CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 janvier 2008

.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 } .s358D01DA { width:403.58pt; display:inline-block } .sB6F7AFB6 { width:174.8pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4722ECCB { width:358.91pt; display:inline-block } .sE1DC9E76 { width:275.51pt; display:inline-block } .s24C681DB { width:202.17pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   003 03.01.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   8 and 10 January 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 25 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 8 January 2008 and 12 on Thursday 10 January 2008.   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 8 January 2008   Mumladze v. Georgia (application no. 30097/03) The applicant, Neli Mumladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Zestafoni (Georgia). She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Jucys v. Lithuania (no. 5457/03) The applicant, Pranas Jucys, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Birštonas (Lithuania). He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Jakubiak v. Poland (no. 36161/05) Kołodziński v. Poland (no. 44521/04) The applicants are two Polish nationals: Janusz Jantar Jakubiak who was born in 1967 and lives in Łowicz (Poland) and Leszek Kołodziński who was born in 1949 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland). They both rely on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Marczuk v. Poland (no. 4646/02) Raban v. Poland (no. 24254/03) The applicants are two Polish nationals: Mariusz Marczuk and Sławomir Raban who were born in 1972 and 1962, respectively. They are both currently serving prison sentences in Włodawa Prison. They rely on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Pietrzak v. Poland (no. 38185/02) The applicants, Wiesław Pietrzak, and his wife, Halina Pietrzak, are Polish nationals who were born in 1943 and 1951, respectively, and live in Gdańsk (Poland). They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).       P.P. v. Poland (no. 8677/03) The applicant, P.P., is an Italian national who lives in Torri di Quartesolo (Italy). He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Ak v. Turkey (no. 16006/02) The applicant, Fehmi Ak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). The case concerns, in particular, the applicant’s allegations that he was subjected to torture and ill-treatment after being taken into police custody on suspicion of belonging to the illegal organisation PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ayaz v. Turkey (no. 44132/98) The applicant, Ercan Ayaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Berlin. At the relevant time he was a member of the Kurdistan taskforce set up by the Students’ Association of Freie Universität Berlin. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody after being arrested at Atatürk Airport (Istanbul) in 1993. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Enzile Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 54169/00) The applicant, Enzile Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Bağıvar, Diyarbakır (Turkey). The case concerns, in particular, the applicant’s allegation that her husband was abducted in December 1997 and killed by agents of the State and that the ensuing investigation into his disappearance was inadequate. She relies on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Eriş v. Turkey (no. 28268/02) The applicant, Ali Eriş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about being ill-treated when arrested by the police in September 1999 and the length of the criminal proceedings against him on charges of taking part in an illegal demonstration. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Fevzi Saygılı v. Turkey (no. 74243/01) The applicant, Fevzi Saygılı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Karyağdı v. Turkey (no. 22956/04) The applicant, Cem Karyağdı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Nacaryan and Deryan v. Turkey (nos. 19558/02 and 27904/02) The applicants, Yeran-Janet Nacaryan and Armen Deryan, are Greek nationals who were born in 1945 and 1948 respectively and live in Greece. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Revision Resul Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 74318/01)   The case concerned 12 Turkish nationals. Following the death of one of the applicants, their representative requested for the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in this case (5 December 2006) to be revised.   Saygılı and Others v. Turkey (no. 19353/03) The applicants, Fevzi Saygılı, Nizamettin Taylan Bilgiç and Serpil Kurtay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1972 and 1978 respectively and live in Istanbul. They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Yurdatapan v. Turkey (no. 70335/01) The applicant, Mehmet Şanar Yurdatapan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Istanbul. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Boyle v. the United Kingdom (no. 55434/00) The applicant, John Boyle, is a British national who was born in 1974 and lives in London. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Viola and Others v. Italy (no. 7842/02) The applicants in this case rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 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), Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   Bulava v. Moldova (no. 27883/04) The applicants in this case rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Erdem and Others v. Turkey (no. 82/02) The applicants in this case rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Williams v. the United Kingdom (no. 63478/00) The applicant in this case relies on 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).   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).   Błaszczyk v. Poland (no. 22305/06) Wilczkowska and Others v. Poland (no. 28983/02)     Thursday 10 January 2008   Lückhof and Spanner v. Austria (nos. 58452/00 and 61920/00) The applicants are two German nationals: Burkhard Lückhof and Helmut Spanner, who live, respectively, in Dillenburg and Weissenburg in Germany. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).     Just satisfaction Zeman v. Austria (no. 23960/02)   The applicant, Walter Zeman, is an Austrian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Vienna. In a judgment of 29 June 2006, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and considered that Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Atanasov v. Bulgaria (no. 54172/00) The applicant, Angel Nikolov Atanasov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). He relies on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Ivan Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 53746/00) The applicant, Ivan Miroslavov Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). He relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Karamitrov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 53321/99) The applicants are Victor Petrakiev Karamitrov, born in 1965, and his parents, Evgenia Radionova Karamitrova and Petraki Iordanov Karamitrov, born in 1938 and 1928, respectively. Victor Karamitrov and his mother live in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). Petraki Karamitrov died in 2000. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Just satisfaction Zlínsat, spol. s r.o. v. Bulgaria (no. 57785/00)   The applicant, Zlínsat, spol. s r.o., is a limited liability company based in Fryšták (the Czech Republic). In a judgment of 15 June 2006, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.     Kearns v. France (no. 35991/04) The applicant, Karen Kearns, is an Irish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Dublin (Ireland). She complains that the French authorities refused to return the child to whom she had given birth anonymously on the ground that the two-month time-limit for withdrawing consent to adoption had expired. She relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Glesmann v. Germany (no. 25706/03) The applicant, Ewa Glesmann, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Berlin. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Zubayrayev v. Russia (no. 67797/01) The applicant, Adam Zubayrayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Nice (France). Before 1999 he lived in Starye Atagi (Chechnya). The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that his father was killed by Russian servicemen in Chechnya in September 2000 and that no effective investigation was carried out into his allegation. He relies on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Varnava and Others v. Turkey (nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90) The applicants are 18 Cypriot nationals, nine of whom have been considered missing since they were taken into captivity by the Turkish Army during military action in Cyprus in 1974. They have not been accounted for since. The other nine applicants are the parents or wives of the missing applicants and rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 4 (prohibition of forced labour), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), 12 (right to marry), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Hollitzer v. Romania (no. 24175/03) The applicants in this case rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains 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).   Glüsen v. Germany (no. 1679/03)   ***   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.