CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 mars 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 } .s729841D5 { width:145.5pt; display:inline-block } .s638AAFBC { width:197.49pt; display:inline-block } .sB952C289 { width:396.22pt; display:inline-block } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB0BA28C7 { width:144.81pt; 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   145 2.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   6 and 8 March 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 6 March 2007 and 11 on Thursday 8 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 6 March 2007   Narinen v. Finland (no. 2) (application no. 13102/03) The applicant, Jukka-Pekka Narinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala (Finland). He is the former partner in a limited partnership company, whose affairs were wound up in 1993.   On 4 February 1994 the company’s estate reported Mr Narinen as having committed an offence. In September 1997, the Helsinki District Court held the first of 15 hearings which resulted in Mr   Narinen being convicted in March 1999 of fraud, debtor’s dishonesty and bookkeeping offences. He was sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment, later reduced to 18 months.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Scordino v. Italy (no. 3) (no. 43662/98)   Just satisfaction The applicants, Giovanni, Elena, Maria and Giuliana Scordino, are Italian nationals who were born in 1959, 1949, 1951 and 1953 respectively and live in Reggio Calabria (Italy).   The applicants were awarded compensation for the constructive expropriation of a plot of land belonging to them. They argued that the award did not correspond to the amount of compensation to which they were entitled. They complained before the European Court of Human Rights that they had been deprived of their land in circumstances incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In a judgment of 17 May 2005 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   Gębura v. Poland (no. 63131/00) The applicant, Leszek Gębura, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Starachowice (Poland).   The application concerns a delay in Mr Gębura being released from Tarnów Mościce Prison where he was serving a prison sentence for three separate convictions.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Gębura complains that, even though a final decision by the Court of Appeal was made granting him conditional release, his release from prison was delayed by a further 48 hours.   Zwierzyński v. Poland (no. 34049/96)   Revision The applicant, Ryszard Zwierzyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Olsztyn (Poland).   In November 1993 the Polish courts upheld a decision to declare null and void the expropriation of land that had belonged to his father. The applicant complained to the Court that his case had not been heard within a reasonable time and that his right of property had been infringed as a result of proceedings that had been unfair.   In a judgment of 16 June 2001 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In a judgment of 2 July 2002 it held that Poland should return the property to the applicant or pay him 60,500 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage for depriving him of it. The Court also awarded the applicant EUR 100,000 for the pecuniary damage sustained as a result of being deprived of enjoyment of the property, EUR 16,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,090 for costs and expenses.   The Polish Government have requested the Court to revise the judgments on account of the subsequent reopening of the proceedings for the division of the estate.   Alay v. Turkey (no. 1854/02) The applicant, Hatip Alay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   In November 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody in the course of an operation against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). Shortly after being placed in pre-trial detention, he was handed back to the gendarmes for questioning.   The applicant alleges, in particular, that his detention on gendarmerie premises after he had already been placed in pre-trial detention infringed Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and that he was unable to challenge the measure.   Çiloğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 73333/01) The 12 applicants are Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul.   In September 1998 the applicants took part in a “sit-in” in front of Galatasaray High School in Taksim (Istanbul) in support of prisoners opposed to plans to build an F-type prison.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicants complain of the use of tear gas (“pepper spray”) to disperse the group of demonstrators. They further complain, under Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) in particular, that their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly was infringed.   Erdoğan Yağız v. Turkey (no. 27473/02) The applicant, Erdoğan Yağız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul. At the material time he had worked for 15 years as a doctor at the Istanbul security police headquarters.   Following a criminal complaint, he was arrested in February 2000 in the security police car park. He was taken in handcuffs to his workplace and his home before being taken into police custody.   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains of the humiliating and degrading treatment to which the police officers subjected him during his arrest and detention in police custody. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also alleges that his arrest was unlawful.   Kazım Ünlü v. Turkey (no. 31918/02) The applicant, Kazım Ünlü, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pertek (Turkey).   At the material time the applicant was a geography teacher at Atatürk High School in Tunceli and a member of the trade union EĞITIM-SEN (Union of Education, Science and Culture Employees).   