CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   281 18.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   22 and 24 April 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing seven Chamber judgments on Tuesday 22 April 2008 and 33 on Thursday 24 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 22 April 2008   Bennich-Zalewski v. Poland (application no. 59857/00) The applicant, Juliusz Bennich-Zalewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Warsaw. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains about the length of expropriation proceedings concerning a factory he had inherited from his mother. Further relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention, he complains that, despite the fact that the expropriation decision was declared null and void in 2001, he was unable to regain possession of his factory.   Stefan Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 30072/04) The applicant, Stefan Kozłowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Szczecin (Poland). In 1993 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for armed robbery. He was ultimately convicted in July 2005 and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Zborowski v. Poland (no. 39519/05) The applicant, Mirosław Zborowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Poznań (Poland). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that, when detained pending trial from January 2001 to January 2005, correspondence with his lawyer was censored by the Polish authorities. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Demetriou v. Turkey (no. 16158/90) Just satisfaction Demades v. Turkey (no. 16219/90) Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey (no. 16163/90)   The above three cases concern/ed the applicants’ complaints that they have been unable to access or use their property in the northern part of Cyprus since the 1974 Turkish invasion.   In the case of Demetriou the applicant relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   In the cases of Demades and Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios, the Court held, in its Chamber judgments of 31   July 2003, by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Demades it further held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article   8 (right to respect for home). In both cases the Court held unanimously that the question of Article   41 (just satisfaction) concerning pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was not ready for decision.   Yalçın Küçük (No. 3) v. Turkey (no.71353/01) The applicant, Yalçın Küçük, is a Turkish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Gebze (Turkey). He is a university professor and a writer. The case concerns the applicant’s conviction on account of various speeches and articles written by him. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains that the proceedings were unfair and that his right to freedom of expression has been breached.   Thursday 24 April 2008   Heremans v. Belgium (no. 28171/04) The applicant, Joseph Heremans, is a Belgian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Incourt (Belgium). He is suspected of tipping 17,000 tonnes of highly contaminated earth onto the site of a sand quarry that he was running in the 1980s in the Walloon municipality of Mellery. The applicant complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him, which are still pending. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 1365/07) The applicants are C.G., a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Turkey, and his wife and daughter, T.H.G. and T.C.G, Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1968 and 1996 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about C.G.’s deportation from Bulgaria to Turkey in June 2005. They rely on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).   Just satisfaction Todorova and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 48380/99, 51362/99, 60036/00 and 73465/01) The applicants are four Bulgarian nationals. The case concerned nationalised property the applicants had acquired and the subsequent actions brought against them under section   7 of the Restitution Law by the pre-nationalisation owners or their heirs, resulting in the applicants being ordered to vacate their property. In its Chamber judgment of 15   March 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that the question of Article   41 (just satisfaction) as regards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was not ready for decision.   Dorozhko and Pozharskiy v. Estonia (nos. 14659/04 and 16855/04) The applicants are Aleksandr Dorozhko, a stateless person born in 1960, and Vyacheslav Pzharskiy, an Estonian national born in 1981. They are both currently serving prison sentences for robbery. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that, in criminal proceedings against the applicants, the trial judge was not impartial as her husband had been involved in the pre-trial investigation. They rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Castelot v. France (no. 12332/03) The applicant, Claude Castelot, is a French national who was born in 1935 and lives in Torcy-le-Petit (France). In September 1998 he was arrested for being drunk and disorderly in a bar and placed in a cell to sober up. The applicant complains that no effective investigation was carried out to establish whether or not his detention in that cell was lawful. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Milionis and Others v. Greece (no. 41898/04) The 44 applicants are Greek nationals who are retired servicemen or their heirs. The case concerns an application lodged by the ex-servicemen in 1989 to obtain a decision that the air force’s mutual pension fund was obliged to grant them additional pension payments plus interest. The applicants complain that the proceedings were unfair and excessively long. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Rizzotto v. Italy (no. 15349/06) The applicant, Salvatore Stefano Rizzotto, is an Italian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Syracuse (Italy). Charged with criminal association and drug trafficking, he was remanded in custody from June 2004 to October 2005. The applicant alleges that the Italian courts failed to decide “speedily” on the lawfulness of his detention and relies on Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security).   Juozaitienė and Bikulčius v. Lithuania (nos. 70659/01 and 74371/01) The applicants, Regina Juozaitienė and Jonas Bikulčius, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1940 and 1935 respectively and live in Kaunas (Lithuania). The case concerns the shooting by a police officer of the applicants’ sons, who were both passengers in a car whose driver the police were trying to stop and arrest. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), the applicants allege that their sons   were unjustifiably killed by the police and that there   was no effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths.   Kemp and Others v. Luxembourg (no. 17140/05) The applicants, Paul Kemp, and three sisters, Gabrielle, Edith and Paule Binsfeld, are Luxembourg nationals who were born in 1931, 1937, 1941 and 1949, respectively, and live in Schifflange and Bridel (Luxembourg). The case concerns the State’s acquisition in 1970 of land that had belonged to the sisters’ parents for the purposes of building a new motorway. Its route ultimately diverged from the original plan but the applicants’ request to recover the land was denied. