003-7773240-10769401

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 275 (2023) 11.10.2023 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing eight judgments on Tuesday 17 October 2023 and 72 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 19 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 17 October 2023 Dimaksyan v. Armenia (application no. 29906/14) The applicant, Aleksandr Dimaksyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Vahagni (Armenia). The case concerns the death of the applicant's 18-year-old son during his compulsory military service. He was allegedly accidentally shot on 5 February 2012 by a fellow serviceman while on watch. He died on his way to hospital. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains about the death of his son and the authorities' failure to carry out an effective investigation into the matter. He argues in particular that the military authorities failed to ensure gun safety through proper training and supervision and that the emergency medical assistance during his transfer to hospital was inadequate. Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan v. Armenia (no. 67351/13) The applicants, Mikayel Hovhannisyan and Svetlana Karapetyan, are Armenian nationals who were born in 1967 and 1957 and live in Vanadzor and Yerevan respectively. The case concerns the death of the applicants' sons, R. Hovhannisyan and A. Sargsyan, in July 2010 while they were carrying out their compulsory military service in the "Republic of NagornoKarabakh". Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention, the applicants complain about the death of their sons, that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter, and that there was no possibility for them to claim compensation from the State for their loss. A.D. v. Malta (no. 12427/22) The applicant, A.D., is an Ivoirian national, who was allegedly born in 2004 and was at the time of the submission of the application detained in Safi detention centre (Malta). A.D. arrived in Malta irregularly on 24 November 2021. The case concerns his being held in different detention centres over the next few months despite his being allegedly a minor and suffering from health problems. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicant alleges that his conditions of detention were either inadequate and unlawful or inadequate and arbitrary, and that he had no access to an effective remedy. B�zd�ga v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 15646/18) The applicant, Vadim B�zd�ga, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1989 and lives in Trinca (Republic of Moldova). The case concerns the restrictions on Mr B�zd�ga's right to contact with his child and his inability to obtain custody. The courts gave custody to the child's mother and, despite new circumstances in the case, Mr B�zd�ga was unable to obtain a court ruling on his request to change the custody of his child. Furthermore, the child protection authority issued a visiting schedule, which Mr B�zd�ga considered disproportionately limited. Before the Court, it was revealed that the limitation of visiting rights was due to previous allegations of domestic abuse against Mr B�zd�ga. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr B�zd�ga complains that his request for the change of the child's custody was not decided by a court of law, and that contact with his child was disproportionately reduced in a procedure that lacked safeguards. Luca v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 55351/17) The applicant, Lilia Luca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Chiinu. The case concerns allegations that the authorities failed to protect Ms Luca from domestic violence � which on one occasion led to eight-days' hospitalisation � and to help her maintain her relationship with her children, who ceased contact with her when domestic-violence proceedings were initiated and they left to live with their father. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Ms Luca complains that the Moldovan authorities failed to protect her from domestic violence, that they failed to help her maintain contact with her children, and that their inaction was a result of her being a woman and complacency regarding domestic violence. Avciolu v. T�rkiye (no. 59564/16) The applicant, Mustafa Avciolu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972. He lives in the United Kingdom, where he was granted asylum on 10 February 2004, then British citizenship on 10 March 2004. The case concerns the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment while being held in police custody in 2003, at the premises of the Yayladere gendarmerie (T�rkiye). He complains, in particular, about the investigation carried out by the Turkish authorities in this respect. On 30 May 2003 the applicant, who was suspected of assistance to and membership of an armed terrorist organisation, was placed in police custody. The following day, he was placed in pre-trial detention. The applicant alleges that, throughout this two-day period, he was threatened with death by firearm and was struck violently. He was also allegedly subjected to falaka (beating of the soles of the feet) and electric shocks. The complaint lodged by the applicant with the Turkish authorities in 2012 ended in a decision to discontinue the proceedings, the latter having considered that there was no evidence, apart from the applicant's allegations and statements, capable of leading to the institution of criminal proceedings against the persons allegedly responsible for the acts complained of. The applicant, who was released in July 2003, was acquitted two months later. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant considers that the investigation into his allegations did not comply with the requirements under Article 3. Thursday 19 October 2023 A.S. and M.S. v. Italy (no. 48618/22) The applicants are a father (A.S.) and son (M.S.) who were born in 1975 and 2008 respectively and live in Rome (Italy). The application before the Court was lodged by A.S. in his own name and on behalf of M.S. The case concerns proceedings to determine residence and contact arrangements, and preservation of the ties between a father and his son. In 2012 A.S.'s wife moved out of the family home with their son (M.S.). The following year, she applied to the Rome District Court for a judicial separation, and was granted residence rights in respect of the child. The court granted extensive contact rights to A.S. The latter submits, however, that he and his ex-wife had a conflictual relationship and that she attempted to prevent him from maintaining his relationship with his son. Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain, in particular, that during the proceedings to review parental responsibility, the domestic authorities failed to take the necessary measures to enable them to preserve the ties between them or to facilitate the exercise by A.S. of the contact rights granted to him by the domestic courts. They also complain that the domestic authorities failed to take the measures required to protect M.S.'s psychological integrity, which had allegedly been threatened by the existing conflict between his parents, the suffocating relationship with his mother and her purported manipulation of him. Furthermore, they complain of various procedural defects before the Family Court and the Court of Appeal. Locascia and Others v. Italy (no. 35648/10) The applicants are 19 Italian nationals who were born between 1941 and 1982 and live in Caserta and San Nicola La Strada (Italy). The case concerns the waste management crisis (known as the crisi dei rifiuti) in the Campania region of Italy, and pollution from a landfill site located near the applicants' homes. Relying mainly on Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants submit that the Italian authorities failed to take the measures necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the public waste collection, treatment and disposal service and to secure and clean up the landfill site, causing serious damage to the environment, endangering their health and harming their private life. Samsin v. Ukraine (no. 38977/19) Just satisfaction The applicant, Igor Leonovych Samsin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Kyiv (Ukraine). The case concerns the question of just satisfaction with regard to the applicant's dismissal under the Government Cleansing (Lustration) Act (GCA) introduced when former President Viktor Yanukovych was in power. His name was put in a publicly accessible Lustration Register and he was deprived of the benefits associated with judicial retirement despite being close to retirement age. In its principal judgment of 14 October 2021 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), finding in particular that the measures envisaged by the GCA and imposed on the applicant had not been necessary in a democratic society. The question of just satisfaction as concerned pecuniary damage was reserved for a future date. The Court will address this question in its judgment of 19 October 2023. 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 17 October 2023 Name Prodhim Veshje No. 2 SH.A. v. Albania Slavkov and Others v. Bulgaria Main application number 34649/14 36250/12 Thursday 19 October 2023 Name Becchetti and Others v. Albania Prodhim Veshje No. 2 SH.A. v. Albania Heger v. Austria Agayeva v. Azerbaijan Ahmadov and Others v. Azerbaijan Aliyev v. Azerbaijan Gasimli v. Azerbaijan Huseynov v. Azerbaijan Huseynov v. Azerbaijan Ibrahimov and Gurbanov v. Azerbaijan Jabbarov and Aliyev v. Azerbaijan Maniyev and Others v. Azerbaijan Osmanli v. Azerbaijan Zuk v. the Czech Republic Chesanovska v. France Costinesco v. France France.com Inc. v. France L.B. v. France Lopes Coelho-Loureiro v. France O v. France Rafaa v. France Rubio v. France S�rl Marlain v. France Dimopoulos and Others v. Greece Steggos v. Greece Sulce and Others v. Greece Bank� and Others v. Hungary Benedek and Others v. Hungary Makula and Others v. Hungary Nagy v. Hungary Ny�ri v. Hungary Oday v. Hungary Main application number 53488/15 1377/16 43289/21 8075/11 3631/20 37714/17 57739/18 71401/17 5419/18 23128/20 12528/21 13291/19 60421/11 24153/19 48047/19 50196/22 35983/22 67839/17 35058/22 60329/21 2595/23 40046/22 30504/22 23838/13 41654/16 40682/20 49592/22 53457/22 50381/22 6215/18 42798/22 56443/22 Name Pappn� Kisp�l v. Hungary R�cz and Others v. Hungary Tam�sin� �rvendi and Others v. Hungary T�th v. Hungary T�th v. Hungary A.B. v. Italy A.S. v. Italy Del Vecchio v. Italy G.F. and Others v. Italy M.A. v. Italy Pagliuca v. Italy Tidili and Others v. Italy Trofa and Others v. Italy Ialtexgal Aurica S.A. v. the Republic of Moldova Iordchescu v. the Republic of Moldova Munteanu-Nani and Buzila v. the Republic of Moldova P.P. Glasul Naiunii v. the Republic of Moldova Rzlog v. the Republic of Moldova Pi�rkowska and Others v. Poland Weychert and Others v. Poland Coc�rlu v. Romania Geonea v. Romania Sonica and Others v. Romania Vldescu and Others v. Romania Nenadovi v. Serbia Vercim�k v. Slovakia Halki v. Slovenia �z and Others v. T�rkiye Budvest, TOV v. Ukraine Grymchak v. Ukraine Kozak and Others v. Ukraine Leontyev and Others v. Ukraine Molchanova v. Ukraine Pogrebnyy and Others v. Ukraine Syrotenko and Others v. Ukraine Tereshchenko v. Ukraine Ushakov and Others v. Ukraine Main application number 32008/22 48989/22 8841/23 8324/18 49971/22 13755/18 20860/20 324/07 2503/21 13110/18 18696/22 1142/23 37893/22 30734/13 19138/16 16715/13 26067/14 19734/13 10386/22 54878/19 49458/19 54708/21 19403/17 70902/17 44087/20 56978/21 21989/22 50951/14 59487/21 14628/20 38260/21 5216/16 4465/18 42419/04 12345/16 35481/20 47954/16 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