003-7411597-10142787

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 255 (2022) 25.08.2022 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 16 judgments on Tuesday 30 August 2022 and 23 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 1 September 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 30 August 2022 Korporativna Targovska Banka AD v. Bulgaria (applications nos. 46564/15 and 68140/16) The applicant, Korporativna Targovska Banka AD, is a bank based in Bulgaria which obtained its licence in 1994. The case concerns the withdrawal of its licence by the Bulgarian National Bank following its placement in special administration and the resulting court proceedings in which it was ordered that it be wound up. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant bank complains, in particular, of the decision to withdraw its licence and of the alleged impossibility for it to obtain judicial review of that decision. R. v. France (no. 49857/20) The applicant, R., is a Russian national of Chechen origin who was born in 1998 in Grozny. The case concerns his having been deported to Russia while he was a refugee but had lost his status as such. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention, the applicant maintains that his removal to Russia put him at risk of being treated in a manner contrary to that Article, and that the risk materialised after he was deported on 13 November 2020. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, he complains of the risk he faced of forced disappearance in Russia upon the enforcement of the deportation order. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he submits that his removal unduly interfered with his right to respect for his private and family life. W. v. France (no. 1348/21) The applicant, W., is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Orl�ans. The case concerns an order which has been made to deport the applicant, a Russian national of Chechen origin whose refugee status has been revoked, to Russia. The applicant maintains that removal to Russia would put him at risk of being treated in a manner contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. Ana-Bianca P�rvu v. Romania (no. 13326/18) The applicant, Ana-Bianca P�rvu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Brila (Romania). The case concerns the applicant's allegation of a chaotic police operation on 26 September 2009 when her husband was shot in the head after officers mistook him for an international fugitive. Her husband died in hospital shortly afterwards. The investigation into the killing, lasting 11 years, concluded that the police squad had acted in self-defence because the applicant's husband had tried to escape by reversing into one of the police cars and that the fatal gunshot had been accidental. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant essentially complains of excessive use of force by the police. She alleges that guns were used at very close range on her unarmed husband and his passenger, who panicked because they thought they were under attack by a criminal gang as the police officers who had surrounded their car were in plain clothes. She also complains that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into her husband's death, alleging that the length of the investigation was excessive, with various deficiencies being identified by the domestic courts themselves over four judicial decisions ordering that the case be sent back to the prosecutor's office for further investigations. C. v. Romania (no. 47358/20) The applicant, C., is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Fibi, Romania. The case concerns allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace following a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant, a cleaning lady in a railway station, against the railway station manager, accusing him of repeatedly trying to force himself on her over a period of two years, and the State's alleged failure to deal with the matter. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains that the manner in which the authorities, and notably the prosecutors and the courts, reacted to and examined the humiliating and embarrassing situation in which she had been placed deprived her of a fair resolution of her complaints and produced negative consequences for her private life, her relationship with her work colleagues and her health in general. Tus v. Romania (no. 21854/18) The applicant, Maria Tus, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Lazu, Romania. Ms Tus complains that she had surgery to remove her left breast on the basis of a cancer diagnosis which later turned out to be mistaken. She complains of the consequences of the surgery and of the outcome of the proceedings which she instituted in the national courts. She relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Ibragimova v. Russia (no. 68537/13) The applicant, Naylya Razinovna Ibragimova, was born in 1988 and lived in Murmansk (Russia) at the time of the events. The case concerns the applicant's conviction in administrative-offence proceedings for wearing a balaclava during a demonstration in August 2012 in a square in Murmansk (Russia). She was staging a lone protest in reaction to the trial of the Pussy Riot punk band and her balaclava, a green knitted hat with eyeholes stretched to the chin, was similar to that worn by the band during their performances. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains about her conviction, submitting that the relevant domestic law � banning the concealing of one's face during a public event � is excessively rigid. She also argues that there is no evidence to prove that she refused to take the balaclava off, or that police officers present during her protest either attempted to check her identity or caution her. Sergey Sorokin v. Russia (no. 52808/09) The applicant, Sergey Vladimirovich Sorokin, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Syktyvkar, Republic of Komi (Russia). The applicant is a journalist and public activist. In 2008 he published an interview � on the website of his weekly newspaper, Zyryanskaya zhizn � with a high-ranking police officer regarding a scandal about abuse of power. A criminal case was subsequently opened against the police officer for disclosing State secrets. The applicant's case with the European Court concerns the search of his flat and the seizure of his computer, four hard drives and an audio cassette in the context of these criminal proceedings. