Forthcoming Chamber judgments
- 2 September 2010
- The European Court of Human Rights
will be notifying in writing 21
on Thursday 2 September 2010.
Bekirski v. Bulgaria
(application no. 71420/01)
Vlaevi v. Bulgaria
(nos. 272/05 and 890/05)
The applicants in both cases are the relatives of two young men, Hristo Bekirski and Marin Vlaev, born respectively in 1972 and 1967. They were both Bulgarian nationals. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain that their relatives have been killed by the police (in September 1996 and August 1998 respectively), that their deaths have not been properly investigated, and (in the Bekirski case) that Hristo has been ill-treated by the police and denied timely and adequate medical treatment.
Danev v. Bulgaria
The applicant, Naiden Danev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention he alleges that he was denied the compensation for unlawful detention to which he was entitled, the courts having found that his alleged non-pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated. He had been remanded in custody on suspicion of unlawful possession of firearms and later released for lack of evidence. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) he also argues that the principle of the equality of arms was not upheld in the proceedings.
Iorgov v. Bulgaria (No. 2)
The applicant, Plamen Iorgov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1957 and is currently imprisoned in Pleven (Bulgaria). Convicted of murder in 1990, his original death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without commutation in 1999. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that his sentence, which denied him any possibility of early release, is inhuman and degrading. He further complains of the excessively strict prison regime applied to him, the lack of a legal framework for this regime and the low quality of the medical care dispensed to the prisoners. Lastly, relying on Articles 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he has no means of challenging the lawfulness of his detention.
Kaushal and Others v. Bulgaria
The applicants are Rajesh Kaushal, an Indian national, born in 1967, who currently lives in Thessaloniki (Greece), his wife Kristina Boneva Kaushal, born in 1974, and their daughters Viktoria and Elena Rajesh Kaushal, born in 1992 and 1998 respectively, all three of whom are Bulgarian nationals who live in Sofia. The applicants complain that Mr Kaushal’s expulsion from Bulgaria in 2005 on national security grounds and the ensuing separation of their family violated their rights under Article 8 (right to respect for family life) and that they had no effective remedies, in violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens), Mr Kaushal further complains that Bulgaria has not provided the necessary procedural guarantees related to his expulsion.
Mincheva v. Bulgaria
The applicant, Mariana Mincheva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains about the length of proceedings concerning custody of her son and about the lack of a remedy by which to bring his complaint under Bulgarian law. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13, she further complains about a failure by the authorities to enforce the access rights that were granted to her by a final judicial decision.
Shopov v. Bulgaria
The applicant, Rusian Shopov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Sofia. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) he complains that for five years he was forced to undergo psychiatric treatment in hospital as an outpatient and that when he refused treatment he was arbitrarily committed by the public prosecutor to a psychiatric hospital under public health legislation. He relies particularly on Article 5 (right to liberty and security). Mr Shopov had been suffering from a psychiatric illness for 12 years without seeking treatment. According to the experts, he was not a danger to others but his psychiatric condition was likely to worsen.
Y.P. and L.P. v. France
The applicants, Y.P. and his wife L.P., are nationals of Belarus who were born in 1966 and 1967 respectively and currently live clandestinely in France. Their respective occupations are engineer and schoolteacher and they have three children. Y.P., an opponent of the regime and a member of the Belarusian People’s Front, was detained and assaulted on a number of occasions by the Belarusian police. He fled with his family, passing through various European countries, and applied for asylum in France, but it was denied. Relying especially on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) the applicants allege that if they were returned to Belarus they would risk imprisonment and ill-treatment.
Rumpf v. Germany
The applicant, Rüdiger Rumpf, is a German national who was born in 1951 and lives in Ingelheim (Germany). Operating a personal security service, he complains of the excessive length – 13 years – of proceedings before the administrative courts concerning the renewal of gun licences, which were eventually refused. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he further complains that German law does not provide for an effective legal remedy against the excessive length of court proceedings.
Uzun v. Germany
The applicant, Bernhard Uzun, is a German national who was born in 1967 and lives in Mönchengladbach (Germany). Suspected of participation in offences committed by an extremist organisation, he was kept under surveillance by the investigation authorities between December 1995 and February 1996 via the Global Positioning System (GPS), along with other methods of observation. He complains that the surveillance of him via GPS and the use of the data obtained thereby in criminal proceedings against him for attempted murder and causing an explosion – for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in September 1999 – violated his rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). He further complains that the use of the data, which was the essential basis for his conviction, violated his rights under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).
Timofeyev v. Russia
The applicant, Sergey Timofeyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Shakhty (Rostov Region, Russia). Sentenced to three years imprisonment in 2003 for rape and attempted rape, a sentence he was exempted from serving under an amnesty law, he complains in particular that the criminal proceedings against him, lasting eight years, were excessively long and that the appeal court held the hearing in his absence. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).
Fedina v. Ukraine
The applicant, Raisa Nikolayevna Fedina, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Tenistoye (Crimea, Ukraine). In 2001, her son died as a result of an electric shock after touching a loose wire hanging from a pole for power lines owned by an electricity company. The district prosecutor eventually refused to institute criminal proceedings against the company after having conducted an inquiry into the circumstances of the accident. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Ms Fedina complains that the authorities failed to protect the life of her son and that there was no effective investigation into his death. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complains that the delays in the inquiry of the prosecutor and attitude of the authorities towards the investigation into the death of her son have caused her severe moral suffering. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), she further complains that the dilatory manner in which the prosecutor conducted the inquiry affected the length of the civil proceedings which she instituted against the electricity company.
Murukin v. Ukraine
The applicant, Valentin Murukin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk (Ukraine). Having caused a car accident in 2002, injuring a woman, he was convicted in 2003 of breaching traffic rules resulting in injuries of medium severity to the victim and sentenced to two years’ "restriction of liberty". Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his detention in custody was unlawful under the domestic code of criminal procedure.
The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.
Georgieva and Mukareva v. Bulgaria
Madzharov v. Bulgaria
Yonkov v. Bulgaria
These cases concern the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that they were deprived of their property arbitrarily, without adequate compensation.
Tayanko v. Russia
In this case the applicant complains of the quashing, by way of supervisory review, of a final judgment in his favour, and the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
Konovski v. Bulgaria
In this case the applicant complains about the length of criminal proceedings against him for fraud committed with the help of forged documents. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
Dzhagarova and Others v. Bulgaria
Rosen Petkov v. Bulgaria
Velikin and Others v. Bulgaria
In these cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Rosen Petkov the applicant also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).