003-7758036-10743628

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 264 (2023) 28.09.2023 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing seven judgments on Tuesday 3 October 2023 and 121 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 5 October 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 3 October 2023 El-Asmar v. Denmark (no. 27753/19) The applicant, Abdallah El-Asmar, is a Danish national who was born in 1992 and lives in Aarhus (Denmark). The case concerns his being sprayed with pepper spray by two guards while he was being held in an observational cell in prison in April 2017. The applicant complains that the incident contravened Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Repecu and Repeco v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 39272/15) The applicants, Adrian Repecu and Constantin Repeco, are two Moldovan nationals who were born in 1979 and 1987 respectively and live in Chiinu. They submit that they were convicted on the basis of incriminating statements that were extracted by the police using unlawful methods. Their complaint, which was lodged under Article 3 of the European Convention, was the subject of a previous application to the Court, which struck it out of its list following a unilateral declaration by the Government that was accepted by the applicants. In the present case, they criticise the national courts' refusal of a retrial, notwithstanding the implicit friendly settlement reached in that previous case. Relying on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, the applicants allege that their conviction was based on evidence obtained by way of ill-treatment. They complain about the Supreme Court of Justice's refusal of a retrial, despite the Court's decision in their previous case, which they claim confirmed the ill-treatment in question. Marin v. Romania (no. 17412/16) The applicant, Vasile Sorin Marin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Bacu (Romania). The case concerns the applicant being fined and then criminally convicted of disorderly and violent conduct during an event in a shopping-centre nightclub in Bacu in September 2011. The applicant complains that he was tried and convicted twice for the same offence in breach of his rights protected by Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. A.A.K. v. T�rkiye (no. 56578/11) The applicant, A.A.K., is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Yenipazar (Aydin, T�rkiye). The case concerns the decision to make the applicant a ward of court following proceedings in which it was found that she suffered from a mental disorder that impeded her legal capacity to act. Complaining that she was declared to be lacking in legal capacity without valid reasons and without legal assistance, the applicant alleges, in particular, that the domestic courts failed to take the necessary steps to secure the presence of an officially assigned lawyer and to reply to her objections to the medical reports on the basis of which her wardship was decided. Relying on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for private life), taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant alleges that her rights were infringed. �etin and Others v. T�rkiye (no. 14684/18) The applicants, Efgan �etin, ermin �etin, Aye �etin, Hasanali �etin and erife Yildiz, are five Turkish nationals who were born between 1945 and 1974. The first applicant lives in Istanbul and the others live in Aydin (Turkey). The case concerns the construction of a geothermal plant in the vicinity of the first applicant's olive grove and the remaining applicants' residences, and the fact that the administrative decision allowing the construction did not require the commissioning of an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and that that decision was not made public even though it should have been according to the national legislation. Relying on Articles 6 (access to court) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain that they were not able to challenge the decision in court. Durukan and Birol v. T�rkiye (nos. 14879/20 and 13440/21) The applicants, Baran Durukan and lknur Birol, are Turkish nationals who were born in 2000 and 1965 respectively and live in Bolu and Istanbul (T�rkiye). The case concerns the applicants' respective convictions and prison sentences � the effects of the judgment being suspended � for propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation (in the case of Mr Durukan) and for insulting the Turkish President (in the case of Ms Birol). The applicants rely on Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression). Midyat Saint Gabriel's Syriac Monastery Foundation v. T�rkiye (no. 13176/13) The applicant, the Midyat Saint Gabriel's Syriac Monastery Foundation (Midyat S�ryani Deyrulumur Mor Gabriel Manastiri Vakfi), a foundation established under Turkish law, is a religious institution that was created during the Ottoman Empire. Its status is currently governed by Law no. 2762 of 13 June 1935, under which it is a legal entity. In particular, the Foundation manages Saint Gabriel's Monastery (Mor Gabriel Manastiri), one of the oldest monasteries in the world, which is located in Midyat, Mardin province, where it was built in the fourth