CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 juillet 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 } .sDB00410C { width:132.14pt; 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   524 20.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   24 and 26 July 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 20 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 24 July 2007 and 35 on Thursday 26 July 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 24 July 2007   Brichet and Bouzet v. Belgium (application no. 44899/98) The applicants, Francis Brichet and Marie-Noëlle Bouzet, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1946 and 1950 respectively. At the time when the application was lodged Mr Brichet was living in Saint-Ghislain and Ms Bouzet in Saint-Servais.   Relying on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), the applicants complain of the length of proceedings and restrictions on access to the investigation file.   Ekholm v. Finland (no. 68050/01) The applicants, Ingegerd Ekholm, and her son, Stefan Ekholm, are Finnish nationals who were born in 1922 and 1951 respectively.   They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Bauchert v. France (no. 53640/00) The applicant, Gilles Baucher, is a French national who was born in 1963 and lives in Paris.   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Baumet v. France (no. 56802/00) The applicant, Gilbert Baumet, is a French national who was born in 1943 and lives in Pont-Saint-Esprit (France).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Mgeladze v. Georgia (no. 74909/01) The applicant, Shalva Mgeladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Tbilisi.   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Mason and Others v. Italy (no. 43663/98)   Just satisfaction The six applicants, Elio Mason, Olga Manente, Mario Mason, Giuseppina Mason, Bruna Spolaor and Franco Mason, are Itaian nationals who were born in 1953, 1921, 1950, 1958, 1927 and 1952, respectively. They live in Spinea (Italy). They are the former owners of land in Spinea which was occupied by the administrative authorities in 1980 and expropriated the following year.   In a judgment of 17 May 2005 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and decided that the question of just satisfaction was not yet ready for decision.   Baškienė v. Lithuania (no. 11529/04) The applicant, Aldona Baškienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Šiauliai (Lithuania).   She relies, in particular, on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Alı Esen v. Turkey (no. 74522/01) The applicant, Ali Esen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Uşak (Turkey).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Cafer Kurt v. Turkey (no. 56365/00) Fazıl Ahmet Tamer and Others v. Turkey (no. 19028/02) The applicants are all Turkish nationals. Cafer Kurt was born in 1967 and lives in Athens; Fazıl Ahmet Tamer, Erol Kaplan, Hasan Demir, Rıdvan Kura, Mustafa Demir and Fatma Günay were born in 1966, 1967, 1967, 1969, 1963 and 1975, respectively, and live in Istanbul.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture an inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants submit that they were tortured while in police custody. In the case of Fazıl Ahmet Tamer and Others they also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Demirel and Others v. Turkey (no. 75512/01) The ten applicants are all Turkish nationals.   They rely in particular on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Güzel v. Turkey (no. 6586/05) The applicant, Hasan Celal Güzel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Ankara.   He relies in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Kurnaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 36672/97) The applicant, Mehmet Kurnaz, was a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lived in Antalya (Turkey). He died on 22 December 1997 and his parents, brother and sister decided to continue the proceedings before the Court on his behalf.   Mr Kurnaz was arrested on 1 September 1995 and remanded in custody on charges of being a member of an illegal organisation. He was acquitted in October 1996. The case concerns the applicants’ allegations that Mr Kurnaz was ill-treated on 21 September 1995 during a prison riot and that, as a result, he died two years later.   The applicants rely on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Mehmet Şah Çelik v. Turkey (no. 48545/99) Mehmet Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 47043/99) The applicants are two Turkish nationals. Mehmet Şah Çelik, was born in 1979 and Mehmet Yavuz in 1965. At the time of their applications to the Court, Mr Şah Çelik was detained in Batman Prison and Mr Yavuz in Diyarbakır Prison.   They rely on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Repetitive cases In the following case the applicant raises complaints which have already been submitted to the Court in previous cases.   Ulaş Çelik v. Turkey (no. 47115/99)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicants in Yıldız and Others v. Turkey also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   De Saedeleer v. Belgium (no. 27535/04) Kat İnşaat Ticaret Kollektif Şirketi v. Turkey (no. 74495/01) Talipoğlu v. Turkey (no. 64236/01) Yıldız and Others v. Turkey (no. 6749/03)     Thursday 26 July 2007   Schutte v. Austria (no. 18015/03) The applicant, Roland Schutte, is an Austrian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Ostermiething (Austria).