CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 février 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   75 1.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   5 and 7 February 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing five Chamber judgments on Tuesday 5 February 2008 and 36 on Thursday 7 February 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 5 February 2008   Değerli and Others v. Turkey (application no. 18242/02) The four applicants, Ali Değerli, Erdal Yıldız, Yaşar Yağan and Nurettin Işık, are Turkish nationals. They were placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having taken part in riots inside a prison where they were being held. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complain, among other things, that they were kept in detention arbitrarily and unlawfully.   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Glöckler and Others v. Hungary (no. 17628/04) Sirkó and Others v. Hungary (no. 44822/04) Szőke v. Hungary (no. 22736/04) Tót v. Hungary and Italy (no. 44746/04)     Thursday 7 February 2008   Kostadinov v. Bulgaria (application no. 55712/00) The applicant, Stefan Lazarov Kostadinov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). In January 1999 the applicant was remanded in custody on charges of robbery. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that he was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during his detention in Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service Detention Facility and Pazardzhik Prison, in breach of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He also complains about the unlawfulness of his detention, in breach of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 55861/00) The applicant, Svetoslav Dimitrov Dimitrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Hisar (Bulgaria). Between 1995 and 1999 the applicant was convicted on three occasions of theft. On 12 May 1999 he was detained to serve the outstanding part of his sentence for the third conviction. Ultimately, he was released on 4 February 2000. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention between 12 May 1999 and 4 February 2000 as he alleged that he had already served all the sentences imposed on him by the Bulgarian courts. He relies on Article   5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Yankov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 70728/01) The applicant, Todor Antimov Yankov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). The case concerns two sets of criminal proceedings instituted against him in 1996, which were stayed on account of his ill-health. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him were excessively long.   Dymáček and Dymáčková v. the Czech Republic (no. 35098/03) The applicants, Josef Dymáček and Františka Dymáčková, are Czech nationals who were born in 1942 and 1945 respectively and live in Hovorany (Czech Republic). The case concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that they were deprived of possessions they had acquired in good faith and in accordance with domestic law, without being offered adequate compensation.   Arsenovici v. Romania (no. 77210/01) Tarik v. Romania (no. 75849/01) The applicants are Zoe Delia Arsenovici, a Romanian national, and Speranţa Tarik, a German national. Zoe Delia Arsenovici was born in 1918 and lives in Bucharest; Speranţa Tarik was born in 1944 and lives in Remscheid (Germany). They allege that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was infringed on account of their prolonged inability to take possession of flats that had been returned to them and to receive rent for them. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Tarik , the applicant, relying on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), also complains that the eviction proceedings she instituted against the occupants of her flat were unfair.   Beian v. Romania (no. 2) (no. 4113/03) The applicants, Aurel Beian and Elena Beian, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1932 and 1942 respectively and live in Sâncraiu de Mureş (Romania). They complain, in particular, that their right of access to a court was infringed in that the domestic courts annulled their claim on account of their failure to pay stamp duty. They rely on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Konolos v. Romania (no. 26600/02) The applicant, Gheorghe Konolos, is a Romanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Liège (Belgium). The applicant, a company director, was placed in pre-trial detention in January 2000 on suspicion of deception, tax evasion and forgery and uttering. Relying on Article   5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he submits that his pre-trial detention had no legal basis between April and August 2002.   Mechenkov v. Russia (no. 35421/05) The applicant, Aleksandr Stepanovich Mechenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957. In October 2001 he was arrested on charges of inflicting bodily harm. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, later reduced to seven years. He suffers from tuberculosis and chronic hepatitis C. He has spent periods of his detention in prison hospital LIU-10 in Novosibirsk (Russia) but is currently serving his sentence in correctional facility IK-18, also in Novosibirsk. The case concerns the applicant’s allegations that he was infected with hepatitis C after his incarceration in October 2001; was not provided with adequate medical treatment; and, was put at risk of further infection by being held with inmates suffering from active tuberculosis and hepatitis A. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). The applicant further alleges that, following his application to the Court, he was intimidated by officials of the prison hospital LIU-10, his correspondence with the Court was interfered with and he had disciplinary sanctions imposed on him, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition).   Açıkgöz v. Slovenia (no. 28936/02) The applicant, Ali Açıkgöz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Austria. In 1987 he was involved in a serious car accident as a result of which one person died. Criminal proceedings were brought against him for reckless driving. He was ultimately acquitted in 1999. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Trajkoski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 13191/02) The applicant, Cvetan Trajkoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Prilep (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). He brought administrative proceedings concerning a petrol station located a few metres from his home. The case concerns the applicant’s allegations that he was subjected to police brutality when going to Prilep police station in January 2001 to report a possible explosion at the petrol station and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Kovach v. Ukraine (no. 39424/02) The applicant, Mykola Mykolayovych Kovach, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Uzhgorod (Ukraine). He stood as a candidate in the 2002 parliamentary elections in a constituency in the Zakarpattya region. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of the procedure to count votes in his constituency. He relies on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Brătulescu v. Romania (no. 6206/03) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Buttu and Bobulescu v. Romania (no. 1) (no. 20517/02) Buttu and Bobulescu v. Romania (no. 2) (no. 20532/02) Cherebetiu and Pop v. Romania (no. 36476/03) Episcopia Română Unită cu Roma Oradea v. Romania (no. 26879/02) Iring v. Romania (no. 34783/02) Krajcsovics and Others v. Romania (no. 38023/02) Mosoiu and Păsărin v. Romania (no. 10245/02) Răţeanu v. Romania (no. 18729/05) Reuniunea de Ajutor pentru Înmormântare Fratelia v. Romania (no. 35803/03) S.C. Sefer S.A. v. Romania (no. 27784/04) Silimon and Gross v. Romania (no. 19372/06) Ţeţu v. Romania (no. 10108/02) Vodă and Bob v. Romania (no. 7976/02) The applicants all rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the cases of Krajcsovics and Others and Vodă and Bob the applicants also rely on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing). In the case of Cherebetiu and Pop the applicants also rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). In the case of Ţeţu the applicant also relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Gâgă v. Romania (no. 42792/02) Şerbănescu v. Romania (no. 33945/04) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   SC PLASTIK ABC SA v. Romania (no. 32299/03) The applicant company relies in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Agaponova and Others v. Russia (no. 34439/04) Cherkashin v. Russia (no. 7412/02) Gladyshev and Others v. Russia (no. 20430/04) Kostenko v. Russia (no. 23490/03) Sidnev v. Ukraine (no. 15145/05) All the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Tseronis v. Greece (no. 18607/05) Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 14258/03)   ***   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.