CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 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 } .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   769 8.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   12 and 14 December 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 12 December 2006 and 41 on Thursday 14 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 12 December 2006   Bajrami v. Albania (application no. 35853/04) The applicant, Agim Bajrami, is an ethnic Albanian from Kosovo who was born in 1964 and lives in Lipjan (Serbia).   He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Depa v. Poland (no. 62324/00) The applicant, Wojciech Depa, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Cracow (Poland).   He relies in particular on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Dombek v. Poland (no. 75107/01) The applicant, Jacek Dombek, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland).   He relies on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security).   Stasiów v. Poland (no. 6880/02) The applicant, Karolina Stasiów, is a Polish national who was born in 1921 and lives in Cracow (Poland).   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the length of criminal proceedings against her, which ended in November 2000 when her conviction for defamation was upheld.   Preložník v. Slovakia (no. 54330/00) The applicant, Ivan Preložník, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ahmet Mete (2) v. Turkey (no. 30465/02) The applicant, Ahmet Mete, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in İzmir.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ertuğrul Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 38667/02) The applicant, Ertuğrul Kılıç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the loss he sustained as a result of the delayed payment of the compensation he was awarded for having been detained pending trial for more than two years before being acquitted.   Kamil Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 20648/02) The applicant, Kamil Öcalan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the length of his detention pending trial and of the criminal proceedings against him.   Kırkazak v. Turkey (no. 20265/02) The applicant, Selahattin Kırkazak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was arrested and taken into police custody in March 2002 on suspicion of being a member of the illegal organisation Hizbullah.   The applicant alleges that he was ill-treated while in police custody and complains that his detention was unlawful. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Paşa and Erkan Erol v. Turkey (no. 51358/99) The applicants, Paşa Erol and his son Erkan Erol, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1943 and 1986 respectively and live in Tunceli (Turkey). In 1995 Erkan, then aged nine, stood on an antipersonnel landmine while grazing sheep   near the village. He had to have his left leg amputated.   The applicants complain in particular that the authorities did not protect citizens’ right to life in allowing antipersonnel landmines to be laid without taking the necessary safety measures. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life) and 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Selek v. Turkey (no. 43379/02) The applicant, Faruk Selek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Burden and Burden v. United Kingdom (no. 13378/05) The applicants, J.M. and S.D. Burden, are British nationals who were born in 1918 and 1925 respectively. They are unmarried sisters and live in Marlborough (United Kingdom).   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), taken in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they complain that, when one of them died, the survivor would face a heavy inheritance tax bill, unlike the survivor of a marriage or a civil partnership.     Repetitive cases   Nistas Gmbh v. Moldova (no. 30303/03) The applicant, Nistas Gmbh, is a company registered in Germany and having its head office in Frankfurt am Main.   The applicant company relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Dildar v. Turkey (no. 77361/01) Tuncay v. Turkey (no. 1250/02) The applicants are Mustafa Nazif Dildar, who was born in 1948 and lives in Istanbul, and Mehmet Sait Tuncay, who was born in 1948 and lives in Hatay (Turkey). They are both Turkish nationals.   The applicants both rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. Mr Dildar also relies 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 or administrative proceedings. The applicants in Dobál v. Slovakia and Šnegoň v. Slovakia also complain that they had no “effective remedy” concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints.   Siffre, Ecoffet and Bernardini v. France (nos 49699/99, 49700/99 and 49701/99) Wojtunik v. Poland (no. 64212/01) Dobál v. Slovakia (no. 65422/01) Šnegoň v. Slovakia (no. 23865/02)     Thursday 14 December 2006   Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (no. 76918/01) Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (No. 2) (no. 10520/02) The applicant in both cases is Verlagsgruppe News GmbH, a limited liability company that is the owner and publisher of the weekly magazine News , and has its registered seat in Vienna.   The first case concerns proceedings taken to withdraw from circulation of one issue of the company’s magazine in which it had reported extracts of statements made in defamation proceedings which were critical of certain politicians in the Austrian Freedom Party.   The second case concerns an injunction taken out on the company prohibiting it from publishing the picture of an Austrian business magnate in the context of reports on investigations against him on the suspicion of large-scale tax evasion.   In both cases, the applicant company relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   N.T. Giannousis & Kliafas Brothers S.A. v. Greece (no. 2898/03) The applicant, N.T. Giannousis & Kliafas Brothers S.A., is a company based in Athens specialising in textile processing.   The applicant company alleges a violation of its right of access to a court in connection with proceedings concerning the revocation of its operating licence. It relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Zouboulidis v. Greece (no.77574/01) The applicant, Ioannis Zouboulidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1960 and lives in Berlin. He is a civil servant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   The applicant alleges a violation of his right of access to a court in connection with proceedings concerning the award of an expatriation allowance. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ali v. Italy (no. 24691/04) The applicant, Ay Ali, is a Swedish national who was born in 1962. He is currently in prison in Milan (Italy).   The applicant complains that he was tried for drug trafficking and convicted in absentia without having the opportunity to defend himself. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).   Bogdanovski v. Italy (no. 72177/01) The applicant claims to be called Kristijan Bogdanovski and to be a Serbian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Silvi Marina (Italy). He denies that he is Miroslav Bogdanovski, a person wanted by the former Yugoslav authorities.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant submits that his detention pending extradition was unlawful and complains that he was not released immediately after the order for his extradition was lifted.   Filip v. Romania (no. 41124/02) The applicant, Marin Filip, is a Romanian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Bucharest. At the request of the Procurator-General’s Office, the applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in November 2002.   The applicant complains that his compulsory admission to a psychiatric hospital breached Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Lupaş and Others v. Romania (no. 1334/02, 35370/02 and 1385/03) The 19 applicants are Romanian nationals. They are the descendants of the co-owners of a plot of land of approximately 50 hectares by the Black Sea in Constanţa, which was expropriated in 1950 so that a military base could be built.   The applicants complain that the dismissal of their actions for recovery of possession breached Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Karman v. Russia (no. 29372/02) The applicant, Anatoliy Vladimirovich Karman, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Volgograd (Russia). He is the director-general and editor-in-chief of the Gorodskiye Vesti newspaper.   In August 2001 he was found liable in defamation proceedings after publishing an article in September 1994 in which he described a local politician as a “neofascist”.   He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Shabanov and Tren v. Russia (no. 5433/02) The applicants, Sergey Mikhaylovich Shabanov and Sergey Alimovich Tren, are Russian nationals who were born in 1959 and 1963 and live in Chernyakhovsk (Russia).   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   Shcheglyuk v. Russia (no. 7649/02) The applicant, Vitaliy Viktorovich Shcheglyuk, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in St. Petersberg.   He relies, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Tarariyeva v. Russia (no. 4353/03) The applicant, Nadezhda Dmitriyevna Tarariyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Krasnodar Region (Russia). She is the mother of Nikolay Ivanovich Tarariyev, a Russian national who was born in 1976 and died on 4 September 2002.   The applicant complains that her son died in custody of a perforated ulcer as a result of inadequate and defective medical assistance and that those responsible had not been identified and punished. She further complained about her son’s handcuffing in a civilian hospital and the conditions of his transport from that hospital to the prison hospital.   She relies on Articles   2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 34 (right of individual petition).     Repetitive cases   Iuliano and Others v. Italy (no. 13396/03) The applicants are Italian nationals who were born in 1919, 1946, 1947, 1957 and 1949 and live in San Nicola Manfredi (Benevento), San Marco dei Cavoti, Benevento, Toccanisi and Brighton (United States) respectively.   The applicants complain, in particular, that they were deprived of their land in circumstances incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ionescu and Mihaila v. Romania (no. 36782/97) Zamfirescu v. Romania (no. 46596/99) The applicants are Romanian nationals who live in Bucharest.   In both cases the applicants complain of the dismissal of their actions for recovery of possession, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). They also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of an infringement of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   Popescu v. Romania (no. 21397/02) Vidrascu v. Romania (no. 23576/04) Tarbuc v. Romania (no. 2122/04) The applicants are Romanian nationals. They formerly owned property which was nationalised by the State.   In these three cases the applicants allege that the sale of their properties to third parties by the State, endorsed by the Romanian courts, breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Except in the case of Tarbuc , they also rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Simion v. Romania (no. 13028/03) The applicant, Ileana Madeleine Simion, is a Romanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Bucharest.   She complains that the overturning of a final judgment in her favour breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Lositskiy v. Russia (no. 24395/02) Antonina Kucherenko v. Ukraine (no. 45092/04) Gurska v. Ukraine (no. 35185/04) Ivashchenko v. Ukraine (no. 22215/04) Luganskaya v. Ukraine (no. 29435/04) Lyakhovetskaya v. Ukraine (no. 22539/04) Maksimikha v. Ukraine (no. 43483/02) Martynov v. Ukraine (no. 36202/03) Mironov v. Ukraine (no. 19916/04) Popov v. Ukraine (no. 23892/03) Sarafanov and Others v. Ukraine (no. 32166/04) Solovyev v. Ukraine (no. 4878/04) Tikhonchuk v. Ukraine (no. 16571/03) Tsaruk v. Ukraine (no. 42476/04) Vnuchko v. Ukraine (no. 1198/04) Yeremenko v. Ukraine (no. 1179/04) Yeremeyev v. Ukraine (no. 42473/04) Yuriy Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40132/02) The applicant in the first case is a Russian national; the other applicants are Ukrainian nationals. They complain, in particular, of the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments given in their favour. They all rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of Antonina Kucherenko v. Ukraine , Lyakhovetskaya v. Ukraine , Martynov v. Ukraine and Tikhonchuk v. Ukraine the applicants also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Lastly, the applicants in Lositskiy v. Russia , Solovyev v. Ukraine and Yuriy Ivanov 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 of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). In the case of Aggelakou-Svarna v. Greece the applicant also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Papakokkinou v. Cyprus (no. 4403/03) Becker v. Germany (no. 8722/02) Aggelakou-Svarna v. Greece (no. 28760/04) Jazbec v. Slovenia (no. 31489/02)   ***   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.