003-7331684-10006781

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 152 (2022) 11.05.2022 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten judgments on Tuesday 17 May 2022 and 34 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 19 May 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 17 May 2022 Oganezova v. Armenia (applications nos. 71367/12 and 72961/12) The applicant, Armine Oganezova, is an Armenian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Nacka, (Sweden). The case concerns an aggressive homophobic campaign against the applicant, a well-known member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in Armenia, including an arson attack in May 2012 on the bar she co-owned and ran in Yerevan. In the weeks following the arson attack, which was publicly condoned by leading political figures, groups of people gathered outside the bar to intimidate and harass the applicant and vandalised what was left inside. She was also subjected to death threats and abuse, including online hate speech, leading her to permanently leave Armenia and request asylum in Sweden. Two brothers, members of "Black Ravens Armenia", which is associated with a neo-Nazi group, were arrested shortly after the arson attack and admitted that they had set the bar on fire because it was "a gathering place for LGBT persons who brought shame on Armenia". They were found guilty in July 2013 of intentional damage to property and given a two-year suspended prison sentence. They were subsequently given an amnesty. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Oganezova complains that the authorities failed to protect her from harassment, attacks and threats because of her sexual orientation and to effectively investigate her complaints. She also complains, under the same provisions, of the lack of an adequate legislative framework to combat hate crimes directed against the LGBT minority in Armenia. She also requests, under Article 46 (binding force and implementation) of the European Convention, that the Court order the Armenian Government to amend sentencing legislation to include homophobia as an aggravating factor and to protect sexual orientation. Simi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 39764/20) The applicant, Mirko Simi, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who lives in Brcko (Bosnia and Herzegovina). He is a lawyer. The case concerns a joke that Mr Simi told in court to illustrate his criticism of proceedings in which he was representing a client. As a result, he was fined for contempt of court. The decision was upheld upon appeal. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicant complains that his freedom of expression was not respected. Ali Reza v. Bulgaria (no. 35422/16) The applicant, Hamid Ali Reza, is an Iraqi national who was born in 1973. He arrived in Bulgaria in 2000 and was granted subsidiary protection ("humanitarian status") on account of the war situation in Iraq. He was issued with a residence permit in 2003. The case concerns an expulsion order issued against Mr Ali Reza in 2015 on the grounds of national security, and whether the remedies available to him under domestic law were effective. It also concerns the applicant's administrative detention with a view to his expulsion (between June 2015 and January 2016) and the time taken to examine his appeal against that detention. Mr Ali Reza, who currently lives in Sofia, married his Bulgarian partner in December 2017. Since January 2016, he has been subject to administrative supervision and must report to a police station once a week. Before the European Court, he relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Thursday 19 May 2022 Bezani and Baskarad v. Croatia (nos. 16140/15 and 13322/16) The applicants, Aleksandar Bezani and Stipica Baskarad, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1973 and 1966 respectively and live in Rijeka. The case concerns the obligation to pay real estate transfer tax on two properties that the applicants bought separately, after they were initially exempt from paying that tax as first-time buyers. The exemptions in their cases were annulled by the authorities, which stated that the applicants had no longer met the conditions. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention. Bouras v. France (no. 31754/18) The applicants, Fatiha Bouras, n�e Rabah, and Bouamama Bouras, are two dual French and Algerian nationals; they were both born in 1960 and live in Colmar and Ch�tellerault respectively. They are the parents of H.B., who died on 26 August 2014 as a result of a gunshot fired by a gendarme in response to a violent attack on his colleague during his transfer from Strasbourg-Elsau Prison, where he was being detained, to the Colmar tribunal de grande instance. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants submit that the use of force which resulted in the death of their son was neither absolutely necessary nor proportionate to one of the aims mentioned in Article 2 � 2. L.F. v. Hungary (no. 621/14) The applicant, Mr L.F., now deceased, was a Hungarian national. He was born in 1956 and lived in Gy�ngy�spata (Hungary). The case concerns an inspection of the applicant's home on 13 October 2011 by a delegation of the local mayor's office, amid heightened tensions between Roma and non-Roma inhabitants. The inspection was apparently carried out in the context of introducing a social scheme based on the idea that benefits should only be paid to residents who contribute to the development of the community and respect law and order. