003-6773330-9049563

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 237 (2020) 27.08.2020 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing eight judgments on Tuesday 1 September and 23 judgments and/ or decisions on Thursday 3 September 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 1 September 2020 R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia (no. 20649/18) The applicants, R.R. and R.D., are Slovak nationals. The case concerns their complaint of police ill-treatment, lack of a proper investigation, and discrimination on the grounds of their Roma origin. On 19 June 2013 a police operation was carried out at Budulovsk� St in the town of Moldava nad Bodvou, which is in eastern Slovakia, with the declared purpose of searching for wanted persons and objects originating from criminal activities. The operation on the street, which is home to a Roma community, involved 63 officers, of which 15 were from the rapid-reaction force, and 23 vehicles. The first applicant, R.R., submits that he was handcuffed, dragged outside his house and beaten with truncheons. He was also kicked by police officers and was struck with an electroshock weapon. A police report on his detention stated that he was suspected of having committed a minor offence by disorderly conduct, that he had resisted being taken to the police station in connection with it and that officers had used lawful force, such as holds, grabs, blows, kicks and handcuffs. A forensic report of August 2014 found, among other things, that he had suffered a fractured rib and had probably been hit by a baton on the back. The second applicant, R.D., submits that police officers beat him and struck him with an electroshock weapon. He also received blows from a baton on his right shoulder, back and the left side of his legs. A police decision on his detention stated that he had resisted arrest aimed at taking him to the police station in order to be investigated over a suspicion that he had also behaved disorderly in the course of the operation and that force had been used on him according to the law, consisting of holds, grabs, blows, kicks and handcuffing. A forensic medical report of August 2014 found in particular that injuries on him had been caused by a blunt, flat and oblong object, probably a baton. The injuries had been minor, and had not necessitated any sick leave and any treatment longer than seven days. In two consecutive procedures, the eastern unit of the Office of the Inspection Service of the Section of Inspection and Audit of the Ministry of the Interior and the central Slovakia unit of the Inspection Service carried out investigations into allegations by the applicants of ill-treatment, dismissing their complaints. The central unit's findings were subsequently upheld by the Presov regional prosecutor's office. In April and July 2016 the applicants lodged complaints about the termination of the proceedings with the Constitutional Court. They alleged violations of their rights under Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention and their equivalents under the Constitution and other international instruments. They argued that the true aim of the operation had been retaliation for an earlier incident involving the throwing of stones at a police car, with a view to intimidating their community and thereby curbing the crime rate, rather than the stated aim of searching for wanted individuals and objects. The investigation had also been lacking in promptness, effectiveness, and independence. Nor had investigators examined independently the lawfulness of the use of coercive measures against them and a possible racist motive, in particular as regards the planning of the operation. The Constitutional Court declared the complaints inadmissible in September 2017. Among other things, it noted the extent and intensity of the investigation by the central Slovakia unit of the police inspection service, under the control of the Public Prosecution Service, upheld its effectiveness and independence, found that the applicants' allegations of abuse had either not been established or had corresponded to a legitimate use of coercive measures, and that no discrimination had been established within the scope of its jurisdiction. The applicants complain of a violation of their rights under Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy) as they were mistreated by the police and the respondent State failed to protect them from that mistreatment by conducting an effective investigation into it and into possible racist motives behind it. Under the same provisions, in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination), they also complain that their Roma ethnicity and what they consider to be institutional racism in Slovakia were the decisive factors in their alleged ill-treatment and in the alleged failure to conduct a proper investigation into that ill treatment. Thursday 3 September 2020 Mahi v. Belgium (no. 57462/19) The case concerns the disciplinary transfer of a teacher of Islamic religion on account of remarks which he made in an open