… pe 9 aprilie, printre altele, se vor pronunţa alte 8 hotărîri contra Federaţiei Ruse.
Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova (No. 4) (no. 18491/07)
The applicants are: Hyde Park, a non-governmental organisation registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Justice at the time of the events, since replaced by Hyde Park unincorporated association; and, eight Moldovan nationals, Oleg Brega, Anatolie Juraveli, Roman Cotelea, Mariana Galescu, Radu Vasilascu, Vitalie Dragan, Angela Lungu and Anatol Hristea-Stan. In August 2006 the applicants took part in a demonstration to protest about Chişinău town hall’s refusal to erect a monument donated by Romania; the protest was broken up by the police and the applicants were detained and taken to Buiucani Police Station where they were charged with unlawful assembly and resisting arrest. The applicants complain in particular about the authorities’ refusal to authorise their demonstration, the unlawfulness of their arrest, the conditions of their detention at the police station and the unfairness of the ensuing proceedings they brought against the police officers who had arrested them. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).
Breabin v. Moldova (no. 12544/08)
The applicant, Dumitru Breabin, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1959 and lives in Chişinău. Summonsed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs in December 2004 on suspicion of forgery, Mr Breabin alleges that two police officers beat him with truncheons and punched him in the head in order to try to force him into a confession. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the ill-treatment to which he was subjected and the ensuing inadequacy of the investigation into his allegations.
Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova (no. 4834/06)
The applicants are three Moldovan nationals, Gheorghe Straisteanu, a well-known businessman and former Member of Parliament, Natalia Straisteanu and Daniela Straisteanu, who were born in 1954, 1957 and 1986 respectively. They are members of the same family and live in Chişinău. The fourth applicant is SRL Codrana-Lux, a limited liability company incorporated in Moldova, the majority of which is owned by the applicant family. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that they were the victims of government harassment and intimidation. All the applicants complain that the Government tried to pressure them into giving up property they owned and that proceedings in which the authorities sought to annul the contracts of lease and sale of that property were unfair. Gheorghe Straisteanu also alleges that the harassment had included him being arrested in 2005 and 2006 and charged with car theft and uttering death threats; he complains in particular about the unlawfulness and conditions of his detention. They rely in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
Brânduşe v. Romania (no. 6586/03)
The applicant, Ioan Brânduşe, is a Romanian national who was born 1951. Sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for fraud, he is currently detained in Arad Prison (Romania). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains of the conditions of detention in police premises in Arad and the prisons in Timişoara and Arad, referring in particular to prison overcrowding, poor-quality food and sanitary conditions. In addition, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family), he complains about the offensive smells created by a former refuse tip situated not far from Arad prison, and the absence of confidentiality during telephone calls with persons outside the prison.
Paroisse Gréco-Catholique Sfântul Vasile Polonă v. Romania (no. 65965/01)
The applicant is the Greek-Catholic parish of Sfântul Vasile Polonă, under the authority of the Romanian Archdiocese of Alba Iulia and Făgăraş, which is based in Bucharest. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains about two sets of proceedings brought by it against the Orthodox parish in order to obtain the return of property.
Stoişor and Others v. Romania (no. 16900/03)
The applicants, Ilie Marcel Stoişor, Maria Işa, Cornelia Stoişor and Carmen Mihaiela Oană, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1945, 1921, 1922 and 1955 respectively and live in Romania. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about the setting aside of a final judgment in their favour concerning a building they had owned.
Tiron v. Romania (no. 17689/03)
The applicant, Gheorghe Tiron, is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Bucharest. From March 2003 to December 2004 he was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion, inter alia, of tax evasion and forgery. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that he was not brought “promptly” before an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power following his placement in pre-trial detention, and that the Romanian courts did not give reasons for his continued detention.