CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 juin 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4722ECCB { width:358.91pt; display:inline-block } .s3AA8BBA7 { width:284.18pt; display:inline-block } .s173C9238 { width:116.8pt; display:inline-block } .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   375 4.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   5 and 7 June 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 5 June 2007 and 29 on Thursday 7 June 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 5 June 2007   Gorelishvili v. Georgia (application no. 12979/04) The applicant, Ilnar Gorelishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Tbilisi (Georgia). She was a journalist at the relevant time of events.   The application concerns defamation proceedings against Ms Gorelishvili by Mr Givi Lominadze, a Member of Parliament at the relevant time, following an article she published in July 2000 in the newspaper “Meridiani 44” in which she criticised various political and government officials, particularly with reference to their property declarations.   She relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Gotthárd-Gáz Kft v. Hungary (no. 28323/04) The applicant, Gotthárd-Gáz Kft, is a Hungarian limited liability company, founded in 1991.   The applicant company relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Ali Koç v. Turkey (no. 39862/02) The applicant, Ali Koç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971. At the time the application was lodged he was in Gaziantep Prison in Turkey.   He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Anık and Others v. Turkey (no. 63758/00) The applicants, Mahmut Anık, Medina Anık, Meryem Anık, Susin Anık, Ebubekir Anık, Ömer Anık, Cemal Anık, Halim Anık, Osman Sanrı, Fatım Sanrı, Ömer Sanrı and Ramazan Sanrı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1954, 1969, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1998, 1940, 1940, 1972 and 1975, respectively. At the relevant time, they lived in a village called Balveren in south-east Turkey where their relatives, Ahmet Anık and Abdulkerim Sanrı, were village guards.   The case concerns the killing by Turkish soliders on 19 August 1999 of Ahmet Anık and Abdulkerim Sanrı who were were taking leave of their watch.   The applicants rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Bağrıyanık v. Turkey (no. 43256/04) The applicant, Mehmet Hadi Bağrıyanık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.   The applicant contends that his state of health is incompatible with his continuing detention. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Demirhan, Görsav and Çelik v. Turkey (nos. 28152/02, 28155/02 and 28156/02) The applicants, Nezir Demirhan, Mehdi Görsav and Fırat Çelik, 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).   Hürriyet Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 17721/02) The applicant, Hürriyet Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and is currently detained in Isparta Prison (Turkey).   The case concerns Mr Yılmaz’s complaint that, in August 1996, he was subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequent detention in police custody on suspicion of armed robbery. He further complains that the Turkish authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Lemke v. Turkey (no. 17381/02) The applicant, Birsel Lemke, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Balikesir in Turkey.   She relies in particular on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Onaran v. Turkey (no. 65344/01) The applicant, Nevzat Onaran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.   He relies in particular on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 10 (freedom of expression).   Sacettin Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 38419/02) The applicant, Sacettin Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.   The case concerns Mr Yıldız’s complaint that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in police custody on suspicion of murder for which he was later convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. He further complains about the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations and the unfairness of the proceedings against him.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).   Yeşil and Sevim v. Turkey (no. 34738/04) The applicants, Hidir Yeşil and Hasan Sevim, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1954 respectively and live in Istanbul.   The applicants complain that they were tortured while in police custody in September 1996. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicants complain in particular of the excessive length of (non ‑ criminal) proceedings. They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Delle Cave and Corrado v. Italy (no. 14626/03)     Thursday 7 June 2007   Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 57793/00) The applicant, Hannu Kukkonen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Dupuis and Others v. France (no. 1914/02) The applicants are two French journalists, Jérôme Dupuis and Jean-Marie Pontaut, who were born in 1964 and 1947 respectively and live in Paris, and the publishing company Librairie Arthème Fayard.   The application concerns the applicants’ conviction for having published in 1996, shortly after the death of President Mitterrand, a book entitled Les Oreilles du Président (“The ears of the President”), on the subject of what were known in France as the “ écoutes de l’Elysée ” (eavesdropping operations by the President’s Office) conducted between 1983 and 1986.   The applicants rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   Parti Nationaliste Basque - Organisation Régionale D’Iparralde v. France (no. 71251/01) The applicant is the Ipparalde regional branch of the Basque Nationalist Party ( Parti nationaliste Basque – Organisation régionale d’Ipparalde , or Euzko Alberdi Jeltzalea – Ipparaldeko Erakundea in Basque), an association which has its registered office in Bayonne (France).   The applicant party complains that its request for approval of the funding association which it set up was refused on the grounds that most of the funding took the form of subsidies from the Spanish Basque Nationalist Party. It relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).     