Forthcoming judgments

Transcription

1 issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 113 (2014) Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing seven judgments on Tuesday 29 April 2014 and three on Wednesday 30 April Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on the Court s Internet site ( Tuesday 29 April 2014 Salumäki v. Finland (application no /09) The applicant, Tiina Johanna Salumäki, is a Finnish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Helsinki. She is a journalist. The case concerns her conviction of defamation. On 8 July 2004, the nationwide evening newspaper Ilta-Sanomat published an article written by Ms Salumäki concerning the investigation into a homicide. The front page of the edition carried a headline asking whether the victim had connections with K.U., a well-known Finnish businessman. A photograph of K.U. appeared on the same page. Next to the article was a separate column mentioning K.U. s previous conviction for economic crimes. On 25 August 2006 the Helsinki District Court convicted the applicant and the newspaper s editor-in-chief at the time, H.S., of defaming K.U. as the title of their article insinuated that K.U. had been involved in the killing, even though it was made clear much later in the text that the homicide suspect had no connections with K.U. Along with H.S., Ms Salumäki was ordered to pay damages and costs to K.U. This judgment was subsequently upheld on appeal and the Supreme Court finally refused leave to appeal in November Ms Salumäki complains that her conviction amounts to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, referring in particular to the fact that neither the Government nor K.U. ever alleged at any stage of the defamation proceedings that the information presented in the article was incorrect. Natsvlishvili and Togonidze v. Georgia (no. 9043/05) The applicants, Amiran Natsvlishvili and Rusudan Togonidze, husband and wife, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1950 and 1953 respectively and currently live in Moscow and Kutaisi (Georgia). The case essentially concerns the compatibility of the plea-bargain procedure, introduced into the Georgian judicial system in 2004, with the right to a fair trial. Mr Natsvlishvili was the mayor of Kutaisi from 1993 to 1995 and the managing director of the automobile factory in Kutaisi, one of the largest public companies in Georgia, from 1995 to He and his wife together owned 15.55% of the shares in the factory and were the principal shareholders after the State. In December 2002 Mr Natsvlishvili was kidnapped and was only released in exchange for a large ransom paid by his family. In March 2004, he was arrested on suspicion of illegally reducing the share capital of the factory for which he was responsible and charged with making fictitious sales, transfers and write-offs, and spending the proceeds without regard for the company s interests. His arrest was filmed and broadcast on local television, the Governor of the Region also making a declaration about the State s intention to pursue and identify all those who had misappropriated public money. During the first four months of his detention Mr Natsvlishvili was held in the same cell as the man who was charged with kidnapping him and with another man serving a sentence for murder. Following negotiations with the prosecutor in September 2004, Mr Natsvlishvili accepted a plea bargain in which he was to be convicted without an examination of the

