CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .sC9961F94 { width:375.54pt; display:inline-block } .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   130 23.02.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   27 February and 1 March 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing nine Chamber judgments on Tuesday 27 February 2007 and nine on Thursday 1 March 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 27 February 2007   Biserica Adevarat Ortodoxă Din Moldova v. Moldova (application no. 952/03) The applicants are ten Moldovan nationals, who live in Bilicenii Vechi (Moldova), and who joined together to form Biserica Adevarat Ortodoxă Din Moldova (the “True Orthodox Church in Moldova”), which is also an applicant.   The application concerns the Moldovan authorities’ refusal to register the church.   Relying on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicants complain about the failure of the authorities to register their church, and that they had no effective remedy available to them. They also rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   By refusing to register the church, the applicants further allege that it is impossible for them to organise lawfully their religious community, in breach of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), and that the authorities subjected them to discrimination in comparison to other religious groups, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Maciej v. Poland (no. 10838/02) The applicant, Tadeusz Maciej, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Radom (Poland).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains about the length and fairness of court proceedings which led to his conviction on 25 October 1999 for benefiting from prostitution.   Nowicki v. Poland (no. 6390/03) The applicant, Andrzej Bogusław Nowicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Goleniów (Poland).   The application concerns two sets of criminal proceedings brought against Mr Nowicki. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) in both sets of proceedings and, in the second set of proceedings, on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), complaining about the length and conditions of his pre-trial detention.   Nešťák v. Slovakia (no. 65559/01) The applicant, Filip Nešťák, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Moravské Lieskové (Slovakia).   In October 2000 Mr Nešťák was convicted for the armed robbery of a gambling house in Liptovský Mikuláš and sentenced to five and a half years’ imprisonment, later reduced to five years.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Mr Nešťák complains that his detention on remand was unlawful and arbitrary, and that, except for certain decisions, his continuing detention was decided upon in private sessions attended only by the public prosecutor.   Mr Nešťák further complains, under Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), that the regional court’s judges involved in his case were biased.   Lastly, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Nešťák complains, in particular, about the unfairness of the proceedings concerning his detention on remand.   Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey (no. 56760/00) The applicants, Tamiş Akpınar and Fevzi Altun, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1957 and 1949 respectively.   The application concerns an armed clash on 14 April 1999 during which Ms Akpınar’s brother and Mr   Altun’s son were allegedly killed and their bodies mutilated by the security forces.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that the use of force employed by the security forces against their relatives was disproportionate and resulted in their unlawful killing.   The applicants also allege a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the mutilation of their relatives’ bodies, either before or after their deaths. They further complain that they suffered emotional distress on seeing the state of the corpses and that the investigation into their complaints was ineffective.   Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen (ASLEF) v. United Kingdom   (no. 11002/05) The applicant, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers & Firemen (ASLEF), is an independent trade union which mainly represents train drivers on the United Kingdom’s railways. It has about 18,000 members.   Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicant trade union alleges that it was prevented from expelling one of its members on account of his membership of the British National Party, a political party advocating far-right views. Repetitive case   Moldovahidromaş v. Moldova (no. 30475/03) The applicant, Moldovahidromaş, is a Moldovan company registered in Chişinău.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company alleges that its right to a fair hearing and its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions were violated as a result of the quashing of a final judgment given in October 1992.   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.   Pepszolg KFT. (“v.a.”) v. Hungary (no. 6690/02) Tüketici Bilincini Geliştirme Derneği v. Turkey (no. 38891/03)     Thursday 1 March 2007   Heglas v. Czech Republic (no. 5935/02) The applicant, Vojtěch Heglas, is a Czech national who was born in 1976. He is currently in Valdice Prison (Czech Republic).   In the course of an investigation into the assault of a woman, the applicant’s mobile telephone was tapped and a conversation between him and a third party was recorded by means of a device worn by the other person. In one of the recordings the applicant admitted having carried out the assault.   The applicant alleges that the use of a listening device, the tapping of his mobile telephone and the use of the recordings thus obtained in convicting him constituted a violation of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Geerings v. the Netherlands (no. 30810/03) The applicant, Gerardus Antonius Marinus Geerings, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1977 and lives in Eindhoven (the Netherlands).   In May 1998 Mr Geerings was convicted of attempted burglary, deliberately handling stolen goods and membership of a criminal gang and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment less the time spent in pre-trial detention. The judgment was later quashed on appeal. Mr Geerings was acquitted of all the charges against him except for the theft of a lorry and handling certain stolen goods. In March 1999 the regional court issued an order for confiscation of illegally obtained goods.   Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), Mr Geerings alleges that the confiscation order was based on a judgment which found that he had derived advantage from offences of which he had been acquitted.   Tønsbergs Blad AS and Haukom v. Norway (no. 510/04) The applicants are Tønsberg Blad A/S and Marit Haukom. Tønsberg Blad A/S publishes the newspaper Tønsberg Blad , a regional newspaper owned by Orkla Media A/S. Ms Haukom, the paper’s editor-in-chief at the relevant time, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1952 and lives in the City of Tønsberg in Southern Norway.   The application concerns the publication of articles on 8 June by Tønsberg Blad concerning a list drawn up in October 1999 by Tjøme Municipal Council which identified property owners suspected of failing to respect the permanent residence requirement applying to certain properties, in breach of local regulations. The list included a famous singer and Tom Vidar Rygh, then Executive Vice-President of Orkla ASA , one of Norway’s largest industrial companies.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the newspaper and Ms Haukom complain about the private criminal proceedings brought against them by Mr Rygh which resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision of 1 July 2003 ordering them to pay Mr Rygh NOK 673,879 for costs.   Belevitskiy v. Russia (no. 72967/01) The applicant, Roman Sergeyevich Belevitskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Moscow.   On 11 October 2000 Mr Belevitskiy was arrested on suspicion of drug-dealing and, on being searched at the police station, was found to be carrying a packet containing heroin. Subsequently, in April 2002 Mr Belevitskiy was found guilty of drug-related offences and sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment in a high-security colony.   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment by police officers and that the conditions of his detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He further alleges that his detention was unlawful and excessively long, in breach of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). He further relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) complaining that he had not benefited from fair trial guarantees.   Salamatina v. Russia (no. 38015/03) The applicant, Nelli Ivanovna Salamatina, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow.   The application concerns proceedings taken by Ms Salamatina seeking compensation for damage against a private company who owned the car involved in a road traffic accident in which she was injured in January 1995.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Ms   Salamatina complains about the length and fairness of the proceedings which lasted approximately four years and ten months before two levels of jurisdiction.   Orhan v. Turkey (no. 19497/02) The applicant, Erkan Orhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in İzmir (Turkey).   In July 2001 CDs containing pornographic material and counterfeit CDs were found in the applicant’s shop. As a result, he was ordered by the İzmir police court to pay a heavy fine. He appealed unsuccessfully against that decision.   The applicant complains in particular of the fact that no hearing was held in his case. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Repetitive cases   Sypchenko v. Russia (no. 38368/04) The applicant, Vladimir Vitalyevich Sypchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Bataysk (Russia).   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 non-enforcement of a final judgment in his favour concerning the provision of housing and its subsequent amendment by way of supervisory review.   Aldemir and Others v. Turkey (nos. 72632/01, 72633/01, 72640/01 and 72641/01) The four applicants are all 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 case   In the following case, the applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complains in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Docevski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 66907/01)   ***   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.