003-7807096-10830794

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 315 (2023) 23.11.2023 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 11 judgments on Tuesday 28 November 2023 and 118 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 30 November 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 28 November 2023 Krachunova v. Bulgaria (application no. 18269/18) The applicant, Daniela Danailova Krachunova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Koshava (Bulgaria). The case concerns Ms Krachunova's attempts to obtain compensation for the earnings from sex work that X, her trafficker, had taken from her. The Bulgarian courts refused compensation, stating she had been engaged in prostitution and returning the earnings from that would be contrary to "good morals". Relying on Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Krachunova complains that there was no legal avenue for her to obtain compensation in respect of her earnings from sex work that were taken away from her. Tadi v. Croatia (no. 25551/18) The applicant, Drago Tadi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Osijek (Croatia). The case concerns criminal proceedings in which Mr Tadi was found guilty of conspiring to influence the Supreme Court, by paying a sum of money, to render a decision favourable to a well-known politician who was being tried for a war crime. Relying on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention, the applicant complains that the Supreme Court, the appellate court in his case, was not impartial because of the circumstances surrounding its president, who had testified as a witness for the prosecution. He also complains that the publication in the media, two months before the Supreme Court adopted a decision in his case, of recordings of his telephone conversations made by the Security Intelligence Agency, exerted pressure on the Supreme Court judges to uphold his conviction and breached his right to be presumed innocent. Schmidt and Smigol v. Estonia (nos. 3501/20, 45907/20, and 43128/21) The applicant Allan Schmidt is an Estonian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Narva (Estonia). The applicant Ilja Smigol is a stateless person who was born in 1993 and lives in Tallinn. The case concerns consecutive enforcement of disciplinary punishments against the applicants when they were serving sentences in Viru Prison. This resulted in their spending protracted periods in conditions that effectively amounted to solitary confinement. The applicants complain that the periods they spent in solitary confinement violated their rights under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. Associations de copropri�t� foresti�re Porceni Plea et Piciorul Btr�n Banciu (Obtea de Pdure Porceni Plea i Composesoratul Piciorul Btr�n Banciu) v. Romania (nos. 46201/16 and 47379/18) The applicants are two legal entities registered under Romanian law, associations of communally-owned mountain forestry proprietors, Obtea de Pdure Porceni Plea, based in Plea, and Composesoratul Piciorul Btr�n Banciu, based in Recea. The case concerns these two associations of forestry proprietors, which complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that they have not received compensation, in spite of a legally recognised right, for the fact that they are unable to make use of their forests, given that these forests have been classified as protected natural zones for the purposes of the European "Natura 2000" network. Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 10299/15) The applicants are three Russian nationals: Mariya Vladimirovna Alekhina and Nadezhda Andreyevna Tolokonnikova, members of the Pussy Riot punk band; and Vladimir Anatolyevich Rubashnyy, a retired official from the Russian Federal Prison Service. The case concerns the Russian authorities' refusal to register the applicants' human rights organisation, "The Zone of Law", which aimed to provide legal assistance to prisoners. Each of their three applications was unsuccessful, essentially because the registration authority found that their documents did not comply with the legislation on non-profit organisations. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain about the refusal to register their organisation, arguing that, instead of an outright refusal, registration could have been suspended until their requests had been corrected. Nadir Yildirim and Others v. T�rkiye (no. 39712/16) The applicants, Nadir Yildirim, Selma Irmak, Besime Konca, Alican �nl�, Dirayet Tademir and Ahmet Yildirim are six Turkish nationals who were born between 1967 and 1982 and live in Ankara, Diyarbakir, Kocaeli, Tunceli and Siirt (all Turkey). The applicants allege that in a criminal case brought against them at the same time as which they were elected as members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly , the president of the trial court stated in the investigatory reports drawn up for the lifting of their parliamentary immunity that they had committed the offences that they were accused of. The applicants complain of a breach of their right to be presumed innocent under Article 6 � 2 of the Convention. Thursday 30 November 2023 Soci�t� d'exploitation d'un service d'information CNews v. France (no. 60131/21) The applicant company, the Soci�t� d'Exploitation d'un Service d'Information CNews, is a company incorporated under French law with its registered office in Issy-Les-Moulineaux. A television service provider, it holds a licence to operate a national television channel, namely CNews, issued in 2005 by France's national broadcasting authority (Conseil sup�rieur de l'audiovisuel, the CSA). The case concerns an enforcement notice served on it by the CSA following statements made by a commentator in a programme broadcast on CNews. Relying on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant company alleges in this connection that there were insufficient reasons in the CSA's decision of 27 November 2019 and the Conseil d'�tat's decision of 16 June 2021, and that there has been a breach of its freedom of expression. Georgian Muslim Relations and Others v. Georgia (no. 24225/19) The first applicant, Georgian Muslim Relations, is a non-profit association, whose main objective is to foster support for religious education and to provide free education to socially vulnerable children. The other applicants are seven Georgian nationals who belong to the Muslim minority. The case concerns the authorities' response to the applicants' being prevented from opening a Muslim boarding school. In August 2014 the applicants started renting a building in Kobuleti (Georgia) which they intended to use for the school. However, according to the applicants, their attempts to open the school were repeatedly blocked by local residents, with the connivance of the police and other local authorities. The applicants allege various illegal actions against them, including verbal abuse, the entrance to the school building being barricaded and at one point, in September 2014, a pig being slaughtered in front of the school and its head nailed to the entranceway. The criminal investigation into the applicants' allegations is still ongoing. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 9 (freedom of religion) of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant individuals allege that the State failed to take adequate measures to protect them from unlawful mob action, hate speech and other discriminatory actions in the context of their being prevented from opening the Muslim boarding school. The applicant association, Georgian Muslim Relations, complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that the authorities failed to ensure that it could use the school building, notably by connecting it to the Kobuleti sewerage system. Asociaci�n de Abogados Cristianos v. Spain (no. 22604/18) The applicant, Asociaci�n de Abogados Cristianos, is an association which was created in 2008 with the aim of restoring and maintaining the principles of Christian faith in society. The case concerns an artwork, called Amen, exhibited in a municipal hall in Pamplona in 2015. The artwork showed pictures of the artist posing naked next to the word "paedophilia" (pederastia) spelled out on the floor with hosts he had taken from 242 Catholic Masses that he had attended. It sparked public outrage and led the applicant association to lodge a criminal complaint against both the artist and the councillor who had given approval for and inaugurated the exhibition. The proceedings were, however, discontinued by the investigating judge who found that the acts in question did not constitute a criminal offence, a decision upheld by the national courts. Relying on Article 9 (freedom of religion), the applicants complain that: the local authorities financed, hosted and refused to cancel the exhibition of a piece of art which offended religious feelings, in breach of their duty of neutrality; and, that the judicial authorities did not prosecute the artist and the local councillor involved. 