Asociația 21Decembrie 1989

Forthcoming judgments

The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 17 judgments on

Tuesday 24 May 2011 and six on Thursday 26 May 2011.

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 24 May 2011

Elsner v. Austria (nos. 1-6) (application nos. 15710/07, 31805/07, 36230/07,40937/07 17239/08 and 41402/08)The applicant, Helmut Elsner, is an Austrian national who was born in 1935 and lives in

Vienna. A former bank manager (Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG) and well known inAustria, Mr Elsner had criminal proceedings brought against him in 2006 for breach of

trust and fraud. Retired and living in France at the time, he was arrested there and eventually brought to Austria in February 2007 where he was placed in pre-trial

detention. He was convicted of those charges in May and July 2008; ultimately the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of breach of trust and sentenced him to sevenand–a-half years’ imprisonment in December 2010. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right

to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Elsner complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Further

relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), he also alleges that statements made in public by Austrian politicians and public officials amounted to finding him guilty

without his being convicted by a court.

Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria (no. 23302/03)

The applicant, Anna Todorova, is a Bulgarian and Belgian national who was born in 1949

and lives in Seraing (Belgium). The case concerns the death of Ms Todorova’s 22-year

old son, Zhivko Todorov, in 1994 when the car he was travelling in had a head-on

collision with the trailer of a lorry. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 6 § 1(right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, she complains about

the inadequacy of the investigation into her son’s death and the excessive length of the proceedings in which she claimed damages.

Konstas v. Greece (no. 53466/07)

The applicant, Dimitrios Konstas, is a Greek national who was born in 1946 and lives in Athens. He is a former university professor who has also been acting Minister for the Press and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Council of Europe. Criminal proceedings were instituted against him for offences including misappropriation of public funds. Relying

mainly on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about statements made to Parliament by the Prime Minister and

other ministers in which he was portrayed as guilty even though the judicial proceedings in the Court of Appeal had not yet been concluded, and alleges that no effective remedy was available in Greece in respect of his complaint.

Onorato v. Italy (no. 26218/06)

The applicant, Pierluigi Onorato, is an Italian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Fiesole (Italy). He is a judge. He alleged that a member of parliament made defamatory statements about him to the press. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court), he complains that he was unable to bring defamation proceedings against the member of parliament on account of the latter’s parliamentary immunity under the Constitution.

Abou Amer v. Romania (no. 14521/03)

The applicants are Fahed Youseef Abdalla Abou Amer, a stateless person of Palestinian origin who was born in 1969, and his wife since 2000, Ana-Maria Abou Amer, a Romanian national who was born in 1979. They have a daughter who was born in 2001. They currently all live in Sweden. Mr Abou Amer was granted refugee status – along with his father and brothers – in Romania in 1998. He was taken into custody in March 2003 pending expulsion on the ground that he was a danger to national security. The deportation order also banned him from re-entering Romania for ten years. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Abou Amer complains about the unlawfulness as well as the

conditions of his detention pending expulsion in a holding centre in Otopeni as well as in the transit zone of Bucharest airport. Further relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), the applicants complain that in order to keep their immediate family together, they were forced to leave Romania, leaving their respectivefamilies behind.

Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and18817/08)

The applicants are the 21 December 1989 association, registered in Bucharest; its president, Teodor Mărieş, a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in

Bucharest; and Elena Vlase and her husband Nicolae Vlase, two Romanian nationals who live in Braşov (Romania). They were, or represent, participants, injured victims or relatives of those who died in the crackdown on anti-communist demonstrations in December 1989. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Mr and Mrs Vlase complain of the

lack of an effective investigation into their son’s death during those events. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Mărieş complains of the lack of an effective investigation into the ill-treatment to which he was subjected while taking part in the demonstrations in question. Relying in particular on Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 34 (right of individual application), he further complains, in his own name and on behalf of the applicant association, that he was

subjected to secret surveillance measures, in particular telephone tapping, as a form of pressure by the authorities in connection with his activities as president of an association campaigning for an effective investigation into the events of December 1989.