CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 } .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   113 16.2.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   20 and 22 February 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 20 February 2007 and 14 on Thursday 22 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 20 February 2007   Ruciński v. Poland (application no. 33198/04) The applicant, Witold Ruciński, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Kielce (Poland).   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains about the length of his pre-trial detention on suspicion of forging documents, financial fraud and membership of a criminal gang.   Benli v. Turkey (no. 65715/01) The applicant, Mustafa Benli, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). At the material time he was the proprietor and editor-in-chief of the political magazines Hedef (The Target), Liseli Arkadaş (The School Friend) and Alevi Halk Gerçeği (Truth of the Alevi people).   In 1999 he was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member of the TDP (Turkish Revolution Party – Türkiye Devrim Partisi ). The applicant relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression).   Gürü Toprak v. Turkey (no. 39452/98) The applicant, Gürü Toprak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Siirt (Turkey). He was stopped by the police in May 1997, following an anonymous telephone call denouncing him as a member of the PKK.   The applicant submits that he was subjected to brutal treatment by the police during his arrest and while in police custody. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Remzi Aydın v. Turkey (no. 30911/04) The applicant, Remzi Aydın, a Turkish national born in 1973, is currently being held in Kocaeli Prison (Turkey).   He was arrested in July 1998 on suspicion of having committed 43 terrorist acts on behalf of an illegal organisation. He went on hunger strike during his detention.   The applicant complains, in particular, that his state of health was incompatible with his continued detention. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Ölmez v. Turkey (no. 39464/98) The applicants, Mıtlık Ölmez and Yıldız Ölmez, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1967 and 1971 respectively and live in Germany. They were arrested in July 1993 on suspicion of being members of the PKK.   The applicants allege a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture), on account of the treatment to which they were subjected while in police custody. Relying on Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they also complain of the ineffectiveness of the criminal-law remedy they used in respect of their allegations.   Oyman v. Turkey (no. 39856/02) The applicant, Ayşe Oyman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). In April 2002 the local office of the newspaper Yedinci Gündem , of which the applicant was the representative, was searched. In June 2002 she was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for distributing the newspaper in spite of a ban.   She relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression).   Özçelik v. Turkey (no. 56497/00) The applicant, Osman Özçelik, former Deputy Chairman of the pro-Kurdish HADEP (People’s Democratic Party), is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Ankara.   The application concerns Mr Özçelik’s arrest and detention in police custody on 21 July 1999 during the course of a police operation carried out by the security forces against the PKK . Relying, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that there was no reasonable suspicion for his arrest, that he was held in police custody without being brought before a judge and that he had no remedy under domestic law to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.   Salgın v. Turkey (no. 46748/99) The applicant, Seyfeddin Salgın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Kızıltepe (Turkey). He is the father of İsa Salgın, who died in 1997 at the age of 25 while carrying out his military service.   The applicant maintains that his son was killed by a corporal or a private. He relies, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Ünsal v. Turkey (no. 24632/02) The applicant, Kaan Ünsal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Ankara (Turkey). In May 2001 he was sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for belonging to the illegal organisation DHKP ‑ C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front, an extreme left-wing armed organisation). His sentence was halved following the entry into force of the new criminal code.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains that the proceedings against him were unfair.   Veske v. Turkey (no. 11838/02) The applicants, Ahmet Veske and Burhan Veske, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1961 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul.   They were arrested in August 2001 on suspicion of being members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The criminal proceedings against them ended when they were acquitted in November 2002.   The applicants complain of the unlawfulness and length of their detention in police custody and of the lack of a remedy. They rely on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Yengin v. Turkey (no. 42091/02) The applicant, Ali Rıza Yengin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul.   The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from his post as an electricity meter reader in January 1994 following the privatisation in Turkey of electricity distribution in the 1990s.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complains about the authorities’ failure to comply with a court judgment ordering his reinstatement to his former post and the excessive length of administrative proceedings concerning his request for compensation.   Yurt v. Turkey (no. 12439/03) The applicant, Ahmet Yurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.   He was arrested and taken into police custody in December 1997 on suspicion of belonging to the extreme left-wing armed organisation THKP/C MLSPB. He was released in September 2004.   