CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 mai 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   303 24.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   30 May and 1 June 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing nine Chamber judgments on Tuesday 30 May 2006 and 40 on Thursday 1 June 2006.   Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 11 a.m. (local time) on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Tuesday 30 May 2006   R. v. Finland (application no. 34141/96) The applicant, R., is a Finnish national who was born in 1958.   The applicant complains about the decisions to keep his son in public care and the restrictions on his access to him. He also complains about the length and fairness of the proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   SARL Aborcas v. France (no. 59423/00) The applicant company, SARL Aborcas, is a private limited company incorporated in France, having its registered office at Lanta (France).   It complains in particular that it had no access to the court of appeal or the court of cassation, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Kwiek v. Poland (no. 51895/99) The applicant, Bogdan Kwiek, is a Polish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Chelm (Poland).   On 10 September 1994 he began serving a five-year prison sentence for robbery.   The applicant alleges that the authorities monitored his correspondence while he was in prison. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Wiensztal v. Poland (no. 43748/98) The applicant, Rafał Wiensztal, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Radom (Poland).   The applicant was arrested on 24 August 1994 on suspicion of extorting protection money from an escort agency. The overall period of his detention on remand lasted over two years and two months.   He complains, in particular, about the length of his detention on remand, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge).   Doğrusös and Aslan v. Turkey (no. 1262/02) The applicants, Edip Doğrusös and Mehmet Aslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1931 and 1930 and live in Ankara and Hatay (Turkey), respectively.   In 1965 the applicants bought a plot of land in Hatay. However they lost title to that land on   16   December 1999 on the ground that it was located within a coastline area which had to be within State control.   The applicants complain that the authorities’ deprived them of their land without payment of compensation, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ebru and Tayfun Engin Çolak v. Turkey (no. 60176/00) The applicants, Ebru Çolak and Tayfun Engin Çolak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1991 respectively and live in Bursa (Turkey).   On 2 April 1992 the applicant, acting in her own name and on behalf of her son (second applicant), brought a paternity suit in the Istanbul District Court against Emrah İpek, a folk-singer, claiming that he was her child’s biological father. The proceedings lasted for over eight years and nine months.   The applicants complain that, throughout that period, they became the focus of media attention because Emrah İpek was famous, and that if they had received maintenance the child would have had a better life and education. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Repetitive cases   İbrahim Yalçinkaya v. Turkey (no. 14788/03) Kökmen v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 903/03) The applicants, İbrahim Yalçınkaya and Mehmet Kökmen, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1939 and 1933 respectively and live in Gaziantep (Turkey).   In both cases the applicants complain of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation. They both rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), together with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Length of proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complains, in particular, of the excessive length of civil proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Barszcaz v. Poland (no. 71152/01) Thursday 1 June 2006   Buj v. Croatia (no. 24661/02) The applicant, Vinko Buj, is a Croatian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Jelsa (Croatia).   He complains about the length of inheritance and other related proceedings, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Majski v. Croatia (no. 33593/03) The applicant, Radovan Majski, is a Croatian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Vukovar (Croatia).   He complains about the length of proceedings to enforce a judgment ordering the eviction of tenants from a flat for which he had a specially protected tenancy.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and home).   Taïs v. France (no. 39922/03) The applicants, Suzette Taïs and her husband Mohammed Taïs, are French nationals who were born in 1937 and 1938 respectively and live in Saint-Pierre Du Mont (France).   On the morning of 7 April 1993 their son, Pascal Taïs, aged 33, was found dead in a cell in Arcachon Police Station, where he had been placed overnight to sober up.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants contend that their son’s death was the result of serious failings on the part of the authorities, and that the investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death was ineffective. They further contend, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), that their son was subjected to ill-treatment in the hours leading up to his death.   