CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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   621 20.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   24 and 26 October 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 26 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 24 October 2006 and 13 on Thursday 26 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 24 October 2006   Edwards v. Malta (application no. 17647/04) The applicant, Joseph John Edwards, is a United Kingdom national who was born in 1919 and lives in London.   The applicant was the owner of a tenement in Malta that had been requisitioned since 1942 in order to provide housing for homeless people.   The applicant complains about the requisition of his property and of the adjacent field. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Vincent v. France (no. 6253/03) The applicant, Olivier Vincent, is a French national who was born in 1970. He is currently in Villepinte Prison in France. The applicant has been paraplegic since an accident in 1989 and, although independent, cannot move around without a wheelchair.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant maintains that the conditions of his imprisonment are not adapted to his disability and complains that he does not have the same rights as able-bodied prisoners. He further relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights), 8 (right to respect for correspondence), 9 (freedom of religion) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kusyk v. Poland (no. 7347/02) The applicant, Dariusz Kusyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Zawada (Poland).   The applicant was arrested in June 1999 and convicted of armed robbery and theft in November 2000. That judgment was quashed in April 2001 and the applicant was again convicted for the same offence in October 2002. His numerous requests for release and appeals against the prolongation of his detention were rejected.   The applicant complains about the length of his detention on remand. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Szwagrun-Baurycza v. Poland (no. 41187/02) The applicant, Leokadia Szwagrun-Baurycza, is a Polish national who lives in Mirków.   In November 1975 the applicant’s parents requested a court to declare that they had acquired ownership of a plot of land which had been in their possession for more than 15 years. In 2002 the proceedings were stayed due to the fact that the applicant, who had subsequently inherited her parents’ estate with her sister, had failed to indicate the addresses of all interested parties.     The applicant complains about the refusal of the domestic courts to resume the proceedings. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court).   Stemplewski v. Poland (no. 30019/03) Żak v. Poland (no. 31999/03) Zych v. Poland (no. 28730/02) The three applicants are all Polish nationals who live in Poland. Tomasz Stemplewski, who was born in 1974 and lives in Poznań, was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in August 2000 on suspicion of drug trafficking and membership of a criminal organisation; Sławomir Żak, born in 1962 and living in Lublin, was placed in pre-trial detention in November 2000 on account of his suspected involvement in a murder; Leszek Zych, who was born in 1966 and lives in Bydgoszcs, was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in May 1998 on suspicion of being involved in drug trafficking.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain, among other things, of the length of their pre-trial detention.   Akay v. Turkey (no. 58539/00) The applicant, Uğur Akay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Zonguldak (Turkey). At the relevant time he was President of Diyarbakır Assize Court.   In October 1992 he was apprehended by police officers carrying out a routine check.   The applicant complains that the police officers carrying out the roadside check insulted him. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He further complains under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the criminal proceedings which he joined as a civil party.   Baba v. Turkey (no. 35075/97) The applicant, Murat Baba, is a Turkish national who was born in 1935 and lives in Ordu (Turkey). He is a carpenter by trade.   As he had received only part-payment of the fee due to him for work carried out on behalf of Kumru town hall, the applicant brought proceedings against the municipality. On 8 June 1995 Kumru District Court found in his favour and awarded him compensation. Despite the efforts undertaken by the applicant, he has received no payment to date.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was infringed on account of the failure to enforce the judicial decision in his favour.   Kaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 4451/02) The applicants are nine Turkish nationals, Gülistan Kaya, Efendi Kaya, Aylen Kaya,   Mehmet Kaya, Mustafa Kaya, Hakkı Kaya, Çiçek Kaya, Vesile Kaya and Savaş Kaya who were born in 1950, 1966, 1972, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1990 and 1993 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. The first applicant is the wife and the remainder of the applicants are the children of Hakkı Kaya.   Hakki Kay was last seen on 16 November 1996 when he and two of his friends were forced into a vehicle and driven away by men who introduced themselves as police officers.   The applicants allege that their relative was abducted and killed by State agents and that the Turkish authorities failed to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into his disappearance. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Maçin v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 38282/02) The applicant, Emrullah Maçin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974.   In September 1998 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody for belonging to the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). On 20 November 2001 a State security court found the applicant guilty of carrying out separatist activities and sentenced him to the death penalty, commuted to life imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains of the length and unfairness of the proceedings against him.   Taner Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 70845/01) The applicant, Taner Kılıç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in İzmir. He is a lawyer and a board member of the İzmir branch of the Human Rights Association for Oppressed People.   In June 1999 a warrant was issued authorising the search of the applicant’s home and offices as the association was suspected of acting against the “integrity of the country and the secular regime”. Video tapes were seized at his home.   The applicant complains about that search and the seizure of his property. He relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Yüksektepe v. Turkey (no. 62227/00) The applicant, Yılmaz Yüksektepe, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Germany.   In November 1995 he was arrested and taken into custody in the context of an operation against the Islami Hareket Örgütü (the Islamic Movement Organisation), an illegal organisation in Turkey. On the same day, his house was searched.   The applicant complains that he was illegally detained and tortured in police custody. He also complains that he was denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of Istanbul State Security Court, which tried and convicted him. He further submits that he was convicted on the basis of false statements taken under duress and documents drafted by the police. He alleges that the charges brought against him were motivated by his religious beliefs and complains about the search conducted in his house.   He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law) 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Martin v. United Kingdom (no. 40426/98) The applicant, Alan Martin, is a United Kingdom national who was born in 1976 and, at the time of the introduction of his application, was serving a sentence of life imprisonment in England.   In May 1995 the applicant was convicted of the murder of a young woman. As a family member residing with a member of the Armed forces in Germany, he was subject to military law.   The applicant claims that he was subjected to degrading treatment and that his trial by court-martial was unfair. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).     Repetitive cases   Açıkgöz v. Turkey (no. 76855/01) Akkan and Erkızılkaya v. Turkey (no. 48055/99) Kürkçü and Others v. Turkey (no. 7142/02) Terece v. Turkey (no. 41054/98) Üstücan and Others v. Turkey (no. 11914/03) In these five Turkish cases the applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of delays in paying them additional compensation for expropriation. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants in Açıkgöz and Kürkçü and Others also complain of the length of the proceedings in question.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. The Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited also complains under Article 13 that it had no effective remedy concerning its length-of-proceedings complaint.   Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited v. Malta (no. 35829/03) ATUT Sp.z o.o. v. Poland (no. 71151/01) Baranowska v. Poland (no. 72994/01) Romaniak v. Poland (no. 53284/99) Orzechowski v. Poland (no. 77795/01) Sokołowski v. Poland (no. 15337/02) Stevens v. Poland (no. 13568/02)     Thursday 26 October 2006   Asadov and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 138/03) The applicants, Etimad Asadov, Firudin Mamedov, Asaf Aliyev, Bahruz Jamalov, and Oqtay Mehdiyev, are Azerbaijani nationals who was born in 1963, 1970, 1965, 1962 and 1968 respectively and live in Baku (Azerbaijan).   On 20 December 2001 the applicants founded a public non-profit organisation aimed at providing aid to Karabakh war invalids. The Ministry of Justice registered the public association as a legal entity in April 2006.   The applicants complain, in particular, that the failure to register their public association in a timely manner interfered with their right to freedom of association. They rely on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Danov v. Bulgaria (no. 56796/00) The applicant, Hristo Georgiev Danov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). He was a member of the board of directors of a local bank and a director of a private brokerage firm.   The applicant who had already been charged with embezzlement in July 1998 and was released on bail was re-arrested in November 1999 after the police received information that he was about to abscond. He was later placed under house arrest. He appealed against those decisions.   The applicant complains in particular that his detention and house arrest were unjustified and that the appeal proceedings were unfair. He relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Mareš v. Czech Republic (no. 1414/03) The applicant, Jan Mareš, is a Czech national who was born in 1952 and lives in Srbsko (Czech Republic). He used to be a police officer with the financial crimes division.   On 27 July 2001 he was found guilty of abuse of power by an official and accepting bribes and was sentenced, among other things, to three years’ imprisonment. His appeal to the Constitutional Court was dismissed in July 2002.   