The applicant complains of the length of his pre-trial detention and of the proceedings aginast him. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Zeynep Özcan v. Turkey (no. 45906/99) The applicant, Zeynep Özcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.   She was arrested and taken into police custody in July 1988 on suspicion of having stolen jewellery and money from a person who employed her to do housework.   The applicant submits, among other things, that she was ill-treated while in police custody. She relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair hearing).     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.   Väänänen v. Finland (no. 10736/03) Zmaliński v. Poland (no. 44319/02)     Thursday 22 February 2007   Donner v. Austria (no. 32407/04) The applicant, Karl Friedrich Donner, is an Austrian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Salzburg.   The application concerns investigations, starting in the autumn of 1989, into large-scale fraud against the “WEB/IMMAG” group, one of the companies of which the applicant is a managerial director and a member of the board of directors, and which resulted in the applicant being charged with tax evasion in January 1998.   Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the fairness and length of proceedings’ and the lack of an effective remedy.   Falter Zeitschriften GmbH v. Austria (no. 26606/04) The applicant company, Falter Zeitschriften GmbH, is the owner and publisher of the weekly newspaper “Falter”, with its seat in Vienna.   The application concerns the publication of an article in the newspaper’s issue of 25   September 2002 concerning criminal proceedings brought against officials of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) for abuse of authority, notably in connection with allegations that police officers had repeatedly leaked data from the central police computer to FPÖ politicians. The article specifically referred to Mr Kabas, leader of the Vienna branch of the FPÖ, suggesting that, in proper proceedings, he should have been prosecuted and convicted.   As a result of proceedings instituted by Mr Kabas, the applicant company was ordered to pay him 2,500 euros.   The applicant company alleges that it was their right under Article 10 (freedom of expression) to express an opinion about the public prosecutor’s role in the “informer affair” and to criticise the discontinuation of criminal proceedings against Mr Kabas.     Nikowitz and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria (no. 5266/03) The applicants are Rainer Nikowitz, an Austrian national, and Verlagsgruppe News GmbH, a limited liability company with its seat in Tulln (Austria). Mr Nikowitz works as a journalist at the applicant company which is the owner and publisher of the weekly magazine “Profil”.   The application concerns the publication in the magazine’s issue of 3 September 2001 of a two-page article on a road accident in which the well-known Austrian skiing champion, Hermann Maier, injured his leg. In particular, the article referred to one of Mr Maier’s competitors, the Austrian skiing champion, Stefan Eberharter, suggesting that the latter was pleased about the accident because he could actually win something at last and that he even hoped his competitor break his other leg too.   Subsequently, Mr Eberharter filed a private prosecution for defamation against Mr Nikowitz and a compensation claim against the applicant company. Vienna Regional Criminal Court convicted Mr Nikowitz of defamation, ordering him to pay the costs of the proceedings, and further ordering the applicant company to pay compensation and publish extracts of the judgment.   The applicants complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) that the Austrian courts’ judgments violated their right to freedom of expression.   Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (No. 2) v. Austria (no. 37464/02) The applicant, Standard Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, is a limited liability company with its seat in Austria. It is the owner of the daily newspaper “Der Standard”.   The application concerns the publication on 16 July 1999 by “Der Standard” of an article on its front page alleging that Mr Haider, Regional Governor of Carinthia, deliberately misled the Regional Government and breached the Regional Government’s rules of procedure and the Regional Constitution in the context of the re-appointment of the supervisory board of the Carinthian Electricity Corporation (“the KELAG”), a partly public owned institution.   As a result of proceedings instituted by Mr Haider, St. Pölten Regional Court ordered the applicant company to black out the statements in the issues of the newspaper still to be disseminated, to publish the judgment and pay the costs of Mr Haider’s counsel. The applicant company’s appeal was rejected.     Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant company complains that the Austrian courts’ decisions violated its right to freedom of expression.   Wieser v. Austria (no. 2293/03) The applicant, Ewald Wieser, is an Austrian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Dornbirn (Austria).   Following accusations by the applicant’s wife, a warrant was issued in February 1998 to search the applicant’s house and arrest him on suspicion of having assaulted and raped his wife and threatened her with a firearm, of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter and possessing child pornography videos. The criminal proceedings were later discontinued.   The applicant alleges that his arrest was carried out by six masked and armed police officers of a special task force who forcibly entered his home, laying him on a table where he was stripped naked, searched for arms, dressed again, then forced to the ground where he remained for some 15 minutes with a police officer’s knee against the back of his neck while other police officers searched his house. He also claims that he was threatened with being “bumped off” and had been handcuffed at all times, despite remaining calm and cooperative throughout the arrest and ensuing detention. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Perlala v. Greece (no. 17721/04) The applicant, Arban Perlala, is an Albanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Athens.   He was suspected of having thrown Molotov cocktails in January 1999 at a demonstration against the education system in Greece. The criminal proceedings against him ended when he was convicted and received a suspended sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains that the proceedings that led to his conviction were unfair.   Sakkopoulos (no. 2) v. Greece (no. 14249/04) The applicant, Panagiotis Sakkopoulos, a Greek national born in 1934, was the mortgage registrar for Kropia (Attica).   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains of the length and unfairness of the proceedings instituted after he had lodged a complaint and civil-party application against a colleague who had accused him of forgery.   Gavrileanu v. Romania (no. 18037/02) The applicant, Ioan Gavrileanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Suceava (Romania).   The applicant alleges that the refusal of the Romanian authorities to comply with final judicial decisions ordering him to be given possession of a plot of land and issued with a document of title entailed a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Kolomiyets v. Russia (no. 76835/01) The applicants, Svetlana Yevgenyevna Kolomiyets, and her relative, Galina Nikolayevna Kolomiyets, are Russian nationals who were born in 1970 and 1946 respectively and live in Kireyevsk (Russia).   The application concerns an action brought by both applicants against Galina Nikolayevna Kolomiyets’s former husband claiming division of their marital property, including a country house.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain about the length and unfairness of proceedings, still pending, concerning this action.   Krasulya v. Russia (no. 12365/03) The applicant, Vasiliy Aleksandrovich Krasulya, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Stavropol (Russia) where he is editor-in-chief of a regional newspaper “ Noviy Grazhdanskiy Mir ”.   The application concerns an article published on 4 January 2002 in the newspaper under a pseudonym lamenting the majority decision of the Stavropol town legislative body to change the appointment procedure of the town mayor and that that decision had been made under pressure from Mr Chernogorov, governor of the Stavropol region and the applicant’s competitor in the 2000 mayoral elections. The article also criticised the governor in his capacity as a politician and manager.   The applicant complains about the ensuing criminal proceedings brought against him for defamation which resulted in his conviction and sentencing to one year’s imprisonment, conditional on six months’ probation, and relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Tatishvili v. Russia (no. 1509/02) The applicant, Larisa Artemovna Tatishvili, was born in 1939 in Georgia. She continued to hold citizenship of the former USSR until 31 December 2000 when she became a stateless person. She currently lives in Moscow.   The application concerns the applicant’s request, made on 25 December 2000, for residence registration of a flat in Moscow, having produced her USSR passport, a consent form signed by the flat-owner, proof of payment of house maintenance charges, an extract from the resident’s list and an application form for residence registration. The Dorogomilvskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim on account of her failure to prove her Russian citizenship, or intention to obtain it, and to provide any documents confirming her right to move into the flat in question. In August 2001 this judgment was upheld by the Moscow City Court.   Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), the applicant complains about the domestic authorities’ arbitrary refusal to certify her residence at the chosen address, substantially complicating her daily life and rendering uncertain her access to medical care. The applicant also complains about the unfair judicial proceedings concerning her claim in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ahmed v. Sweden (no. 9886/05) The applicant, Mohammed Ibrahim Ahmed, is a Somali national who was born in 1972. He fled to Kenya when his village in Somalia was attacked by the military and, from there in February 1993, continued on to Sweden where he applied for asylum. The Immigration Board rejected this request but granted him a permanent residence permit on humanitarian grounds.   Following two convictions in 1995 and 2002 resulting in prison sentences from which the applicant was conditionally released, the Government decided in February 2005 not to revoke an expulsion order on him and rejected his request for a residence permit.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complains that his expulsion to either Somalia or Kenya would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment since the specific medical treatment and medicines required by his HIV infection are not available in these countries.   Valin v. Sweden (no. 61390/00) The applicant, Ragnar Valin, is a Swedish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Leksand (Sweden).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for impeding tax supervision and for which he was acquitted in March 2001.     Repetitive case   Vyalykh v. Russia (no. 5225/06) The applicant, Andrey Anatolevich Vyalykh, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Irkutsk (Russia).   The application concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in October 1993 on suspicion of illegal possession of weapons and for which he was arrested and detained in custody for ten months and three days. Having been acquitted, the applicant sued the Irkutsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Finance for compensation. On 7 October 2004 the action was accepted and the applicant awarded compensation for damage.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains about the length of enforcement of the judgment of 7 October 2004.   ***   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.