CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 décembre 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 } .s1F92486D { font-family:Arial; color:#ff6600 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8130F250 { width:130.78pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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   746 1.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   5 and 7 December 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 28 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 5 December 2006 and 29 on Thursday 7 December 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 5 December 2006   Csikós v. Hungary (application no. 37251/04) The applicant, István Csikós, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Budapest.   In October 2003, he was found guilty of aggravated extortion and sentenced to three-and-a half years’ imprisonment. His conviction was upheld in appeal proceedings in the absence of both the applicant and his lawyer. His request to have further witnesses heard was not considered.   The applicant complains, in particular, that he did not have a fair trial. He relies on Article 6 §§ 1, 3(c) and (d) (right to a fair trial).   Lachowski v. Poland (no. 27556/03) The applicant, Ireneusz Lachowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Rejowiec Fabryczny (Poland).   He was arrested on 20 September 1999 and remanded in custody until 23 September 2002 when he was convicted of homicide and armed robbery. That conviction was quashed on appeal on 22 October 2003 and his detention continued until he was released on 6 October 2005. The proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complains, in particular, about the length of his detention. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Akagün v. Turkey (no. 71901/01) The applicant, Osman Akagün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Şanlıurfa (Turkey).   The applicant contends that the authorities deprived him of his property without paying him compensation and complains of the length of the proceedings to which he was a party. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Baştımar and Others v. Turkey (no. 74337/01) The applicants, Şemsettin Baştımar, Şükrü Demirtaş, Ali Şahindal, Kenan Aygören and Tekin Gencer, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969, 1967, 1972, 1971 and 1971 respectively.   Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain of the length of their detention pending trial and the lack of a remedy by which to challenge their continuing detention. They also allege that the length of the proceedings was in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Borak v. Turkey (no. 60132/00) The applicant, İdris Borak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and was serving his prison sentence at Sakarya Prison at the time of his application to the Court.   On 17 July 1997 he was arrested and taken into police custody and his flat was subsequently searched. In December 1997 he was convicted of being a member of an illegal organisation, the DHP (Revolutionary Peoples’ Party) and sentenced to 12 years and six months imprisonment.   The applicant complains that he had been denied a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and that his right to respect for private life and home had been breached on account of the alleged unlawful search of his house. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Emirhan Yıldız and Others v. Turkey (no. 61898/00) The applicants, Emirhan Yıldız, Selvi Dönmez, Leyla Lüle and Meral Şahin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1974, 1973 and 1977 respectively and live in Istanbul.   In March 1998 they were arrested by police officers of the Anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate in connection with an investigation into the activities of TKP/ML (Turkish Communist Party/ Marxist-Leninist), an illegal organisation in Turkey.   The applicants complain they were ill-treated and tortured in police custody. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment).   Fazıl Ahmet Tamer v. Turkey (no. 6289/02) The applicant, Fazıl Ahmet Tamer, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.   The applicant complains that during his detention from December 2000 to May 2001 his correspondence was intercepted by the prison authorities, together with an article to be sent to a daily newspaper with a view to its publication. He relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Güzel (Zeybek) v. Turkey (no. 71908/01) The applicant, Asiye Güzel (Zeybek), is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.   In February 1997 she was taken into police custody as part of an operation being conducted against the illegal armed organisation MLKP-K.   The applicant alleges that, while in police custody, she was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and that she did not have an effective remedy by which to complain of that treatment. She relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Hıdır Durmaz v. Turkey (no. 55913/00) The applicant, Hıdır Durmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and was serving his prison sentence in Ceyhan Prison at the time of his application to the Court.   He was arrested in August 1995 and in July 1998 Adana State Security Court convicted him of being a member of an illegal organisation, the Turkish Communist Party/Marxist and Leninist-Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army. He was sentenced to 14 years and seven months’ imprisonment in a judgment which was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 20 April 1999.   The applicant complains, in particular, about the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security court, and about the length of the criminal proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Kalem v. Turkey (no. 70145/01) The applicant, Bayram Kalem, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.   In July 2000 he was sentenced, among other things, to one year’s imprisonment for having made comments in support of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan).   Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains that his conviction following proceedings he considered to be unfair violated his right to freedom of expression.   Oya Ataman v. Turkey (no. 74552/01) The applicant, Oya Ataman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul. She is a lawyer and a member of the supervisory board of the Human Rights Association.   In April 2000 the applicant organised a demonstration in Sultanahmet Square in Istanbul to protest against plans for “F-type” prisons. The demonstration took the form of a march followed by a statement to the press.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains of the use of pepper spray, a kind of tear gas, to disperse the group of demonstrators. She further complains that her rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association were violated.   