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain about the unfairness of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) they also complain about a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal (no. 17107/05) The applicant, Eduardo José Campos Dâmaso, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1962 and lives in Lisbon. At the relevant time he was a journalist with the daily newspaper Público . In November 1998 he was fined for publishing an article about criminal proceedings pending against the vice-chairman of the parliamentary group of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) for acts of deception and tax fraud. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Rosengren v. Romania (no. 70786/01) The applicant, Julian Rosengren, is a Romanian and Swedish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Visby (Sweden).The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length of criminal proceedings against him for fraud and a prohibition on his leaving Bucharest. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement).   Visan v. Romania (no. 15741/03) The applicant, Constanta Visan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest. In June 1993 she was convicted of fraud and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. She was released in July 1994 and, ultimately, pardoned in October 1995. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that her claim for compensation for wrongful conviction was rejected as time-barred. She relies, in particular, on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court).   Fursenko v. Russia (no. 26386/02) The applicant, Petr Vsevolodovich, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lived in Tver (Russia). He died in 2005. In April 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on charges of drug-trafficking. He was, ultimately, released in February 2003. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length and unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention and that he was unable to challenge the unlawfulness of his continuing detention. He relied on Article   5 §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no. 2947/06) The applicants are twelve Uzbek nationals: Ilhomjon Ismoilov, Rustam Naimov, Izzatullo Muhametsobirov, Abdurrauf Muhamadsobirov, Sardorbek Ulughodjaev, Obboskhon Makhmudov, Umarali Alimov, Kabul Kasimhujayev, Hurshid Hamzaev, Iskanderbek Usmanov, Shkrullo Sabirov and Mahmud Rustamhodjaev; and,   a Kyrgyz national: Mamirgon Tashtemirov. In June 2005 the applicants were arrested in Ivanovo (Russia) following charges brought against them in Uzbekistan for, in particular, membership of extremist organisations. They were ultimately released in March 2007. The applicants’ request for refugee status was rejected in 2006, despite a decision to the contrary by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Their request for temporary asylum is awaiting decision. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the   Russian authorities’ decision of August 2006 to extradite them to Uzbekistan where they allegedly risk ill-treatment and an unfair trial. The applicants also complain that their detention pending extradition was unlawful and that the   extradition decisions stated that they had committed criminal offences, notably acts of terrorism,   in Uzebekistan. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   Silin v. Russia (no. 3947/03) The applicant, Vladimir Igorevich Silin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Moscow. In August 2000 the applicant was detained on charges of, in particular, attempted kidnapping as part of an organised group. He was convicted in June 2003 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   5 §   2 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Nesevski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 14438/03) The applicant, Zoran Nesevski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Skopje. In January 1997 the applicant applied for a post as a teacher in a school in Skopje. He was not recruited. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour which ordered, in particular, the school to recruit another person from the list of candidates as the person who had been recruited did not meet the requirements for the post as advertised in the vacancy notice. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Sulejmanov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 69875/01) The applicant, Demir Sulejmanov, is a Macedonian national of Roma ethnic origin who was born in 1971. He died in 2001. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that, suspected of stealing sheep in March 1998, he was ill-treated by the police. He also alleged that there was no effective official investigation into his complaint. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kahraman Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 51423/99) The applicants, Kahraman Yılmaz, Bilal Arıkan, Birol Ayten, Ali Dilli and Ahmet Cihan, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1955, 1956, 1959, 1956 and 1954 and live in Istanbul. They were arrested and remanded in custody in the early 1980s on suspicion of being members of the TKP/ML-TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist, Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army) and were ultimately acquitted in 1999. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them. The applicant Ahmet Cihan also complains, under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), about proceedings he brought to obtain compensation for the damage caused by his detention.   Chervonets v. Ukraine (no. 39405/03) The applicant, Valeriy Pavlovich Chervonets, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). In October 2002 Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv ordered the applicant’s pension to be recalculated. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the non-enforcement of that judgment. He also complains about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for threatening a judge of the district court. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).       Zhoglo v. Ukraine (no. 17988/02) The applicant, Ruslan Nikolayevich Zhoglo, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Kyiv. In December 2001 the applicant was convicted of attempted murder and robbery and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint, in particular, that at no stage during the criminal proceedings against him was he given the opportunity to confront and question the victim. He relies on Article   6 §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Ivanova v. Russia (no. 11697/05) Klishina and Others v. Russia (no. 36074/04) Borisov and Others v. Ukraine (no. 34091/03) Shturkhalev v. Ukraine (no. 10947/04) Sudyin v. Ukraine (no. 5082/05) Tverdokhleb v. Ukraine (no. 38888/04) All the applicants rely on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). They also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, with the exception of the applicant in the case of Shturkhalev who relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     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 Association “E.   Apostolopoulos and K.   Lymperopoulos” also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Mathy v. Belgium (no. 12066/06) Anastasiadis and Others v. Greece (no. 25844/04) Anastasopoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 25833/04) Association “E. Apostolopoulos and K. Lymperopoulos” v. Greece (no. 24133/05) Avoutzis and Others v. Greece (no. 25852/04) Avramidis and Others v. Greece (no. 26084/04) Galiatsou-Koutsikou and Others v. Greece (no. 38720/05)   *** 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.