CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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   221 28.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   1 and 3 April 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 1 April 2008 and 13 on Thursday 3 April 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 1 April 2008   Gigli Costruzioni S.R.L. v. Italy (application no. 10557/03) The applicant, Gigli Costruzioni S.R.L., is a company with its registered office in Jesi (Italy). It was the owner of a plot of building land in Morro d’Abba (Italy) of which the authorities took physical possession in 1981 and which was expropriated in 1983. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complains of the inadequate amount it was paid in compensation for the expropriation. Under Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), it also complains of the unfairness and excessive length of the proceedings.   Bereza v. Poland (no. 38713/06) The applicant, Marcin Bereza, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Warsaw. In December 2003, he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of murder, extortion, robbery and drug trafficking. Although he has recently been released, the proceedings against him are still pending. Relying, in particular, on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicant complains about the excessive length of his detention.   Varga v. Romania (no. 73957/01) The applicants, Anna, Gruia and Flaviu Varga, are Romanian nationals who were born respectively in 1942, 1937 and 1982 and live in Cluj-Napoca (Romania). On 19 December 2000 they were remanded in custody for insulting a public prosecutor and police officers following a search carried out at the home of the first two applicants. Relying on Articles   5 (right to liberty and security) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain that their detention was unlawful and that the search violated their right to respect for their home.   Bulović v. Serbia (no. 14145/04) The applicant, Radmila Bulović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Subotica (Serbia). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the Serbian authorities’ failure to enforce in good time a judgment which ordered her former husband to pay her a maintenance allowance. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Nemeti v. Romania (no. 37278/03) Taculescu and Others v. Romania (no. 16947/03) Valentin Dumitrescu v. Romania (no. 36820/02) 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). In the case of Valentin Dumitrescu , the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Bond v. the United Kingdom (no. 63479/00) Cummins v. the United Kingdom (no. 14549/02) Nelson v. the United Kingdom (no. 74961/01) Robertson v. the United Kingdom (no. 12828/02) The applicants rely 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.   Shinckus v. Belgium (no. 29198/05) Szilvássy v. Hungary (no. 17623/04) Stukus and Others v. Poland (no. 12534/03) Dekany v. Romania (no. 22011/03)     Thursday 3 April 2008   Golovkin v. Russia (no. 16595/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Ivanovich Golovkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Kaliningrad (Russia). In April 1998 the applicant was charged with illegal trading, tax evasion and money laundering. The proceedings against him were ultimately discontinued in September 2005 because the relevant statutory time-limit had expired. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Koretskyy and Others v. Ukraine (no. 40269/02) The applicants, Sergiy Petrovych Koretskyy, Andriy Vasylyovych Tolochko, Andriy Mykolayovych Gorbal, and Oleksiy Grygorovych Lobytskyy, are Ukrainian nationals, born in 1955, 1975, 1978 and 1975, respectively. They all live in Kyiv. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the Ukrainian authorities’ refusal to register their association, the “Civic Committee for the Preservation of Wild (Indigenous) Natural Areas in Bereznyaky” (“ Громадянський Комітет за збереження дикої (корінної) природи Березняків ”). They rely on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Ponomaryov v. Ukraine (no. 3236/03) The applicant, Viktor Vasylyovych Ponomaryov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Rogan (Ukraine). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the quashing of a final and enforceable judgment in his favour as a result of a time-limit for appeal being renewed after a considerable lapse of time breached the principle of legal certainty. The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Regent Company v. Ukraine (no. 773/03) The applicant is a privately owned commercial company, Regent Engineering International Limited, with its head office in Victoria (the Seychelles) and an office in London. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint about the non-enforcement by the Ukrainian authorities of an arbitration award of approximately 2,000,000   euros owed by the State-owned company, Oriana. The   applicant company relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Mourek v. the Czech Republic (no. 17999/03) The applicant relies on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Dmitriyeva v. Russia (no. 27101/04) Ignatyeva v. Russia (no. 10277/05) Ivan Novikov v. Russia (no. 12541/05) Pogulyayev v. Russia (no. 34150/04) Tetsen v. Russia (no. 11589/04) All the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Ivan Novikov , they also all 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 the case of Jeliazkov and Others also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Jeliazkov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 9143/02) Gavrilyak v. Ukraine (no. 31406/03) N.B. v. Ukraine (no. 17945/02)   *** 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.