CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 } .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   538 27.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   31 July 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 27 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 31 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 31 July 2006   Skokandić v. Croatia (application no. 43714/02) The applicants, Ante and Ivan Skokandić are Croatian nationals who were born in 1939 and 1936, respectively. They live in Pisarovina and Korčula (Croatia), respectively.   They rely, in particular, 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) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   FC Mretebi v. Georgia (no. 38736/04) The applicant, FC Mretebi, is a football club which was founded on 3 February 1988 in Tbilisi.   The applicant club relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 (protection of property).   Rizhamadze v. Georgia (no. 2745/03) The applicant, Avtandil Rizhamadze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Tbilisi.   He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Zaicevs v. Latvia (no. 65022/01) The applicant, Vasilijs Zaicevs, is a former national of the ex-USSR and a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia who was born in 1955 and lives in Liepāja (Latvia).   He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).   Electro Distribution Luxembourgeoise (E.D.L) S.A. v. Luxembourg (no. 11282/05) The applicant company, Electro Distribution Luxembourgeoise (E.D.L.) S.A., is a Luxembourg company which has its headquarters in Leudelange (Luxembourg).   It relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Ekeberg and Others v. Norway (no. 11106/04, 11108/04, 11116/04, 11311/04 and 13276/04) The applicants, Roger Ekeberg, Hans Mikkelsen, Morten Hoelstad, Roger Elvsveen and Torkjel Alsaker, are Norwegian nationals who were born in 1960, 1968, 1967, 1963 and 1960, respectively. The first four applicants were members of a motor cycle club called “ Screwdrivers ”, which was based in Hamar (Norway) and was, at the relevant time, a hang-out for the Hells Angels.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     Chemodurov v. Russia (no. 72683/01) The applicant, Viktor Vladimirovich Chemodurov, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Kursk (Russia).   The case concerns Mr Chemodurov’s complaint about defamation proceedings brought against him following an article he wrote which was published in July 2000 in the Kurskiy Vestnik newspaper and which criticised Governor Rutskoy and his reaction to allegations concerning misappropriation of regional funds.   He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Dyuldin and Kislov v. Russia (no. 25968/02) The applicants, Viktor Gavrilovich Dyuldin and Aleksandr Ivanovich Kislov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1944 and 1948, respectively. They live in Penza (Russia).   The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about proceedings brought against them following the publication of an open letter in August 2000 in the Novaya birzhevaya gazeta newspaper which criticised the Penza Regional Government and their treatment of the media.   They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Aşan and Others v. Turkey (no. 56003/00) The 12 applicants are all Turkish nationals who live in Şırnak (Turkey).   In September 1999 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Nine of the applicants were released pending trial in December 1999. They were all ultimately acquitted of the charges against them in April 2007.   Relying, 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), the applicants complain about the unlawfulness of their detention and that they were subjected to ill-treatment while being held in custody.   Bayam v. Turkey (no. 26896/02) The applicant, Rıfat Bayam, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1975. He was detained in Batman Prison at the time of his application to the Court.   He relies, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Diri v. Turkey (no. 68351/01) The applicant, Sabri Diri, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Switzerland.   Mr Diri was convicted of being a member of an illegal organisation. The case concerns his complaint about ill-treatment during his detention in the Tekirdağ Prison and that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations.   He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Karatepe v. Turkey (no. 41551/98) The applicant, Şükrü Karatepe, is a Turkish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Kayseri (Turkey). He was Mayor of Kayseri at the relevant time.   He complains, in particular, about his conviction for incitement of hatred and violence following several speeches he had given.   He relies in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Kozacioğlu v. Turkey (no. 2334/03) The applicant, İbrahim Kozacıoğlu, died in 2005. His heirs decided to continue with the application before the Court.   They rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ulusoy v. Turkey (no. 52709/99) The applicant, Ziya Ulusoy, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Tunceli (Turkey).   The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about proceedings brought against him following the publication in July 1993 of an article he wrote concerning a hotel being set on fire in Sivas in which 37 people were killed and criticising the indifference of the armed forces as well as Turkey’s policies with regard to the Kurdish problem. As a result of those proceedings, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to one year and four months’ imprisonment.   He relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Casotti v. Italy (no. 26041/04) Maugeri v. Italy (no. 13611/04) Scorziello v. Italy (no. 22689/04)   Bolyukh v. Russia (no. 19134/05) Kozeyev v. Russia (no. 934/03) Somchenko v. Russia (no. 33986/02) Svitich v. Russia (no. 39013/05)   Ak v. Turkey (no. 27150/02) Birtan Güven and Others v. Turkey (no. 37625/03) Evcil v. Turkey (no. 34026/02)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Jakupović v. Croatia (no. 12419/04) Gragnano v. Italy (no. 23901/03) Hasan Genç v. Turkey (no. 26576/02)     ***   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.