issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 110 (2011) 18.07.2011 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 24 judgments on 26 July 2011. 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 26 July 2011 Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan (application nos. 35485/05, 45553/05, 35680/05 and 36085/05) The applicants, Panah Chodar oglu Huseyn, Rauf Arif oglu Abbasov, Arif Mustafa oglu Hajili and Sardar Jalal oglu Mammadov are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1957, 1966, 1962 and 1957, respectively, and live in Baku. Prominent political activists for the opposition, the applicants complain in particular about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against them for their role in clashes between demonstrators and the police on 15 and 16 October 2003 when Isar Gambar, the main opposition candidate, lost the presidential elections. Convicted in October 2004 of organising public disorder and acts of violence against State officials and sentenced to between four-and-a-half and five years imprisonment, they were released six months later by way of presidential pardon. They rely on Article 6 1, 2 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial/presumption of innocence/right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence/right to legal assistance of own choosing/right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Huseyn, Mr Abbasov and Mr Hajili also complain under Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) that the main motivation behind their criminal conviction was that they were leaders of the opposition who had called for the public to protest against the results of the presidential election. Lastly, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Huseyn also alleges that he was ill-treated while in police custody. Orujov v. Azerbaijan (no. 4508/06) The applicant, Nadir Oruj oğlu Orujov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1957 and lives in Baku. The case concerns Mr Orujov s disqualification from running as a candidate for the 2005 parliamentary elections on the ground that he had allegedly attempted to influence voters by funding repair works on public facilities for children and the elderly. He relies on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the Convention. M. and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 41416/08) The applicant, Mr M., a national of Afghanistan, was born in 1974 and, having arrived in Bulgaria in 1998, subsequently obtained asylum He met his wife, an Armenian national, there and they have two small children, born in 2003 and 2005. The case concerns the Bulgarian authorities decision in 2005 to order Mr. M. s deportation and ban him from re-entering the country for ten years on alleged national security grounds. The courts refused to examine whether that decision had a sound factual basis. Arrested and detained in October 2006, he was released in July 2009 and has not been deported. All the applicants complain that Mr M. s deportation to Afghanistan was arbitrary, would
separate their family and would expose him to a high risk of inhuman treatment. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy. Further relying on Article 5 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr. M. also complains about the unlawfulness as well as lack of judicial review of his detention pending deportation. Juričić v. Croatia (no. 58222/09) The applicant, Mirjan Juričić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb. An administrative court judge, she complains about the unfairness of proceedings she brought to contest a decision in 2008 by Parliament on the election of judges to the Constitutional Court and in which she was an unsuccessful candidate. She relies in particular on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing). Choromidis v. Greece (no. 54932/08) The applicants, Efklidis Choromidis and Spyros Choromidis, are Greek nationals who were born in 1960 and 1967 and live in Acharnes, Attiki (Greece). They owned plots of land on which their commercial and agricultural company had been operating since 1950, and were affected by a State decision to expropriate a large part of their land, to such an extent that some of the adjoining plots were allegedly rendered unusable. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about the Court of Cassation s refusal to compensate them for the non-expropriated (but, according to them, unusable) areas of their land. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing), they also complain about the fact that the Court of Cassation did not find it necessary to consider some of the arguments that they had submitted. Karamanof v. Greece (no. 46372/09) The applicant, Mr Alexandros Karamanof, is a Greek national who was born in 1978 and lives in Athens. He was compulsorily detained in hospital between November 2008 and May 2009. Relying in particular on Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that the deprivation of liberty was unjustified and that certain conditions laid down by the relevant domestic law were not complied with. Shaw v. Hungary (no. 6457/09) The applicant, Leslie James Shaw, is an Irish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Paris. The case concerns his complaint about the Hungarian authorities failure to act swiftly in abduction proceedings against his former wife, a Hungarian national, who left Paris with their seven-year old daughter in December 2007 and has never returned. He also alleges that the authorities subsequently failed to make adequate and effective efforts to reunite him with his daughter despite a final decision of September 2008 ordering her return. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for family and private life). Iwaszkiewicz v. Poland (no. 30614/06) The applicants, Klara and Maria Iwaszkiewicz, mother and daughter, are Polish nationals who were born in 1947 and 1987, respectively, and live in Zapolice (Poland). Their husband and father, now deceased, was granted a veteran s disability pension due to ill-health caused by his deportation to a Soviet labour camp in the 1940s. The case concerns the two women s complaint about the authorities decision in March 2003 to withdraw his pension and therefore their entitlement to it on his demise. They rely in particular on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). 2
