CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 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 } .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   462 20.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   24 and 26 June 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 24 June 2008 and 11 on Thursday 26 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 24 June 2008   Ādamsons v. Latvia (application no. 3669/03) The applicant, Jānis Ādamsons, is a Latvian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Preiļi (Latvia). The applicant complains of his removal from the electoral register and his disqualification from standing for election on the ground that she had served in the Border Guard Forces of the Soviet Union, which were subordinate to the KGB. He relies on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention of Human Rights.   Milinienė v. Lithuania (no. 74355/01) The applicant, Eglė Milinienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Vilnius. She used to be a judge. In October 1998 Ms Milinienė was arrested on charges of accepting a bribe in return for a favourable outcome in civil proceedings with regard to a claim to annul the auction of a property. She was ultimately convicted of that charge, sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and banned from service for five years. The case concerns, in particular, Ms   Milinienė’s complaint that she was incited to accept the bribe by the authorities. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Iambor v. Romania (No. 1) (no. 64536/01) The applicant, Simion Iambor, is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Beba-Veche (Romania). He alleges that he was assaulted on 4 December 1999, while at the police headquarters in Beba Veche. He also complains of hostility towards him by the governors of the penal institutions in which he was detained, and of their refusal to issue him copies of documents concerning the proceedings to which he was a party and his medical file, which he needed in order to support his application to the Court. The applicant complains, further, of the opening of his correspondence, including with the Court, Amnesty International and the Romanian postal service. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 34 (right of individual application).     Just satisfaction Apostolidi and Others v. Turkey (no. 45628/99) The applicants, Ekaterini Apostolidi, Emilia Gusi, Despina Frangaki, Iordanis Apostolidis and Iordanis-Iordani Apostolidis, are Greek nationals. In a judgment of 27 March 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) because the applicants’ inheritance certificate had been declared invalid and of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the excessive length of the proceedings before the domestic courts. It declared that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Atmaca, Çamdeviren and Yazır v. Turkey (nos.28299/02, 28300/02 and 28301/02) The applicants, Bülent Atmaca, Nadir Çamdeviren and Önder Yazır, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1977 and 1979 respectively and live in Tunceli (Turkey). In November 2001 they were arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of being members of the illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). In September 2002 they were convicted and sentenced to 16 years and three months’ imprisonment. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain that they were not brought before a judge immediately after their arrest and did not have the assistance of a lawyer during their police custody.   Baş v. Turkey (no. 49548/99) The applicant, Sefine Baş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Giresun (Turkey). The case concerns the various sets of proceedings brought by the applicant since 1983 relating to her inability to obtain a widow’s 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).   Foka v. Turkey (no. 28940/95) The applicant, Eleni Foka, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1947 and lives in Nicosia. She is a retired school teacher. At the relevant time she lived and worked in the village Ayia Triada in the Karpas region of northern Cyprus. The case concerns Ms Foka’s allegation that, on her way back to Ayia Triada in January 1995 from southern Cyprus where she had spent the Christmas holidays with her family, she was arrested and ill-treated by Turkish-Cypriot customs officers at the Ledra Palace checkpoint. She also alleges that her bag was searched and its contents (notably cassettes, books, a diary and a map) were confiscated and that she was persecuted because of her ethnic origin, religious beliefs and her opposition to the Turkish military occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. She relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 10 (freedom of expression), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Isaak v. Turkey (no. 44587/98) Solomou v. Turkey (no. 36832/97) The applicants are 12 Cypriot nationals.   The first five applicants, Maria, Isaak, Anastasia, Kyriaki and Andriani Isaak, were born in 1977, 1944, 1951, 1974 and 1979 respectively and live in Ayia Napia and Paralimni (Cyprus). They are the widow, parents and sisters of Anastasios (Tassos) Isaak, a Greek Cypriot, who died on 11   August 1996.   