letter to the press concerning, among other topics, the January 2015 attacks in Paris on the newspaper Charlie Hebdo. The applicant, Yacob Mahi, is a Belgian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Brussels. He has taught Islamic religion since 1987 in various schools run by the French-speaking Community of Belgium. On 4 February 2015 Mr Mahi sent an open letter to the press commenting on reports in certain sections of the media about his alleged role in disturbances occurring at the school in which he was teaching in Brussels. The disturbances had taken place in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of January 2015 in Paris targeting the newspaper Charlie Hebdo in particular. They had taken the form of attacks by pupils on another teacher in the same school who had defended Charlie Hebdo, and violence against a pupil who had refused to sign a petition against that teacher. In his open letter Mr Mahi commented on the Charlie Hebdo attacks. He also expressed views on homosexuality, the media, political leaders and the judiciary, and mentioned an author who had been convicted in France of negationism, describing him as his "mentor". In an opinion published on 13 March 2015, the Federal Centre for Equal Opportunities and Action against Racism and Discrimination found that Mr Mahi's remarks did not contravene antidiscrimination legislation as such, but voiced concern at the fact that such remarks had been made by a teacher. On 31 October 2017 the Government of the French-speaking Community, finding that Mr Mahi's remarks had been in breach of his duty of discretion, ordered his transfer to a school in La Louvi�re as a disciplinary measure. In a judgment of 16 May 2019 the Conseil d'�tat dismissed an application by Mr Mahi to have that order set aside. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Mahi complains about the disciplinary sanction imposed on him for the remarks made in his open letter. Yordanovi v. Bulgaria (no. 11157/11) The applicants, Mr Rosen Marinov Yordanov and his brother Mr Atanas Marinov Yordanov, are Bulgarian nationals. They are businessmen and belong to the Turkish-Muslim minority in Bulgaria. The case concerns the complaint which they lodged against their criminal prosecution for attempting to set up a political party on a religious basis. They allege unjustified interference with their right to freedom of association, and discrimination. In 2008 the applicants set up and registered an association for the integration of the Turkish-speaking population in Bulgaria. In June 2009 they decided to erect a monument on private land belonging to them in their home village of Slavyanovo, commemorating the Muslim and Christian soldiers killed during the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 (which resulted in Bulgaria gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire). In July 2009 the regional buildings inspectorate ordered work on building the monument to be suspended. In a separate development, the applicants decided to set up a political party, the Muslim Democratic Union. The constituent assembly was to meet on 26 September 2009, the end of Ramadan, in the centre of Slavyanovo. That morning the police informed the first applicant that it was illegal to hold a gathering without following the statutory procedure. Several hundred people gathered on 26 September 2009 in the centre of Slavyanovo. An employee of Popovo municipality served an order on the first applicant for the dispersal of the meeting, on the grounds that it had not been notified in advance. The meeting nevertheless continued for a further fifteen minutes approximately, during which time a vote was passed setting up the party, adopting its constitution and electing the party organs. A press conference was held immediately afterwards. According to the Government, during the press conference the applicants stated that the party's aim was to "defend the rights of Muslims in Bulgaria" and that "the State [had] done nothing for Muslims in Bulgaria", that Bulgaria had not officially recognised the Turkish minority, and that "it [was] a mistake to present Bulgaria in Europe as a one-nation State". Over the following days the Popova district prosecutor's office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants for setting up a political organisation on a religious basis, an offence punishable under Article 166 of the Criminal Code, and for a breach of the peace in connection with building the monument. The first applicant was also charged with holding an unauthorised meeting, an offence under Article 174a � 2 of the Code, in connection with the continuation of the gathering at which the political party had been set up, despite the mayor's order prohibiting it. On 1 September 2010 the District Court found the two applicants guilty of setting up a political party on a religious basis, in breach of Article 166 of the Criminal Code. The court sentenced the first applicant to a suspended one-year prison term. It held that the second applicant was not criminally liable and ordered him to pay an administrative