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant alleges in particular that the search and seizure warrant was worded in such wide terms that all his electronic devices were seized, along with confidential information completely unrelated to the criminal case. He also alleges that the subsequent judicial review of the measures against him failed to balance protection of journalistic sources against the needs of the criminal investigation. He also relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Traskunova v. Russia (no. 21648/11) The applicant, Nonna Vladimirovna Traskunova, now deceased, was a Russian national who was born in 1925. Her grandson is continuing the application on her behalf. The case concerns the death of the applicant's daughter in 2006 while she was participating in the clinical trial of a new drug � asenapine � for schizophrenia. The ensuing inquiry revealed that her daughter had slipped into a coma and died because of heart disease which had gone undetected and which had been aggravated by the experimental drug. The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to have disciplinary proceedings instituted against those responsible and to bring criminal proceedings into the death. Relying on Article2 (right to life), the applicant argued that her daughter's doctors had put her life at risk by failing to carry out comprehensive medical check-ups prior to admitting her to the trials, to then monitor her condition, and to discontinue the trials as soon as side effects had appeared. Y.G. v. Russia (no. 8647/12) The applicant, Y.G, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow. He is HIVpositive and suffers from hepatitis. The case concerns the collection of health data, including that of the applicant, in a database that was made available for sale at a market. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that the law-enforcement authorities had unlawfully collected, stored and entered his health data in a database, and that they had failed to ensure the confidentiality of his data and to carry out an effective investigation into their disclosure. Thursday 1 September 2022 Safarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 885/12) The applicant, Rafig Firuz oglu Safarov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1959 and lives in Baku. He is the author of a book, published in 2009, on the history of Azerbaijan. The case concerns the alleged infringement of the applicant's copyright on account of the unauthorised reproduction of his book and its online publication by a private party without his authorisation or paying him any royalties. His subsequent civil claim was dismissed, as was ultimately his cassation appeal. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains of the State's failure to protect his intellectual property interests and that the domestic courts' judgments in his case had not been reasoned. Z. v. Croatia (no. 21347/21) The applicant, Z, is a Croatian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Oroslavje (Croatia). In December 2018, the applicant, with the consent of his former partner and mother of his children, moved with the four children to Germany, but seven months later the mother revoked her consent to the applicant's having care of the children, and retained the children in Croatia after the summer holidays. The case concerns proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in which the domestic courts refused to order the return of the applicant's four children to Germany. The applicant complains that by refusing to order the return of his children to Germany, the domestic courts violated his right to respect for his family life under Article 8. Makarashvili and Others v. Georgia (nos. 23158/20, 31365/20, and 32525/20) The applicants, Giorgi Makarashvili, Irakli Katcharava and Zurab Berdzenishvili, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1985, 1978 and 1991 respectively and live in Tbilisi and Kutaisi (Georgia). The case concerns the applicants' arrest at a demonstration in 2019 in which all entrances to the Georgian Parliament building were blocked in protest against the Parliament's failure to pass reforms to the electoral system. It also concerns the subsequent administrative-offence proceedings, in which the applicants were ultimately found guilty and given custodial sentences ranging between four and twelve days. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complain, in particular, that the courts gave too much weight to the police officers' statements, unfairly placed the burden of proof on them, and that in the absence of a prosecutor in the administrative-offence proceedings the trial judge assumed the latter's functions and so was partial. Furthermore, they allege they did not have enough time to prepare their defence, and that they were unable to secure witness attendance on the same terms as the prosecution. Lastly, they complain that their arrest and conviction violated their right to peaceful assembly. P.C. v. Ireland (no. 26922/19) The applicant, P.C., is an Irish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Dublin. The case concerns the statutory disqualification of a convicted prisoner from receipt of the contributory State pension for the duration of his or her imprisonment. Relying on Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains of having been disqualified from receipt of his pension, of being discriminated against on several grounds, and of not having an effective remedy for these allegations. Piperea v. Romania (no. 24183/21) The applicant, Gheorghe Piperea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns Mr Piperea's complaint against measures put in place by the government of Romania under a state of alert declared on 18 May 2020, following a state of emergency declared on 16 March 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 2 � 1 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), the applicant alleges that the declaration of a state of alert (declararea strii de alert) issued in Romania on 18 May 2020 to combat the pandemic caused by the SARSCoV-2 virus had given rise to a restriction on his right to freedom of movement and had amounted to a violation of his right to respect for private life because of the requirement it imposed on people leaving home in certain circumstances to fill out a document stating where they were going, why and for how long, together with other personal information. Th�rn v. Sweden (no. 24547/18) The applicant, Andreas Th�rn, is a Swedish national who was born in 1978 and lives in V�ster�s (Sweden). The case concerns the conviction and fine issued to Mr Th�rn for a cannabis offence. He asserts that he was taking the drug for pain relief, but did not have a prescription to that effect. He has been confined to a wheelchair since 1994 following breaking his neck in a traffic accident, with many issues around pain in the years since. At the time, medical cannabis was available in Sweden mainly for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private 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 30 August 2022 Name Gal v. Romania Welsh and Silva Canha v. Portugal Rotaru v. Romania A.E.J. v. Romania Moloiu and Others v. Romania - Revision Armau and Burtan Konya and Others v. Romania - Revision tefnescu Main application number 49229/15 58106/15 26075/16 33463/18 30787/03 37087/03 Thursday 1 September 2022 Name Guliyeva v. Azerbaijan Rahimov v. Azerbaijan Sadigov v. Azerbaijan Cisi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina B�y�k v. Bulgaria Koteva v. Bulgaria Magdi v. Croatia Zuli v. Croatia C.V. and M.E.D. v. France De Pracomtal and Fondation J�r�me Lejeune v. France Bolognese and Others v. Italy Main application number 72608/13 40026/09 1459/14 53638/21 23843/17 33654/18 17578/20 69108/17 13948/21 34701/17 7312/10 Name P.H. and Others v. Italy Paviglianiti v. Italy Samsser Khan v. Portugal Panaet v. Romania Peniu v. Romania Hasan Deveci v. T�rkiye Main application number 27157/19 13331/15 76551/16 34690/21 13136/20 42785/11 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. 6