003-7490799-10276387

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 358 (2022) 16.11.2022 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six judgments on Tuesday 22 November 2022 and nine judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 24 November 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 22 November 2022 Baskys v. Lithuania (application no. 47410/20) The applicant, Arnas Baskys, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Lithuania. The case concerns court proceedings between the applicant and his ex-wife concerning residence and maintenance for their son. The couple had been living in the United Kingdom when they separated. Mr Baskys has irregular contact with his son, which has also been a subject of proceedings. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Baskys complains of the decision to assign his son's residence as his mother's home, and alleges that he has been denied adequate contact with him. G.M. and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 44394/15) The applicants are three Moldovan nationals. Two were born in 1984 and one was born in 1973. They have intellectual disabilities of varying levels of severity and were all institutionalised in the Bli neuropsychiatric residential asylum at some point in time. Having been raped on various occasions by one of the head doctors in the asylum, two of the applicants claim to have become pregnant and all three claim to have been forced to have an abortion and to have intrauterine contraceptive devices implanted without their consent. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that they were subjected to involuntary abortions and birth-control measures and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. D.B. and Others v. Switzerland (nos. 58817/15 and 58252/15) The applicants are three Swiss nationals. The first and second applicants were born in 1973 and 1976 and are a same-sex couple. The third applicant is a child who was born via surrogacy in 2011 in the United States and also has US nationality. In July 2010 the first and second applicants entered into a surrogacy contract in the United States. An embryo from an anonymous donor's egg and the second applicant's sperm was implanted in a surrogate's uterus. Once the pregnancy was confirmed the California court delivered an order declaring the first and second applicants to be the legal parents of the unborn child. When the third applicant was born, a birth certificate reflecting the order was issued in the United States. The case concerns the Swiss authorities' refusal to recognise the parent-child relationship established in the United States between the intended parent (the first applicant) and the child (the third applicant). It also concerns the length of the proceedings which resulted in the recognition of the parent-child relationship. The applicants also submit that the third applicant suffered discrimination on grounds of birth in that the refusal to recognise the birth certificate was based on the fact that the child had been conceived through surrogacy. They argue that the third applicant was discriminated against as the child of a same-sex couple because until 1 January 2018 there was no way for same-sex couples to secure recognition of their parenthood. The applicants accordingly rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention and on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8. �i�ek and Others v. T�rkiye (nos. 48694/10, 74018/11, 29254/12, 77545/12, and 81601/12) The case concerns five applications lodged by five Turkish nationals (born between 1965 and 1990) who were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment for taking part in demonstrations allegedly held at the behest of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal armed organisation) on various dates between 2006 and 2009. Relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention, the applicants complain of their conviction and sentencing for taking part in the demonstrations. 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 22 November 2022 Name Dronic v. the Republic of Moldova Yeil v. T�rkiye Main application number 28650/05 7155/12 Thursday 24 November 2022 Name GVG-Com S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova Vasi v. Serbia Akbaba v. T�rkiye Dinar v. T�rkiye G�nay v. T�rkiye Kaya v. T�rkiye Top�uolu v. T�rkiye Yakut v. T�rkiye Yarair and Others v. T�rkiye Main application number 30061/13 42860/18 14979/20 17391/21 18206/18 61831/12 471/13 3750/10 44281/18 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. 3