CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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   371 23.05.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   27 and 29 May 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten Chamber judgments on Tuesday 27 May 2008 and 14 on Thursday 29 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 27 May 2008   Sarukhanyan v. Armenia (application no. 38978/03) The applicant, Gagik Sarukhanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he was disqualified from standing in the 2003 general parliamentary elections in Armenia on the grounds that he had falsified documents when registering as a candidate. He relies, in particular, on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 22893/05) The applicants are: Milorad   Rodić, Vlastimir Pušara and Zoran Knežević, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and, Ivan Baković, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. They were born in 1946, 1953, 1966 and 1972, respectively. They are currently serving prison sentences in Mostar Prison (Bosnia and Herzegovina) for war crimes. Following their convictions the applicants were initially detained in Zenica Prison, the only maximum security prison in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that they were persecuted by fellow prisoners in Zenica Prison until they were provided with separate accommodation in the prison’s hospital wing. They also complained about the conditions of detention in the hospital wing. They rely, in particular, on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Pisacane and Others v. Italy (no. 70573/01) The applicants, Annamaria, Ada, Flora and Valentina Pisacane, are Italian nationals who were born in 1932, 1961, 1959 and 1968 respectively and live in Benevento (Italy). They were owners of a plot of building land in Benevento of which the authorities took physical possession in 1979 with a view to its expropriation and the construction of a school. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain of the inadequacy of the compensation they were awarded for this expropriation. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they also complain of the unfairness and length of the proceedings.   Sienkiewicz v. Poland (no. 25668/03) The applicant, Adam Sienkiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Mierzeszyn (Poland). Suspected of having committed several murders using firearms and of using explosives, he was placed in pre-trial detention in January 1999. Although he was released in October 2006, the proceedings against him remain pending. Relying on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the length of his pre-trial detention and the length of the proceedings against him.   Hasan Çalışkan and Others v. Turkey (no. 13094/02) The applicants, Hasan Çalışkan, Refika Çalışkan and Kemal Çalışkan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952, 1948 and 1977 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey). The applicants complain of the insufficiency and inadequacy of the criminal investigation into the death in May 2000 of their son and brother, Mehmet Çalışkan, aged 21, while carrying out his military service. The exact circumstances of his death remain unexplained. They rely in particular on Article 2 (right to life).   Rüzgar v. Turkey (no. 28489/04) The applicant, Hasan Rüzgar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul (Turkey). In February 1993 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having participated actively in various terrorist acts. He was released in October 2006. The criminal proceedings against him would appear to be still pending. Relying in particular on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the length of the pre-trial detention and of the proceedings against him.   Tekelioğlu v. Turkey (no. 16139/03) The applicant, Cahit Tekelioğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Ankara (Turkey). In January 2001, during a debate in the Turkish Grand National Assembly, broadcast live on television, the applicant, a member of the Assembly, was insulted by members from another political party. A dispute broke out between him and F.Ş., another member, and the two men exchanged blows. Shortly after this exchange, F.Ş. had a heart attack in the foyer of the Assembly. In February 2002 the applicant was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment for assault against the person of F.Ş., resulting in his unintended death, and this judgment was upheld on cassation appeal in October 2002. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings brought against him.   Ünel v. Turkey (no. 35686/02) The applicant, Sermet Mustafa Ünel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Ankara (Turkey). The applicant, who was Director General of Civil Aviation at the Ministry of Transport between 1997 and 2000, was charged with corruption in February 2000. The trial court convicted him of corruption and in October 2001 sentenced him to six years, 15   months and 15 days’ imprisonment and imposed a fine. In June 2006 the sentence was reduced to four years and two months’ imprisonment and the amount of the fine was reduced. The applicant complains of a lack of fairness in the proceedings before the trial court. He relies on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to question witnesses).   