Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Forthcoming judgments and decisions 22-24.03.16
Forthcoming judgments and decisions 22-24.03.16
Forthcoming judgments and decisions 22-24.03.16
Press releases and texts of the judgments and decisions will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on
the Court’s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int)
2
After this report was broadcast, the president of the division which had judged the case lodged a
complaint with the public prosecutor against Ms Pinto Coelho, complaining that permission had not
been given to broadcast extracts of the sound recording of the hearing and film shots of the
courtroom. The prosecutor’s office brought proceedings for non-compliance with a legal order
against Ms Pinto Coelho and three managers of the 8 o’clock evening news programme, on the
ground that the failure to obtain authorisation was in breach of the provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and of the Criminal Code. Before the court, Ms Pinto Coelho alleged an
infringement of the freedom of the press, but in a judgment of 6 August 2008 she was convicted of
non-compliance with a legal order and ordered to pay a fine of 1,500 euros; the court considered
that the scenes from the hearing that had been broadcast were not essential for the report, that the
freedom of the press was not absolute and that the applicant, a lawyer by training, had been aware
that unauthorised transmission of the hearing was prohibited. This judgment was upheld by the
Lisbon Court of Appeal on 26 May 2009. On 15 February 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed an
appeal by Ms Pinto Coelho.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Ms Pinto Coelho complains about her criminal
conviction for non-authorised use of the recording of a court hearing.
Revision
Association of Victims of Romanian Judges and Others v. Romania (no. 47732/06)
The applicants in this case are Rodica Neagu, Virgil Radu, Valentin Turigioiu, C. Gheorghe Lupan,
Viorica Alda, Eugen Neagu, Maria Nicolau, Domnica Turigioiu and Valerica Şugubete, nine Romanian
nationals, and the Association of Victims of Romanian Judges.
The case concerns the request for revision of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
with regard to the Romanian authorities’ refusal to register the Association of Victims of Romanian
Judges in the country’s Register of Associations and Foundations. The Bucharest District Court first
refused to register the association in November 2005, finding that registration would be
unconstitutional. This was on the ground that the association’s articles stated an intention to declare
3
certain court rulings to be unfair; the court held that this would encourage non-compliance with
court judgments and represent an attack on a State power. An appeal of the decision was dismissed
in February 2006.
In its judgment of 14 January 2014 the Court found a violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly
and association) on account of the refusal of the Romanian authorities to carry out the registration.
The Court awarded the applicants jointly 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
The Government have now requested revision of the judgment of 14 January 2014, which has not
yet been enforced because one of the applicants, Maria Nicolau, died before the judgment had been
adopted.
The Government’s request for revision will be examined by the Court in its judgment of 22 March
2016.
4
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Boştină complains that he is
unable to exercise his contact rights with his underage child.
5
In 2010 criminal proceedings were instigated against Mr Gomoi for tax fraud. He was remanded in
detention at the Arad police station from 10 May to 8 June 2010, and then transferred to Arad
Prison, where he was held until 14 December 2010, the date of his release.
According to Mr Gomoi, in the Arad police station he was placed in a cell measuring 12m2; it had no
toilet facilities, and the detainees were obliged to relieve themselves in a bucket, as they were
allowed to use the toilets only twice per day, at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. He alleges, among other points,
that he did not receive any products for personal hygiene, that the food was of poor quality and that
he had access to a shower only twice per week.
In Arad Prison, he was allegedly held in a cell measuring 16 m2, infested with fleas and cockroaches
and containing six bunk beds for five persons. He was transferred from prison to court in police vans
which held 40 persons and had only two small windows; it was impossible to breathe in them.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Gomoi complains about his
conditions of detention in Arad police station and Arad Prison.
6
Mr Grosu alleges that his reputation was damaged, in that he was removed by force from a public
place and taken to the psychiatric hospital with a view to his involuntary confinement, although he
had not been causing a disturbance and had no history of psychiatric problems. He also considers
that the criminal proceedings initiated following his complaint against the police officers had not
been fair and that his right of access to information of a public nature was unduly restricted.
7
has had regular medical check-ups in detention and has been seen by prison doctors and admitted
to hospital when necessary.
