CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 février 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   90 9.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   13 and 15 February 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six Chamber judgments on Tuesday 13 February 2007 and 35 on Thursday 15 February 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 13 February 2007   Czajka v. Poland (application no. 15067/02) The applicant, Marek Czajka, is a Polish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Gdynia (Poland).   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges that the length of his detention on remand, on suspicion of robbery, kidnapping and larceny, was unreasonable. He also relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Krzych and Gurbierz v. Poland (no. 35615/03) The applicants, Władysław Krzych and Tadeusz Gurbierz, are Polish nationals who were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively and live in Rybnik (Poland).   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 7 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complain about the fairness and length of proceedings relating to their conviction for fraud.   Evaldsson and Others v. Sweden (no. 75252/01) The applicants, Tommy Evaldsson, Johan Svahn, Tonnie Hodell, Jonny Lindqvist and Conny Brandt, are all Swedish nationals, born in 1948, 1974, 1965, 1964 and 1963 respectively. They were employed by the construction company LK Mässinteriör AB from March to July 1999.   The applicants maintain that they were forced to contribute to the financing of a union’s general activities against their will and in a manner comparable to a union member, which was tantamount to forced membership of the union. They rely on Article 9 (freedom of thought and conscience), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of association) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). They also allege that they suffered discrimination both compared to members of the union and members of other trade unions in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Repetitive case   Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G. v. Moldova (no. 31535/03) The applicant, Venera-Nord-Vest Borta A.G., is a company incorporated in Moldova.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complains about the quashing of a final judgment in its favour relating to an action seeking damages for breach of contract.   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complain in particular about the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings.   Saarenpään Loma Ky v. Finland (no. 54508/00) Mierkiewicz v. Poland (no. 77833/01)     Thursday 15 February 2007   Angel Angelov v. Bulgaria (no. 51343/99) The applicant, Angel Filipov Angelov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant alleges that he was denied access to review (cassation) proceedings in relation to his conviction and imprisonment on the charge of involuntary manslaughter and also complains that the length of the criminal proceedings against him were excessive.   Krasimir Yordanov v. Bulgaria (no. 50899/99) The applicant, Krasimir Yordanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). In 1991 he was charged with misappropriation of funds and infringement of the regulations governing currency transfers. The proceedings ended with a ruling of no case to answer.   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and of interference with his right to respect for his private life and correspondence on account of the failure to return personal documents seized in the course of the investigation. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also complains of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the violations alleged.   Rezov v. Bulgaria (no. 56337/00) The applicant, Todor Georgiev Rezov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Vratza (Bulgaria).   The applicant complains about the criminal proceedings brought against him by a policeman for libel and relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   Mathony v. Luxembourg (no. 15048/03) The applicant, Gilles Mathony, is a French national who was born in 1967 and lives in Luxembourg.   In 2001 the applicant was stopped by the police while driving his car despite having been disqualified. The car was seized and later impounded following a court decision.   The applicant complains of the lack of impartiality of the Court of Appeal that heard his case on the ground that the same judges had already ruled on his request for the return of the vehicle. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Bock and Palade v. Romania (no. 21740/02) The applicants are Marian Dorel Iosef Bock, of Romanian and German nationality, who was born in 1940 and died in 2003, and Monica Ligia Daniela Palade, a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Satu-Mare (Romania).   The applicants’ parents had been the owners of property and adjoining land situated in Arad. This was nationalised by the State in 1950 but its property right was not registered in the Land Register. In 1994, in their capacity as joint heirs, the applicants had their property right registered in the Land Register. The municipal council brought proceedings against them in 1999 for rectification of the entry in the Land Register.   The applicants allege that their property right was infringed on account of the partial loss of their title to the property and their inability to enjoy possession of all the land belonging to them. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Boldea v. Romania (no. 19997/02) The applicant, Marian Boldea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Timişoara (Romania). He is a lecturer at the Robotics and Computer Engineering Faculty at Timişoara Polytechnic University.   At a meeting in 2001 the applicant alleged that two doctoral theses had been plagiarised. The authors of the theses brought proceedings for defamation and the applicant was sentenced to pay an administrative fine.   The applicant considers that his conviction for defamation constituted a violation of Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 10 (freedom of expression) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Gorbachev v. Russia (no. 3354/02) The applicant, Mikhail Mikhailovich Gorbachev, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Aleksin (Russia).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains about the domestic court’s failure to notify him of developments in two sets of proceedings relating to an employment dispute and failure to examine a defamation action.   Verdú Verdú v. Spain (no. 43432/02) The applicant, Leonardu Verdú Verdú, is a Spanish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Petrel (Spain).   He often used to buy lottery tickets and sell them for the benefit of an association. In 1996 one of the tickets won the special prize amounting to the equivalent of 2,956,979.55 euros. J.P.R. brought proceedings against the applicant claiming that he had promised to give him half his winnings in the event of a lucky draw. The applicant was sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment for misappropriation.