The seven other applicants, Spyros, Antonis, Panayiotis, Maria, Costas, Niki and Paraskevi Solomou, were born in 1941, 1964, 1966, 1972, 1975, 1974 and 1971 respectively and also live in Paralimini (Cyprus). They are the father, brothers and sisters of Solomos Solomou, a Greek Cypriot who died on 14   August 1996.   On 11 August 1996 Anastasios Isaak participated in a motorcycle rally to protest against the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus which took place at several points along the United Nations buffer zone east of Nicosia. His family allege that, during that rally, he was kicked and beaten to death by Turkish-Cypriot policemen and counter-demonstrators.   On 14 August 1996 Solomos Solomou, having attended Anastasios Isaak’s funeral, entered the buffer zone near the spot of the killing and, in protest, climbed up a flagpole flying the Turkish flag. His family allege that the Turkish armed forces then opened fire at him and he was shot and killed.   Relying on Articles   2 (right to life), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination), all the applicants allege that their relatives were unlawfully killed by agents of the Turkish Government and that the Turkish authorities failed to carry out an investigation into the incidents. In the case of Solomou the applicants also rely on Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Özkartal v. Turkey (no. 4287/04) The applicant, Enver Özkartal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969. At the time of lodging his application he was in Midyat Prison serving a life sentence. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that his correspondence has been intercepted and stopped by the prison authorities.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Cone v. Romania (no. 35935/02) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Balaban v. Turkey (no. 4236/03) The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Thursday 26 June 2008   Isigova and Others v. Russia (no. 6844/02) The applicants are five Russian nationals who live in Sernovodsk, a village in Chechnya (Russia). Tsalipat and Aminat Isigova are the mother and sister of Apti Isigov, born in 1978. Khalisat Umkhanova, Taisiya Musayeva and Arbi Umkhanov are the mother, wife and son of Zelimkhan Umkhanov, born in 1972. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that Apti Isigov and Zelimkhan Umkhanov disappeared on 2 July after being unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen during a mopping up operation in their village and that the Russian authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. 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) 13 (right to an effective remedy), 34 (right of individual petition) and 38   §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Seleznev v. Russia (no. 15591/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Nikolayevich Seleznev, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Kingisepp (Russia). In March 2001 Mr Seleznev was arrested on suspicion of extortion. He was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. The case concerns his complaints about the conditions of his pre-trial detention, of transportation to and from the courthouse and of his confinement in the courtroom. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6 §   3   (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence).   Serov v. Russia (no. 75894/01) The applicant, Evgeniy Georgevich Serov, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Saratov (Russia). The case concerns Mr Serov’s complaint that a judgment in his favour was not enforced in good time and that, in that judgment, the courts had not examined his claim to have certain sums included on his employment certificate. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Shulepov v. Russia (no. 15435/03) The applicant, Arkadiy Anatolievich Shulepov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and is currently serving a sentence in a correctional facility in Nizhniy Tagil (Russia) for murder and theft. The case concerns Mr Shulepov’s complaint that, in the appeal proceedings concerning his case, he was not provided with a legal-aid lawyer. He relies on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).   Vashchenko v. Ukraine (no. 26864/03) The applicant, Viktor Alekseyevich Vashchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Melitopil (Ukraine). He is a retired military officer. In October 1995 Mr   Vashchenko brought civil proceedings for compensation with regard to two apartments he was granted via a social housing scheme. His claims were ultimately rejected in September 2004. Following an incident at the Melitopil court building, Mr Vashchenko was charged in July 2001 with hooliganism. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending. The case concerns Mr Vashchenko’s complaint about the excessive length of those civil and criminal proceedings. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing 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.   Rechtová v. the Czech Republic (no. 27088/05) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Dorozhko v. Russia (no. 5761/03) Krasev v. Russia (no. 730/04) Martynova v. Russia (no. 57807/00) Petukhov v. Russia (no. 40322/02) Tolstov v. Russia (no. 40078/03) All the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   *** 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.