Musiałek and Baczyński v. Poland (no. 32798/02) The applicants, Tomasz Musiałek and Jarosław Baczyński, are Polish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1974, respectively. Mr Musiałek lives in Kamień (Poland) and, convicted of murder, was detained from July 1995 to July 2004 and then from January 2006 to February 2009; Mr Baczyński is currently serving a prison sentence in Zaręba Górna Prison (Poland). Both applicants complain about the inadequate conditions of their detention in prisons in Wołów and Wrocław, essentially due to overcrowding. Mr Musiałek, suffering from a serious medicial condition (Dupuytren s contracture) which, if untreated, prevents the fingers and toes from straightening, also complains about the inadequacy of the medical care there. Both applicants rely in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment). Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania (no. 9718/03) The applicant, Georgeta Stoicescu, now deceased, was a Romanian national who was born in 1929 and lived in Bucharest. Her husband, Georgel Stoicescu, continued the case when she died in December 2007. The case concerns an attack in October 2000 on Georgeta, 71 years old at the time, by a pack of stray dogs. She alleged in particular that the local authorities failed to take adequate measures to solve the problem of the numerous stray dogs in Bucharest and ensure the safety and health of the city s inhabitants, in breach of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), and 8 (right to private and family life). Further relying on Article 6 1 (right of access to court), she also complained about the domestic courts dismissal of her claims for compensation without an examination of the merits of her case. Larisa Zolotareva v. Russia (no. 15003/04) The applicant, Larisa Zolotareva, is a Russian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home), she complains about her eviction in June 1999 from a flat she shared with her son and his ex-wife following conflict with the latter. She alleges in particular that the eviction took place despite the fact that the execution of the judgment against her had been stayed before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, she was evicted at night and was not given the chance to vacate the flat of her own will. Liu v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 29157/09) The applicants are Liu Jingcai, a Chinese national born in 1968, and his wife and children, Yulia, Regina and Vadim Liu, Russian nationals born in 1973, 1996 and 1999, respectively. They all live in the town of Sovetskaya Gavan in the Khabarovsk Region (Russia). The case concerns the family s complaint that Mr Jingcai was refused a residence permit in Russia and expelled to China in November 2009. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 41262/05) The applicant, Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia, a.s., is a joint-stock company based in Bratislava. The applicant company complains about the outcome of a libel action brought by the then vice-president of the Police Corps against its legal predecessor, a publishing house, for printing in a popular national daily in 1999 a series of articles about him and a Member of Parliament allegedly being drunk in a restaurant, with the MP urinating off its terrace and the police official wetting himself. In particular, the applicant company alleges that the courts decision against its predecessor was arbitrary and that the damages awarded (12,250 euros) were excessive. It relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and also argues that the related proceedings were incompatible with the guarantees of Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial). 3
H.Ç. and T.Ç. v. Turkey (no. 34805/06) The applicants, H.Ç. and T.Ç., mother and daughter, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1965 and 1995 and live in Biga (Turkey). H.Ç. and her husband divorced in 1998. He died in 1999, leaving shares and real property to his daughter. Believing that their son was not T.Ç. s real father, the parents of the deceased brought an action, shortly after his death, successfully disputing her paternal affiliation. Relying on Article 6 1 in particular (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complain that the proceedings before the national courts were affected by arbitrariness and irregularities and lasted for an excessively long time. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they also complain about the impact of the proceedings on their private and family life. Finally, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the daughter complains of having been denied her inheritance rights as a consequence of arbitrary proceedings. Yavuz Çelik v. Turkey (no. 34461/07) The applicant, Yavuz Çelik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Çelik alleges that a police officer punched him in the face and squeezed his throat in the yard of the local police station where he had been taken in October 2006 on charges of insulting and assaulting the police. He also alleges that the ensuing investigation into his allegation was inadequate. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Paleari v. Italy (n o 55772/08) Pozzi v. Italy (n o 55743/08) These cases concern the compatibility of proceedings concerning the application of preventive measures with the requirements of a fair trial. The applicants rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). M.B. v. Poland (no. 11887/07) This case concerns the applicant s complaint about the excessive length of her pre-trial detention. She was charged with abuse of her powers and accepting a bribe. Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Criminal Dobosz v. Polond (no. 15231/08) Non criminal Hadzhinikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 24720/04) Capriati v. Italy (no. 41062/05) Leite de Oliveira v. Portugal (no. 51251/09) Sousa Lello and Fernandes Borges v. Portugal (no. 28776/08) Tomé Monteiro and Others v. Portugal (no. 43641/09) 4
The judgments are available only in English. 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 its Internet site. To receive the Court s press releases, please subscribe to the Court s RSS feeds. Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel 33 3 88 41 41 09 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