003-7668551-10573311

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 166 (2023) 07.06.2023 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 16 judgments on Tuesday 13 June 2023 and 23 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 15 June 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 13 June 2023 Badalyan v. Armenia (application no. 28215/11) The applicant, Nairi Badalyan, is an Armenian and American national who was born in 1968 and lives in North Hollywood (United States of America). The case concerns the applicant's allegation that he was subjected to repeated torture between November 1999 and June 2000 when detained as a suspect in a high-profile criminal case involving a shooting in the Armenian Parliament. Initial enquiries into his allegations were carried out in 2000, and criminal proceedings were instituted in 2002. The investigation that followed was ultimately discontinued in 2010 because of the expiry of the limitation period. The criminal case against Mr Badalyan was eventually dropped for lack of evidence. The applicant complains that the conduct of the criminal proceedings concerning his allegations of ill-treatment entailed numerous violations of his rights, including under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Khokhlov v. Cyprus v. (no. 53114/20) The applicant, Iurii Khokhlov, is a Russian national who was born in 1970. The case concerns the applicant's detention in Cyprus for over two years pending extradition to Russia in connection with an investigation into large-scale fraud. He was stopped in October 2018 when travelling through Larnaca International Airport on the basis of an international arrest warrant and placed in detention. His extradition was delayed, among other things, because of the Covid-19 pandemic. He was ultimately extradited in December 2020. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security/right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by court liberty) of the European Convention, the applicant alleges that his detention pending extradition was unlawful and unreasonably long, in particular that the appeal proceedings on his case before the Supreme Court were excessively long. UAB Ambercore DC and UAB Arcus Novus v. Lithuania (no. 56774/18) UAB BRAITIN v. Lithuania (no. 13863/19) The applicants are three companies based in or near Vilnius. The companies in the first case are involved in telecommunications: UAB Arcus Novus deals with technological projects, and its subsidiary, UAB AmberCore DC, constructs and develops data centres. Ambercore DC is owned by a group of private investors. The company in the second case, UAB Braitin, manages collective investment schemes and is 100% owned by a private individual, R.K. Both cases concern decisions refusing the applicant companies permission to proceed with planned business projects in Vilnius because they were a threat to national security. The companies in the first case wanted to build a data storage facility, while the company in the second case intended to acquire an investment company. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant companies complain that the decisions against them were unfair because they were taken on the basis of evidence which had been classified and thus withheld from them. UAB Ambercore DC and UAB Arcus Novus also complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, (protection of property) that they incurred financial losses because they had not received security clearance to build the data storage facility. UAB Braitin also brings a complaint, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, that its reputation had been tarnished because the authorities had revealed certain information during the proceedings on its case. Sperisen v. Switzerland (no. 22060/20) The applicant, Erwin Johann Sperisen, is a Swiss and Guatemalan national who was born in 1970 and is the former Director General of the Guatemalan National Civil Police (NCP). He is currently imprisoned in Krauchthal (Switzerland). The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, who challenges the impartiality of the President of the bench of the Criminal Appeals and Retrial Division ("the CPAR") of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva which determined, on appeal, the criminal charge against him. In 2007, shortly after resigning from his post as head of the NCP, Mr Sperisen left Guatemala and settled in Geneva with his family. On 20 July 2007 the Communaut� genevoise d'action syndicale, a trade-union organisation, and various other non-governmental organisations lodged a criminal complaint against him, accusing him of having committed several offences while at the NCP; in particular, they alleged that he had been involved in extrajudicial violence in Guatemala. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleges that the President of the CPAR lacked impartiality, on account of certain terms that she used in the order of 18 July 2017 and in her observations of 3 October 2017. Akt�rk and Others v. T�rkiye (no. 16757/21) The case concerns six Turkish nationals who were born between 1956 and 1968. They complain about a decision by the administrative authorities to annul the sale of a plot of agricultural land � which their deceased relative had occupied continuously since 1966 and had purchased from the Polatli District Governor's office in 2017, a few weeks before his death. The Ankara Directorate General of Civil Security and Crisis Management had requested the land in question � located in an area that had been declared a flood zone as a result of heavy rains � with a view to using it to build homes for victims of natural disasters. The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. Baydemir v. T�rkiye (no. 23445/18) The applicant, Osman Baydemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971. At the relevant time he was a member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and of the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party. The case concerns the disciplinary sanction � a ban on attendance for two parliamentary sessions and withholding of two-thirds of his monthly allowance as a member of parliament (around 2,600 euros in total) � imposed on Mr Baydemir by the Turkish Grand National Assembly on account of statements made by him during an Assembly debate in 