CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 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   397 30.05.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   3 and 5 June 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 3 June 2008 and seven on Thursday 5 June 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 3 June 2008   Jarosław Jakubiak v. Poland (application no. 39595/05) Kucharski v. Poland (no. 51521/99) Panusz v. Poland (no. 24322/02) Zięba v. Poland (no. 4959/04) The applicants are four Polish nationals who live in Poland: Jarosław Jakubiak in Jelenia Góra; Jerzy Kucharski in Drwalew; Ryszard Panusz in Katowice; and, Slawomir Zięba in Bielsko-Biala. They were born in 1971, 1959, 1967 and 1968, respectively.   Mr Jakubiak was arrested in June 1999 on suspicion of homicide and remanded in custody. In March 2006 he was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. He was kept in detention pending his appeal which was ultimately rejected in December 2007.   Mr Kucharski was arrested in November 1996 on suspicion of, among other things, aggravated robbery and false imprisonment and remanded in custody. In March 2000 he was ultimately convicted of false imprisonment and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. As he had already served most of his sentence he was released on probation.   Mr Panusz was arrested in June 2000 on suspicion of murder and remanded in custody. In May 2002 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. He was kept in detention pending his appeal which was ultimately dismissed in May 2004.   Mr Zięba was arrested in December 2001 on suspicion of offences committed as a member of an organised criminal gang (in particular, fraud, forgery, bribery and drug trafficking) and remanded in custody. He was ultimately released in September 2006. The proceedings against him are still pending.   Relying, in particular, on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, all the applicants complain about the excessive length of their detention. Mr Kucharski further relies on Article   5 §   4 and Mr Panusz on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) concerning monitoring by the authorities of his correspondence.   Misiak v. Poland (no. 43837/06) The applicant, Roman Misiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland). The applicant was arrested in August 2006 on suspicion of fraud. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the authorities censored his correspondence during his pre-trial detention. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Szulc v. Poland (no. 28002/06) The applicant Jacek Szulc, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Łóydź (Poland). He was arrested in February 2003 and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of being a member of a gang which had carried out attacks using firearms. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and a fine in July 2005. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) among other provisions,   the applicant complains of the length of his pre-trial detention.   Lapusan v. Romania (no. 29723/03) The applicant, Marin Ion Lapusan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bistrita (Romania). He was placed in pre-trial detention in February 2003 on suspicion of trafficking in human beings. He was ultimately found guilty as charged and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in 2004. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that after his arrest he was not brought “promptly” before an officer authorised to exercise judicial power . He also relies on Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention).   S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa v. Romania (no. 1477/02) The applicant, S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa, is a commercial company set up in 1991 when a former State-owned company was turned into a joint stock company. Its registered office is in Constanţa (Romania) and its principal activity is providing pilot services in seaports and to inland shipping on the Danube and other waterways. The case concerns the annulment of, or failure to enforce, final judgments in favour of the applicant company concerning its right to provide pilot services. It relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Kipritçi v. Turkey (no. 14294/04) The applicant, Mehmet Ali Kipritçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Konya (Turkey). In November 1996 proceedings were brought against him for misappropriation. He was ultimately acquitted in March 2002. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right a fair trial within a reasonable time) among other provisions, he complains of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Kutluk and Others v. Turkey (no. 1318/04) The four applicants, Tülin Kutluk, Erdal Kutluk, Esin Kutluk and Emel Kutluk, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1933, 1951, 1954 and 1952 respectively and live in Çanakkale (Turkey). They are the heirs of İsmail Kutluk, the owner of a plot of land in Çamoba, on the Turkish coast. Their title to the land was declared void because it formed part of the coastal zone. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that the proceedings were not fair and of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possession.   Karaduman and Tandoğan v. Turkey (nos. 41296/04 and 41298/04) The applicants, Fatma Karaduman and Sevil Tandoğan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1967. The case concerns administrative proceedings brought by the applicants against measures relating to their dismissal from posts as senior high school teachers on account of their persistent refusal to remove Islamic headscarves during lessons, contrary to the clothing rules in force at the relevant time. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complain that the proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court were not fair.   Orhan Kur v. Turkey (no. 32577/02) The applicant, Orhan Kur, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). On 28 July 1997 the applicant, 17-years-old at the time, was on his way home when he stopped to watch a fight in the street. The police arrested him along with several other adolescents. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he was beaten on the soles of his feet ( falaka ) by the police following his arrest. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Dimitrescu v. Romania (nos. 5629/03 and 3028/04) Draica v. Romania (no. 35102/02) Halmagiu and Bellu v. Romania (no. 10012/03) Ioana Petrescu and Others v. Romania (no. 23635/04) Stoicutia v. Romania (no. 20334/03) In these five cases the applicants rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Marioara Anghelescu v. Romania (no. 5437/03) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Demirci v. Turkey (no. 21843/02) The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   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. In the case of Cieślak the applicant also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Cieślak v. Poland (no. 32098/05) Deak v. Romania and the United Kingdom (no. 19055/05)   Thursday 5 June 2008   Gürsoy v. Austria (no. 20597/04) The applicant, Ilknur Gursoy, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Lustenau (Austria). The applicant entered Austria on a temporary visa, which was valid until the end of June 1998. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length of criminal proceedings brought against her in January 1999 for illegal residence. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Mehmedali v. Bulgaria (no. 69248/01) The applicant, Hussein Mehmedali, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Momchilgrad (Bulgaria). In February 2001 he was remanded in custody on suspicion of acquiring and possessing prohibited drugs. He was released in June 2001, but later found guilty as charged and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment in October 2003. He complains before the Court that in March 2001 he was denied the possibility of applying for a review of the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention. He further complains of the impossibility of obtaining compensation on that account. He relies on Article 5 §§ 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention) and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Rashid v. Bulgaria No. 2 (no. 74792/01) The applicant, Erdjan Hussein Rashid, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kardjali (Bulgaria). He was charged with receiving stolen goods in September 1999. He was first placed in pre-trial detention and later, between February 2001 and July 2003, made subject to a compulsory residence order. The criminal proceedings against him were still pending in October 2006. The applicant raises a series of complaints under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) alleging that his pre-trial detention was unlawful. He further complains, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. & Karis v. Greece (no. 15909/06) The first applicant, I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A., is a limited company which owns the national daily newspaper “I Avgi”. Its registered office is in Athens. The second applicant, Konstantinos Karis, a Greek national who was born in 1954 and lives in Athens, is the paper’s editor. The case concerns the applicants’ complaints about their conviction for libel on account of the publication, in June 2000, of an article containing references to K.V., a journalist actively engaged in politics who was elected to parliament in 2007 on the list of the Orthodox Popular Alert Party. They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Sampanis and Others v. Greece (no. 32526/05) The 11 applicants are all Greek nationals of Roma origin living at the Psari authorised residential site near Aspropyrgos (Greece). The case concerns the authorities’ failure to respond to their requests for their children to be enrolled at the local public primary school. They complain that as a result of the authorities’ attitude their children were not able to attend lessons during the 2004-2005 school year. In addition, they allege that even after their children had been enrolled at primary school for the year 2005-2006 the management of the Aspropyrgos primary school gave way to pressure from non-Roma parents and placed the children of Roma origin from the Psari camp in special classes in an annexe to the main school building. They allege a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) and 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. In the case of Lambadaridou , the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Lambadaridou v. Greece (no. 42150/06) Zourdos and Others v. Greece (no. 24898/06)   *** 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.