Relying on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant submits that he was transferred to a different post on account of his union membership.   Yakışan v. Turkey (no. 11339/03) The applicant, Erdoğan Yakışan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970. He is currently being held in Diyarbakır Prison (Turkey).   The applicant was arrested and taken into police custody in February 1994, notably on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). In June 1998 he was sentenced to the death penalty, which was commuted to life imprisonment.   The applicant complains of the length of his detention pending trial and of the proceedings against him. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Repetitive cases   Mehmet Hanifi Kaya v. Turkey (no. 17742/03) The applicant, Mehmet Hanifi Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey).   The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the delay in payment of additional compensation for expropriation.   Donovan v. United Kingdom (no. 63466/00) Hancock and Others v. United Kingdom (nos. 63470/00, 63473/00, 63474/00, 63645/00 and   63702/00) The six applicants are all United Kingdom nationals who complain that, because they were men, they were denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   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.   Kryszkiewicz v. Poland (no. 77420/01)     Thursday 8 March 2007   Dimov v. Bulgaria (no. 56762/00) The applicant, Veselin Nikolov Dimov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1962. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Stara Zagora (Bulgaria).   He was arrested in September 1995 on suspicion of killing a man and seriously injuring a woman. In January 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the 20-year prison sentence imposed on him.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant submits that he was ill-treated during his arrest and while in police custody, and complains of the conditions of his detention. He further alleges, under Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), that his right to a hearing within a reasonable time was infringed.   Arma v. France (no. 23241/04) The applicant, France Lise Arma, is a French national who was born in 1954 and lives in Sevran (France).   In 2001 the applicant formed a company, Arma Pneu, of which she was the manager and sole shareholder. An order was made for the company’s liquidation in May 2003.   The applicant submits that the fact that her appeal against the order for her company’s liquidation was declared inadmissible deprived her of the right of access to a court. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Dănilă v. Romania (no. 53897/00) The applicant, Costica Dănilă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Constanţa (Romania). From August 1994 to April 1995 he was a bank manager.   The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in November 1995 after one of the bank’s customers had lodged a criminal complaint accusing him of corruption. In July 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.   The applicant alleges that he did not have a fair hearing in the Supreme Court of Justice, which convicted him without allowing him to state his case, and submits that he did not have the opportunity to examine the person who had lodged the complaint against him. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Popescu and Toader v. Romania (no. 27086/02) The applicants, Radu Popescu and Teodora Toader, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1932 and 1938 respectively and live in Bucharest.   In 1997 the Romanian courts allowed an action by the applicants for recovery of possession of a property in Bucharest. However, the tenant of the house refused to sign a lease agreement with them and two actions they brought for his eviction were dismissed.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain that it was impossible for a prolonged period for them to make use of a building which had been returned to them and to receive rental income.   Sidorenko v. Russia (no. 4459/03) The applicant, Vladimir Ivanovich Sidorenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Rostov-on-Don (Russia).   The application concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicant on suspicion of arbitrary actions and which, it appears, are still pending.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him and that he had no effective remedy in this connection.   Salah v. the Netherlands (no. 8196/02)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Khalid Salah, is an Algerian national, born in 1964, and who is currently serving a twenty year prison sentence in the Netherlands for, among other things, rape, deprivation of liberty, murder, theft and robbery.   The application concerned the weekly routine strip-searches to which Mr Salah was subjected while in maximum-security prisons. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life).   In its chamber judgment of 6 July 2006 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 concerning the weekly routine strip-searches and that it was not necessary to examine whether there had also been a violation of Article 8. The Court further decided that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   Repetitive cases   Gabriel v. Romania (no. 35951/02) Florescu v. Romania (no. 41857/02) Weigel v. Romania (no. 35303/03) In these three cases the applicants allege that the sale of their flats to third parties, which was validated by court decisions and did not give rise to any compensation, entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Weigel the applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 (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.   Uljar and Others v. Croatia (no. 32668/02) Odysseos v. Cyprus (no. 30503/03)   ***   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.