Fodale v. Italy (no. 70148/01) The applicant, Carmelo Fodale, is an Italian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Trapani (Italy).   He complains of a lack of fairness in proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his detention. He alleges that he was not informed of the date of his hearing in the court of cassation and complains that his applications for the annulment of that court’s judgment were dismissed. He relies on Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of one’s detention).   Bednov v. Russia (no. 21153/02) The applicant, Vladimir Vladimirovich Bedov, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Krivoborye (Russia).   On 25 July 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. Two days later the Prosecutor ordered his pre-trial detention.   The applicant alleges that his subsequent complaints about the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention and his applications for release pending trial were not examined by the domestic courts. He relies on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   Mamedova v. Russia (no. 7064/05) The applicant, Olga Vagidovna Mamedova, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Vladimir (Russia).   She was detained from 23 July   2004 until 4 August 2005 on charges of large-scale fraud.   She complains that she was held in over-crowded unsanitary conditions and about the length and reasons given for her detention. She relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Shatunov v. Russia (no. 31271/02) Sergey Nikolayevich Shatunov is a Russian national, born in 1954 and living in Kursk (Russia).   The applicant was held in pre-trial detention for ten days and, on 17 May 2000, found guilty of embezzlement. The judgment was quashed, however, on the basis that there was no indication that he had committed an offence. He was subsequently awarded compensation, but the relevant judgments have not been executed.   He complains about his pre-trial detention and the failure to execute the judgments in his favour, relying on Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 (compensation for wrongful conviction).   Dulskiy v. Ukraine (no. 61679/00) The applicant, Ivan Ivanovich Dulskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1926 and lives in Yalta.   The applicant alleges that he was beaten by the President of Yalta Court and that the national authorities failed to investigate the matter. He also complains about the length and fairness of proceedings concerning a car accident. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Fedorenko v. Ukraine (no. 25921/02) The applicant, Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Malaya Vyska (Ukraine).   On 9 April 1997 the applicant sold his house to the Kirovograd Regional Department of Justice. The contract specified that the overall sum to be paid could not be less than the Hryvna equivalent of USD 17,000. In 1998 the Hryvna substantially weakened against the US dollar. The applicant claims that he lost USD 6,553 as two payments did not take into account the fall of the exchange rate.   The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that he was deprived of the benefit of a contractual safeguard against inflation, linking the price of his house to an amount in US dollars.   Repetitive cases   Ciucci v. Italy (no. 68345/01) Magherini v. Italy (no. 69143/01) Mosconi v. Italy (no. 68011/01) The applicants in these three cases complain that they had been unable to recover possession of their flats, owing to the lack of police assistance. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicants in Ciucci and Magherini also complain under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the enforcement proceedings.   Gridin v. Russia (no. 4171/04) Korchagin v. Russia (no. 19798/04) The applicants in the above cases complain about the prolonged non-enforcement of judgments in their favour, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Astankov v. Ukraine (no. 5631/03) Kryachkov v. Ukraine (no. 7497/02) Sinko v. Ukraine (no. 4504/04) The applicants in the above cases complain, in particular, about the State authorities’ failure to enforce judgments in their favour, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Stojić v. Croatia (no. 36719/03) Kutsenko v. Russia (no. 12049/02) Antolič v. Slovenia (no. 71476/01) Keržina-Kukovec v. Slovenia (no. 75574/01)   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). They further rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of their complaints about the excessive length of proceedings.   Omerović v. Croatia (no. 36071/03)   Gavrielides v. Cyprus (no. 15940/02)   Athanasiou v. Greece (no. 10691/04) Tsiotras v. Greece (no. 13464/04)   Atelšek v. Slovenia (no. 26342/04) Bendič v. Slovenia (no. 77519/01) Boškovič v. Slovenia (no. 21462/04) Irgolič v. Slovenia (no. 42857/02) Jelen v. Slovenia (no. 5044/02) Mežan v. Slovenia (no. 27102/02) Mijatovič v. Slovenia (no. 43548/02) Mušič v. Slovenia (no. 37294/02) Nahtigal v. Slovenia (no. 75777/01) Rožič v. Slovenia (no. 75779//01) Stakne v. Slovenia (no. 77543/01) Trebovc v. Slovenia (no. 42863/02) Urbanija v. Slovenia (no. 6552/02) Vodeb v. Slovenia (no. 42281/02) Vrbanec v. Slovenia (no. 33549/02)   ***   Press Contacts   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   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.