003-5537689-6972469

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 351 (2016) 04.11.2016 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 20 judgments on Tuesday 8 November 2016 and 39 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 10 November 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 8 November 2016 Figueiredo Teixeira v. Andorra (no. 72384/14) The applicant, Bruno Figueiredo Teixeira, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1983 and lives in Andorra La Vella (Portugal). The case concerns the storage and communication to the judicial authority of data from telephone calls made by the applicant, who was suspected of the serious offence of drug trafficking. Mr Figueiredo Teixeira was arrested on 5 December 2011. The judge responsible for the criminal investigation asked Andorra Telecom to hand over a list of incoming and outgoing calls from two telephone numbers pertaining to Mr Figueiredo Teixeira over the period from 15 August to 4 December 2011, and to inform him of the identities of the people who owned the numbers set out in the list. Mr Figueiredo Teixeira filed an application to set aside that decision, alleging that he had sustained a breach of his right to the secrecy of his communications. On 22 November 2012 the investigating judge dismissed that application. Mr Figueiredo Teixeira then brought urgent proceedings for termination of the consequences of the allegedly unlawful use of the data that had been gathered, and for the destruction of the documents in question. His appeal was dismissed. Relying on the constitutional rights to a fair trial, to respect for private life and to the secrecy of communications, he then lodged an empara appeal with the Constitutional Court, which was dismissed. By judgment of 29 September 2015 Mr Figueiredo Teixeira was sentenced to a four-year prison term (including two years unsuspended) for the serious offence of sale and possession of large quantities of drugs for commercial purposes. The Higher Court of Justice upheld the impugned judgment. That court rejected Mr Figueiredo Teixeira's request to stay the execution of the unsuspended prison term on the basis of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Figueiredo Teixeira complained that the storage of data relating to his telephone communications amounted to an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private life. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he submitted that insufficient reasons had been provided in the domestic decisions in his case. Moreover, he contested the use in evidence before the Constitutional Court of the telephone company's general terms and conditions. P�nk� v. Estonia (no. 64160/11) The applicant, Markus Pasi P�nk�, is a Finnish national who was born in 1987 and lives in Helsinki. The case concerns his complaint that, despite requesting to be heard in person in civil proceedings against him, the courts examined his case in a simplified written procedure. Mr P�nk� was convicted of murder in Estonia in 2007 and was transferred to Finland to serve his sentence. In December 2008 civil proceedings were brought against Mr P�nk� in Estonia by the owner of the apartment where the murder had taken place claiming compensation for damage to his property and cleaning bills. The domestic court decided to use a simplified procedure to examine the case as the claim was for less than 2,000 euros (EUR). The parties were asked if they wished to be heard. Mr P�nk� replied that he wished for the case to be examined at a court hearing: he notably requested that he and two forensic experts be summoned and questioned in court in order to give evidence that he had not committed murder but had acted in self-defence. In July 2010 the court nonetheless opted for the written procedure. It relied on the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure according to which a written procedure could be used when the amount of the claim was under a certain amount and when a party had significant difficulty in appearing before court due to the length of his or her journey or for any other good reason. In December 2010 the courts ruled on the case, accepting the claim of the plaintiff in part, that is the equivalent of EUR 1, 428. Mr P�nk�'s appeals were all refused, ultimately by the Supreme Court in May 2011. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr P�nk� complains that the civil proceedings against him were unfair because no oral hearing was held for him and two witnesses to give evidence. Szanyi v. Hungary (no. 35493/13) The applicant, Tibor Jen Szanyi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Budapest. He was a Member of Parliament and part of the largest opposition party, the Hungarian Socialist Party. The case concerns the sanctions and limits imposed upon Mr Szanyi's conduct in Parliament. During a parliamentary plenary session on 18 March 2013, Mr Szanyi showed his middle finger in the direction of other opposition MPs. In response to the incident, later that month Mr Szanyi was fined 131,410 Hungarian forints (approximately 450 euros) by the parliamentary plenary, which adopted a proposal to impose the fine that had been put forward by the Speaker. In May of 2013, on two separate occasions the Speaker refused interpellations that had been put forward by Mr Szanyi, on the grounds that they contained statements that were injurious to the prestige of Parliament and inadmissible in a democratically functioning system. The interpellations were addressed to the Minister of National Development, and concerned the national tender for tobacco retail licences. No remedy lay against either the decision to impose the fine, or the decisions to refuse Mr Szanyi's interpellations. Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Szanyi complains that the measures of fining him and banning his interpellations had infringed his right to freedom of expression; and that there had been no remedy against these decisions under Hungarian law. Kraulaidis v. Lithuania (no. 76805/11) The applicant, Mindaugas Kraulaidis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Vilnius. The case concerns the investigation into a traffic accident. In April 2006 Mr Kraulaidis, riding his motorcycle, collided with a car and suffered serious damage to his spinal cord, which left him unable to walk. A pre-trial investigation was immediately opened into the accident. The scene of the accident was examined and a police investigator drew up a report, including a sketch indicating the location of the car and motorcycle. Mr Kraulaidis, the driver of the other car and eye-witnesses to the accident were also questioned, all giving contradictory testimonies. Over the next five years four forensic examinations of the circumstances of the accident were carried out, and two rounds of additional questions were made, to clarify contradictions between different expert opinions. Throughout the domestic proceedings, Mr Kraulaidis' mother complained that the forensic reports had been based on an inaccurate sketch of the accident which had never been signed by either of the drivers. A district prosecutor was of the view that Mr Kraulaidis had legitimate doubts about the accuracy of the sketch and, following an inquiry, it was established that the police investigator responsible for the sketch had not performed her duties properly. Eventually, however, in May 2011 courtappointed experts concluded that Mr Kraulaidis had exceeded the speed limit when overtaking and had not slowed down to avoid the collision. Shortly afterwards, the pre-trial investigation, closed and reopened in total three times on the grounds that not all the essential circumstances of the case had been examined, was discontinued as time-barred. Mr Kraulaidis' civil claim for damages against the driver of the car was dismissed in 2012, based on the forensic reports drawn up during the pre-trial investigation finding that he himself had caused the accident. Mr Kraulaidis' complaint about the ineffectiveness of the pre-trial investigation into the circumstances of the traffic accident which had left him disabled will be examined under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Naku v. Lithuania and Sweden (no. 26126/07) The case concerns diplomatic immunity in labour relations. The applicant, Snieg Naku, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Vilnius. She worked at the Swedish embassy in Vilnius for 14 years before being dismissed in January 2006. Recruited by the Swedish Embassy in 1992 in Lithuania on a Lithuanian contract, she initially carried out secretarial duties before being promoted to culture, information and press officer in 2001. In particular, her job description was modified � first in November 2001 and then in March and November 2005 � to reflect that she worked on culture and information matters under the guidance of Swedish diplomatic staff. In 2004 a conflict arose between Ms Naku and her employer over her responsibilities; this conflict escalated in the autumn of 2005 when a new counsellor for cultural affairs was appointed. In November 2005 the situation culminated in Ms Naku being given a caution and two days to hand in her resignation. She went on sick leave from that point on; the leave was prolonged on a weekly basis and without interruption until March 2006. While on sick leave, she was notified of disciplinary proceedings against her for gross misconduct and was then dismissed from her post in January 2006. Ms Naku thus brought a civil claim against the Swedish embassy before the Lithuanian courts, complaining of unlawful dismissal. In particular, she alleged that she had been dismissed while on sick leave, which was a clear breach of Lithuanian labour law. However, the Lithuanian lower courts decided to discontinue the case, accepting the embassy's request that Ms Naku's complaints not be examined on grounds of diplomatic immunity. In April 2007 the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the lower courts' conclusion, concluding that the duties which had been assigned to her � as an employee in a diplomatic representation of a foreign State � contributed to the Kingdom of Sweden's sovereign functions. Therefore, the parties were not linked by legal employment relations regulated by private law, but by legal service regulations under public law, that is to say relations for which a State may invoke diplomatic immunity. In the meantime, the trade union for locally employed staff at the Swedish embassy, of which Ms Naku was the chair, had made several written complaints to the embassy about working conditions; the dispute received media coverage in Sweden in July 2005. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (access to court), Ms Naku alleges that she had been deprived of access to court to complain about her dismissal as her Swedish employer had invoked jurisdictional immunity and this had been upheld by the Lithuanian courts. She maintains in particular that her job description � as part of the embassy's administrative and technical personnel � showed that she had not held the kind of high-ranking position that would allow State immunity; nor could she have turned to the Swedish courts to make a claim about an employment contract which had been regulated by Lithuanian law. Further relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), she also alleges that her dismissal was linked to her trade union activities. Urbsien and Urbsys v. Lithuania (no. 16580/09) The applicants, Rimanta Irena Urbsien and Dalius Urbsys, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1963 and 1964 respectively and live in Kaunas (Lithuania). They are a married couple. The case concerns the fairness of civil proceedings that they were party to. Between 2001 and 2009, the applicants were involved in protracted litigation brought against a company owned by Mrs Urbsien, consisting of a claim for rent arrears brought by another company, and also bankruptcy proceedings. The proceedings involved a large number of hearings, judgments and appeals in various courts. On some occasions, the applicants were granted legal aid. However, on multiple occasions the applicants were denied legal aid, on the grounds that their cases were directly related to their commercial or independent professional activities. The claim for rent arrears ended when the Court of Appeal found against the applicants in October 2009, following an oral hearing where none of the parties were present. The applicants were denied legal aid to make a cassation appeal. This meant that one could not be made, as under domestic law such appeals had to be submitted by a lawyer. The applicants alleged that the decisions of the domestic courts had been unlawful, and brought proceedings against the State for damages. Among their allegations, they complained about not being granted legal aid. However, their claim was rejected by the Vilnius Regional Court, the Court of Appeal and eventually the Supreme Court, the last judgment being on 24 February 2015. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing and access to court) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complain that they were refused legal aid and that that refusal, based solely on the fact that they as individuals were engaged in commercial activities, had limited their access to court and was discriminatory. They also complain that they were not properly notified of the Court of Appeal hearing in October 2009. Ustinova v. Russia (no. 7994/14) The applicant, Anna Yuryevna Ustinova, is a national of Ukraine who was born in 1984. She moved to live in Russia at the beginning of 2000. The case concerns the authorities' decision to deny Ms Ustinova's re-entry to Russia because she is HIV positive. Ms Ustinova met a Russian national in 2008 and they started living together in the Krasnodar Region. They married in 2012 and had a son who acquired Russian nationality from his father. Ms Ustinova's daughter from her previous marriage also moved in with them and attended a primary school in the region. In March 2013 Ms Ustinova was denied re-entry to Russia after a visit to Ukraine with her two children, based on a decision issued by the Consumer Protection Authority (CPA) in June 2012. As a result, she was forced to stay in Ukraine with her daughter, while her eight-month-old son remained in the care of her husband in Russia. It subsequently transpired that the basis for the exclusion order issued by the CPA was that, during her pregnancy in 2012, Ms Ustinova had tested positive for HIV. Her husband challenged the exclusion decision on his wife's behalf before the Tsentralnyy District Court and the Krasnodar Regional Court, but both courts dismissed the claim and approved the assessment made by the CPA that Ms Ustinova's presence in Russia constituted a threat to public health. His applications for a cassation review, addressed to the Krasnodar Regional Court and later to the Supreme Court, were also dismissed. In March 2015, Ms Ustinova filed a petition with the Constitutional Court against the relevant migration laws. The court declared these laws incompatible with the Russian Constitution; it based its finding on the medical consensus that HIV did not pose a threat to public health. Relying on the new case-law of the Constitutional Court Ms Ustinova's husband requested the Tsentralnyy District Court to reconsider its previous judgment on the exclusion order; his request was however rejected. He subsequently filed an appeal with the Krasnodar Regional Court, and in October 2015 it ruled that the exclusion order was unlawful and directed the Krasnodar Office of the CPA to remedy Ms Ustinova's situation. Although Ms Ustinova has since been able to re-enter Russia via the Belarus-Russia border as it has no controls, her name has not apparently been definitively deleted from the list of undesirable individuals maintained by the Border Control Service. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), Ms Ustinova complains about the exclusion order which resulted in her separation from her family in Russia. She also relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) claiming that she was a victim of discrimination on account of her HIV status. Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party and Others v. Russia (no. 18860/07) The applicants are the Karelian regional division of the Yabloko Russian United Democratic Party, a political party registered under the laws of the Russian Federation, and Irina Petelyayeva, Aleksandr Klimchuk and Kseniya Fillipenkova, Russian nationals who were born in 1959, 1949, and 1981 respectively and live in the Republic of Karelia. Ms Petelyayeva is the chairwoman and Mr Klimchuk and Ms Fillipenkova are members of Yabloko. The case concerns the decision to cancel the registration of Yabloko candidates for the October 2006 elections for the Legislative Assembly of Karelia. On 10 and 11 June 2006, the thirteenth national Yabloko party congress was held. Several amendments to the party's charter were adopted. The charter had included a division between party members and registered party members, whereby the right to elect and be elected to the party's governing bodies was reserved to registered members. This provision was maintained under the amendments: however, the new version additionally specified that party members who did not register automatically delegated the right to elect and be elected within the party to the registered party members of the relevant local branch. In the regional party conference of 12 August 2006, 25 candidates were nominated to the party list, and candidates for three electoral constituencies were selected. The applicants Mr Klimchuk and Ms Petelyayeva were selected to stand in two single-mandate constituencies. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Federal Registration Service, and Central Election Commission of the Republic of Karelia (the Election Commission). At the time, they did not report any irregularities in the conduct of the conference. On 17 and 22 August 2006, the Election Commission registered the party's list, and the three constituency candidates (including Mr Klimchuk and Ms Petelyayeva). However, just over two weeks later the Electoral Commission applied to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia, to annul its own decision to register the Yabloko candidates. On 15 September 2006, the court found in the Electoral Commission's favour. The court annulled the registration on two grounds. First, it held that the party's procedure � whereby only registered members had taken part in the decision-making process � had been in breach of the relevant legislation on political parties, as it was contrary to the principles of equal democratic representation and majority rule. Second, the court held that the regional party had submitted an invalid version of the party's charter to be applicable to the regional conference in August, since the amendments made in the national party congress in June meant that the old version of the charter, which had been submitted by the regional party, had ceased to be valid. The Yabloko party appealed to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. However, this was dismissed on 29 September 2006, for reasons similar to those upheld by the Karelia Supreme Court. As a result of the annulment order, none of Yabloko's candidates were present on the ballot for the Legislative Assembly elections that took place on 8 October 2006, and the party lost its election deposits. Ms Fillipenkova claims that she cast a ballot for the Yabloko party list, but that her choice was not counted in the election results. Relying in particular on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), the applicants complain that the annulment order arbitrarily excluded them from participation in the election to the Karelia Legislative Assembly, and prevented Ms Fillipenkova from freely using her right to vote. El Ghatet v. Switzerland (no. 56971/10) The applicants, Saleh El Ghatet, and his son, Mohamed Saleh El Ghatet, are Egyptian nationals who were born in 1952 and 1990 respectively. Saleh El Ghatet is also a Swiss national and lives in Hausen (Switzerland); his son lives in Egypt. The case concerns the refusal of the Swiss authorities to permit their family