CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 juin 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   413 6.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   10 and 12 June 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 20 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 10 June 2008 and 28 on Thursday 12 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 10 June 2008   Depauw v. Belgium (application no. 2115/04) The applicant, Jean Depauw, is a Belgian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Visé (Belgium). Having been an employee and a director of a company, S., he was dismissed in July 1981 for serious misconduct. In March 1984 he was awarded compensation for unfair dismissal but was unable to obtain the sum from the company as it had gone bankrupt. In pursuing his claim he became involved, either directly or indirectly, in a series of civil and criminal proceedings, the last of which ended in 2005. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Scoppola v. Italy (no. 50550/06) The applicant, Franco Scoppola, is an Italian national who was born in 1940. He is currently serving a life sentence in Parma prison for killing his wife and wounding one of his children in September 1999. Now confined to a wheelchair and suffering from various medical conditions, he alleges that keeping him in prison constitutes inhuman treatment. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Just satisfaction Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05) The applicant, Nicolae Boicenco, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1961 and lives in Ialovni (Moldova). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment in police custody, the authorities’ inadequate investigation into the incident and lack of adequate medical care during his detention. In a judgment of 11   July 2006, the Court held that there had been violations of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   34 (right of individual petition). Under Article   41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant 40,000   euros for non-pecuniary damage but considered that the question of pecuniary damage was not ready for decision.   Duca v. Moldova (no. 1579/02) The applicant, Eugenia Duca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that prison authorities interfered with her correspondence with her lawyers during her detention on remand on charges of theft and forgery. She relies on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Istrate v. Moldova (No. 2) (no. 28790/03) The applicant, Andrei Istrate, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău. He is a pensioner. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to examine his appeal on points of law with regard to a compensation claim because he had not paid the court fees. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court).   Galliani v. Romania (no. 69273/01) The applicant, Paola Galliani, is an Italian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Savona (Italy). On 19   January 1998 the applicant entered Romania with a tourist visa which was valid until 2   February 1998. She was repatriated to Italy on 7   May 2000. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that, even though no expulsion proceedings had been brought against her at the time, she was unlawfully arrested and placed in custody from 4   to 7   May 2000. She also complained that she was not informed of the reasons for her arrest or given access to a court which would examine its lawfulness. She relies on Article   5 §§   1   (f), 2 and   4 (right to liberty and security), Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).   Tase v. Romania (no. 29761/02) The applicant, Cristian Tase, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Ploieşti (Romania). The applicant was arrested in June 2002 on charges of theft. He was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to a one-year suspended sentence. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his arrest and in particular that he was arrested without concrete reasons. He further complains that, as he was ultimately convicted, he could not obtain compensation for his pre-trial detention. He relies on Article   5 §§   1, 3 and   5 (right to liberty and security).   Temeşan v. Romania (no. 36293/02) The applicant, Răzvan Liviu Temaşan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention pending trial and the length of criminal proceedings against him for, in particular, abuse of authority. He relies on Article   5 §§   1   (c) and   3 and Article   6 (right to a fair trial).   Just satisfaction Bulgakova v. Russia (no. 69524/01) The applicant, Mayya Filippovna Bulgakova, is a Russian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Novosibirsk (Russia). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that a judgment in her favour had been reviewed because of new legislation passed after the judgment had become final and binding. In a judgment of 18   January 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) and considered that Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Çengelli and Eryılmaz v. Turkey (no. 287/03) The applicants, Ferit Çengelli and Süleyman Eryılmaz, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955 and 1957 respectively and live in Istanbul. The applicants were arrested in March 1981 on charges of membership of the Dev-Yol , an illegal organisation. The proceedings against Mr   Çengelli were terminated in June 2001 on the ground that the statutory time-limit had expired. The proceedings against Mr Eryılmaz are apparently still pending. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings against them. They rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Ercüment Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 46048/06) The applicant, Ercüment Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977. In November 1996 he was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), considered as an illegal armed organisation. He was charged, in December 1996, with fostering territorial separatism and participating in related terrorist activities, as a leading member of the organisation in question. According to the material in the file, the criminal proceedings against him are still pending. Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the proceedings against him, and about the fact that he was not brought before a judge promptly after his arrest.   Feti Ateş v. Turkey (no. 28827/04) The applicant, Feti Ateş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Edirne (Turkey). He was arrested on suspicion of belonging to an armed group and placed in pre-trial detention in September 1996. Even though he was released in March 2006, the proceedings against him are still pending. He complains about the length of his pre-trial detention and relies on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Kama v. Turkey (no. 24917/04) The applicant, Bayram Kama, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Tekirdağ (Turkey). In February 1993 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention for active participation in various acts of terrorism. He was released in October 2006. According to the material in the file, the criminal proceedings against him are still pending. Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), among other provisions, he complains about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the proceedings against him.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bortesi and Others v. Italy (no. 71399/01) The applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Mehmet Selçuk v. Turkey (no. 13090/04) The applicant relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ömer Köseoğlu v. Turkey (no. 36594/04) Yalvaç v. Turkey v. (no. 21502/04) In these two cases the applicants rely on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing), among other provisions.     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 case of Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Koronczai v. Hungary (no. 7680/05) Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal (no. 33729/06) Cvetković v. Serbia (no. 17271/04)     Thursday 12 June 2008   Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria (no. 71127/01) The applicants are two Bulgarian nationals, Valentina Nikolaeva Bevacqua, born in 1974, and her 11   year-old-son, S., who live in Bergamo (Italy). They used to live in Sofia but moved to Italy following Ms Bevacqua’s divorce from S.’s father. The case concerns, in particular, the applicants’ complaint that the Bulgarian courts failed to protect Ms   Bevacqua against the violent behaviour of her former husband and that the length of custody proceedings with regard to S. were excessive. The applicants rely, in particular, on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria (no. 20594/02) The applicant, Penyo Iliev Tzvyatkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Gabrovo (Bulgaria). In January 1999 he was prosecuted for embezzlement. After being found not guilty in May 2000, he brought proceedings against the State claiming compensation. He complains, among other things, about the amount of the court costs that he had to pay at the end of those proceedings and relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Elezi v. Germany (no. 26771/03) The applicant, Ruzhdi Elezi, is a Serbian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Berlin. In August 1999 the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on charges of, among other things, trafficking in human beings. He was ultimately convicted in October 2001. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Kotsaftis v. Greece (no. 39780/06) The applicant, Ioannis Kotsaftis, is a Greek national who was born in 1947. In May 1998 he was remanded in custody on suspicion of trafficking in antiques and possessing drugs. He was ultimately found guilty as charged and sentenced to 13   years and four months’ imprisonment. He complains that he contracted hepatitis B because of the conditions of his detention in Nauplia and Patras prisons. He further complains of a lack of treatment adapted to his medical condition. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment).   Aleksey Makarov v. Russia (no. 3223/07) The applicant, Aleksey Borisovich Makarov, is a Russian national who was born in 1988. He is currently in custody following his arrest in July 2006 on charges of participating in mass disorders, assault and battery. The criminal proceedings against him 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).   Atabayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 26064/02) The applicants, Maryam Khasanovna Atabayeva, Radima Ramzanovna Kukuyeva, Makka Ramzanovna Kukuyeva and Markha Ramzanovna Kukuyeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1973, 1993, 1996 and 1998, respectively, and live in the village, Tsa-Vedeno (Chechnya). They are the wife and children of Ramzan Kukuyev, who was born in 1966. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that Ramzan Kukuyev disappeared after being unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen during a “sweeping” operation in their village and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegation. They rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 5 (right to liberty and security),   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Elmurzayev and Others v. Russia (no. 3019/04) The applicants are 12 Russian nationals, Supian Khasanovich Elmurzayev, Zina Elmurzayeva, Khasan Katayevich Elmurzayev, Isa Khasanovich Elmurzayev, Aslanbek Khasanovich Elmurzayev, Zura Ismailovna Elmurzayeva, Beslan Musayevich Elmurzayev, Movsar Musayevich Elmurzayev, Larisa Shekhmirzayevna (Shakhmirzayevna) Mukhtarova, Mariam Aptiyevna Elmurzayeva (Mukhtarova), Magomed Aptiyevich Elmurzayev (Mukhtarov), Ayshat Khasanovna Elmurzayeva, who were born in 1963, 1933, 1933, 1954, 1967, 1964, 1984, 1986, 1978, 1999, 2001 and 1976, respectively, and live in Urus-Martan (Chechnya). They are the parents, spouses, siblings and children of Apti Khasanovich Elmurzayev, who was born in 1969, and Musa Khasanovich Elmurzayev, who was born in 1956. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that their relatives disappeared after being abducted at gunpoint by Russian servicemen from their home in Martan-Chu and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegation. 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).   Shchebet v. Russia (no. 16074/07) The applicant, Sviatlana Shchebet, is a Belarus national who was born in 1978 and lived in Vienna. Her current whereabouts are unknown. On 20   February 2007 the applicant was arrested at Domodedovo airport in Moscow with a view to her extradition to Belarus as she was on a list of its fugitives from justice. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of her detention pending extradition and the conditions of her detention at Domodedovo airport. She relies on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Subbotkin v. Russia (no. 837/03) The applicant, Gennadiy Petrovich Subbotkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Dudinka (Russia). The case concerns the applicant’s claim that he was not informed of appeal hearings with regard to his complaint about a decision to suspend enforcement proceedings in which he had been reinstated to his former job and awarded wage arrears. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Vlasov v. Russia (no. 78146/01) The applicant, Aleksey Yuryevich Vlasov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. He was the director of a diamond manufacturing and export company. He was arrested in August 1999 on suspicion of diamond smuggling. He was released on bail in July 2002. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about: the conditions of his detention on remand and of transport between the remand centre and the courthouse; the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him; and, the excessive restrictions on his correspondence and visits from his family. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence).   Artsybashev v. Ukraine (no. 1282/03) Fedko v. Ukraine (no. 17277/03) Lugovoy v. Ukraine (no. 25821/02) Ryshkevich v. Ukraine (no. 35312/02) Sergey Nikolayevich Artsybashev was born in 1971 and lives in Makiyivka (Ukraine). In August 1997, he was arrested on suspicion of murder and remanded in custody. He was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment in July 2002.   Dimitriy Alekseyevich Fedko was born in 1972 and lives in Uman (Ukraine). In September 2000, he was charged with being an accomplice to fraud and bribery. In July 2007 that charge had still not been determined.   Eduard Valeryevich Lugovoy was born in 1977 and lives in Chernivtsi (Ukraine). In August 1998, criminal proceedings were brought against him for inflicting grievous bodily harm. His conviction was ultimately upheld in February 2008.   Alexandr Yanovich Ryshkevich was born in 1956 and lives in Listvennoye (Autonomous Republic of Crimea) . In August 1995, criminal proceedings were brought against him for causing death through negligent driving. His conviction was ultimately upheld in February 2002.   All the applicants complain about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them. They rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Mr   Lugovoy also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Yaremenko v. Ukraine (no. 32092/02) The applicant, Oleksandr Volodymyrovych Yaremenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a life sentence in Zhytomyr prison (Ukraine) for murder. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that, following his arrest in January 2001 on suspicion of murder, he was ill-treated in police custody and that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He further complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because he had been forced to incriminate himself and that his lawyer had been removed from his case unlawfully, in breach of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Akashev v. Russia (no. 30616/05) Kurinnyy v. Russia (no. 36495/02) Matviyets v. Russia (II) (no. 38999/05) Moroko v. Russia (no. 20937/07) Nadezhkin v. Russia (no. 42940/02) Podyapolskiy v. Russia (no. 36939/02) Sharov v. Russia (no. 38918/02) Sitnitskiye v. Russia (no. 17701/03) Kharchuk v. Ukraine (no. 24739/05) Pashuk v. Ukraine (no. 34103/05) Saksontseva v. Ukraine (no. 31449/04) With the exception of the applicant in the case of Kharchuk , all the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicants in the cases of Matviyets and Saksontseva , they also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the cases of Pashuk and Saksontseva further 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.   Petrenko v. Ukraine (no. 20330/03) Solaz v. Ukraine (no. 35184/02)   *** 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.