CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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   736 31.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   6 and 8 November 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 6 November 2007 and 20 on Thursday 8 November 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 6 November 2007   Šobota-Gajić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 27966/06) The applicant, Verica Šobota-Gajić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1964 and lives in Nova Topola (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The case concerns Ms Šobota-Gajić’s attempts over a six-year period to be reunited with her son. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, she complains that the national authorities failed to take all reasonable measures to facilitate her reunion with her son, regardless of domestic decisions in her favour.   Patsuria v. Georgia (no. 30779/04) The applicant, Gia Patsuria, is a Georgian national who was born in 1961 and is currently in prison in Rustavi (Georgia). In April 2004, a criminal case was launched into the misappropriation of 90% of “Georgian State Insurance JSC” shares through fraud and falsification of bank documents. The applicant was charged and placed in detention on remand, and was ultimately convicted for attempted fraud in February 2005. He complains that his detention on remand had not been reasonable, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   Muşuc v. Moldova (no. 42440/06) The applicant, Eduard Muşuc, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău. He is the Chief Executive Officer of Megadat.com SRL and the leader of a political opposition party, the Socialist Democratic Party of Moldova. Mr Muşuc was arrested in September 2006 and remanded in custody on suspicion of misappropriation of an office building. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the unlawfulness of his detention on remand.   Stepuleac v. Moldova (no. 8207/06) The applicant, Gheorghe Stepuleac, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1964 and lives in Chişinău. He is the director of Tantal SRL, a company which provides security services. The case concerns his claim that he was falsely arrested and detained because, he maintained, Government officials were trying to put him out of business. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Stepuleac complains, in particular, that he was held in inhuman and degrading conditions and deprived of medical assistance, that he was subjected to intimidation in his cell and that he was unlawfully detained.   Bugajny and Others v. Poland (no. 22531/05) The applicants are three Polish nationals who live in Poznań (Poland). Paweł Bugajny was born in 1963, and Tadeusz Ratajczak and Jarosław Słuja were born in 1964. They have a company “Trust” Ltd., which owns land in Poznań. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about the Polish authorities’ refusal to expropriate their land used for roads and give them compensation.   Chruściński v. Poland (no. 22755/04) The applicant, Sławomir Chruściński, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Wyględy (Poland). In April 2003, he was charged with having helped to sell two stolen cars as a member of an organised criminal gang and was detained on remand. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the length and unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention.   Mocarska v. Poland (no. 26917/05) The applicant, Bożena Mocarska, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Pruszków (Poland). She suffers from psychiatric problems. In May 2005, following a knife attack on her sister, Ms Mocarska was arrested and charged with domestic violence and admitted to Warsaw Detention Centre. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), she complained that she had been unlawfully detained in an ordinary remand centre for eight months pending her admission to a psychiatric hospital.   Ratusznik v. Poland (no. 28492/04) The applicant, Maciej Ratusznik, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland). He complains of the length of his pre-trial detention and of criminal proceedings against him on charges including murder and abduction, describing the periods concerned as excessive. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Sernawit and Others v. Poland (no. 61967/00) The applicants, all Polish nationals, are: Tadeusz Sernawit and the widows of Julian Sernawit and Stefan Sernawit (both deceased). The case concerns a plot of land which had belonged to their parents and had been expropriated. They rely on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Zwierz v. Poland (no. 39205/04) The applicant, Andrzej Zwierz, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Lublin (Poland). He complains of the length of his pre-trial detention on suspicion of 11 offences, including ten armed robberies, false imprisonment and circulating counterfeit money. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Lepojić v. Serbia (no. 13909/05) The applicant, Zoran Lepojić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Babušnica (Serbia). He was president of a local branch of the Demo-Christian Party in Serbia ( Demohrišćanska stranka Srbije ). The case concerns his conviction for criminal defamation in relation to an article he wrote in a newsletter during the 2002 election campaign, in which he argued that the local mayor’s tenure was illegal. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing),   Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Banca VIAS v. Moldova (no. 32760/04) This case concerns the applicant company’s complaint about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in its favour. Banca VIAS relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Thursday 8 November 2007   Lelièvre v. Belgium (no. 11287/03) The applicant, Michel Lelièvre, is a Belgian national who was born in 1971. He is currently imprisoned in Arlon (Belgium). Mr Lelièvre, an accomplice in the “Dutroux case”, was detained pursuant to an arrest warrant in August 1996. On 22 June 2004 the Belgian courts sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment for committing or aiding and abetting the following offences, among others: false imprisonment with aggravating circumstances, abduction of female juveniles, trafficking ecstasy pills, conspiring to abduct female juveniles and involvement in various forms of trafficking (including drugs and human beings). Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the length of his pre-trial detention.   Kalinova v. Bulgaria (no. 45116/98) The applicant, Bonka Petrova Kalinova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Nova Zagora (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complains of the annulment of her title to a flat following legal proceedings brought by its former owners.   Maslenkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 50954/99) The applicants are four Bulgarian nationals: Kiril Zahariev Maslenkov; his wife, Elena Nikolova Maslenkova; their son, Zahari Kirilov Maslenkov, and his wife, Elena Krumova Maslenkova. They were born in 1926, 1927, 1949 and 1951 respectively. The case concerns a property dispute and the length of the civil proceedings. The applicants rely on Articles   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Vasilev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 61257/00) The four applicants, Dimitar Nikolaev Vasilev, Asen Veselinov Sharlandzhiev, Georgi Antonov Lefterov and Mihail Antonov Lefterov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1974, 1972, 1972 and 1977 respectively and live in Sofia (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain of the length of criminal proceedings against them on charges of aggravated robbery.   