Resul Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 74318/01) The applicants are Resul Sadak, Nihat Osal, Mehmet Çakar, Rüstem Bayar, Tahir Kutlu, Cengiz Balık, İzzet Belge, Abdurrezak İnan, Mehmet Temelkuran, Mehmet Nezir Ayan, Yakup Uyar and Erdal Güler. They are all Turkish nationals. At the time of the events in question, Resul Sadak was the provincial leader and the other applicants were members of the Peoples’ Democracy Party (HADEP).   On 23 September 2000 all of the applicants, except Mr Güler, were arrested while on their way to participate in the Batman Provincial Congress of HADEP. Mr Güler was taken into custody on 27 September 2000. On 1 October 2000 they were all detained on remand except Yakup Uyar. They were ultimately acquitted of the charge laid against them for aiding and abetting the PKK.   The applicants complain about the length of their detention in police custody. They rely on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge).   Sar and Others v. Turkey (no. 74347/01) The applicants, Hayrettin Sar, Feyzullah Sar and Mahmut Öztekin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977, 1963 and 1965 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The three applicants were all apprehended in the course of a police operation against the PKK. Hayrettin and Feuzullah Sar were arrested on 10 May 2001 and Mahmut Öztekin on 12 May 2001.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain of the length of their detention in police custody.   Tanyar and Küçükergin v. Turkey (no. 74242/01) The applicants, Zekai Tanyar and Ali Cengiz Küçükergin, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1953 and 1955 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey).   In 1994 the applicants purchased a dwelling in İzmir and informed the provincial authority that it was to be used as a place of worship, prayer, meeting and study. Despite being informed by the authority of the need to obtain the consent of the owners of the other dwellings in the building, the community began to meet without prior authorisation. As a result, the applicants were ordered to pay two fines.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants allege that they were ordered to pay the fines following proceedings which were unfair on account of the absence of a public hearing.     Yazıcı v. Turkey (no. 48884/99) The applicant, Mehmet Salih Yazıcı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Silvan (Turkey).   His brother, Ramazan Yazıcı, who was a minibus driver on the Dyarbakır-Silvan route, went missing on 22 November 1996. His body was found by a shepherd on 3 December 1996.   The applicant complains that his brother was the victim of an extrajudicial killing. He relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Repetitive cases   Aslan and Şancı v. Turkey (no. 58055/00) The applicants, Abdurrahman Aslan and Reşat Şancı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1973 respectively and were serving prison sentences at Nazilli Prison at the time of their applications to the Court.   They complain, in particular, that they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of Izmir State Security Court which tried them, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Topkaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 72317/01, 72322/01, 72327/01, 72330/01, 72332/01, 72335/01, 72340/01, 72342/01, 72347/01, 72348/01, 72349/01, 72351/01, 72357/01, 72358/01, 72362/01, 72366/01 and 72372/01)   Yener and Others v. Turkey (nos. 62633/00, 62634/00 and 62636/00) The applicants are 22 Turkish nationals. They complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of delays in paying them additional compensation for expropriation.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain, in particular, of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings.   Åkerblom v. Poland (no. 64974/01) Boszko v. Poland (no. 4054/03) Wiercigroch v. Poland (no. 14580/02) Wróblewski v. Poland (no. 76299/01) Zdeb v. Poland (no. 72998/01) Zygmunt v. Poland (no. 69128/01) Skurčák v. Slovakia (no. 58708/00) Solárová and Others v. Slovakia (no. 77690/01) Tomláková v. Slovakia (no. 17709/04) Namlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 51963/99)     Thursday 7 December 2006   Hauser-Sporn v. Austria (no. 37301/03) The applicant, Alois Hauser-Sporn, is an Austrian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Ameisberg (Austria).   In February 1995 he was interviewed by the Salzburg Federal Police Authority after he had knocked over a pedestrian in his car. He was subsequently found him guilty of having negligently caused bodily harm and of having failed to inform the next police station about the accident and fined. He appealed unsuccessfully, the last decision being served on his counsel in November 2003.   The applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings, and that he had no effective remedy to his complaint. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (effective remedy).   Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria (no. 35841/02) The applicant, Österreicheischer Rundfunk, is the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation, a public law foundation with its seat in Vienna.   In July 1999 the applicant broadcast information about the release on parole of the Head of a neo-Nazi organisation called Extra-Parliamentary Opposition True to the People who had been sentenced under the National Socialist Prohibition Act. That news item also mentioned his deputy, who had previously been convicted under the Act and had been released on parole five weeks earlier. During the broadcast, a picture of the deputy at his trial was shown for a couple of seconds.   The deputy successfully brought proceedings under Section 78 of the Copyright Act against, and the applicant’s rights to publish the deputy’s picture were restricted.   The applicant complains about the courts’ decisions, relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant further complains that the contested injunction prohibited it from publishing the deputy’s picture while other media remained free to do so.   Hristova v. Bulgaria (no. 60859/00) The applicant, Assia Ivanova Hristova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Targovishte (Bulgaria).   In December 1996 she was charged together with an accomplice with conspiracy to conduct a series of fraudulent transactions between 1993 and 1996. They were accused, among other things, of having deceived around sixty persons, for whom they had promised to find work abroad in exchange for sums of money, and of the fraudulent transfer of properties. In October 2003 the applicant was found guilty on 16 charges.   Relying in particular on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains of the length and unlawfulness of her detention.   Yosifov v. Bulgaria (no. 47279/99) The applicant, Plamen Yosifov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pazardjik (Bulgaria).   