003-7564006-10394894

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 037 (2023) 08.02.2023 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing five judgments on Tuesday 14 February 2023 and 24 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 16 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 14 February 2023 Avendi OOD v. Bulgaria (application no. 48786/09) Just Satisfaction The applicant company, Avendi OOD, is a Bulgarian limited-liability company based in Sofia which trades in alcoholic beverages. The case concerns the applicant company's complaint that the authorities failed to comply with a final domestic court decision ordering the return of its merchandise, which had been seized as evidence in criminal proceedings. In January 2005 the Varna regional police carried out a search-and-seizure operation at a warehouse where merchandise belonging to the applicant company was stored. The police seized a number of bottles, of which 26,748 were bottles of Baileys cream liqueur belonging to the applicant company as evidence in ongoing criminal proceedings against a certain M.M. and S.S. who were suspected of storing merchandise subject to excise duty without the mandatory stamps. M.M. and S.S. were subsequently acquitted and the Varna District Court ordered the return of the seized bottles to the applicant company. The court's decision became final in December 2005. However, the investigative and tax authorities continued to retain the bottles pending parallel proceedings against the applicant company for storing merchandise without the mandatory excise duty stamps and against an importing company and its representative for selling the beverages to the applicant company without the mandatory excise duty stamps. All the bottles were eventually returned to the applicant company in March 2007, by which time the shelf life of the bottles of liqueur had expired. The applicant company lodged a claim for damages against the State, requesting that it be awarded compensation for damage and lost profits, but the claim was unsuccessful. The Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights in its judgment of 4 June 2020, but reserved the question of just satisfaction. The Court will decide this question in this judgment. Bycenko v. Lithuania (no. 10477/21) The applicant, Dmitrijus Bycenko, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Vilnius. The case concerns a dispute with his ex-wife O. over the residence of their child M., who was born in 2011. After Mr Bycenko and O. divorced in 2017, they agreed that the child would live with O. In 2018 Mr Bycenko complained to the police that his son had disappeared. The police found that he had been taken to the Netherlands by O. Mr Bycenko went to court to get an order assigning M.'s place of residence as being with him, ultimately unsuccessfully. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination of the European Convention, Mr Bycenko complains, in particular, of the courts' refusal to issue a residence order in respect of his son and of discrimination on the grounds of his gender. Thursday 16 February 2023 Ibrahimbeyov and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 32380/13) The applicants, Rustam Ibrahimbeyov, Shohrat Ibrahimbeyova, and Lala Afandiyeva are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1939, 1966, and 1941 respectively. Mr Ibrahimbeyov has since died; the remaining two live in Baku. The case concerns the alleged unlawful annulment of the applicants' title to plots of land without compensation. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants complain about their loss of land and that the domestic courts' decisions did not provide any explanations. Ochigava v. Georgia (no. 14142/15) The applicant, Akaki Ochigava, is a Georgian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Tbilisi. The case concerns the applicant's treatment whilst he was in Tbilisi Prison no. 8 ("Gldani Prison") after being convicted of robbery. Relying on Article 3 (lack of effective investigation), the applicant complains that he was subjected to systematic acts of ill-treatment in Gldani Prison between June 2011 and August 2012, and that the competent domestic authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation. Perstner v. Luxembourg (no. 7446/21) The case concerns the pre-trial detention in Schrassig, Luxembourg, of the applicant, Kevin Perstner, a French national who was born in 1990. On suspicion of having robbed an elderly couple in 2015, Mr Perstner was surrendered to the Luxembourg authorities by their French counterparts in 2019. After being remanded in custody he made three bail applications, which were refused. In 2021 he was convicted and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, he complains that he was held on remand for too long and that his detention was unreasonable. He argues that the decisions refusing him bail were inadequately reasoned. Taleski and Others v. North Macedonia (nos. 77796/17, 80003/17, 81848/17, 81862/17, 11583/18, and 30884/18) The applicants are seven Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, and one Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia who is also an Albanian national (Mr Temelko). They live in Skopje bar Mr Taleski (Bitola) and Mr Temelko (Resen). Many of the applicants were members of the governing party ( - � VMRO-DPMNE), at the time of the events in question and they all held prominent public positions including Prime Minister, government ministers and mayors. The applicants were tried for alleged crimes related to and arising from the content of unlawful, widespread wiretapping. They received presidential pardons which were later annulled. Following the annulment they were tried, which is the matter of this case. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants (bar Mr Temelko) complain that their being prosecuted following their pardons was in violation of the rule of law, and that the annulment decisions were against the principle of legal certainty owing to their retrospective effect. Furthermore Mr Taleski and Mr Temelko complain under Article 5 � 1 (c) (right to liberty and security) that their pre-trial detention was arbitrary. Hubert Nowak v. Poland (no. 57916/16) The applicant, Hubert Nowak, is a Polish national who was born in 1986 and lives in Warsaw. The case concerns a serious car accident that left Mr Nowak with brain damage and tetraplegic, and the allegedly inadequate first aid provided to him. He was initially pronounced dead by an ambulance doctor and no medical attention was given to him for two hours. Relying principally on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complains that the authorities failed both to protect his right to life and to carry out an effective and thorough investigation into his allegation of medical negligence. 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 14 February 2023 Name Mazur v. the Republic of Moldova Molceanu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova Datekin v. T�rkiye Main application number 26476/14 429/13 69489/10 Thursday 16 February 2023 Name Caucasus Media Research Center Public Association v. Azerbaijan Imranova and Others v. Azerbaijan Majidli v. Azerbaijan Sheikh and Others v. Belgium Francovi v. the Czech Republic Sahed v. France A.H. v. Hungary Armeni v. Italy Damaschin v. the Republic of Moldova Helgesen and Others v. Norway Sak and Giebultowicz v. Poland Weickert v. Slovenia Berisha v. Switzerland Bayir v. T�rkiye Main application number 24212/15 59462/14 7218/13 56833/18 56318/21 9552/21 48146/16 48200/21 16192/18 38015/22 39942/18 11841/21 4723/13 44986/16 Name Kurt and Others v. T�rkiye Bratushka v. Ukraine Kraynyak v. Ukraine Tsugel v. Ukraine Voytsekhovskyy v. Ukraine Main application number 43874/14 67790/13 68353/17 14502/18 41881/18 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. 4