003-6700651-8920438

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 137 (2020) 20.05.2020 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 judgments on Tuesday 26 May 2020 and 56 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 28 May 2020. 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 26 May 2020 Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary (application no. 17247/13) The case concerns the presidential pardon given to a convicted murderer and his release following his transfer from Hungary to Azerbaijan to serve the rest of his sentence. The applicants are two Armenian nationals, Hayk Makuchyan and Samvel Minasyan, who is now deceased, who were born in 1975 and 1958 respectively. Mr Minasyan's widow and their two children are pursuing the case in his stead. In 2004, Mr Makuchyan and Mr Minasyan's nephew, G.M., both members of the Armenian military, attended an English-language course in Budapest organised by the NATO-sponsored "Partnership for Peace" programme. The course included two participants from each of the former Soviet states, including Azerbaijan. During the course, R.S., a member of the Azerbaijani military, murdered Mr Minasyan's nephew while he was asleep by decapitating him with an axe. R.S. also tried to break into Mr Makuchyan's room before being arrested by the Hungarian police. R.S. was convicted of exceptionally cruel and premeditated murder and preparation of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Hungarian courts, with a possibility of conditional release after 30 years. During the criminal proceedings R.S. showed no remorse, admitting that he had murdered Mr Minasyan's nephew on account of his Armenian origin and because the Armenian participants in the course had provoked and mocked him. In 2012, following a request by the Azerbaijani authorities, R.S. was transferred to Azerbaijan, in accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, to serve the rest of his sentence. However, upon his arrival in Azerbaijan, R.S. was informed that he had received a presidential pardon and was released. He was also promoted to the rank of major at a public ceremony, granted a flat and paid eight years of salary arrears. The applicants allege that Azerbaijan was responsible for substantive and procedural violations of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights because the attack had been carried out by an Azerbaijani military officer and because he had been granted a pardon which prevented the full enforcement of his sentence. They complain that Hungary also violated Article 2 of the Convention by granting and executing the request for the officer's transfer without obtaining adequate binding assurances that he would complete his prison sentence in Azerbaijan. They further allege under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 2 that the attack was an ethnically motivated hate crime which the Azerbaijani Government had acknowledged and endorsed by granting the officer a presidential pardon and a promotion. Lastly, the applicants complain that both Governments failed to disclose documents requested by them in the proceedings before the Strasbourg Court, in breach of Article 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for examination of the case). Koulias v. Cyprus (no. 48781/12) The applicant, Zacharias Koulias, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1950 and lives in Larnaca (Cyprus). The case concerns his complaint that one of the Supreme Court judges in proceedings against him for defamation was not impartial. In May 2006 the applicant, a member of Parliament, took part in a radio programme where he made various remarks about another politician, C.Th., a former minister and high-ranking member of a political party. The politician began defamation proceedings focusing in particular on two of the applicant's remarks: that the politician had received money from a Turkish company and had said on television that there was "no pseudo-state" in the northern part of Cyprus, referring to the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". The first-instance court rejected the claim, but, on appeal, on 24 January 2012, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court found the remarks defamatory. The applicant subsequently learnt that the son of the Supreme Court bench's presiding judge, Judge G.C., worked at the same firm of which the lawyer who had taken over the politician's case during the Supreme Court proceedings was the founding partner. On 10 February 2012 a newspaper a newspaper published an article on the case, in which the applicant's lawyer stated that either the judge or the lawyer in question should have revealed the connection between them, as it raised the issue as to whether Judge G.C. should have been excluded. On 14 February 2012 the Supreme Court issued a statement which said, among other things, that the participation of the judge in question had been "fully in accordance with the relevant judicial practice in force over the years". The applicant complains under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention of a lack of impartiality on the part of the presiding Supreme Court judge on account of his relationship with the appellant' s lawyer, whether examined under the Strasbourg Court's objective or subjective test. The applicant also complains of a breach of his rights protected by Article 10 (freedom of expression). M�ndli and Others v. Hungary (no. 63164/16) The applicants, Iv�n Szabolcs M�ndli, Ferenc Bakro-Nagy, Tam�s Fabi�n, Norbert Fekete, Bal�zs Kaufmann, and Kl�ra Anik� Kov�cs, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1975, 1967, 1987, 1976, 1987, and 1978 respectively and live in Budapest except for Mr M�ndli, who lives in Dunaharaszti and Mr Fabi�n, who lives in Ny�regyh�za (both in Hungary). The case concerns the suspension of the applicants' Parliament accreditation as journalists. In April 2016 the applicants, who work for various media outlets including index.hu, 24.hu and hvg.hu, obtained accreditation to report on a plenary session of parliament. Intending to gain comments on the issue of alleged payments related to the Hungarian National Bank, they tried to question various members of Parliament, including the speaker of Parliament and the Prime Minister. They put their questions without prior notification in part of the Parliament building not designated for recording. Many of the parliamentarians declined to answer. The applicants were warned by the Prime Minister's press officer and staff members of the Offices of Parliament that they were not filming in a permitted manner or in the designated areas. The following day, the Speaker suspended their Parliament accreditation, referring to, among other things, "recording without permission and the open and deliberate breach of the rules". They requested access to Parliament for the June plenary session to report on planned discussions of the sixth amendment of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, but received no response. The Speaker withdrew the suspension decision in September 2016. The applicants complain that the suspension of their accreditation to enter Parliament violated their rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression). Under Article 6 � 1 (access to court), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that that they had no remedy under domestic law to contest the sanction imposed on them; in particular, they could not challenge the Speaker's decision in court. I.E. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 45422/13) The case concerns the detention of a minor with a mental disability in a prison cell with detainees accused of serious crimes, including rape. The applicant, Mr I.E., is a Moldovan national who was born in 1995 and is detained in Chiinu. Mr I.E., who was 17 years old at the time, was arrested on 13 August 2012 on suspicion of murder and stealing from the victim before setting his car on fire to destroy the evidence. A judge ordered his detention pending trial for 30 days on the grounds that there was a danger of him re-offending and interfering with the investigation. On 9 December 2012, when the maximum time allowed under domestic law for the detention of minors, namely four months, had elapsed, the applicant was released. However, he was immediately rearrested as part of two other investigations which had been initiated against him a few days earlier for aggravated robbery and destruction of property. These investigations were subsequently joined to the initial one for murder. The judge ordered his detention pending trial for 30 days again. An appeal against the detention order was rejected. During his pre-trial detention, the applicant was placed in a cell with four detainees who had been convicted at first-instance of serious offences, such as murder and sexual violence, while another had been convicted in a final court judgment for the rape of a minor. On 9 October 2012 prison staff noticed that the applicant was limping and had an injury under his eyebrow. He was examined by the prison doctor who confirmed the injuries. He was seen by a doctor again a week later, with new injuries. When questioned about the first incident, he said that he had slipped and hurt himself. Later, however, he admitted that he had been severely beaten and anally raped by his five cellmates either at the end of September or beginning of October 2012. He lodged an official complaint on 19 October 2012. In November 2012 the prosecutor decided not to open a criminal investigation in particular because a proctologist who had examined the applicant found no sign of penetration. That decision was annulled and another investigation opened in March 2013, and the applicant's five former cellmates were indicted on charges of beating and rape. The investigation, involving further interviews and the applicant taking a polygraph test, was completed in July 2015. During this time the applicant was diagnosed as slightly mentally retarded. These proceedings were, however, still ongoing before the first-instance court until at least May 2017, which is the most recent update available on the case. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation), the applicant alleges that the authorities failed to prevent his ill-treatment by cellmates and that the investigation into his complaints was ineffective. Also relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), he complains that the prosecution circumvented the national law by artificially dividing his case into three separate investigations, despite being aware that the accusations were part of the same set of actions, so that it was possible to detain him pending trial beyond the maximum time-limit allowed by law for minors. Lastly, relying on Article 5 � 3, he alleges that the domestic courts did not give proper reasons to justify his detention pending trial. Munteanu v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 34168/11) The applicants, Rodica and Cristian Munteanu, a mother and her son, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1971 and 1998. They live in Durleti (the Republic of Moldova). The case concerns the authorities' response to their complaints of domestic violence, which they allege was not only discriminatory but amounted to condoning the abuse. According to Ms Munteanu, her former husband, I.M., an alcoholic, repeatedly assaulted her, both verbally and physically. After a first incident in 2007, involving a severe beating, she had to spend three weeks in hospital. From then on, she was repeatedly beaten, and sustained her worst injuries, a knife wound and a broken jaw, in 2011 and 2012. Most of the injuries were recorded in medical reports. She divorced I.M. in December 2011. Her son also complained of being abused by I.M. and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2012. I.M. was deprived of his parental rights the same year. During these proceedings, her son gave examples of the violence, including I.M. hitting him on the head with a hammer, stabbing him with a fork and jamming his fingers in a door. Ms Munteanu repeatedly complained about the abuse to the domestic authorities, including the police and social workers, and applied for protection orders with the courts. I.M. mostly ignored the court orders to leave the family home and to not approach the applicants and generally the police did not remove him when called by Ms Munteanu for help. He was eventually taken into custody in July 2012, two months after the incident involving her broken jaw, at Ms Munteanu's request. Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against I.M. He was convicted in 2012 of causing bodily harm to Ms Munteanu and in 2013 of domestic violence, making death threats and failing to abide by court orders. Although he was given a two-year prison sentence in the second set of proceedings, the courts found that "the immorality of the victim's actions" was a mitigating factor and that Ms Munteanu had provoked I.M. by refusing to leave the family home. Ms Munteanu also made formal complaints against the police and social workers for not treating her complaints seriously enough, alleging that the former had refused to help her, while the latter had tried to convince her to keep the family together by "being nice" to I.M.. I.M. was released from prison in 2014 and another criminal investigation for violence against Ms Munteanu was initiated in 2015, which was eventually discontinued in 2016. I.M. has since died. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that the authorities ignored the domestic abuse to which they were subjected, and failed to enforce the binding court orders intended to protect them. Ms Munteanu also complains under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that the authorities failed to apply the domestic legislation intended to provide protection from domestic violence, as a result of preconceived ideas concerning the role of women within the family. P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 1122/12) The applicant, Mr P.T., is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in S�ngera (the Republic of Moldova). The case concerns the disclosure of his being HIV positive in a military service exemption certificate. In July 2011 the Military Centre issued Mr P.T. with a certificate exempting him from military service, after doctors confirmed his illness. The certificate was based on a model set out in Government decision no. 864 of 17 August 2005. When renewing his identity card in August 2011, he was obliged to show the exemption certificate. In 2012 the Moldovan Constitutional Court handed down a ruling finding that such exemption certificates disproportionately interfered with the right to protection of private life because they disclosed confidential information on a person's illness to third parties, including potential employers. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains about the disclosure of his personal medical data in the exemption certificate. He argues that he did not file such a complaint with the domestic courts because it would have had no prospects of success. He cites in particular a case concerning an HIV positive man, B., who brought two court actions complaining that his exemption certificate had disclosed his illness to third parties, but which had both been rejected by the Supreme Court of Justice, in 2010 and 2012. Aftanache v. Romania (no. 999/19) The applicant, Mihai Aftanache, is a Romanian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Timioara (Romania). The case concerns his complaint about treatment for his diabetes being withheld from him and about his being deprived of his liberty in an unjustified way. In March 2017 the applicant, who has type-1 diabetes and takes insulin, felt weak while visiting a local pharmacy and an ambulance was called for him. The ambulance paramedics decided that the applicant had been taking drugs, which he denied and told them of his medical condition. Although they found an imbalance in his blood glucose level, they rejected his request to help him get home and told him that he could only get insulin after taking drugs tests at the hospital. When he refused they closed the ambulance doors and restrained him. One of the paramedics called the police: the applicant told them that he needed insulin, which was at his home, and that he had not taken any drugs. The police nevertheless decided to accompany the ambulance to Timioara Municipal Hospital. The applicant had during this time informed his wife of what was happening. Once at the hospital, he told the doctor on duty that he needed insulin, but the doctor insisted he agree to the drugs tests first, which he refused. The doctor then decided to send him to a psychiatric hospital, whence he went by the same ambulance and under the same police escort. While at that hospital the applicant's wife and a nurse who knew of his circumstances explained that he suffered from a chronic disease and that he was not a drug addict. He eventually agreed to the drugs tests and was taken back to the municipal hospital, where he tested negative. He was subsequently given insulin, although at a different dose than usual. The applicant states that he was in police custody for about six hours. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the four members of the ambulance team for withholding medical treatment and putting his life in danger. He also lodged a complaint against a police officer who had allegedly tried to dissuade him from pursuing his case against the paramedics. In May 2018 the prosecutor's office ended its investigation on the grounds of a lack of evidence of any wrongdoing by the ambulance team or the police officer. Appeals against that decision by the applicant were unsuccessful. In June 2017 the Directorate for Public Health also dismissed a complaint by the applicant. The applicant complains under Articles 2 (right to life) and 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) that the ambulance team and hospital personnel, who had withheld treatment in March 2017, had put his life in danger. He also complains that the investigation and criminal proceedings were not fair. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), he complains of being deprived of his liberty in an unlawful manner by the ambulance team with the assistance of the police. Marina v. Romania (no. 50469/14) The applicant, Viorel Marina, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968. He lives in Ploieti (Romania). At the relevant time he was a superintendent in the Prahova police force. The case concerns a radio programme during which a letter was read out containing personal information about Mr Marina and his ex-wife, without their knowledge and on the initiative of the applicant's sister. In June 2011 two radio presenters read out, during a live broadcast, a letter sent to the station by Mr Marina's sister. On the same day Mr Marina and his ex-wife went to the head office of the radio station and complained about a breach of their right to respect for their private life, stating that defamatory allegations had been made against them without their consent or any verification. After concluding that the sender had not told the truth, the radio broadcast a retraction over a period of four days. It also invited Mr Marina to exercise his right of reply, but he declined. In August 2011 Mr Marina's ex-wife sued the radio station, seeking compensation for the damage to her reputation. She won her case and the radio station was ordered to pay damages. In August 2012 Mr Marina also sued the radio station in tort. The following year the court ordered the broadcaster to pay 4,500 euros in damages, finding that the programme in question had caused damage to his image and private life particularly in view of the fact that, as a police superintendent, he had a duty to ensure that his image remained exemplary. The award was paid to him in three instalments. In the meantime the radio station had appealed against the judgment in the Prahova County Court and its appeal was upheld. Mr Marina's suit was thus dismissed. The County Court took the view that he had not sustained any loss, noting in particular that the presenters had merely read out a letter from a third party and that the radio had not committed any unlawful act. It added that when public interest questions concerning public figures were at stake, such individuals had to show more tolerance on account of their position in society. The court lastly observed that Mr Marina had not made use of his right to reply. This judgment was delivered by a formation of judges of whom two had sat in the civil liability case previously brought by Mr Marina's ex-wife. A request made by those two judges to withdraw from the bench had been denied by the County Court at the start of the proceedings. In February 2015 the Ploieti Court of First Instance ordered the restitution of the sum paid by the radio station to Mr Marina. An enforcement procedure was initiated against him for that purpose. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing/ right to an independent and impartial tribunal) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Marina alleges that the Prahova County Court was not impartial on account of the presence of two judges who had ruled in a civil case brought by his ex-wife against the radio station. He also complains of damage to his reputation. Gremina v. Russia (no. 17054/08) The applicant, Liliya Gremina, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod (Russia). The case concerns her arrest with the use of force as she made her way to a demonstration. In March 2007 the applicant, 70 at the time, decided to take part in a rally called the "Dissenters' March". She did not know that the rally had been banned and as she made her way there she was stopped by the police. She refused to cooperate with police requests to open her bag, where she had put a homemade poster with a slogan on it, or with an order to get into a police bus. She eventually decided to sit on the ground as she believed the police were acting unlawfully, and police used force to put her into a police car. She was subsequently held at a police station where she was questioned before being taken to hospital after complaining of feeling ill. She declined to be admitted to the hospital and went home. The Government states that the police placed the applicant in the police car, using lawful physical force, and took her to the police station so that an administrative offence report for breaches of the procedure for the organisation and for the holding of public gatherings could be drawn up. Investigators at the prosecutor's office and the investigative committee carried out a pre-investigation inquiry into complaints by the applicant of unlawful arrest and use of force by the police. They refused to institute criminal proceedings against the officers involved, finding that they had acted lawfully. In November 2009 the applicant brought civil proceedings against various State bodies for compensation for damage suffered as a result of unlawful actions by the police in March 2007. The first-instance court found that her arrest had not been lawful as it had been disproportionate and carried out in breach of administrative procedure law. It awarded her 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had wrongly found that the police's actions had been to prevent her from committing an administrative offence. The police had breached her constitutional right to liberty before she had even started participating in the rally. The amount she had been awarded was not enough to compensate her for her suffering. In May 2011 the appeal court upheld the initial judgment. It acknowledged that the applicant had been deprived of her freedom of movement for more than three hours, the maximum duration for an administrative arrest, and had experienced mental and physical suffering. It also stated that the restriction of freedom of movement was in itself sufficient for awarding compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, it reduced the compensation to RUB 10,000. The applicant complains under Article 5 � 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) that she was taken to the police station unlawfully. There was no reason to escort her to the police station as she had not committed an administrative offence. No escort record or arrest report was drawn up, as required by domestic law. Under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complains that the force used against her during her arrest meant she was subjected to degrading treatment, and that no effective investigation was carried out into her complaint. Ramazanova and Alekseyev v. Russia (no. 1441/10) The case concerns a police operation to arrest drug producers in a block of flats during which R., the applicant's husband and a neighbour of the suspects, received a fatal gunshot wound. The first applicant Ms Inna Vladimirovna Ramazanova, widow of R., is a Russian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Kazan (Republic of Tatarstan). Ms Kamilla Radikovna Ramazanova, daughter of the applicant and of R., born in 1968, asked to be joined to the proceedings. The second applicant, Mr Vladimir Aleksandrovich Alekseyev, was a Russian national, who was born in 1944 and died in 2010. Ms Louiza Nabeyevna Alekseyeva, his widow, asked to pursue the case on her husband's death. The first applicant and her husband R. lived in flat no. 83 in a block of flats in Kazan. Her parents � the second applicant and his wife (Ms. Alekseyeva) � lived in flat no. 87 in the same building. Flats nos. 85, 86 and 87 had a common lobby. On 29 January 2007 T. and D., two policemen from the Anti-Drug Trafficking Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Tatarstan, received information about possible illegal production of cannabis in a flat in the building in question. They were instructed to conduct covert surveillance of the apartment, to question any individuals who might be in the lobby or in one of the flats and, if necessary, to arrest them. On the same day they went to the scene accompanied by their chief, Kh., who immediately returned to the police station to fetch an operational investigation group � a unit comprising the police officers and one or more investigators. At about 4.30 p.m., T. and D., armed with Makarov pistols and dressed in plain clothes, entered the common lobby of flats nos. 85, 86 and 87. In the minutes that followed, an incident involving T., D., R. and the second applicant took place. In that incident, D. and R. were shot and wounded. R. died shortly afterwards in an ambulance and D. was taken to hospital. In the evening, the tenants of flat no. 86 were questioned and, during an inspection, a cannabis plantation was discovered. On 29 January 2007 the investigator of the Kazan Kirovski District Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation against persons unknown for homicide. On 27 July 2007 he decided that there was no need to open a criminal investigation against R. or the second applicant for refusal to comply and rebellion against police officers. The investigator also opened a criminal investigation for abuse of power and trespass. On 30 July 2007 he charged T. and D. with these offences. On 9 February and 27 July 2007, respectively, the applicants were both recognised as victims in the case. On 3 September 2007 the criminal trial of the police officers opened before the Kazan Kirovski District Court. On 30 April 2009 the court handed down its judgment. On the basis of an expert's report of 25 December 2008 the court found that D. had acted in selfdefence. The court took the view that the charges against officers T. and D. were only suppositions and, giving them the benefit of the doubt, acquitted them both on all charges. The applicants and the prosecution appealed on points of law, arguing in particular that both the police statements and the expert's report of 25 December 2008 contained contradictions. On 19 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Tatarstan upheld the judgment of the court below, endorsing its findings. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) separately and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the first applicant alleges that R. was killed by police officers and complains that the criminal investigation into the death was not effective. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) the second applicant complained that the police had unlawfully entered the lobby and his flat. Gil Sanjuan v. Spain (no. 48297/15) The applicant, Maria Gil Sanjuan, is a Spanish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Murcia (Spain). The case concerns her complaint about the Supreme Court's rejection of an appeal on points of law on procedural grounds. In 2010 the Audiencia Nacional ruled against the applicant in a legal dispute with the authorities over coastal delineation measures, which had affected land she owned. In November 2010 she submitted a notice of appeal (escrito de preparaci�n) on points of law against the Audiencia Nacional judgment � a requirement prior to lodging an appeal on points of law (recurso de casaci�n) with the Supreme Court (Administrative Chamber). The Audiencia Nacional deemed the appeal prepared and in January 2011 the applicant lodged it with the Supreme Court. In October 2011 the Supreme Court informed the applicant of possible inadmissibility grounds in the notice of appeal as she had failed to refer to the grounds of appeal and to the corresponding legal rules or case-law that had allegedly been infringed. The Supreme Court referred to provisions of Law 29/1998 regulating judicial proceedings in administrative matters and to one of its own earlier decisions, of 10 February 2011. It gave her 10 days to make comments. She submitted arguments in favour of admissibility but in February 2012 the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, referring to Law 29/1998 and to the criteria set out in the February 2011 decision. In response to her argument that her notice of appeal had complied with the legal requirements at the time she had lodged it, the Supreme Court held that the case-law referred to by the applicant had been "superseded by the aforementioned recent doctrine". In April 2011 the applicant lodged an application for annulment (incidente de nulidad), arguing a breach of her right to a fair trial as the Supreme Court had retroactively applied a new interpretation of a procedural requirement. Nor had she been given the opportunity to remedy any possible deficiencies. The application for annulment was dismissed by the Supreme Court in September 2012. The Constitutional Court in March 2015 also rejected an amparo appeal by the applicant. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (access to court), the applicant complains of the retroactive application of a new interpretation by the Supreme Court of procedural requirements for a notice of an appeal on points of law and that she was not given the chance to remedy any possible deficiencies. Hakim Aydin v. Turkey (no. 4048/09) The applicant, Hakim Aydin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1986. At the relevant time he was a student in the Faculty of Agriculture of Diyarbakir University (Turkey). The case concerns the remanding in custody and criminal conviction of Mr Aydin for participating in activities organised as part of a campaign for mother tongue usage in education. On 15 October 2008 many demonstrations were held as part of a campaign for mother tongue usage in education. The demonstrators shouted slogans such as "Mother tongue usage is a right that cannot be flouted!", "Our mother tongue is our honour!", "The PKK are the people, the people are here!". That day Mr Aydin took part in a press statement, a march and a sit-down protest on the campus of Diyarbakir University. The next day he was arrested by the police and taken into police custody on the premises of the Diyarbakir police counter-terrorism division, where he was questioned by police officers. On 19 October 2008 Mr Aydin, assisted by his lawyer, was questioned by the public prosecutor about his participation in the rallies of 15 October 2008 and in various activities or demonstrations which had taken place over a year before his arrest. On the same day he was also questioned by the examining magistrate at the Diyarbakir Assize Court, who remanded him in custody. Mr Aydin was released pending trial on 22 January 2009. On 28 October 2008 the Diyarbakir public prosecutor's office indicted Mr Aydin for promoting a terrorist organisation during rallies held in March 2007 (Newruz festivities), in November 2007 (event organised by a political party) and in April 2007 (planting of trees to mark the birthday of A.�.). The public prosecutor's office pointed out that on these occasions the protestors had shouted slogans supporting the PKK or its leader A.�. However, it took the view that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Aydin had shouted slogans himself or that he had committed any other illegal act during the events of 15 October 2008. On 6 May 2010 Mr Aydin was found guilty of promoting the PKK on account of his participation in the demonstration of April 2007. He was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment, but the sentencing was adjourned in accordance with a new law providing for the stay of execution of prison sentences of less than two years. In addition, Mr Aydin was acquitted on the charges concerning the rallies in March and November 2007, in the absence of sufficient evidence. Relying in particular on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Mr Aydin complains about being remanded in custody, arguing that he was deprived of liberty for taking part in a peaceful gathering on 15 October 2008. Kemal �etin v. Turkey (no. 3704/13) The applicant, Kemal �etin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Mu (Turkey). The case concerned criminal proceedings which led to Mr �etin's conviction on the ground that he had organised a demonstration during the Nevruz festivities at which participants waved placards and chanted slogans that were not authorised by the authorities. In March 2007 a committee of seven individuals, including Mr �etin, informed the authorities of their intention to organise festivities in the town of Malazgirt (Turkey) on the occasion of Nevruz Day. On the day of the event, a government commissioner was assigned to monitor the smooth running of the rally. In his report the commissioner stated that the events had started before the time specified in the preliminary declaration and that the crowd had chanted slogans such as "Long live President Apo"; "Political prisoners are our pride"; "Salute, salute, a thousand salutes to Imrali"; "May the hands that rise up against �calan be broken". He also reported that the participants had held up placards with the words "Long Live President Apo". The demonstration had ended without incident. In April 2007 the public prosecutor's office charged Mr �etin and the other six members of the organising committee with failing to prevent the start of the demonstration before the declared time and using unauthorised slogans and placards (Law no. 2911 on public gatherings and marches). In September 2008 the Criminal Court found Mr �etin and the six other committee members guilty of organising an illegal demonstration. They were sentenced to one year and three months' imprisonment. Mr �etin did not receive a suspended sentence as his criminal record showed that he had already been the subject of 19 criminal investigations and prosecutions. In May 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment. In July 2012, following the entry into force of Law no. 6352, the Criminal Court stayed the execution of Mr �etin's sentence, putting him on probation for three years. Relying, in