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 Geršak also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Mikó v. Hungary (no. 40360/04) Geršak v. Slovenia (no. 35475/02)     Thursday 29 May 2008   Bergmann v. Estonia (no. 38241/04) The applicant, Andres Bergmann, is an Estonian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Tõrva (Estonia). On 13 December 2001 the applicant was placed in detention on charges of economic offences. In January 2002 he was released on bail but, failing to appear at a hearing in March 2004, he was re-arrested and placed in custody on 31 March 2004. The applicant’s request for release was dismissed following another hearing, at which he was present, on 26   April 2004. He was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about his re-arrest on 31   March 2004. He relies on Article   5 §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia (no. 37315/03) The applicant, Isa Yunusovich Betayev and Rosa Betayeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1958 respectively and live in Goyty, a village in Chechnya. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that their sons, Lecha and Ibragim Betayev, disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen during a search of their home in the early hours of 26 April 2003. They rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Gekhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1755/04) The applicants are five Russian nationals Rumani Gekhayeva, Zlikhat Dugayeva, Subani Akhyadova, Zubidat Gekhayeva and Aynet Malgasarova who were born in 1947, 1950, 1965, 1971 and 1975, respectively, and live in the Chechen Republic. They are the mothers and sisters of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva, born in 1968 and 1988, respectively. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva disappeared following a raid by Russian servicemen on Ms Gekhayeva’s house in Ulus-Kert, a village in Chechnya, in the early hours of 16 May 2003. They rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ibragimov and Others v. Russia (no. 34561/03) The applicants are six Russian nationals, Umtazh Ibragimov, Tamara Ibragimova, Zulikhan Ibragimova, Yakha Ibragimova, Magomed Ibragimov and Ayznat Ibragimova, who were born in 1938, 1953, 1974, 1985, 1987, and 1988 respectively and, at the relevant time, lived in Urus-Martan (Chechnya). They are the parents, sisters and brother of Rizvan Ibragimov, born in 1977. The case concerns, in particular, the applicants’ allegation that Rizvan Ibragimov disappeared after being taken from the family home by Russian servicemen in the early hours of 29 December 2002. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Sangariyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1839/04) The applicants are nine Russian nationals, Aset Sangariyeva, Abubakar Gaytayev, Adam Khamidovich Gaytayev, Israil Gaytayev, Khaza Gaytayeva, Mansur Gaytayev, Muslim Gaytayev, Makka Gaytayeva and Roza Sangariyeva who were born in 1974, 1971, 1977, 1964, 1939, 1995, 1997, 2001 and 2003, respectively. They are the wife, mother, brothers and children of Musa Gaytayev, born in 1972. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that Musa Gaytayev disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen in the early hours of 24 June 2003 at the family home in Martan-Chu, a village in Chechnya. They rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Utsayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 29133/03) The applicants are eight Russian nationals, Satsita Utsayeva, Aslambek Utsayev, Khava Muslimova, Belita Dadyeva, Yakhita Taysumova, Zulay Abdulazimova, Birlant Tovmerzayeva and Larisa Tovmerzayeva, who live in Novye Atagi, a village in Chechnya, and are members of four different families. They were born in 1954, 1948, 1986, 1952, 1985, 1943, 1943 and 1968, respectively. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation, in particular, that their relatives, Islam Utsayev (the first three applicants’ son and husband), Movsar Taysumov (Ms   Dadyeva’s son and Ms   Taysumova’s brother), Idris Abdulazimov (Ms   Abdulazimova’s son) and Masud Tovmerzayev (Birlant Tovmerzayeva’s son and Larisa Tovmerzayeva’s brother), disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen during an early morning raid in their village on 2 June 2002. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bugayev v. Ukraine (no. 26168/04) Kislaya v. Ukraine (no. 21050/02) The applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicants in the case of Kislaya also rely on 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 Loukas and Solomatina also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Loukas v. Greece (no. 26279/06) Maruseva v. Russia (no. 28602/02) Nikonenko v. Ukraine (no. 14089/03) Solomatina v. Ukraine (no. 311/03) Terentyev v. Ukraine (no. 39763/02) Yakymenko v. Ukraine (no. 19142/03)   *** 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.