003-8163052-11445816

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 046 (2025) 20.02.2025 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing seven judgments on Tuesday 25 February 2025 and 26 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 27 February 2025. 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 25 February 2025 Gomes Costa v. Portugal (application no. 34916/16) The applicant is a Portuguese national who was born in 1972 and lives in Portugal. The case concerns the applicant's detention pending trial for a period of eight months and 21 days in the context of criminal proceedings opened against him on allegations of rape, which resulted in his acquittal. It also concerns the domestic authorities' refusal to grant him compensation for the damage he claims to have sustained on account of his pre-trial detention. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that he was placed and kept in pre-trial detention despite a lack of relevant and sufficient grounds. He further complains that he was not afforded redress for the alleged unlawfulness of his detention. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, he submits that his right to be presumed innocent was undermined. Toth and Crian v. Romania (no. 45430/19) The applicants, Zolt�n-Ovidiu Toth and Alin Crian, are two Romanian nationals who were born in 1982 and 1974, respectively, and live in Oradea (Romania). They are police officers working for the local police force (Poliia Local Oradea). The case concerns the posting of a text and a photo of the applicants by a member of the local community, C.T., on the public Facebook group "Oradea is us" (Oradea suntem noi) in April 2016 after the police officers had fined C.T. and her mother for not putting their bin-bag of household waste in the right place. The applicants brought proceedings against C.T. on account of the contents of the post, the information disclosed and the public reaction it had generated. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicants complain that when dismissing the proceedings, the Romanian courts failed to strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake and to adequately protect their right to respect for their private lives and reputations. �ner v. T�rkiye (no. 8875/22) The applicants, Mehmet irin �ner and Besra �ner, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1975 and 1974 respectively. The case concerns the death of the applicants' son, who was run over by an armoured police vehicle during a demonstration in Diyarbakir (T�rkiye). Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, the applicants allege that their son was run over by the vehicle deliberately, that he was not taken immediately to hospital despite serious injuries and that the public prosecutor failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. Ezeoke v. the United Kingdom (no. 61280/21) The applicant, Obina Christopher Ezeoke, is a British national who was born in 1992 and is currently serving a prison sentence in HMP Frankland, in Durham (United Kingdom). The applicant was arrested on 18 September 2016 on suspicion of the murder of a woman and her 21-year-old nephew. The case concerns the length and fairness of criminal proceedings against Mr Ezeoke, who stood trial five times before he was convicted by a jury of the offences with which he was charged. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, Mr Ezeoke complains that the length of the proceedings was incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement, and that he did not have a "fair hearing" as a consequence of delays and the repeated retrials. Thursday 27 February 2025 X v. Cyprus (no. 40733/22) The applicant, X, was born in 2000 and lives in England. X alleges that she was raped by several Israeli nationals when in Ayia Napa, Cyprus, in July 2019. The case concerns the ensuing investigation by the national authorities. At some point X made an involuntary retraction statement and was prosecuted for public mischief. She was found guilty at first instance and acquitted on appeal, with the Supreme Court noting various failures in the investigative process of her rape allegation. Relying on Articles 3 (lack of effective investigation) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), X complains that the Cypriot authorities did not fulfil their duty to effectively investigate and prosecute her allegations of rape. Fraisse and Others v. France (nos. 22525/21 and 47626/21) The applicants, Jean-Pierre Fraisse (no. 47626/21), V�ronique Voiturier, Chlo� Fraisse and France Voiturier (no. 22525/21), the father, mother, sister and grandmother of R�mi Fraisse, are French nationals who were born respectively in 1950, 1965, 1990 and 1942. The case concerns the death of R�mi Fraisse, a 21-year-old student, on the night of 25-26 October 2014 at the Sivens construction site (in the municipality of Lisle-sur-Tarn) in the context of clashes between protesters opposed to the construction of a dam and the mobile gendarmerie forces responsible for maintaining order. Under the substantive limb of Article 2 of the Convention, the applicants submit that the use of force on the part of the gendarme who launched the OF-F1 grenade that caused the death of their family member was neither necessary nor proportionate. They further submit, in view of the Government's duty ("positive obligations") under Article 2, that the equipment used by the officers involved in the operation was inappropriate and that the operation as such, which had not been sufficiently prepared in advance, was not properly supervised as it unfolded. Under the procedural limb of Article 2, the applicants mainly argue that the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of their family member was ineffective owing to a lack of independence of the police investigators and investigating judges, who refused to carry out a number of additional investigative measures. I.C. v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 