CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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   797 16.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   20 and 22 November 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 39 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 20 November 2007 and ten on Thursday 22 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 20 November 2007   Karanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 39462/03) The applicant, Duško Karanović, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1928 and lives in Sarajevo. The case concerns non-enforcement of a judgment in the applicant’s favour. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Flux v. Moldova (no. 28702/03) The applicant, Flux , is a Moldovan newspaper based in Chişinău. The case concerns the newspaper’s conviction for defamation of the leader of the Communist Party, Victor Stepaniuc, in 2002. The applicant newspaper relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   A.B. v. Poland (no. 33878/96) The applicant, A.B., is a Polish national who was born in 1952. The case mainly concerns the withdrawal of his parental authority and the ensuing proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Feliciano Bichão v. Portugal (no. 40225/04) The applicant, João Carlos Feliciano Bichão, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1951 and lives in Paris. The case concerns a dispute between the applicant and the mayor of the municipality of São Salvador (Portugal) concerning the ownership of a path. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Filipović v. Serbia (no. 27935/05) The applicant, Zoran Filipović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Babušnica (Serbia). The case concerns his conviction for defamation in 2002 after he accused the Mayor of Babušnica of having “embezzled 500,000 German Marks” at a public gathering. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr   Filipović complains about the ensuing civil proceedings.   Algür and Others v. Turkey (no. 483/02) The four applicants, Şakir Algür, Hasan Atak, Hüsnü Onuk and İbrahim İzer, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1958, 1978, 1956 and 1966 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). They were arrested and convicted for belonging to an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). They rely on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Amaç and Okkan v. Turkey (nos. 54179/00 and 54176/00) The 12 applicants are Turkish nationals who all live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). They allege in particular that Turkey is responsible for the death of their relatives, following the explosion of a mine, and of the restriction of their right of access to a court. They rely on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Aygün and Others v. Turkey (nos. 5325/02, 5353/02 and 27608/02) The applicants are 14 Turkish nationals who were dismissed in May 1999 by their employer, Diyarbakır Sur municipality. The case concerns the authorities’ failure to pay judgment debts with regard, in particular, to the applicants’ outstanding salaries and severance pay. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Güzel (Zeybek) v. Turkey (no. 6257/02) The applicant, Asiye Güzel (Zeybek), is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul. She was taken into police custody at Istanbul Police Headquarters, then held on remand, in connection with an operation against the illegal organisation MLKP/K. She relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Hasan Döner v. Turkey (no. 53546/99) The applicant, Hasan Döner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Istanbul. In March 1999 Mr Döner was arrested in the course of a demonstration in Istanbul. The case concerns his complaints that he was ill-treated on being arrested and during his subsequent detention in police custody and that the length of the criminal proceedings against him for throwing a Molotov cocktail were excessive. He relies, in particular, on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Kizilkaya v. Turkey (no. 50690/99) Ürküt v. Turkey (no. 50290/99) The applicants, Ahmet Kızılkaya and Ali Ürküt, are Turkish nationals who were both born in 1959 and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). They allege, among other things, that professional relocation was imposed on them because of their trade union activities. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Mehmet Peker v. Turkey (no. 49276/99) The applicant, Mehmet Peker, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Şanlıurfa (Turkey). He was arrested and convicted for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). He relies in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   Mustafa Karabulut v. Turkey (no. 40803/02) The applicant, Mustafa Karabulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. Mr Karabulut, a taxi driver, complains in particular that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the police. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Necdet Bulut v. Turkey (no. 77092/01) The applicant, Necdet Bulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Freiburg (Switzerland).   On 15 July 2000 Mr Bulut, then aged 16, was shot in the leg by Turkish police officers who were trying to arrest him. Relying, in particular, on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that the use of force against him during his arrest was disproportionate and that the authorities did not carry out an adequate or effective investigation into the incident.   