003-5919549-7557896

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 340 (2017) 17.11.2017 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 judgments on Tuesday 21 November 2017 and 16 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 23 November 2017. 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 21 November 2017 Scheszt�k v. Hungary (application no. 5769/11) The applicant, S�ndor Zsigmond Scheszt�k, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Ercsi (Hungary). The case concerns his complaint about the unfairness of labour law proceedings in which he had been a party. In February 2007 Mr Scheszt�k filed an action against his former employer, claiming unlawful dismissal. The labour court first found in his favour, but this judgment was then changed in part on appeal and the employer filed a petition for review. In the ensuing review proceedings before the Supreme Court Mr Scheszt�k was given eight days to file his observations on his employer's petition. He received this order from the Supreme Court on 7 June 2010 and dispatched his comments on 14 June 2010. They arrived at the court on 17 June 2010. However, in the meantime (16 June), the Supreme Court had already decided on the case and dismissed Mr Scheszt�k's action, stating that he had not filed any comments on the petition for review. His complaint about this decision was then dismissed because the pleadings had been submitted too late. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Scheszt�k complains that the Supreme Court giving judgment without waiting for his pleadings, which he alleges were filed on time, had fundamentally undermined the adversarial character of the proceedings. Lambin v. Russia (no. 12668/08) The applicant, Denis Lambin, is a Russian national who was born in 1984 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment for murder in a correctional colony in the village of Torbeyevo (Mordovia Republic, Russia). The case concerns his complaint about a breach of his defence rights during the criminal proceedings against him. Mr Lambin was convicted in April 2005 at a public hearing, after having been given 35 minutes to study his case file. His conviction was then upheld on appeal. However, in 2010 the appeal judgment was quashed as Mr Lambin's defence rights had been breached. A new round of appeal proceedings started and Mr Lambin and his lawyer were given another possibility to study the case file. After studying the case file of about 1,500 pages for five days, they submitted appeal statements referring extensively to all the main items of evidence, including expert opinions and witness testimony. The Supreme Court of Russia then examined the case over four hearings held in camera, and upheld the judgment of April 2005. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, Mr Lambin alleges that he had not been given adequate time or facilities to prepare his defence during the criminal proceedings in 2005 or 2010 and complains about being tried and convicted without a public hearing in 2010. Panyushkiny v. Russia (no. 47056/11) The applicants, Marina Panyushkina and Vyacheslav Panyushkin, mother and son, are Russian nationals and live in St Petersburg (Russia). The case concerns their eviction from a room they had been living in for more than 14 years under a social tenancy agreement. Ms Panyushkina, a single mother born in 1971, left Uzbekistan in 1995. She was granted "forced migrant" status and settled in St Petersburg. Her son was born in 1997. In 1998 the migration authorities provided her with a room in a flat. In 2009 the authorities ordered Ms Panyushkina to vacate the room as she had not applied in time to extend her status as a forced migrant. Her requests to re-establish her forced migrant status were dismissed by the migration authorities. She went on to challenge this decision before the courts, also without success. Thus, in 2011 the migration authorities brought eviction proceedings against Ms Panyushkina and her son. In the ensuing proceedings they argued that the room in question was their only home and that they would have difficulties in finding alternative accommodation. However, in May 2012 the domestic courts concluded that they had to be evicted because Ms Panyushkina and her son had been occupying the room unlawfully. In particular, the room was strictly designated for those who were legally acknowledged to be forced migrants, unlike Ms Panyushkina who had lost her forced migrant status and her son who had never had such status. The mother and son eventually vacated the room in September 2013 and are currently living in rented accommodation. They have been on a waiting list for social housing since 2009. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for the home), the applicants complain about their eviction, and in particular that the courts had not carried out a balancing exercise when examining their case. Redaktsiya Gazety `Zemlyaki' v. Russia (no. 16224/05) The applicant company, Redaktsiya Gazety `Zemlyaki', is the founder, editor and publisher of a local newspaper, Zemlyaki, printed in Kstovo and distributed in the Kstovskiy District. The case concerns defamation proceedings brought against it. In 2004 the applicant company published a series of articles criticising the local authority and in particular the managerial abilities of the then head of Kstovo District Administration, Y.L. Within the same year Y.L. went on to complain about the articles to the domestic courts. The courts found that the articles had damaged Y.L.'s reputation. In particular, they considered that comparing Y.L. to a marmoset (a type of small monkey) and depicting him as Osama bin Laden in a photo collage with a Muslim turban and beard had been defamatory. The company was ordered to pay a symbolic fine and publish a retraction. Shortly after, the courts upheld this decision on appeal, without addressing the applicant company's argument that their articles had contained value judgments and not statements of fact. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant company complains in particular about the decision ordering it to offer apologies to Y.L. Mansour v. Slovakia (no. 60399/15) The applicant, Rafat Mansour, is a Slovak national who was born in 1972 and lives in Dublin (Ireland). The case concerns proceedings before the Slovakian courts to have an order enforced for the return of his children to Ireland as the country of their habitual residence under the Brussels II bis Regulation and the Hague Convention. Mr Mansour's wife, a Slovak national, with whom he had been living in Ireland, travelled to Slovakia in January 2011 with the couple's two children, born in 2006 and 2008. They have not returned to Ireland since. Less than a month after they had left, Mr Mansour brought proceedings before the Slovakian courts for the return of his children to Ireland. The courts ordered the return and the order became enforceable in July 2011. Since the mother had not complied with it, Mr Mansour applied for the judicial enforcement of the order in February 2012. The proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of a request which the mother had lodged with the Prosecutor General for an extraordinary appeal against the order, and they were resumed after the Prosecutor General had found that there were no reasons for such an appeal. The district court eventually found that the order was not enforceable, a decision which was confirmed by the regional court in June 2013. Both courts referred to a previous decision of the district court, in May 2011, for provisional measures, namely for the children to be entrusted to the care of the mother and for Mr Mansour to be required to pay maintenance. The courts considered that, given that the return order had not specified that it was directed at the mother and given that Mr Mansour had not been provisionally entrusted with the care of the children, the order could not be enforced. Mr Mansour lodged a constitutional complaint challenging those decisions. In May 2015, the Constitutional Court found that the challenged decisions had been taken on purely formal grounds and had been arbitrary. Having found that Mr Mansour's rights had been violated, it quashed the lower courts' decision and remitted the case to the regional court, which in turn quashed the district court's decision and remitted the case to that court for examination, noting that the lapse of time made a fresh assessment necessary. In April 2016 the district court again decided that the order could not be enforced, relying in particular on a psychological report and taking into account the children's wish to stay with their mother in Slovakia. The regional court upheld that decision and it became final in August 2016. In the meantime, Mr Mansour lodged another constitutional complaint which led to the Constitutional Court finding a violation of his rights in December 2016, in particular in connection with the length of the enforcement proceedings, and awarding him compensation in the amount of 4,000 euros. After the enforcement proceedings had been completed by a final judgment, he lodged a third constitutional complaint. Mr Mansour complains that the Slovakian enforcement courts failed to secure respect for his family life under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). He further relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial). Feryadi ahin v. Turkey (no. 33279/05) Just Satisfaction The applicant, Feryadi ahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul. On 9 December 1988 he acquired part of a plot of land in Samandra and a document attesting to his title was issued to him by the Directorate General for Property Deeds and Registration. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he alleged that the annulment of his title in December 2003 and the re-registration of his property in the name of the Public Treasury, without the payment of any compensation, had constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. In its principal judgment of 13 September 2011 the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date. The Court will rule on this question in its judgment of 21 November 2017. Kar v. Turkey (no. 25257/05) Just Satisfaction The applicant, Hasan Kar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Trabzon. He complained of the transfer of ownership of his land to the State Treasury without compensation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In its principal judgment of 29 March 2011 the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date. The Court will rule on this question in its judgment of 21 November 2017. Kayaci and Others v. Turkey (no. 41485/05) Just Satisfaction The applicants in this case, �mer Kayaci, Sema Kayaci, aban Kayaci, Dursun Kayaci and Melek Erdem, are Turkish nationals. They complained about the decision by the Turkish courts to register the Treasury as the owner of plots of land which had been rightfully theirs, without any compensation being paid to them. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 (length of proceedings). In its principal judgment of 4 October 2011 the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of Article 6 � 1 of the Convention. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date. The Court will rule on this question in its judgment of 21 November 2017. Koper v. Turkey (no. 18538/05) Just Satisfaction The applicant, Ahmet D�ndar Koper, is a Turkish national who was born in 1917 and lives in Izmir. On 28 April 1966 he acquired farmland in the village of Bulgurca, Menemen (Izmir). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained that he had been deprived of his property title in 2002 without receiving any compensation. In its principal judgment of 13 September 2011 the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of Article 6 � 1 of the Convention. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date. The Court will rule on this question in its judgment of 21 November 2017. Just Satisfaction Malhas and Others v. Turkey (nos. 35476/06, 28530/06, 43192/06, and 43194/06) The applicants, Kevork Ramses Malhas (applications nos. 35476/06, 43192/06 and 43194/06), Selim Metin (application no. 28530/06), Selma Binyildiz (application no. 28530/06) and Emin Balci, are 4 Turkish nationals who were born in 1915, 1948, 1966 and 1945 respectively and live in Istanbul. The domestic courts decided to annul the applicants' title to property and to register their land in the name of the Public Treasury. The Court of Cassation dismissed their applications for rectification of the decisions. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) the applicants alleged that the restrictions imposed on their ownership right (applications nos. 35476/06 and 43194/06) and the annulment for the benefit of the Public Treasury, without compensation, of their title (applications nos. 28530/06 and 43192/06) had constituted disproportionate interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In its principal judgment of 13 September 2011 the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date. The Court will rule on this question in its judgment of 21 November 2017. S�leyman Baba v. Turkey (no. 2150/05) Just Satisfaction The applicant, S�leyman Baba, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained that more than 37,000 sq. metres of land belonging to him had been designated as public forest in 1988, without any compensation. In its principal judgment of 23 March 2011 the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for examination at a later date. The Court will rule on this question in its judgment of 21 November 2017. Tarman v. Turkey (no. 63903/10) The applicant, H�lya Tarman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Cologne (Germany). The case concerns two articles which appeared in the Turkish press, describing Ms Tarman as a suicide bomber who was preparing an attack. In June 2007 the two articles were published in the national daily newspapers Takvim ("Search underway for four suicide bombers") and Star ("Alarm raised about four suicide bombers"), indicating that the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan, an illegal armed organisation) had sent four suicide bombers, trained in special camps, to Turkey. The articles included four photographs, including that of Ms Tarman, and her name was mentioned in the Takvim article. In July 2007 Ms Tarman submitted two claims for damages to the Diyarbakir Civil Court of First Instance ("the Civil Court"), against the companies which published the newspapers concerned, arguing that there had been an interference with her personality rights. The action in respect of the article in Takvim was dismissed by the Civil Court, in a judgment that was upheld by the Court of Cassation in February 2010. The claim in respect of the article in Star was partly granted by the Civil Court, but that judgment was overturned by the Court of Cassation in September 2008. In June 2010 the Civil Court complied with the Court of Cassation's judgment and dismissed Ms Tarman's claim. Relying on Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence), Ms Tarman complains that there has been a violation of her right to respect for the presumption of innocence; she criticises the domestic courts for finding that the information contained in the contested articles, which she alleges to be incorrect, fell within the scope of press freedom. She also complains about the fact that her identity was divulged and her photograph published; she alleges that this presented her as a target to the public and states that she feared for her life. 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. Amizhayev v. Russia (no. 1386/14) Kaimova and Others v. Russia (no. 24132/12) Mkrtchyan v. Russia (no. 50147/07) Thursday 23 November 2017 Chengelyan and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 47405/07) Just Satisfaction The applicants are seven Bulgarian nationals born between 1927 and 1988. Five of them live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria), one of them lives in the United States. One applicant, who died in 2014, lived in Burgas (Bulgaria); her heirs have pursued the application on her behalf. The case deals with the question of just satisfaction following a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights concerning the applicants' complaint about a final judgment in their favour not having been respected by the domestic courts. Ancestors of the applicants had owned a plot of land in the old part of Plovdiv with a two-storey house built on it, which had been expropriated in 1966 and the applicants' ancestors had received compensation. Following the adoption of a Restitution Act in 1992, some of the applicants applied for the revocation of the expropriation. Initially the mayor refused their application, the decision being upheld by the regional court. However, in a final judgment of October 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court reversed the decision, finding that the expropriation and subsequent use of the property had been in breach of the law. The applicants subsequently paid back to the