003-6955111-9357762

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 071 (2021) 04.03.2021 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 judgments on Tuesday 9 March 2021 and 60 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 11 March 2021. 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 9 March 2021 Arewa v. Lithuania (application no. 16031/18) The applicant, Olusegun Bamise Arewa, is a Nigerian national who was born in 1989 and lives in Vilnius. The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings instigated against Mr Arewa for conducting illegal financial operations and their impact on his family rights. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that the criminal charges against him were not determined within a reasonable time. He also complains that the length of the criminal proceedings against him negatively affected his right to respect for his family life under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. Mocanu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 8141/07) Just Satisfaction The applicants, Victor Mocanu, Pavel Rducanu and Semion Mititelu, are Moldavan nationals who were born in 1951, 1935 and 1961 respectively. They lived in S�ngera (Republic of Moldova) at the material time. Mr Mocanu and Mr Rducanu died in 2008, and in 2013 their children � Valentin Mocanu et Vera Braghi, respectively � voiced their wish to continue the proceedings. The case concerned the State takeover of farmland belonging to the applicants with a view to building a stretch of railway line through the S�ngera municipality. Relying, in particulier, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants alleged that the procedure laid down in the Law on expropriation had not been observed. By judgment of 26 June 2018, the Court ruled that the applicants' farmland had been expropriated unlawfully and that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Since Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not applicable as matters stood, the Court reserved that question, inviting the Government and the applicants to submit their observations. The Court will decide on this matter in its judgment on 9 March 2021. Hassine v. Romania (no. 36328/13) The applicant, Amine Hassine, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1982. He has stated that he lives in Cluj-Napoca (Romania). The case concerns administrative proceedings following which the applicant was expelled from Romania on national-security grounds. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security/right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention), the applicant alleges that his placement in administrative detention with a view to his expulsion amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty and that he had no effective remedy in that regard. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens), the applicant complains that he was not afforded any safeguards against arbitrariness. Lastly, he alleges that the measure taken against him breached his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8. Volchkova and Mironov v. Russia (nos. 45668/05 and 2292/06) Revision This case concerns the expropriation of property located in the town of Lyubertsy near Moscow, aimed at enabling a private investor to proceed with a building project. The applicants, Tatyana Volchkova (application no. 45668/05) and Boris Mironov (application no. 2292/06), who owned a house and a piece of land in Lyubertsy, complained that they had been deprived of their property for the sole benefit of a private investment project devoid of any social purpose, aimed at building a multi-story apartment block. They further submitted that they had been awarded a derisory sum in compensation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property). By judgment of 28 March 2017 the Court ruled that the expropriation of the applicants' property in Lyubertsy had been carried out in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, reserving the issue of their claims in respect of pecuniary damage. By judgment of 15 October 2019, ruling on the claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court decided to award Ms Volchkova 16,700 United States dollars (USD) and Mr Mironov USD 42,000. On 15 January 2020 the Government informed the Court that Mr Mironov had died on 16 February 2019. They therefore requested that this applicant's case be struck off the list by revising the judgment of 15 October 2019, pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. On 20 February 2020 counsel for Mr Mironov asked the Court to revise that same judgment. She pointed out that Mr Mironov's widow and son wished to continue the application in order to receive payment of the sum of USD 42,000 awarded by the Court. In support of her request she enclosed the relevant inheritance certificates. The Court will decide on this request for revision in its judgment on 9 March 2021. Zinin v. Russia (no. 54339/09) The applicant, Stanislav Nikolayevich Zinin, is a Russian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Ulyanovsk (Russia). The case concerns the issue of whether the applicant's right to a fair trial was breached when he was convicted of copyright infringement and distributing counterfeit software as a result of alleged police entrapment, and when neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present during the hearing of the applicant's case in the cassation court. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that the police incited him to commit the crimes of copyright infringement and distribution of counterfeit software, thus violating his right to a fair trial. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial/right to legal assistance), the applicant further alleges that his trial was not fair because neither he nor his lawyer had been informed of the date of the cassation hearing, thus preventing him from attending. Benitez Moriana and I�igo Fernandez v. Spain (nos. 36537/15 and 36539/15) The applicants, Sergio Benitez Moriana and Ivo Arag�n I�igo Fernandez, are Spanish nationals who were born in 1977 and 1976 and live in Jaca (Spain) and Madrid respectively. The case concerns the alleged violation of the applicants' right to freedom of expression because of their criminal conviction for the publication of an open letter in a local newspaper complaining of the conduct of a judge in proceedings affecting them. They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Bilgen v. Turkey (no. 1571/07) The applicant, H�seyin Cahit Bilgen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Ankara. He was a judge at the time of the events in this case. The case concerns Mr Bilgen's alleged inability to have recourse to a judicial review of the decision to transfer him to a different and lower ranking judicial district. He complains, under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), of his inability to access a judicial review. Eminaaolu v. Turkey (no. 76521/12) The case concerns a disciplinary sanction (post relocation) imposed on a judge/prosecutor by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (Hakimler ve Savcilar Y�ksek Kurulu), on account of statements and criticisms that he had made to the media about certain court cases. The applicant, �mer Faruk Eminaaolu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Ankara. He began his judicial career in 1989. In 1998 he was appointed as public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. In 2011 he became a judge in Istanbul. On 13 June 2012, when he was serving as a judicial officer of the first grade, he was transferred to a post in �ankiri by the Second Chamber of the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors by way of disciplinary sanction on account of his statements and criticisms about two high-profile cases in the media. The Chamber concluded that Mr Eminaaolu had undermined the dignity and honour of the profession and had forfeited his personal dignity and esteem. At the relevant time he was also the Chairman of Yarsav, an association of judges and prosecutors. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Eminaaolu complains about the disciplinary sanction imposed on him. He argues that he did not have access to a court as there was no judicial review in respect of the disciplinary procedure. He also complains of a lack of independence and impartiality and alleges that the decisions in his case contained insufficient reasoning. Mr Eminaaolu further relies on his right under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) complaining about the interception of his telephone calls and the fact that the transcriptions were not duly destroyed and were disclosed to the press. He also complains that his rights under Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) have been breached. Thursday 11 March 2021 Dimitriou v. Greece (no. 62639/12) The applicant, Antonis Dimitriou, is a Greek national who was born in 1953 and lives in Heraklion Kritis (Greece). He is the principal shareholder in the Ikaros A.E. company, which owns the local television channel in Crete, Kriti TV. He is also the owner of and principal shareholder in the Kyklos A.E. company, which owns the Cretan local newspaper, Nea Kriti. The case concerns the civil court decision ordering Mr Dimitriou to pay a sum in compensation for damaging the reputation of a former mayor of Heraklion on account of a newspaper article published in February 2002. In that article Mr Dimitriou had reacted to the allegations which the former mayor had made by telephone during a programme broadcast by the Alpha TV channel concerning the financing of Mr Dimitriou's companies. In May 2002 the mayor brought an action for damages, submitting that the statements published in the impugned article had infringed his honour and damaged his reputation. In May 2005 Mr Dimitriou, together with the newspaper editor and director, were ordered to pay him 15, 000 euros, and to defray all costs and expenses. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Dimitriou complained of an infringement of his right to freedom of expression. Feilazoo v. Malta (no. 6865/19) The applicant, Joseph Feilazoo, is a Nigerian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Safi (Malta). The case concerns the conditions of the applicant's immigration detention and its lawfulness. It also concerns complaints in relation to the proceedings before this Court, mainly related to interference by the authorities with correspondence and domestic legal-aid representation. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and 34 (right of individual application), the applicant complains, in particular, of excessive force used on him during his detention, the lack of an investigation into this, his conditions of immigrant detention, that some periods of his detention were unlawful, and that the State hindered his right of petition before the Court. Baranin and Vukcevi v. Montenegro (nos. 24655/18 and 24656/18) The applicants, Momcilo Baranin, who is a dual Montenegrin and Canadian national, and Branimir Vukcevi, a Montenegrin national, were born in 1977 and 1978 respectively and live in Podgorica. The case concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants by unidentified police officers on 24 October 2015 while stopped in the vicinity of protests, and the investigation into this incident. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants allege that there was a lack of an effective investigation into the incident and a lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. 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 9 March 2021 Name Akmalov v. Russia Indirbayeva and Others v. Russia Sokiryanskaya and Others v. Russia Lopez Martinez v. Spain Main application number 29255/18 54931/18 4505/08 32897/16 Thursday 11 March 2021 Name Ahmadova v. Azerbaijan Mammadov v. Azerbaijan Mammadova v. Azerbaijan Natig Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan Rzamov and Others v. Azerbaijan Sabzaliyev v. Azerbaijan Vugar Aliyev v. Azerbaijan Verzin and Others v. Belgium Culo v. Bosnia and Herzegovina Skalic v. Croatia Slavnov v. Estonia Schrade v. Georgia Czibere and Others v. Hungary Nagy v. Hungary Szakk�pz Oktat�si �s Szolg�ltat� Nonprofit Kft v. Hungary Varga and Others v. Hungary E.V. v. Italy M.R. and Others v. Italy Mensa v. Italy Burov v. the Republic of Moldova Knezevi v. Montenegro Karasek and Others v. Poland Wasilewska and Others v. Poland Baalderu and Others v. Romania Biban and Others v. Romania Crciun and Others v. Romania Disgil and Others v. Romania Glui and Others v. Romania Tudorache and Others v. Romania U and Others v. Romania Voinescu and Others v. Romania Aksenov v. Russia Bolshakov and Gilani v. Russia Ikramov and Others v. Russia Iyulskaya v. Russia Sazhin v. Russia Pavlovi and Bondzuli v. Serbia Smiljkovi v. Serbia Tatarevi v. Serbia Ulemek v. Serbia Ijurco Illarramendi and Others v. Spain Nuevas Energ�as de Castilla, S.L. v. Spain Karata v. Turkey Yaygin v. Turkey Main application number 41691/17 39293/16 30640/09 11490/12 81005/17 26372/17 34987/17 77940/14 7442/20 13692/15 54644/19 15016/07 5975/20 22195/20 61100/19 3382/20 3080/15 9294/15 25059/16 33921/11 54228/18 54047/16 21182/17 28342/16 39129/16 50415/15 51308/16 17757/16 1268/16 22039/16 6738/16 29985/04 25723/20 25742/17 35535/18 10936/06 38115/18 48176/18 16370/19 41680/13 9295/17 44066/18 78161/17 12254/20 Name Bala v. Ukraine Dembo and Others v. Ukraine Falts-Feyn v. Ukraine Gros v. Ukraine Kharakoz v. Ukraine Katsyuk and Kamenetska v. Ukraine Kochura and Others v. Ukraine Kostyna v. Ukraine Momot v. Ukraine Osadcha and Others v. Ukraine Segedi and Others v. Ukraine Tryukhan v. Ukraine Udovenko v. Ukraine Main application number 2801/20 2778/18 61221/13 18015/19 33078/19 7869/20 43534/19 41763/19 40132/19 55896/10 36882/19 43873/19 33040/08 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 During the current public-health crisis, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via [email protected]. Tracey Turner-Tretz Denis Lambert Inci Ertekin Neil Connolly 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