003-7550119-10372699

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 022 (2023) 25.01.2023 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 judgments on Tuesday 31 January 2023 and 22 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 2 February 2023. 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 31 January 2023 Y v. France (application no. 76888/17) The applicant is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives in Strasbourg. The applicant, whose birth certificate indicates that he is "male", states that he is an intersex person. He has submitted medical certificates showing that his biological position as an intersex person was established shortly after his birth and that it had not changed when, at the age of 63, he instituted domestic proceedings to request that the word "male" on his birth certificate be replaced by the word "neutral" or, if that were not possible, by the word "intersex". Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains about the refusal of his request to have the term "neutral" or "intersex" inserted on his birth certificate. Kreyndlin and Others v. Russia (no. 33470/18) The applicants are nine Russian nationals and Sovet Greenpeace, the Russian branch of the international non-governmental organisation Greenpeace. All the applicants are based in Moscow or Moscow Region. The individual applicants were all personnel of Sovet Greenpeace. The case concerns a violent and potentially hate-related attack on Greenpeace workers in Krasnodar Region, where they were fighting wildfires, and the subsequent investigation. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants complain, in particular, that the domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the attack. Abdullah Kili� v. T�rkiye (no. 43979/17) The applicant, Abdullah Kili�, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972. The case concerns the pre-trial detention of a journalist on suspicion of belonging to a terrorist organisation. Mr Kili� was placed in pre-trial detention on 29 July 2016. In January 2017 the Istanbul prosecutor's office filed an indictment accusing him of belonging to the FET�/PDY (an organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the "Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure"). In support of its allegations, the prosecutor's office submitted, in particular, six articles written by the applicant and published in the Meydan daily newspaper between October 2015 and February 2016; seven tweets published between July 2013 and July 2016 on the applicant's Twitter account; the fact that he had a bank account with the BankAsya; and a tweet published on the "Fuatavni" account, purportedly controlled by one of the leaders of the FET�/PDY. In March 2017 the Istanbul 25th Assize Court ordered the applicant's release. However, he was not released since, a few hours after that decision was adopted, the Istanbul prosecutor's office opened a new investigation against him. Mr Kili� was therefore placed in police custody again. Then, in April 2017, a magistrate ordered his return to pre-trial detention. In June 2017 the Istanbul prosecutor's office filed a new bill of indictment against the applicant, seeking the imposition of an aggravated life sentence for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and the government by force and violence. In August 2017 the Istanbul Assize Court, considering that there were factual and legal links between these proceedings and the previous case, decided to join the two sets of criminal proceedings. In March 2018 the Istanbul Assize Court sentenced the applicant to six years and three months' imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation, and the court of appeal upheld that judgment in October 2018. The criminal proceedings are pending before the Court of Cassation. In September 2016 and in April 2018 the applicant lodged two individual applications with the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court examined the applications together. With regard to the "first period of pre-trial detention", the Constitutional Court found that there was sufficient evidence to justify the strong suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed and held that the applicant's placement in pre-trial detention pursued a legitimate aim and had been proportionate to that aim. With regard to the "second period of pre-trial detention" (from April 2017), the Constitutional Court held that, although the legal classification of the offences was different, the two periods of detention concerned the same criminal offence. It held that the decision regarding the "second period of pre-trial detention" had not explained why it was necessary to place the applicant in pre-trial detention and how that measure was proportionate in respect of an offence for which he had previously been released. It held that the applicant's right to liberty and security, as protected by the Constitution, had been breached. It also held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint concerning the applicant's freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and it awarded him about 3,725 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 