issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 287 (2013) 09.10.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 judgments on Tuesday 15 October 2013 and 12 on Thursday 17 October 2013. Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on the Court s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int) Tuesday 15 October 2013 Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria (application no. 34529/10) The applicants, Borislav Gutsanov, his wife Monika Gutsanova and their minor daughters, S. Gutsanova and B. Gutsanova, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1967, 1972, 2002 and 2004 respectively and live in Varna. The case concerns a police operation conducted at the home of Mr Gutsanov, an influential politician, during which he was arrested and his home was searched. He was a member of the National Assembly representing the Socialist Party, a member of the party s central executive bureau and vice-president of its regional branch. At the time of the events he was also chairman of Varna municipal council. On 30 October 2009, the Sofia city public prosecutor s office opened criminal proceedings against a person or persons unknown for abuse of office by a civil servant and misappropriation of public funds resulting in significant damage to the Varna municipal public transport company. In the course of the investigation a team of police officers entered the Gustanov family home on 31 March 2010 at around 6.30 a.m., arrested Mr Gustanov and searched the premises. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 2 (right to be presumed innocent), 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for the home) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Gutsanov and the members of his family complain of several breaches of their rights. Casacchia and Others v. Italy (nos. 23658/07, 24941/07 and 25724/07) Natale and Others v. Italy (no. 19264/07) These two cases concern legislative amendments which affected pending civil proceedings that the applicants, retired employees of the Banco Di Napoli, had brought concerning their pension adjustments following the privatisation of public banks (such as the Banco Di Napoli) in 1990. The applicants in the first case are 15 Italian nationals who were born between 1922 and 1974 and live in Isernia, Bisceglie, Lecce, Maglie, Turin, Reggio Calabria, Foggia, Rome, Naples, Scafati, and Pompei (Italy). The applicants in the second case are 16 Italian nationals who were born between 1913 and 1969 and live in Bologne, Fano, Casalecchio di Reno, Rastignano di Pianoro, Montererenzio, and Pianoro (Italy). Relying in particular on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants allege that the amendments amounted to legislative interference with their pending disputes before the Italian courts which did not respect the principle of equality of arms. They also rely on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
Segheti v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 39584/07) The applicant, Ionel Segheti, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Cricova (the Republic of Moldova). The case concerns Mr Segheti s complaint about inhuman conditions of detention in prisons in Chişinău and Cricova following his arrest in April 2005 on suspicion of making false accusations. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to eight years imprisonment. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he notably alleges poor sanitary conditions, with vermin in his cell as well as a foul-smelling toilet, and poor quantity and quality of food. Timus and Tarus v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 70077/11) The applicants, Serghei Timus and Victoria Tarus, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1990 and 1989 respectively and live in Chişinău. The case concerns the killing of the applicants brother, Alexei Vlasi, on 14 March 2009 during a police operation at an apartment block to arrest a suspect of armed robbery. According to the police officers involved, they thought Alexei Vlasi was the suspect they were after and, when trying to apprehend him, one of the officers was stabbed by him and shot him in self-defense. The applicants allege that their brother, who was not armed, was beaten by police officers and then shot in the back of his head at close-range. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain about the police ill-treating and killing their brother and that the authorities ensuing investigation into his death was ineffective. Plechanow v. Poland (no. 22279/04) Just satisfaction The applicants, Jerzy Plechanow, Ariadna Plechanow and Andrzej Plechanow, are Polish nationals who were born respectively in 1953, 1924 and 1955 and live in Warsaw. Relying mainly on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they alleged that the decisions dismissing their claims for compensation with regard to the expropriation of their property had been unfair. In its judgment on the merits of 7 July 2009 the Court held that the applicants, who had been adversely affected by national administrative reforms, the inconsistency of the domestic law and case-law and the lack of legal certainty, had been unable to secure adequate compensation for the damage they had sustained. The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. It will address this issue in its judgment of 15 October 2013. Ali v. Romania (no. 30595/09) The applicant, Ahmad Ali, is a Syrian national who was born in 1962. The case concerns Mr Ali s complaint about the conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison where he was transferred in December 2008 to serve a 13-year prison sentence for drug trafficking. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains in particular of overcrowding and poor hygiene in the cells in which he was detained. He also complains under the same article about the conditions in which he was transferred to Jilava Prison, alleging that he was deprived of water and food and not told why he was being transferred or where. Şandru v. Romania (no. 33882/05) The applicant, Alexandru Şandru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Râmnicu Vâlcea (Romania). The case concerns his trial for rape in 2006, and his pre-trial detention. On 8 April 2005 he was arrested and detained. He was held in pre-trial detention until 31 March 2006, when he was convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment. Mr Şandru appealed both the conviction and the sentence. However, the prosecutor and victim also appealed the sentence, and in September 2006 an appeal court upheld the conviction, while increasing the sentence to seven years imprisonment. Mr Şandru relies on Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security) to complain that 2