36436/22) The applicant, I.C., is a Moldovan national who was born in 1974 and lives in Soroca (Moldova). She is intellectually disabled. The case concerns I.C.'s alleged labour exploitation and sexual abuse from January 2013 to October 2018 after she had been removed from State care to live on a farm (following a "deinstitutionalisation" procedure). She had been taken by a couple from a neuropsychiatric institution (she had been in State care for 24 years at this point) to be a suitable "bride" (mireas) for one of their employees on their farm. She did not receive payment for her work at the farm and the man of the couple, I.P., allegedly began raping and sexually abusing her. Several times she tried to escape, but returned to the farm. The Moldovan courts acquitted the accused couple of the charges brought against them of trafficking in human beings. The courts found that there was no evidence that the applicant had been threatened or forced to work with or without her consent, and that she had not been sexually abused by I.P. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 4 (prohibition of forced labour), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), I.C. complains, in particular, of her being transferred from a State asylum and placed in a family, where she was forced to work without payment, that the investigation into her allegations of labour exploitation, rape and sexual abuse was ineffective, and that a proper investigation was prevented owing to stigma towards women with an intellectual disability. Salay v. Slovakia (no. 29359/22) The applicant, Adri�n Salay, is a Slovak national who was born in 1998 and lives in Plaveck� Stvrtok (Slovakia). He is an ethnic Roma. The case concerns the placement, in 2004, of Mr Salay first in a preparatory class of a primary school for children who were not expected to be able to complete the mainstream curriculum (rather than enrolling him in year 1 of primary school), and then in special classes at that school which were for children with intellectual disabilities (following testing showing that he suffered from a mild intellectual disability). Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education), Mr Salay asserts that he was discriminated against in his schooling. Costa i Rossell� and Others v. Spain (nos. 29780/20, 33702/20, 48537/20, and 42224/22) The applicants are 32 Spanish nationals who were born between 1947 and 1978 and live in Spain. The applicants Josep Costa i Rossell� and Eusebi Campdepadr�s i Pucurull were respectively vicepresident of the Bureau of the Parliament of Catalonia and a secretary of the Bureau from January 2018 to March 2021. The other applicants were at the time deputies of the Parliament of Catalonia. The case concerns, in particular, the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Spain, allegedly preventing the holding of parliamentary debates that were of general interest. The 2015 Resolution no. 1/XI on the initiation of the political process (the proc�s) towards an independent Catalan republic, established that the Catalan Parliament had to take steps to open that process, and that that body would no longer recognise the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of Spain. That resolution was declared unconstitutional and voided by the Constitutional Court. A series of similar resolutions with the same goals followed in the Catalan Parliament, which were in turn annulled by the Constitutional Court. Notwithstanding the above, the Bureau adopted several decisions by which it accepted further similar resolutions for processing and debate by the Parliament of Catalonia. The Constitutional Court declared those decisions null and void within enforcement proceedings of its previous judgments. Mr Costa i Rossell� and Mr Campdepadr�s i Pucurull, who were members of the Bureau of the Catalan Parliament, were personally warned of their obligation to refrain from taking initiative that could entail ignoring or circumventing the Constitutional Court's previous judgments. Criminal proceedings were eventually initiated against them, although they ended in their acquittal. Relying, in particular, on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 3 (right to free elections) Mr Costa i Rossell� and Mr Campdepadr�s i Pucurull allege that the Bureau was prevented from allowing certain debates to take place in the Parliament of Catalonia through coercion by the Constitutional Court, which had extensively interpreted its powers within enforcement proceedings; the other applicants complain that they were prevented from carrying out their duties as parliamentarians. In addition, Mr Costa i Rossell� claimed that the very fact that criminal proceedings had been brought against him had also amounted to a violation of the rights invoked above. They also rely on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination). 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 25 February 2025 Name G�ll�i v. Albania Karimova v. Azerbaijan Stefanova and Others v. Bulgaria Main application number 15468/23 70227/14 9313/21 Thursday 27 February 2025 Name Tafa v. Albania L.K. v. Belgium Marzouki and Others v. Bulgaria Dzhandzhgava v. Cyprus Amouche and Others v. France C.M. and C.M. v. France Hussinkhil v. France Ambot-Papasimakopoulou v. Greece Satuf and Others v. Greece M.S.H. v. Hungary Krievia v. Latvia B & B Property Development Co Ltd v. Malta Main application number 1840/23 8883/20 48636/19 19274/20 56929/18 63625/19 4387/24 19651/22 44291/21 44283/19 31381/17 42584/21 Name Balmu v. the Republic of Moldova Fiodorov & CO S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova Glijinschi v. the Republic of Moldova Glavan v. the Republic of Moldova Szypula and Others v. Poland C.W. v. Portugal orevi v. Serbia �zg�r v. T�rkiye Snopov v. Ukraine Main application number 4457/22 78280/14 56795/11 42713/13 78030/14 44528/22 25105/24 79705/16 60716/10 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