535 in respect of costs and expenses. Before the European Court, Mr Kili� relies on Article 5 �� 1, 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention. He alleges, in particular, that there was no evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence necessitating his pre-trial detention. He complains about the duration of his pre-trial detention and alleges that insufficient reasons were given for the judicial decisions ordering and extending that detention. He complains about the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. He also alleges that no remedy was available to him that would have been effective in obtaining compensation for the damage he suffered as a result of his pre-trial detention. The applicant also alleges a violation of his right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the Convention, on account of his initial and continued pre-trial detention. He also relies on Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) taken together with Articles 5 and 10, and alleges that he was detained for having expressed critical opinions. Thursday 2 February 2023 Akshin Garayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 30352/11) The applicant, Akshin Gara oglu Garayev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1953 and lives in Baku. He is the owner of a company called Maksima. The case concerns the retention by the authorities since 1997 of property belonging to Maksima � specifically 28 gas turbines � which was evidence in a criminal case concerning embezzlement. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the ongoing and lengthy retention of his property and of a lack of a legal remedy in that regard. Jan�cek v. the Czech Republic (no. 9634/17) The applicant, Ladislav Jan�cek, is a Czech national who was born in 1957 and lives in �cany u Prahy (Czech Republic). The case concerns court proceedings around the division of property following Mr Jan�cek's divorce. The case was heard in the Zlin District Court, whose verdict was appealed against by Mr Jan�cek to the Brno Regional Court. He lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court in 2016, which was unsuccessful. In 2017 bailiffs organised an auction of Mr Jan�cek's property. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr Jan�cek alleges that he did not receive the written observations of the general courts and so was unable to comment on them in submissions before the Constitutional Court. Rocchia v. France (no. 74530/17) The applicant, Patricia Rocchia, is a French national who was born in 1961 and lives in Antibes. Her husband lodged an appeal on her behalf against a two-year prison sentence that had been imposed on her. However, this appeal was declared inadmissible on the grounds that he had not submitted a special authority to act, although it was clear from the information on the notice of appeal that he had power of attorney. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant submits that the refusal to declare her appeal admissible amounted to a disproportionate interference with her right of access to a court, and complains of excessive formalism. Alhowais v. Hungary (no. 59435/17) The applicant, Abdullah Mohamed Alhowais, is a Syrian national who was born in 1996 and lives in Leipzig (Germany). On 1 June 2016 Mr Alhowais, along with his brother and some other individuals including an Iraqi family, crossed the Tisza River from Serbia to Hungary by boat, with the aid of smugglers. Mr Alhowais alleges that Hungarian border guards forced them to turn back towards Serbia. His brother was later found drowned. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Alhowais complains of the death of his brother and of the conduct of the police in returning him to Serbia. He also complains of a lack of an effective investigation into these allegations. 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 31 January 2023 Name Arsenyan v. Armenia Avushyan v. Armenia Stefanova v. Bulgaria Main application number 45197/14 34684/13 39232/17 Name Karantalis v. Greece Savvaidou v. Greece Eanu v. the Republic of Moldova Filat v. the Republic of Moldova Cioroianu v. Romania Oprea v. Romania Restania v. Romania Milshteyn v. Russia Nabokikh and Others v. Russia Sinitsyn and Alekhin v. Russia Balta v. T�rkiye Din� and Saygili v. T�rkiye G�k v. T�rkiye Main application number 67398/14 58715/15 15230/18 72114/17 24621/18 54408/20 10875/19 1377/14 19428/11 39879/12 50994/11 17923/09 70098/11 Thursday 2 February 2023 Name Main application number Agaliyev v. Azerbaijan 8135/12 Aliyev v. Azerbaijan 34717/10 Auto H�gr, a.s. v. the Czech Republic 20745/15 Nmecek v. the Czech Republic 54022/18 Bortolato v. Italy 35967/19 Compostella and Salamone v. Italy 46306/06 E.B. v. Italy 23228/18 Gizzi v. Italy 20007/07 Poletti v. Italy 50326/10 Solidoro v. Italy 19592/14 Public Association 'Information Centre Genderdoc-M' v. the Republic of 23911/15 Moldova Ciornei v. Poland 458/19 Marciniak v. Poland 52089/18 Smolarkiewicz v. Poland 17101/17 Ene v. Romania 50303/16 M.C. v. Romania 27131/18 Petrusi and Others v. Serbia 59134/16 Mermer v. T�rkiye 40692/20 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