Forthcoming judgments

Transcription

1 issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 364 (2012) Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 39 judgments on Tuesday 9 October 2012 and two on Thursday 11 October Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on the Court s Internet site ( Tuesday 9 October 2012 Zhelyazkov v. Bulgaria (no /04) The applicant, Peycho Zhelyazkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bourgas (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the European Convention of Human Rights, he complains that he could not appeal his conviction of a minor public-order offence for insulting and trying to hit a prosecutor. He also complains that during his ensuing 15 days detention he was ordered to participate in public works for the local council, in breach of Article 4 2 (prohibition of forced labour). Mikiashvili v. Georgia (no /06) The applicant, Giorgi Mikiashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Tbilisi. He was arrested on 29 October 2005 following an altercation with the police in the street. He was subsequently convicted of resisting police officers and obstructing them in the course of their duties and sentenced to one and a half years imprisonment. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was ill-treated both by police officers during his arrest in 2005, sustaining multiple bruises all over his body as well as concussion, and then by prison officers in 2006 during his ensuing detention. He further complains under Article 3 that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. Lastly, relying on Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that the court decisions authorising his pre-trial detention were not properly justified. Dimopoulos v. Greece (no /09) The applicant, Dimitrios Dimopoulos, is a Greek national who was born in 1969 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece). The case concerns his complaint about the deplorable conditions of his detention from 16 January to 22 April 2009 in Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters where he was being held on drug-trafficking charges. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 5 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he also complains that it took more than 100 days for the authorities to decide on his application of January 2009 challenging his provisional detention and that he had not been given the opportunity to attend in person a hearing in May 2009 to decide on whether his detention should be continued. Szima v. Hungary (no /11) The applicant, Judit Szima, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Szekszárd (Hungary). She is a retired senior police officer and was a trade union leader. The case concerns her complaint about her conviction for instigation to insubordination

2 following criticisms she had posted from 2007 to 2009 on the Police Trade Union s Internet website. She had notably referred to certain labour-issues such as outstanding pay due to police staff and alleged nepotism and undue political influence in the force. She relies in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Trapani Lombardo and Others v. Italy (no /03) Just satisfaction The applicants, Antonio Trapani Lombardo, Maria Concetta Trapani Lombardo, Blandina Sarlo, Emilia Sabatini, Maria Concetta Trapani Lombardo, Vincenzo Trapani Lombardo, Maria Cristina Nesci and Antonio Trapani Lombardo, are all Italian nationals. The case concerns land which the authorities occupied and began building on. In a judgment of 13 November 2006 the Court held that the interference complained of was incompatible with the principle of lawfulness and therefore in breach of the applicants right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court reserved the question of application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), which will be examined in the judgment to be delivered by it on 9 October Kulikowski v. Poland (no. 2) (no /07) The applicant, Adam Kulikowski, now deceased, is a Polish national who was born in His sons continued his application before the Court. Mr Kulikowski, who had diabetes, complained about inadequate medical care in prison following his arrest in 2000 and conviction in 2002 for killing his mother and alleged that, as a result, his health had seriously deteriorated. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Popenda v. Poland (no /08) The applicant, Krzysztof Popenda, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Częstochowa (Poland). Relying on Article 5 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand from January 2008 to April 2009 on charges of bribery, money laundering and forgery as well as lack of access to his case file. In June 2012 he was convicted of the bribery charge and sentenced to two years and ten months imprisonment; the other charges are still pending in a separate set of criminal proceedings against him. Further relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he also complains that he was deprived of personal contact with his wife and sons during his detention. Asyanov v. Russia (no /09) The applicant, Rinat Asyanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow. The case concerns his complaint about the appalling conditions of his detention on remand from April 2007 to November 2008 on charges of attempted fraud. He alleges in particular that, as a result of overcrowding, he contracted tuberculosis and that the ensuing medical care he received was inadequate. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He was ultimately convicted as charged in July 2008 and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Kolunov v. Russia (no /05) The applicant, Aleksey Kolunov, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Moscow. He is a member of the National Bolsheviks Party and on 14 December 2004 was involved in a sit-in in a government building in Moscow with other members of the party during which they called for the President s resignation. The group, including the applicant, were arrested the same day and, convicted on 8 December 2005 of participating in mass disorder, were immediately released on probation. Relying on 2

3 Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the apalling conditions of his detention on remand, notably on account of overcrowding. Further relying on Article 5 1 (c) and 3 (right to liberty and security), he also complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Alkaya v. Turkey (no /06) The applicant, Yasemin Alkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey). In 2002 Ms Alkaya, who is a well-known actress in Turkey, was the victim of a burglary. A daily newspaper reported the incident, giving Ms Alkaya s exact address. Taking the view that the disclosure of her address made her a target and that her home had ceased to be a private and secure space, she brought an action for damages against the manager of the newspaper and the journalist concerned. The court dismissed the action, holding, in particular, that the fact that the applicant was well known made her a public figure. The Court of Cassation upheld that decision. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Alkaya complains of a breach of her right to respect for her private life and her home which, in her view, amounted to discrimination since it was based on her public profile. She argues that the Turkish State failed in its obligation to protect her against the interference with her private life. Çoşelav v. Turkey (no. 1413/07) The applicants, Hanife and Bekir Çoşelav, wife and husband, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1957 and 1961 respectively and live in Istanbul. They allege that the Turkish authorities were responsible for the suicide of their 16-year-old son, Bilal, in an adult prison due to their failure to provide urgent and specialist help for his grave psychological problems. They also allege that the ensuing investigation into their son s death was inadequate. They rely in particular on Article 2 (right to life). İşeri and Others v. Turkey (no /07) The applicants, Murat İşeri, Hüseyin Gölpınar, Fevzi Ayber and Abdurrahman Daşdemir, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1977, 1965, 1955 and 1960 and live in Ankara (Turkey). They are members of trade unions for public-service employees. In May 2006, in connection with a demonstration concerning a social security law, the applicants were making their way to a park where a statement was due to be made to the press. They allege that they were prevented by the security forces from attending the gathering and that the police officers kicked them, struck them with truncheons and threatened them. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). X v. Turkey (no /09) The applicant, Mr X, is a Turkish national who was born in 1989 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He is a homosexual. He was imprisoned in 2009 and placed in a shared cell with heterosexual prisoners. Following intimidation and bullying from his fellow prisoners, he was transferred to an individual cell for security reasons. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains, in particular, of the harsh conditions of solitary confinement in which he was allegedly held on account of his sexual orientation and which had damaging effects on his physical and mental health. He further alleges that he did not have an effective remedy by which to complain of his conditions of detention and that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. 3

