CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   591 13.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   17 and 19 October 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 18 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 17 October 2006 and 22 on Thursday 19 October 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 17 October 2006     Danelia v. Georgia (application no. 68622/01) The applicant, David Danelia, is a Georgian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Tbilissi.   From April 1999 to October 2000 the applicant was working as a guard at the prison hospital in Tbilissi. On the night of 1 October 2000, while he was on duty, 12 convicts escaped. He was charged with serious professional negligence and given a two-year suspended prison sentence in 2001.   The applicant complains that he was tortured while in police custody. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Gourguénidzé v. Georgia (no. 71678/01) The applicant, David Gourguénidzé, is a Georgian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Tbilissi.   In 1999 the applicant put up for sale a manuscript by the renowned Georgian writer Konstantiné Gamsakhourdia. Mrs Artchvadzé-Gamsakhourdia, daughter-in-law of the writer and wife of Mr   Gamsakhourdia, a former President of Georgia, now deceased, arranged to meet the applicant accompanied by a journalist from the national newspaper Akhali Thaoba . The meeting was followed up by a series of articles and interviews, published with a photograph of the applicant, in which Mrs Artchvadzé-Gamsakhourdia accused him of having stolen the manuscript in question.   The applicant complains that the information and his photograph, which were published in the newspaper Akhali Thaoba , together with the decisions of the Georgian courts concerning him, entailed a violation of his right to respect for his private life. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Gąsiorowski v. Poland (no. 7677/02) The applicant, Robert Gąsiorowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Warsaw.   In December 1999 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. In June 2002 he was convicted of attempted armed robbery and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The conviction was quashed in December 2002 and he was released in February 2004.   The applicant complains about the length of his detention on remand and that during his detention his correspondence was censored by the authorities. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Piątkowski v. Poland (no. 5650/02) The applicant, Sylwester Piątkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Koluszki (Poland).   Between 1991 and 1993 he was the Head of the Civic Gasification Committee of the “Łódzkie” housing co-operative.   In October 1995 he was charged with concealing documents belonging to the committee.   In November 1996 he was found guilty, fined and put on probation for a year. His final appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court in January 2001.   The applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Andrzejewski v. Poland (no. 72999/01) The applicant, Henryk Andrzejewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Łódź (Poland).   In 1990 the applicant, who at the time was in charge of public funds to be used for the building of a major children’s clinic, was prosecuted for misappropriation and fraud. In October 2000 he was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the length of the proceedings against him.   Stankiewicz v. Poland (no. 29386/03) The applicant, Leszek Stankiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Poręba-Kocęby (Poland).   In August 2001 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of committing armed attacks on lorry drivers. In May 2005 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complains in particular of the length of his pre-trial detention and of the unfairness of the proceedings against him. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Göçmen v. Turkey (no. 72000/01) The applicant, Sabahattin Göçmen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966. He has been in Bursa Prison, serving a sentence of 18 years and nine months, since 1999.   The applicant was arrested and taken into police custody in December 1992 on suspicion of being a member of the illegal organisation PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).   The applicant alleges that he was tortured while in police custody and complains of the unfairness and length of the proceedings leading to his conviction. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Okkalı v. Turkey (no. 52067/99) The applicant, Halil İbrahim Okkalı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). At the material time he was 12 years old and worked as an apprentice in a garage.   In 1995 his employer accused him of stealing some money that he had been asked to take to the bank. The applicant claimed that he had been robbed. He was arrested and interrogated by the police.   The applicant complains of the impunity afforded to the police officers against whom he lodged a complaint for ill-treatment. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Sultan Öner and Others v. Turkey (no. 73792/01) The applicants, Sultan Öner, and her son and daughter Ciğerhun and Nurşin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1968, 1989 and 1992 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey).   The first applicant was given a prison sentence of three years and six months in 1999, on account of her membership of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). She complains of a series of events that took place between October 2000 and November 2001, a period during which she claims that she and her children were arrested, beaten and harassed by the security forces.   