003-7297692-9948645

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 105 (2022) 30.03.2022 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 11 judgments on Tuesday 5 April 2022 and 17 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 7 April 2022. 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 5 April 2022 Nana Muradyan v. Armenia (application no. 69517/11) The applicant, Nana Muradyan, is an Armenian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Armavir (Armenia). The case concerns the death of the applicant's 18-year-old son during his compulsory military service on the territory of the unrecognised Nagorno Karabakh Republic. On 15 March 2010 he was found hanging from a metal pole behind the officers' room of his military unit. The ensuing investigation has been stayed three times and is still ongoing. According to the findings thus far, the applicant's son committed suicide because of harassment. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Muradyan disputes that her son committed suicide, alleging that he was murdered because he had witnessed a theft in his military unit. She also complains that the authorities' investigation into her son's death was ineffective. Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah d'Anderlecht and Others v. Belgium (no. 20165/20) The applicants are nine associations established under Belgian law : the Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah d'Anderlecht, the Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah de Molenbeek, the Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah d'Auderghem, the Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah de Forest, the Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah de Koekelberg, the Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah de Saint-Josse, the Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah de Woluwe-Saint-Pierre-Tomberg, the Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah d'Ixelles and the Assembl�e chr�tienne des T�moins de J�hovah d'Uccle. The case concerns the exclusion of the applicant associations, which are Jehovah's Witness congregations, as from the 2018 tax year, from exoneration from property tax (pr�compte immobilier) on real estate � located in the Brussels-Capital Region � used for the public practice of their religion, on the grounds that they did not satisfy the new condition laid down in the Order of 23 November 2017 issued by the legislature of the Brussels-Capital Region, namely that of belonging to a "recognised religion". Before the European Court they rely on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) read in conjunction with Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention and with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. A.A. and Others v. North Macedonia (no. 55798/16 and four other applications) The applicants are five Syrian nationals, two Iraqi nationals, and one Afghan national. The case concerns the applicants' allegation of a pushback to Greece by the police and army after they illegally crossed into the territory of North Macedonia, against the background of the migrant crisis in 2016. They were part of two large groups of refugees who had left a camp in the border town of Idomeni, Greece, on 14 March 2016 to join what became known as "the March of Hope", wading across a river to enter the territory of North Macedonia. Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain of their summary deportation, without an individual assessment of their cases or opportunity to oppose it. Clin v. Romania (no. 54491/14) The applicant, Oprea Clin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns the seizure of the applicant's apartment, cars and money in the context of a criminal investigation against him in April 2003 for unlawfully approving bank loans. The applicant was a member of the board of directors of the bank in question and was charged with dereliction of duty. Those charges were dropped in January 2014. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that the duration of the seizure of his assets was excessive, alleging that the title deeds to his apartment and registration documents for his cars have still not been returned to him, and that he did not have the possibility to contest the measure in court. He further complains, under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), that the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which lasted over ten years, was also excessive. Teslenko and Others v. Russia (no. 49588/12 and three other applications) The applicants are four Russian nationals: Andrey Yuryevich Teslenko, who was born in 1981 and lives in Hudson (the United States of America); Valeriy Nikolayevich Lyutarevich, who was born in 1958 and lives in Rodniki (Russia); Nikolay Yuryevich Dyachkov, who was born in 1991 and lives in Ivanovo (Russia); and, Bulat Nurlanovich Nigmatullin, who was born in 1987 and lives in Gloucester (the United Kingdom). The case essentially concerns the applicants' prosecution for administrative offences for calling people not to vote for the United Russia political party or to boycott entirely the parliamentary and presidential elections in 2011, 2012 and 2018. Mr Teslenko had been spotted in 2011 by police officers posting leaflets on a wall which said "United Russia is a party of crooks and thieves". Around the same time, Mr Lyutarevich had written a similar inscription on the rear window of his car. Mr Dyachkov and Mr Nigmatullin had been involved in the "Voters' Strike" campaign in Ivanovo and Naberezhnyye Chelny in 2018, and had also posted leaflets on walls. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Teslenko and Mr Nigmatullin both complain that they were escorted to and held in police stations for several hours following their posting of leaflets. All four applicants also complain that their prosecution for administrative offences breached their freedom of expression under Article 10. Benkharbouche and Janah v. the United Kingdom (nos. 19059/18 and 19725/18) The applicants, Fatima Benkharbouche and Mina Janah, born in 1964 and 1967, respectively, are Moroccan nationals who live in London. They were formerly employed as domestic workers at sovereign embassies in the United Kingdom. The case concerns employment claims they brought before the English courts against their former employers, the Republic of Sudan and the State of Libya, respectively, after being dismissed in 2010 and 2012. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court), read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complain that their former employers were entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of the domestic courts by virtue of the State Immunity Act 1978. Thursday 7 April 2022 Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 2) (no. 32734/11) The applicant, Eynulla Fatullayev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1976 and lives in Baku. He is a journalist and was the founder and chief editor of the newspapers G�ndlik Azrbaycan and Realniy Azerbaijan. The case concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant for illegal possession of drugs while serving a prison sentence. That sentence was the subject of an earlier case before the Court � Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 40984/07). Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because he was convicted on the basis of planted and fabricated evidence, and because he was not given an opportunity to effectively challenge that evidence or to put forward evidence in his favour. The applicant also complains that the seizure of his case file from the office of his lawyer was in breach of his right of individual application under Article 34 of the Convention. Mikli v. Croatia (no. 41023/19) The applicant, Luka Mikli, is a Croatian national who was born in 1999 and lives in Dramalj (Croatia). The case concerns the applicant's placement in a psychiatric institution after his conviction on charges of intrusive and threatening behaviour committed as a minor and while lacking mental capacity. The applicant complains that his involuntary committal to a psychiatric hospital was in breach of Articles 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. A. L. v. France (no. 13344/20) The applicant, Mr A.L., is a French national who was born in 1987. The case concerns the refusal by the domestic courts to establish the applicant's paternity of his biological son � born via a gestational surrogacy arrangement in France � after the child had been entrusted by the surrogate mother to a third couple, and the compatibility of such refusal with the applicant's right to respect for his private life. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant submits that the refusal in question amounts to a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his private life, lacking any legal basis. Callamand v. France (no. 2338/20) The applicant, Virginie Callamand, is a French national who was born in 1966. The case concerns the rejection of the applicant's request for contact rights vis-�-vis her former spouse's child, who had been conceived by medically assisted procreation. Relying on Article 8 the applicant submits that the rejection of her request for contact rights flouted her right to respect for her private and family life. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8 the applicant argues that she was discriminated against in the enjoyment of her right to respect for her private and family life. Gloveli v. Georgia (no. 18952/18) The case concerns the right of access to a court to challenge decisions relating to judicial appointments. The applicant, Marina Gloveli, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Tbilisi. She is a practising lawyer in Georgia. Between 1999 and 2005 she also served as a judge in the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. Subsequently, she participated in competitions for vacant judicial positions six times, most recently in October 2017. All of her applications were unsuccessful. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court), she complains that she was not able to contest the allegedly arbitrary refusal to appoint her to a judicial post in her latest unsuccessful application. Landi v. Italy (no. 10929/19) The applicant, Annalisa Landi, is an Italian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Scarperia (Italy). In this case Ms Landi alleges that the Italian State failed to take the requisite action to protect her and her two children from the domestic violence inflicted by her partner, which led to the murder of her one-year-old son and her own attempted murder in 2018. She explains that she had entered into a relationship with him in 2010 without knowing that he suffered from bipolar disorder, as well an obsessive-compulsive disorder. In the past the individual in question had been an alcoholic and had been banned from approaching his previous partner. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Landi submits that the Italian authorities failed to take all the necessary action to protect her and her child's lives. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 2, she considers that the lack of legal protection and of an appropriate response from the authorities to her allegations of domestic violence amount to discriminatory treatment on grounds of sex. Povilonis v. Lithuania (no. 81624/17) The applicant, Zilvinas Povilonis, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Kaunas (Lithuania). The case concerns the forced demolition of a house, at the owner's expense, for it having been built on a plot of land which fell within an environmental protection zone, where construction of residential buildings was forbidden, despite the owner having received a building permit for its construction. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that he was deprived of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. 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 5 April 2022 Name Kostova and Apostolov v. North Macedonia Nagibin and Ryazantsev v. Russia Semenov v. Russia orli v. Turkey T�rk v. Turkey Thursday 7 April 2022 Name Derbuc and Others v. Croatia Coillard-Fischer v. France Maillebouis v. France Parfait v. France Stoleski v. North Macedonia Yufryakov v. Russia Demir v. Turkey G�zel v. Turkey Sari�merolu v. Turkey Tekemen v. Turkey Main application number 38549/16 71977/12 39696/12 78727/16 20686/19 Main application number 53977/14 13067/20 28400/16 7717/18 15819/19 48564/11 19814/20 44610/19 3270/18 48855/20 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 We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email. 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) Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05) Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04) 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. 5