issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 096 (2013) 03.04.2013 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 11 judgments on Tuesday 9 April 2013 and 11 on Thursday 11 April 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 9 April 2013 Iurcu v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 33759/10) The applicant, Vitalie Iurcu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1994 and lives in Chişinău. Returning home in the late evening of 7 April 2009, 15 years old at the time, he was stopped by a group of men in uniforms, who took him and several other young people to a police station. During the night, the police questioned him about his alleged involvement in demonstrations on the preceding day to protest about the results of the recent general elections in Moldova. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Iurcu complains that during his arrest and detention he was ill-treated by the police he notably alleges that he was forced to kneel with his hands on his head for three hours and that he was punched in the back by a police officer and that there was no effective investigation into his complaints of illtreatment. He further complains that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), and that he was unlawfully arrested and detained, in breach of Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Kurkowski v. Poland (no. 36228/06) The applicant, Mariusz Kurkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland). He is a former member of the management board of a shipmanufacturing company. In December 2004, Mr Kurkowski was remanded in custody on suspicion of a number of offences related to the running of the company while acting in an organised criminal gang. His pre-trial detention was subsequently extended on several occasions until his release in October 2006. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending before the first-instance court. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Kurkowski complains of the poor conditions of his detention, in particular overcrowding. Relying on Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also complains, under Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him, and, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), of disproportionate restrictions on family visits during his detention. Flueraş v. Romania (no. 17520/04) The applicant, Cosmin Dragu Flueraş, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Arad (Romania). He was charged in January 2001 with trafficking in toxic substances. Having been acquitted at first instance and also on appeal, he was subsequently convicted on an appeal in cassation and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with a prohibition from exercising certain rights. Relying on Article 6 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleges that he did not have a fair trial and complains that his defence rights were breached.
Vergu v. Romania (no. 8209/06) Just Satisfaction In a judgment of 11 January 2011 the Court found that the indefinite occupation by the national highways authority of a 902 sq.m plot of land belonging to the applicant constituted de facto expropriation without legal basis. It held by 4 votes to 3 that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The question of the application of just satisfaction not being ready for decision, the Court reserved it. It will rule on that question in a judgment on 9 April 2013. Anđelković v. Serbia (no. 1401/08) The applicant, Milomir Anđelković, is a Serbian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Bor (Serbia). In October 2004, he brought civil proceedings against his former employer, seeking payment of outstanding holiday pay. His claim was rejected in a final court decision in September 2007. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that that decision had no basis in Serbian law. Böber v. Turkey (no. 62590/09) The applicant, Yasin Böber, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. He is a taxi driver. In June 2003, he witnessed a dispute between another taxi driver and two police officers. Mr Böber offered to pay the administrative fine which the officers had imposed on his colleague. He alleges that the officers then pushed him to the ground and punched him, and that his leg was broken when he was put in the police car as one of the officers closed the car door on his leg. Mr Böber complains that his rights under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) were violated on account of that treatment and because there was no effective investigation into his allegations. He further complains that his rights under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) were breached. Dağabakan and Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 20562/07) The applicants, Mehmet Dağabakan and Çetin Yıldırım, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1945 and 1969 respectively and live in Bursa. The case concerns the two men s allegation that they were ill-treated in police custody on 15 June 1999 in order to oblige them to reveal where Mr Dağabakan s wanted son was hiding or to hand him over to the police. The medical report drawn up that day at 5.50 p.m. mentioning no signs of violence stipulated that the applicants had no complaint about any acts of violence against them. On the same day, the applicants filed a criminal complaint for ill-treatment against their custody officers. Another medical report drawn up two days later mentions swelling and sensitivity on the left-hand side of the applicant s chin. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain that they were ill-treated during their police custody, that the proceedings before the domestic courts were excessively long and that the courts failed to duly examine their allegations. Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk v. Turkey (no. 13423/09) The applicants, Mehmet Şentürk and Bekir Şentürk, father and son, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1993 respectively, and live in Bayraklı. The case concerns the applicants complaint about the death in March 2000 of their wife and mother, who was pregnant, due to medical negligence. They rely on Article 2 (right to life). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain of their own mental distress and of Mrs Şentürk s suffering throughout the time she was not given treatment. Lastly, under Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain about the length of the criminal proceedings that 2
