003-8058089-11261342

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 226 (2024) 09.10.2024 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing eight judgments on Tuesday 15 October 2024 and 22 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 17 October 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 15 October 2024 Moskalj v. Croatia (application no. 60272/21) The applicant, Alka Moskalj, is a Croatian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Zagreb. The case concerns the national courts' decision to award her compensation for the excessive length of her enforcement proceedings but to refuse to award her the costs of her legal representation, which came to more than the amount she received as compensation. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that that refusal and the fact that she could not recoup the costs incurred, had a deterrent effect on the exercise of her right of access to a court. Daugaard Sorensen v. Denmark (no. 25650/22) The applicant, Emma Daugaard Sorensen, is a Danish national who was born in 2000 and lives in Helsing�r (Denmark). She was the alleged victim of a rape in June 2021. The case concerns the withdrawal of charges against her alleged rapist, in view of errors that occurred at the Regional State Prosecutor's Office, in particular a failure to comply with a statutory time-limit. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (access to court), and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, the applicant complains that she was deprived of her right to an effective prosecution and judicial review. H.T. v. Germany and Greece (no. 13337/19) The applicant, H.T., is a Syrian national who was born in 1993. The case concerns his removal from Germany to Greece, on the day of his arrival, under an administrative arrangement between the two countries, despite his having expressed his intention to apply for asylum in Germany. It also concerns the conditions, legality, and judicial control of the legality, of the applicant's subsequent detention in Greece. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the Convention, he complains of the conditions of his detention in Greece, that his detention was arbitrary and that he did not have at his disposal an effective remedy by which he could challenge its lawfulness. Relying on Articles 3 and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he was removed from Germany without his asylum application being registered by the German authorities and without an assessment of the risk of chain refoulement from Greece to T�rkiye and ultimately to his country of origin, Syria. He also complains that the German authorities did not assess the risk of him being detained in Greece in bad conditions without any individual guarantees being obtained as regards the treatment he would face there. Nsingi v. Greece (no. 27985/19) The applicant, Yannick Nsingi, is a Congolese national who was born in 1987 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece). On 6 June 2018 he was arrested by the police in Athens and, after verification of his identity, was registered at the Omonia police station under the name "O.C.", which was that of an individual who had been sentenced to eight months' imprisonment for possession of narcotics and was wanted in that connection. On 14 June 2018 the applicant was brought before the prosecutor at the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal, who ordered that he be sent to prison. The case concerns the rejection of the applicant's claim for compensation for having been imprisoned to serve a sentence that had been handed down in respect of another person, for whom he had been mistaken. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security / right to compensation), the applicant complains that he was unlawfully imprisoned from 6 June to 21 November 2018 � for 168 days � and that he was unable to obtain compensation for the unlawful imprisonment he alleges. Haugen v. Norway (no. 59476/21) The applicant, Age Nils Haugen, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Rykkinn (Norway). The case concerns the suicide of Mr Haugen's son while in Oslo Prison. He was suffering from mental-health issues and was allegedly a suicide risk. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Haugen alleges that the authorities did not do what could reasonably have been expected of them to prevent his son from committing suicide while in detention, and complains of his medical care and solitary confinement. He also complains that he did not have an adequate remedy for these complaints. Vlad and Others v. Romania (nos. 40756/06, 41508/07, and 50806/07) Revision The applicants, Mihai Vlad, Flaviu Plaa and Vasilica Bratu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1945, 1969, and 1964 respectively and live in Bucharest. Each of the applicants have been involved in lengthy court proceedings in Romania. The Court issued a judgment in their case on 26 November 2013. It found violations of Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), and set out reforms that the Romanian State had to implement under Article 46 (implementation of judgments) to deal with a systematic problem of delays in proceedings. The Government requested revision of the judgment of 26 November 2013, which they had been unable to enforce because the applicant in application no. 40756/06, Mihai Vlad, had died before the judgment had been adopted. The Court will now issue a revised judgment. Gadzhiyev and Gostev v. Russia (nos. 73585/14 and 51427/18) The applicants, Salikh Gadzhiyev and Nikolay Gostev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1971, respectively, and live in Russia. The case concerns disciplinary measures taken against the applicants which resulted in their respective dismissals. Mr Gadzhiyev, a police colonel in the mobile security unit of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior, was dismissed in 2013 following a disciplinary investigation that established that he had made public statements to the media on four occasions about corruption problems in the region's police force. He was reproached with having failed to coordinate with the Information and Public Relations department of the Ministry of the Interior before making these statements. Mr Gostev, an employee of the Moscow Metro since 1992, became the president of a metro workers' trade union in 2014. In 2016, following a number of technical accidents that had caused interruptions of the metro service, the trade union organised a demonstration and a number