reunification. In 1997 Saleh El Ghatet left Egypt to seek asylum in Switzerland, leaving his son to be cared for by his mother. His application for asylum was rejected but, having married a Swiss national in March 1999, he obtained a residence permit and eventually Swiss nationality. His son first visited him in Switzerland in 2002 based on a three-month tourist visa. He was allowed to re-enter Switzerland one year later for family reunification. However, his father sent him back to Egypt in January 2005 due to conflict with his step-mother. After separating from his Swiss wife, in March 2006 Saleh El Ghatet lodged another request for family reunification with his son for whom he had custody under Egyptian law. The migration authorities refused the request. In the ensuing court proceedings both the Federal Administrative Court (in April 2008) and the Federal Supreme Court (in July 2010) dismissed the applicants' appeals against the refusal to grant family reunification. They found in particular that the requirements for family reunification had not been met because the applicant's son, who had already turned 18 years, had closer ties to Egypt where he had lived and been cared for almost all his life by his mother and parental grandmother. Furthermore, his father had not applied for family reunification immediately after arriving in Switzerland. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), the applicants complain about the Swiss authorities' refusal of their request for family reunification. 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. Arion v. Romania (no. 50443/14) Berghea and Turan v. Romania (nos. 7242/14 and 7853/14) Bragadireanu v. Romania (no. 37075/14) Gutu v. Romania (no. 41468/10) Murean v. Romania (no. 2962/13) Adayev v. Russia (no. 10746/08) Dzhavadov v. Russia (no. 25071/07) Myalichev v. Russia (no. 9237/14) Zadonskiy and Others v. Russia (nos. 9150/05, 4307/08, 19070/08, 33463/08, 40928/08, 50139/08, 54919/08, 56523/08, 60244/08, 15616/09, 18437/09, 42124/09, 55689/09, 59733/09, 1607/10, 3936/10, 8298/10, 46398/10, 71197/11, 40631/12, 53963/12, 57932/12, 66725/12, 75430/12, 75718/12, 22168/13, 23402/13, and 27657/13) Prohaska Prodani v. Serbia (nos. 63003/10, 20441/11, and 3931/14) Silovi v. Serbia (no. 32883/08) Thursday 10 November 2016 Avetisyan v. Armenia (no. 13479/11) The applicant, Davit Avetisyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1971 and was serving a prison sentence in a penitentiary institution in Yerevan at the time he submitted his application. The case concerns his inability to examine prosecution witnesses during criminal proceedings against him. In April 2009, Mr Avetisyan, his friend and two other persons visited a mutual friend who was in prison in Goris. His friend, D.T., and the others, D.O. and M.S., bought a cake, which was handed to the prison administration to be delivered to their friend. Later inspection revealed that a syringe containing narcotics had been hidden inside the cake. Mr Avetisyan was charged with acquiring and supplying narcotics. During the investigation, M.S., D.T. and D.O. gave evidence against Mr Avetisyan. Mr Avetisyan was able to confront M.S., but not D.T. or D.O. Judge D. of the Regional Court summoned M.S., D.T. and D.O. to appear at the trial, and later compelled M.S. and D.T. to attend. By the time of trial, however, police reported that M.S. had moved to St Petersburg, while D.T.'s mother had told the authorities that he was in Yerevan for medical treatment. The Regional Court decided to proceed with the trial in the absence of M.S., D.T. and D.O. It convicted Mr Avetisyan, sentencing him to five and a half years' imprisonment. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was rejected, and a further appeal to the Court of Cassation was declared inadmissible on 20 August 2010. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3(d) (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), Mr Avetisyan complains that his trial was unfair because his conviction was based entirely on the evidence of D.T., D.O. and M.S., who he had no fair opportunity to examine. Boykanov v. Bulgaria (no. 18288/06) The applicant, Kosta Anastasov Boykanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Gorna Beshovitsa. The case concerns an accusation of libel against Mr Boykanov by a judge during judicial proceedings. In 2003 Mr Boykanov was involved in a dispute with the agricultural cooperative in his village. Following judicial proceedings the cooperative was ordered to pay him a sum of money. At Mr Boykanov's request, the enforcement judge commenced proceedings to enforce the judicial order issued to the cooperative, during which he submitted several requests to the judge. He requested the seizure of 10 tonnes of wheat, a tractor and a loader belonging to the cooperative. The judge rejected those requests. On 18 June 2004 Mr Boykanov sent a letter to the enforcement judge, who lodged a criminal complaint for libel. The letter contained criticisms of the manner in which the enforcement judge had exercised his duties. By a judgment delivered on 23 June 2005 the District Court found Mr Boykanov guilty of libelling a public official. Mr Boykanov appealed, and the Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Boykanov complains of his conviction on charges of libel. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complains that his request for the recusal of all the Regional Court judges was rejected, and that the Regional Court refused to commission an expert opinion on the handwriting in a document provided by the other party. Kiril Zlatkov Nikolov v. France (nos. 70474/11 and 68038/12) The applicant, Mr Kiril Zlatkov Nikolov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971. The case concerns, in particular, a deadline of just under four days for appearing before an investigating judge and the failure to record interrogations. In the framework of an investigation into an international prostitution network, a phone-tapping operation was instigated, recording, in particular, two telephone conversations pointing to Mr Zlatkov Nikolov's involvement in that network. He was arrested in Germany and surrendered to the French authorities at 11.45 a.m. on 16 December 2010. He was then brought before the Strasbourg Prosecutor and immediately remanded in custody in Strasbourg. At 10.56 a.m. on 20 December 2010 he was brought before the investigating judge responsible for the case, who placed him under formal investigation. On the same day the Lyon pre-trial judge ordered his detention on remand. The interrogations conducted in the framework of the investigation were not recorded, on the basis of the exception laid down in Article 116-1 of the version of the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable at the time (an exception from the principle of audiovisual recordings of interrogations in criminal cases conducted in the framework of investigations into offences related to organised crime or violations of the fundamental interests of the French Nation). On 17 June 2011 Mr Zlatkov Nikolov submitted two preliminary questions as to constitutionality concerning the Articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure forming the basis of the failure to record the interrogations. By decision of 6 April 2012 the Constitutional Council declared those provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutional, stipulating that the repeal of the provisions would take effect on the date of the publication of its decision. The criminal division of the Court of Cassation dismissed Mr Zlatkov Nikolov's appeal on the grounds that he was not eligible to benefit from the finding of unconstitutionality and that the failure to record the interrogations had not led to any breach of his rights under the Convention. The Lyon Criminal Court found Mr Zlatkov Nikolov guilty of the offences as charged. In 2012 the Lyon Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to six years' imprisonment subject to a four-year period of unconditional detention, a EUR 10,000 fine and a five-year ban on residence in the territories of Savoy and the Lower Rhine. The applicant was released on 12 June 2015, having served his sentence. Relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to freedom and security), the applicant complains that he was not "brought ... before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise juridical power" "promptly" after his surrender to the French authorities. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains of discrimination resulting from the fact that he did not benefit from the guarantee laid down in Article 116-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 14 and Article 6 � 1, he complains that he had been unable to appeal against the violation of his right to non-discrimination, such remedy having, in his view, proved ineffective because he had not been granted the benefit of the unconstitutionality finding by the Constitutional Council. Sitnevskiy and Chaykovskiy v. Ukraine (nos. 48016/06 and 7817/07) The applicants, Oleg Sitnevskiy and Vitaliy Chaykovskiy, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1969 and 1967 respectively and are serving life sentences in Perekhrestivka (in the Sumy region) and Gorodyshche (in the Rivne region) (both in Ukraine). The case concerns their complaint about the criminal proceedings brought against them for their involvement in an armed gang which committed a series of attacks in four different regions of Ukraine. Mr Sitnevskiy was arrested in Moscow in November 2001 on suspicion of a series of attacks in and around Kharkiv. He was extradited to Ukraine where, having signed a waiver, he was interrogated on a number of occasions between February and July 2002 without a lawyer. He confessed to having had a minor role in some attacks of the gang and participated in a reconstruction. He denied however any involvement in a murder in Luhansk, when questioned as a witness. On being charged in July 2002 with a number of attacks as well as several murders carried out by the armed gang, he was appointed a lawyer and retracted all his previous statements