The applicants rely on Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Repetitive cases   Öz and Başpınar v. Turkey (no. 41227/02) Yazganoğlu v. Turkey (no. 57294/00) In these two Turkish cases the applicants complain, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation. In the case of Öz and Başpınar the applicants also rely on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain in particular of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings.   Augustyniak v. Poland (no. 5413/02) Chodzyńscy v. Poland (no. 17484/02) Czerwiński v. Poland (no. 10384/02) Grabiński v. Poland (no. 43702/02) Kwiatkowski v. Poland (no. 4560/04) Nowak v. Poland (no. 8612/02) Zielonka v. Poland (no. 7313/02)     Thursday 19 October 2006   Majadallah v. Italy (no. 62094/00) The applicant, Mohamed Majadallah, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Florence (Italy).   In January 1998 the applicant was convicted of aggravated indecent assault, physical injury and drunkenness, and was sentenced to prison for one year and four months. Before both the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation the applicant argued that he had been unable to examine the complainants whose statements had been read out at first instance. His appeals were both dismissed.   The applicant considers that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair on account of his inability to examine or have examined witnesses against him. He relies on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial).   Matache and Others v. Romania (no. 38113/02) The applicants, Constantin   Matache, Elena Matache and Zenovia Sprîncean, are siblings. They are Romanian nationals who were born in 1934, 1936 and 1940 respectively and live in Ploieşti (Romania).   In a judgment of 23 May 2002, which subsequently became final, Brăila Court of First Instance awarded compensation to the applicants on account of the expropriation in 1949 of a mill and adjacent land which had belonged to their parents. In spite of the applicants’ efforts, that judgment has still not been enforced.   The applicants allege that the failure to enforce the judgment of 23 May 2002 has deprived them of access to a court and has denied them the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Abdullah Altun v. Turkey (no. 66354/01) Hikmedin Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 69124/01) The applicants, Abdullah Altun and Hikmedin Yıldız, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1957 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.   In January 1993 Mr Yıldız was taken into custody on suspicion of his involvement in the PKK. The proceedings against him were terminated in April 2000 as being out of time. Mr Altun was taken into custody on the same charge in March 1995. He was found guilty and given a life sentence in a judgment which was upheld in the Court of Cassation in February 2000.   Both applicants complain of the length of the criminal proceeding against them. Mr Altun also claims that he did not receive a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which tried and convicted him. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Diril v. Turkey (no. 68188/01) The applicants, Apro Diril, his wife Meryem Diril, and their children Süleyman, Can, Yakup and Dilber, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960, 1956, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1987 respectively and live in Istanbul.   Mr Diril argues that his son Zeki was arrested by gendarmes in May 1994 together with his son’s cousin. The applicants have had no news of them since.   The applicants allege that the son and cousin were killed by extrajudicial execution. They rely on Article 2 (right to life), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Kamer Demir and Others v. Turkey (no. 41335/98) The nine applicants, Kamer Demir and his daughters Dilif Demir, Ani Demir, Elif Demir, Sultan Demir, Besime Demir, Saniye Demir, Gülfen Demir and Perihan Demir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1934, 1953, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1971 and 1975 respectively and live in Tunceli (Turkey). Their wife and mother, Azimet Demir, died on 30   July 1997.   At the material time, the applicants lived in the village of Karşılar in Tunceli province, which was then under the state of emergency decreed in south-east Turkey because of serious clashes between security forces and members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).   The applicants allege that their wife and mother was killed when gendarmes intentionally fired shots in the direction of their village on 30 July 1997. Moreover, although those presumed responsible have been identified, they have not had to stand trial. The applicants rely on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kök v. Turkey (no. 1855/02) The applicant, Mualla Kök, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul. In 1995 the applicant, a medical doctor, brought administrative proceedings seeking to obtain recognition by the Turkish Ministry of Health of a specialised medical training course that she had carried out in Bulgaria.   The applicant complains of the length and unfairness of the proceedings to which she was a party. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education).   Öktem v. Turkey (no. 74306/01) The applicants, Mahmut Öktem et Memnune Öktem, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1956 and 1954 respectively and live in Istanbul.   On 26 February 1997 the applicants, who are teachers at the Paşakapısı primary school in Üsküdar and active members of the trade union Eğit-Sen , were arrested and taken into police custody in the course of an operation against the TKEP/L (Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist). Following a complaint by the applicants, the police officers responsible for their police custody were convicted of torture in 2004. However, in March 2005 the Court of Cassation, whilst recognising that the offence of torture had been committed, held that the proceedings were time-barred.   