fine of 4,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (2,045 euros (EUR)). The court also found the first applicant guilty of not putting an end to a public meeting that had been prohibited by the mayor, in breach of Article 174a � 2 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, suspended. Combining the two sentences, the court imposed an overall suspended sentence of one year's imprisonment. It acquitted the applicants of breach of the peace. The applicants appealed. On 22 October 2010 the Targovishte Regional Court upheld the District Court judgment and the sentences. It observed that the requirement for party members to adopt Islamic values meant that the party had "a religious basis". However, the Regional Court found that the facts should be classified as an attempted offence, given that the setting-up of the party had not been completed. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants allege that the criminal proceedings against them for attempting to set up a political party "on a religious basis" constitute an unjustified restriction of their right to freedom of association. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), read in conjunction with Article 11, they complain of discrimination. Levchuk v. Ukraine (no. 17496/19) The applicant, Iryna Mykolayivna Levchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Rivne (Ukraine). The case concerns her complaint that the dismissal of an eviction claim against her ex-husband exposed her and her children to the risk of domestic violence and harassment. Ms Levchuk married O.L. in 2006. They had triplets in 2007 and were provided with social housing, a flat, by the local council. Their relationship deteriorated because O.L. drank heavily, started arguments, and harassed and threatened her and the children, sometimes resorting to physical violence. Their marriage was dissolved in 2015 and she was granted custody of the children. O.L. continued to live however in the flat. The intimidation and violence continued, leading the police to intervene on multiple occasions and the social services to draft a report which found the children to be seriously distressed. O.L. was charged with, but never found formally guilty of domestic violence. As the situation had not improved, Ms Levchuk brought proceedings in 2016 under Article 116 of the Housing Code which provided for the possibility to evict social housing tenants for systematic misconduct. The national courts ultimately dismissed the claim in 2018. Although they acknowledged that O.L. "needed to change his attitude", they did not find that the misconduct had been systematic and considered that there were no grounds for such an extreme measure as eviction. Ms Levchuk and her children continue to share the flat with O.L. Most recently, in 2019, she brought proceedings to deprive O.L. of his parental rights, alleging that he neglects the triplets and avoids paying child support. The case is ongoing. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Levchuk complains about the refusal to order her ex-husband's eviction, alleging that the courts were excessively formalistic in their decisions and gave her ex-husband a sense of impunity which exposed her and her children to an even greater risk of psychological harassment and assault. Batkivska Turbota Foundation v. Ukraine (no. 5876/15) Just satisfaction The applicant, the Batkivska Turbota Foundation, is a charity registered in Ukraine in 1999. The case concerned the applicant organisation being deprived of its ownership of parts of a sanatorium which it had bought from the property arm of Ukraine's Federation of Trade Unions in 2002. In its principal judgment of 9 October 2018, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. It held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it for decision at a later date. The Court will rule on this matter in its judgment of 3 September 2020. 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 1 September 2020 Name Sheytanova v. Bulgaria C.A. Zrt. and T.R. v. Hungary Farkas v. Hungary Montanaro and Others v. Malta Proskurnikov v. Russia Sarsembayev v. Russia Shishkin and Others v. Russia Main application number 42218/13 11599/14 61543/15 29964/18 48364/11 25238/08 30050/09 Thursday 3 September 2020 Name Arakelyan and Others v. Armenia Jaksi and Others v. Croatia Heiszn� Szr�s v. Hungary T�r�k v. Hungary Facchinetti v. Italy Grieco v. Italy Pellegrinelli v. Italy Galakvoscius v. Lithuania Anev and Najdovski v. North Macedonia Delovski v. North Macedonia Nuredini v. North Macedonia Kamiska and Others v. Poland Silva Cruz v. Portugal Alekseyev and Others v. Russia Matveyeva v. Russia Chatelan v. Switzerland Main application number 51386/14 30320/13 18854/14 44078/14 34297/09 59753/09 31141/09 11398/18 17807/15 56148/15 38823/14 4006/17 3145/17 31782/15 22961/06 25757/16 Name Main application number Sokolovskyy and Others v. Ukraine 44047/09 Zabolotnyy and Others v. Ukraine 19574/09 Privacy International and Others v. the United Kingdom 46259/16 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