CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 octobre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   658 05.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   9 and 11 October 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 9 October 2007 and 19 on Thursday 11 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 9 October 2007   Stark and Others v. Finland (application no. 39559/02) The applicants are three Finnish nationals. They are fishermen who live in Finland and fish in the maritime area near Tornio (Finland). Alpo Antero Stark and Matti Autio were born in 1937 and 1945, respectively, and live in Kaakamo. Martti Junttari was born in 1942 and lives in Kittilä. Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complain that they did not have access to a court to challenge a governmental decision which restricted their fishing rights.   Saoud v. France (no. 9375/02) The applicants are a Tunisian national, Mrs Majhouda Saoud, and six French nationals, Mounira, Siem and Yasmina, and Hassen, Kamel and Houcine Saoud, who were born respectively in 1946, 1973, 1977, 1981, 1979, 1983 and 1987 and live in Toulon (France). They are respectively the mother, sisters and brothers of Mohamed Saoud, who was born in 1972 and had French and Tunisian citizenship. He died on 20 November 1998. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicants’ complaint concerns the alleged violation of Mohamed Saoud's right to life when the police visited the family’s home on 20 November 1998, and the conditions in which the death occurred. Relying also on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants allege that the criminal proceedings opened following the death were unfair.   Czmarkó v. Hungary (no. 26242/04) The applicant, Gyula Czmarkó, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Vác (Hungary). Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of two sets of compensation proceedings against a Belarus official and an airline. He further relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) with respect to the proceedings concerning the airline. Hilti v. Hungary (no. 25709/04) Immobilia Bau Kft v. Hungary (no. 13647/04) The applicants are Fabio Hilti, a Liechtenstein national who was born in 1938 and lives in Schaan (Liechtenstein), and Immobilia Bau Kft, a limited liability company whose headquarters are in Miskolc (Hungary). Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain about the excessive length of liquidation proceedings. They further complain that the length of those proceedings breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Istituto Diocesano per il Sostentamento del Clero v. Italy (no. 62876/00) Just satisfaction The applicant institute, Istituto Diocesano per il Sostentamento del Clero, is an ecclesiastical establishment. In a judgment of 17 November 2005 the Court found that the expropriation of a piece of land belonging to the applicant had been incompatible with its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The judgment to be delivered on Tuesday concerns Article 41 (just satisfaction).   Clionov v. Moldova (no. 13229/04) The applicant, Grigore Clionov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains about the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in his favour concerning payment of invalidity benefits and that the Supreme Court of Justice refused to examine his cassation appeal because he had been unable to pay the court fees.   Bobryk v. Poland (no. 20005/04) Skalski v. Poland (no. 28031/06) The applicants, Piotr Bobryk and Bogdan Skalski, are Polish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1965 and live in Sztum and Brzeg (Poland), respectively. Suspected among other things of abducting a person and extorting money, in the case of Piotr Bobryk, and of drug trafficking, illegal possession of firearms and theft, in the case of Bogdan Skalski, they complain of the length of their detention on remand. They rely, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Ilić v. Serbia (no. 30132/04) The applicant, Aleksandar Ilić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Belgrade. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the authorities’ failure to enforce an eviction order concerning a flat and, in that connection, the unfairness and length of a separate set of civil proceedings for damages.   Stanková v. Slovakia (no. 7205/02) The applicant, Milota Stanková, is a Slovak national who was born in 1951 and lives in Kežmarok (Slovakia). Relying, in particular, on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains that in June 1999 she was evicted from a flat in which she had been living since 1992.   Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey (no. 1448/04) The applicants are two Turkish nationals, Mr Hasan Zengin, born in 1960, and, his daughter, Miss Eylem Zengin, born in 1988. They live in Istanbul. Mr Zengin and his family are adherents of Alevism, one of the branches of Islam influenced by Sufism and certain pre-Islamic beliefs. The applicants lodged their application with the Court when Miss Zengin was attending seventh grade of the state school in Avcılar, Istanbul. They maintain, in particular, that the manner in which compulsory lessons in religious culture and ethics were taught infringed their rights as guaranteed under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). They notably allege that the syllabus lacks objectivity in that no detailed information about other religions is included and is taught from a religious perspective which praises the Sunni interpretation of the Islamic faith and tradition.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Curăraru v. Moldova (no. 34322/02) Grivneac v. Moldova (no. 35994/03) 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, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Cross v. the United Kingdom (no. 62776/00) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that, as a widower, he was refused Widowed Bereavement Allowance or its equivalent.   McWilliams v. the United Kingdom (no. 53738/00) Sinclair v. the United Kingdom (no. 68621/01) These cases concern the applicants’ 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 they were men, they were denied social security and tax benefits equivalent to those received by widows.