CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 mai 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   329 7.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   13 and 15 May 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 14 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 13   May 2008 and 19 on Thursday 15   May 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 13 May 2008   Beheyt v. Belgium (application no. 41881/02) The applicant, Marc Beheyt, is a Belgian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ghent (Belgium). In 1996 and 1997 two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him for misappropriation, forgery and uttering. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, which are still pending.   Garsoux and Massenet v. Belgium (no. 27072/05) The applicants, Jean Garsoux and Henri Massenet, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1937 and 1935 respectively and live in Brussels and Trooz (Belgium). In July 2000 the second applicant’s brother, who was the first applicant’s brother-in-law, died after being attacked at a cashpoint. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicants complain of the length of the criminal proceedings brought in connection with the death, which they applied to join as civil parties.   N.N. and T.A. v. Belgium (no. 65097/01) The applicants, N.N. and T.A., are Belgian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1963 respectively and live in Knokke-Heist (Belgium). The applicants complain that their correspondence – love letters – was produced in connection with an application for interim measures in divorce proceedings brought by T.A.’s wife on the ground of fault. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Van Ingen v. Belgium (no. 9987/03) The applicant, Antoine van Ingen, is a Belgian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Lanaken (Belgium). In June 2002 the Antwerp Court of Appeal sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment for trafficking in ecstasy. The applicant alleges that by refusing to reopen the proceedings to give the prosecution the opportunity to submit new evidence, the Court of Appeal prevented him from presenting his case effectively. He relies on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Wauters and Schollaert v. Belgium (no. 13414/05) The applicants, Jean Wauters and Hélène Schollaert, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1923 and 1939 respectively and live in Temploux (Belgium). The first applicant managed a non-profit-making association looking after adults with disabilities. The case concerns proceedings brought against the applicants for misappropriation of funds belonging to the association. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain of the excessive length of the proceedings, which are currently pending.   Georgescu v. Romania (no. 25230/03) The applicant, Florin Georgescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Bucharest. He was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in January 1996 on suspicion of forgery and fraud. Having initially been released in April 1996, he was again placed in pre-trial detention from June 1996 to December 1997. On 4 July 2003 the public prosecutor discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the offence had become time-barred. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complains that he was ill-treated while in pre-trial detention and that no effective investigation was conducted into his allegations. He also complains, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), that the criminal proceedings against him were excessively lengthy. In addition, he submits various complaints under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 34 (right of individual application), concerning, firstly, a search of his home during which several documents were confiscated before being returned to him, and secondly, the authorities’ refusal to give him a copy of the documents in the file on his criminal case.   Galich v. Russia (no. 33307/02) The applicant, Boris Ivanovich Galich, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Omsk (Russia). In April 2001 the applicant brought civil proceedings to recover an outstanding debt, plus statutory interest for the delay in payment of that debt. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint in particular that, in the appeal proceedings, the Russian courts reduced the amount of statutory interest awarded to him without hearing his submissions and that no reasons were given for that decision. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Z. v. Slovakia (no. 5868/02) The applicant, Z., is a Slovak national who was born in 1972 and is serving a seven year prison sentence in Košice-Šaca Prison (Slovakia) for murdering his father in July 1996. The case concerns, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Juhnke v. Turkey (no. 52515/99) The applicant, Eva Tatjana Ursula Juhnke, is a German national who was born in 1965 and lives in Germany. In October 1997 the applicant was arrested by Turkish soldiers on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and handed over to gendarmes stationed in Hakkari (Turkey). In September 1998 she was convicted as charged and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. She was released in December 2004 and deported to Germany. The case concerns, in particular, the applicant’s complaint that her detention was unlawful and that during that detention she was subjected to ill-treatment and a gynaecological examination against her will. 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). She also complains under Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) that, in particular, she was denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted her. Further relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she claims that the Turkish authorities’ inadequate response to her complaints hindered her right to bring compensation proceedings. Lastly, she alleges that the treatment to which she was subjected by the authorities was motivated by her sex and political opinions, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   McCann v. the United Kingdom (no. 19009/04) The applicant, Gerrard McCann, is a British national who was born in 1968 and lives in Birmingham (United Kingdom). The applicant and his ex-wife were secure tenants of a three-bedroom house belonging to Birmingham City Council. In April 2001 the applicant’s ex-wife and their children were re-housed on grounds of domestic violence and in March 2005 the applicant was evicted. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the eviction proceedings brought against him by Birmingham City Council. He relies, in particular, on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Moldovahidromas v. Moldova (no. 30475/03) In its Chamber judgment of 27   February 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the quashing of a final judgment given in the applicant company’s favour and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Luca v. Romania (no. 1204/03) SC Editura Orizonturi SRL v. Romania (no. 15872/03) 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).   Length-of-proceedings cases   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.   Lemmer and Neiertz v. Luxembourg (no. 302/04)     Thursday 15 May 2008   Faltejsek v. the Czech Republic (no. 24021/03) The applicant, Jan Faltejsek, is a Czech national who was born in 1958 and lives in Kladruby nad Labem (Czech Republic). The case concerns an action brought by the applicant for the termination of a contract he had signed for the purchase of immovable property. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complains about the Constitutional Court’s dismissal of his application.   Lück v. Germany (no. 58364/00) The applicant, Edgar Lück, is a German national who was born in 1954 and lives in Bielefeld (Germany). He is the biological father of a girl who was born in 1989. From 1993 onwards, the child’s mother and her husband, who is the legal father, forbade all contact between the applicant and his daughter. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant complains of the refusal by the family courts to grant him access to his daughter. He also complains, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that the proceedings were unfair and excessively long.   Orr v. Norway (no. 31283/04) The applicant, Marcus Orr, is a British national who lives in Wilmslow (the United Kingdom). Formerly a British Airways pilot, he was accused in August 2001 of having raped one of his cabin crew following an overnight stay at a hotel in Gardermoen Airport (Oslo). The applicant was acquitted by the Norwegian courts in March 2003. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that, despite that acquittal, he was ordered to pay compensation to the alleged victim. He relies on Article   6 §   2 (presumption of innocence).   Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia (no. 7178/03) The applicants, Mikhail Vladimirovich Dedovskiy, Alexandr Mikhaylovich Matrosov, Viktor Viktorovich Vidin, Stanislav Lvovich Bukhman, Igor Anatolyevich Kolpakov, Dmitriy Vladimirovich Gorokhov, and Aleksey Shamilyevich Pazleev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1969, 1968, 1978, 1974, 1975, 1980 and 1974, respectively. The case concerns, in particular, the applicants’ allegation that they were ill-treated in April 2001 when a special unit was brought in to maintain detention regime at Chepets correctional colony (Russia), where they were serving a prison sentence. They rely, in particular, on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective remedy),   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 38§ 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Gusev v. Russia (no. 67542/01) The applicant, Pavel Vladimirovich Gusev, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in St   Petersburg. In April 2000 the applicant was taken into custody on charges of theft and placed in a remand centre in St. Petersburg, popularly known as “Kresty”. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness, length and conditions of his detention at the Kresty remand centre. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   5 (right to liberty and security).   Ponomarev. v. Russia (no. 7672/03) The applicant, Vladimir Vladimirovich Ponomarev, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Vorkuta (Russia). In October 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft. He was released in December 1997 and subsequently brought proceedings against the Russian Ministry of Finance in which he sought, in particular, to be compensated for unlawful detention and for having contracted tuberculosis while in pre-trial detention. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that, in those compensation proceedings, the Russian courts failed to examine his claim concerning his infection with tuberculosis. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court).   Popkov v. Russia (no. 32327/06) The applicant, Roman Andreyevich Popkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1978. He is currently in custody following his arrest in May 2006 on charges of participating in mass disorders, assault and battery. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He relies on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Nadtochiy v. Ukraine (no. 7460/03) The applicant, Anatoliy Mykolayovych Nadtochiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Chernigiv (Ukraine). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the case concerning his failure to re-export a car he had brought from Lithuania into Ukraine was considered in his absence and without any confirmation that he had indeed been notified of the hearing to examine his case. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) 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.   Belochenko v. Ukraine (no. 41803/04) Chechin v. Ukraine (no. 6323/03) Khokhlov v. Ukraine (no. 26862/03) Kislinskiy v. Ukraine (no. 37039/03) Lukyanchenko v. Ukraine (no. 17327/02) Omelchack v. Ukraine (no. 5616/04) Petrova and Chornobryvets v. Ukraine (nos. 6360/04 and 16820/04) Pshychenko v. Ukraine (no. 29433/04) All the applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), with the exception of the applicant in the case of Pshychenko . They all also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), with the exception of the applicants in the cases of Belochenko and Lukyanchenko. The applicants in the cases of Belochenko , Omelchack and Pshychenko also rely 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 applicant in the case of Nataliya Shevchenko also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kirichenko and Belinskiy v. Ukraine (no. 36283/02) Mikhaylenko v. Ukraine (no. 18389/03) Nataliya Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 68762/01)   *** 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.