CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 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 } .s4722ECCB { width:358.91pt; 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   610 21.09.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   25 and 27 September 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing seven Chamber judgments on Tuesday 25 September 2007 and 18 on Thursday 27 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 25 September 2007   de Clerck v. Belgium (application no. 34316/02) The applicants, Roger de Clerck and Dominiek de Clerck, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1924 and 1960 respectively and live in Wielsbeke (Belgium). They allege that the length of proceedings against them on charges of conspiracy, money laundering and fraud exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and submit that they did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 whereby they could secure a ruling that there had been a breach of Article 6.   Loncke v. Belgium (no. 20656/03) The applicant, Jules   Loncke, is a Belgian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Bruges (Belgium). Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains that an inadmissibility ruling made against him by the Court of Appeal in proceedings concerning disputed bills deprived him of a fair trial.   Muhammet Şahin v. Turkey (no. 7928/02) The applicant, Muhammet Şahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Gasiosmanpaşa (Turkey). Relying on, in particular, Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment both when arrested in August 1996 on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation and during his ensuing detention in police custody. He further complains under Article 3 that the authorities did not effectively and promptly investigate his allegations of ill-treatment.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Arkwell v. the United Kingdom (no. 47289/99) This case concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that, because he was a man, he was denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by women.   Biţa and Others v. Moldova (nos. 25238/02, 25239/02 and 30211/02) Mizernaia v. Moldova (no. 31790/03) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints about national judicial decisions in their favour not being enforced in good time or not at all. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Biţa and Others the applicants also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   de Turck v. Belgium (no. 43542/04)     Thursday 27 September 2007   Akimova v. Azerbaijan (no. 19853/03) The applicant, Valentina Akimova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1950 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan). The case concerns proceedings in which Ms Akimova requested that illegal occupants of her apartment be evicted. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she complains about the decision to postpone the execution of the eviction order.   Doinov v. Bulgaria (no. 68356/01) The applicant, Ognian Nakov Doinov, now deceased, was a Bulgarian national who was born in 1935 and lived in Vienna. He was a member of the Bulgarian Communist Party, in which he held high-ranking posts, in particular, Secretary of the Central Committee and Member of the Politburo. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for misappropriation of public funds and property between 1981 and 1986.   Nalbantova v. Bulgaria (no. 38106/02) The applicant, Todorka Petrova Nalbantova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains about the length of criminal proceedings brought against her for, in particular, embezzlement.   Nikolay Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 72663/01) The applicant, Nikolai Ivanov Dimitrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Silistra (Bulgaria). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains of the ineffectiveness of the investigation conducted following his allegations of ill-treatment, and in particular of the discontinuation of the related criminal proceedings.   Kolona v. Cyprus (no. 28025/03) The applicant, Eleni Kolona, now deceased, was a Cypriot national who was born in 1926 and, at the relevant time, lived in Limassol (Cyprus). She complained that the demolition of her home, a house in the village Pelendri (Limassol), was unlawful and that she was not given any compensation. She relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Smatana v. the Czech Republic (no. 18642/04) The applicant, Pavol Smatana, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1975. He was convicted in 2003 on account of his involvement in a counterfeit banknote case. He complains of the length of his detention, the slowness of the proceedings against him and the impossibility of obtaining compensation for his detention. He relies in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).     Just satisfaction Article 41 (just satisfaction) Housing Association of War Disabled and Victims of War of Attica and Others v. Greece (no. 35859/02) The applicants are a Greek housing association – the Housing Association of War Disabled and Victims of War of Attica – and 157 of its members. The housing association was set up in 1951, by disabled Second World War veterans and relatives of soldiers who died in the war, to provide its members with a home.   The Court found in its principal judgment in the case (on 13 July 2006) that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) because the applicants received no compensation after they were prohibited from building homes on their land.   Thursday’s judgment will deal with the question of Article 41 (just satisfaction).   Raspoptsis v. Greece (no. 1262/05) The applicant, Christos Raspoptsis, is a Greek national. In February 1997, he was charged with uttering a forgery. He alleges that the length of the proceedings infringed the “reasonable time” principle for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Vassilios Stavropoulos v. Greece (no. 35522/04) The applicant, Vassilios Stavropoulos, is a Greek national who was born in 1944 and lives in Argos (Greece). Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the administrative courts dealing with his appeal against a decision to terminate his social housing tenancy disregarded the fact that he had previously been acquitted by the criminal courts. He further complains of an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property).   Corabian v. Romania (no. 4305/03) The applicant, Ciprian Dionisie Corabian, is a German national who was born in 1959 and lives in Schorndorf (Germany). He complains in particular of the authorities’ failure to execute a judicial decision ordering the return of land belonging to his grandmother and the issuing of a certificate establishing title to the property. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Grozescu v. Romania (no. 17309/02) The applicant, Alexandru Stefan Grozescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Bucharest. He complains of unfairness in proceedings in the Bucharest Court of Appeal concerning authorisation given to his former wife to use his name after their divorce. He relies in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Reiner and Others v. Romania (no. 1505/02) The four applicants, Anton Reiner, Octavian Paisz, Dezideriu Hejja and Ioan Konrad, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1948, 1934, 1946 and 1967 respectively and live in Târgu Secuiesc (Romania). They were convicted of manslaughter in 2001 after attacking a police officer. They complain of the length of the criminal proceedings against them and of the fact that the Romanian courts repeatedly refused their requests for witnesses to be examined. They rely on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses).   Dzhavadov v. Russia (no. 30160/04) The applicant, Valeriy Mamedovich Dzhavadov, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Belgorod (Russia). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the authorities’ refusal to register a newspaper under the title: Letters to the President . He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Zementova v. Russia (no. 942/02) The applicant, Tatyana Nikolayevna Zementova, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Lopatinskiy (Russia). She was a labour inspector in the Voskresensk district, Moscow. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), she complains about the length of criminal proceedings brought against her for bribery and abuse of power.   The estate of Nitschke v. Sweden (no. 6301/05) The case concerns the length and fairness of administrative proceedings concerning tax surcharges. The applicants rely on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bakherov v. Ukraine (no. 1192/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint about a national judicial decision in his favour not being enforced in good time. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicant in the case of Soghia Hellas also complains under Article 13 that it had no effective remedy concerning its length-of-proceedings complaint.   Ergo Abekte v. Greece (no. 41558/04) Soghia Hellas v. Greece (no. 1989/05)   ***   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.