Yiğit and Others v. Turkey (nos. 4218/02, 4260/02, 4262/02 and 4271/02) The four applicants, Baran Yiğit, Enver Yiğit, Serhat Yiğit and Şeyhmus Aydın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1982, 1968, 1978 and 1984 respectively, and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Suspected of belonging to an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), they were arrested and taken into police custody following searches at their respective homes. They rely on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) §§ 3, 4 and 5.   Gault v. United Kingdom (no. 1271/05) The applicant, Lesley Ann Gault, is a United Kingdom national who was born in 1967 and lives in Lisburn (Northern Ireland).   The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about a decision to place her in detention on remand pending her third trial on charges of aiding and abetting her former lover to murder her husband. She relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kaya v. Turkey (no. 46118/99) Kaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 56370/00, 69879/01 and 73757/01) Sever and Others v. Turkey (no. 9879/02, 16232/02 and 27175/02) Yardimci and Others v. Turkey (no. 5605/02, 5639/02, 5649/02, 6339/02, 9600/02, 46393/02 and 16404/02) In these cases the applicants complain of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Tok and Others v. Turkey (no. 37054/03, 37082/03, 37231/03 and 37238/03) The applicants complain about the failure to enforce judicial decisions awarding them compensation for redundancy. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Anderson v. United Kingdom (no. 73652/01) Crilly v. United Kingdom (no. 12895/02) Kettle v. United Kingdom (no. 63584/00) Norbury v. United Kingdom (no. 67120/01) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that, as widowers, they were refused Widowed Bereavement Allowance or its equivalent.   Cairney v. United Kingdom (no. 45773/99) Dobb v. United Kingdom (no. 63388/00) Fallon v. United Kingdom (no. 61392/00) Goswami v. United Kingdom (no. 62521/00) McCrory v. United Kingdom (no. 62775/00) Steff v. United Kingdom (no. 63476/00) Woods v. United Kingdom (no. 60274/00) 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. The applicant in the case of Olcar v. Turkey also alleges that he had no effective remedy concerning his length-of-proceedings complaint, in breach of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Borody v. Hungary (no. 44885/04) Popović v. Serbia (no. 38350/04) Erden v. Turkey (no. 27719/02) Keman v. Turkey (no. 68446/01) Köseoğlu v. Turkey (no. 73283/01) Olcar v. Turkey (no. 76096/01)     Thursday 22 November 2007   Nedelcho Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 61360/00) The applicant, Nedelcho Miloshev Popov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Sofia. The case concerns denial of access to a tribunal with respect to proceedings for unfair dismissal. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Desjardin v. France (no. 22567/03) The applicant, Alain Desjardin, is a French national who was born in 1935 and lives in Castelnau-le-Lez (France). A farmer and member of the political party Les Verts, he stood as the party’s candidate in the cantonal elections of March 2001 for the canton of Cornus (France). Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains of his conviction for the content of a leaflet distributed during his election campaign.   S.C.I. Plélo-Cadiou v. France (no. 12876/04) The applicant company, S.C.I. Plélo-Cadiou, is a real-estate partnership with its registered office in Rouen (France). It complains in particular about a lack of fairness in proceedings brought against a court-appointed administrator. It relies in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Voskuil v. the Netherlands (no. 64752/01 ) The applicant, Koen Voskuil, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1975 and lives in Amsterdam. He is a journalist. The applicant alleges that he was denied the right not to disclose his sources for two newspaper articles which appeared in September 2000 in the newspaper Sp!ts and that he was detained in order to compel him to do so. He relies, in particular, on Article 10 (freedom of expression). He also alleges that his detention was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, in breach of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security).   Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine (no. 22603/02) The applicant is the Ukraine-Tyumen Joint Stock Company, a Ukrainian joint venture based in Kyiv. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the quashing of a decision in its favour with regard to the ownership of a building. The applicant company relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) 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.   Sfrijan v. Romania (no. 20366/04) In this case the applicant complains of the annulment of a judicial decision in her favour following an appeal by the procurator general.   Checha v. Ukraine (no. 5326/04) Zaichenko v. Ukraine (no. 29875/02) 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), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and 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 applicant in the case of Kiselyova v. Ukraine also alleges that she had no effective remedy concerning her length-of-proceedings complaint, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   SC Concept Ltd SRL and Manole v. Romania (no. 42907/02) Kiselyova v. Ukraine (no. 21047/02)   ***   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.