2 merits and fined 35,000 Georgian laris (GEL), the equivalent of 14,700 euros, in exchange for a reduced sentence. The trial court noting that Mr Natsvlishvili did not plead guilty but had actively cooperated with the investigation by returning 22.5% of the shares in the factory to the State sanctioned the agreement and convicted him. The decision was final and not subject to an appeal. He was immediately released from the courtroom. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the Convention, Mr Natsvlishvili complains that the plea-bargaining procedure, as applied in his case, amounted to an abuse of process and that no appeal to a higher court against the judicial endorsement of the plea-bargaining agreement, which he considered to be unreasonable, was possible. He further complains that the circumstances surrounding his arrest were in breach of Article 6 2 (presumption of innocence). Both applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), complaining that they were coerced into forfeiting their shares in the factory free of charge and that they had to make additional payments for the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings. Finally, relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), they allege that the Georgian prosecuting authorities put them under pressure to withdraw their application before the European Court of Human Rights, by threatening to annul the plea bargain and reopen the criminal proceedings against Mr Natsvlishvili. L.H. v. Latvia (no /07) The applicant, L.H., is a Latvian national who was born in 1975 and lives in the Cēsis District (Latvia). The case concerns a State agency s collection of medical data about her. While Ms H. was giving birth in 1997, a Caesarian section was used and in the course of that surgery a tubal ligation, resulting in sterilisation, was performed without her consent. Following an unsuccessful attempt to achieve an out-of-court settlement, she brought civil proceedings against the district hospital in February 2005 and, in December 2006, was awarded compensation for the unauthorised sterilisation. In the meantime, in February 2004, the Inspectorate of Quality Control for Medical Care and Fitness for Work ( the MADEKKI ), on request by the district hospital s director, initiated an administrative inquiry concerning the gynaecological and childbirth assistance provided to Ms H. from 1996 to The MADEKKI received medical files from three medical institutions and, in May 2004, issued a report containing sensitive medical details, and the summary of the conclusions was sent to the hospital director. Ms H. s lawyer lodged a claim before the administrative courts, complaining that the inquiry had been unlawful, in particular since its essential purpose had been to help the hospital to gather evidence for the impending litigation, which was outside the MADEKKI s remit. The lawyer also requested to annul the report. Ms H. s claim was rejected by the Administrative District Court in a decision eventually upheld by the Senate of the Supreme Court in February Ms H. complains that the MADEKKI, by collecting her personal medical data, violated her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Ternovskis v. Latvia (no /02) The applicant, Andris Ternovskis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Dobele (Latvia). He was employed as a border guard with the State Border Guard Service from The case concerns the authorities refusal to grant him security clearance for work with State secrets and the procedure for contesting that refusal. Following the entry into force of the Law on State Secrets in 1997, Mr Ternovskis, applied at the invitation of the authorities for the relevant security clearance. In January 1999 he was informed by the Constitution Protection Bureau ( the SAB ) that he had been refused first category security clearance. As he presumed that the reason for the refusal was a suspicion that he had collaborated with the secret service of the Soviet Union, the KGB, he applied to have the question of his alleged collaboration adjudicated in court. In a final judgment of May 1999 the district court concluded that Mr Ternovskis had not knowingly collaborated with the KGB. While his application was pending, he was dismissed from service as a border guard in March 1999 since he had been refused the necessary security clearance. Mr Ternovskis subsequent 2

3 request for a review of the decision concerning his clearance was rejected by the SAB. On appeal, the Prosecutor General upheld the refusal in a final decision of December After an unsuccessful challenge of the relevant legal provisions before the Constitutional Court, Mr Ternovskis attempted to obtain access to the materials in the investigation file to find out on what basis he had been refused clearance, but was informed that the materials were confidential. He also complained about his dismissal from his post as border guard before the courts, his application eventually being dismissed by the Senate of the Supreme Court in October Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Ternovskis complains: that the appeal court, in the proceedings contesting his dismissal, examined his appeal in his absence; and, that the Latvian procedure for disputing a refusal of security clearance was unfair as the persons concerned were unable to find out the reasons for the refusal or to dispute it before the courts. Z.J. v. Lithuania (no /12) The applicant, Z.J., is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Šiauliai (Lithuania). The case concerns the Lithuanian courts refusal to grant him custody of two of his five children. In 2003 Mr J. s wife died, leaving him as the only carer. Because he was unable to take care of the two youngest children, six-month-old twins, while at the same time working and supporting his three other children, Mr J. agreed for a cousin of his late wife to become the twins legal guardian. At the same time he retained his parental rights and could see the children as he wished. Following conflicts between him and the guardian, he applied to the courts in 2008 asking that the twins be returned to him. While acknowledging that as their biological father Mr J. had a right to live with the children, the courts came to the conclusion, on the basis of psychiatrists reports, that the twins were not yet ready to be removed from the familiar environment of the guardian s home. A court order therefore provided for regular contacts between Mr J. and the children so that they could develop stronger bonds with their father. By a decision of September 2011, upheld on appeal in February 2012, the courts rejected Mr J. s request for a residence order, finding that for the time being it would not be in the twins best interest to live with their father. Relying in substance on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr J. complains of being deprived of the right to live with his children. Preda and Others v. Romania (nos. 9584/02, 33514/02, 38052/02, 25821/03, 29652/03, 3736/03, 17750/03, and 28688/04) The applicants are fourteen Romanian nationals, or their heirs, and two German nationals, who were born between 1928 and 1958 and live in Romania and Switzerland. All the cases concern property (plots of land or buildings) that was nationalised or confiscated by the State under the communist regime. As entitled persons under the restitution laws enacted after the fall of the communist regime in December 1989, the applicants instituted compensation or restitution proceedings. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that the restitution and compensation laws are ineffective. Some of the applicants (applications nos /02, 25821/03 and 29652/03) also complain, under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), that their right to have their case heard within a reasonable time was infringed on account of the length of the restitution proceedings before the civil courts. Đekić and Others v. Serbia (no /07) The applicants, Dragan Đekić, Zoran Đekić and Dragan Končar, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1976, 1984, and 1976 respectively. Dragan Đekić and Zoran Đekić live in Prokuplje (Serbia), and Dragan Končar lives in Belgrade. The case concerns their claim that they were ill-treated in police custody and that the ensuing investigation into their claims was ineffective. On 18 September 2004 at about 2.30 a.m. the applicants were involved in a road traffic accident. According to the applicants, police arrived on the scene and they were immediately handcuffed and taken to the Prokuplje Police Station where they were beaten with truncheons, punched and kicked. They were 3

