CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 avril 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 } .s19D04834 { width:100.12pt; display:inline-block } .s54C2A3F6 { width:46.13pt; 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   267 27.4.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   3 May 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 47 Chamber judgments on Thursday 3 May 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 ).   Bösch v. Austria (application no. 17912/05) The applicant, Kurt Bösch, is an Austrian national who owns a farm in Frastranz (Austria).   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) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Custers, Deveaux and Turk v. Denmark (nos. 11843/03, 11847/03 and 11849/03) The applicants are Vincent   Custers, a Dutch national, Olivier Deveaux, a French national and Lawrence Martin Turk, an American national. At the relevant time, they were all members of Greenpeace.   They rely on Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention.   97 members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and 4 Others v.   Georgia (no. 71156/01) The applicants are 97 members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and also Vladimer Kokosadze, Nino Lelashvili, Alexi Khitarishvili and Leïla Djikurashvili, members of the Congregation living in Tbilisi.   The applicants complain that they were attacked and beaten by a group of Orthodox religious extremists and that no effective investigation was carried out into the matter. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Chrysochoou v. Greece (no. 10953/05) The applicant, Flora Chrysochoou, is a Greek national who was born in 1958 and lives in Athens.   She relies in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Karanakis v. Greece (no. 14189/05) The applicant, Georgios Karanakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1947 and lives in Crete.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Papadogeorgos v. Greece (no. 18700/05) The applicant, Vassilios Papadogeorgos, is a Greek national who was born in 1939 and lives in Athens.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Acciardi and Campagna v. Italy (no. 41040/98)   Just satisfaction The applicants, Giorgio Acciardi and Emanuella Campagna, are Italian nationals who were both born in 1924 and live in Amendolara Marina (Italy).   In a judgment of 19 May 2005 the Court held that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Bąckowski and Others v. Poland (no. 1543/06) – Separate The applicants are Tomasz Bączkowski, Robert Biedroń, Krzysztof Kliszczyński, Inga Kostrzewa, Tomasz Szypuła and the Foundation for Equality.   The case concerns the refusal by the Mayor of Warsaw to allow a march and six stationary assemblies organised by the applicants in order to raise public awareness concerning discrimination against minorities.   They rely on Article   11 (freedom of association and assembly), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 11.   Prokopenko v. Russia (no. 8630/03) The applicant, Larisa Grigoryevna Prokopenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Elektrostal in the Moscow Region.   She relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Beneficio Cappella Paolini v. San Marino (no. 40786/98)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Beneficio Cappella Paolini, is a San Marinese ecclesiastical institution.   In a judgment of 13 July 2004 the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Grzinčič v. Slovenia (no. 26867/02) The applicant, Boštjan Grzinčič, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Celje (Slovenia).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Amato v. Turkey (no. 58771/00) The applicant, Selim Amato, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir.   He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Aydın and Şengül v. Turkey (no. 75845/01) The applicants, Necati Aydın and Ercan Şengül, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1962, respectively. They live in İzmir.   They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Baz and Others v. Turkey (no. 76106/01) The applicants, Abdulkadir Baz, Sedrettin Dinar, Mahrem Bulut, Mehmet Akbalık, Tahsin   Aktaş and Yusuf Sebuk, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1984, 1970, 1964, 1958, 1962 and 1961, respectively. They live in Diyarbakır.   They rely on Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 (right to liberty and security).   Çiçek and Öztemen and Others v. Turkey (nos. 74069/01, 74703/01, 76380/01, 16809/02, 25710/02, 25714/02 and 30383/02) The 17 applicants are Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır.   They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Demokratik Kitle Partisi and Elçi v. Turkey (no. 51290/99) The applicants are the political party Demokratik Kitle Partisi (Democratic People’s Party) and Şerafettin Elçi, a Turkish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Cankaya (Turkey), who was chairman of the party at the relevant time.   The applicants allege that the dissolution of the party infringed their rights under Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).   Dursun v. Turkey (no. 17765/02) The applicant, Ali Dursun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul.   He relies, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Emir v. Turkey (no. 10054/03) The applicant, İlyas Emir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Istanbul.   He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ern Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 70830/01) The applicant, Ern Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş, is a company.   It relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Hüseyin Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 2778/02) (Separate) The applicant, Hüseyin Yıldırım, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960.   