Just satisfaction Capone v. Italy (no. 20236/02)   Dominici v. Italy (no. 64111/00) In these two cases the applicants, all three of whom are Italian nationals, alleged that the occupation of their land by the authorities, without any formal expropriation order being made or compensation given, had violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In judgments of 6 December 2005 and 15 November 2005 the Court held in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   Guţu v. Moldova (no. 20289/02) The applicant, Tatiana Guţu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1952 and lives in Cojuşna (Moldova).   The case concerns Ms Guţu’s refusal on 30 December 2001 to go to the local police station with her son, 12 years old at the time, who was suspected of theft and the subsequent proceedings against her for disobeying the lawful orders of a police officer.   She relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Malahov v. Moldova (no. 32268/02) The applicant, Antonina Malahov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1942 and lives in Chişinău.   She relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Baybaşin v. the Netherlands (no. 13600/02)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Hüseyin Baybaşin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Baybaşin complained about the weekly routine strip-searches to which he was subjected during his stay in a maximum security prison.   In a judgment of 6 July 2006 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 and considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   Garabayev v. Russia (no. 38411/02)) The applicant, Murad Redzhepovich Garabayev, is a citizen of Russia and Turkmenistan who was born in 1977. He is currently living in Moscow.   The case concerns Mr Garabayev’s complaint about the lawfulness of his arrest and temporary detention in Moscow from 27 September to 24 October 2002, his subsequent extradition to Turkmenistan on 24 October 2002 where he was charged with large-scale embezzlement and, once returned to Russia on 1 February 2003, his detention without being brought promptly before a judge.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)   Igor Ivanov v. Russia (no. 34000/02) The applicant, Igor Sergeyevich Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Savvino (Russia).   On 26 December 2000 Mr Ivanov was arrested on charges of, in particular, aggravated robbery and abuse of position. He was convicted as charged on 23 January 2002 and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, later reduced to six years. He was released on parole in March 2005.   Mr Ivanov complains about the apalling conditions, unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Larin and Larina v. Russia (no. 74286/01) The applicants, Mikhail Dimitrievich Larin and Lyubov Demyanovna Larina, are Russian nationals who were born in 1926 and 1934 and live in the Vladimir region of Russia.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Mikadze v. Russia (no. 52697/99) The applicant, Gya Omarovich Mikadze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Russia.   The applicant alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment in Prison UK-25/8 in Orenburg, where he was held from September 1998 until September 1999, and that he did not have an effective remedy by which to complain of his treatment. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Nurmagomedov v. Russia (no. 30138/02) The applicant, Tagir Suleymanovich Nurmagomedov, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and is now serving a custodial sentence in Yemva (Russia).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 34 (right of individual petition).   OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya v. Russia (no. 1641/02) The applicant, OAO Plodovaya Kompaniya, is an open joint-stock company incorporated in Russia.   The applicant company relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia (no. 14939/03) The applicant, Sergey Aleksandrovich Zolotukhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Voronezh (Russia).   He relies on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).   Smirnov v. Russia (no. 71362/01) The applicant, Mikhail Vladimirovich Smirnov, is a Russian national who was born in 1956 and lives in St Petersburg (Russia).   He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Zagorodnikov v. Russia (no. 66941/01) The applicant, Sergey Borisovich Zagorodnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Murillo Espinosa v. Spain (no. 37938/03) The applicant, Maria Elena Murillo Espinosa, is a Spanish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Saragossa (Spain). Her 30-year-old son was found dead in February 2000; according to the Spanish authorities, he had committed suicide.   The applicant complains of the lack of an effective investigation into the death of her son, who she claims was murdered. She relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Salt Hiper S.A. v. Spain (no. 25779/03) The applicant company, Salt Hiper S.A., is a public limited company with its registered office in Madrid.   It relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Botmeh and Alami v. the United Kingdom (no. 15187/03) The applicants, Jawad Botmeh and Samar Alami, are Palestinian nationals who were born in 1967 and 1965, respectively. Prior to their sentences of imprisonment, they lived in Rugby (United Kingdom).   They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).     Repetitive cases   Akalinskiy v. Russia (no. 2993/03) Dovguchits v. Russia (no. 2999/03) Gennadiy Kot v. Russia (no. 76542/01) Kuznetsova v. Russia (no. 67579/01 Naydenkov v. Russia (no. 43282/02) Lysenko v. Ukraine (no. 18219/02) Mavrodiy v. Ukraine (no. 32558/04) The applicants are five Russian nationals and two Ukrainian national.   They all rely, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of Mr   Mavrodiy, they also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Mr   Akalinskiy and Mr Lysenko also rely on 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. Mr Shinkarenko further complains under Article 13 that he had no “effective remedy” concerning his length-of-proceedings complaint.     Artemenko v. Ukraine (no. 33983/02) Shinkarenko v. Ukraine (no. 31105/02)   ***   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.