| Weekly communicated cases |
 |
 |
 |
| środa, 01 października 2008 12:24 | |||
|
Weekly communicated cases_*POLAND:*_ In *GODLEWSKI v Poland *the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention, that for several years he has not had access to his daughter, despite the court's two contact orders. He claims that the domestic court did not do anything to protect his and his daughter's right to family life. In *GRADEK v Poland* the applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that for 6 months of his detention he was not allowed to maintain personal contact with his wife *Janusz JAKÓBSKI v Poland: *In this case a Buddhist prisoner complains that his right to manifest his religion was infringed under Article 9, because he was not provided a meat-free diet. He further alleges under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 9 that he was discriminated against since other religious groups in prison received a special diet. *Grzegorz JOŃCZYK v Poland: *The applicant claims that his detention in a detention centre without the adequate medical facilities had been unlawful and he should have been transferred to a psychiatric hospital due to his paranoid schizophrenia. *WALASZEK v Poland: *The applicant's son - performing military service at that time - was found drowned in a canal in Wrocław. The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that no effective investigation has been conducted so as to allow responsibility for his son's death to be established. He also relies on Article 6, complaining that the investigation into the case was not conducted within a reasonable time and that oral testimony was not taken to the necessary extent. The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have a domestic remedy to complain about the ineffectiveness of the investigation. He also alleges a breach of Article 14 of the Convention in that he was discriminated against for being of working-class origin. *ZIELEŹNIK v Poland:* In this case the applicant has various complaints concerning the inability of the Polish authorities' inability to enforce final decisions of domestic courts granting him visiting rights. _*AZERBAIJAN*_ This week there were also a number of cases concerning the elections to Milli Majlis (Parliament of Azerbaijan) of 6 November 2005. The applicants either stood as candidates of the opposition bloc Azadliq or as independent candidates. (*ALIBEYLI against Azerbaijan, ATAKISHI against Azerbaijan, JAFAROV against Azerbaijan, **KARIMOV against Azerbaijan, KERIMOVA against Azerbaijan*) *FATULLAYEV v Azerbaijan:* The applicant was the founder and chief editor of two newspapers which were widely known for often publishing articles harshly criticising the Government and various public officials. In 2007 two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant in connection with, /inter alia/, two articles published by him in one of these newspapers, concerning the Khojaly massacre. Fatullayev complains inter alia - about the conditions of his detention and the set-up of the court ( for example, the terms of office of its judges had expired). *JAFAROV v Azerbaijan: *The applicant was issued an occupancy voucher to an apartment in a recently constructed residential building in Baku, but the apartment was occupied by a family of internally displaced persons from Shusha (a region under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh). The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, because the judgment ordering the evacuation of the family was not enforced. _*OTHER COUNTRIES:*_ *ROBATHIN v Austria* is a case in which a search was conducted in the office of a lawyer who was suspected of aggravated theft, aggravated fraud and embezzlement. The police not only collected data relevant to the two affected clients, but all electronic data on the applicant's computer. The applicant complains of violation of Article 8 of the Convention. *VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v Austria: *In 2005 the second chamber of Austrian parliament discussed the question whether in the context of the 60^th anniversary of the Republic of Austria persons who had been convicted as deserters by the NS regime should be rehabilitated by a legislative act. During that debate Mr S.K., member of the Freedom Party, mentioned two examples of where deserters had murdered people, and said this was no exception. In an article published by the applicant Mr S.K.'s picture was accompanied by the statement: “Wehrmacht deserters are murderers of their comrades.” The applicant was found to have committed defamation, and the company asserts a subsequent breach of Article 6 and 10. *MESIC AND OTHERS v. the Netherlands: *In this case the applicants (who are of Bosnian nationality) complain that the Dutch authorities' refusal to grant them a residence permit for the purpose of staying with their father, stepmother and siblings is in breach of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention. *ABUYEVA and 28 Others v Russia: *The chechnyan applicants submit -inter alia- that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of themselves and in respect of their relatives who had died as a result of the shelling, because the lethal force employed by the Russian State had been excessive and indiscriminate. The applicants also submit that the investigation into the events was ineffective and in breach of the positive obligations under Article 2.
|