CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 avril 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   240 4.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   8 and 10 April 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 25 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 8 April 2008 and 15 on Thursday 10 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 8 April 2008   Bezzina Wettinger and Others v. Malta (application no. 15091/06) The first six applicants, Francis Bezzina Wettinger, Emanuel Zammit, Nicholas Parnis   England, Stephen Parnis England, Robin Parnis England and Joanna Parnis England, are Maltese nationals who were born in 1926, 1936, 1969, 1963, 1972 and 1965, respectively, and live in Malta. The seventh applicant, W.J. Parnis England Limited, is a company registered in Valletta. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the expropriation of part of a piece of land located in two Maltese cities, Birkirkara and Msida. The applicants also complain about the non-payment and inadequacy of compensation to which they were entitled. 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) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Grădinar v. Moldova (no. 7170/02) The applicant, Nina Grădinar, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1956 and lives in Comrat (Moldova). Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complains about the unfairness of her deceased husband’s re-trial for murder.   Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova (no. 21151/04) The applicant, Megadat.com SRL, was a company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova. At the relevant time, it was the largest internet provider in Moldova. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint that its telecommunications licences were invalidated because it had failed to notify the authorities of a change of address. As a result, the applicant company was forced to close down. It relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Krawczak v. Poland (no. 40387/06) The applicant, Janusz Krawczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Poznań (Poland). In June 1999 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody for three months on three counts of armed robbery. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, which are currently still pending. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Majcher v. Poland (no. 12193/02) The applicant, Józef Majcher, is a Polish national who was born in 1934 and lives in Rzeszów (Poland). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length and unfairness of proceedings with regard to the division of property following his divorce. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Ali and Ayşe Duran v. Turkey (no. 42942/02) The applicants, Ali Duran and Ayşe Duran, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1933 and 1945 respectively and live in Istanbul. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that their son Bayram Duran, then aged 26, died in October 1994 as a result of torture in police custody. They also complain, in particular, that the police officers responsible for their son’s death, although convicted, only received a suspended prison sentence. The applicants rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ayşe Gök and Others v. Turkey (no. 60579/00) The 57 applicants are Turkish nationals. The case concerns civil proceedings brought in 1953 with regard to a plot of land in the village of Malıköy and the development of that land following the publication of a new cadastral plan. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complain of the excessive length and unfairness of those proceedings.   Mehmet Bilen v. Turkey (no. 5337/02) The applicant, Mehmet Bilen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length and unlawfulness of his detention in police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and the fact that he could not obtain compensation under Turkish law. He relies on Article   5   §§   3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security).   Özgen and Others v. Turkey (no. 28925/03) The nine applicants are Turkish applicants who live in Tosmur (Turkey). The case concerns proceedings for recovery of possession of a plot of land, situated in Tosmur, which began in 1959. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complain of the excessive length and unfairness of the proceedings. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they also allege that the length of the proceedings has infringed their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   Tarak v. Turkey (no. 18711/02) The applicant, Cihan Deniz Tarak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Kocaeli (Turquie). In November 1996 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on charges of seeking to overthrow the Turkish constitutional order. In October 2002 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains about the length of his pre-trial detention.   Yücel v. Turkey (No. 1) (no. 6686/03) Yücel v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 31152/04) These two cases concern the same applicant, Erdinç Yücel, a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and currently lives in Istanbul. Following an operation against the illegal organisation TIKB (Türkiye İhtilalcı Komünistler Birliği), the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in Kartal Prison in January 2001. Although he was released in June 2006, the proceedings against him are still pending. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his detention in Kartal Prison. Under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant also complains of the excessive length of his detention.   Nnyanzi v. the United Kingdom (no. 21878/06) The applicant, Evarista Evelyn Nnyanzi, is a Ugandan national who was born in 1965 and lives in London. She has lived in the United Kingdom for almost ten years.   Her mother and younger siblings live in Kenya. She is the daughter of Evaristo   Nnyanzi, who was a government minister in Uganda between 1985 and 1986 and subsequently the Treasurer-General of the Democratic Party. Mr Nnyanzi was arrested in 1986 when the present regime, the National Resistance Movement, took power. He has been detained   in Uganda since 1998 on treason charges. The case concerns the decision to refuse the applicant’s asylum application – made on the basis of her father’s political activities – and to remove her to Uganda. She relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) 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.   