The applicant complains in particular that he was not given an opportunity to submit observations on the written statements on which the Constitutional Court based its verdict. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Wallová and Walla v. Czech Republic (no. 23848/04) The applicants, Emílie Wallová and Jaroslav Walla, are Czech nationals who were born in 1963 and 1949 respectively and live in Vesce (Czech Republic). The couple have five children, born in 1985, 1988, 1995, 1997 and 2000.   In November 2000, at the request of the competent social services department, the applicants’ five children were taken into residential care on the ground that the family had been without stable and suitable accommodation for several years. The two youngest children are apparently still in foster care.   The applicants complain of having been separated from their children and of the lack of support from the domestic authorities. They rely in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Chraidi v. Germany (no. 65655/01) The applicant, Yasser Chraidi, is a stateless person who was born in 1959 in Lebanon where he now lives. When lodging his application, he was detained in Berlin.   On 24 May 1996 the applicant was extradited to Germany from Lebanon and held in detention. He was accused of having organised the bomb attack on the “La Belle” discotheque in Berlin in April 1986 in which three people died and 104 were seriously injured. On 13 November 2001 he was convicted of aiding and abetting murder, attempted murder and causing an explosion.   The applicant complains of the excessive length of his detention on remand. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Acatrinei v. Romania (no. 7114/02) The applicants, Elena Acatrinei and her son Vasile Acatrinei, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1928 and 1948 respectively and live in Negriţeşti (Romania). In judgments of November 1993 and February 1994 the relevant administrative commissions were ordered to give Elena Acatrinei possession of three pieces of land.   The applicants allege that the non-enforcement of the judgments in question infringed their right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Elena Acatrinei also complains of an infringement of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.   Khudobin v. Russia (no. 59696/00) The applicant, Viktor Vasilyevich Khudobin, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow.   The applicant was arrested on 29 October 1998 after allegedly selling heroin to an undercover police agent. He was later detained on remand. On 11 November 1999 he was found guilty of the offence but released due to the findings of a psychiatric report on him which stated that he had committed the crime in a state of insanity.   The applicant alleges, in particular, that he did not receive adequate medical treatment in the remand prison, that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading, that his pre-trial detention had exceeded reasonable time, that his applications for release had been examined with significant delays or not examined, and, finally, that his conviction had been based entirely on evidence obtained as a result of police incitement. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 §§ 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Ledyayeva, Dobrokhotova, Zolotareva and Romashina v. Russia (nos. 53157/99, 53247/99, 53695/00 and 56850/00) The applicants, Lyudmila Konstantinovna Ledyayeva, Elena Grigoryevna Dobrokhotova, Zhanna Vladmirovna Zolotareva and Ekaterina Efimovna Romashina, are Russian nationals. The first applicant was born in 1948, the second in 1928 and the third and the fourth in 1932. They all live in Cherepovets (Russia), an important steel-producing centre.   The applicants all lived within the buffer zone of the Severstal steel plant, which was supposed to separate the plant from the town’s residential area and where the concentration of by-products of steel production regularly exceeded recommended limits. They unsuccessfully brought proceedings to be resettled outside the area.   The applicants complain about the Russian State’s failure to protect their private lives and homes from severe environmental nuisance.. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)   Repetitive cases   Friedrich v. Czech Republic (no. 12108/03) The applicant, Vladimír Friedrich, is a Czech national who was born in 1947 and lives in Žacléř (Czech Republic).   He commenced proceedings after his entitlement to a full disability pension was withdrawn. In the course of the proceedings he lodged a constitutional complaint which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant maintains that the dismissal of his constitutional complaint as being out of time infringed his right of access to a court.   Emanuele Calandra and Others v. Italy (no. 71310/01) Ippoliti v. Italy (no. 12263/05) In these two cases the applicants all owned land that was occupied by the authorities with a view to expropriation. Construction work was started on the land without an expropriation order or any compensation. The applicants consequently 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). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they also complain that the proceedings in question were unfair.     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). The applicant in the Novina v. Slovenia case also complains under Article 13 that he had no effective remedy concerning his length-of-proceedings complaint   Lenardon v. Belgium (no. 18211/03) Novina v. Slovenia (no. 6855/02)   ***   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.