CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .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   206 20.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   25 and 27 March 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing four Chamber judgments on Tuesday 25 March 2008 and 29 on 27 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 25 March 2008   Gaga v. Romania (application no. 1562/02) The applicant, Gheorghe Gaga, is a Romanian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Fizeş (Romania). The case concerns the applicant’s complaints about criminal proceedings which resulted in his being sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment for murder. The applicant complains that he was convicted in absentia without having had the opportunity to defend himself. He relies in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Vitan v. Romania (no. 42084/02) The applicant, Floricel Vitan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Cluj Napoca (Romania). He was remanded in custody in December 2000 on suspicion of trading in influence while exercising the functions of information officer at the Independent Service for Protection and Anticorruption ( Serviciul Independent de Protectie si Anticoruptie ), and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in November 2001. He complains of the poor conditions of his detention, a violation of the secrecy of his correspondence in prison and a breach of his defence rights and of the presumption of innocence. He relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Falimonov v. Russia (no. 11549/02) Gayvoronskiy v. Russia (no. 13519/02) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Thursday 27 March 2008   Delespesse v. Belgium (no. 12949/05) The applicant, Dominique Delespesse, is a Belgian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Liège (Belgium). He was accused of taking part in an armed robbery in March 1999, which resulted in the victim’s death, and was committed to stand trial before the Assize Court, which sentenced him to life imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 2 (presumption of innocence), the applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings brought against him.   Kostadin Mihaylov v. Bulgaria (no. 17868/07) The applicant, Kostadin Georgiev Mihaylov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1922 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). In 2001 he went blind after contracting glaucoma. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of two sets of proceedings with regard to his request for a disability pension and attendance allowance. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Lb Interfinanz A.G. v. Croatia (no. 29549/04) The applicant, Lb Interfinanz A.G., is a Swiss company based in Zurich (Switzerland). The applicant company was a creditor of the Županjska Bank, d.d. Županja. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint about the unfairness of bankruptcy proceedings, brought against the Županjska bank, in which it had lodged a claim. It relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Perić v. Croatia (no. 34499/06) The applicant, Ilonka Perić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1919 and lives in Opatija (Croatia). In 1993 she drew up a contract with two carers to look after her in return for her property when she died. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of civil proceedings in which she sought to terminate that contract. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Emin and Others v. Greece (no. 34144/05) Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece (no. 26698/05) In Emin and Others , the seven applicants are Greek nationals living in Rodopi (Greece). They are among the founding members of the “Cultural Association of Turkish Women of the Region of Rodopi”. In Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others the applicants are two associations, Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and the “Science Graduates Circle of the minority in Western Thrace”, and eight Greek nationals.   Both cases concern the applicants’ complaints about decisions taken against associations founded by members of the Muslim minority in Western Thrace (Greece). Relying in particular on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants in the case of Emin and Others complain of the refusal by the Greek courts to register their association and the applicants in the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others of the court-ordered dissolution of the association Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis . In Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others the applicants also complain, under Article 6   §   1, of the excessive length of the proceedings.   Kouroupis v. Greece (no. 36432/05) The applicant, Georgios Kouroupis, is a Greek national who was born in 1952 and lives in Piraeus (Greece). He is a photographer. He was arrested in July 1999 on suspicion of having committed espionage. Following a number of adjournments of hearings, the proceedings ended with his acquittal in March 2005. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Terzoglou v. Greece (no. 15280/06) The applicant, Aggelos Terzoglou, is a Greek national. The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against him in April 1999 for incitement to drug trafficking in the prison in which he was being held for another reason. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in January 2004 and lost his appeal on points of law in October 2005. Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Guidi v. Italy (no. 28320/02) The applicant, Vincenzo Guidi, is an Italian national who was born in 1966. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and other offences relating to the activities of a mafia-type criminal organisation and is currently in Ascoli Piceno Prison (Italy). He complains, in particular, about the special prison regime imposed on him which involves, among other things, repeated strip searches, permanent supervision of his cell by closed-circuit cameras, restrictions on family visits and monitoring of his correspondence. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Just satisfaction Perrella v. Italy (No. 2) (no. 15348/03) The applicant, Vincenzo Perrella, is an Italian national. In a judgment of 2 November 2006, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   Roşca, Sec ă reanu and Others v. Moldova (nos. 25230/02 and 25203/02, 27642/02, 25234/02, 25235/02) The applicants, Iurie Roşca, Ştefan Secăreanu, Petru Buburuz, Anatol Roşcovan and Anatol Eremia, are five Moldovan nationals who were born in 1959, 1959, 1937, 1960 and 1931, respectively. They live in Chişinău. They are members and/or sympathisers of the Christian Democratic People’s Party. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about administrative fines imposed on them for organising and/or participating in demonstrations to protest against the introduction of compulsory Russian language classes in Moldovan schools. The applicants rely on Articles   10 (freedom of expression) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Azevedo v. Portugal (no. 20620/04) The applicant, Leonel Lucas Azevedo, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1964 and lives in Castelo Branco (Portugal). The case concerns his conviction for defamation following the publication of a book entitled The gardens of the episcopal palace of Castelo Branco in which he criticised the – in his view – poor quality of books previously published on the subject. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains of an infringement of his right to freedom of expression.   Korobov and Others v. Russia (no. 67086/01) Sukhovoy v. Russia (no. 63955/00) The applicants, Anatoliy Yuryevich Korobov, Oleg Yuryevich Savelyev, Dmitriy Vladimirovich Tsyplov and Kirill Yuryevich Sukhovoy, are Russian nationals who live in Ivanovo (Russia). The first three applicants were born in 1979 and the fourth in 1982. All the applicants were found guilty of robbery and given prison sentences. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain about the conditions of their detention on remand.   Shtukaturov v. Russia (no. 44009/05) The applicant, Pavel Vladimirovich Shtukaturov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in St Petersburg. He suffers from a mental disorder. Following a request lodged by his mother, the Russian courts declared the applicant legally incapable in December 2004. His mother was subsequently appointed his guardian and, in November 2005, she admitted him to a psychiatric hospital. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints about being deprived of his legal capacity without his knowledge, his confinement to a psychiatric hospital, his inability to obtain a review of his status, interference with his correspondence and involuntary medical treatment He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 (right to liberty and security), 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) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination). Further relying on Article   34 (right of individual petition), he alleges that he was prevented from meeting his lawyer in hospital to discuss his case before the European Court for a long period of time.   Hacı Zeki Uzun v. Turkey (no. 11564/02) The applicant, Hacı Zeki Uzun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). The applicant complains about the length of his detention in police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). He relies, in particular, on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Vacarencu v. Moldova (no. 10543/02) Korotkikh v. Russia (no. 4543/02) Mayamsin v. Russia (no. 3344/04) Murtazin v. Russia (no. 26338/06) Shirykalova v. Russia (no. 26307/02) Tikhov and Others v. Russia (no. 14296/03) The applicants rely, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in Korotkikh and Shirykalova also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   McNamee v. the United Kingdom (no. 61949/00) The applicant 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 under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Dim. Kai Aik. Tzivani O.E. v. Greece (no. 4799/06) Markou v. Greece (no. 34035/06) Seremetis v. Greece (no. 38330/05) Bergmann v. Hungary (no. 14276/04) Csabainé Győri v. Hungary (no. 14996/05) Gögös v. Hungary (nos. 20014/04 and 25348/04 (joined))     *** 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.