as he claimed that they had been made under duress. Mr Chaykovskiy was also questioned as a witness about the Luhansk murder and about a further killing in the Donetsk region. He was subsequently arrested in October 2001 and questioned in the presence of a lawyer hired by his wife. He confessed to his participation in a number of attacks and took part in a reconstruction of the circumstances of another murder, in Crimea. Like Mr Sitnevskiy, he retracted his confessions later in the investigation. Before the applicants' trial, a number of members of the armed gang � co-defendants in the criminal proceedings � as well as other witnesses (eye-witnesses and/or victims) made statements implicating the applicants in the various attacks and murders. The applicants' co-defendants retracted their statements at a later stage of the pre-trial investigation, also alleging duress. The applicants stood trial at the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal. The witnesses' and victims' pretrial statements were read out in court as it had not been possible to have them attend the trial: one had died; others had not been willing to appear or able financially to travel the long distance from home to the trial court; and, in the case of the remaining victims, it had purportedly not been possible to locate them. All the applicants insisted that the witnesses be questioned; however, their lawyers did not object to the statements being read out in court; In October 2005 the trial court convicted the applicants of banditry, armed robbery and related offences of carjacking, aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder. They were both given final sentences of life imprisonment. The trial court based its findings on the confessions made by the applicants (which it compared to their testimonies in court); the pre-trial statements made by the various witnesses and victims which had been read out in court; and corroborating evidence such as the firearms used for the crimes. The court examined at length and rejected the applicants' assertion that their confessions had been made under duress and were unreliable. It rejected their allegations of various breaches of their defence rights. The trial court's judgment was upheld on appeal before the Supreme Court in October 2006. The Supreme Court did not address the applicants' claims that there were contradictions in the witnesses' pre-trial statements. The applicants make a number of complaints under Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time / right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) about the excessive length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them, alleging in particular that key witnesses had not testified at their trial and that they were ultimately convicted on the basis of pre-trial confessions which they as well as their co-defendants later retracted. The first applicant, Mr Sitnevskiy, also alleges that he was not given enough time to study the case file in preparing for his appeal, in breach of Article 6 �� 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence), and that he was not given access to a lawyer during his interrogations at the start of the pre-trial investigation, in breach of Article 6 � 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing). 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. Begaj v. Albania (no. 60956/12) �ela and Petrela v. Albania (nos. 15373/15 and 3604/16) Dino v. Albania (no. 49976/13) Manukyan and Others v. Armenia (nos. 44326/13, 44331/13, 44335/13, and 44338/13) Gasimov v. Azerbaijan (no. 8937/09) Kalev v. Bulgaria (no. 9464/11) Kovachev v. Bulgaria (no. 65679/11) Kovacheva v. Bulgaria (no. 2423/09) Muslim Board Startsevo v. Bulgaria (no. 41214/13) Peeva v. Bulgaria (no. 11052/10) Schneider v. Germany (no. 18807/14) Agapakis and Others v. Greece (no. 12584/12) Akbaltaoglu v. Greece (no. 35856/13) F.S. v. Greece (no. 59660/11) Fourliggas v. Greece (no. 16343/16) Kontogianni and Others v. Greece (no. 48410/12) Koutsimbiri and Others v. Greece (no. 27634/14) Makris v. Greece (no. 69810/10) Manavi and Others v. Greece (no. 27630/14) Tchelidze v. Greece (no. 49156/11) Vervele and Others v. Greece (nos. 63575/10, 31114/12, 36673/12, 38414/12, 40263/12, 52325/14, and 64275/14) I.S.E. - Industria Per Lo Sviluppo Edile S.R.L. v. Italy (no. 28461/05) Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. and Van Der Graaf v. the Netherlands (no. 33847/11) Chiryev and Others v. Russia (no. 34728/06) Gorokhovetskiy and Others v. Russia (nos. 37645/09 and 5465/10) Kuznetsov and Gorbacheva v. Russia (nos. 15948/04 and 30610/08) Lebedeva v. Russia (no. 24016/07) Pshenichnyy v. Russia (no. 3205/09) Dora v. Turkey (no. 16879/12) Ozguc v. Turkey (no. 39649/10) Ulker v. Turkey (no. 9620/07) Uyar v. Turkey (no. 12647/11) Yildiz v. Turkey (no. 42745/09) Andretsov v. Ukraine (no. 55830/07) Yizhachenko v. Ukraine (no. 65567/13) Wright and Brown v. the United Kingdom (no. 52334/13) 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) 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. 11