CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 } .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   704 19.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   23 and 25 October 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 24 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 23 October 2007 and 22 on Thursday 25 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 23 October 2007   Gjonboçari and Others v. Albania (application no. 10508/02) The applicants are seven brothers and sisters. They are Albanian nationals born in 1939, 1927, 1934, 1931, 1924, 1949 and 1949. They live in Tirana and Vlora (Albania). The case concerns their complaints about proceedings in which they claimed restitution of land which belonged to their parents but which had been confiscated by the State without compensation. They rely 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), alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Jussi Uoti v. Finland (no. 20388/02) Kari Uoti v. Finland (no. 21422/02) The applicants are two Finnish nationals: Jussi Uoti, who was born in 1964 and lives in Turku (Finland); and, Kari Uoti, who was born in 1962 and lives in Helsinki. They are brothers and were both convicted in 1999 of, in particular, tax fraud. Relying on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair trial), § 2 (presumption of innocence) and § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the Convention, they complain that Helsinki Court of Appeal refused to hear as a witness a business partner of the applicants who had drawn up documents which were used as evidence in the proceedings.   Kajari v. Finland (no. 65040/01) The applicant, Jenn Aimar Kajari, is an Estonian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Tallinn (Estonia). His daughter and her mother, also an Estonian national, have been living in Finland since July 1994. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains about the proceedings concerning custody of and access to his daughter.   Tardi and Others v. Hungary (no. 19478/03) The applicants are five Hungarian nationals. They were born in 1952, 1949, 1926, 1950 and 1980 and live in Eger, Novaj and Budapest (Hungary). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain about the excessive length of proceedings in which they claimed reallocation of plots of arable land. They also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Cazacu v. Moldova (no. 40117/02) The applicants are Vasile Cazacu, a Moldovan national who was born in 1950 and lives in Cimişlia (Moldova), and his family members. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about proceedings concerning Mr Cazacu’s former employer’s refusal to make redundancy payments.   Colibaba v. Moldova (no. 29089/06) The applicant, Vitalie Colibaba, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Chişinău. In April 2006 he was arrested on charges of assaulting a police officer. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Colibaba complains that he was the victim of severe police brutality while in detention and that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into his allegations. He also complains about a letter from the Prosecutor General to the Moldovan Bar Association which criticised Moldovan lawyers who brought cases before international organisations specialising in human rights and warned them of a possible criminal investigation into such practices. The applicant alleges that that letter, which specifically referred to his lawyer, was intended to intimidate and therefore hindered his application to the Court, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Flux and Samson v. Moldova (no. 28700/03) The applicants are Flux , a Moldovan newspaper, and Aurelia Samson. The case concerns defamation proceedings against the newspaper following its publication of an article about Ms Samson’s problems with her neighbour, a former Minister of Construction. Flux relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Ms Samson on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Stici v. Moldova (no. 35324/04) The applicant, Petru Stici, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Chişinău. In June 2004, he was arrested on suspicion of murder. Relying, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Stici complains about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention.   Ţurcan and Ţurcan v. Moldova (no. 39835/05) The applicants, Victor Ţurcan and Dorel Ţurcan, are nationals of Moldova and Romania. They were born in 1948 and 1952, respectively, and live in Chişinău. They both work for a commercial bank: Victor Ţurcan as its director and Dorel Ţurcan as a lawyer. In October 2005 they were arrested on suspicion of conspiring to take a bribe. Both applicants complain that the Moldovan courts had not given “relevant and sufficient” reasons for their detention, in breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). Also relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Victor Ţurcan complains about the unlawfulness of his house arrest and Dorel Ţurcan of his detention pending trial. Banasiak v. Poland (no. 3158/06) Górecka v. Poland (no. 41230/04) Wedekind v. Poland 26110/04) The applicants are three Polish nationals who live in Poland. Paweł Banasiak was born in 1975 and lives in Gorzów Wielkopolski; Barabara Górecka was born in 1952 and lives in Częstochowa; and, Krzysztof Wedekind was born in 1971 and lives in Tychy. Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), they complain about the excessive length of their detention on remand: on suspicion of murder as regards Mr Banasiak; fraud, forgery and making threats as regards Ms   Górecka; and, drug trafficking as regards Mr   Wedekind.   Bohucký v. Slovakia (no. 16988/02) The applicant, Juraj Bohucký, is a Slovak national who was born in 1954 and lives in Košice (Slovakia). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr   Bohucký complains about the excessive length of proceedings in which he sought, in particular, payment of outstanding wages and the unfairness of the proceedings concerning his ensuing constitutional complaint.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Renato Votto v. Italy (no. 4733/04) This case concerns the restrictions imposed on the applicant after he was declared bankrupt. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   Deliuchin v. Moldova (no. 14925/03) Lipatnikova and Rudic v. Moldova (no. 40541/04) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints about national judicial decisions in their favour not being enforced in good time. They rely, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Lipatnikova and Rudic also relies on 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 applicants in the cases of Kovács and Tur also allege that they had no effective remedy concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Barna v. Hungary (no. 40431/04) Kovács v. Hungary (no. 23435/03) Tóth v. Hungary (no. 22657/04) Várnai v. Hungary (no. 14282/04) Tur v. Poland (no. 21695/05) Sika v. Slovakia (No. 3) (no. 26840/02) Štefániková v. Slovakia (no. 23846/02)     Thursday 25 October 2007   Efendiyeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 31556/03) The applicant, Latifa Talat qizi Efendiyeva, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1955 and lives in Baku. In December 1993 she was dismissed from her job as Head of the Republican Maternity Hospital. Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complains that a court judgment, which ordered her reinstatement to her former post and payment of compensation for wrongful dismissal, was not enforced in good time.   Karagyozov v. Bulgaria (no. 65051/01) The applicant, Veselin Asenov Karagyozov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960 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), he complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for theft.   Behar Metushi v. Greece (no. 34148/05) Luan Metushi v. Greece (no. 34643/05) Katsivardelos v. Greece (no. 2075/06) The applicants are Behar Metushi and Luan Metushi, two Albanian nationals who were born in 1960 and 1965 respectively, and Georgios Katsivardelos, a Greek national who was born in 1941. Behar Metushi and Luan Metushi are imprisoned in Patras, Greece, and Georgios Katsivardelos in Chalkida (Chalcis), likewise in Greece. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain in particular of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them, on charges of drug trafficking in the cases of Behar Metushi and Luan Metushi and receiving in the Katsivardelos case.   van Vondel v. the Netherlands (no. 38258/03) The applicant, Joost van Vondel, is a Dutch national who was born in 1954 and lives in Leeds (United Kingdom). Between January 1989 and August 1994, he worked as a police officer and acted as a “runner” for the Kennemerland Regional Criminal Intelligence Service. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), Mr   van Vondel complains that telephone conversations he had with an informer were recorded with devices provided by the National Police Internal Investigation Department.   Govorushko v. Russia (no. 42940/06) Korshunov v. Russia (no. 38971/06) The applicants are two Russian nationals: Vladimir Nikolayevich Govorushko who was born in 1954 and lives in the Moscow Region; and, Maksim Gennadyevich Korshunov who was born in 1971 and lives in St Petersburg. Both cases concern the applicants’ arrest on suspicion of, in particular, smuggling. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security), they complain about the length of their pre-trial detention and that they did not have an enforceable right to compensation for a violation of their right to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they also complain about the length of the criminal proceedings against them.   Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04) The applicant, Platon Leonidovich Lebedev, is a Russian national who was born in 1956. At the relevant time, he was a senior manager of Yukos, a large Russian oil company.   In June 2003 a criminal investigation was opened into the management of Yukos and affiliated companies on the suspicion that top managers had committed fraud during the privatisation in 1994 of a State-owned company. Mr Lebedev was arrested in July 2003 and charged with fraud. He was convicted in May 2005 and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. He is currently serving that prison sentence in the region of Yamalo-Nenetskiy (Russia).   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the unlawfulness of his detention on remand. He further complains that between 22 March and 12 April 2003, when still in detention on remand, he was not allowed to meet his lawyer, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Balatskyy v. Ukraine (no. 34786/03) The applicant, Volodymyr Vasylyovych Balatskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Blidcha (Ukraine). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains in particular about the length and unfairness of proceedings concerning his transfer to a teaching post with lower wages.   Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06) The applicant, Oleg Nikolayevich Yakovenko, was a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and lived in Sevastopol (Ukraine). He died on 8 May 2007.   In June 2003 Mr Yakovenko was arrested and placed in police custody on suspicion of burglary, for which he was later convicted and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about: ill-treatment while in police custody; inhuman conditions of detention in Sevastopol temporary detention centre and when being transported to and from that facility; and, lack of medical assistance for his HIV and tuberculosis infections.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Capetan-Bacskai v. Romania (no. 10754/04) Ciobotea v. Romania (no. 31603/03) Isar v. Romania (no. 42212/04) In these cases the applicants are the former owners of property nationalised by the Romanian State. They brought proceedings to recover their property and have the contracts of sale to the State declared null and void. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Almayeva v. Russia (no. 966/03) Osher and Osher v. Russia (no. 31296/02) Lisnyy v. Ukraine (no. 4204/03) Sukhoviy v. Ukraine (no. 41688/04) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints about national judicial decisions in their favour not being enforced in good time or not at all. The applicants in the cases of Almayeva and Osher and Osher also complain about the subsequent quashing of the judgments in their favour by supervisory review. They all rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and, except for the case of Lisnyy , 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. The applicant in the case of Borshchevskaya also complains that she had no effective remedy concerning her length-of-proceedings complaint, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Balen v. Croatia (no. 43429/05) Husić v. Croatia (no. 14878/04) Lesnina d.d. v. Croatia (no. 18421/05) Borshchevskaya v. Ukraine (no. 9962/05)   ***   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.