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for the home), the applicant alleges that there was no legal basis for the mayor and his colleagues to enter his home and that the authorities' investigation into his complaints was ineffective. He also alleges that the aim of the inspection was to harass him because of his Roma ethnicity and that the investigating authorities failed to take the necessary steps to examine the possible racist motive behind the incident, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 8. T.C. v. Italy (no. 54032/18) The applicant, Mr T.C., is an Italian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Follonica (Italy). The case concerns a dispute between the applicant and the mother of his daughter from a previous relationship over their child's religious upbringing. The applicant had become a Jehovah's Witness after the split in the relationship. Following proceedings brought by the mother in the courts, the applicant was ordered to refrain from actively involving his daughter in his religion. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 9 (freedom of religion), alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality between spouses), the applicant complains about the court order against him, arguing that he was treated differently to his ex-partner because he was a Jehovah's Witness. He points out in particular that the decisions were biased against his religion, giving the impression that it was dangerous and should be avoided, whereas the mother's beliefs and practices were not investigated. Also relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains that he was denied a fair trial in that the domestic courts failed to decide on his appeal as a matter of urgency. De Kok v. the Netherlands (no. 1443/19) The applicant, Cedric Anakha de Kok, is a Dutch national who was born in 1995 and lives in Rotterdam (the Netherlands). The case concerns the obligation to buy basic health insurance in the Netherlands. Relying, in particular, on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr De Kok complains of the obligation to take out health insurance, stating that he would prefer to pay only for homeopathic remedies rather than sharing the collective burden of conventional medical treatment covered by the basic insurance. He complains that he was forced to take out basic health insurance contrary to his beliefs, with an opt-out only for those with conscientious objections to all forms of insurance, which was not his case. He also complains that the obligation interfered with his right to use his money as he saw fit. Under Article 6 the applicant complains of a lack of impartiality on the part of the courts, in particular their refusal to address his arguments about the medical industry as a whole. Roengkasettakorn Eriksson v. Sweden (no. 21574/16) The applicants are Siremon Roengkasettakorn Eriksson, who is a dual Swedish and Thai national, X and Y, who are both Swedish nationals. They were born in 1977, 2007 and 2006 respectively. Ms Roengkasettakorn Eriksson is the mother of the other two applicants, on whose behalf she lodged the application. In 2007 at the age of two weeks X was admitted to hospital with physical injuries including bone fractures and bruising. Following this, X was placed in emergency care and later in a foster home. The case concerns the subsequent proceedings which ended with X's foster parents being given custody of the child. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). 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 17 May 2022 Name Y.P. v. Bulgaria Laniauskas v. Lithuania Canuda v. the Republic of Moldova Dunas v. the Republic of Moldova Loiry v. Romania Paliy v. Russia Tutakbala v. Turkey Main application number 23614/20 6544/20 4670/16 65102/14 20425/20 42267/15 38059/12 Thursday 19 May 2022 Name Serbeci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina H.P. and Others v. Croatia Medica v. Croatia Zic v. Croatia M v. France Soci�t� Havas v. France A.J. v. Greece Zografos and Others v. Greece Guiso and Others v. Italy Guiso Gallisai v. Italy Bantu v. the Republic of Moldova Daniliuc v. the Republic of Moldova Matveev v. the Republic of Moldova Krysztofiak v. Poland Dias v. Portugal Morais v. Portugal Schmidt Felippe Junior v. Portugal H�rescu and Arcana v. Romania Barinberg v. Russia Golubev v. Russia Rogoza and Sablin v. Russia Zassety and Dontsov v. Russia Husar v. Serbia Bozer v. Turkey Kizilay v. Turkey Otlu v. Turkey Terkolu v. Turkey Main application number 51661/21 58282/19 72763/14 54115/15 42821/18 5369/18 34298/18 29744/13 29867/06 40284/06 63399/12 18686/13 36601/16 15355/14 32686/15 31208/13 12836/18 31959/17 48119/17 46775/14 2196/17 17161/11 60951/12 2473/10 64816/11 66179/11 72875/12 Name Yildirim v. Turkey Main application number 72957/12 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 [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