he was held in pre-trial detention for an excessively long period. He also relies on Article 5 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) to complain that, when the Romanian courts periodically reviewed his pre-trial detention in July and August 2005 he was not legally represented, and on other such occasions he was not brought before the court. Finally, he relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial and right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), to complain that his trial, sentence and subsequent appeals were unfair since he was not provided with an opportunity to question the victim. Hüseyin Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 20070/08) The applicant, Hüseyin Kaplan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns the death of his son, Şenal Kaplan, who was born on 18 September 1986 and died on 19 September 2006 while performing his compulsory military service. While he was on guard duty at a gendarmerie station in Bayır (Diyarbakır-Kulp), Şenal Kaplan was found with serious firearms injuries. He was taken immediately by helicopter to hospital, where he died. Mr Kaplan contends that his son was killed since, in his view, he would have had no reason to commit suicide. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Mr Kaplan maintains that the exact circumstances of his son s death were not properly elucidated owing to the lack of an independent and impartial criminal investigation. İbrahim Güler v. Turkey (no. 1942/08) The applicant, İbrahim Güler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Diyarbakır (Turkey). The case concerns the criminal proceedings brought against Mr Güler for attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the state and his pre-trial detention. On 5 November 1996 Mr Güler was taken into police custody, during an operation against Hizbullah. In the absence of a lawyer, he was questioned about his relationship and activities with the organisation. Mr Güler accepted the allegations made against him, and he was ordered into pretrial detention. He later retracted his statement, claiming that he had been tortured and threatened while in police custody. In March 2005 he was convicted, and this was upheld on final appeal in January 2009. Mr Güler relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) to complain that both his pre-trial detention and the proceedings as a whole were excessively long, and that he was denied access to a lawyer when being questioned by the police. Mehmet Hatip Dicle v. Turkey (no. 9858/04) The applicant, Mehmet Hatip Dicle, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was convicted in criminal proceedings for writing and publishing an article in which he criticised government policy in the town of Dersim, denouncing the economic situation and the growth of drug trafficking. He also claimed that the Kurds in the region had been victims of a policy of assimilation and genocide. Relying on Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Dicle complains that his right to freedom of thought and expression was infringed. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he alleges that his political views were the decisive factor in his criminal conviction. Yılmaz Demir v. Turkey (no. 44767/06) The applicant, Yılmaz Demir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır. The case concerns his lack of access to a lawyer while in police custody. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr Demir complains that the criminal courts took into consideration the confession improperly obtained from him while he was in police custody without access to a lawyer. The applicant was arrested in June 2001 in the course of an anti-terrorist operation and was taken into police custody on suspicion of abduction and unlawful imprisonment. He admitted having been involved in the abduction and gave the address of the premises of the illegal organisation AMED, a branch of the PKK. When questioned subsequently by the public prosecutor he admitted his involvement in the unlawful imprisonment but denied being a member of the PKK. He claimed that 3
while in police custody he had been subjected to electric shocks to force him to confess to membership of the PKK. Finally, when he was brought before the judge, he again admitted the charges. He was not assisted by a lawyer either while in police custody or before the judge or prosecutor. Repetitive case The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Sekulić and Kučević v. Serbia (nos. 28686/06 and 50135/06) These cases concern the applicants complaints about non-enforcement of judgments given in their favour against socially-owned companies. The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing / access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Thursday 17 October 2013 Horvatić v. Croatia (no. 36044/09) The applicant, Mijo Horvatić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Garešnica (Croatia). The case concerns Mr Horvatić s complaint about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him in 1996 on charges of armed robbery. He was subsequently found guilty on the basis of fibres taken from his clothes during his police questioning as well as strands of his hair being found on the disguise allegedly used by the bank robber. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the evidence against him had been tampered with by the police, alleging in particular that the police had rubbed together the robber s disguise and his clothes and planted the hair, and that he had no effective opportunity to challenge that evidence during the trial. Budrevich v. the Czech Republic (no. 65303/10) The applicant, Andrei Budrevich, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1979. The case concerns Mr Budrevich s removal to Belarus. In 2006 he left Belarus and entered the Czech Republic, where he applied for asylum, stating that he feared imprisonment in Belarus because he had imported advertisements in support of an opposition candidate in the presidential elections. His request was rejected as the authorities considered his allegations contradictory and not credible. Three subsequent requests for asylum were also rejected. Following his conviction of a number of offences, a court sentenced him to expulsion from the territory of the Czech Republic in March 2009. However, the execution of the sentence was stayed in accordance with an interim measure applied by the European Court of Human Rights (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) in November 2010, indicating to the Czech Government not to remove Mr Budrevich to Belarus until further notice. In 2011, the Czech authorities granted Mr Budrevich subsidiary protection under the Asylum Act, which was extended in 2013. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that his removal to Belarus would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment and that he did not have an effective remedy in Czech Republic against his removal. Winterstein and Others v. France (no. 27013/07) The applicants are 25 French nationals, applying on their own behalf and on behalf of their underage children, and the association ATD Quart Monde. The case concerns the eviction proceedings brought against a number of traveller families. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 4
the applicants allege that their rights were infringed by the order for their eviction from the land they were occupying in the municipality of Herblay. The families had been living for several years in the same place and some of them had been born there. They belonged to a group of 95 people who had settled on private land which was intended for camping and caravanning and which, according to the land-use plan, was located in a protected natural area. The municipal authorities brought eviction proceedings against the families and the domestic courts issued orders for their forcible eviction. Although the orders were not enforced, a large number of families left the site, fearing that they would be. Only four families were rehoused in social housing; the family sites on which the others were meant to be accommodated were not provided. Aslanis v. Greece (no. 36401/10) The applicant, Georgios Aslanis, is a Greek national. The case concerns his conditions of detention at Serres police headquarters. Mr Aslanis was arrested in June 2009 on suspicion of committing several thefts and was charged with a series of thefts carried out as part of a gang. After a brief period of release on bail, which he failed to pay, he was again remanded in custody. From December 2009 to March 2010 he was held at Serres police headquarters. Mr Aslanis complains that a lack of ventilation made the air impossible to breathe owing to the unpleasant smells and cigarette smoke. He further complains of the dirty state of the toilets, overcrowding and a shortage of beds and food. He alleges that the conditions of detention were in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). Shyti v. Greece (no. 65911/09) The applicant, Petrit Shyti, is an Albanian national who was born in 1983. Following Mr Shyti s arrest in February 2009 for cocaine trafficking the public prosecutor at the Thessaloniki Criminal Court instituted criminal proceedings against him for drug trafficking and possession of forged transport papers. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Shyti complains of his conditions of detention at Thessaloniki police headquarters, claiming that his cell was inadequately ventilated and lit. Under Article 5 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention), he argues, in particular, that the examination of his application for release did not comply with the speediness requirement. Keller v. Russia (no. 26824/04) The applicant, Galina Keller, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow. The case concerns the death of her son, born in 1977, while detained in police custody in September 2000 on suspicion of having stolen a bicycle. The ensuing investigation concluded that he had jumped from a window into the courtyard of the police station and that there had been no coercion. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Keller complains that the authorities failed to safeguard the life of her son and that there was no effective investigation into the circumstances of his death. She also complains, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), that her son had been ill-treated before his death, as bruises were found on his body, and that the investigation was unable to explain the origins of those injuries. Finally, Ms Keller alleges that her son s detention in police custody was unlawful, in breach of Article 5 1 (c) (right to liberty and security). Klyukin v. Russia (no. 54996/07) The applicant, Aleksandr Klyukin, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow. He was convicted of burglary and sentenced to five-and-a-half years imprisonment in a judgment which became final in May 2007. He alleges that the conditions of his detention in a remand prison in Moscow between April 2006 and June 2007 and of his detention in two correctional colonies from June 2007 until his release in November 2009 were in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). In particular, he complains of: severely overcrowded cells, a lack of ventilation and insufficient outdoor exercise in the remand prison; and, insufficient personal space, scarcity and 5
