003-7650499-10541744

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 144 (2023) 17.05.2023 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six judgments on Tuesday 23 May 2023 and 59 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 25 May 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 23 May 2023 Panju v. Belgium (no. 2) (application no. 49072/21) The applicant, Zulfikarali Panju, is a Canadian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bukavu (Democratic Republic of Congo). The case concerns civil proceedings for compensation, brought by Mr Panju against the Belgian State to seek redress for the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him. In 2002 a warrant was issued for the applicant's arrest on suspicion of illegal trafficking in gold and breaching the legislation on money laundering. On 28 October 2014 the European Court of Human Rights, to which Mr Panju had applied, delivered a judgment (Panju v. Belgium, no. 18393/09, 28 October 2014) finding that the length of the investigation into his conduct had exceeded a reasonable time for the purposes of Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention. The Brussels Indictments Division subsequently declared the prosecution of Mr Panju inadmissible, on the grounds that this excessive length of proceedings had made it impossible to exercise the rights of the defence, and that this had irremediably prejudiced his right to a fair trial. Following that decision, Mr Panju brought an action for damages against the Belgian State under Articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code, seeking compensation for the damage sustained on account of the excessive length of the proceedings. This action was dismissed by the Belgian courts, which considered that the non-pecuniary damage referred to by the applicant had been redressed by the decision that the prosecution was inadmissible, and that the pecuniary damage did not result from the length of the proceedings, but rather from the delay in returning the assets and gold seized from May 2011 onwards. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) taken together with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Panju alleges that the compensation claim lodged by him before the Belgian courts was ineffective, in that he has not been compensated for the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage sustained. A.E. v. Bulgaria (no. 53891/20) The applicant, A.E., is a Bulgarian national who was born in 2004 and lives in Kostinbrod (Bulgaria). The case concerns complaints brought to prosecutors in Bulgaria that Ms A.E., then aged 15, had been a victim of domestic abuse, including being beaten, kicked and strangled, by the 23-year-old man with whom she was living. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention, the applicant complains, in particular, of the State's failure to protect her in law from domestic violence and to effectively investigate her complaints in that regard, and that she was discriminated against on the grounds of age and sex. Irodotou v. Cyprus (no. 16783/20) The applicant, Marios Irodotou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1964 and lives in Paphos (Cyprus). The case concerns the applicant's complaint about the delay in private criminal proceedings against him for alleged failure to pay a debt to a credit institution. The proceedings were discontinued in 2019 by decision of the Attorney General. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the length of the proceedings against him, lasting over four and a half years, was unreasonable. He also alleges under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy to complain about the length of the proceedings. I.S. v. Greece (no. 19165/20) The applicant, Mr I.S., is a Greek national who was born in born in 1976 and lives in Athens. The case concerns the applicant's loss of contact with his two daughters, born in 2007 and 2011, who now live on the island of Tinos with their mother. He has had no contact with them since 2016, despite court decisions granting him contact rights. He made multiple complaints to various authorities, to no avail. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains of the non-enforcement of the decisions granting him contact rights. He alleges in particular that the authorities failed to carry out court-ordered reports to shed light on the children's psychological state and their living conditions. Buhuceanu and Others v. Romania (no. 20081/19) The applicants are 21 same-sex couples who are Romanian nationals. They were born between 1967 and 1996 and live in various parts of Romania. The case concerns access to legal recognition in Romania for the applicants' relationships. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complain that, as it is impossible for them to enter together into any type of legally recognised union in Romania, they have no means of legally safeguarding their relationships. Yilmaz Aydemir v. T�rkiye (no. 61808/19) The applicant, Yilmaz Aydemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1993 and lives in Ankara (Turkey). The applicant was charged with drug trafficking in February 2016. He remained at liberty during the criminal proceedings against him. He was convicted in 2016 � the trial court sentenced him to 12 years' imprisonment and ordered his immediate detention. The case concerns the judicial review of this detention during the post-conviction phase. Relying on Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), the applicant complains that he was not given a copy of the public prosecutor's written observations submitted to the trial court in relation to his detention, in violation of the principle of equality of arms and the right to adversarial proceedings. 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. Thursday 25 May 2023 Name Tomas v. Croatia A.N. v. Greece Darwesh and Others v. Greece and the Netherlands Fest Kft and Others v. Hungary H�jas and Others v. Hungary Husz�r and Others v. Hungary I.H. v. Hungary Kolomp�r v. Hungary Paur and Others v. Hungary Tak�cs and Others v. Hungary Angelini and Others v. Italy Polti Sud S.r.l. v. Italy Rullo and Others v. Italy G�rbu v. the Republic of Moldova Sajin v. the Republic of Moldova Scripcaru v. the Republic of Moldova Secrieru v. the Republic of Moldova Sinistaj and Pajovi v. Montenegro Kaya v. the Netherlands Asaad and Others v. the Netherlands Hu v. the Netherlands Tong v. the Netherlands Korzeniewski and Others v. Poland Lesto sp z o.o. v. Poland Mr�z v. Poland Paliccy and Others v. Poland Ploskonka v. Poland Sznajder-Malczewska and Others v. Poland Wojta v. Poland Zn�j v. Poland Apetre and Others v. Romania - Revision Cojocaru and Istrate v. Romania Ddu and Others v. Romania Dicu and Others v. Romania - Revision Gerebene and Crciunescu v. Romania Maftei v. Romania Niculciu and Others v. Romania Severin and Others v. Romania Simion v. Romania Sz�nto and Others v. Romania Vduva and tefan v. Romania Vasile and Others v. Romania Main application number 39998/20 7111/19 52334/19 3689/22 18346/22 17728/21 3692/20 26506/22 52606/22 46256/22 20437/19 58572/13 24735/16 32607/16 36186/16 42133/14 38094/15 37625/21 36141/21 31007/20 22069/19 20209/19 32167/19 47835/20 60531/19 39171/20 2637/18 32190/19 52280/16 8079/20 32526/16 59264/16 40661/16 30319/16 27746/17 45486/16 33350/16 26089/16 47978/16 17823/16 14025/17 50275/16 Name Ivanov and Others v. Russia Molibozhenko and Others v. Russia Pavlyuchenko and Others v. Russia Rechenko and Others v. Russia Bulat and Others v. Serbia Ili and Others v. Serbia Jovanovi v. Serbia Jovici v. Serbia Jovovi v. Serbia Kolenak v. Serbia Trajkovi and Others v. Serbia Vujovi Grbovi v. Serbia Vuleti and Others v. Serbia Zari and Others v. Serbia Zolko and Others v. Slovakia Filonenko and Others v. Ukraine Kulyk v. Ukraine Main application number 57884/19 28046/19 7236/18 13359/19 18945/22 14187/22 32821/22 18473/22 28260/21 35076/22 39388/22 45132/21 30829/21 33441/22 45492/22 87/21 22194/18 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