municipality the compensation received by their ancestors at the time; they also obtained a notarial deed which named the applicants as the property's owners. The applicants could not take possession of the property, which was being used by the municipality. After unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate an agreement they brought proceedings against the municipality in order to have the restitution enforced. Their action was dismissed by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation in June 2007 which found that the 1998 judgment was open to indirect judicial review, in particular because the municipality had not participated in the earlier proceedings and therefore was not bound by that judgment. In its judgment on the merits of 21 April 2016 the Court found a violation of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the domestic courts' failure to recognise the binding force of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment of October 1998, and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, in so far as pecuniary damage was concerned, was not ready for decision, and reserved it for examination at a later date. The Court will deal with this question in its judgment of 23 November 2017. Grba v. Croatia (no. 47074/12) The applicant, Zoran Grba, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1965 and lives in Sarajevo. The case concerns his complaint about police entrapment. In July 2008 an investigating judge from Pula County Court (Croatia) authorised special investigative measures against Mr Grba � who was suspected of supplying counterfeit banknotes in Croatia � namely tapping his telephone, covertly monitoring him using undercover agents, and conducting a simulated purchase operation. In November 2008 the use of such measures was extended for one month by order of the judge. On four occasions between August and November 2008 Mr Grba sold a total of over 800 counterfeit 100 euro notes to undercover police officers. He was arrested in November 2008 and remanded in custody on charges of currency counterfeiting. During the court proceedings he pleaded not guilty with regard to three instances of the alleged sale of counterfeit notes but conceded that he was responsible for having "given in to the inducement" by the police on the last occasion in November 2008. In May 2009 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to five years and six months' imprisonment. At the same time the trial court ordered his expulsion from Croatia. Mr Grba challenged the judgment before the county court arguing, in particular, that the circumstances of his entrapment by the police had not been properly examined. The county court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. In April 2010 the trial court again convicted him as charged and gave him the same sentence. Mr Grba again challenged the judgment, notably submitting that the orders for the use of the measures in question had not been adequately reasoned and that there had been no reason to continue with the use of simulated purchases after the first illicit transfer. The county court upheld the first-instance judgment. Mr Grba's request for extraordinary review before the Supreme Court and his constitutional complaint were also dismissed, the latter by decision of December 2011. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home and the correspondence), Mr Grba complains of entrapment by agents provocateurs, unlawful secret surveillance and the use of evidence thus obtained in the criminal proceedings against him. Kitiashvili v. Georgia (no. 37747/08) The applicant, Zakaria Kitiashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1977. The case essentially concerns his complaint about inadequate medical care in prison. He was granted early release from prison in November 2012. Mr Kitiashvili entered the prison system in 2006 with a history of tuberculosis. He was tested for the disease during his detention on a number of occasions, before being diagnosed at the end of 2008 with recurrent tuberculosis. He was immediately enrolled in a programme as recommended by the World Health Organisation and, a few months later, transferred to a facility in Ksani for prisoners with tuberculosis. He was however sent back to a prison in Rustavi for violating internal discipline and continued treatment for tuberculosis there. He also developed a number of other ailments during his detention, including a cyst in his right testicle and an abscess in his lower jaw, and had operations for both in 2008, spending periods in prison hospital. Around the same time, he was also seen by a neurologist as he was experiencing headaches and, although unsuccessful, had several treatments prescribed to him. He staged two hunger strikes in protest against the prison authorities' reluctance to take his headaches seriously and also raised the problem with representatives of the Public Defender. He was finally diagnosed with intrancranial hypertension syndrome in 2009 and prescribed treatment. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Kitiashvili complains in particular about the authorities' failure to diagnose him in good time with recurrent tuberculosis and the consequent late starting in his treatment; he also alleges that his treatment for his other health conditions was inadequate. He further complains under Article 3 about the inadequate conditions of his detention in prisons in Tbilisi and Rustavi. Lastly, he complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) about the restrictions on his receiving regular family visits in prison. Kokkonis and Chalilopoulou v. Greece (nos. 76386/11 and 76408/11) The applicants, Zois Kokkonis and Nikolitsa Chalilopoulou, a married couple, are Greek nationals who were born in 1964 and 1968 respectively and live in Patra (Greece). The case concerns the Greek courts' dismissal of their applications for the annulment of proceedings in which they were convicted without having attended the hearing of the trial court. The applicants had been convicted in their absence in January 2009 of theft committed jointly, and sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. They lodged an appeal, which was scheduled to be heard on 15 February 2011 by the Patras Court of Appeal. However, on that date, they applied for an adjournment of the hearing, as their lawyer could not be present, and the hearing was rescheduled for 3 May 2011. Neither the applicants nor their lawyer attended the hearing on that date. The Patras Court of Appeal, taking into account that the applicants had been present on 15 February 2011, considered that it was "as if they were present". The court thus examined their appeal and changed their sentence to ten months' imprisonment. The applicants subsequently applied for the annulment of the proceedings, arguing that they had been prevented from attending the hearing or informing the court of their absence due to an acute illness of Mr Kokkonis. The Patras Court of Appeal heard their applications and, on 25 May 2011, dismissed them as inadmissible. It held in particular that an application for annulment (under Article 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) could only be lodged if the defendants had been tried in their absence, and not when they had been tried "as if they were present". The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Domj�n v. Hungary (no. 5433/17) The applicant, Csaba Domj�n, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1981 and is currently detained in Szeged Prison (Hungary). The case concerns the conditions of his detention. Between December 2010 and July 2016 Mr Domj�n was detained in five different prisons in Hungary. Since July 2016 he has been detained in Szeged Prison. He submits that in all of the prisons he was kept in overcrowded cells. In particular, the multiple-occupancy cells accommodated between three and 28 inmates who had � with the exception of one of the prisons � less than three square metres of living space per prisoner. He also submits that in several of the prisons outdoor exercise was limited to one hour per day and that in one prison, where he was detained for ten months, the toilet was separated from the living area only by a curtain. Mr Domj�n has lodged a complaint about his detention conditions under the relevant domestic legislation which is pending before the Szeged High Court. Mr Domj�n complains that the conditions of his detention have been in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He also complains that he does not have an effective remedy at national level, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Haarde v. Iceland (no. 66847/12) The case concerns a complaint by an Icelandic national and former Prime Minister, Geir Haarde, that he did not have a fair trial in his 2012 impeachment and conviction for acting negligently while he was in office during the country's banking and economic crisis. After the collapse of Iceland's three main banks in 2008, Parliament set up a Special Investigations Committee (SIC) in December of that year to investigate and analyse the crisis. The SIC issued a report in April 2010, blaming Mr Haarde and two other former ministers for failing to respond in an appropriate fashion to the danger to the economy caused by the banks' deteriorating situation. Parliament also formed an ad hoc committee to examine the SIC's report and decide whether there were grounds for impeachment proceedings. The committee eventually submitted a proposal for such proceedings, which was approved in a Parliament vote in September 2010. In April 2012 the country's Court of Impeachment, which had already dismissed two counts against Mr Haarde, acquitted him of a further three. However, it found him guilty of failing, by gross negligence, to hold ministerial meetings on "important government matters" ahead of the crisis, in violation of Article 17 of the Icelandic Constitution. He was not sentenced to any punishment and the State was ordered to bear all the legal costs. The judgment was not subject to appeal. Mr Haarde complains under Article 6 �� 1, 2, and 3 (a) and (b) (right to a fair trial / presumption of innocence / right to be informed promptly of an accusation / right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence). He alleges, among other things, that Parliament's decision to bring charges was based on arbitrary and political grounds, that there were fundamental defects in the preparation of the case against him and that the Court of Impeachment was not independent and impartial. He also complains under Article 7 � 1 (no punishment without law) that his conviction was based on legal provisions that were vague and unclear and that he was not able to foresee that he would be convicted for failing to fulfil an obligation under Article 17 of the Constitution. 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. D and B v. Austria (no. 40597/12) Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH v. Austria (nos. 19068/13 and 73322/13) Georgiev v. Bulgaria (no. 49418/09) Glanzer v. Germany (no. 58410/17) Kr�ger v. Germany (no. 33371/17) Baboshin v. Russia (no. 43457/16) Gasymov v. Russia (no. 8460/10) Grigoryev v. Russia (no. 20308/08) Ovchinnikova and Others v. Russia (nos. 26577/16, 26579/16, 26582/16, 26588/16, 27257/16, 47068/16, 54089/16, 54116/16, and 54247/16) Savelov v. Russia (no. 5565/15) 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. 9