Biondić v. Croatia (no. 38355/05) The applicant, Ivanka Biondić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Velika Gorica (Croatia). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she complains of the unfairness of the proceedings concerning her property claim, following the death of her husband.   Štitić v. Croatia (no. 29660/03) The applicant, Vladimir Štitić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1967 and is currently    in Šibenik Prison (Croatia). In November 2002, following a series of criminal convictions for drug abuse, Mr Štitić was sent to Lepoglava State Prison. In July 2004, he was transferred to Gospić Prison. He complains, in particular, that the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him in both prisons were unfair, that the conditions in Gospić Prison were degrading and that he had been denied adequate medical treatment. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Soffer v. the Czech Republic (no. 31419/04) The applicant, Susan Soffer, is a Czech national who was born in 1934 and lives in Evanston (USA). Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains that proceedings concerning the reimbursement of court costs, among other matters, were unfair.   Kosmidis and Kosmidou v. Greece (no. 32141/04) The applicants, Athanasios Kosmidis and Chryssoula Kosmidou, are Greek nationals who were born in 1947 and 1974 respectively and live in Salonika (Greece). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complain of the administrative authorities’ refusal to comply with a judgment of the Salonika Administrative Court of Appeal concerning the expropriation of their land.   Perry v. Latvia (no. 30273/03) The applicant, Robert Philip Perry, is an American national who was born in 1957. He is a pastor belonging to Morning Star International, a federation of Christian communities of an evangelical protestant tendency based in the United States. In 1997 he settled in Latvia and set up a community affiliated to the federation named Rīta Zvaigzne (Morning Star). Relying on Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains in particular that although the Latvian authorities had issued him with a residence permit they refused to allow him to engage in religious activities.   Blidaru v. Romania (no. 8695/02) The applicants, Verginia Blidaru and Nicolae Blidaru, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1940 and 1947 and live in Călan and Hunedoara (Romania) respectively. They are brother and sister. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain that proceedings concerning an action for damages relating to the purchase of a motor vehicle were unfair. They further complain of an infringement of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   Constantin Oprea v. Romania (no. 24724/03) The applicant, Constantin Oprea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Timişoara (Romania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the Romanian authorities did not give him effective assistance in his efforts to obtain enforcement of a judgment requiring the defendants to pay him for the use of his flat over a period of 15 months.   Rada v. Romania (no. 38840/03) The applicant, Ioan Constantin Rada, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Oradea (Romania). Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains in particular that a final decision in his favour, ordering his reinstatement to a position as commercial manager, had been set aside.   Knyazev v. Russia (no. 25948/05) The applicant, Vitaliy Knyasev, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Krymsk (Russia). He complains, in particular, that he was systematically beaten and ill-treated in various Russian prisons and that he was so disturbed by the ill-treatment that he started harming himself. He also complains that he was denied adequate medical assistance for his injuries. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 2 (right to life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence). He further alleges that State officials forced him to make a written statement indicating that he wished to withdraw his application before the European Court of Human Rights, in breach of Article 34 (right to individual petition).   Medov v. Russia (no. 1573/02) The applicant, Suyleyman Akberdovich Medov, is a Russian national who was born in 1958. Formerly a resident of Grozny, Chechnya, he is currently living in Ingushetia. He alleges, in particular, that between January and May 2000, while in detention on criminal charges, he was subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He also complains about the lack of an effective investigation into those allegations.   He further relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Mironov v. Russia (no. 22625/02) The applicant, Andrey Nikolayevich Mironov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1969. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Donskoy (Russia). In September 1998, criminal proceedings were instituted against him for robbery. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was ill-treated by police officers on a number of occasions, including on his arrest. He claimed, in particular, that on 22 September 1998 he was taken by car by two police officers, purportedly in connection with the investigation on his case, to a forest where he was forced out of the car, hung by handcuffs from a tree and beaten. The officers then allegedly placed a plastic bag over his head, removing it only when he started to suffocate, and forced him to make a confession. Mr   Mironov further complains about the poor conditions of his detention in remand prison.   de la Fuente Ariza v. Spain (no. 3321/04) The applicant, Jorge Héctor de La Fuente Ariza, is a Spanish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Madrid (Spain). He was formerly the representative of a company engaged in the wholesale gold trade, Metales Preciosos Madrileños S.A. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains that criminal proceedings against him on charges of defrauding the Treasury and forgery were unfair.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Fitisov v. Russia (no. 41842/04) OOO PKG “Sib-YUKASS” v. Russia (no. 34283/05) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints about national judicial decisions in their favour not being enforced in good time or not at all. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   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 hearing within a reasonable time). The applicant company in the case of Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia also alleges that it had no effective remedy concerning its length-of-proceedings complaint, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Saarekallas OÜ v. Estonia (no. 11548/04) Stojkovic v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 14818/02)   ***   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.