CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 septembre 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   595 13.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   18 and 20 September 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing three Chamber judgments on Tuesday 18 September 2007 and 22 on Thursday 20 September 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 18 September 2007   Nowak v. Poland (application no. 18390/02) Owczar v. Poland (no. 34117/02) Zenon Michalak v. Poland (no. 16864/02) The applicants are three Polish nationals who live in Brzeg (Poland). They were born in 1971, 1975 and 1968, respectively. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they all complain about the excessive length of their detention on remand.     Thursday 20 September 2007      Sultani v. France (no. 45223/05) The applicant, Mohammad Sultani, is an Afghan national who was born in 1985 and lives in Paris. He complains about the proceedings for his deportation from France and maintains that, if returned to Afghanistan, he risks being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. He relies on Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens).   Abdülkerim Arslan v. Turkey (no. 67136/01) The applicant, Abdülkerim Arslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979. In 1999 he was convicted of possessing explosives and of belonging to the illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). He complains that his right to the presumption of innocence was infringed on account, in particular, of the publishing of his photograph in a number of newspapers, and that the proceedings against him were unfair. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Çetin and Şakar v. Turkey (no. 57103/00) The applicants, Vedat Çetin and Mahmut Şakar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1961 and 1966, respectively, and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Mr Şakar was at the relevant time president of the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association ( İnsan Hakları Derneği ) and Mr   Çetin was a member of its governing body. In 1997 criminal proceedings were brought against them for disseminating separatist propaganda on account of the publication of an article on human rights violations in south-eastern Turkey. They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Erdal Taş v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 13021/02) Erdal Taş v. Turkey (No. 3) (no. 17445/02) Erdal Taş v. Turkey (No. 4) (no. 29847/02) Erdal Taş v. Turkey (No. 5) (no. 29848/02) The applicant, Erdal Taş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Fribourg (Switzerland). At the relevant time, he was editor of the daily newspaper 2000’de Yeni Gündem (“New Agenda 2000”). The applicant argues that his criminal convictions for publishing statements by the illegal organisation the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), infringed his right to freedom of expression (Article 10). He also alleges that the proceedings against him were unfair (Article 6).   Ete v. Turkey (no. 29315/02) The applicant, Fehime Ete, is a Turkish national, born in 1960. She lives in Siirt (Turkey). Relying on Article   5 §§ 1 (c) and 4 (right to liberty and security), she complains, in particular, about the unlawfulness and length of her detention in police custody and the absence of an effective remedy whereby she could have challenged the lawfulness of her detention.   Gürceğiz and Others v. Turkey (no. 30245/02) The four applicants, İbrahim Gürceğiz, Bilal Çetiner, Ekrem Kılavuz and Mustafa Bozkurt, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973, 1974, 1976 and 1974, respectively. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they complain of the unlawfulness and length of their detention in police custody and of the absence of an effective remedy by which to challenge their detention and obtain redress.   Muhamet Akyol v. Turkey (no. 23438/02) Tandoğan v. Turkey (no. 9244/02) The applicants are two Turkish nationals. Muhamet Akyol was born in 1972 and is currently detained in Tekirdağ Prison. Kenan Tandoğan was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they both complain of the excessive length of their detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings brought against them. Mr Tandoğan also makes further complaints concerning the unlawfulness of his detention under Article 5 §§ 1 and 2.   Onay v. Turkey (no. 31553/02) The applicants, Sıddık Onay and, his mother, Zinnet Onay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1985 and 1948, respectively. They live in Diyarbakır. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Sıddık Onay complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody. Further relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he also complains about the unlawfulness of his detention in police custody and the fact that he was unable to challenge the lawfulness of that detention.   Tapkan and Others v. Turkey (no. 66400/01) The 16 applicants are all Turkish nationals. Relying, in particular, on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 10 (freedom of expression), they complain of a failure to observe the rights of the defence in the criminal proceedings against them and of their conviction for disseminating separatist propaganda.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   In the following two cases, the applicants complain that their rights were infringed as a result of bankruptcy proceedings in Italy.   Abbatiello v. Italy (no. 39638/04) Scasserra v. Italy (no. 43458/04)   Non-enforcement cases   In the following cases the applicants complain that national judicial decisions in their favour were not enforced in good time or not at all. They all rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), in three of the cases, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and, in one other case, on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Erbakan and Atlı v. Turkey (nos. 32153/03 and 32155/03) Blanutsa v. Ukraine (no. 35274/03) Glivuk v. Ukraine (no. 19949/03) Vostokmash Avanta v. Ukraine (no. 8878/03)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Barbier v. Belgium (no. 24731/03) Spadaro v. Italy (no. 52578/99) Serdyuk v. Ukraine (no. 15002/02)   ***   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.