003-7964734-11105579

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 137 (2024) 05.06.2024 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten judgments on Tuesday 11 June 2024 and 33 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 13 June 2024. 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 11 June 2024 Kok�dhima v. Albania (application no. 55159/16) The applicant, Ko�o Kok�dhima, is an Albanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Tirana. The case concerns the decision to remove Mr Kok�dhima from office as a Member of Parliament because of a conflict of interest with his ownership of a company that received income from public resources. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Kok�dhima complains in particular that the Constitutional Court's interpretation of the legislation in his case had been overly broad and that he could not have foreseen what legal steps he had been required to take to ensure that he had not been in a situation of conflict of interest. Also, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life), he alleges that the decision removing him from office had been widely covered by the media and tarnished his reputation. Zela v. Albania (no. 33164/11) The applicant, Sk�nder Zela, is an Albanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Tirana. The case concerns the demolition in 2002 of a three-storey building Mr Zela had constructed in Tirana along the Lana riverbank. The authorities ordered the demolition on the grounds that the building was an illegal construction which breached the urban-planning rules for the area. He brought proceedings claiming compensation, which were ultimately unsuccessful in 2010. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention, Mr Zela complains about the length of the proceedings for compensation. Also relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains that the demolition of his building was unlawful and that he was awarded no compensation. T.V. v. Croatia (no. 47909/19) The applicant, Ms T.V., is a Slovenian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Celje (Slovenia). The case concerns the death of the applicant's partner, who had a history of mental-health problems, in the course of a police intervention and the alleged ineffectiveness of the ensuing criminal investigation. The police were called to a hotel in Opuzen (Croatia) on 16 November 2017 when her partner got into a fight with a hotel guest. The police ended up immobilising her partner face down on the ground and calling for an ambulance to assist in the intervention. He died on the way to hospital. An official investigation was opened into the incident in 2020 which concluded that he "had a violent death as a result of mental trauma" but that the force by the police had been lawful and proportionate and that the medical staff had not been negligent. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life/effective investigation) of the Convention, Ms T.V. alleges that her partner died because five police officers had beaten him, causing him serious bodily injuries and that, even though he had bitten off and swallowed part of his finger and was turning blue, the officers and the medical personnel had put him on his stomach on the ambulance stretcher without the supervision of a doctor or nurse. She also complains that the ensuing criminal investigation was inadequate. G�lcan v. T�rkiye (no. 43097/15) The applicant, Hasan Baki G�lcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Ankara. The case concerns a disciplinary sanction � namely, seven days of room confinement � imposed on him by his official superior in the military. The applicant served the sanction in December 2012. He also challenged it before a higher-ranking officer that same year, but his application was dismissed. He then lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court in 2013, submitting that his right to liberty and security had been breached. In 2015 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's deprivation of liberty could not be characterised as lawful detention, but awarded him no compensation. Relying on several Articles of the Convention, in particular Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains about the disciplinary sanction imposed on him by his military superior. In this regard, he argues that he was not afforded a judicial review by an independent and impartial tribunal. Thursday 13 June 2024 RFE/RL Inc. and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 56138/18, 48735/19, 51207/19, and 58694/19) The case concerns the authorities' decisions to completely block access to four online media outlets since 2017-18. The online media outlets are azadliq.org, anaxeber.az, az24saat.org and xural.com. More specifically, the applicants are RFE/RL Inc. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) which, apart from radio broadcasting, operates the website azadliq.org; Azer Mammad oglu Talibov, an Azerbaijani national who is the founder and editor of the online news portal anaxeber.az; 24Saat.org, a mass media company which operates the online news portal az24saat.org, and its founder Vugar Alakbarov; and Khural, a newspaper published in Baku which operates the website, xural.com, and its founder and editor-in-chief, Avaz Zeynalov. The courts decided to block access to the websites on the grounds that certain articles published on them had featured allegedly unlawful content under Azerbaijan's media laws. In particular azadliq.org was found to have published "information promoting violence and religious extremism and calling for, among other things, mass riots", while the other four websites were found to have published "false, misleading and libellous information". Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants allege that the decisions to block access to their entire websites, instead of to specific articles, were extreme. They argue in particular that the blocking orders were because they were critical of the Government and exposed abuse of power and corruption. They also rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights). SCI Le Ch�teau du Francport v. France (no. 3269/18) Just satisfaction The applicant, Soci�t� Civile Immobili�re (SCI) Le Ch�teau du Francport, is a legal person constituted under French law. The case concerned a ch�teau belonging to the applicant company, which had been seized as part of a judicial investigation into suspected offences before being returned to the applicant company four years later in a state of disrepair, and the applicant company's claim for compensation, which had been rejected for failure to prove that the damage sustained had been the consequence of gross negligence on the part of the State. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complained that its claim for compensation had been rejected for failure to prove damage directly attributable to the State, whereas the domestic authorities responsible for the upkeep and preservation of the ch�teau had taken no effective measures to protect and preserve it throughout the time it had remained seized. In its Chamber judgment of 7 July 2022 the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). As the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it. The Court will deal with this question in its just satisfaction judgment, to be delivered on 13 June 2024. Daniel Karsai v. Hungary (no. 32312/23) The applicant, D�niel Karsai, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Budapest. He is a lawyer by profession. Mr Karsai is at an advanced stage of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) a type of motor neurone disease with no known cure. It consists in the gradual loss of motor neurone function, and hence of the voluntary control of muscles. He would like to end or at least to shorten the last phase of his disease through some form of assisted dying. However, it is a criminal offence in Hungary to help somebody to end his or her own life, including in cases of terminal illness. The applicant relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. Bluks Savickis v. Latvia (no. 44570/19) The applicant, Jurijs Bluks Savickis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1962. At the time the application was lodged, he was detained in Riga. The case concerns his pre-trial detention after being arrested in November 2017 on suspicion of drug-related offences. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 (right to liberty and security) and 3 (entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial), he complains about his continued pre-trial detention. Cvikov� v. Slovakia (nos. 615/21, 9427/21, and 36765/21) The applicant, Denisa Cvikov�, is a Slovak national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bratislava. The case originates in a large-scale investigation in 2019 into alleged organised corruption in the judiciary in the Bratislava region. Ms Cvikov�, a lawyer and judge of the Bratislava I District Court, was a target of the investigation, which led to her and 17 others being charged with various offences, including corruption, abuse of official power and interfering with the judiciary. She was suspected in particular of having accepted a bribe in exchange for assisting another judge to unlawfully rule in a case concerning a promissory note. As part of the investigation, her home was searched and she was detained pending trial from 11 March to 8 October 2020. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Ms Cvikov� complains about her detention, which she argues was unjustified and arbitrary, and the proceedings to review the lawfulness of her detention in relation to her request for release. Lastly, she complains that the search of her home breached Article 8 (right to respect for home) because it was unnecessarily invasive and the authorities seized information unrelated to the criminal proceedings. 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 11 June 2024 Name Kalemi v. Albania Biagini v. Croatia Vlasi and Lastric v. Croatia Ferreira Victorino de Queir�s v. Portugal Niu v. the Republic of Moldova amasas and Others v. T�rkiye Main application number 59222/15 25308/18 7687/22 23063/18 11272/16 20371/19 Thursday 13 June 2024 Name Main application number Alimu�aj v. Albania 54282/11 Caka v. Albania 31948/13 Mustafayev and Others v. Azerbaijan 25054/17 Abramov v. Croatia 22714/19 Pajtak Spevan v. Croatia Zelenika v. Croatia Dian v. Denmark 15430/18 39801/23 44002/22 A.E. v. France 51944/22 Dreyfus and Alcaud v. France 15080/23 Wood v. France 6291/23 Nagy and Kov�cs v. Hungary 29233/15 Caito and Others v. Italy 30788/18 Crac� v. Italy Beton AD Skopje and Special Product Dooel Skopje v. North Macedonia Ivanova v. North Macedonia 30782/18 38181/20 15313/19 T.L. v. Norway Barkov and Others v. Russia Goryunov and Others v. Russia 32874/22 6250/23 18964/22 Kravtsov and Others v. Russia 390/18 Loyko and Others v. Russia 42166/21 Name Maletin and Others v. Russia Markunas and Others v. Russia Palkina and Others v. Russia Pistik and Others v. Russia Popova and Others v. Russia Spirkin and Others v. Russia Titova and Others v. Russia Tuganbayev and Others v. Russia Main application number 1027/19 41903/22 35267/22 25287/23 64176/17 46350/22 3551/18 8254/18 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 X (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH. Press contacts [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08 We are happy to receive journalists' enquiries via either email or telephone. 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. 5