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Stempfer v. Austria (no. 18294/03) The applicant, Josef Stempfer is an Austrian national who was born in 1934 and lives in St   Johann am Walde (Austria).   He relies, in particular, on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Vitzthum v. Austria (no. 8140/04) The applicant, Andreas Vitzthum, is an Austrian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Geretsberg (Austria).   He relies, in particular, on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Tarverdiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 33343/03) The applicant, Bahram Bey oglu Tarverdiyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1934 and lives in Ismayilli (Azerbaijan).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria (no. 61507/00) The applicant, Andrei Petrov Georgiev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Slivnitsa (Bulgaria).   Mr Georgiev was put into detention on 26 June 2000 on charges of causing bodily harm following a brawl in a discotheque. He was released on bail on 19 July 2000. The criminal proceedings against him were discontinued in August 2002 due to lack of evidence. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawful and inadequate conditions of his detention.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria (no. 55523/00) The applicants, Ginka Dimitrova Angelova, and her son, Mitko Dimitrov Iliev, are Bulgarian nationals. They are the mother and brother of Angel Dimitrov Iliev, who was of Roma origin and aged 28 at the time of his death.   The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the racially motivated killing of Angel Iliev by seven teenagers on 18 April 1996 and the subsequent failure by the authorities to investigate and prosecute those responsible.   They rely on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Peev v. Bulgaria (no. 64209/01) The applicant, Peycho Ivanov Peev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Sofia. He was employed as an expert at the Criminology Studies Council of the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office.   On 13 May 2000 the daily newspaper Trud published a letter written by Mr Peev in which he criticised the Chief Prosecutor. In retaliation, the applicant alleged that he was dismissed from his post and a search was unlawfully carried out of his office. He also complained about criminal proceedings not having been brought against the officials of the Prosecutor’s Office.   He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), Article 10 (freedom of expression, Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Ješina v. the Czech Republic (no. 18806/02) The applicant, Bohuslav Ješina, is a Czech national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bruntál (the Czech Republic).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Pieri v. France (no. 7091/04) The applicant, François Pieri, is a French national who was born in 1929 and lives in Ajaccio (France).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Sayoud v. France (no. 70456/01) The applicant, Leulmi Sayoud, is a French national who was born in 1950.   He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Schmidt v. France (no. 35109/02) The applicants, Axel   Schmidt, a French national who was born in 1959, and his wife Delwyn Schmidt, a New Zealand national who was born in 1966, both live in Carrickfergus (Northern Ireland). They are former members of the Eglise chrétienne biblique, an evangelical protestant church dissolved in 1990.   In 1993 Mr Schmidt was prosecuted for assaulting a four-year-old child. The couple’s daughter Victoria, then aged three, was taken into care.   The applicants allege an infringement of the right to respect for family life on account of their daughter’s placement in care, and submit that they did not have a fair hearing. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Walchli v. France (no. 35787/03) The applicant, Jean-Claude Walchli, is a French national who was born in 1937 and lives in Condat (France).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Markoulaki v. Greece (No. 1) (no. 44858/04) The applicant, Klio Markoulaki, is a Greek national who was born in 1937 and lives in Athens.   She relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Cobzaru v. Romania (no. 48254/99) The applicant, Belmondo Cobzaru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Mangalia (Romania).   The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that he was ill-treated by the police on 4   July 1997 when he had gone to the local police station following an incident at his girlfriend’s flat. He also complains that that ill-treatment and the refusal by the authorities to carry out a prompt, impartial and effective investigation into his allegations were due to his Roma origin.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Hirschhorn v. Romania (no. 29294/02) The applicant, Carl Hirschhorn, is a French national who was born in 1925 and lives in Cannet (France).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Barankevich v. Russia (no. 10519/03) The applicant, Petr Ivanovich Barankevich, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Chekhov (Russia). He is the pastor of the “Christ’s Grace” Church of Evangelical Christians.   On 20 September 2002 the applicant was refused permission to hold a service in public in Chekhov. Alleging violations of the rights to freedom of religion and assembly, he challenged this refusal of the Town Council before a court. His claim was ultimately dismissed by national courts in November 2002.      