003-6752811-9012828

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 218 (2020) 22.07.2020 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing two judgments on Tuesday 28 July 2020 and 46 judgments and/ or decisions on Thursday 30 July 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 28 July 2020 Pormes v. the Netherlands (application no. 25402/14) The applicant, Hein Pormes, is an Indonesian national who was born in 1987. The case concerns his complaint about the Dutch authorities' refusal to grant him a residence permit, despite him living in the Netherlands since he was almost four years' old. Mr Pormes arrived in the Netherlands in 1991 after his mother, who was Indonesian, died. He was brought to the country by his presumed father, a Dutch national, who also died in 1999. He was brought up by an uncle and aunt, who are Dutch nationals and whom he considers to be his foster parents. In 2004, when he turned 17, he found out that, contrary to what he had always assumed, he might not have Dutch nationality. He learned that he had arrived in the country on a tourist visa which had expired several months after his arrival and that neither his presumed father nor his foster parents had taken any steps to regularise his stay. In 2006 he thus applied for a temporary residence permit. However, in 2007 the Deputy Minister of Justice rejected his application, because he represented a danger to the public following a recent conviction for indecent assault and four counts of attempted indecent assault. Balancing his ties to the Netherlands and the difficulties he would face adjusting to life in Indonesia against the seriousness of his criminal offences, the Deputy Minister emphasised that his stay in the Netherlands had never been lawful. In 2008 the Deputy Minister rejected Mr Pormes's objection, maintaining her position and observing that he had in the meantime been convicted again for the same offences. He appealed against the decision in the courts, but the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ultimately in 2013 held that the Deputy Minister had rightly attached great weight to the offences he had committed given their nature and seriousness and the fact that he was a recidivist. The ruling also pointed out that Mr Pormes was an adult and was aware that he did not have a residence permit when he had committed the offences. Mr Pormes voluntarily left the Netherlands for Indonesia in 2016, signing a declaration with the International Organization for Migration agreeing to discontinue all proceedings aimed at obtaining a residence permit in the Netherlands in exchange for financial aid. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Pormes alleges that the domestic authorities attached too much weight to his criminal record, omitting to include in the balance his family life with his foster parents and strong social and cultural ties with the Netherlands, when deciding to refuse him a residence permit. Monica Macovei v. Romania (no. 53028/14) The applicant, Monica Luisa Macovei, is a Romanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bucharest (Romania). The case concerns the applicant being found liable for defaming another politician. On 7 September 2009 two newspapers reported comments by Ms Macovei, a former justice minister and a member of the European Parliament, about two other politicians. Speaking at a summer camp of the Democratic Liberal Party to which she belonged, she stated that two Social Democrat politicians, Chamber of Deputies member V.P. and Senator D.., had in their work as lawyers signed contracts worth millions of euros with State companies from their constituencies, which she called a typical act of corruption by political influence. In one of the articles she also commented that it should not be possible to work as a lawyer and be a member of parliament at the same time and that a law should be passed to that effect. In October of that year D.. brought general tort law proceedings, arguing that the applicant's remarks had discredited him in the eyes of the public and of his professional and political partners. In October 2010 the first-instance court rejected his claim, finding that she had been exercising the right to freedom of expression. On appeal, the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the defamation claim, ordering the applicant to pay damages of about 2,300 euros and to publish the judgment at her own expense in national newspapers. In November 2013 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed appeals on points of law by the applicant and D.. It found, among other things, that the applicant had uttered an untruth when she had accused D.. of corruption in his joint role as lawyer and member of parliament; his reputation had been damaged; the applicant had overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism, even if politicians had to accept a higher level of criticism; and it did not consider that the damages awarded against the applicant would deter her from similar acts, although publishing the judgments would. The applicant complains that the High Court of Cassation and Justice's sentence violated her rights protected by Article 10 (freedom of speech). Thursday 30 July 2020 Glavini and Markovi v. Croatia (nos. 11388/15 and 25605/15) Kirinci and Others v. Croatia (no. 31386/17) Mari v. Croatia (no. 9849/15) These three cases concern complaints about violations of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and the lack of effective domestic remedies for such complaints. The applicants all rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Glavini and Markovi v. Croatia (nos. 11388/15 and 25605/15) The applicant in application no. 11388/15 is Jela Glavini ("the first applicant") while the applicant in application no. 25605/15 is Aleksander Markovi ("the second applicant"). They are both Croatian nationals born respectively in 1947 and 1936 and living in Rijeka and Zagreb. In January 2003 a civil action was brought against the first applicant and three other defendants to have a gift contract declared null and void. A judgment dismissing the claim was delivered in July 2014, becoming final in April 2015. In October 2013 the first applicant applied