CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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   829 23.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   27 and 29 November 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 38 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 27 November 2007 and 27 on Thursday 29 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 27 November 2007   Hamer v. Belgium (application no. 21861/03) The applicant, Judith Hamer, is a Dutch national who was born in 1955 and lives in Amsterdam. The case concerns a dispute over a house belonging to her. She relies on the following provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 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).   Tillack v. Belgium (no. 20477/05) The applicant, Hans Martin Tillack, is a German national who was born in 1961 and lives in Berlin. He is a journalist with the German weekly magazine Stern and was assigned to Brussels to report on the policies of the European Union and the activity of the European institutions from August 1999 to July 2004. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains, among other things, of searches and seizures carried out at his home and workplace.   Sárközi v. Hungary (no. 40354/04) The applicant, Pálné Sárközi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest. The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings against the applicant for larceny. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Asciutto v. Italy (no. 35795/02) The applicant, Santo Asciutto, is an Italian national who was born in 1964. Sentenced to life imprisonment for homicide and other offences related to the activities of a mafia-type criminal group, he is currently imprisoned in Terni (Italy). He complains in particular of the special prison conditions in which he is being held, entailing restrictions on outside contacts which involve among other things the use of video-conferencing for his participation in court proceedings. He also complains of delays in the examination of his appeals against ministerial decisions and a breach of his right to respect for his correspondence. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Zagaria v. Italy (no. 58295/00) The applicant, Vincenzo Zagaria, is an Italian national who was born in 1956. He is currently imprisoned in Novare (Italy). Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains in particular of his inability to communicate confidentially with his lawyer.   David v. Moldova (no. 41578/05) The applicant, Gheorghe David, was a Moldovan national who was born in 1943 and lived in Chişinău. He died in July 2007. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about being detained in a psychiatric hospital against his will. He relies on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Popovici v. Moldova (nos. 289/04 and 41194/04) Ţurcan v. Moldova (no. 10809/06) The applicants, Petru Popovici and Dorel Ţurcan, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1962 and 1952 respectively. Mr Popovici is currently serving a life sentence in Rezina Prison, and Mr Ţurcan lives in Chişinău. Both cases concern the applicants’ complaints about the unlawfulness and inhuman and degrading conditions of their detention. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security). Mr   Ţurcan further complains under Article 3 that he was deprived of medical assistance in detention. Mr Popovici further relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 2 (presumption of innocence).   Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel v. Moldova (no. 42864/05) The applicants are Timpul Info-Magazin , a Moldovan newspaper, and Alina Anghel, a Moldovan national who was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău. The case concerns defamation proceedings against the applicants following the publication of an article in January 2004 which criticised the lack of transparency about a Government practice of purchasing luxury cars. They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Ursu v. Moldova (no. 3817/05) The applicant, Mihai Ursu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Peresecina (Moldova). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention on suspicion of murder. He relies on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security).   Dzitkowsi v. Poland (no. 35833/03) The applicant, Zygmunt Dzitkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Sopot (Poland). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length of his detention on remand for armed robbery. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). The case will also be examined under Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and Article 34 (right to individual petition) concerning an interference with the applicant’s correspondence with the Court.   Luczak v. Poland (no. 77782/01) The applicant, Richard Luczak, is a French national who was born in 1950. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he was refused admission to the farmers’ social security scheme because he was not Polish. He relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   ZIT Company v. Serbia (no. 37343/05) The applicant, the ZIT Company, is based in Šabac (Serbia). The case concerns the length of enforcement proceedings with respect to judgments in favour of the applicant. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Urbárska obec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia (no. 74258/01) The applicant, Urbárska obec Trenčianske Biskupice, is a community of land owners in Trenčin (Slovakia). The case concerns the applicant community’s complaint about being obliged to lease its land at a disproportionately low price and the subsequent transfer of the land to the tenants. It relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Asan v. Turkey (no. 28582/02) The applicant, Ömer Şükrü Asan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey). He is a writer. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) he complains of the seizure, as separatist propaganda, of his book entitled “Pontos Kültürü” (“The Bridge Culture”).   Barışık and Alp v. Turkey (nos. 29765/02 and 31420/06) Dağli v. Turkey (no. 28888/02) The applicants are Turkish nationals who live in İzmir.   Necati Barışık was born in 1975 and Yüksel Alp and Ahmet Dağli were born in 1963. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the unfairness of criminal proceedings against them . They rely, in particular, on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Çelepkulu v. Turkey (no. 41975/98) The applicant, Mehmet Sıddık Çelepkulu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Konya (Turkey). Suspected of aiding and abetting the illegal organisation PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) he was taken into police custody in 1997. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains about the conditions of his period in police custody, in particular its duration. He further complains that he was ill-treated by police officers.   Meral v. Turkey (no. 33446/02) The applicant, Bayram Meral, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Ödemis (Turkey). The case concerns a disputed plot of land. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.S. v. Turkey (no. 6587/03) The applicant, Nur Radyo Ve Televizyon Yayıncılığı A.S., is a broadcasting company based in Istanbul (Turkey). Relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), it complains in particular of a temporary broadcasting ban that was imposed on it.   Yakut and Others v. Turkey (no. 61856/00) The three applicants, Medine Yakut, Sebiha Zengin and Hüseyin Utanç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949, 1956 and 1977 respectively. They were arrested and taken into police custody in 2000 for belonging to the illegal organisation PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 § 4 (right to obtain a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention), they complain among other things of the unlawfulness of the police custody.   Yayan v. Turkey (no. 9043/03) The applicant, Tayfun Yayan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complains of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him for robbery at knifepoint.   Brecknell v. the United Kingdom (no. 32457/04) McCartney v. the United Kingdom (no. 34575/04) McGrath v. the United Kingdom (no. 34651/04) O’Dowd v. the United Kingdom (no. 34622/04) Reavey v. the United Kingdom (no. 34640/04) The applicants, Ann Brecknell, Sean McCartney, Michael McGrath, Bernard O’Dowd and Michael Gabriel O’Dowd, and Sarah Reavey, are Irish nationals. The cases concern the applicants’ complaint that the United Kingdom failed to carry out an effective investigation into allegations of collusion and/or involvement by security forces in shootings in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Esposito v. Italy (no. 35771/03) This case concerns the disqualifications imposed on the applicant after his bankruptcy. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 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).   Cemal Ölmez v. Turkey (no. 7404/03) In this case the applicant complains, among other things, of the failure to notify him of an opinion of Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation in the course of proceedings against him. He 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. The applicants in the cases Raway and Wera , Sobczyński and Jovićević also allege that they had no effective remedy concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Iwankowski and Others v. Belgium (no. 6203/04) Raway and Wera v. Belgium (no. 25864/04) Károlyné Balogh v. Hungary (no. 1107/04) Kolláth v. Hungary (no. 15509/05) Sobczyński v. Poland (no. 23128/03) Wójcicka- Surówka v. Poland (no. 33017/03) Jovićević v. Serbia (no. 2637/05) Matia v. Slovakia (no. 33827/03) Sika v. Slovakia (No. 4) (no. 44508/04)     Thursday 29 November 2007   Hummatov v. Azerbaijan (nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04) The applicant, Alakram Alakbar oglu Hummatov, is a stateless person who was born in 1948 in Azerbaijan and currently lives in The Hague. In 1993 the applicant was arrested and detained on charges of, among other things, high treason and use of armed forces against the State. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints about the unfairness of the proceedings against him and inadequate medical treatment in prison. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Nankov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 26541/02) The applicant, Ljuben Nankov, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Gostivar (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings against him for not adhering to safety requirements at a power supply company where he worked as a supervisor. He relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Ismailova v. Russia (no. 37614/02) The applicant, Kurbankiz Ismailova, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Makhachkala (Russia). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the Russian courts’ decision to grant custody of her two children to their father. She relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Tangiyeva v. Russia (no. 57935/00) The applicant, Zaynap Abdul-Vagapovna Tangiyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lived in Grozny (Chechnya). She currently lives in Ingushetia. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that her mother, father and uncle were killed by Russian servicemen in January 2000 and that the investigation into her allegations was inadequate. She relies on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 34 (right of individual petition) and Article 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Akyüz v. Turkey (no. 35837/02) The applicant, Naciye Akyüz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1926 and lives in Ankara. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that she was deprived by the Ministry of Defence of a plot of land she had bought in a district of Ankara, without compensation. She relies, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Balçık and Others v. Turkey (no. 25/02) The applicants are seven Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul. The case concerns the applicants’ complaints about their arrest during a demonstration in Istanbul on 5 August 2000. They rely, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 7 (no punishment without law), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   Demirel and Ateş v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 31080/02) The applicants, Hıdır Ateş and Hünkar Demirel, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1951, respectively, and live in Istanbul. Mr Hıdır was the editor-in-chief of a weekly newspaper, Yedinci Gündem , and Ms Hündar was its owner. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about their conviction for defamation following the publication in Yedinci Gündem of an interview with a leader of the PKK. They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Göktaş v. Turkey (no. 66446/01) The applicant, Mahir Göktaş, was a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lived in Izmir. He died in August 2006. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints about proceedings in which he claimed compensation for being unlawfully arrested and detained. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Gülşenoğlu v. Turkey (no. 16275/02) Hazırcı and Others v. Turkey (no. 57171/00) The applicants are Can Gülşenoğlu, a Turkish national, who lives in Montreuil (France), and seven Turkish nationals who live in Izmir, Istanbul and Germany.   Can Gülşenoğlu’s case concerns the shooting in 1994 of his brother, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu, by a police officer who had arrested him for allegedly throwing Molotov cocktails during a demonstration in Istanbul. Mr Gülşenoğlu relies on Article 2 (right to life), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The case of Hazırcı and Others concerns the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment following their arrest on 11 January 1998 when a commemoration service for the death of members of the TKP-ML/TIKKO turned into a violent clash with the security forces. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Mustafa Karatepe v. Turkey (no. 65942/01) The applicant, Mustafa Karatepe, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of proceedings against him on charges of membership of an illegal organisation. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Şakir Akkurt v. Turkey (no. 20583/02) The applicant, Şakir Akkurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains among other things of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him for belonging to the illegal organisation PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party).   Saraçoğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 4489/02) The applicants are six Turkish nationals who live in Antalya (Turkey). The case concerns the applicants’ complaints about the length and unlawfulness of their detention in police custody on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation. They rely, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Sobacı v. Turkey (no. 26733/02) The applicant, Bekir Sobacı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Tokat (Turkey). In April 1999 he was elected as member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly from a list presented by Fazilet Partisi (the “Party of Virtue”). The Constitutional Court ordered the dissolution of the party in June 2001 on the ground that it had become a centre of activity contrary to the principle of secularism. The applicant was also stripped of his MP status and disqualified from being the founder, member, director or auditor of any other political party for a period of five years. Relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), Mr Sobacı complains about the forfeiture of his parliamentary seat and about the restrictions imposed on his political rights following the dissolution of Fazilet Partisi.   Tamamboğa and Gül v. Turkey (no. 1636/02) The applicants are both Turkish nationals. Mustafa Tamamboğa was born in 1973 and lives in Izmir. Eyüp Gül was born in 1974 and is currently serving a sentence for life imprisonment in Bolu Prison. The case concerns the applicants’ complaints, in particular, about the length of their remand in custody and of the criminal proceedings against them for membership of an illegal armed organisation. They rely on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Arapovy v. Russia (no. 16115/06) Berezkina v. Russia (no. 3509/06) Glebov and Glebova v. Russia (no. 21777/04) Derevenko and Dovgalyuk v. Ukraine (nos. 9956/05 and 13200/05) Parintsev and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 22606/04, 43060/04, 43139/04, 8453/05, 24385/05, 27307/05, 27309/05, 30198/05, 36033/05, 36479/05, 45526/05 and 45527/05) 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, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the cases of Derevenko and Dovgalyuk v. Ukraine and Parintsev and Others v. Ukraine the applicants also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Bülent Zengin v. Turkey (no. 60848/00) Evcimen v. Turkey (no. 21865/02) Zekeriya Sezer v. Turkey (no. 63306/00) These three cases concern, in particular, the applicants’ complaints about their cases not being heard by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   İlgün and Others v. Turkey (no. 57399/00) In this case the applicants complain in particular about delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation that was awarded to them. They rely on 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).   Gierlinger v. Austria (no. 38032/05) Akıncıbaşı v. Turkey (no. 4212/02) Blidchenko v. Ukraine (no. 20339/03)   ***   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.