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleges that a set of pleadings produced by J.P.R. were not communicated to him and that, consequently, he was unable to contest them.   Jasar v. “ The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 69908/01) The applicant, Pejrusan Jasar, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Štip (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   The applicant alleges police brutality during his detention in police custody following a brawl in a bar and complains that the prosecuting authorities failed to carry out an official investigation to identify and punish the police officers responsible for the ill-treatment he suffered. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Aksakal v. Turkey (no. 37850/97) Soylu v. Turkey (no. 43854/98) The applicants, Halis Aksakal and Mehmet Soylu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963 and 1954 respectively. Mr Aksakal lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey) and Mr Soylu lives in Istanbul.   Both applications concern the forced eviction from and alleged destruction of the applicants’ property by state security forces and the national authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into their complaints. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In conjunction with these Articles, they also maintain that they were the victims of discrimination due to their Kurdish origin in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Mr Aksakal also relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 18   (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   Balık v. Turkey (no. 6663/02) The applicant, Edip Balık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973.   The applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in July 2001 on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in October 2002.   He relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Canseven v. Turkey (no. 70317/01) The applicant, Bektaş Canseven, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and was serving his prison sentence in Gebze Prison (Turkey) at the time of his application to the Court. The applicant complains that he was subjected to torture when held in police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he also alleges that he was denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court which tried and convicted him, that he was convicted on the basis of statements extracted under torture and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on him.   Evrenos Önen v. Turkey (no. 29782/02) The applicant, Evrenos Önen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1937 and lives in İzmir.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains about proceedings against his company for not complying with regulation requirements concerning packaging and marketing of spring and mineral water.   Karatay and Others v. Turkey (no. 11468/02) The applicants, Fırat Karatay, Fesih Karatay and Şeyhmus Karatay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975, 1973 and 1949 respectively and live in Mardin (Turkey).   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complained about the length of their detention on remand on suspicion of having committed fraud. They also complain that, during their detention, they were never brought before a judge, depriving them of the possibility of effectively arguing for their release pending trial, in breach of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   Soysal and Others v. Turkey (nos 54461/00, 54579/00 and 55922/00) The five applicants are all Turkish nationals employed in the civil service. They claim that they were transferred to another post on account of their membership of a trade union.   The applicants rely in particular on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Taner v. Turkey (no. 3844/02) The applicant, Umut Taner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that, not being informed promptly about a criminal charge against him for assault causing actual bodily harm, he did not receive a fair and public hearing, did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and was not allowed to defend himself in person or through a lawyer.   Varsak v. Turkey (no. 6281/02) The applicant, Şeref Varsak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   Following a complaint lodged by his wife for domestic violence, he was sentenced to pay a fine of the equivalent of 100 euros.   The applicant complains that there was no hearing in his case. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Yüksel Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 57049/00) The applicants, Yüksel Erdoğan, Meliha Erdoğan, Sinan Erdoğan, Bahar Sağlam, Şinasi   Yalçın, Hüsnü Yalçın, Ali Yalçın, Ramazan Erdoğan and Raşidiye Erdoğan, are Turkish nationals who allege that three of their relatives were unlawfully killed by the security forces and that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances of the case.   They rely on Articles 2 (right to life) and 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Repetitive cases   Akıntı and Others v. Turkey (no. 59645/00) Canpolat v. Turkey (no. 63354/00) The ten applicants are all Turkish nationals.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants all complain that they were denied a fair hearing in criminal proceedings against them on account of the fact that a military judge sat on the bench of the state security court which tried and convicted them. Mr   Canpolat also complains about the length of the criminal proceedings.   Gorlova v. Russia (no. 29898/03) Ponomarenko v. Russia (no. 14656/03) Raylyan v. Russia (no. 22000/03) Pogrebna v. Ukraine (no. 25476/02) The applicants are three Russian nationals and one Ukrainian national and all complain about the lengthy enforcement of judgments in their favour.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). They also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), with the exception of Mrs Pogrebna Gorlova who relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Chekushkin v. Russia (no. 30714/03) Danilchenko v. Russia (no. 30686/03) Gavrilenko v. Russia (no. 30674/03) Grebenchenko v. Russia (no. 30777/03) Knyazhichenko v. Russia (no. 30685/03) Septa v. Russia (no. 30731/03) Vasilyev v. Russia (no. 30671/03) The seven applicants are all Russian nationals who took part in emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result they suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions and were awarded special disability benefits. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about the quashing under supervisory review procedure of judgments declaring reductions in their monthly benefits to be unlawful.   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. In the case of Kirsten v. Germany the applicant also complains under Article   13 that she had no effective remedy concerning her length-of-proceedings complaint.   Mahmutović v. Croatia (no. 9505/03) Kirsten v. Germany (no. 19124/02) Kozarov v. “ The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 64229/01)   ***   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.