003-7688224-10608337

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 191 (2023) 28.06.2023 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 11 judgments on Tuesday 4 July 2023 and 72 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 6 July 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 4 July 2023 Thanza v. Albania (application no. 41047/19) The applicant, Admir Thanza, is an Albanian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Tirana. The case concerns the vetting of the applicant by the authorities, which resulted in his dismissal from his post as a Supreme Court judge. Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains, in particular, that the vetting proceedings did not include a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and that his dismissal prevented him from practising law. Tristan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 13451/15) The applicant, Tatiana Tristan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954. She lives in the municipality of Valea Perjii, where she was mayor between 2003 and 2007. The case concerns the applicant's conviction for an offence with which, in her submission, she could no longer be charged following an amendment to the relevant criminal-law provisions while the criminal proceedings against her were pending. In 2008 the applicant was charged with abuse of power committed by a "person holding a position of responsibility", an offence under Article 328 � 1 of the Criminal Code. In 2011 the public prosecutor amended the charge against the applicant, classifying the acts of which she was accused as abuse of power by a "person holding a high-level position of responsibility", an offence under Article 328 � 3 (b) of the Criminal Code as it stood at the relevant time. In December of the same year, a new law (no. 245 of 2 December 2011) amended, inter alia, the provisions of Article 328 � 3 (b) of the Criminal Code by, in particular, substituting the term "person holding a high-level position of responsibility" with the term "public official". In 2012 the public prosecutor issued an order specifying that the applicant was accused of having committed the offence provided for in Article 328 � 3 (b) of the Criminal Code, in its new wording. The same year, the applicant was convicted of that offence. In 2013 the appeal court dismissed the applicant's appeal, considering that the new wording of the law had replaced the former. The Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant's subsequent appeal and upheld the appeal court's judgment. Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention, the applicant alleges that, contrary to the criminal law in force at the relevant time, the acts with which she had been charged were no longer punishable under the new law. Under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, she complains that the domestic courts, in particular the Supreme Court of Justice, did not address her argument concerning the principle of the retrospective application of the more lenient penalty. Glukhin v. Russia (no. 11519/20) The applicant, Nikolay Sergeyevich Glukhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Moscow. The case concerns the authorities' use of facial recognition technology against Mr Glukhin following his holding a solo demonstration in the Moscow underground on 23 August 2019. He had in particular been identified, located and arrested after travelling with a life-size cardboard figure of Konstanin Kotov, a protestor whose case had caused a public outcry and attracted widespread attention in the media, holding a banner that said, "I'm facing up to five years ... for peaceful protests". The applicant complains that his ensuing administrative conviction for failing to notify the authorities of his protest breached his rights under Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention. In addition, relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private life), he complains that the proceedings were unfair because there was no prosecuting party and that facial recognition technology had been used in the processing of his personal data B.F. and Others v. Switzerland (nos. 13258/18, 15500/18, 57303/18, and 9078/20) The applicants, four Eritrean nationals and one Chinese national, were born between 1967 and 1980 and reside in Switzerland. The case concerns the refusal of their requests for family reunification. They had entered Switzerland at different points in time between 2008 and 2012 and were recognised as refugees. They were, however, granted provisional admission to the country, not asylum, since the grounds � fear of persecution � for their refugee status were deemed to have arisen after leaving their countries of origin and as a result of their illegal exit. As such, their entitlement to family reunification was discretionary and subject to certain conditions being met, in particular non-reliance on social assistance. The applicants complain that the refusal of their requests for family reunification breached their right to respect for their family life under Article 8 of the Convention. Some also complain that refusing their requests for family reunification had also been in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8. Al v. T�rkiye (no. 4904/20) The applicant, Ejder Al, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in zmir (T�rkiye). The case concerns the investigation carried out into the circumstances of the death of the applicant's son, which occurred in 2013 while he was performing his compulsory military service in irnak-Uludere (T�rkiye). The criminal investigation concluded that the applicant's son had committed suicide with his service weapon. The military public prosecutor ordered that the proceedings be discontinued, which was upheld by the military court. The applicant lodged an individual appeal with the Constitutional Court, submitting that her son had had no reason to commit suicide and that he had possibly been killed. She complained that the criminal investigation into her son's death had been inadequate to the point that it could not be deemed "effective". Her appeal was dismissed by the Constitutional Court in 2019. The applicant relies on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention. Thursday 6 July 2023 Guliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 54588/13) The applicant, Shamil Nabi oglu Guliyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1974 and lives in Baku. The case concerns the applicant's dismissal from the prosecution service after breaking up with his girlfriend and after a quarrel broke out between them which became the subject of an investigation by the criminal prosecution authorities. He was dismissed because "despite the [relevant] recommendations" he "failed to draw [the necessary] conclusions and to take steps to solve the problem stemming from his personal relationship [with his former girlfriend]". He complains, in particular, that his dismissal was unlawful and in breach of his right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention. B.M. and Others v. France (no. 84187/17 and 5 other applications) The applicants are French and Surinamese nationals. They were detained in Fresnes Prison between 2016 and 2019. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants, with the exception of one of them, allege that they were systematically subjected to full body searches when leaving the visiting rooms. Relying on Articles 3 and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, they complain of their conditions of detention in Fresnes Prison and submit that they had no effective remedy in that regard. Calvi and C.G. v. Italy (no. 43412/21) The applicants, Augusto Calvi and C.G., are Italian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1930 and live in Italy. Mr Calvi is acting in his own name and also on behalf of his cousin, C.G., who is the subject of a legalprotection measure imposed by a guardianship judge and who has been living in a nursing home (residenza sanitaria assistenziale) since his placement there on 30 October 2020. Relying on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain about the legal-protection measure imposed on C.G. and of his consequent social isolation. Mr Calvi complains, in particular, about his inability to make contact with C.G., and about the decisions of the guardianship judge. As to C.G., he complains about his placement in a nursing home since 2020 and about the impossibility for him to return to his own home or to receive visitors in the institution where he lives. Tuleya v. Poland (nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20) The applicant is a Polish national, Igor Tuleya, who was born in 1970 and lives in Warsaw. He is a well-known judge and has held judicial office since 1996. The case originates in the new disciplinary regime for judges in Poland. It concerns in particular five sets of preliminary inquiries initiated against Mr Tuleya in 2018 on suspicion of disciplinary misconduct. One of the inquiries, concerning his alleged disclosure of sensitive information from an investigation file, led to criminal proceedings against him, the lifting of his immunity from prosecution and suspension from his official duties for two years. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Tuleya complains that the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court, which ruled in the decisions to lift his immunity and suspend him from his judicial duties, did not meet the requirements of an "independent and impartial tribunal established by law". He also alleges that the measures taken against him amounted to legal harassment and cast doubt on his reputation as a judge, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), and were in retaliation for his public criticism of the authorities' undermining of judicial independence, in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression). In his view, such measures were not only intended to discourage and intimidate, but also to exercise control over judges. Lastly, he alleges under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that there was no legal avenue for him to contest the breach of his privacy rights. 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 4 July 2023 Name Kalyakiny v. Armenia Naltakyan and Others v. Armenia Naltakyan and Others v. Armenia Dumitrescu v. Romania Shammat v. Romania Kalocai Sobonja v. Serbia Main application number 66654/12 30312/11 47448/12 36815/20 15807/14 19857/10 Thursday 6 July 2023 Name Elgakoti SH.P.K. and Others v. Albania Mulla v. Albania Atoyan and Kosoyan v. Armenia Hakobyan and Kirakosyan v. Armenia Abdullazade v. Azerbaijan Agayeva and Others v. Azerbaijan Bakhshaliyev v. Azerbaijan Guliyev v. Azerbaijan Humbatov v. Azerbaijan Huseynov and Others v. Azerbaijan Mammad v. Azerbaijan Nasirov and Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan Novruzzade v. Azerbaijan Juri v. Croatia Resi v. Croatia Uroda v. Croatia Aden Ali v. France Sitchinava v. Georgia Nikas v. Greece Raffael and Others v. Hungary Aleksic v. Italy Main application number 63986/10 72348/11 41732/18 35738/19 52394/20 38346/20 44718/20 49574/20 10119/22 22698/20 46990/20 3676/21 20409/22 20362/17 23323/22 36812/22 20252/21 4496/11 34649/19 48641/22 49968/22 Name De Stasio and Others v. Italy Galbo and Others v. Italy Mercuri v. Italy Moccia Dello Ioio and Others v. Italy F.C.P. Corna S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova Miron v. the Republic of Moldova Stristeanu v. the Republic of Moldova Hasan and Others v. North Macedonia Y and Z v. North Macedonia Bana and Tusiski v. Poland Dubieszko and Others v. Poland Janek and Orlowski v. Poland Kossowski v. Poland Nogajski v. Poland Cunha Casaca v. Portugal Matos Duarte v. Portugal Ressurei��o Louren�o v. Portugal Teixeira Martins da Fonseca v. Portugal Asan and Others v. Romania Barbu and Others v. Romania �etiner and Others v. Romania Drgan and Others v. Romania Hodos-Bara and Others v. Romania Ichim v. Romania Ionescu v. Romania Ionescu v. Romania Letcanu and Others v. Romania M�ndril and Others v. Romania Nimigan and Others v. Romania Panainte v. Romania Priscaru and erban v. Romania Raiffeisen Bank S.A. v. Romania Stan and Dinc v. Romania teau and Others v. Romania Teca and Others v. Romania Letonje v. Slovenia Fiyalo and Others v. Ukraine Ganysh and Others v. Ukraine Korzh and Others v. Ukraine Kosko v. Ukraine Kotsaba and Others v. Ukraine Kulish v. Ukraine Lagoshenko and Others v. Ukraine Roman and Others v. Ukraine Selegey and Others v. Ukraine Main application number 32590/07 50926/09 49304/17 12784/10 39258/14 10323/16 62100/12 35981/21 53742/21 15071/21 26749/20 61510/21 24406/14 26593/21 17761/22 19395/21 15759/21 48802/21 33798/16 46800/16 15241/16 40227/16 15849/17 50564/16 76749/16 819/17 20526/16 32298/16 26985/16 46322/16 51916/16 13650/15 49768/16 62090/16 26454/17 10397/20 62545/15 36314/15 56154/21 41832/16 20293/16 6023/23 47045/21 20554/18 50900/18 Name Shakhmina and Shakhmin v. Ukraine Shkurenko and Others v. Ukraine Main application number 14480/20 44327/21 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