particular, on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Mr �etin complains about his criminal conviction, alleging that it was disproportionate. Thursday 28 May 2020 Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 29620/07) The applicant, Bejan Ibrahim oglu Farzaliyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1946. He has been living in Turkey since 1993 and currently lives in Ankara. The case concerns proceedings brought against the applicant, the former Prime Minister of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in Azerbaijan ("the NAR", an autonomous entity within the Republic of Azerbaijan), for allegedly embezzling public funds. He was never convicted of an offence in criminal proceedings, but was subsequently ordered to pay compensation in civil proceedings amounting to the sum allegedly embezzled. In 2005 Mr Farzaliyev was the primary suspect in criminal proceedings for embezzlement of public funds and abuse of office which had allegedly occurred in the early 1990s when he was Prime Minister of the NAR. It was alleged that State funds had been allocated for the purchase of several helicopters, which had never actually been delivered. Following an investigation, the Nakhchivan prosecuting authorities considered that Mr Farzaliyev should be formally charged. However, they discontinued the criminal proceedings in January 2006 without formally charging anyone because the offence had become statute-barred. The prosecuting authorities subsequently brought civil proceedings, asking the Nasimi District court to order the applicant and two other suspects to compensate the State for the embezzlement they had allegedly committed. The applicant discovered that there had been a brief criminal investigation against him during these civil proceedings. In May 2006, the district court allowed the claim, finding that 2,327,059 Azerbaijani manats (AZN � approximately 2,025,000 euros at the relevant time) had been embezzled and that the applicant and one other suspect should therefore pay, jointly, that sum in damages. The court ruled in particular that, even though the defendants had been absolved of criminal liability because the criminal proceedings had been discontinued, the damage caused "as a result of the criminal offence" had not been compensated. Mr Farzaliyev appealed to the higher courts, complaining that the civil court had accepted the prosecution's statement of facts as proven, found him liable for committing a criminal offence and ordered him to pay compensation, when there had been no final judgment resulting in his conviction. He also submitted that the claim against him had been brought under the procedure for civil claims within the framework of criminal proceedings provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, instead of the relevant provisions of the civil law, arguing that this was unlawful. In particular, had the claim been examined under the civil law provisions, it would likely have been dismissed because the statutes of limitations had long since expired. In December 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed the district court's judgment, without responding to the applicant's arguments in his appeals. He subsequently unsuccessfully attempted to have the case reopened and reviewed by the Plenum of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Farzaliyev complains that the civil proceedings were unfair, submitting that the domestic court judgments had not been properly reasoned and in particular that the higher courts had not taken into account his arguments on appeal. He also complains about the domestic courts ordering him to pay compensation for damage caused by a criminal offence for which he had not been convicted, in breach of Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Antonov v. Bulgaria (no. 58364/10) The applicant, Yordan Antonov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1940 and lives in the village of Okorsh, Silistra region (Bulgaria). The case concerns his complaint that the authorities failed to comply with final court judgments ordering a tax refund in his favour. In 2000-01 the applicant was audited by the tax authorities. They issued a tax assessment charging him 55,013.43 Bulgarian levs ((BGN); 28,128 euros (EUR)) in Value Added Tax and income tax, including interest. However, in 2004, after judicial review proceedings, the Varna Regional Court instructed the tax authorities to carry out a fresh audit. The court found that the 2001 tax assessment had been in breach of the statutory provisions because the applicant had been audited as an individual, whereas the taxes charged related to the activity of a private agricultural association for which he was the legal representative. Following a new audit in 2004 covering the same period as that in the 2001 assessment, the tax authorities issued another assessment, charging the applicant BGN 40,729.81 (EUR 20,825). The applicant brought further judicial review proceedings and in 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court ("the SAC") set aside the 2004 assessment, finding that the taxes levied had not been due. In final judgments of November 2008 and December 2008 the SAC reiterated this finding and ordered the authorities to refund the applicant, with interest. The applicant's requests for a refund were then stayed pending the outcome of proceedings brought by the tax authorities seeking a declaration of nullity and a reopening of the proceedings. The authorities' actions were ultimately unsuccessful and three and a half years later, the applicant was refunded the unduly collected taxes. In the meantime, between 2003 and 2008, the authorities had auctioned a number of the applicant's personal belongings to enforce the 2001 and 2004 tax assessments. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the tax authorities' prolonged failure to pay him back unduly collected taxes, despite two final judgments in his favour, alleging that they had used procedural manoeuvres to delay payment. Z v. Bulgaria (no. 39257/17) The applicant, Ms Z, is a British national who was born in 2001 and lives in a small village in the Yambol region (Bulgaria). The case concerns the applicant's complaint of an ineffective official response to her allegation that she had been raped. On 26 February 2015 the applicant, 13 years old at the time, reported to the police that she had been raped the previous night when staying at a friend's house. A criminal investigation was immediately opened by the local district prosecution service and the applicant and alleged offender, G.S., her friend's boyfriend, were interviewed. The applicant stated that she had been sleeping when G.S. had got into bed with her. She had at first turned to face the wall and pretended to be asleep, but G.S. had started groping her so she pushed him away and clutched her legs together. However, he continued the assault and then raped her. G.S. denied the rape throughout the ensuing investigation, which also included further witness questioning (including the applicant's friend and friend's parents), an inspection of the crime scene, and a psychological examination of the applicant. The psychological