CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   356 16.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   20 and 22 May 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 25 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 20 May 2008 and 19 on Thursday 22 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 20 May 2008   Andrysiak v. Poland (application no. 31038/06) The applicant, Radosław Andrysiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Sieradz Prison (Poland). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that his correspondence was censored by the prison authorities while he was in pre-trial detention. He relies on Articles   8 (right to respect for correspondence) and   34 (right of individual petition) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Ferla v. Poland (no. 55470/00) The applicant, Sławomir Ferla, is a Polish national who lives in Fałkowo (Poland). In December 1998 the applicant was arrested on charges of aggravated assault for which, a year later, he was convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that his wife was only allowed to visit him once while he was in detention between December 1998 and November 1999 and that he did not see his son at all. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   Korzeb v. Poland (no. 39586/03) Piotrowski v. Poland (no. 45217/06) Tomecki v. Poland (no. 47944/06) The applicants are four Polish nationals who live in Poland. Dominik Korzeb and his brother, Marcin Korzeb, were born in 1979 and 1981 respectively and live in Ostrów Mazowiecka. Tomasz Piotrowski was born in 1966 and lives in Łódź, and Marek Tomecki was born in 1968 and is currently detained in Racibórz Remand Centre (Poland).   The Korzeb brothers were arrested in June and July 2001 and later charged with rape and burglary. They were convicted as charged in March 2004 and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.   Mr Piotrowski was arrested in April 2003 on suspicion of aiding and abetting robbery. He was convicted as charged in August 2006 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He has since been released and the proceedings against him are currently pending on appeal. Mr Tomecki was arrested in December 2004 and detained on remand on charges of repeated robbery and membership of an organised gang. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.   All the applicants complain about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They rely on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Santos Pinto v. Portugal (no. 39005/04) The applicant, Ferreira Santos Pinto, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1936 and lives in Cahors (France). The case concerns some agricultural land in Cartaxo (Portugal) which belonged to the applicant. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains of the unfairness of the expropriation proceedings in respect of his land.   Boyraz v. Turkey (no. 26891/02) The applicant, Seyit Veyis Boyraz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. In 1992 he was placed in pre-trial detention in the course of police operations carried out against the extreme left-wing armed organisation Devrimci Sol . Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   Cengiz Sarıkaya v. Turkey (no. 38870/02) The applicant, Cengiz Sarıkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970. He died in August 2006. Suspected of belonging to the Islamic Movement ( İslami Hareket ), an illegal organisation, the applicant was arrested and taken into custody in July 1993. He was convicted and given a life sentence in February 2002. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of ill-treatment that he had suffered while in custody, the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Cığerhun Öner v. Turkey (no. 33612/03) The applicant, Ciğerhun Öner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1989 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). In October 2001, when he was 12-years-old, the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of theft. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the rejection of his request for legal aid regarding an action for damages he brought against the Turkish State for ill-treatment suffered while he was in custody.   Dilsiz and Others v. Turkey (no. 71844/01) The six applicants, Mehmet Dilsiz, Bedurhan Dilsiz, Halil Zeyrek, Muhsin Gasır, Ali Güven and Ömer Tunç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949, 1970, 1978, 1948, 1944 and 1954 respectively and live in Cizre (Turkey). Between 2000 and 2001 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody for being members of and assisting the illegal PKK organisation (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and drug trafficking. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they complain of having been arrested several times without any plausible reason and taken into custody for excessively long periods.   Gülmez v. Turkey (no. 16330/02) The applicant, Ali Gülmez, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and is serving a prison sentence in Sincan F-type Prison in Ankara. In March 2000 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of murder, armed robbery and membership of an illegal organisation. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of disciplinary proceedings brought against him during his pre-trial detention and the ensuing restriction on his visiting rights for approximately one year. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). Further relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he also complains about the conditions of his detention in Sincan Prison.   Hüseyin Şimşek v. Turkey (no. 68881/01) The applicant, Hüseyin Şimşek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in St. Pölten (Austria). In 1995 he was taken into custody and charged with membership of the extreme left-wing clandestine TKP-ML/TIKKO organisation. The National Security Court of Erzurum (Turkey) convicted him in 2000. In March 1997 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police custody officers accusing them of having tortured him. At the end of those proceedings the Turkish courts concluded in 2004 that the prosecution of the offence in question was time-barred. