CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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   628 28.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   2 and 4 October 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 14 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 2 October 2007 and 15 on Thursday 4 October 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 2 October 2007   Baranowski Piotr v. Poland (application no. 39742/05) The applicant, Piotr Baranowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Kamińsk (Poland). Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand on suspicion of, in particular, leading an organised criminal gang, robbery and theft.   Komanický v. Slovakia (no. 2) (no. 56161/00) The applicant, Ioan Kornelij Komanický, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov (Slovakia). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, he complains about the length of 12 sets of civil proceedings.   Arı and Şen v. Turkey (no. 33746/02) Süer and Others v. Turkey (no. 74408/01) The applicants are ten Turkish nationals: Alibaba Arı, Ali Şen, Ferit Suer, Ali Kutlu, Muhittin Denktaş, Aziz Karasu, Fevzi Durusoy, Ahmet Aslan, Hasan Uçar and Mehmet Kuytu, who were born in 1962, 1963, 1973, 1955, 1983, 1984, 1955, 1964, 1967 and 1963 respectively. Mr Arı and Mr Şen are currently in prison. The other eight applicants live in Sanliurfa (Turkey). Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), they complain about the excessive length of their detention on remand ( Arı and Şen v. Turkey ) or their police custody ( Süer and Others v. Turkey ).   Birdal v. Turkey (no. 53047/99) The applicant, Akın Birdal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr Birdal complains about his conviction and sentencing to one year’s imprisonment for incitement to hatred and hostility following a speech he made in September 1995 on World Peace Day at a United Socialist Party discussion panel. He further complains that he did not receive a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the court which convicted him, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)   Dölek v. Turkey (no. 39541/98) The applicant, Sultan Dölek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Germany. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she alleges that her husband was intentionally killed by the security forces during a search of their home, and complains that the suspended sentence imposed on the person responsible amounted to impunity. She also complains that there is no effective remedy in Turkish criminal procedure. Also relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains of the suffering caused by her husband’s death and the fact that she was beaten in front of her children during the search. She further alleges that the authorities tried to make her withdraw her application by paying her and threatening her, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition). She also relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Fahriye Çalışkan v. Turkey (no. 40516/98) The applicant, Fahriye Çalışkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Manisa (Turkey). She claims that a police superintendent inflicted treatment on her in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) when she was called to the police station on 11 October 1994 in connection with the unauthorised sale of tickets to a show. She also complains under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the lack of an effective remedy to have her complaints heard.   Mahmut Aslan v. Turkey (no. 74507/01) The applicant, Mahmut Aslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Seewen (Switzerland). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of an illegal organisation.   Sara Kaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 47544/99) The five applicants, Sara Kaya, Hatice Kaya, Zozan Kaya, Abdülbaki Kaya and Mehmet Kaya are Turkish nationals who were born in 1940, 1971, 1974, 1965 and 1969 respectively and live in Mersin (Turkey). They are respectively the widow, daughters and sons of Mr Şefik Kaya, who was reported missing in July 1998 and whose body was found on 13   September 1998. Spent cartridges from a Kalashnikov rifle were found near the body. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants allege that Şefik Kaya’s right to life was not respected and that he was the victim of unnecessary use of force by the security forces. They also complain that the investigation carried out by the Turkish authorities was ineffective. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they allege that Şefik Kaya was killed because of his Kurdish origins.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bolluk v. Turkey (no. 34506/03) In this case the applicant alleges that he did not receive a fair trial on charges of assault and battery, in violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Çeliker v. Turkey (no. 75573/01) Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains, in particular, of the unfairness of criminal proceedings against her for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the PKK ( The Kurdistan Workers’ Party ).   Hadrell v. the United Kingdom (no. 61038/00) 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.   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Yazıcıoğlu v. Turkey (no. 43709/98) Bhandari v. the United Kingdom (no. 42341/04)   Thursday 4 October 2007   Corcuff v. France (no. 16290/04) The applicant, Bruno Corcuff, is a French national who was born in 1965. He is currently in prison in Rennes (France). Having been convicted of several rapes committed between 1995 and 1998, he alleges that he did not receive a fair trial. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Djaoui v. France (no. 5107/04) The applicant, Bernard Djaoui, is a French national who was born in 1941 and lives in Rosny-sous-Bois (France). Having been convicted in 1997 on various charges including concealment of assets and tax evasion, he complains that he did not receive a fair trial. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Le Stum v. France (no. 17997/02) The applicant, Bertrand le Stum, is a French national who lives in Chambourcy. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complains of a violation of his right to have his case heard by an impartial tribunal, in respect of tax reassessment proceedings against the Aftar Nettoyage limited company, founded by him.   Sanchez Cardenas v. Norway (no. 12148/03) The applicant, Jose Santo Sanchez Cardenas, is a Chilean national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bergen (Norway). He has two sons, L. and A., born in 1994 and 1996 respectively. In June 1997 the mother of the children, a Norwegian national, made allegations to the police that L. had been sexually abused by his father. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of a decision in 2002 to refuse his right of access to his children. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Anghel v. Romania (no. 28183/03) The applicants, Petre and Maria Anghel, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1936 and 1939 respectively and live in Pucioasa (Romania). They complain of the unfairness of the proceedings concerning their complaint about a fine which Petre Anghel was ordered to pay for insulting a civil servant. They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Forum Maritime S.A. v. Romania (nos. 63610/00 and 38692/05) The applicants are Forum Maritime S.A., a commercial company registered under Panamanian law and based in Panama and Piraeus (Greece), and, in the case of application no. 63610/00 only, Stelios Katounis, a Greek national. Mr Katounis, who died on 4 January 2002, was a shareholder and managing director of the applicant company. Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Forum Maritime S.A. alleges that the civil, criminal and commercial proceedings instituted by it in order to obtain the repayment by a bank of the sum of 25 million U.S. dollars, approximately 18 million euros, gave rise to a breach of its rights to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, to a fair trial and to access to a court. It also complains of inequality of arms in the proceedings, the lack of independence of the Romanian prosecutors in charge of the criminal proceedings and the excessive length of the commercial proceedings.   Năstase-Silivestru v. Romania (no. 74785/01) The applicant, Georgeta Năstase-Silivestru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Eforie Sud (Romania). Suspected of fraud and using forged documents, she was placed in police custody for 24 hours and, when released, placed in detention for thirty days pending investigation. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), she complains that following her arrest, which was ordered by a public prosecutor, she was not brought “promptly” before a judge or other officer authorised to exercise judicial power. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she further alleges that her right to respect for her correspondence with her family was violated during her detention.   Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi s.r.l. v. Romania (no. 37513/03) The applicant company, Piaţa Bazar Dorobanţi s.r.l., is a private commercial company founded in 1991, with its head office in Bucharest. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), it complains of the unfairness of the proceedings instituted following its expulsion from the Piaţa Dorobanţi fruit and vegetable market. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), it also claims that there has been a violation of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.   Goncharuk v. Russia (no. 58643/00) Goygova v. Russia (no. 74240/00) Makhauri v. Russia (no. 58701/00) The applicants were all residents of the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny (Chechnya). Yelena Vitalyevna Goncharuk was born in 1962 and now lives in Norway; Petimat Kirimovna Goygova was born in 1966 and now lives in Belgium; and Kheyedi Shalmilovna Makhauri was born in 1959 and now lives in Ingushetia.   The cases concern attacks by Russian federal forces in January 2000 on the Staropromyslovskiy district. Mrs Goncharuk and Mrs Makhauri allege that they were shot by Russian servicemen. Ms Goygova alleges that Russian servicemen killed her mother and brother. All the applicants rely on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Ms   Goygova further relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning her relatives’ unlawful detention prior to their deaths and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) in respect of a civil claim for damages. Mrs Goncharuk complains of harassment following her application to the Court, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 32772/02) The applicant, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT), is an animal protection association, registered under Swiss law, which, among other things, campaigns against experiments on animals and battery farming. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), it complains that a television spot it produced against battery farming was banned from the air.   Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Galkin v. Russia (no. 33459/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint about a national judicial decision in his favour not being enforced in good time. He relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Vallar v. France (no. 27314/02) Tratar v. Slovenia (no. 76141/01)   ***   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.