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 28 November 2023 Name Ghazaryan v. Armenia Tepljakov v. Estonia Beltsios v. Greece Burga� and Others v. T�rkiye Ouz v. T�rkiye Thursday 30 November 2023 Name Alsula and Others v. Albania Cepiku and Seni Sh.P.K. v. Albania Firtash v. Austria G.L. and L.G.P. v. Austria G.L. and L.G.P. v. Austria Abbasov and Others v. Azerbaijan Azerbaijan Popular Front Party v. Azerbaijan Hasanli and Others v. Azerbaijan Haziyev v. Azerbaijan Huseynov v. Azerbaijan Insanov v. Azerbaijan M.C. and F.S.B. v. Azerbaijan Mammadov v. Azerbaijan Salayev and Others v. Azerbaijan Suleymanov v. Azerbaijan Bastiaens and Others v. Belgium Deckmyn v. Belgium Van Eekert and Lavrijsen v. Belgium Trumbi v. Croatia Zahtila and Koleti v. Croatia Damianou Charalambide v. Cyprus Brockhoff v. France Lehmann v. France M.D. v. France Varlot v. France D.S. v. Greece Iliopoulos v. Greece Di�szegi and Others v. Hungary Kamar�s and Others v. Hungary S.AB. and S.AR. v. Hungary Arcidiocesi di Palermo v. Italy Cai Service Group S.p.A. and Esposito v. Italy Licandro v. Italy Loguercio and Conglobit di Ercolino G&E S.r.l v. Italy Vadal� v. Italy Main application number 30129/21 10753/21 57333/14 57407/19 37404/18 Main application number 63975/10 18175/12 33024/19 31702/18 51235/19 5671/20 83241/17 33139/19 38931/20 51181/19 9965/17 8143/18 42574/13 7322/20 27290/15 25930/12 44813/14 33262/15 11514/18 63344/17 80777/17 60246/19 27441/19 60592/21 51057/19 2080/19 79448/16 2384/23 16771/23 17089/19 53352/17 50363/22 40004/16 8551/23 14656/15 Name Busuioc v. the Republic of Moldova Ejupi and Others v. North Macedonia Ilijevska and Others v. North Macedonia Ripiloski v. North Macedonia S.B. v. North Macedonia Trajcheska v. North Macedonia Tutunovska and Others v. North Macedonia H and Others v. Poland Jersz�w v. Poland Kankowski v. Poland Karpiscy and Others v. Poland Mariaski v. Poland Olechno v. Poland Pietrowski and Others v. Poland Puchalski v. Poland Rykalski and Others v. Poland Tatera and Kosim v. Poland Trela and Others v. Poland Wolosz v. Poland Nieuwolt v. Portugal Oliveira Arcanjo v. Portugal Padeirinha Cardoso v. Portugal Sociedade Produtora de Sal, Lda v. Portugal Udochukwu Uchenna and Uzoma Metu v. Portugal Albescu and Others v. Romania Brniteanu and Others v. Romania Corciu-Wernhardt and Others v. Romania Covaciu v. Romania Di and Others v. Romania Dobrin v. Romania Fieraru and Others v. Romania F�nai v. Romania Ivan and Others v. Romania Jianu and Teodorescu v. Romania Kolcsar and Others v. Romania Mihai and Others v. Romania Mihalciuc and Others v. Romania Niculaie and Others v. Romania Porojan and Others v. Romania Stan and Others v. Romania Abakumov and Others v. Russia Chivkin and Others v. Russia Filimonov and Others v. Russia Kushtayev and Others v. Russia Resin and Others v. Russia Main application number 21240/16 21501/21 55173/20 8793/19 64163/19 13980/19 23258/21 43772/20 31731/20 27122/21 24865/21 14630/22 44719/21 30512/21 20792/21 58201/19 43076/19 25347/19 8341/20 15767/21 12367/22 42791/21 37222/19 25581/22 23686/16 10600/18 12343/17 3403/18 23712/16 40176/16 27234/16 14917/16 42554/16 46765/16 64973/16 36691/16 73418/17 46523/16 15543/18 1382/18 50116/18 55248/18 3219/19 24326/18 41090/18 Name Tingayev and Others v. Russia Bajovi v. Serbia Boskovi v. Serbia Cirok v. Serbia Damnjanovi v. Serbia edovi and Petronijevi v. Serbia Dzankovi and Slavkovi v. Serbia Jeremi and Others v. Serbia Jovanovic and Others v. Serbia Jovanovi v. Serbia Kozomara and Others v. Serbia Lazi v. Serbia Medical System d.o.o. Beograd and Others v. Serbia Metalprom doo Valjevo and Centrodust doo Smederevo v. Serbia Milojevi v. Serbia Pavlovi and Others v. Serbia Pazitnaj v. Serbia SINVOZ doo v. Serbia Stanisavljevi v. Serbia Stojanovi v. Serbia Stojkovi and Others v. Serbia Stosi and Others v. Serbia Subotin v. Serbia Turundzi and Others v. Serbia Venev v. Serbia Cih�n v. Slovakia LiNi s.r.o. v. Slovakia Luki and Kovinar d.o.o. v. Slovenia �lmez v. T�rkiye Babkin and Others v. Ukraine Dovbyshev v. Ukraine Goloborodko and Others v. Ukraine Pulnyev and Gvaliya v. Ukraine Sholomytskyy and Others v. Ukraine Skvyrasilrybgosp, VAT v. Ukraine Main application number 41071/18 51035/22 16045/22 9072/22 51733/22 53663/22 20929/22 14310/22 39568/22 28502/22 44176/22 32992/22 20717/21 17826/22 54227/22 32941/22 46813/22 26894/22 47613/16 55191/22 26893/22 32982/22 55200/22 12531/22 48699/22 17755/23 7206/22 19557/22 2010/22 36496/21 68447/12 17860/17 67158/13 12260/15 27128/11 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. 7