Akıncı v. Turkey (no. 12146/02) Yerlikaya v. Turkey (nos. 10985/02 and 10993/02) In these two cases, the applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Kartal and Kızıldağ v. Turkey (no. 59641/00) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     Keçecioğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 37546/02) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Kızıl and Others v. Turkey (no. 1375/03) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Nurhan Yılmaz (No. 2) v. Turkey (no. 16741/04) The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Yılmaz and Seçme v. Turkey (nos. 72649/01 and 72652/01) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Szulc v. the United Kingdom (no. 63679/00) 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. The applicants in the cases of Klinar and Sirc also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Klinar v. Slovenia (no. 34544/02) Sirc v. Slovenia (no. 44580/98) Buyruk v. Turkey (no. 14558/03) Meşrure Sümer v. Turkey (no. 64725/01)     Thursday 10 April 2008   Abrahamian v. Austria (no. 35354/04) The applicant, Heidemarie Abrahamian, is an Austrian national who lives in Vienna. She is a doctor. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that no public hearing was held in administrative proceedings with regard to compulsory payment of pension and invalidity contributions to the Vienna Medical Association. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Mihalkov v. Bulgaria (no. 67719/01) The applicant, Mihail Vladov Mihalkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Sofia. In 1985 the applicant was convicted of several economic offences and sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment. He spent 11 months in prison. Following revision proceedings, the judgments convicting him were quashed. The case concerns the proceedings for compensation brought by the applicant in connection with the damage sustained on account of his conviction and imprisonment. Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains of the lack of impartiality of the courts which ruled on his action, about the fact that the amount of compensation awarded was reduced on account of judicial taxes, and of the excessive length of the proceedings.   Bochet v. France (no. 18130/05) The applicant, Jean Bochet, is a French national who was born in 1922 and lives in Reims (France). The case concerns a dispute between the applicant and the tax authorities. The applicant complains that the proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat were unfair on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in that court’s deliberations. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Paschalidis, Koutmeridis and Zaharakis v. Greece (nos. 27863/05, 28422/05 and 28028/05) The applicants, Giorgos Paschalidis, Efstathios Koutmeridis and Konstantinos Zaharakis, are Greek nationals. They stood as candidates in the parliamentary elections of 7   March 2004: Mr Paschalidis and Mr Koutmeridis were on the lists submitted by the “PASOK” party, while Mr Zaharakis stood on the list of “Nea Dimokratia” party. Relying on Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), the applicants complain of the forfeiture of their parliamentary seats on account of a judgment of the Special Supreme Court.     Dzeladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 13252/02) The applicants, Amdi Dzeladinov, Dudzihan Kamilov, Remzie Durmišova, Dagistan Alilov, and Mefail (Meta) Asanovski, are Macedonian nationals who were born in 1975, 1966, 1977, 1977 and 1966 respectively, and live in Štip (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The applicants allege that, following a brawl outside a restaurant where a Romani celebration was taking place, they were assaulted and ill-treated by police officers. They further allege that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into their complaint. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Wasserman v. Russia (No. 2) (no. 21071/05) The applicant, Kim Yefimovich Wasserman, is a Russian and Israeli national who was born in 1926 and lives in Ashdod (Israel). The applicant brought a previous application before the Court, Wasserman v. Russia (no. 15021/02), concerning non-enforcement of a judgment debt in his favour. In its Chamber judgment of 18 November 2004 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §1 (right of access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). This case now concerns the applicant’s complaint about the continued non-enforcement of the same judgment debt in his favour. He also complains about the absence of an effective domestic remedy for that complaint. He relies on Article 6 § 1, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Meloni v. Switzerland (no. 61697/00) The applicant, Raffaele Meloni, is a Swiss national who was born in 1964 and lives in Solonas di Cabras (Dominican Republic). The applicant, who was suspected of fraud and forging documents, was placed in pre-trial detention from April 1999 to September 2000. He was subsequently sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and was arrested with a view to serving the remainder of his sentence in February 2005. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that his pre-trial detention was unlawful, in that it had been extended without a legal basis.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Gorokhov v. Russia (no. 40136/02) Luchkina v. Russia (no. 3548/04) Nekhoroshev v. Russia (no. 45017/04) Shevchenko v. Russia (no. 42383/02) Kolesnik v. Ukraine (no. 20824/02) Martynchuk v. Ukraine (no. 38988/02) Maydanik v. Ukraine (no. 20826/02) All the applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicants in the cases of Luchkina and Martynchuk they also all rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the cases of Kolesnik and Maydanik also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, 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.   Avdelidis and Others v. Greece (no. 15938/06)   *** 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.