CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 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   298 25.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   29 April 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 29 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 ).     Márta v. Hungary (application no. 42542/04) The applicant, Péter Márta, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kiskunhalas (Hungary). 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 criminal proceedings in which he submitted civil claims for compensation as a result of fraud.   Just satisfaction Morea v. Italy (no. 69269/01) The applicants, Mario, Cesare and Paola Morea, are Italian nationals who were born in 1944, 1928 and 1930 respectively, and who live in Mottola and Putignano (Italy). In a judgment of 25 January 2007, the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention and held that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   Petrea v. Romania (no. 4792/03) The applicant, Alfred-Petronel Petrea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Iaşi (Romania). In September 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of tax evasion for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment, later reduced to five years and six months. He was ultimately released on probation in June 2005. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints about the inadequate conditions of his detention, in particular as a result of overcrowding and lack of medical treatment, and interference by the prison authorities with his correspondence. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Spînu v. Romania (no. 32030/02) The applicant, Ecaterina Gabriela Spînu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Râmnicu Vâlcea (Romania). The case concerns her conviction and sentence to 10 years’ imprisonment in November 2000 for aiding and abetting robbery with manslaughter, attempted robbery and using toxic substances. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains, among other things, that the proceedings before the Supreme Court were unfair.   Stancu v. Romania (no. 30390/02) The applicants, Dumitru Stancu and Ion Danut Stancu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1946 and 1958 and live in Bucharest. The case concerns an action brought by the applicants in the domestic courts for the restoration of title to land having belonged, until it was nationalised, to their grandparents. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain that their right to have access to a court was breached, and that the proceedings were unfair and excessive in length. They also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Vasile v. Romania (no. 40162/02) The applicant, Maria Vasile, is a Romanian national who was born in 1919 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns failure to enforce a final court decision ordering a number of private individuals to return a plot of land to the applicant, following an action brought by her for recovery of possession. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Barashkova v. Russia (no. 26716/03) The applicant, Galina Mikhaylovna Barashkova, is a Russian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Moscow. In July 2002 Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed a claim brought by the applicant concerning a dispute with her ex-husband over a flat. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the district court could not be considered a “tribunal established by law” because it failed to observe the procedure under domestic law governing the selection of lay assessors by the drawing of random lots. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Kaplanova v. Russia (no. 7653/02) The applicant, Khadizhat Daudovna Kaplanova, is a Russian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Grozny (Chechnya). The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that her son and son-in-law, Isa Kaplanov and Ruslan Sadulayev, born in 1965 and 1962 respectively, were abducted from their family home by Russian servicemen and subsequently killed. She relies on Articles   2 (right to life), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   38 §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Kutlular v. Turkey (no. 73715/01) The applicant, Mehmet Kutlular, is a Turkish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Istanbul. He is a journalist and owns the daily newspaper Yeni Asya . The case concerns his conviction for hate speech during a religious ceremony organised by the newspaper and in a leaflet distributed to participants. He relies in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression). He also claims to be the victim of discrimination on grounds of his “identity as contestant” under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Şahin Karakoç v. Turkey (no. 19462/04) The applicant, Şahin Karakoç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. In January 1996 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having participated in a terrorist raid on Başbağlar (Turkey) in which 33 of its villagers were killed. He was released in February 1997. Ultimately acquitted, he brought proceedings in which he complained about his unjustified detention and, in November 2001, was awarded compensation. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complains about the length and unfairness of those compensation proceedings. Further relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he also complains about the authorities’ delay in payment of and the interest rates applied to his compensation award.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Dvoryakov v. Russia (no. 28644/06) Portnova v. Russia (no. 34428/04) The applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) 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 Karanikas and Others and Koşal also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Karanikas and Others v. Greece (no. 28141/06) Rolgezer and Others v. Russia (no. 9941/03) Koşal v. Turkey (no. 23453/04)   *** 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.