In September 1996 he was charged with armed robbery and abduction as a member of a gang; the victim has since died.   The applicant, who had left the country, was tracked down in Germany, where he was detained and prosecuted for benefiting from the earnings of prostitution, use of forged documents and breach of the immigration regulations. He was extradited to Bulgaria on 11   June 1998 after serving his prison sentence.   The applicant maintains that his detention was contrary to Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and that the length of the criminal proceedings against him amounted to a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). He also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Linkov v. Czech Republic (no. 10504/03) The applicant, Václav Linkov, is a Czech national who lives in Brno (Czech Republic).   In July 2000 the preparatory committee of which the applicant was a member submitted to the Ministry of the Interior an application to register the political party Liberální strana (Liberal Party). The Ministry rejected the application on the ground that the party’s statutes were in breach of the law on political parties.   The applicant alleges that the refusal of the authorities to register the party infringed his right to freedom of association as guaranteed by Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), he further complains that, as the party was not registered, he was unable to stand for election as one of its candidates or to vote for its candidates.   Sheydayev v. Russia (no. 65859/01) The applicant, Roman Yakhyabekovich Sheydayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Derbent (Russia).   In December 1999, the applicant, who was performing military service at time, was taken in for questioning as a witness to an incident involving violent hooliganism.   The applicant complains under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) that he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers while kept in custody.   Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (no. 46347/99)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Myra Xenides-Arestis, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1945 and lives in Nicosia.   She complained of a continuing violation of her rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in that, since August 1974, she has been deprived of her right to property and her home. She also maintained that Turkish military forces prevent her from having access to and from using and enjoying her home and property because she is Greek Orthodox and of Greek-Cypriot origin, in violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   In its Chamber judgment of 22 December 2005 the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 14.   The Court held, unanimously, that Turkey should introduce a remedy, within three months, which secures, in respect of the Convention violations identified in the judgment, genuinely effective redress for the applicant as well as in relation to all similar applications (approximately 1,400) pending before the Court. Pending the implementation of general measures, the Court adjourned its consideration of all similar applications.   The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and awarded the applicant EUR 65,000 for costs and expenses.   Hunt v. Ukraine (no. 31111/04) The applicant, Alexander Hunt, is a national of the United States of America who was born in 1953 and lives in Riga (Latvia).   The applicant was prohibited from entering the Ukraine after his ex wife filed a complaint about him with the Head of the Department for Combating Organised Crime of the Ministry of the Interior. She then successfully took proceedings to deprive him of his parental right with respect to their son. Due to the prohibition, the applicant was unable to take part in the proceedings. He appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complains that he was denied a fair hearing in that was unable to participate in the court’s proceedings and that his prohibition from entering Ukraine deprived him of his parental rights. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 15007/02) The applicant, Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich Ivanov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Zhytomyr (Ukraine).   In September 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant with regard to a fight he had had with his neighbour. He was later asked to give a written undertaking not to abscond. In March 2006 he was convicted of inflicting bodily harm. The applicant appealed and the proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings and that he had no recourse to an effective remedy. He further complains about the lengthy restriction on his freedom of movement as a result of the undertaking not to abscond. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).     Repetitive cases   Ban v. Roumanie (n o 46639/99) The applicant is Tiberiu Ban, a Romanian national who was born in 1937 and, until his death in 2005, lived in Cluj-Napoca (Romania). In 1950 the State nationalised the house built by his grandfather.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant alleges a violation of his right of access to a court on account of the dismissal of his action to recover possession.   Ivashchishina v. Ukraine (no. 43116/04) Kononenko v. Ukraine (no. 33851/03) Kozachek v. Ukraine (no. 29508/04) Kravchuk v. Ukraine (no. 42475/04) Mirvoda v. Ukraine (no. 42478/04) Raisa Tarasenko v. Ukraine (no. 43485/02) Rogozhinskaya v. Ukraine (no. 2279/03) Serikova v. Ukraine (no. 43108/04) Shevtsov v. Ukraine (no. 16985/03) Spas and Voyna v. Ukraine (no. 5019/03) Viktor Tarasenko v. Ukraine (no. 38762/03) Vilikanov v. Ukraine (no. 19189/04) The applicants are 13 Ukrainian nationals.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) the applicants complain about the State authorities’ failure to enforce judgments given in their favour. With the exception of Raisa Tarasenko v. Ukraine , the applicants also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicants in Raisa Tarasenko v. Ukraine , Shevtsov v. Ukraine and Spas and Voyna v. Ukraine complain under Article 13 that they had no “effective remedy” concerning their complaints.       Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain, in particular, of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). The applicants in Čakš v. Slovenia , Čop v. Slovenia , Lakota v. Slovenia and Virjent v. Slovenia also complain under Article 13 that they had no “effective remedy” concerning their length ‑ of-proceedings complaints.     Mačinković v. Croatia (no. 29759/04) Nogolica v. Croatia (No. 3) (no. 9204/04) Šamija v. Croatia (no. 14898/04) Čakš v. Slovenia (no. 33024/02) Čop v. Slovenia (no. 6539/02) Lakota v. Slovenia (no. 33488/02) Virjent v. Slovenia (no. 6841/02)   ***   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.