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains of ill-treatment during police custody and the lack of an effective remedy for his complaints. He also complains, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), of the unfairness of the proceedings brought against him.     Kasa v. Turkey (no. 45902/99) The applicant, Hamdi Kasa, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that his 18-year-old son, Hakan Kasa, was killed by the police on 13 August 1993 following an armed clash in a shopping centre. He relies on Article   2 (right to life), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Münire Demirel v. Turkey (no. 5346/03) The applicant, Münire Demirel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul. In February 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Sol . She was released pending trial in February 2003. The proceedings against her are currently still pending. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of her pre-trial detention. She relies on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Şenol Uluslararası Nakliyat, İhracat ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi v. Turkey (no. 75834/01) The applicant, Şenol Uluslararası Nakliyat, İhracat ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi, is a Turkish company specialising in international motorway transportation. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint about the unfairness and length of administrative proceedings with regard to the cancellation of its transportation licence. The applicant company relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Tekin and Others v. Turkey (no. 8534/02) The applicants, Sıddık Tekin, Haşim Elmas and Tayyar Kılıç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1956, 1973 and 1961 respectively and live in Şemdinli (Turkey). In July 1999 the security forces carried out a major police operation in the village of Altınsu and the hamlet of Dereboyu (Turkey), where the applicants lived, looking for members of the illegal PKK organisation (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The case concerns the applicants’ complaints of ill-treatment to which they were allegedly subjected during that operation. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Volkan Şahin v. Turkey (no. 34400/02) The applicant, Volkan Şahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Antalya (Turkey). In May 1993 the applicant was questioned concerning an accusation against him of forgery. He was subsequently charged with that offence and ultimately convicted and sentenced in February 2002 to one year and eight months’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length and unfairness 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).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Edip Uslu v. Turkey (no. 43/02) Sak v. Turkey (no. 4644/03) Sakarya v. Turkey (no. 11912/04) Öz v. Turkey (no. 43883/04) In these four cases the applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Smith v. the United Kingdom (no. 64729/01) Twizell v. the United Kingdom (no. 25379/02) Both applicants rely on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Twizell , the applicant also relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).     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) of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Florek v. Poland (no. 20334/04) Rapoš v. Slovakia (no. 25763/02)     Thursday 22 May 2008   Alexov v. Bulgaria (no. 54578/00) The applicant, Dragomir Dimitrov Alexov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in August 1999 and May 2000 on two separate charges of robbery. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness and conditions of his pre-trial detention in Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service detention facility, Pazardzhik Prison and Montana Regional Investigation Service detention facility. The applicant also alleges that the police searched his apartment in August 1999 without a search warrant and without him being present. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   5 (right to liberty and security).   Evgeni Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44009/02) The applicant, Evgeni Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). In 2001 he was remanded in custody and charged with aiding and abetting theft and misappropriation of gold jewellery. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in 2003. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also relies on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   Kirilov v. Bulgaria (no. 15158/02) The applicant, Krasimir Milanov Kirilov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968. Following various convictions for theft, he was placed in pre-trial detention from January to December 2002 and from December 2005 to March 2006. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), the applicant complains that it was not possible for him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention between January and December 2002. Moreover, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention at the Shumen Investigation Department (Bulgaria) between December 2005 and March 2006, alleging, inter alia , that he did not receive proper medical care.   Kirov v. Bulgaria (no. 5182/02) The applicant, Nikolai George Kirov, is an American national who was born in 1948 and lives in Palm Desert (United States). In October 1998 he was remanded in custody in Sofia and charged with drug trafficking. In May 2003 the Bulgarian courts acquitted him for lack of evidence. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that the Bulgarian authorities tapped his telephone calls during the criminal investigation. He also relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Lazarov v. Bulgaria (no. 21352/02) The applicant, Petar Ivanov Lazarov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Sofia. In March 1989 a property belonging to the applicant’s late father was expropriated in order to build a school. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of time it took for him to be compensated for that property and that, even then, he was only allocated part of the property to which he was entitled. He relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 15197/02) The applicant, Ivan Iovchev Petrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Gabrovo (Bulgaria). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for various charges, notably theft, and that, while in prison, his correspondence was monitored and, unlike married prisoners, he was not allowed to telephone his long-term partner with whom he has a child. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Sadaykov v. Bulgaria (no. 75157/01) The applicant, Muslim Adnanovich Sadaykov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya (Russia). On 8 November 1999 the applicant, just released from prison in Bulgaria, was re-arrested on the basis of an order to deport him for having threatened prosecutors and judges during his trial on charges of murder and illegal possession of explosives. He was ultimately deported to Russia on 16 November 1999. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length and unlawfulness of his detention in Bulgaria pending deportation. He relies on Article   5 §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Sheremetov v. Bulgaria (no. 16880/02) The applicant, Nikolai Dimitrov Sheremetov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Sofia. In May 1992 the applicant was charged with the theft of some barrels of chemicals from the pharmaceuticals company where he was working. He was ultimately found guilty in March 2003 and given a three-month suspended sentence. The case concerns 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) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Stefanov v. Bulgaria (no. 65755/01) The applicant, Iliya Pavlov Stefanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Sofia. He is a lawyer and member of the Sofia bar. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of a search and seizure carried out in his office as part of a criminal investigation into allegations of extortion. The applicant also alleges that his mobile telephone was tapped. He relies on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Todev v. Bulgaria (no. 31036/02) The applicant, Zhivko Mihaylov Todev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1944 and lived in Plovdiv (Bulgaria) at the material time. He died in 2005. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints about his placement in a psychiatric establishment in 2002, following accusations that he had injured his father with an axe. He relies on Article 5 §§ 1 e) (right to liberty and security) and 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   Alithia Publishing Company Ltd & Constantinides v. Cyprus (no. 17550/03) The applicants are, Alithia Publishing Company Ltd, the publisher of the daily morning newspaper Alithia and its editor-in-chief, Alecos Costantinides, who was born in 1930 and lives in Nicosia. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about defamation proceedings brought against them following the publication in Alithia of a series of articles which alleged that a former Minister of Defence, Mr Aloneftis, was corrupt. They rely on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Beloff v. France (no. 24252/04) The applicant, Richard Beloff, is a French national who was born in 1936 and lives in Cambo-les-Bains (France). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), about the unfairness of proceedings before the Court of Cassation concerning a debt repayment plan.   Gacon v. France (no. 1092/04) The applicant, Jean-Claude Gacon, is a French national who was born in 1940 and lives in Saint-Didier-au-Mont-d’Or (France). While a manager of the Clinique du Parc company, he was tried and convicted of fraud in 2002. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains of the unfairness of the proceedings against him.   Rémy Garnier v. France (no. 38984/04) The applicant, Rémy Garnier, is a French national who was born in 1950 and lives in Cassignas (France). He is a tax inspector and in July 2002 lodged a complaint against a person or persons unknown, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party claiming damages, on counts of extortion, defamation, breach of professional confidence, harassment and malicious accusation, in respect of acts committed against the tax authorities. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains of the unfairness of the proceedings.   Meïdanis v. Greece (no. 33977/06) The applicant, Efthymios Meïdanis, is a Greek national who was born in 1953 and lives in Athens. He is a doctor by profession. The case concerns a dispute between the applicant and Sismanoglio Hospital, where he worked, over the payment of outstanding salary. The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Tsilira v. Greece (no. 44035/05) The applicant, Efstathia Tsilira, is a Greek national. In 1994 a company which leased a shop owned by the applicant brought a civil action for damages against her before the Greek courts for losses sustained as a result of flooding. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains of the unfairness and the excessive length of the proceedings against her.   Emre v. Switzerland (no. 42034/04) The applicant, Emrah Emre, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Neuchâtel (Switzerland). He was born in Turkey and arrived in Switzerland with his parents in 1986. In 1990 the canton of Neuchâtel issued him with a yearly residence permit, which was subsequently renewed. Between 1997 and 2005 he was convicted several times on various counts including serious road traffic offences, causing bodily harm, theft, breach of weapons legislation, damage to property, and other offences against public property. In June 2003 the Neuchâtel Canton Aliens Office ordered the applicant’s deportation for an unspecified period. The Swiss courts considered that he was a threat to public safety. The applicant’s complaints concern his deportation from Swiss territory. He relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).     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) of the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings. In the Givezov case the applicant also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Givezov v. Bulgaria (no. 15154/02) Merdzhanov v. Bulgaria (no. 69316/01)     *** 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.