CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .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   54 25.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   29 and 31 January 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 29 January 2008 and 23 on Thursday 31 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 29 January 2008   Kidzinidze v. Georgia (application no. 69852/01) The applicant, Levan Kidzinidze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Germany. A member of the Georgian Parliament between 1995 and 1999, he lived and worked in the Autonomous Republic of Adjaria. The applicant alleged, in particular, that the domestic courts had not examined his applications against the Adjari local authorities and that, as a result, he had been a victim of political discrimination. He relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Csősz v. Hungary (no. 34418/04) The applicants, Barnabás, Krisztián and Márk Adrián Csősz, are a father and his two sons. They are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1951, 1985 and 1988, respectively, and live in Székesfehérvár (Hungary). In the 1990s, Krisztián Csősz had surgery on his leg at Pécs University Teaching Hospital and was left disabled. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the length and unfairness of the ensuing proceedings they brought against the hospital seeking compensation for medical malpractice. They rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Bălan v. Moldova (no. 19247/03) The applicant, Pavel Bălan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1938 and lives in Chişinău. In 1985 the applicant received author’s fees for a photograph he had published in the album Poliptic Moldav . The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the refusal of the Moldovan courts to compensate him for the use, without his agreement, of that photograph by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He relies on Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Gracki v. Poland (no. 14224/05) Kubik v. Poland (no. 12848/03) Popławski v. Poland (no. 28633/02) Rochala v. Poland (no. 14613/02) The applicants are four Polish nationals: Jarosław Gracki who was born in 1966; Piotr Kubik who was born in 1967; Zbigniew Popławski who was born in 1957; and, Dariusz Rochala who was born in 1965. They all live in Poland. Mr   Gracki was arrested in March 2003 on suspicion of theft and burglary; Mr   Kubik in January 2001 on suspicion of burglary; Mr   Popławski in September 1998 on suspicion of homicide; and, Mr   Rochala on suspicion of, in particular, attempted murder. Relying, in particular, on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), they allege that the length of their detention on remand was excessive. The applicant in the case of Popławski also complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Stępniak v. Poland (no. 29366/03) The applicant, Dariusz Stępniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Bytom (Poland). He was remanded in custody in October 2002 on charges related to organised crime. The case concerns censorship of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Fahrettin Aydın v. Turkey (no. 31695/02) The applicant, Fahrettin Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He is a history teacher. Relying, in particular, on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that he was transferred to a school in Giresun (Turkey) in reprisal for his trade union activities.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Celia v. the United Kingdom (no. 66293/01) The applicant relies on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with 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).   Klára Kiss v. Hungary (no. 31754/04) Rózsa v. Hungary (no. 22671/04) Karadavut v. Turkey (no. 17604/04)     Thursday 31 January 2008   Ryabov v. Russia (no. 3896/04) The applicant, Andrei Yuryevich Ryabov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in the Vologda Region (Russia). In December 2002 the applicant was charged with the rape of T., who was seven years old at the time. He was convicted as charged in January 2003 and sentenced to 12   years and six months’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that, at no stage of the proceedings, was he given the opportunity to examine a witness who had made a written statement about the rape and the expert who had drawn up the medical report, in breach of Article 6   § 3   (d) (right to a fair trial). He also complains about a harassment campaign against one of his representatives who was involved in another, high-profile, case before the Court ( Khodorkovskiy v. Russia (no.   1 and no.   2)), in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition).   Abdulkadir Aktaş v. Turkey (no. 38851/02) The applicant, Abdulkadir Aktaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and is currently held in Elazığ Prison (Turkey). Suspected of belonging to the armed fundamentalist organisation Hezbollah, he was arrested in October 2002 and placed in police custody. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains about the circumstances of his arrest and his extended detention in police custody.   Albayrak v. Turkey (no. 38406/97) The applicant, Mehmet Emin Albayrak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul. He started to work as a judge in Adana in February 1993. The case concerns disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicant in 1995 for, among other things, reading the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) legal publication Özgür Ülke and watching Med TV, a PKK controlled television channel. As a result he was reprimanded and transferred to another jurisdiction. He ultimately resigned from his post in 2001 and now works as a lawyer. He relies on Articles   10 (freedom of expression) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Dönmüş and Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 9908/03) The applicants, Mehmet Sait Dönmüş and Mehmet Ali Kaplan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1959 and 1973 and live in Turkey and Finland respectively. Suspected of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, they were arrested in June 2000 and placed in police custody. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain of the ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on them in the police premises.   Mehmet Reşit Arslan v. Turkey (no. 31320/02) The applicant, Mehmet Reşit Arslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and was serving a prison sentence in Diyarbakır Prison at the time of his application to the Court. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that he was ill-treated in police custody following his arrest in April 1993 on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He further complains that the length of the criminal proceedings against him were excessive, in breach of Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Özel and Others v. Turkey (no. 37626/02) The applicants, Armagan Özel, Cem Çakar, Hakkı Köse and Abbas Mert, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1950, 1964, 1960 and 1963 respectively and live in Istanbul. The first three applicants, who are doctors, were convicted of having issued false certificates exempting conscripts from military service. Mr Mert was convicted of having obtained a false certificate exempting him from military service. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they complain that the proceedings brought against them were excessively long and were unfair.     Rasim Aydın v. Turkey (no. 62597/00) The applicant, Rasim Aydın, is a Turkish national. Convicted in December 1999 of belonging to the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him were unfair. He also complains that he was convicted on the basis of actions of which he had already been acquitted. He relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 7 (no punishment without law).   Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey (no. 26803/02) The applicant, Süleyman Erkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that he was ill-treated in police custody following his arrest in September 1999 on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into his allegations. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Gerçek v. Turkey (no. 67634/01) The applicant relies in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Uysal v. Turkey (no. 51964/99) The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Plekhova v. Russia (no. 42752/04) Arsenenko v. Ukraine (no. 6128/04) Dedukh v. Ukraine (no. 14394/04) Fedortsi v. Ukraine (no. 10616/02) Konotenko v. Ukraine (no. 7725/04) Luts v. Ukraine (no. 4208/03) Prypiyalo v. Ukraine (no. 75801/01) Shaga v. Ukraine (no. 39846/04) All the applicants rely on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). They also all rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), except in the case of Konotenko . In the cases of Konotenko , Luts and Prypiyalo , the applicants further rely 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). The applicant in the case of Karimov also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Rabia Tan and Others v. Turkey (no. 8095/02) Tunca v. Turkey (no. 17408/04) Fandralyuk v. Ukraine (no. 22775/03) Karimov v. Ukraine (no. 69435/01) Maznyak v. Ukraine (no. 27640/02)   ***   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.