CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 mars 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   186 14.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   18 and 20 March 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 14 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 18 March 2008 and eight on Thursday 20 March 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 18 March 2008   Maio v. Italy (application no. 24886/03) The applicant, Dante Maio, is an Italian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Benevento (Italy). The case concerns proceedings brought by the applicant in June 1991 to obtain compensation from the municipal authority of Benevento for the occupation of land belonging to him with a view to expropriation and the construction of a road. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant complains about the excessive length of the proceedings and the infringement to his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (no. 3052/04) The applicant company is a four-star hotel, the “Dacia”, in Chişinău. In 1997 a privatisation act was adopted by Parliament and the “Dacia”, then owned by the State, was auctioned. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint about the annulment of the privatisation of its hotel and the unfairness of the ensuing legal proceedings. The applicant company relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Kuliś v. Poland (no. 15601/02) The applicant, Mirosław Kuliś, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Łódź (Poland). He owns “ Westa-Druk ” which publishes the weekly magazine “ Angora ”. The case concerns the proceedings against the applicant for the publication of an interview with the lawyer of Izabela Malisiewicz-Gąsior and her husband who were accused of kidnapping the daughter of Andrzej Kern, the then Deputy Speaker of the Sejm (Poland’s Lower House of Parliament). The applicant relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Ladent v. Poland (no. 11036/03) The applicant, Franck Ladent, is a French national who was born in 1972 and lives in Ferney-Voltaire (France). He married a Polish national in March 2001, with whom he initially lived in Poland but moved to France in July 2001. In March 2001 proceedings were brought against him for slander. It appeared that following the applicant’s departure for France, Kraków–Śródmieście District Court had sent him summonses in connection with those proceedings, which remained unanswered. On 15 July 2002 the district court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody and issued a warrant notice against him. On 3   January 2003 Mr Ladent was arrested at the border between Poland and Germany. He was released 10 days later and ultimately acquitted of the charges against him in October 2004. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention from 3 to 13 January 2003. He relies on Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (right to liberty and security).   Pekinel v. Turkey (no. 9939/02) The applicants, Süher Pekinel and Güher Pekinel, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1951, and Mehmet Murat Pekinel, a stateless person of Turkish origin who was born in 1948. They live in Turkey. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about proceedings with regard to a dispute over a plot of land situated in the village of Maltepe in Izmir. They rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Piroğlu and Karakaya v. Turkey (nos. 36370/02 and 37581/02) The applicants, Ecevit Piroğlu and Mihriban Karakaya, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1962, respectively, and live in Izmir (Turkey). They were both members of the executive board of the Izmir Branch of the Human Rights Association. In July 2001 the Governor of Izmir requested that 13 people belonging to the association have their membership annulled on account of their alleged involvement in illegal activities. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), both applicants complain about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against them for failing to comply with the Governor’s request. The second applicant also complains, under Article 11 (freedom of association), about her conviction in those proceedings and, under Article   10 (freedom of expression), about another conviction for being involved in a press declaration to protest against the deployment of American troops in Afghanistan.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Velocci v. Italy (no. 1717/03) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Gümüşoğlu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 40/02, 41/02 and 42/02) The applicants rely on 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. The applicants in Pobijaková , Dolhar and Gerden also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Wilczynski v. Poland (no. 35760/06) Eliáš v. Slovakia (no. 21326/07) Pobijaková v. Slovakia (no. 45148/06) Dolhar v. Slovenia (no. 66822/01) Gerden v. Slovenia (no. 44581/98) Yıldırım and Others v. Turkey (nos. 16456/03 and 8138/06)   Thursday 20 March 2008   Bartenbach v. Austria (no. 39120/03) The applicants Hanno and Helmut Bartenbach are Austrian nationals who were born in 1959 and 1940, respectively. Hanno Bartenbach lives in Bludenz and Helmut Bartenbach in Bürs in Austria. They own a painting company together. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the length and unfairness of criminal proceedings against them for illegally employing a Turkish citizen in June 1997. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Ivan Hristov v. Bulgaria (no. 32461/02) The applicant, Ivan Angelov Hristov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Pleven (Bulgaria). At the relevant time, he owned a flour-mill. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length of two sets of criminal proceedings against him: the first for providing banking services without a licence; and, the second for, in particular, fraud and forgery. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Alvanos and Others v. Greece (no. 38731/05) The applicants, Menelaos Alvanos, Michaïl Bekiaris, Charalambos Chainas, Evristheas Stavrou and Pavlos Thomaïdis, are Greek nationals. They were made redundant after the North Aegean Oil Company , which exploited oil from the Bay of Kavala (Greece), ceased its activity. Kavala Oil undertook to carry on the exploitation of oil from the bay. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain about the unlawfulness of the proceedings they brought to contest Kaval Oil ’s refusal to employ them.   Korfiatis v. Greece (no. 34025/06) The applicant, Dionysios Korfiatis, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and lives in Athens. He was arrested in June 1998 on suspicion of purchasing and possessing drugs, and in July 2004 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. His appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation in January 2006. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Aziyevy v. Russia (no. 77626/01) The applicants, Lech and Zulay Aziyevy, are Russian nationals who were born in 1947 and 1949, respectively, and live in Russia. They are married. At the relevant time, they lived in a flat in Grozny, Chechnya. The case concerns, in particular, the applicants’ allegation that their sons Lom-Ali and Umar-Ali, born in 1973 and 1974, disappeared in September 2000 after being taken from the family flat in Grozny by Russian servicemen. They rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Budayeva and Others v. Russia (nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02) The applicants, Khalimat Khuseyevna Budayeva, Fatima Khuseynovna Atmurzayeva, Raya Meliyevna Shogenova, Nina Nikolayevna Khakhlova, Andrey Aleksandrovich Shishkin and Irina Ilyinichna Shishkina, are Russian nationals who were born in 1961, 1963, 1953, 1955, 1958 and 1955, respectively. They all live in the town of Tyrnauz in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya (Russia), except for Ms Shogenova who lives in Nalchik. In July 2000 Tyrnauz was devastated by a mudslide. Eight people were killed, including Ms Budayeva’s husband. As a result of the disaster, the applicants sustained injuries and psychological trauma and lost their homes. The case concerned, in particular, the applicants’ allegation that the Russian authorities failed to mitigate the consequences of the mudslide and to carry out a judicial enquiry into the disaster. The applicants rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Drahorád and Drahorádová v. the Czech Republic (no. 10254/03) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of administrative proceedings.   Papastefanou v. Greece (no. 39170/06)   *** Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.