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). The applicants in Mikuljanac, Mališić and Šafar v. Serbia and Stevanović v. Serbia also allege that they have no effective remedy concerning their length-of-proceedings complaint, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Barna v. Hungary (no. 40465/04) Mikuljanac, Mališić and Šafar v. Serbia (no. 41513/05) Stevanović v. Serbia (no. 26642/05) Judt v. Slovakia (no. 70985/01)   Thursday 11 October 2007   Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria (no. 14134/02) The applicants are Glas Nadezhda EOOD, a limited liability company with its registered office in Sofia, and its only member and manager, Mr Anatoliy Elenkov, a Bulgarian national, born in 1972 and living in Sofia. Mr Elenkov is a Christian and a follower of the Protestant Church in Bulgaria. Relying on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain that Glas Nadezhda EOOD was refused a broadcasting licence to set up a religious radio station. They also complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) about the ensuing judicial review proceedings.   Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece (no. 35151/05) The seven applicants, Hasan Bekir-Ousta, Apti Pentzial, Haki Tsiligir, Ali Nalbant, Ali Nizam, Retzep Kahriman and Suleyman Kara-Housein, are Greek nationals living in Evros prefecture (Greece). In 1995, together with other members of the Muslim minority in Western Thrace, they set up a non-profit-making association called the “Evros Prefecture Minority Youth Association”. Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they complain that the Greek authorities refused to register their association, and also about the length of the proceedings.   Kanellopoulou v. Greece (no. 28504/05) The applicant, Vassiliki Kanellopoulou, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and lives in Piraeus (Greece). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time), she complains of the excessive length of the civil proceedings for damages she brought following surgical operations, including mammoplasty and mastectomy, which left her with serious after-effects. She also complains of her criminal conviction for defamation following statements she made to the press about the “horrible disfigurement of her body”, relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Poulitsidi v. Greece (no. 35178/05) The applicants, Paressa Poulitsidi and Eleni Poulitsidi, are Greek nationals, born respectively in 1928 and 1925, who live in Salonika (Greece). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time), they complain that the authorities, by various administrative acts, violated their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, alleging among other things that part of their land was illegally expropriated. They also complain that for a long period they were deprived of the use of that land without any compensation.   Bozgan v. Romania (no. 35097/02) The applicant, Gheorghe Bozgan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Mândruloc (Romania). Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), he complains of a restriction of his right to set up an association, the Romanian courts having rejected his application to have the “Anti-Mafia National Guard” officially registered as an association.   Larco and Others v. Romania (no. 30200/03) The applicants are Ioan Larco, a Romanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Iaşi (Romania), and three firms, S.C. Larco – Centrul Internaţional de Informare şi Implementare a Invenţiilor S.R.L., Fundaţia Ştiinţifică Internaţională D.I. Mangeron and Fundaţia Ştiinţifică Larco – Centrul Internaţional de Informare şi Implementare a Invenţiilor Iaşi. The firms were established in 1993 and 1994, with registered offices at the home of Ioan Larco, who is their legal representative. Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain of the unfairness of proceedings for damages brought following Ioan Larco’s eviction from his flat.     Mantog v. Romania (no. 2893/02) The applicant, Maria Mantog, is a Romanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Motru (Romania). Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), she complains of the lack of an adequate and effective investigation capable of determining the circumstances of her daughter’s death and of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.   Nasrulloyev v. Russia (no. 656/06) The applicant, Khabibullo Nasrulloyev, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1954 and lives in the Moscow Region. He was the chairman of the Tajik Consumers’ Union. Relying, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was detained unlawfully for more than three years in Russia pending his extradition to Tajikistan on charges of political offences (notably manslaughter, kidnapping and participation in an armed group with a view to attacking Government institutions) committed during the civil war between 1992 and 1997.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Dragoş v. Romania (no. 32743/05) Fischer v. Romania (no. 28400/04) Muşat v. Romania (no. 33353/03) Puşcaş v. Romania (no. 30502/03) Szekely v. Romania (no. 31177/02) In these cases the applicants were the owners of properties nationalised by the Romanian State. They brought actions for recovery of possession and for rescission of the sale of the properties by the State. They all rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and, in the cases of Dragoş , Fischer , Muşat and Puşcaş , the applicants also rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ştefanescu v. Romania (no. 9555/03) This case concerns failure to enforce a judicial decision following the applicant’s dismissal. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Krasyuchenko v. Russia (no. 11712/06) Derevyanko and Beletskiy v. Ukraine (nos. 35765/05 and 37847/05) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints about national judicial decisions in their favour not being enforced in good time or not at all. They all rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicant in Krasyuchenko v. Russia also relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Filioti v. Greece (no. 31071/05) Georgios Papadopoulos v. Greece (no. 11536/05) Polychronakos v. Greece (no. 23032/05)   ***   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.