CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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   421 15.6.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   19 and 21 June 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six Chamber judgments on Tuesday 19 June 2007 and 25 on Thursday 21 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 19 June 2007   Ciorap v. Moldova (application no. 12066/02) The applicant, Tudor Ciorap, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1965 and is currently in detention in Chişinău. . He has been convicted of a number of crimes but is apparently still remanded on other charges.   The case concerns Mr Ciorap’s complaints about his conditions of detention, force-feeding following his decision to go on a hunger-strike and the domestic courts’ refusal to examine his complaint about the force-feeding due to his failure to pay court fees. He also complained about censorship of his correspondence, the refusal to provide him with acceptable conditions to meet with his visitors and lack of access to internal prison regulations.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and right to respect for correspondence) and Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   Amurchanian v. Poland (no. 8174/02) The applicant, Alward Amurchanian, is an Armenian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Łomianki (Poland).   She relies on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Pawlik v. Poland (no. 11638/02) The applicant, Henryk Pawlik, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Szczecin (Poland).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   W.S. v. Poland (no. 21508/02) The applicant, W.S., is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Pabianice (Poland).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   Macko and Kozubaľ v. Slovakia (nos. 64054/00 and 64071/00) The applicants are two Slovak nationals. Viktor Macko was born in 1965 and lives in Humenné (Slovakia) and Miroslav Kozubal was born in 1963 and lives in Hanušovce (Slovakia).   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Repetitive case   Botnari v. Moldova (no. 19981/02) The applicant, Andrei Botnari, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1968 and lives in Chişinău.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Thursday 21 June 2007   Zhechev v. Bulgaria (no. 57045/00)) The applicant, Peter Zhechev Zhechev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   The case concerns Mr Zhechev’s complaint about the domestic courts’ refusal to register the association he chairs, “Civil Society for Bulgarian Interests, National Dignity, Union and Integration – for Bulgaria”.   He relies, in particular, on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Havelka and Others v. Czech Republic (no. 23499/06) The applicants, Antonín Havelka and his children Šárka Havelková, Tomáš Havelka and Eliška Havelková, are Czech nationals who were born in 1950, 1992, 1993 and 1994, respectively. Mr Havelka lives in Prague and his children are currently living in a children’s home in Radenín (Czech Republic).   They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   SCM Scanner de l’Ouest Lyonnais and Others v. France (no. 12106/03) The applicants are SCM Scanner de l’Ouest Lyonnais, a company under French law, and its members, 13 radiologists living in Lyon (France).   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).       Georgoulis and Others v. Greece (no. 38752/04) The applicants, Ioannis and Epaminondas Georgoulis and Eleni, Niki and Anastasia Georgouli, are all Greek nationals.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Kampanellis v. Greece (no. 9029/05) The applicant, Grigorios Kampanellis, is a Greek national who was born in 1961 and lives in Athens.   He relies on 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) .   Karagiannopoulos v. Greece (no. 27850/03) The applicant, Ioannis Karagiannopoulos, is a Greek national of Roma origin living in Serres (Greece). He was arrested in January 1998 on suspicion of drug trafficking. He asserts that, instead of being taken to the police station, he was driven to a car-park where he was beaten and threatened with a gun pressed against his head; he alleges that in the end a police officer fired his weapon and the bullet lodged in his head. He survived, but is now unfit for work.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), taken together with Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that the police used excessive firepower against him, placing his life in danger. He further complains that the authorities did not conduct an adequate and effective investigation in the case. Lastly, he complains under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that he was discriminated against on account of his ethnic origin.   Peca v. Greece (no. 14846/05) The applicant, Kastriot Peca, is an Albanian national who was born in 1977. He is currently imprisoned in Patras (Greece).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Antunes and Pires v. Portugal (no. 7623/04) The applicants, Manuel Afonso Fernandes Antunes and Ana Gonçalves Pires, are Portuguese nationals who were born in 1947 and 1956, respectively. They live in Leça do Bailio (Portugal).   They rely on 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ferreira Alves (no. 3) v. Portugal (no.   25053/05) The applicant, Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1953 and lives in Matosinhos (Portugal).   He relies on 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Dura v. Romania (no. 10793/02) The applicant, Marcel Dura, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Iaşi (Romania).   He relies on 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Macovei and Others v. Romania (no. 5048/02) The applicants, Traian Macovei, Istocle Macovei, Ion   Macovei and Maria Grigoraş, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1938, 1941, 1931 and 1935, respectively. They live in Pătrăşcani, in the municipality of Gura   Văii (Romania).   They allege infringement of the right to an effective investigation following ill-treatment at the hands of a number of aggressors. They rely in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Bitiyeva and X v. Russia (nos. 57953/00 and 37392/03) The first applicant, Zura Sharaniyevna Bitiyeva, was born in 1948 and lived in Kalinovskaya (Chechnya). An active political figure who participated in anti-war protests, she was killed on 21 May 2003 along with three other members of her family. The second applicant is her daughter, X, who was born in 1976 and currently lives in Germany, where she has been granted asylum.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Ms Bitiyeva complained about having been unlawfully detained from January to February 2000 and, during that period, the ill-treatment to which she was subjected. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Bitiyeva’s daughter alleges that her mother, father, brother and uncle were killed by agents of the State. She further alleges that her mother was killed in retaliation for her application to the European Court of Human Rights and that she herself was intimidated and questioned about the details of her complaint to the Court, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Kantyrev v. Russia (no. 37213/02) The applicant, Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Kantyrev, was born in 1969 and lives in Severodvinsk (Russia).   The case concerns Mr Kantyrev’s complaint about ill-treatment and his appalling conditions of detention following criminal proceedings brought against him in 2001 for aggravated robbery, manslaughter and criminal slander.   He relies, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Melnikova v. Russia (no. 24552/02) The applicant, Yelena Yuryevna Melnikova, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Penza (Russia).   She relies on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security).   EVT Company v. Serbia (no. 3102/05) The applicant, EVT Company, is a Serbian company which has its head office in Leskovac (Serbia).   It relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Mitrevski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 33046/02) The applicant, Stojan Mitrevski, is a Macedonian national who lives in Bitola (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Svistun v. Ukraine (no. 9616/03) The applicant, Ivan Vasilyevich Svistun, was born in 1929 and lived in Volnyansk (Ukraine). Following his death in December 2004, his daughter, Valentina Ivanovna Svistun, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.   She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Repetitive cases   Kudrina v. Russia (no. 27790/03) Pridatchenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 2191/03, 3104/03, 16094/03 and 24486/03) Aryamin v. Ukraine (no. 3155/03) Sova v. Ukraine (no. 36678/03) Vasilyev v. Ukraine (no. 11370/02) The applicants are five Russian nationals and three Ukrainian nationals.   They all rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). With the exception of the applicants in Aryamin v. Ukraine and Sova v. Ukraine , they also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They rely in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Mr   Redka also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Tomljenović v. Croatia (no. 35384/04) Gardedieu v. France (no. 8103/02) Noel Baker v. Greece (no. 32155/04) Roïdakis v. Greece (no. 7629/05) Thomas Makris v. Greece (no. 23009/05) Szebellédi v. Hungary (no. 38329/04) Redka v. Ukraine (no. 17788/02)   ***   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.