for the remedy allowed under the 2013 Courts Act to accelerate the proceedings, which was granted. However, the judge dealing with the case failed to meet the deadline to deliver a judgment and the first applicant applied for the compensatory and acceleratory remedy allowed under the 2013 Courts Act. In October 2014 she was awarded 1,000 Croatian kunas (HRK ) (about 130 euros). She appealed against that amount as too low, but the Supreme Court in December 2014 dismisse The second applicant began enforcement proceedings in July 2012 over a court order against a company which had been ordered to perform certain construction works on a residential building. However, the parent company and its subsidiaries had in April 2017 been put into emergency administration. The implementation of a settlement with creditors, which include the second applicant, is still ongoing. In September 2014 the applicant sought the acceleratory remedy allowed by the 2013 Courts Act, but his claim was dismissed in November and, on appeal, by the Supreme Court in December. In February 2015 he lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court, relying on section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. The Constitutional Court examined his constitutional complaint under section 62 of the Constitutional Court Act and, in March 2015, declared it inadmissible as Supreme Court decisions were not open to constitutional review. Kirinci and Others v. Croatia (no. 31386/17) The applicants are Smiljka Kirinci, Branka Ivanci and Smiljan Kirinci. They are Croatian nationals born in 1932, 1952 and 1956 and live in Dobrinj and Rijeka (all in Croatia). Between May 2000 and May 2015 the applicants, represented by the third applicant, were involved in proceedings to regulate the ownership of previously nationalised property. A first-instance decision in civil proceedings in October 2002, upheld on appeal in December 2006, found for the applicants. In February 2007 one of the defendants in the civil proceedings lodged an appeal on points of law, which the Supreme Court eventually dismissed in May 2015. In November 2014 the applicants lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the President of the Supreme Court, a remedy under the 2013 Courts Act designed to accelerate proceedings. In May 2015 the President of the Supreme Court found the request well-founded and ordered that a decision on the appeal on points of law be issued within six months. However, a judgment had already been issued two days earlier, which was served on the applicants in October 2015. The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings in January 2015. The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint in October 2016. It found that the time to be taken into account ran from the adoption of the decision by the President of the Supreme Court in May 2015 to the serving of the Supreme Court's decision on the appeal on points of law on the applicants in October 2015, which was just over five months. Their right to a hearing within a reasonable time had thus not been breached. Mari v. Croatia (application no. 9849/15) The applicant, Mirjana Mari, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Zagreb. In October 2007 Ms Mari began proceedings for compensation against the City of Zagreb after a traffic accident caused by an icy road which had not been salted. Zagreb Country Court handed down the final judgment in appeal proceedings in March 2017, awarding her compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, which was served on her in May 2017. The applicant, relying on the 2005 Courts Act, lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in June 2010, which was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court in October 2011. She lodged a constitutional complaint about excessive length of proceedings in January 2014, arguing that the remedy provided by a new Act, the 2013 Courts Act, was not effective. The Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint for failure to use other remedies for excessive length of proceedings, notably those under the 2013 Courts Act. It could not assess her complaint in the abstract and doubts about the remedy's effectiveness did not mean she did not have to try it first. 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. 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. Thursday 30 July 2020 Name Olimp Producers' Cooperative v. Armenia Isayev v. Azerbaijan and Ukraine Nasibova and Resource Centre for Democracy and Development of NGOs and Nasibov v. Azerbaijan Ejupi and Others v. Belgium Burovi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Kostadinov v. Bulgaria Butorovi v. Croatia Martinovi v. Croatia Eliades and Others v. Cyprus Lhotsk� v. the Czech Republic Ali and Others v. Greece Ivevs v. Latvia Bogdan and Others v. Romania Ehik and Dasclu v. Romania Iancu and Others v. Romania Ianucovschi and Others v. Romania tv�s and Others v. Romania Scarlat and Others v. Romania imndan v. Romania Topor and Others v. Romania Main application number 47012/15 4832/20 3039/09 12851/13 26552/18 10993/12 24686/18 39535/15 74910/16 31057/17 68951/17 77670/13 18109/16 62010/16 41762/15 18357/14 20106/15 42216/14 31081/12 905/15 Name Vasile-Ioan Popescu and Others v. Romania Zevedei and Others v. Romania Belyayev and Others v. Russia Bondar and Others v. Russia Chekarev v. Russia Dikin and Others v. Russia Fedotov v. Russia Grigoryev and Others v. Russia Kolbas and Others v. Russia Kulikov v. Russia Kutepov and Others v. Russia Losyuk v. Russia Maksutov and Others v. Russia Mostovoy and Others v. Russia Orlov v. Russia Suldin and Others v. Russia Susarin v. Russia Miti v. Serbia Zorko v. Slovakia Doan v. Turkey M.O. v. Turkey Ortem Limited Company v. Turkey Yaar v. Turkey Main application number 2863/16 16082/15 41102/16 80259/17 4568/18 10179/05 13015/18 14314/18 74253/11 3994/18 64867/14 2625/11 33982/17 4952/16 12012/18 48901/18 24423/18 6109/19 8807/16 13351/13 43826/19 71280/11 10106/13 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 @ECHR_CEDH. 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) Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18) 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. 6