Forthcoming judgments

Transcription

1 issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 368 (2012) Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 judgments on Tuesday 16 October 2012 and nine on Thursday 18 October Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on the Court s Internet site ( Tuesday 16 October 2012 Askon AD v. Bulgaria (application no. 9970/05) The applicant, Askon AD, is a Bulgarian joint-stock company set up in 1991 and based in Sofia. In 2003, the civil courts allowed an action brought by the company requesting a judgment to declare that it did not owe the State a loan taken out by its predecessor company. In 2004, the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts judgments, but refused to award the company the costs incurred in the proceedings. Relying in particular on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complains of the Supreme Court s refusal to examine evidence presented in proceedings concerning the costs incurred. Natsev v. Bulgaria (no /04) The applicant, Rosen Natsev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about the existence of the 1997 Law on special intelligence methods, arguing that he could be placed under surveillance at any time without being informed by the authorities and had no way of knowing whether such measures had been taken against him. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he further alleges that no domestic remedy existed capable of redressing the situation. Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria (no. 3) (no /04) The applicant, Tsonyo Tsonev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Gabrovo (Bulgaria). Convicted of stealing a bag of medicine from a pharmacy and sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment in a judgment that was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation in March 2004, he complains that his conviction was based mainly on the testimony of a police officer and that the courts did not take into consideration several witnesses in his favour. He also complains that the Supreme Court turned down his request for the appointment of counsel. He relies in particular on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 6 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 6 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing). Banca Internaţională de Investiţii şi Dezvoltare Mb S.A. v. Republic of Moldova (no /05) The applicant is Banca Internaţională de Investiţii şi Dezvoltare Mb S.A., a limited company incorporated under Moldovan law with its registered office in Chişinău. The case concerns the setting-aside of a final judgment in the applicant company s favour in which the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova wound up company N. and directed the Ministry of Finance to pay the applicant company which had made loans to company N. the sum of 1,352,854 Moldovan lei. The judgment was upheld on

2 26 February 2003 by the Supreme Court of Justice. The applicant company alleges that the setting-aside of that decision on 26 December 2006 on an application from the Prosecutor General infringed the principle of legal certainty. It also complains of the failure to enforce the decision of 26 February 2003 in the period preceding its setting-aside. Lastly, the applicant company complains of the dismissal of its appeals in the course of the criminal proceedings against company N. It relies on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Piętka v. Poland (no /07) The applicant, Krzysztof Piętka, is a Polish national who lives in Wrocław (Poland). He complains that he was obliged to pay the legal costs incurred by his opponent in civil proceedings, as the court served his statement of claim on his opponent prior to having determined his request for exemption from the court costs. Mr Piętka had brought the proceedings, concerning a financial claim, together with his business partner in April 2002, but withdrew the claim in November 2002 in view of the court s refusal to grant them an exemption from the court fees. He relies on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing). Smolorz v. Poland (no /07) The applicant, Michał Smolorz, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Katowice. He is a journalist who writes a regular weekly column in the Silesian regional edition of the daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza. In May 2004 he wrote an article criticising J.J., an architect who had a major influence on urban planning in post-war Katowice, in response to remarks made by the architect in an interview in Gazeta Wyborcza the previous week. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains of the civil penalty imposed on him for damaging J.J. s reputation. Stanisław Kędzior v. Poland (no /07) The applicant, Stanisław Kędzior, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Sośnica (Poland). Suffering from schizophrenia, he was declared incapacitated by a court in 2001 and was subsequently placed in a social care home by his brother, who acted as his appointed guardian. He complains that his indefinite placement in the social care home, to which he had not agreed, violated his rights under Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home). Further relying on Article 5 4 (right to have the lawfulness of one s detention decided speedily by a court), he also complains that there was no effective procedure by which he could challenge the necessity for his continued stay in the home and obtain his release. Lastly, he submits, under Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing), that he was prevented from directly applying to a court to have his legal capacity restored. Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (no /11) The applicant, Makhmudzhan Ergashev, is a Kyrgyzstani national who was born in 1972 and has been living in St Petersburg (Russia) since July In 2007, criminal proceedings were brought against him in Kyrgyzstan on suspicion of embezzlement of State funds. A request for his extradition to Kyrgyzstan was approved by the Russian deputy Prosecutor General in March 2011 and the extradition decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in November Mr Ergashev s request for refugee status in Russia was rejected. He complains in particular that his extradition to Kyrgyzstan would be in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), as, belonging to the Uzbek ethnic minority, he would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in Kyrgyzstan. 2

