003-7821225-10854730

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 336 (2023) 06.12.2023 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 judgments on Tuesday 12 December 2023 and 123 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 14 December 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 12 December 2023 Vuckovi v. Croatia (application no. 15798/20) The applicant, Maja Vuckovi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Rijeka (Croatia). The case concerns the sexual assaults that Ms Vuckovi, a nurse, suffered at the hands of an ambulance driver colleague while working shifts together. The assaults resulted in her having to go on sick leave because of injuries and later because of post-traumatic stress disorder. Her assailant was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment, but that sentence was commuted to community service on appeal. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights Ms Vuckovi complains of the commuting of the sentence of her co-worker, arguing that it was disproportionately lenient given the seriousness of the offences committed. Jasuitis and Simaitis v. Lithuania (nos. 28186/19 and 29092/19) The applicants, Vilandas Jasuitis and Darius Simaitis, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1988 and live in Siauliai (Lithuania). The case concerns the applicants' conviction for trafficking in human beings. They had hired a number of women to work as "web models", but complaints were made by one woman that they had used threats and psychological violence to force her to carry out that work. Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention the applicants allege that the national courts interpreted the relevant law too widely. Naskov and Others v. North Macedonia (nos. 31620/15, 34859/15, and 14659/16) The applicants are 10 Macedonians/citizens of the Republic of North Macedonia, who were born between 1937 and 1952 and live in Skopje. Agricultural land in two plots belonging to the applicants' legal predecessors was expropriated in the 1950s. In 2001 the national courts declared the applicants to be the successors to ownership of this land. The case concerns their attempts to gain restitution of the land, which continued to be used by companies and on which a petrol station and business premises were built, frustrating the applicants' attempts to take possession. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicants complain of the quashing of a final restitution order in their favour. Przybyszewska and Others v. Poland (no. 11454/17 and 9 other applications) The applicants are 10 Polish nationals who were born between 1963 and 1991. They live in various parts of Poland. They are five same-sex couples in stable relationships. The case concerns the alleged lack of any form of legal recognition and protection available for their respective relationships. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8. Stefan-Gabriel Mocanu and Others v. Romania (no. 34323/21 and 8 other applications) The case concerns nine applications lodged by nine Romanian nationals who were born between 1949 and 1990. It relates to the Romanian authorities' investigation into the repression of the antigovernment protests that were held in University Square in Bucharest in June 1990, after the fall of the communist regime. The nine applicants allege that the investigation into the events complained of was ineffective. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, seven applicants complain that they were subjected to ill-treatment during the events in question, while two applicants rely on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention to complain of their father's death from a gunshot fired by law enforcement personnel during those same events. Delikta v. T�rkiye (no. 25852/18) The applicant, Yunus Delikta, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Malatya (T�rkiye). The case concerns the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in particular the proceedings before the Ankara Regional Court of Appeal. He was convicted of bribery-related offences, which occurred while working as a forest-protection officer, at first instance following an in-person hearing, but his appeal was tried in written proceedings. This is the first case where the Court has been called upon to assess the requirement to hold a public hearing under Article 6 � 1 of the Convention in the context of appellate reviews carried out by the regional courts of appeal in T�rkiye, which became operational as in July 2016. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) Mr Delikta complains of the failure of the appellate court in his case to hold a hearing despite his having requested it. Halit Kara v. T�rkiye (no. 60846/19) The applicant, Halit Kara, is a Turkish national who was born in 1987 and lives in Mersin (T�rkiye). At time of the events in question, Mr Kara was detained in a prison in anliurfa for membership of an armed terrorist organisation. The case concerns the refusal of the prison authorities to send a letter from him to his brother. The reason for the refusal was that the letter allegedly contained false and slanderous statements about public officials. Mr Kara relies mainly on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence). Thursday 14 December 2023 L�otard v. France (no. 41298/21) The applicant, Fran�ois L�otard, is a former French Minister of Defence who died on 25 April 2023. The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicant which resulted in his conviction by the Court of Justice of the Republic (Cour de justice de la R�publique � CJR) on 4 March 2021 on charges of aiding and abetting the misuse, for personal advantage, of the property or credit of two companies. Relying on Article 6 �� 1, 3 (b) et 3 (d) of the Convention (right to a fair trial), the applicant submits that he was not tried within a reasonable time and complains that his trial was unfair. In the latter regard, he complains more specifically of having been informed belatedly of his right to remain silent during the trial, of the circumstances in which the CJR dispensed with hearing absent witnesses and that the length of time that had elapsed since the events in question had undermined the rights of the defence. He further alleges that items of evidence apt to establish that the prosecution was out of time were concealed from him by the investigating judge and were subsequently misconstrued by the CJR. Syndicat National Des Journalistes and Others v. France (no. 41236/18) The applicants are three trade unions, the Syndicat National des Journalistes (National trade union for journalists � SNJ), the Syndicat National des M�dias de l'�crit CFDT (National trade union for written media CFDT � SNME-CFDT) and the Union G�n�rale des Ing�nieurs, Cadres et Techniciens CGT (General Union for Engineers, Executives and Technicians CGT � UGICT-CGT). Their registered offices are in Paris (SNJ and SNME-CFDT) and Montreuil (UGICT-CGT). The case concerns an alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing, by an impartial court, resulting from the involvement of three Court of Cassation judges � whom the applicants submit had ties with the opposing party � in the examination of their appeal on points of law. On 30 June 2007 a restructuring operation within the WK group � resulting from the merger of two Dutch publishing firms � gave rise to the transfer of assets and liabilities from nine group companies to WK France SAS (WKF), a subsidiary of Holding WKF (HWKF). In order to acquire the shares of the wound-up group companies, WKF took out a loan of 445 million euros from HWKF, which resulted in a level of indebtedness that precluded making any mandatory profit-sharing payments to the employees. On 28 June 2012 four trade unions, including two of the applicants, the SNJ and the SNE-CFDT, brought proceedings against WKF and HWKF in the tribunal de grande instance to obtain a court order for the two companies to recreate a special profit-sharing reserve for each fiscal year from 2007 to 2022. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant unions complain of an alleged violation of their right to a fair hearing, by an impartial court, as a result of the involvement of three Court of Cassation judges � whom they submit had ties with the opposing party � in the examination of their appeal on points of law. They allege that there was a legitimate doubt � heightened by a number of aggravating circumstances � as to the judges' impartiality. M.L. v. Poland (no. 40119/21) The applicant, M.L., is a Polish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Warsaw. The case concerns the restriction on abortion on the grounds of foetal abnormalities which was introduced through a 2020 Constitutional Court judgment, following an application lodged by 104 parliamentarians. The applicant became pregnant in 2020 and at about 14 weeks the foetus was diagnosed with trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome). Unable to have an abortion in Poland, M.L. ultimately had to travel to a private clinic in the Netherlands for the procedure. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), M.L. complains of being unable to obtain an abortion in Poland and so having to travel for treatment, that the restriction was not "prescribed by law", and that the judges whose ruling introduced the restriction had been appointed in a procedure that had been in violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial). 