The applicant contends that the circumstances in which he was detained and the conditions during his transfers between institutions amounted to treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He also relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Kapar v. Turkey (no. 7328/03) The applicant, Übeydullah Kapar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   He relies on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Kar and Others v. Turkey (no. 58756/00) The applicants, Nazmi Kar, Zekeriya Özen, Fuat Başarılı and Osman Yavuz, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972, 1969, 1969 and 1968, respectively. They live in Turkey.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Koçak v. Turkey (no. 32581/96) – Separate The applicant, Mehmet Koçak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul.   In December 1993, Mr Koçak was arrested along with five others during an anti-terrorist police operation against the PKK.   Relying on Article 3, Mr Koçak complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. He further complains under Article 6 §§   1 and 3   (c) (right to a fair trial) that he was deprived of his right to legal assistance during questioning by the police, by the public prosecutor and by the judge who ordered his detention on remand.   Koşti and Others v. Turkey (no. 74321/01) The applicants, Osman Koşti, Mehmet Koşti and Hışman Öngör, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1981, 1983 and 1981, respectively. They live in Şanlıurfa (Turkey).   They rely on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Medeni Kavak v. Turkey (no. 13723/02) The applicant, Medeni Kavak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   He relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Murat Kaçar v. Turkey (no. 32420/03) The applicant, Murat Kaçar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul.   He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Özden v. Turkey (no. 11841/02) Özden v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 31487/02) The applicant, İzzet Cahit Özden, is a Turkish national who was born in 1929 and lives in Istanbul.   In both cases, Mr Özden relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Seçkin and Others v. Turkey (no. 56016/00) The applicants, Burak Seçkin, Hakan Kocaoğlu and Uğur Erdoğan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1981, 1979 and 1979, respectively. They live in Samsun (Turkey).   They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Sinan Tanrıkulu and Others v. Turkey (no. 50086/99) The applicants, Sinan Tanrıkulu, Yusuf Tosun, Mahmut Vefa, Mehmet Mansur Reşitoğlu, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu and Ferda Pokerce, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1965, 1964, 1970, 1970 and 1975, respectively, and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   They rely on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Soysal v. Turkey (no. 50091/99) The applicant, Cevat Soysal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and at the material time lived in Odunkirschen (Germany). He is currently in prison in Turkey.   The applicant complains, inter alia , that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. He relies in particular on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   Türküler and Others v. Turkey (no. 12974/03) The nine applicants are Turkish nationals who live in Ankara.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ulusoy and Others v. Turkey (no. 34797/03) The 12 applicants are all Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul. They are actors with the theatre company Teatra Jiyana nü (Kurdish for New Life Theatre).   They rely on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Yalım v. Turkey (no. 40533/98) The applicant, Mecit Yalım, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979.   He relies on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial).   Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 7577/02) The applicant, Mariya Ivanivna Bochan, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1917 and lives in Ternopil (Ukraine).   She relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   Repetitive cases   Pasanec v. Croatia (no. 41567/02) The applicant, Milka Pasanec, is a Croatian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Velika Gorica (Croatia).   She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Sobelin and Others v. Russia (nos. 30672/03, 30673/03, 30678/03, 30682/03, 30692/03, 30707/03, 30713/03, 30734/03, 30736/03, 30779/03, 32080/03 and 34952/03) The twelve applicants are Russian nationals. In May 2005 one of the applicants, Mr   Stepanenko, died. His widow expressed the wish to pursue the application in his place.   The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Gülşen and Others v. Turkey (no. 54902/00) The seven applicants are Turkish nationals.   They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Gündoğdu v. Turkey (no. 49240/99) Irfan Bayrak v. Turkey (no. 39429/98) Mehmet Şerıf Aslan v. Turkey (no. 6201/00) The applicants are Turkish nationals who were born in 1980, 1971 and 1961, respectively.   They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Yalçın v. Turkey (no. 8628/03) The applicant, Emcet Yalçin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Mardin (Turkey).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Koval and Patsyora v. Ukraine (nos. 1110/02 and 1206/02) The applicants, Olga Mykolayivna Koval and Alla Oleksandrivna Patsyora, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1952, respectively. They live in Rozdilna (Ukraine).   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   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.   Kostova v. Bulgaria (no. 76763/01) Parashkevanova v. Bulgaria (no. 72855/01) Bakonyi v. Hungary (no. 45311/05) Hélioplán Kft v. Hungary (no. 30077/03)   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.