4 RP and Others v. the United Kingdom (no /08) The applicants, RP, AP, MP and BP, are British nationals who were born in 1985, 1982, 1950 and 1941 respectively and live in Nottingham, England. MP and BP are RP s parents and AP is her brother. RP, who has a significant learning disability, complains about the decision to take her daughter into local authority care in November 2006 and to subsequently place her for adoption. Relying on Article 6 1 (right of access to court), the applicants complain in particular about the appointment of the Official Solicitor 1 to act for RP in the proceedings concerning her daughter, alleging in particular that the implications of that appointment which RP was unable to challenge were not fully explained to her. Further relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), RP also complains that she did not have the opportunity to challenge the decision to remove her daughter from her care. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Danielyan and Others v. Armenia (no /05) Tunyan and Others v. Armenia (no /05) In these two cases the applicants, Armenian nationals, are two families who live in Yerevan. They complain that the forced expropriation of their property (a house in the first case and a flat in the second case) in Yerevan for construction projects was unlawful. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Puzyrevskiy v. Russia (no /05) Vorobyev v. Russia (no /05) In these cases the applicants complain that appeal hearings in civil proceedings to which they were parties were held in their absence. They rely on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing). Abdulkadir Demir v. Turkey (no /08) Beşire Özer and Others v. Turkey (no /08) Beşire Özer and Others v. Turkey (no. 2) (no /08) Cemile Kalender v. Turkey (no /08) Çetinkaya and Others v. Turkey (no /08) Çokkalender and Others v. Turkey (no /08) Emine Kalender and Others v. Turkey (no /08) Emine Kalender and Others v. Turkey (no. 2) (no /08) Erdal v. Turkey (no /08) Fatma Özer and Others v. Turkey (no /08) Kahraman Çokkalender and Others v. Turkey (no /08) Kahraman Çokkalender and Others v. Turkey (no. 2) (no /08) Keziban Çokkalender and Others v. Turkey (no /08) Kızmaz v. Turkey (no /08) Kızmaz and Kaya v. Turkey (no /08) İnanoğlu and Akhan v. Turkey (no /08) İnanoğlu and Others v. Turkey (no /08) Salihe Çetinkaya Others v. Turkey (no /08) 1 Appointed by the Lord Chancellor, the Official Solicitor acts for people who, because they lack mental capacity and cannot properly manage their own affairs, are unable to represent themselves and no other suitable person or agency is able and willing to act. 4

5 Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Heyrman v. Belgium (no /06) Baranyi and Others v. Hungary (no /07) László Károly v. Hungary (no /07) Thursday 11 October 2012 Abdelali v. France (no /07) The applicant, Amar Abdelali, is a French national who was born in 1968 and lives in Palaiseau (France). In June 2004 a judicial investigation was opened into drug trafficking on the basis of anonymous information received. A telephone-tapping operation was conducted, implicating Mr Abdelali, and a warrant was issued for his arrest in October As the applicant could not be traced, he was eventually sentenced in absentia in June 2005 to nine years imprisonment for drug trafficking. Apprehended in October 2005, he immediately lodged an objection against his conviction in absentia, relying on a number of alleged defects in the investigation. The domestic courts ultimately dismissed his plea of nullity, finding, among other things, that since Mr Abdelali had absconded and could not be traced during the investigation, he could not seek to have any of the steps in the judicial investigation declared null and void. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Abdelali submits that the fact that he could not raise a plea of nullity, when he had been wholly unaware of the investigation in progress, infringed his defence rights and hence his right to a fair trial. C.N. and V. v. France (no /09) The applicants, C.N. and V., are sisters. They are French nationals who were born in Burundi in 1978 and 1984, respectively. They arrived in France in 1994 and 1995 respectively with the assistance of their aunt, a Burundi national living in France. The applicants allege that they were forced to perform all the domestic chores in their aunt s home, without being paid or having any days off. They allegedly lived in unhygienic conditions and were not allowed to share family meals. The applicants claim to have been physically and verbally harassed on a daily basis by their aunt, who regularly threatened to send them back to Burundi. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), V. alleges that she was subjected to ill-treatment. Under Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), the applicants submit that they were held in servitude and required to perform forced or compulsory labour. Lastly, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they claim that no effective investigation was carried out in response to their complaint. 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 To receive the Court s press releases, please subscribe here: Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int tel: Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: ) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: ) Nina Salomon (tel: ) 5

6 Denis Lambert (tel: ) 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