 44432/06) Moiseyenko v. Russia (no. 13546/06) Onishchenko and Berdnikov v. Russia (nos. 31038/09 and 3899/10) Tedoradze v. Russia (no. 58968/09) Tsepanov v. Russia (no. 33075/07) Babic v. Serbia (no. 11260/14) Gladovic Krajner v. Serbia (no. 80727/13) MD TIM v. Serbia (no. 16933/11) Milosavljevic v. Serbia (no. 71271/12) Petkovic and Others v. Serbia (nos. 8551/13 and 27494/14) Stojiljkovic v. Serbia (no. 32509/12) Laduna v. Slovakia (no. 63143/11) Marcisin v. Slovakia (no. 18333/13) Mikudova v. Slovakia (no. 69913/14) Tasky v. Slovakia (no. 29014/14) Ata v. Turkey (no. 30798/10) Kilic v. Turkey (no. 46227/11) Kizmaz and Others v. Turkey (nos. 28249/06, 28250/06 and 28251/06) Tymchenko v. Ukraine (no. 47351/06) 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) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30) George Stafford (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 71) 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. 13