low quality of the food provided in the correctional colony. He further maintains that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his complaints, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia (no. 33023/07) The applicant, Sergey Vasilyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is serving a ten-year prison sentence in Yemva, Komi Republic (Russia), for murder. The case concerns Mr Vasilyev s complaint about the appalling conditions of his pre-trial detention, notably in remand prison no. IZ-44/l, from October 2005 (when he was arrested) to April 2007 (just after his conviction was upheld on appeal). He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), notably alleging severe overcrowding and a lack of effective remedies under domestic law to complain about the conditions of his detention. He also complains under Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security) about the excessive length of his detention while the criminal proceedings against him were still pending, and under Article 34 (right of individual petition) about the failure of the correctional colony, where he served part of his prison sentence, to dispatch his application form to the European Court of Human Rights. Vladimir Belyayev v. Russia (no. 9967/06) The applicant, Vladimir Belyayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is serving a 21-year prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk region (Russia) for murder and membership of an organised criminal gang. He was convicted in November 2003. The case concerns the conditions of Mr Belyayev s detention between April and December 2005 whilst serving part of his sentence in correctional colony IK-4 in the Magadan region. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was kept in overcrowded cells with little opportunity for outside exercise. Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine (no. 42752/08) The applicants, Nataliya Pozhyvotko and Mariya Pozhyvotko are Ukrainian nationals who live in the Chernihiv region (Ukraine). They are the widow and mother of Volodymr Pozhyvotko, respectively. The case concerns the investigation by the Ukrainian authorities into Mr Pozhyvotko s death on 12 October 2004 when he was shot dead in a local bar. Over the next seven years, investigators decided to close an investigation into the incident three times, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to charge the main suspect, or that the suspect had acted in self-defense. Each time the investigation was closed, it was re-opened by a supervisory authority. Investigations were still ongoing as of 12 April 2012. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Nataliya and Mariya Pozhyvotko complain that the Ukrainian authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the death of their husband and son. Taran v. Ukraine (no. 31898/06) The applicant, Ivan Taran, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Sevastopol (Ukraine). The case concerns a number of complaints brought by Mr Taran about the conditions and lawfulness of his pre-trial detention following his arrest in June 2005 on suspicion of murder. The Ukrainian courts found him guilty in November 2010 and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment. That decision was, however, subsequently quashed on appeal and in April 2011 Mr Taran was released. On 4 December 2012, the proceedings were still pending. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his transportation between Simferopol detention facility and Sevastopol temporary detention centre where he was taken on numerous occasions to attend court hearings on his case, alleging that he was kept for over 20 hours in a 0.5 sq.m metal cage inside the vehicle without food, water or being able to sleep. He further alleges overcrowding in Sevastopol temporary detention centre. Further relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also complains about: the lawfulness of his 6
pre-trial detention between August and October 2005 which he alleges was not based on a court decision as well as of the courts extension of his pre-trial detention (Article 5 1); the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention, which lasted more than five years and nine months (Article 5 3); the lack of appropriate judicial review of his detention (Article 5 4); and, the absence of an enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful pre-trial detention (Article 5 5). Lastly, he alleges that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him was excessive, in breach of Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Zubkova v. Ukraine (no. 36660/08) The applicant, Nina Zubkova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Kharkiv (Ukraine). The case concerns Ms Zubkova s complaint about the authorities inadequate investigation into the death of her son, Igor Zubkov (born in 1961), on 18 May 2002 when, riding his bicycle, he collided with a minibus at a crossroads in Kharkiv. She notably complains that the investigation was discontinued and re-opened on numerous occasions between 2002 and 2006 without instructions by the supervising authorities for further steps, namely questioning of witnesses, expert examinations and a reconstruction of events, being followed through. During the proceedings, the investigators continued to conclude that the accident had been caused by her son and not through any fault of the minibus driver. She relies on Article 2 (right to life). 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 Twitter @ECHRpress. Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Jean Conte (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) 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. 7