report concluded among other things that the applicant had experienced intense fear and shame, which had temporarily blocked her reactions. In August 2015 the district prosecutor concluded that the applicant had been raped and sent the file to the regional prosecution service to proceed with the investigation. However, the regional prosecutor assigned to the case refused to follow the recommendation to prosecute for rape, finding that the evidence collected during the investigation, in particular the victim's statement, did not meet the legal requirement for that crime. The applicant's lawyer and mother continued to attempt to have G.S. prosecuted on charges of rape and requested a number of further investigative measures, in particular that the applicant be examined again following her frequent self-harming after the incident, without success. G.S. was thus indicted for the crime of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 14. The courts found him guilty as charged in May 2016 and sentenced him to one year and four months' imprisonment, suspended for three years. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains that the authorities failed to effectively investigate her allegation of rape and, by prosecuting for a lesser offence, also inadequately punished the offender. Graner v. France (no. 84536/17) The applicant, Mr Fran�ois Graner, is a French national who was born in 1966 and lives in Paris. The case concerns a refusal to allow the applicant to consult certain documents in the French President's archives relating to Rwanda for the period between 1990 and 1995. Being a physicist and research director at the CNRS and at Paris Diderot University, Mr Graner has for a number of years, in parallel to his research activity, been investigating France's role in Rwanda before, after and during the genocide of the Tutsis in 1994. On 7 April 2015 the Secretary General of the Presidency of the French Republic decided to declassify certain documents in its archives concerning Rwanda for the period between 1990 and 1995. On 14 July 2015 Mr Graner, who was writing a book on "the African policy of President Fran�ois Mitterrand in Central Africa (1981-1995)", applied to the director of the "Archives de France" for permission to consult eighteen dossiers among the archives of Fran�ois Mitterrand's presidency. The administrator of President Mitterrand's archives gave him permission to consult the first two dossiers, but not the other sixteen, on the grounds that they were capable of "causing excessive harm to legally protected interests". The administrator indicated that the sixteen dossiers contained one or more documents classified as "secret", "secret defence matters" and "confidential defence matters". On 7 December 2015 the director of the Archives informed Mr Graner that in the light of the administrator's opinion he would allow consultation of the first two but not the other sixteen. Mr Graner referred the matter to the Commission on access to administrative documents which, on 3 March 2016, concluded that as the administrator had not wished to allow the consultation of those archives by derogation, the commission was obliged to refuse the request. On 2 December 2016 the Minister of Culture and Communication, with the administrator's agreement, allowed the applicant to consult five of the 16 dossiers in question. On 12 December 2016 Mr Graner lodged an application with the Paris Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the decision of 7 December 2015 and an order obliging the Ministry of Culture and Communication to give him access to the documents he wished to consult. In parallel, Mr Graner submitted a priority question of constitutionality ("QPC") to the Administrative Court. He argued that the provisions of Article L. 213-4 of the Heritage Code were incompatible with Article 15 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, in that they conferred on the archive administrator the power to oppose, at her sole discretion and without explanation, the right of citizens to have free access to public archives. He added that the discretionary nature of the refusal, together with the fact that the Minister was obliged to refuse access to the relevant public archives in such a case, precluded the exercise of the right to an effective remedy under Article 16 of the above-mentioned Declaration. The Administrative Court referred the preliminary question to the Conseil d'�tat which, on 28 June 2017, forwarded it to the Constitutional Council. Before the Constitutional Council, Mr Graner further argued that the mechanism provided for under Article L. 213-4 of the Heritage Code breached the public's right to receive information, linked as it was to the right to free communication of thought and opinion, and was incompatible with the right to an effective remedy. On 15 September 2017 (decision no. 2017-655 QPC) the Constitutional Council declared the second paragraph and the first sentence of the last paragraph of Article L. 213-4 of the Heritage Code to be compliant with the Constitution. On 17 May 2018 the Paris Administrative Court decided that there was no need to rule on the application for annulment in so far as it concerned the consultation of the five dossiers to which access had been granted, and rejected the remainder. Mr Graner appealed on points of law to the Conseil d'�tat and those proceedings are still pending. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains of an arbitrary restriction of his right to consult public archives with a view to historical research and of the public's right to receive information of general interest. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he had no effective remedy by which to assert his right to freedom of expression. Evers v. Germany (no. 17895/14) The applicant, J�rg Evers, is a German national who was born in 1939 and lives in Baden-Baden (Germany). The case concerns his complaint about a ban on him having any contact with V., the mentally disabled daughter of his former partner. The ban was made in 2013 in order to protect V. from sexual abuse by the applicant. When living with his former partner, P.B., in 2009 the applicant had had a sexual relationship with V., who was 22 years old at the time. V. had become pregnant and gave birth to his son in 2011. Two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, which included P.B. in the second set of proceedings, for sexual abuse. They were ultimately discontinued, with the applicant and P.B. having to pay fines. In the second set of proceedings the domestic court pointed out in particular that V. was incapable of resisting the applicant's sexual advances and that he had taken advantage of the special relationship of confidence he had with V. and her mother. Meanwhile, both V. as well the applicant's and V.'s child were placed in care and V. was appointed a professional guardian. In the guardianship proceedings, basing their decisions on the conclusions of three experts, the courts found that V. had a moderate mental disability, with the intellectual development of a four-year old, and was unfit to manage any of her affairs by herself. When V. showed signs of mental distress and needed medication after the applicant and P.B. had visited her residential home in September 2012, V.'s guardian sought approval from the courts of a contact ban. The courts upheld the ban and dismissed the applicant's appeal in March 2013. Basing their decisions on the conclusions of the three experts appointed in the guardianship proceedings and V.'s guardian, they found that the ban was not only lawful but imperative in order to protect V. from the applicant who maintained his wish to continue a sexual relationship with her, entailing the further risk of pregnancies and danger to her. Furthermore, they had heard V. on several occasions and she had expressed no particular interest in having contact with him. In the appeal proceedings, the applicant's request for a personal hearing was rejected on the ground that he had been able to present his case sufficiently in writing. Subsequently, his complaint of a violation of his right to be heard was dismissed, and the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider his constitutional complaint. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for his private and family life), the applicant complains about the ban on his having contact with V. Also relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he alleges that the contact ban was not based on enough evidence, that he was refused full access to the case file on the guardianship proceedings and that he was not heard in person, in particular before the appeal court. Georgouleas and Nestoras v. Greece (nos. 44612/13 and 45831/13) The applicants, Ilias Georgouleas and Spyridon Nestoras, are Greek nationals who were born in 1965 and 1974 respectively and live in Athens and Piraeus (Greece). The case concerns their complaint about being found guilty of financial market manipulation. In October 2007 the Hellenic Capital Market Commission stock market regulator found the applicants guilty of violating the first sentence of Article 72 � 2 of Law no. 1969/1991, which penalised the publication or dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information affecting the price of or dealing in listed securities. It had found that the applicants had been involved in transactions to artificially manipulate the price of shares in the D.K. company in 2003 and 2004. The applicants appealed successfully to the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal, which held that the transactions did not fall within the scope of the first sentence of Article 72 � 2 as they could not be regarded as the publication or diffusion of inexact or misleading information, even if they had aimed at manipulating the price of shares and had resulted in artificially influencing them. In April 2009 the Capital Market Commission lodged appeals on points of law, which were upheld in January 2013 by the Supreme Administrative Court. In particular, the Supreme Administrative Court held that Article 72, which aimed at the market's smooth running and the protection of investors, did not specify particular forms of disseminating inexact or misleading information that could lead to artificially influencing share prices. If the transactions had therefore been entered into with the intention of providing false information concerning the price and marketability of securities so as not to reflect their true value, and had resulted in misleading investors as regards elements that could influence their decision-making, then the performance of those transactions would be in breach of the provision. The transactions had constituted dissemination of inexact or misleading information, given that the artificially formulated data concerning the price and marketability of the shares had been published, by law, in the daily stock exchange official list and in the electronic record of transactions. That conclusion was reinforced by the second sentence of Article 72 � 2, which provided that professional facilitators, that is to say those who on a daily basis entered into many transactions on behalf of others, would not be sanctioned unless they knew or ought to have known that by entering into those transactions, they had been attempting to disseminate inexact or misleading information. The applicants' case was remitted to the appeal court, which upheld the fines, although it reduced that of the second applicant. Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law), the applicants complain that the sanctions imposed on them by the Commission, as upheld by the administrative courts, violated their right not to be held guilty for an act which did not constitute a criminal offence prescribed by law. The Court will give its rulings in writing on the following cases, some of which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court, including excessive length of proceedings. These rulings can be consulted from the day of their delivery on the Court's online database HUDOC. They will not appear in the press release issued on that day. Tuesday 26 May 2020 Name Nagy v. Hungary Pint�r v. Hungary T�th v. Hungary Rdulescu v. Romania Akyol and Others v. Turkey �ner v. Turkey Main application number 43441/15 39638/15 20497/13 9812/13 24227/09 24541/08 Thursday 28 May 2020 Name Macedonian Club for Ethnic Tolerance in Bulgaria and Radonov v. Bulgaria Vasilev and Society of the Repressed Macedonians in Bulgaria Victims of the Communist Terror v. Bulgaria Ivanci and Tvornica cementa Umag d.o.o. v. Croatia Orescanin and Others v. Croatia Sainz v. France Dede v. Greece Di.M. v. Greece Koutsogiannopoulos v. Greece Vasilopoulos v. Greece Szab� v. Hungary Berlioz v. Italy Chino v. Italy Spano v. Italy Bartolo Parnis and Others v. Malta evcenco and Timoin v. the Republic of Moldova Avto Atom Doo Kochani v. North Macedonia S.R. v. Norway Andruszkiewicz and Fluderski v. Poland Gerter v. Poland Jaroszczak v. Poland Kasprowicz v. Poland Koc v. Poland Lipczyski v. Poland Napierala and Kubica v. Poland Rasiski v. Poland Tkaczuk v. Poland lobiska-Perlicka v. Poland D�rjan and tefan v. Romania Marin v. Romania Roman v. Romania Toader v. Romania Israilov and Bakayeva v. Russia Sadiki and Nura v. Serbia Diaz German v. Spain Main application number 67197/13 23702/15 51616/11 27888/15 21286/16 31852/13 5710/12 34656/19 18106/12 50963/16 11137/13 51886/12 28393/18 49378/18 35215/06 21954/16 43927/17 28085/16 69912/14 47851/14 58400/14 39282/13 75758/17 23925/13 42969/18 25945/12 66018/16 14224/15 68459/13 26817/17 24725/16 20436/11 24501/11 80929/17 Name Pascual Gonzalez v. Spain Ali Abi v. Turkey Arpali v. Turkey Atsan and Others v. Turkey Bal v. Turkey Bayindir naat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi A.. v. Turkey �elik v. Turkey Erdoan v. Turkey Kazan v. Turkey Kirbayir v. Turkey imek and and Others v. Turkey Tademir v. Turkey Raspryakhin v. Ukraine Romanov v. Ukraine Vyshnevskyy and Others v. Ukraine Main application number 24265/17 42708/07 66859/12 74053/14 44938/12 25018/13 56840/10 41504/08 10959/07 11947/12 75845/12 52538/09 70878/12 76273/11 72192/12 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 @ECHR_CEDH. Press contacts Journalists can contact the Press Unit via [email protected] 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. 17