CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 janvier 2007

.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 } .sB03411A6 { width:128.56pt; display:inline-block } .sF60F4FC0 { width:376.2pt; display:inline-block } .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   03 05.01.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   9 and 11 January 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 26 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 9 January 2007 and 25 on Thursday 11 January 2007.   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 9 January 2007   Kříž v. Czech Republic (application no. 26634/03) Mezl v. Czech Republic (no. 27726/03) The applicants, Vaclav Kříž and Oldřich Mezl, are Czech nationals who were born in 1953 and 1947 respectively and live in Prague.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights.   Uoti v. Finland (no. 61222/00) The applicant, Kari Uoti, is a Finnish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Helsinki.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Arnolin and Others v. France (nos. 20127/03, 31795/03, 35937/03, 2185/04, 4208/04, 12654/04, 15466/04, 15612/04, 27549/04, 27552/04, 27554/04, 27560/04, 27566/04, 27572/04, 27586/04, 27588/04, 27593/04, 27599/04, 27602/04, 27605/04, 27611/04, 27615/04, 27632/04, 34409/04 and 12176/05) Aubert and Others v. France (nos. 31501/03, 31870/03, 13045/04, 13076/04, 14838/04, 17558/04, 30488/04, 45576/04 and 20389/05) The 188 applicants are French nationals, except for one of them who is a Moroccan national. They are currently, or were formerly, employed as special-education teachers, counsellors, instructors, clinical psychologists, coordinators or night nurses, in specialised institutions run by associations under State supervision.   The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). In the case of Aubert and Others , they further rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   SCI Les Rullauds and Others v. France (no. 43972/02) The applicants are the company SCI Les Rullauds, a real-estate partnership with its registered office at Saujon (France), and its two partners, Michel David and Jean-Pierre de Pretto, French nationals who were born in 1944 and 1951 and who live in Saujon and Saintes (France) respectively.   They rely in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Puzinas (No. 2) v. Lithuania (no. 63767/00) The applicant, Alvydas Puzinas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Panevėžys (Lithuania).   He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Kommersant Moldovy v. Moldova (no. 41827/02) The applicant, Kommersant Moldovy, is a company registered in Moldova.   The application concerns the closure of the applicant company’s newspaper after it published a series of articles in June-September 2001, criticising the Moldovan authorities for their actions in respect of the breakaway republic of Transdniestria.   It relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Gossa v. Poland (no. 47986/99) The applicant, Jan Gossa, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Łódź (Poland).   He relies on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   Kwiecień v. Poland (no. 51744/99) The applicant, Leszek Kwiecień, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Dzierżoniów (Poland).   The case concerns defamation proceedings under the Local Elections Act brought against the applicant by a candidate standing for election, following the applicant’s open letter containing allegations against him.   He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı v. Turkey (no. 34478/97) The applicant, Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı, is a foundation under Turkish law whose role is to promote education in the Greek high school of Fener, in Istanbul.   It relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   N.A. and Others v. Turkey (no. 37451/97)   Just satisfaction The applicants are five Turkish nationals who were born in 1926, 1956, 1954, 1949 and 1950 respectively and who live in Antalya (Turkey).   In a judgment of 11 October 2005 the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for hearing.   Özkan and Adıbelli v. Turkey (no. 18342/02) The applicants, Cahit Özkan and Eylem Zanay Adıbelli, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1976 and 1973 respectively and live in Adana and Hükümlü (Turkey).   They rely in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Intersplav v. Ukraine (no. 803/02) The applicant is a Ukrainian-Spanish Joint Venture based in the town of Sverdlovsk in the Lugansk Region, Ukraine.   It relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Repetitive cases   Mihalachi v. Moldova (no. 37551/02) The applicant, Nicolae Mihalachi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Beler and Others v. Turkey (nos. 61739/00, 61740/00, 61757/00, 61753/00 and 61760/00) The applicants are nine Turkish nationals.   They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Hıdır Kaya v. Turkey (no. 2624/02) The applicant, Hıdır Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Istanbul.   He relies on in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Moğul v. Turkey (nos. 40217/02 and 40218/02) The applicants, Mustafa Moğul and his brother, Ahmet Moğul, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1945 and 1949 respectively and live in İzmir.   They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Crew v. United Kingdom (no. 61928/00) Gamble v. United Kingdom (no. 68056/01) Rathfelder v. United Kingdom (no. 63507/00) The applicants, Ian Martin Crew, Patrick Gamble and Martin Rathfelder, are United Kingdom nationals. Mr   Crew was born in 1961 and lives in Hyde (United Kingdom), Mr   Gamble was born in 1964 and lives in Leicestershire and Mr   Rathfelder was born in 1952 and lives in Manchester.   They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings.   Niva v. Finland (no. 37730/02) Araguas v. France (no. 28625/02) Sito v. Poland (no. 19607/03) Trojańczyk v. Poland (no. 11219/02) Orel v. Slovakia (no. 67035/01)     Thursday 11 January 2007   Mkrtchyan v. Armenia (no. 6562/03) The applicant, Armen Mkrtchyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). At the material time he was a member of the “Republic” Party. In May 2002 the applicant was sanctioned for having participated in an unauthorised procession in Yerevan.   Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), he complains that the sanction imposed on him unlawfully interfered with his right to freedom of peaceful assembly since it was not prescribed by law.   Mammadov (Jalaloglu) v. Azerbaijan (no. 34445/04) The applicant, Sardar Jalal oglu Mammadov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1957 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan).   More commonly known as Sardar Jalaloglu in political circles, he was the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan which was one of the opposition parties that considered the presidential elections of 15 October 2003 to be illegitimate.   