4 released the next day, following a checkup at hospital where they were diagnosed with various bruising to their bodies. On 8 December 2004 the applicants lodged a complaint against three police officers accusing them of ill-treatment. However, the national courts subsequently acquitted the police officers, finding that the use of force against the applicants had been necessary because as testified by a number of civilians and police officers who were eye-witnesses to the arrest the applicants had been drunk and violent. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants maintain that they suffered ill-treatment, that the investigations into their alleged illtreatment were ineffective and lacked independence, and that the criminal proceedings against the police officers were unfair. Wednesday 30 April 2014 Šimecki v. Croatia (no /10) The applicant, Maja Šimecki, is a Croatian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Mirkovci (Croatia). The case concerns Ms Šimecki s complaint about the enforcement proceedings brought against her for unpaid mobile telephone bills between July and October On 4 December 2006 Ms Šimecki lodged an appeal against the enforcement orders issued against her and requested that their certificate of enforceability be quashed, arguing that she could not have made the telephone calls in question as she had been in prison at the time and the police had seized her telephone, and that the enforcement order had not been served on her. In August 2007 her submission was declared inadmissible as an appeal lodged out of time, as the courts found that the last day for lodging an appeal was on 5 December 2006, whereas her appeal had been lodged on 6 December Her constitutional complaints were also subsequently dismissed in October Relying on Article 6 1 (access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she alleges that she was deprived of access to court in the enforcement proceedings against her, the enforcement order never having been served on her and all her subsequent arguments before the courts being dismissed as lodged out of time as the result of a miscalculation. Tikhonova v. Russia (no /05) The applicant, Sofiya Tikhonova, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Teykovo, a town in the Ivanovo Region (Russia). The case concerns the death of Ms Tikhonova s son during his military service. On 14 April 2001 her son, Andrey Tikhonov, who was serving his two years mandatory military service, was found hanging in his unit s canteen toilet. An investigation was immediately opened into the death of her son and, in July 2001, the prosecuting authorities concluded that Andrey had been depressed and committed suicide. The criminal proceedings into the death were essentially discontinued for lack of evidence but reopened four times, with the investigator being given instructions to look into the origin of injuries to Andrey s body possibly sustained prior to his death and into the reasons which could have driven him to suicide. The investigating authorities concluded that Andrey s injuries could have occurred when his body hit the toilet walls as a result of convulsions during the hanging and ultimately discontinued the criminal proceedings in October Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Tikhonova questions the official explanation for her son s death, submitting that she does not find the reasons given for the multiple injuries on her son s body credible, and criticises the poor handling of the investigation into the death, which she had not been sufficiently involved in. Zenkov v. Russia (no /08) The applicant, Andrey Zenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Blagoveshchensk (Russia). The case concerns Mr Zenkov s complaints about his pre-trial detention on fraud charges, later reclassified to theft and robbery charges. Mr Zenkov was arrested in March 4

5 2006 and remained in custody pending the investigation and trial against him. He was found guilty of theft and robbery in December 2007 and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. His conviction was upheld on appeal in July 2008 and his sentence subsequently reduced by way of supervisory review to seven and a half years imprisonment. He was released on parole in February Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Zenkov alleges that the conditions of his detention between March 2006 and August 2009 in a remand prison in Blagoveshchensk were appalling, notably on account of overcrowding. He also alleges under Article 5 1 (c) and 5 (right to liberty and security and enforceable right to compensation for unlawful detention) that his pre-trial detention from 21 October to 16 November 2007 was unlawful, as it had been authorised retroactively, and that, although the national courts ruled in his favour with regard to his ensuing compensation claim, he only received 15,000 Russian roubles (approximately 280 euros at the time) in damages. 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: or follow us on Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int tel: Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: ) Nina Salomon (tel: ) Denis Lambert (tel: ) Jean Conte (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