of solo pickets to draw the authorities' and the public's attention to safety issues. On the occasion of further interruptions of service, Mr Gostev gave two interviews to internet media portals in his capacity as president of the trade union. In 2017 the Moscow Metro authority reprimanded him for those interviews on two separate occasions. Given that the second reprimand was for repeated misconduct, it resulted in his dismissal. The two applicants lodged appeals against these decisions with the competent domestic courts, but they were unsuccessful. Mr Gadzhiyev relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, arguing that he was dismissed for having publicly expressed his views on matters of public interest. Mr Gostev relies on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), alleging that he was prevented from fulfilling his office in an effective manner. Coventry v. the United Kingdom (no. 6016/16) Just Satisfaction The applicant, David Michael Coventry, is a British national who was born in 1954 and lives in Romford (the United Kingdom). The judgment will concern the just satisfaction to be awarded following the Court's ruling of 11 October 2022 with regard to an order for costs made against Mr Coventry, an unsuccessful defendant in a nuisance action. In that ruling the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). As the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the European Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it. It will rule on this question in its judgment of 15 October 2024. Thursday 17 October 2024 A.L. v. France and E.J. v. France (nos 44715/20 and 47930/21) The applicants, A.L. and E.J., are two British nationals who were born in 1990 and 1965, respectively, and are both currently imprisoned in the United Kingdom. Both cases concern the remote retrieval of user data from the EncroChat encrypted telecommunications service and their sharing with the UK law-enforcement authorities. EncroChat was an encrypted telecommunications service for use on mobile phones, more than 66,000 copies of which were distributed covertly from 2016 to 2020, and which was used by criminal organisations. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life), the applicants complain that the French authorities retrieved data remotely from all devices connected to the EncroChat network and that the data collected in the United Kingdom was transferred to the UK authorities. They question both the quality of the legislative provisions on remote data retrieval and the necessity of such interference. Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), they also submit that there was no remedy available to them by which they might have effectively challenged the decisions authorising the data retrieval in question Cesarano v. Italy (no. 71250/16) The applicant, Ferdinando Cesarano, is an Italian national who was born in 1954 and is currently serving a life sentence in L'Aquila (Italy). The case concerns the courts' refusal of Mr Cesarano's request to have his sentence of life imprisonment reduced to 30 years' imprisonment, stemming, in his view, from his choice to be tried under what is known as a summary procedure, whereby the defendant waives certain procedural rights in exchange for a reduction of sentence. Relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law), he argues that, on account of the principles set out in Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) ([GC], no. 10249/03, � 113, 17 September 2009), since he had been tried under what is known as a summary procedure he should have been entitled to the more lenient sentence provided for by the law. The case will also be examined under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial). S.M. v. Italy (no. 16310/20) The applicant, S.M., is an Italian national who was born in born in 1977 and lives in Varese (Italy). Mr S.M. suffers from HIV and a number of related diseases, including Kaposi sarcoma, HIV-related encephalopathy and chronic HCV-related hepatopathy. The case concerns his imprisonment during the global Covid-19 pandemic. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr S.M. complains that the Italian authorities did not take adequate steps to protect him from contracting Covid-19 while in detention, and that his continued detention in that situation was a breach of the Convention. Amerisoc Center S.R.L. v. Luxembourg (no. 50527/20) The applicant is a Costa Rican company with its registered office in San Jose (Costa Rica). The case concerns the seizure of assets held in a Luxembourg bank account belonging to the applicant company following an order issued by a Luxembourg investigating judge on the basis of an international request for assistance issued by the Peruvian authorities as part of a criminal investigation into money laundering. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant company complains of the seizure of its assets in a Luxembourg bank account, alleging that the measure in question was not accompanied by procedural safeguards, was not provided for by law, did not pursue a legitimate aim and was disproportionate. Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain (no. 49363/20) The applicant, Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as, is a Spanish trade union which was set up in 1998 and is based in Vigo (Galicia, Spain). Its aim is to defend the rights and interests of workers in Galicia. The case concerns a refusal by the local authorities in Galicia to allow the trade union to organise a convoy-demonstration in Vigo for May Day owing to the Covid restrictions in force at that time. Relying, notably, on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicant trade union complains of the prohibition of its demonstration. 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 17 October 2024 Name Main application number Adilov v. Azerbaijan 51856/14 Ahmadov v. Azerbaijan 39211/17 Ali Zade v. Azerbaijan 76509/14 Babayeva v. Azerbaijan 33184/16 Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan 35474/13 Karimov v. Azerbaijan 60545/14 Rzayev and Others v. Azerbaijan 25690/14 Bodin and Others v. France 51613/22 Hoyt and Carnival PLC v. France 11104/23 Riquier v. France 20093/23 Soci�t� Alten v. France 25054/23 Tukacs and Others v. Hungary 75465/17 �elem v. the Netherlands 8715/24 Schouten v. the Netherlands 40969/21 Immoreks Makedonija Doo Skopje v. North Macedonia 25311/17 Hasc�k v. Slovakia 13284/22 Chaves Fernandes Figueiredo v. Switzerland 55603/18 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. 6