followed, about the inefficiency of the medical and legal systems and about the lack of domestic remedies. Abdi v. the United Kingdom (no. 27770/08) The applicant, Mustafa Abdi, is a Somali national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in London. Having arrived in the United Kingdom in 1995, his asylum claim was refused, but he was granted exceptional leave to remain until 2000. In July 1998, he was convicted of a number of offences, including rape, and sentenced to eight years imprisonment. His release was foreseen for September 2003, but he remained in detention pending deportation. He complains that his detention, until being released for a short time in April 2007, violated his rights under Article 5 1 (right to liberty and security), in particular because of its duration. Relying further on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of that complaint. Finally, he complains that his removal to Mogadishu would put him at risk of ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment). H. and B. v. the United Kingdom (nos. 70073/10 and 44539/11) The applicants, Mr H. and Mr B., are Afghan nationals who were born in 1975 and 1988 respectively and live in London. They arrived in the United Kingdom in October 2008 and April 2011, respectively. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), both applicants allege that, as a result of the Secretary of State s refusal of their asylum claims, their expulsion to Afghanistan would put them at risk of ill-treatment from the Taliban in reprisal for their past work for the United Nations (Mr H.) and as an interpreter for the United States forces (Mr B.). Repetitive case The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Piotr Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 24250/11) This case concerns the applicant s complaint that he was denied effective access to the Supreme Administrative Court as a result of his legal-aid lawyer s refusal to lodge a cassation appeal. He relies on Article 6 1 (right of access to court). Thursday 11 April 2013 Firoz Muneer v. Belgium (no. 56005/10) The applicant, Ahmad Firoz Muneer, is an Afghan national who was born in 1983 and lives in Brussels. On 29 June 2009 he approached the Belgian authorities, without identity papers, seeking asylum. On 21 January 2010 the immigration authority took its decision, refusing him leave to remain and ordering his removal, on the ground that Belgium was not responsible for examining his asylum application pursuant to the Dublin Regulation, as he had come from Greece. The applicant was immediately placed in a detention centre. After he refused to board a plane to Athens his re-detention was ordered for a certain period. The Court of First Instance ordered the applicant s immediate release and that decision was upheld by a judgment of the Court of Appeal. The applicant remained in the detention centre, however, as the State appealed on points of law against that judgment. The Court of Cassation quashed that judgment and referred it back to the Court of Appeal which, sitting in a different composition, found that, since the detention measure had been extended in the meantime, the appeal against the initial detention order had become without object. The applicant was 3
ultimately released on 26 May 2010. Relying on Article 5 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security and right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the deprivation of his liberty, alleging that the remedies he used were not effective and that the lawfulness of his detention was therefore not decided speedily by a court. Manulin v. Russia (no. 26676/06) Vyatkin v. Russia (no. 18813/06) The applicants are Kirill Manulin and Semen Vyatkin, two Russian nationals, who were born in 1985 and 1984, respectively. Mr Manulin lives in Moscow and Mr Vyatkin lives in Yekaterinburg (Russia). They were both members of the National Bolsheviks Party and on 14 December 2004 were involved in a sit-in in a government building in Moscow with other members of the party during which they called for the Russian President s resignation. The group, including the applicants, were arrested the same day and placed in pre-trial detention. Both applicants were convicted on 8 December 2005 of participating in mass disorder, given a suspended three year prison sentence and immediately released on probation. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 3 (right to liberty and security), both men complain about the excessive length and conditions notably on account of overcrowding of their detention in a Moscow remand centre. Ochelkov v. Russia (no. 17828/05) The applicant, Dmitriy Ochelkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence for aggravated robbery and theft committed as part of an organised criminal group. He lived, before his arrest, in the town of Zavolzhye in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region (Russia). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was tortured by the police on two separate occasions after being arrested in January 2002 and February 2003. Arrested on the first occasion on suspicion of car hijacking, he alleges that he was handcuffed, trussed up with rope, hit in the head with a chair leg and kicked all over his body until he eventually signed a confession. On the second occasion he was arrested on suspicion of stealing a television set and alleges that he was handcuffed to a metal safe, hit, kicked, given electric shocks and had a gas mask over his face with the air supply cut off until he passed out. Mr Ochelkov also complains that the Russian authorities ensuing investigation into his allegations of torture was inadequate. Shikuta v. Russia (no. 45373/05) The applicant, Sergey Shikuta, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lived before his arrest in the town of Smolensk (Russia). He is a former police officer and head of the Smolensk division for investigating organised crime. He was arrested in August 2004 on drug trafficking charges. He was subsequently also charged with attempted bribery for which he was found guilty in July 2006 and sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment. He was ultimately acquitted of the remaining charges against him in February 2007 and immediately released. The case concerns his complaint about the unlawfulness, excessive length and lack of speedy review of the reasons for his detention. He relies on Article 5 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security / entitlement to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial / right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court). Vyerentsov v. Ukraine (no. 20372/11) The applicant, Oleksiy Vyerentsov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Lviv (Ukraine). The case concerns Mr Vyerentsov s complaint that he was sentenced to three days administrative detention in October 2010 for holding without authorisation a demonstration organised by a human-rights NGO ( Vartovi zakonu ) 4
outside Lviv Regional Prosecutor s Office in protest against corruption. He relies on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Further relying on Article 6 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), he also alleges that the administrative proceedings brought against him were unfair due to a lack of adequate reasoning by the domestic courts as well as the fact that he had no time to prepare his defence, examine witnesses or obtain the assistance of a lawyer. Lastly, under Article 7 (no punishment without law), he alleges that he was found guilty of breaching the procedure for holding demonstrations, although no such procedure was provided by domestic law. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Rozhenko and Others v. Ukraine (no. 2644/04 and 23 other applications) Ternovik and others v. Ukraine (no. 19430/06 and 19 other applications) These cases concern the authorities failure to enforce in good time judgments given in their favour against State-owned or State-controlled entities. The applicants rely on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of civil proceedings. Tziovara and Gemeliari v. Greece (no. 66608/09) Amboina v. Russia (no. 28222/06) Vershinin v. Russia (no. 9311/05) 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 @ECHR_Press. 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. 5