3 Niyazov v. Russia (no /11) The applicant, Akhmadzhon Niyazov, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1961 and, living in Russia since 2009, currently resides in Irkutsk. In March 2010, criminal proceedings were brought against him in Uzbekistan on suspicion of membership of Wahhabism, a religious organisation banned in Uzbekistan, and in October 2010 he was arrested in Irkutsk with a view to his extradition. The Russian courts eventually rejected the request for his extradition to Uzbekistan. An order for his administrative removal from Russia was declared unlawful by the courts in July Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Niyazov complains that, if extradited to Uzbekistan, he would be subjected to ill-treatment. He further complains that his detention between 29 October 2010 and 29 April 2011, with a view to his extradition, and his detention between 4 May and 26 July 2011, with a view to his administrative removal, was in violation of Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security). Lastly, relying on Article 5 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he complains in particular that he was unable to obtain effective judicial review of his detention pending extradition and that the proceedings concerning the extension of his detention were not speedy. Rakhmonov v. Russia (no /11) The applicant, Abdusami Rakhmonov, is an Uzbekistani national who was born in 1974 and has been living in Moscow since July In September 2010, a court in Uzbekistan ordered his arrest pending a criminal investigation against him. In February 2011, he was arrested in Moscow and placed in detention with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan. In August 2011, the Russian Prosecutor General rejected the request for his extradition. An order for his administrative expulsion was quashed by the courts in September Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that, because of his alleged extremist religious beliefs, his removal to Uzbekistan would expose him to a real risk of torture and illtreatment. Furthermore, relying on Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his placement in detention pending extradition in February 2011 and the extension of that detention in March 2011 were unlawful. Finally, relying on Article 5 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he complains that he was unable to obtain a speedy review of his detention pending extradition. Otamendi Egiguren v. Spain (no /08) The applicant, Martxelo Otamendi Egiguren, is a Spanish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Tolosa (Spain). He is a journalist by profession and at the relevant time was publication director of the Basque-language daily newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria. In 2003 he was arrested at his home by Guardia Civil officers in connection with a judicial investigation into suspected offences of membership of and collaboration with the terrorist organisation ETA, and was detained incommunicado in police custody. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains in particular of the lack of an effective investigation into his alleged ill-treatment while being held incommunicado in police custody. Eylem Baş v. Turkey (no /07) The applicant, Eylem Baş, is a Turkish national who was born in Convicted of being a member of an illegal armed organisation and of undermining the constitutional order of the State and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2006, she is currently serving her prison sentence in Gebze Prison (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), she alleges that, following her arrest in June 2004, she was ill-treated in police custody in particular, she maintains that she 3

4 was beaten and sexually harassed and that her complaint in that respect was not examined effectively. Length-of-proceedings cases In the following case, the applicant complains in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Piskura v. Slovakia (no. 2) (no. 3817/07) Thursday 18 October 2012 Bureš v. the Czech Republic (no /08) The applicant, Lukáš Bureš, is a Czech national who was born in 1985 and lives in Brno (the Czech Republic). He has been diagnosed with a psycho-social disability. In February 2007, after having inadvertently overdosed on the calming psychiatric medication prescribed by his psychiatrist, he was stopped in the street by the police who assumed that he was a drug addict, given his confused state and the fact that he was wearing no trousers or underwear and taken to a psychiatric hospital. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was ill-treated at the hospital s sobering-up centre, in particular by being strapped to a bed for several hours. Further relying on Article 3, he also submits that his complaint about his ill-treatment was not effectively investigated. Finally, he complains that his involuntary admission to and detention at the psychiatric hospital violated his rights under Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security) and that he did not have access to a proper judicial review of his detention, in violation of Article 5 4 (right to have the lawfulness of one s detention decided speedily by a court). Rossi v. France (no /08) The applicant, Didier Rossi, is a French national who was born in 1961 and is currently being held in Nancy-Maxéville Prison. He was arrested on 23 May 2005 in the course of an investigation into eleven armed bank raids in eastern France in which a total of 97,360 euros was stolen. The applicant s pre-trial detention was extended five times by the liberties and detention judge for six-month periods. His various applications for release were initially refused on the grounds that the large number of offences committed called for numerous investigations, that there was a need to prevent any risk of pressure being put on the witnesses and victims and that there was a risk of a repeat offence (the applicant had seven convictions on his criminal record, including two for similar offences). On 25 June 2009 an order was made for his release under judicial supervision. Relying on Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant alleges, in particular, that the length of his pre-trial detention exceeded the reasonable time required by that provision. Hartman v. Slovenia (no /05) The applicant, Andrej Hartman, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Žabnica. Arrested in November 1997 and convicted of a number of drug-related offences in a judgment which became final in May 2006, he complains, under Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), that the criminal proceedings against him were excessively long. He also complains that he did not have an effective remedy in this respect, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). 4

5 Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Barišič v. Slovenia (no /05) Bjelič v. Slovenia (no /06) Danijel Pečnik v. Slovenia (no /06) Rasiewicz v. Slovenia (no /06) Stojc v. Slovenia (no /06) Zabovnik v. Slovenia (nos /06 and 17608/06) 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: ) 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. 5