The applicants allege that they were tortured while in police custody. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Selim Yıldırım and Others v. Turkey (no. 56154/00) The applicants, Selim Yıldırım, Hasibe Yıldırım, Leyla Yıldırım, Rıdvan Yıldırım, Gülcan Yıldırım, Berivan Yıldırım and Şermin Yıldırım, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1928, 1955, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1987 and 1994 respectively. Selim Yıldırım lives in Diyarbakır while the others live in Istanbul. The first applicant is the father, the second applicant is the wife and the remainder of the applicants are the children of Adnan Yıldırım, who was killed on 3 June 1994.   The applicants allege, in particular, that Adnan Yıldırım, was killed following his abduction by undercover agents of the State and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into his death. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   M.A.T. v. Turkey (no. 63964/00) The applicant, M.A.T., is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.   In March 1993 the applicant was indicted for bribery. In September 1998 he was convicted of being an accessory to bribery and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. That judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation in March 2000.   The applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Koval v. Ukraine (no. 65550/01) The applicant, Vasyl Gavrylovych Koval, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1951 and currently lives in Kyiv.   In November 1997 the applicant was detained on suspicion of forgery for which he was later convicted and served a prison sentence.   He complains about his ill-treatment while remanded in custody and that the authorities failed to provide proper and necessary medical treatment and assistance to him. He also complains that he was denied a fair hearing, in that his wife had not been invited to take part in the proceedings concerning the forfeiture of his bail. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).     Repetitive cases   Tomašić v. Croatia (no. 21753/02) The applicant, Nenad Tomašić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bjelovar (Croatia).   Following the entry into force in February 1996 of the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (the 1996 Amendment), a civil action brought by the applicant and his wife in respect of their summer house, which was blown up by unknown perpetrators, was found inadmissible, the court finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter.   The applicant complains that Parliament’s enactment of that Amendment violated his right of access to a court. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ceglia v. Italy (no. 21457/04) Gautieri and Others v. Italy (no. 68610/01) In these two cases the applicants all owned land that was occupied by state authorities with a view to expropriation. Construction was begun on the land. Since there had been no expropriation order or compensation, the applicants brought proceedings claiming damages for unlawful occupation of their land.   The applicants allege that the occupation of their land interfered with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Gautieri and Others , the applicants further complain of the unfairness and length of the proceedings in question.   Raicu v. Romania (no. 28104/03) The applicant, Alexandrina Raicu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Bucharest. In a final judgment of 12 March 2001, Bucharest Court of Appeal recognised the validity of the contract of sale under which the applicant had acquired a flat in Bucharest that had been seized by the State and concerning which an action for recovery of possession was pending. That judgment was quashed by the Supreme Court of Justice.   The applicant argues that the reversal of a final judgment in her favour breached the principle of legal certainty. She alleges that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Irina Fedotova v. Russia (no. 1752/02) The applicant, Irina Yuryevna Fedotova, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Penza (Russia).   She complains that final judgments in her favour were quashed and that she was unable to effectively participate at the supervisory-review hearing. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court).   Kesyan v. Russia (no. 36496/02) The applicant, Robert Ambartsumovich Kesyan, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Sochi (Russia).   The applicant complains about the prolonged non-enforcement of a judgment given in his favour. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Börekçioğulları(Çokmez) and Others v. Turkey (no. 58650/00) The six applicants are Turkish nationals.   The applicants complain that they were deprived of their land without being paid compensation for the loss. The rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property),   Sağır v. Turkey (no. 37562/02) The applicant, Nurullah Sağir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in İzmir. In 2001 İzmir State Security Court found him guilty of being the leader in a criminal association and gave him a prison sentence of three years and four months. He appealed on points of law but was unsuccessful.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that he was not provided with the submissions of Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain in particular of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Romanenko and Romanenko v. Russia (no. 19457/02) Arsov v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 44208/02) Mukhin v. Ukraine (no. 39404/02)   ***   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.