Mr Litvinov also alleges that on several occasions he has not been given some of the drugs
prescribed to him. He further complains that his first prescribed coronary angiography examination
was significantly delayed, as was his recommended heart surgery, the installation of a coronary stent
eventually being installed in January 2014. Moreover, he claims that his frequent transfers between
medical and detention facilities have run counter to doctors’ recommendations. The Government
argues that Mr Litvinov has been provided with drug therapy, but has refused on several occasions
to take his prescribed medication. Furthermore, he has been monitored by medical specialists,
including cardiologists and nephrologists, and has been allowed to consult independent medical
consultants whose opinions have been taken into account by prison doctors. Lastly, he has had
regular medical examinations and tests while in detention, including coronary angiographies.
Mr Kolesnikovich filed a complaint against the prison administration concerning his medical care in
detention, which was dismissed by the courts in October 2013. Mr Litvinov’s wife complained in
April 2013 to various authorities of the failure to properly diagnose and treat her husband; she
received no response.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an
effective remedy), both applicants complain that the authorities have not taken steps to safeguard
their health and well-being and that they have not had effective avenues through which to complain
about the inadequacy of their medical care in detention.
8
Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading
treatment), the applicants allege an excessive and disproportionate use of force by the authorities
during the operation conducted in Bayrampaşa Prison. They also complain of the lack of an effective
investigation into how the operation was conducted, and allege that they were ill-treated during the
operation and during their evacuation and transfer to other prisons, as well as in those new prisons.
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they complain that the proceedings brought against them
for rebellion were unfair and excessively long. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy),
they allege that no effective investigation was carried out into the prison operation, and complain
that the proceedings brought against the security forces for ill-treatment became time-barred and
that no action had been brought against the members of the security forces who carried out the
operation.
9
The Court will give its rulings in writing on the following cases, some of which concern issues
which have already been submitted to the Court, including excessive length of proceedings.
These rulings can be consulted from the day of their delivery on the Court’s online database HUDOC.
They will not appear in the press release issued on that day.
Partners 2000 Kft and Others v. Hungary (no. 966/14)
Varga v. Hungary (no. 42329/09)
Akulin and Others v. Russia (nos. 14313/07, 28826/07, 34975/07, 5638/09, 29575/09, 66628/09,
75503/10, 4301/11 and 9924/11)
10
temporary residence permits, the latter being valid for four years. In November 2004 a permanent
residence permit, valid until 2010, was issued for him. In December 2004 his wife reported a
domestic conflict to the police and applied to the migration authorities with a view to withdrawing
his permanent residence permit and expelling him from Latvia on the grounds that he presented a
threat to her and their children. The Ministry of the Interior decided to include Mr Sharma on a list
of persons prohibited from entering Latvia (“the blacklist”) in January 2005, on the ground that he
constituted a threat to public order and safety. Although his wife informed the Ministry, in April
2005, that her relationship with her husband had improved and she wished for him to stay in the
country, the Ministry eventually decided, in June 2005, that he was to remain on the blacklist. It
relied in particular on a letter from the security police which had confirmed that he constituted a
threat.
In February 2005 the migration authorities withdrew Mr Sharma’s permanent residence permit on
the grounds that he had been included on the blacklist. While his appeal against that decision was
pending before the courts, in June 2005, he was placed in detention, and an expulsion order was
issued against him. In July 2005 his appeal against the expulsion order was dismissed and he was
expelled to India.
Mr Sharma complains that his expulsion was in breach of his rights under Article 8 (right to respect
for private and family life). He also alleges that the expulsion was carried out in violation of Article 1
of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens). Relying further on
Article 5 § 2 (right to be informed promptly of the reasons for arrest), he complains that he was not
informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest in June 2005. Finally, he relies on Article 5 § 4 (right
to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), complaining that he was unable to
have the lawfulness of his arrest reviewed by a court.
11
On 4 August 2008 the company Colgate filed a request for arbitration against Mr Tabbane and his
three sons before the International Court of Arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce.
During the procedure, Mr Tabbane asked the court of arbitration to appoint a financial expert to
carry out an audit of the finances of the companies owed by him, or to let his own financial expert
carry out the audit. The court of arbitration dismissed the request, finding that Colgate had already
submitted financial evidence prepared by an expert, and that it was sufficient to consult that
information.
On 9 March 2011 the arbitration court issued its final verdict and ordered Mr Tabbane and his sons
to transfer all their shares to Colgate and to pay costs and the legal fees. Mr Tabbane lodged a civil-
law appeal with the Federal Court in order to have that decision set aside. On 4 January 2012 the
Federal Court declared his appeal inadmissible on the ground that the parties had validly waived the
right to appeal against any decision issued by the court of arbitration, in accordance with the federal
law on private international law.
Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Tabbane
complains that he was deprived of access to a court in Switzerland in order to challenge the
arbitration procedure. He alleges that the provision of the federal law on private international law,
in the part referred to by Federal Court, was not compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Lastly, he complains that the court of arbitration’s refusal to order an expert report at his request
was in breach of his right to a fair hearing.
12
According to the Government, Ms Korneykova was never handcuffed or shackled in the maternity
hospital. Furthermore, they submitted that her conditions of detention had been adequate in a cell
specially designed for pregnant women and women with children, referring to several statements by
detainees who had shared the cell with Ms Korneykova and had been satisfied. She received three
hot meals per day, except on days when she had to attend hearings on her case and missed lunch,
and there had been no restrictions on her receiving food parcels from her mother. Furthermore, her
son had been under constant medical supervision.
Ms Korneykova makes a number of complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading
treatment), namely about: her shackling in the maternity hospital; the poor conditions of detention;
inadequate medical care for her son; and, her placement in a metal cage during the six court
hearings on her case, first when she was heavily pregnant and then as a nursing mother.
The Court will give its rulings in writing on the following cases, some of which concern issues
which have already been submitted to the Court, including excessive length of proceedings.
These rulings can be consulted from the day of their delivery on the Court’s online database HUDOC.
They will not appear in the press release issued on that day.
Schmitzberger v. Austria (no. 42571/12)
Schneider v. Austria (no. 30012/12)
Traunmuller v. Austria (no. 72366/12)
J. v. Croatia (no. 18572/12)
Klobučar and Others v. Croatia (nos. 1067/15, 5122/15 and 27657/15)
A.A. v. France (no. 28496/15)
Borrero Toribio v. France (no. 40288/15)
Garitagoitia Salegui v. France (no. 40285/15)
Cerchez and Others v. Romania (nos. 39518/13, 58879/13, 77880/13, 10672/14, 15864/14,
40197/14, 41174/14, 47026/14, 47592/14, 58541/14, 65128/14, 77736/14, 2691/15 and 4075/15)
Cioffi and Staicu v. Romania (nos. 26676/14 and 30999/14)
Hauta and Others v. Romania (no. 4982/05)
Mischie v. Romania (no. 59133/09)
Papdi v. Romania (no. 33928/10)
Belov v. Russia (no. 45705/13)
Fedotov v. Russia (no. 20920/13)
Kolesnikova v. Russia (no. 8133/05)
Legal and Others v. Russia (nos. 48084/07, 14735/08, 19505/08, 21551/08, 11531/09 and
32927/09)
Pankov and Others v. Russia (no. 10139/13)
Svirin and Kulakov v. Russia (nos. 5257/08 and 38242/08)
Dordevic v. Serbia (no. 16919/13)
Mijajlovic v. Serbia (no. 12611/13)
A.Y. v. Slovakia (no. 37146/12)
Bektas v. Turkey (no. 38683/11)
Demiral v. Turkey (no. 56686/10)
Gunes v. Turkey (no. 24494/06)
Ugur v. Turkey (no. 63819/10)
Uzun v. Turkey (no. 38679/07)
Yildiz v. Turkey (no. 59241/10)
Biloshapka and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 67525/09, 21383/10, 64752/10, 72629/10, 1976/11,
4446/11, 28694/11, 33423/11, 23836/13, 42133/13, 53356/13 and 18173/15)
Bogdalov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 30400/12, 30749/14 and 38948/14)
13
Buza and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 11288/07, 11968/09, 42681/10, 59424/10, 69041/10, 74580/10,
2707/11, 36104/11, 33620/12 and 59318/13)
Fedorova v. Ukraine (no. 43768/12)
Parshyn v. Ukraine (no. 28686/11)
Sofiyuk and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 47431/11, 38844/13, 55372/13, 63864/13, 72644/13, 1169/14,
27892/14, 47096/14, 69907/14, 74356/14, 11744/15 and 12525/15)
Tarasov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 26662/13, 30007/13, 46998/13, 54575/13, 77142/13,
21361/14, 30520/14, 45784/14 and 46337/14)
J.J. and S.U. v. the United Kingdom (nos. 31127/11 and 8114/13)
Le Lievre and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 36522/15)
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)
Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)
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.
14