CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 novembre 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 } .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   768 9.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   13 and 15 November 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 13 November 2007 and 22 on Thursday 15 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 13 November 2007   Driza v. Albania (application no. 33771/02) The applicant, Ramazan Driza, is an Albanian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Tirana. In pre-war Albania, his father owned a bakery in Tirana and a plot of land. In 1960 the Albanian authorities demolished the building and expropriated the land. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Mr   Driza complains of the unfairness of the civil proceedings in his case and of the non-enforcement of final judgments in his favour. He also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ramadhi and Others v. Albania (no. 38222/02) The applicants are six Albanian nationals, all siblings, who were born in 1916, 1921, 1927, 1928, 1934 and 1943 and who live in Kavaja and Durrës (Albania). During the communist regime several plots of land and two shops owned by their father were confiscated by the authorities without payment of compensation. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain of the authorities’ failure to enforce final decisions given in their favour under the Property Act and the Land Act. Three of the applicants further complained of a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), claiming that the domestic courts had discriminated against them on the ground of their place of residence.   Oganova v. Georgia (no. 25717/03) The applicant, Karina Oganova, is a Georgian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Tbilisi. In May 2002, she brought a civil action claiming back money she had lent to a private person in September 1998. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains of the unfairness of the civil proceedings and in particular of the absence of an oral hearing before the Supreme Court.     Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy (no. 399/02) The applicants, Gianfranco Bocellari and Wilma Rizza, are Italian nationals who were born in 1960 and live in Milan (Italy). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain of the absence of publicity in proceedings concerning the application of preventative measures in respect of Gianfranco Bocellari, who was suspected of belonging to a mafia-type criminal organisation.   Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06) The applicant, Mihail Cebotari, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1947 and lives in Chişinău. In 1997 he was the head of Moldtranselectro, a Moldovan State-owned power distribution company. In August 2006 he was declared a suspect in criminal proceedings on charges of large-scale embezzlement of State property, and arrested and remanded in custody. Relying on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights), Mr Cebotari complains of the unlawfulness of his detention. He also complains under Article 34 (right of individual petition) of being hindered by the domestic authorities in bringing his case before the Court.   Dolneanu v. Moldova (no. 17211/03) The applicant, Pavel Dolneanu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1930 and lives in Puhoi (Moldova). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) alone and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of the belated payment of compensation for the depreciation in value of savings he had deposited with the State Savings Bank. The case will also be examined under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Lyp v. Poland (no. 25135/04) The applicant, Piotre Lyp, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Rybnik (Poland). In October 2002 he was arrested and charged with armed robbery. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the excessive length of his detention on remand.   Zwoźniak v. Poland (no. 25728/05) The applicant, Krzysztof Zwoźniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Jelenia Góra (Poland). Criminal proceedings were brought against him on suspicion of having exceeded his powers in selling a company’s assets, to the detriment of the Polish State. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the excessive length of those proceedings.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Cresci v. Italy (no. 35783/03) Di Crosta v. Italy (no. 38823/04) Federici v. Italy (no. 13404/04) Grasso v. Italy (28222/03) Melegari v. Italy (no. 17712/03) These cases concern the restrictions imposed on the applicants after they were declared bankrupt. They rely on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   Becciu v. Moldova (no. 32347/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint about a national judicial decision in her favour not being enforced in good time. She relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 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). With the exception of the cases of Gusovschi and Urbańska , the applicants also complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Giovanna and Guiseppe Rinaldi v. Italy (no. 15011/03) de Riggi and Telese v. Italy (no. 15000/03) Sangermano and De Falco v. Italy (no. 14983/03) Gusovschi v. Moldova (no. 35967/03) Urbańska v. Poland (no. 12134/02)     Thursday 15 November 2007   Galstyan v. Armenia (no. 26986/03) The applicant, Arsham Galstyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). In February 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia. Mr Galstyan initially acted as an authorised election assistant for the main opposition candidate. He was later a member of one of the district election commissions. Following the election, he participated in a series of protest rallies organised by the opposition. In April 2003, on his way home from a demonstration he was arrested. He was ultimately sentenced to three days’ detention for having participated in a demonstration during which he “violated public order”. Mr Galstyan complains under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article   10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of association and assembly) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).   Pfeifer v. Austria (no. 12556/03) The applicant, Karl Pfeifer, is an Austrian national who lives in Vienna. From 1992 to 1995 he was the editor of the official magazine of the Vienna Jewish community. In February 1995 the applicant published a commentary criticising in harsh terms a professor who had written an article alleging that the Jews had declared war on Germany in 1933 and which trivialised the crimes of the Nazi regime. Proceedings were brought against the professor, who committed suicide shortly before the date scheduled for his trial. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Pfeifer complains that the Austrian courts failed to protect his reputation against defamatory statements made by the chief editor of the magazine Zur Zeit , who alleged, in particular, that the applicant and others hunted the professor to his death.   Prodanof and Others v. Romania (No. 1) (no. 2739/02) The applicants, Nicolae Prodanof, Boris George Prodanof, Cleliana Prodanof and Christi Marina Prodanof, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1942, 1947, 1948 and 1945 respectively. Christi Marina Prodanof lives in Buchurest, and the three other applicants, who also have Brazilian nationality, live in Sao Paulo (Brazil). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about the failure to execute a final judgment in their favour concerning disputed land.     Bagel v. Russia (no. 37810/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Nikolayevich Bagel, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Barnaul (Russia). In late 1999 and early 2000 three criminal cases were initiated against him for unlawful business activities, tax evasion and fraud. Following his arrest on 4 February 2000, he was detained in a temporary detention centre in Barnaul and then transferred to the pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Bagel complains about the conditions of his detention.   Grishin v. Russia (no. 30983/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Ivanovich Grishin, is a Russian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Krasnoyarsk (Russia). In September 1999, Mr Grishin, at the relevant time a prosecutor with the Krasnoyarsk Environmental Protection Prosecutor’s Office, was arrested under suspicion of instigating a murder. He was placed in pre-trial detention in SIZO 1 in Krasnoyarsk, and was released on bail in October 2000. The applicant was taken into custody in March 2001 and later transferred to correctional colony IK-272/3 to serve an eight-year prison sentence. He left prison in July 2005, after being granted early release on parole. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Grishin complains of the appalling conditions during his detention in SIZO ‑ 1 and alleges that he had been beaten by investigating officers after his arrest and later by his cellmates. He further complains of inadequate medical assistance during his prison sentence.   Khamidov v. Russia (no. 72118/01) The applicant, Khanbatay Abulkhanovich Khamidov, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in the village of Bratskoye (Chechnya). He complains, in particular, that real estate belonging to him and his brother had been occupied and damaged by the federal police participating in a military operation in Chechnya, and that he had been unable to obtain compensation. He further complains about his inability to bring the eviction claim before a court for a prolonged period of time, the delayed enforcement of the judgment in his favour and the unfairness of the proceedings for compensation. He relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Khamila Isayeva v. Russia (no. 6846/02) The applicant, Khamila Aliyevna Isayeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Grozny (Chechnya). At the relevant time, she and her husband, Sultan Isayev, lived in the village of Alkhan-Kala (Chechnya). On 29 April 2001, the Russian military conducted a special operation in Alkhan-Kala. The case concerns the disappearance that day of Mr Sultan Isayev, while he was visiting his parents’ neighbours. The applicant submits, in particular, that she had reasons to believe that her husband was ill-treated and killed by federal forces, and also alleges that no effective investigation was carried out into the circumstances of his ill-treatment and disappearance. She relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Relying on Articles 34 (right of individual petition) and 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case), she also complains of the Government’s failure to submit documents requested by the Court.   Kukayev v. Russia (no. 29361/02) The applicant, Khamzat Khasanovich Kukayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Grozny. At the relevant time, his son, Aslanbek Kukayev, was an officer of the special police unit of the Chechen Department of the Interior and lived in Grozny with his parents. In early October 1999 the Russian Government launched a counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic. On 26 November 2000, Aslanbek Kukayev was abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms near Grozny central market. His body was found on 22 April 2001. A medical certificate stated that Aslanbek Kukayev had died on 26 November 2000 as a result of a gunshot wound to the head and fracture of the cranial bones. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant alleges that his son had disappeared and subsequently died after being unlawfully apprehended. He complains of the absence of an adequate investigation into the matter, and also of the mental suffering he had endured.   Benderskiy v. Ukraine (no. 22750/02) The applicant, Mykola Vasylyovych Benderskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Pervomaysk (Ukraine). The applicant, who was suffering from cancer of the bladder, was operated on at the “Inter-regional Centre for clinical lymphatic surgery”, a private limited company, in September 1998. The case concerns proceedings brought by the applicant, who alleges that a gauze compress was left in his body during the operation, causing health problems. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Belasin v. Romania (no. 15402/04) In this case, the applicants complain about the cancellation of a final judicial decision in their favour, in a dispute concerning the restitution of a nationalised building. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Subocheva v. Russia (no. 2245/05) Orel v. Ukraine (no. 39924/02) Sokolova v. Ukraine (no. 29468/04) 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). The applicant in the case of Sokolova v. Ukraine 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, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). With the exception of the cases of Ivanovska , Rudysh and Yavorska , the applicants also complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective remedy concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints.   Jelenc v. Slovenia (no. 37166/02) Lednik v. Slovenia (no. 37062/02) Pavlovič v. Slovenia (no. 37006/02) Ramšak v. Slovenia (no. 33584/02) Ivanovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 10541/03) Chuyan v. Ukraine (no. 24131/03) Fedorchuk v. Ukraine (no. 20746/05) Rudysh v. Ukraine (no. 18957/03) Yavorska v. Ukraine (no. 42207/04)   ***   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.