century. The case concerns the judicial authorities' refusal to order the registration, in the applicant foundation's name, of land that it claims has been in its possession without interruption for a long period of time and is part of the cemetery of the Syriac community. The applicant foundation submits that the national authorities' refusal to grant its request to have plot 15 � which it alleges is an integral part of the cemetery of the Syriac community � entered in the land register in its name constituted a violation of its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and under Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion). Thursday 5 October 2023 Gurbanov v. Armenia (no. 7432/17) The applicant, Salman Gurbanov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1968 and lives in Baku. The applicant's 22-year-old son, a soldier in the Azerbaijani Armed Forces, was killed in military clashes that took place on the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia on 29 December 2016. His body was found in the Tavush region of Armenia. The case concerns the delayed return by the Armenian authorities of the body, which was only handed over to his family on 5 February 2017. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect of private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant complains of inhuman treatment, that he and his family had not been able to bury the body in accordance with their religious tradition, that no effective remedies were available and that the underlying reasons for the refusal to return the body were discriminatory. Ghazaryan and Bayramyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 33050/18) The applicants are Armen Ghazaryan and Astghik Bayramyan, who were born in 1959 and 1958, respectively, and live in the village of Berdavan in Armenia a few kilometres away from the border with Azerbaijan. The case concerns the applicants' 39-year-old son who was apprehended in July 2018 in Azerbaijan not far from Berdavan where he lived with his parents. The Azerbaijani courts subsequently convicted him of conspiracy to carry out sabotage and terrorism attacks and sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment. He was returned to Armenia in December 2020 as part of an exchange of prisoners. The applicants rely in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to security and liberty) to complain about their son's capture, detention and trial. Sarl Couttolenc Fr�res v. France (no. 24300/20) The applicant is a company incorporated under French law with its registered office in Sauze (France). It has been operating ski-lifts on a commercial basis for several decades. With the entry into force of the Mountain Development and Protection Act (Law of 9 January 1985), ski-lifts became a public service under the responsibility of municipalities, groupings of municipalities or d�partements. The applicant operated its business under private law for a 14-year transitional period, after which it signed a public-service concession agreement with the relevant public authority. Upon the expiry of that agreement, the public authority decided to take over the operation of the ski-lifts, which resulted in the transfer of the equipment necessary for the public service pursuant to the reversion of assets rule (r�gle des biens de retour). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complains that, as a consequence of the application of that rule, it was deprived of assets it had owned prior to the signing of the public-service concession agreement, without receiving compensation corresponding to their market value and pursuant to a rule that was neither accessible nor foreseeable. Ikotity and Others v. Hungary (no. 50012/17) The applicants, Istv�n Ikotity, Bernadett Sz�l and R�bert Benedek Sallai are three Hungarian nationals who were born between 1974 and 1977 and live in Hungary in Baja, P�cs and Mezt�r respectively. At the time of the events, they were opposition members of the Hungarian Parliament, and Ms Sz�l was the leader of the opposition party Lehet M�s a Politika parliamentary group. The case concerns the refusal to grant them permission to use posters during a parliamentary debate on the government's development plans for Budapest, and the sanctions they received for having used the posters without permission. The applicants complain that those decisions infringed their right to freedom of expression as provided for in Article 10 of the Convention. They also complain under Article 13 that the remedies available with respect to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on them were ineffective. Shahzad v. Hungary (no. 2) (no. 37967/18) The applicant, Khurram Shahzad, is a Pakistani national who was born in 1986 and, according to the most recent information available, lives in Dubai (United Arab Emirates). Mr Shahzad, an asylum-seeker, crossed into Hungary via Serbia in August 2016 by cutting the border fence. The case concerns his allegation that he was ill-treated by the Hungarian border police when being escorted back to Serbia. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Shahzad alleges that he was punched, kicked and beaten with batons and a metal rod during his forced removal, submitting a medical report issued a few hours later by a Serbian hospital certifying that he had two head wounds and bruises all over his body. He also alleges under Article 3 that the investigation into his criminal complaint was ineffective, in particular because the authorities failed to interview him at any point or to re-interview the police officers involved in the incident who had made contradictory statements. Ruciski v. Poland (no. 22716/12) The applicant, Andrzej Ruciski, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Dobra (Poland). The case concerns a lack of compensation for Mr Ruciski's loss of business profits due to decisions taken by the tax authorities that were disproportionate. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Ruciski complains that his business sustained serious losses because of the unlawful tax decisions and that the civil court, in rejecting the applicant's action for compensation for pecuniary damage, applied the law in a manner which disproportionately protected the State Treasury against claims brought by private individuals. 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 5 October 2023 Name Citozi and Others v. Albania Gazulli v. Albania Zhivani v. Albania Aliyev v. Armenia Allahverdiyev v. Armenia Main application number 13523/16 11674/17 50783/12 25589/16 25576/16 Name Asgarova and Veselova v. Armenia Hoza v. Austria Gozalov v. Azerbaijan Hakobyan v. Azerbaijan Hasanov and Others v. Azerbaijan Huseynov and Others v. Azerbaijan Ohanyan and Others v. Azerbaijan Centre for Independent Living v. Bulgaria Cecura v. Croatia Hanusa v. the Czech Republic Spieler v. the Czech Republic P v. France Zoidze v. Georgia Koblenzer v. Germany Boulmazat and Ambetin v. Greece E.F. v. Greece Nikas v. Greece Karsai D�niel �gyv�di Iroda and Others v. Hungary M.A. and Others v. Hungary O.Q. v. Hungary P.S. and A.M. v. Hungary Rost�s and Others v. Hungary Brighenti and Others v. Italy Cappellari and Elvite v. Italy Carusi and Others v. Italy Cogni v. Italy Costa and Others v. Italy Curti and Mazza v. Italy De Luca and Others v. Italy Di Molfetta and Others v. Italy F.LLI BALSAMO SRL v. Italy Grbec and Others v. Italy L.F. v. Italy Maniaci v. Italy Marchini v. Italy P.S. and R.S. v. Italy Pagliuca and Others v. Italy Sarcina and Others v. Italy Main application number 24382/15 37198/20 31043/16 74566/16 2059/16 12542/21 74508/16 67568/16 23586/22 15983/21 55312/22 46990/21 33204/12 12239/20 20985/20 16127/20 44116/13 47128/22 58680/18 53528/19 53272/17 51132/22 55789/21 56313/21 7486/22 41277/21 55930/21 61002/21 59159/21 15366/22 33370/20 10315/22 4240/21 47019/20 10476/21 23691/22 37955/22 39132/22 Name Speciale and Others v. Italy Strazzullo and Others v. Italy Vitiello and Others v. Italy Martinsons v. Latvia Hogemann v. the Netherlands L.K. v. Poland Makowski and Others v. Poland Mlynarscy and Others v. Poland Ungeheuer and Others v. Poland da Silva Maciel v. Portugal Di v. Portugal Sousa Espada and Others v. Portugal G�rbu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova Hohlov and Others v. the Republic of Moldova Bdulescu v. Romania Chiril and Others v. Romania Corb v. Romania Gheorghe and Dumbrav v. Romania G�be and Luca v. Romania Ivanov v. Romania Lctu v. Romania Lctu v. Romania Mocanu and Marcu v. Romania Nstase v. Romania Rdu and Avram v. Romania Stancu v. Romania Stoian v. Romania Stroia and Others v. Romania Voicu and Others v. Romania Boyarshinov and Others v. Russia Gorokhov and Others v. Russia Ishkov and Others v. Russia Korobitsyn and Others v. Russia Levinov and Others v. Russia Varzhabetyan and Others v. Russia Akarijas and Others v. Serbia Buci and Others v. Serbia Dmitrov and Others v. Serbia Main application number 6989/16 52748/22 46669/22 4200/19 18138/20 20228/19 20511/21 62113/19 5726/20 20069/21 7256/21 27168/21 72146/14 81519/12 8794/20 8894/18 38695/16 39679/16 50239/16 58506/19 48875/16 10444/18 47421/17 44679/16 27805/16 43529/16 35304/16 26011/16 20472/16 2829/18 25692/19 17049/19 4717/19 10142/19 60851/12 6108/17 56611/22 21580/22 Name Gogi and Others v. Serbia Kosti v. Serbia Petrov and Others v. Serbia Stjepanovi v. Serbia Vucenovi v. Serbia Lesan v. Slovakia Vajdov� and Vajda and Others v. Slovakia Oven v. Slovenia Akyol v. T�rkiye Doanyiit v. T�rkiye Seymen v. T�rkiye Yiit v. T�rkiye Avramchuk v. Ukraine Bogutskyy v. Ukraine Brodskyy v. Ukraine Dorokhov and Others v. Ukraine Dyakonov v. Ukraine Dyurki v. Ukraine Eastern Ukrainian Centre for Public Initiatives and Others v. Ukraine Gladkovskyy v. Ukraine Ivashchenko v. Ukraine Khomenko v. Ukraine Kozlovska v. Ukraine Kucher and Others v. Ukraine Leontyev and Others v. Ukraine Moyseyets and Others v. Ukraine Nezdymovskyy v. Ukraine Plotitsyn v. Ukraine Pshik and Shyshenko v. Ukraine Shaposhnikov and Others v. Ukraine Shtul and Others v. Ukraine Spesyvtsev and Others v. Ukraine Zavadskiy and Others v. Ukraine Zhmud v. Ukraine Main application number 20246/20 80294/17 13701/22 48511/15 22590/22 5852/23 6900/23 49199/22 10890/18 63787/17 54762/13 33475/19 65906/13 22699/16 18347/19 52350/15 43490/20 43530/21 18036/13 23946/20 54219/13 20212/13 52212/13 27486/21 23249/14 49701/12 56163/21 8899/22 33688/17 15153/19 64290/17 29978/14 31173/17 46880/21 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. 8