He relies on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Chepelev v. Russia (no. 58077/00) The applicant, Aleksandr Vitayevich Chepelev, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Uglich (Russia).   He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality between spouses).   Makhmudov v. Russia (no. 35082/04) The applicant, Rustam Khamidovich Makhmudov, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Moscow. At the relevant time he was a district councillor.   The case concerns the applicant’s allegations that Moscow’s administrative authorities prevented a peaceful assembly, of which he was a co-organiser, from being held on 4   September 2003 under the pretence that it represented a “terrorist threat”, whereas that reason was not given to cancel mayor-sponsored festivities two days later. On that day, the applicant and a few dozen residents were dispersed by force by the police. The applicant further complains that his detention at the police station was unlawful and that he was not brought promptly before a judge.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Musayev and Others v. Russia (nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00) The applicants are five Russian nationals who live in Grozny (Chechnya). They are Yusup Said-Aliyevich Musayev, born in 1940; Suleyman Anarbekovich Magomadov, born in 1957; Tamara Saidovna Magomadova, born in 1953; Malika Alviyevna Labazanova, born in 1955, and Khasan Magomedovich Abdulmazhidov, born in 1940.   The case concerns the applicants’ allegations that 11 of their relatives, who lived in a settlement in Grozny referred to as Novye Aldy, were killed by the Russian military on 5   February 2000. They also complain that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into the circumstances of their relatives’ deaths. According to NGO and media reports, at least 60 civilians were killed on that same day in Novye Aldy.   They rely on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 34 (right to individual petition) and Article 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Musayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 74239/01) The applicants, Aminat Dautovna Musayeva, Alamat Reshetovich Musayev and Elza Uvaysovna Zurapova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1954, 1946 and 1977, respectively. They live in a village called Gekhi (Chechnya). Aminat Musayeva and Alamat Musayev are married and had two sons, Ali and Umar Musayev. Elza Zurapova was married to Ali Musayev.   The case concerns the applicants’ allegations that Ali and Umar Musayev were detained on 8   August 2000 following an operation by the Russian military in their village, Gekhi. A month later their bodies, with signs of having met a violent death, were found on the outskirts of the village. An investigation into the murder of the two brothers has been pending since October 2001.   The applicants rely on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Kessler v. Switzerland (no. 10577/04) The applicant, Erwin Kessler, is a Swiss national who was born in 1944 and lives in Tuttwil (Switzerland).   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Weber v. Switzerland (no. 3688/04) The applicant, Julien Weber, is a Swiss national who was born in 1979. He is currently imprisoned in La Tuilière Prison, Lonay (Switzerland).   Benyaminson v. Ukraine (no. 31585/02) The applicant, Alexandr Isaakovich Benyaminson, was a Ukrainian national who was born in 1943 and lived in Simferopol (Ukraine).   He died on 14 November 2004 and   his partner, Nadezhda Stepanovna Cherkassova,   decided to continue the proceedings before the Court on his behalf.   On 15 December 1998 Mr Benyaminson was arrested and placed in police custody on   charges of fraud. He was suspected of forging his ex-wife's signature on a divorce petition   and replacing her in the court divorce proceedings with another woman in order   to obtain sole possession of   the matrimonial estate. He was released in January 1999 and   the proceedings against him were discontinued in April 2004. The case concerns his complaint   about   ill-treatment and lack of medical assistance   during his detention on remand and about the unfairness and   length of the criminal proceedings against him.     He relies, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kalinichenko v. Ukraine (no. 25444/03) Safyannikova v. Ukraine (no. 31580/03) The applicants are two Ukrainian nationals. Georgiy Mikhaylovich Kalinichenko was born in 1948 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine), and Lyudmyla Ivanivna Safyannikova was born in 1961 and lives in Konotop (Ukraine).   They both rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Mr   Kalinichenko also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Repetitive cases   In the following cases the applicants raise complaints which have already been submitted to the Court in previous cases   Dorneanu v. Romania (no. 1818/02) Elena and Nicolae Ionescu v. Romania (no. 42061/02) Hertzog and Others v. Romania (no. 34011/02) Sidorenko v. Russia (no. 3519/05) Spanoche v. Romania (no. 3864/03) Vershinina v. Russia (no. 3462/04)   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 of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Doggakis and Others v. Greece (no. 527/05) Inkovtsova v. Ukraine (no. 39946/03) Kucherenko v. Ukraine (no. 22600/02) Shanko v. Ukraine (no. 39970/02)   ***   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.