On 18 October 2003 several masked police officers, armed with machine guns forced their way into the applicant’s home and arrested him. He was interrogated in connection with a demonstration which had taken place two days earlier at the Azadliq Square in the centre of Baku which had turned violent. He was later convicted on charges of “organising public disorder” and of “using violence against state officials” and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.   He complains that he was ill-treated in police custody and that no effective investigation took place concerning his allegations. He also claims that he had no effective domestic remedies in this respect.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and (lack of effective investigation), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Musa and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 61259/00) Ahmad Naim Moh Musa is a Jordanian national of Palestinian origin who was born in 1966; his wife, Dessislava Verchova Musa, and their children, Hadjar Ahmad Naim Musa, Nadya Ahmad Musa and Abdelgafur Ahmad Naim Musa, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1966, 1995, 1996 and 2000 respectively. The applicants live in Sofia, except for Ahmad Naim Moh Musa who lives in Ramallah (Palestine).   They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Kunić v. Croatia (no. 22344/02) The applicant, Peter Kunić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Krnjak (Croatia).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Augusto v. France (no. 71665/01) The applicant, Gisèle Augusto, is a French national who was born in 1936 and lives in Vouziers (France).   She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Gorou v. Greece (no. 9747/04) The applicant, Anthi Gorou, is a Greek national who was born in 1957 and lives in Ioannina (Greece).   She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Mamidakis v. Greece (no. 35533/04) The applicant, Kyriakos Mamidakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1932 and lives in Athens.   He relies in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Salah Sheekh v. Netherlands (no. 1948/04) The applicant, Abdirizaq Salah Sheekh, is a Somali national who submitted that he was born in 1986 and is currently living in Amsterdam. Originally from Mogadishu where he belonged to the minority Ashraf population group, he requested asylum in the Netherlands. His request was refused in June 2003.   The applicant complains that his expulsion would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, having regard to his personal situation of belonging to a minority in the light of the general human rights situation in Somalia. He also complains that he did not have an effective remedy in that the Netherlands authorities refused to suspend his expulsion pending a decision on his objection against the manner of his expulsion. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in the event of his expulsion to Somalia and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia (no. 184/02) The applicants are Konstantin Nikanorovich Kuznetsov and 102 other Russian nationals who live in the town of Chelyabinsk (Russia). They are all Jehovah’s Witnesses.   In April 2000 the regional Human Rights Commissioner, accompanied by two senior police officers, allegedly stopped their Bible study meeting for predominantly hearing-impaired. The following day the group was given notice of the termination of its lease agreement with the college where it held its meetings. Their subsequent appeal was rejected on the grounds that they failed to prove that the meeting had been interrupted by State officials.   The applicants complain that they were prevented from holding a religious meeting following undue interference on the part of the authorities and that they were victims of discrimination on account of their religious beliefs. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private life), 9 (freedom of religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). They also rely on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others v. Russia (nos. 55066/00   and 55638/00) The applicants are the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and two Russian nationals, Aleksandr Anatolyevich Zhukov, who was born in 1949 and lives in Smolensk (Russia), and Viktor Sergeyevich Vasilyev who was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow.   The Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs is a nationwide political party established under the laws of the Russian Federation. Mr Zhukov stood as one of the party’s candidates for the 1999 elections to the State Duma, and Mr Vasilyev was a supporter of the party.   The party and its candidate were prevented from standing in the elections because another candidate (who is not an applicant) had submitted inaccurate information about his property and income.   The applicants alleged a violation of the applicant party’s and Aleksandr Zhukov’s, right to stand for election and a violation of the Viktor Vasilyev‘s right to cast his vote for the party of his choice. The applicant party also complained about the domestic authorities’ refusal to return the election deposit. Finally, all the applicants complained that they had had no effective remedy in respect of the alleged violations of their rights.   They rely on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Swig v. Russia (no. 307/02) The applicant, SWIG Group Inc., is a company incorporated in the USA.   It relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Mazurenko v. Ukraine (no. 14809/03) The applicant, Oleg Leonidovich Mazurenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Kozelshchina (Ukraine).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   Quattrone v. Italy (no. 67785/01) The applicant, Giuseppe Quattrone, is an Italian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Reggio di Calabria (Italy).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Cornif v. Romania (no. 42872/02) The applicant, Tiberiu Octavian Cornif, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest.   He relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Galimullin and Others v. Ukraine (no. 7516/04) Guseynova v. Ukraine (no. 19175/05) Kolosay v. Ukraine (no. 25452/03) Mas v. Ukraine (no. 11931/02) Parkhomenko v. Ukraine (no. 5531/04) Petrova v. Ukraine (no. 33635/03) Rakitin v. Ukraine (no. 7675/04) Sukhopar v. Ukraine (no. 16267/04) The applicants are 11 Ukrainian nationals.   They all rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Petrova , they also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicants in the cases of Mas and Rakitin further complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain, in particular, of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. The applicants in Stefanova v. Bulgaria and Shneyderman v. Russia also claim that they had no “effective remedy” concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints.   Stefanova v. Bulgaria (no. 58828/00) Smoje v. Croatia (no. 28074/03) Herbst v. Germany (no. 20027/02) Shneyderman v. Russia (no. 36045/02)   ***   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.