CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 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   436 13.06.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   17 and 19 June 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 17 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 17 June 2008 and 15 on Thursday 19 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 17 June 2008   Meltex Ltd and Mesrop Movsesyan v. Armenia (application no. 32283/04) The applicants are Meltex Ltd, an independent broadcasting company established in 1995 with its registered office in Yerevan (Armenia), and its chairman, Mesrop Movsesyan, who was born in 1950 and lives in Yerevan. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about being refused broadcasting licences following legislative changes in 2000 and 2001. The applicants rely, in particular, on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Victor Saviţchi v. Moldova (no. 81/04) The applicant, Victor Saviţchi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Chişinău. He was a police inspector. In August 2000 he was arrested on charges of accepting a bribe in exchange for a favour in one of his cases. First acquitted, he was subsequently found guilty as charged and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The case concerns Mr   Saviţchi’s claim that he was beaten by the police when arrested and that that could clearly be seen in a video-recording of his arrest. He further submits that his telephone conversations were illegally recorded and that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. He relies, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation) of the Convention, Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).     Bobrowski v. Poland (no. 64916/01) The applicant, Jerzy Bobrowski, is a Polish national who lives in Kedzierzyn Koźle (Poland). The case concerns, in particular, Mr   Bobrowski’s complaint about the Polish authorities’ refusal to grant him legal aid for the purposes of lodging an appeal in proceedings with regard to financial difficulties caused by his company’s factory burning down. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Just satisfaction Matache and Others v. Romania (no. 38113/02) The applicants, Constantin Matache, Elena Matache and Zenovia Sprînceană, are Romanian nationals.   They complained of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in their favour. In a judgment of 19 October 2006, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 21899/02) The applicant, Abdullah Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). He complains of the infringement of the right to life of his son, Maşallah Yılmaz, who died on 1 October 1999, aged 20, while performing his military service. The applicant also complains of the inadequacy of the investigation into the circumstances of his son’s death. He relies, in particular, on Article 2 (right to life).   Buran v. Turkey (no. 984/02) The applicant, Hasan Buran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Malatya (Turkey). At the relevant time he was the proprietor of the weekly newspaper Fırat’ta Yaşam (“Fırat Life”) published in Gaziantep (Turkey). The applicant complains of the seizure of issue no. 97 of the newspaper on 19 March 2001 by the Turkish authorities, who considered that three articles appearing in that issue incited others to hatred and hostility. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Cesim Yıldırım and Others v. Turkey (no. 29109/03) The seven applicants, Cesim Yıldırım, Ali Yıldırım, Osman Yıldırım, Emin Yıldırım, Şemsettin Yıldırım, Cevahir Bayraktar and Zezo Yıldırım, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1954, 1945, 1952, 1953, 1949, 1948 and 1920 respectively and live in Van (Turkey). They are the brothers, sister and mother of   İzzettin Yıldırım, who was president of the cultural and educational foundation Zehra Eğitim ve Kültür Vakfı . İzzettin Yıldırım went missing on 29 December 1999 and his body was eventually found one month later, along with eight others, in the garden of a house rented by members of the illegal organisation Hizbullah (Party of God). The applicants allege that İzzettin Yıldırım was the victim of an extrajudicial execution and that the State is responsible for his death on account of the authorities’ failure in their obligation to protect his life and to conduct an effective investigation into his killing. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Karaduman and Others v. Turkey (no. 8810/03) The applicants, Remzi Karaduman, Uğur Uşar and Reşat Uşar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1976 and 1967. In July 2002 they were arrested and taken into police custody, first at Ankara police headquarters and then at the police headquarters in Diyarbakır, on suspicion of belonging to the illegal organisation Hizbullah (Party of God). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain of the circumstances surrounding their detention in police custody.   Karatepe and Ulaş v. Turkey (no. 29766/03) The applicants, Umar Karatepe and Sevil Ulaş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975 and 1978 respectively and live in Istanbul. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about being ill-treated when arrested in September 2001 for acting suspiciously on their way to a festival organised by the Bakırköy Republican People’s Party in a park in Istanbul. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Şahin Karataş v. Turkey (no. 16110/03) The applicant, Şahin Karataş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul. He complains that he was kept in detention for 43 days longer than the term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced following several sets of proceedings against him. He also complains of the absence of a remedy by which to obtain compensation for the period of unlawful detention. He relies on Article 5 §§ 1 (a) and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Tüm v. Turkey (no. 11855/04) The applicant, Okan Tüm, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). He was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in October 1996 on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation. Although he was released in December 2005, the criminal proceedings against him are apparently still pending. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains of the length of his pre-trial detention.   Kehoe v. the United Kingdom (no. 2010/06) The applicants are Mary Kehoe who was born in 1964, and her four children. They are all Irish nationals and live in County Galway (Ireland). The case concerns Ms Kehoe’s complaint about the unreasonable delay in enforcing maintenance payments by her ex-husband for their four children and that she had no recourse against that delay. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Albu v. Romania (no. 8508/03) Irimia v. Romania (no. 12334/03) Nistorescu v. Romania (no. 15517/03) All the applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Irimia also relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Uğurlu v. Turkey (no. 45/04) The applicant relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Komanický v. Slovakia (No. 3) (no. 72092/01)     Thursday 19 June 2008   Bačić v. Croatia (no. 43595/06) The applicant, Ismeta Bačić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Zagreb. The case concerns Ms Bačić’s complaint about the unfairness of bankruptcy proceedings against her former employer in which her claims for salary arrears were declared inadmissible. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Gauchin v. France (no. 7801/03) The applicants, René and Olivier Gauchin, a father and son, are French nationals who were born in 1933 and 1964 respectively and live in Buire Courcelles (France). The case concerns proceedings relating to the letting-out of farmland belonging to the first applicant. The applicants complain, in particular, of a breach of the first applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions on account of his continuing inability to recover possession of his land. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ichtigiaroglou v. Greece (no. 12045/06) The applicant, Olga Ichtigiaroglou, is a Greek national who was born in 1922 and lives in Salonika (Greece). The case concerns the proceedings brought by the applicant in 1993 seeking to obtain an old-age pension. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Guliyev v. Russia (no. 24650/02) The applicant, Magsud Moysum-Ogly Guliyev, is a Russian national of Azeri ethnic origin who was born in 1965 and lives in Zheshart, in the Komi Republic (Russia). Mr Guliyev was arrested in January 2000 on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter. He was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his pre-trial detention and of transport from one detention facility in Sosnogorsk to another in Nizhniy Novgorod and then, from there, to a correctional colony in the Mordoviya Republic. He relies, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Ryabikin v. Russia (no. 8320/04) The applicant, Aleksandr Ivanovich Ryabikin, is a Turkmen national of Russian ethnic origin and lives in St   Petersburg. He was born in 1953 in Ashkhabad (Turkmenistan) and lived there until January 2001 when, fearing that his life was in danger because he was a witness in a criminal case against two Turkmen Ministry of Finance inspectors, he left the country for the United Arab Emirates and then Moscow. In February 2004 he was summoned to the St. Petersburg Passport and Visa Service and arrested on the basis of an international search warrant which included charges against him of embezzlement. He was ultimately released in March 2005. The case concerns Mr Ryabikin’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention pending extradition and that, if extradited to Turkmenistan, he was at risk of torture and ethnically motivated persecution. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5 §§   1   (f) and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Fetaovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 10649/03) The applicant, Rami Fetaovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Kumanovo (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness and excessive length of civil proceedings he brought for damages following the slaughter of his sheep because they were infected with a contagious disease (brucellosis). He also complains that he was not awarded any compensation. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) 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.   Isakov v. Russia (no. 20745/04) Maltseva v. Russia (no. 76676/01) Yerogova v. Russia (no. 77478/01) Lukyanov v. Ukraine (no. 11921/04 All the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Lukyanov they also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the cases of Isakov and Lukyanov 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 Vlachou also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Philippos Ionnidis v. Greece (no. 22957/06) Vlachou v. Greece (no. 2655/06) Gjozev v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 14260/03) Manevski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 22742/02) Lesina v. Ukraine (no. 9510/03)   *** Press contacts 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.