2017. Mr Baydemir complains that this penalty amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 10 of the Convention. Thursday 15 June 2023 Fanouni v. France (no. 31185/18) The applicant, Mistafa Fanouni, is a French national who was born in 1970 and lives in Champagnesur-Oise (France). The case concerns a home curfew order imposed in the context of a state of emergency. In two orders of 16 November and 18 December 2015, the Minister of the Interior issued a home curfew order prohibiting Mr Fanouni from leaving Champagne-sur-Oise, and requiring him to report four times a day to the Parmain gendarmerie station and to remain at home between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. In two judgments of 18 February 2016, the Cergy-Pontoise Administrative Court set aside those orders for abuse of authority. On an appeal by the Minister of the Interior, on 21 June 2016 the Versailles Administrative Court of Appeal quashed those two judgments and set aside the lower court's findings. Mr Fanouni appealed on points of law against this judgment. In a decision of 28 December 2017, the Conseil d'Etat quashed the judgment of 21 June 2016 on the grounds that the adversarial principle had been breached. Then, ruling on the merits, the Conseil d'Etat quashed the two judgments of 18 February 2016. However, the home curfew order issued in respect of Mr Fanouni was not reimposed. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), the applicant alleges that his right to freedom of movement was breached. He contests the foreseeability of section 6 of the State of Emergency Act of 3 April 1955, and the assessment of the facts carried out by the domestic courts on the basis of a "note blanche" (a confidential document prepared by the intelligence services) submitted by the Minister of the Interior. He also submits that the judicial review of the home curfew order was deficient. Iquioussen v. France (no. 37550/22) The applicant, Hassan Iquioussen, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1964 and had been living in France since birth. He held a residence permit from 1982 until his most recent permit expired on 2 June 2022. On 29 July 2022 the Minister of the Interior issued an order for his removal and withdrawing his right to reside, and another indicating Morocco as the destination country. On 25 August 2022 the applicant went to Belgium, and on 13 January 2023 he was removed to Morocco by the Belgian authorities. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleges that his removal to Morocco has exposed him to a risk of treatment that would be contrary to that provision. He also raises complaints under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (right to freedom of expression) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Gaidukevich v. Georgia (no. 38650/18) The applicant, Albina Gaidukevich, is a Georgian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Tbilisi. The case concerns the death of Ms Gaidukevich's daughter, A.L., who was found hanged in 2017. A.L. had complained to the police of violent behaviour on the part of her partner, G.K., on at least 16 occasions. The police opened an investigation into A.L.'s death on suspicion of incitement to suicide. G.K. was finally convicted of domestic violence, but was sentenced to time already served and released. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Ms Gaidukevich complains that the authorities failed to protect her daughter from domestic violence and failed to conduct an adequate investigation into her death. Roccella v. Italy (no. 44764/16) The applicant, Armando Giovanni Roccella, is an Italian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Genoa. The case concerns a complaint by the applicant, a lawyer who was tried before the Sestri Levante Justice of the Peace for the offence of insult during the enforcement of a court-ordered seizure. He criticises the appellate court for failing to examine the witnesses directly before ordering him, for the first time, to pay damages to the civil party. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains that the criminal court of appeal ordered him to pay damages to the civil party without first hearing the witnesses whose statements had been decisive in the decision to acquit him at first instance. Gapoenko v. Latvia (no. 30237/18) The applicant, Aleksandrs Gapoenko, is a "permanently resident non-citizen" of Latvia. He was born in 1954 and lives in Riga. He is a political activist who advocates for the rights of the Russianspeaking minority in Latvia. The case concerns the arrest in 2018 and subsequent detention of Mr Gapoenko for various alleged criminal offences related to actions directed against national independence and incitement to hatred. He had put a series of posts on social media concerning Russo-Latvian relations in which he spoke about, among many other topics, NATO, language policy in Latvia, and the Russian minority in Latvia, with accusations that the NATO presence in Latvia was to intimidate Russophones and predictions of a nuclear war between Russia and NATO. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Gapoenko complains that his arrest and detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion, and that his detention on remand violated his freedom of expression. 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 13 June 2023 Name Kola v. Albania Kukavica v. Bulgaria Osso v. Bulgaria H.A. and Others v. Greece Main application number 70656/17 57202/21 51056/21 4892/18 Viotto v. the Republic of Moldova Fesih �oban v. T�rkiye Kaplan v. T�rkiye �calan v. T�rkiye Tuncer and Others v. T�rkiye 12083/20 50239/11 11343/16 24872/12 60237/11 Thursday 15 June 2023 Name Avdiu and Others v. Albania Kamal v. Bulgaria Ali v. Croatia Baukovi v. Croatia Tvrdini v. Croatia T v. France Aggloupas v. Greece Ahmadzai v. Hungary Deguara Caruana Gatto and Gera v. Malta Grefsrud-Halvorsen v. Norway Dalvy v. the 47 member States Mohamad v. Sweden Ekiz v. T�rkiye Karako� and K���ktepe v. T�rkiye �zkurt v. T�rkiye �zsoy and Others v. T�rkiye ahin and Others v. T�rkiye Khaydari v. Ukraine Main application number 49516/17 21971/21 39158/21 74808/17 40422/17 8289/21 28616/17 66069/16 20064/21 39661/22 61548/21 12805/19 16682/15 40198/11 289/21 2727/21 40875/12 59631/19 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