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 12 December 2023 Name P. v. Romania Kazimir v. Switzerland ncedere and Altay v. T�rkiye Kolay and Others v. T�rkiye Mecit and Others v. T�rkiye Main application number 36049/21 71522/17 58778/19 15231/17 69884/17 Thursday 14 December 2023 Name Main application number Prifti v. Albania 56288/12 Harutyunyan and Hakobyan v. Armenia 34544/21 Nikoghosyan and Others v. Armenia 4396/21 Muradverdiyev v. Azerbaijan 55772/15 Harizanov v. Bulgaria 49745/20 Nadrchal v. the Czech Republic 46323/20 Husseini v. Denmark 14270/21 Alppi v. Finland 15736/22 Khmaladze v. Georgia 29836/19 Khundadzeebi v. Georgia 12549/11 Vladimer Mtchedlishvili v. Georgia 8827/19 Rausch v. Germany 23092/20 I.B. and Others v. Greece 30555/20 R.R. and Others v. Greece 30579/20 Bokodi v. Hungary 39823/22 Bozs� and Others v. Hungary 8065/23 Cs�sz�r v. Hungary 57955/22 G�ltl v. Hungary 54566/21 Castelnuovo v. Italy 42897/16 Catullo and Others v. Italy 3843/23 Consorcasa Regione Lazio Societa' Cooperativa Edilizia S.C.A.R.L. and 52473/07 Others v. Italy D'Angelo Vincenzo s.r.l. and Sirtec s.r.l. v. Italy 11717/21 Di Nicola and Salerno v. Italy 46045/06 G.R. and Z.B. v. Italy 49769/22 Grand Orient of Italy of Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy 69817/12 Pachucki v. Italy 34788/22 Pagliuca and Others v. Italy 1723/23 Ravelli v. Italy 48864/22 Rizza and Cappello v. Italy 38931/22 Name Vainieri and Others v. Italy Zanola v. Italy Simons and Others v. Latvia Gebrehiwet Gebremedhin and Others v. the Netherlands Damjanovski and Others v. North Macedonia Stojanovski and Others v. North Macedonia Velkovska and Others v. North Macedonia Avesani v. Poland Blanckenstein and Others v. Poland Frankowski and Krantz v. Poland Kossowski and Others v. Poland Kr�lak and Others v. Poland M.B. and Others v. Poland Malinowski v. Poland Pantol and Kamiski v. Poland W�jcicki and Kubiak v. Poland Wojewoda and Others v. Poland Carreto Ribeiro v. Portugal Pr�stimo - Prest�gio Imobili�rio S.A. v. Portugal Anghelache and Others v. Romania Barbu v. Romania Blaj and Ghivnici v. Romania Bolohan v. Romania Coca v. Romania Codreanu v. Romania Constantin v. Romania Cristea and Varga v. Romania Deleanu v. Romania Donici v. Romania Frunz and Others v. Romania Gavril and Others v. Romania Ghergui v. Romania Gicoveanu v. Romania Godgea and Others v. Romania Holban v. Romania Ioana and Lupescu v. Romania Leonte and Axinte v. Romania Lucan and Others v. Romania Lupou v. Romania M�ty�s and Ghiocel v. Romania Milea and Others v. Romania M�rleneanu and Others v. Romania Murdeal and Others v. Romania Neacu and Others v. Romania P�ntea v. Romania Main application number 15550/11 59963/21 41183/16 34425/22 35700/22 32079/22 10826/22 24877/20 16500/20 32589/22 36254/22 5983/22 3030/21 49230/22 1739/22 21720/21 61007/21 28236/19 23720/17 44628/19 19531/20 11209/17 12183/21 38320/17 42277/17 55775/19 46486/16 68881/16 49580/16 40834/16 44311/16 69932/16 17713/20 71994/16 66467/16 10307/17 17859/16 36743/16 31560/19 7374/18 48707/18 53604/16 45056/16 52459/16 31766/17 Name Rusu and Others v. Romania chiopu v. Romania S�ngeorzan and Gai v. Romania Turcu and Others v. Romania Varzar v. Romania Weissmann v. Romania Burkov and Others v. Russia Doronin and Others v. Russia Khorrshr and Others v. Russia Mezak and Others v. Russia Pukhtvent and Others v. Russia Stalin and Others v. Russia Zatynayko and Others v. Russia Caji and Others v. Serbia Filip doo and Euromodul doo v. Serbia Hil Ivi and Others v. Serbia Kocis and Others v. Serbia Petrakovi and Guli v. Serbia Sekularac v. Serbia F�rov� and Nevedelov� v. Slovakia M. and Others v. Sweden Y and A v. Sweden N.K. v. Switzerland Gen� v. T�rkiye G�k�e v. T�rkiye K�rkut v. T�rkiye �zel and Others v. T�rkiye �zel and Others v. T�rkiye Bi v. Ukraine Byelosludtseva v. Ukraine Finik and Others v. Ukraine Kazmina and Others v. Ukraine Klymenko v. Ukraine Korgun v. Ukraine Korunov v. Ukraine Kravchenko and Others v. Ukraine Lens v. Ukraine Lychkatyy and Others v. Ukraine P.S. and Others v. Ukraine Pylypchuk and Others v. Ukraine Reagent, Tov v. Ukraine Travinski v. Ukraine Yakovlyeva v. Ukraine Yuan v. Ukraine Zasymchuk v. Ukraine Main application number 7828/23 22128/18 12725/17 44588/16 23132/16 21449/05 13567/13 44105/21 34241/16 20948/13 33236/18 2825/21 21514/18 14903/23 11814/23 51889/18 1224/23 20396/17 9680/21 1780/22 11644/21 11628/21 52873/20 4646/17 33876/23 53933/11 24957/18 25005/18 31523/16 30787/16 24793/17 7822/12 20832/18 68907/14 25127/16 52292/16 341/15 46933/19 16677/16 59255/14 78658/14 58791/14 50704/15 60787/14 48831/18 Name AB v. the United Kingdom Main application number 474/22 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