CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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   482 27.6.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   1 and 3 July 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 18 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 1 July 2008 and 19 on Thursday 3 July 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 1 July 2008   Daróczy v. Hungary (application no. 44378/05) The applicant, Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Budapest. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that she was obliged to change her surname, Tiborné Daróczy, which she had been using since her marriage in 1950. She relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Malininas v. Lithuania (no. 10071/04) The applicant, Sergejus Malininas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1980 and, at the time of lodging his application, was serving a nine-year custodial sentence at Pravieniškės Prison (Lithuania) for drug-dealing. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that that conviction was unfair as not only had he been entrapped by the police but certain essential evidence had not been disclosed at his trial. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.   Flux v. Moldova (No. 5) (no. 17343/04) The applicant, Flux , is a Moldovan newspaper based in Chişinău. The case concerns the newspaper’s complaint about its conviction in 2003 for defamation of a former Deputy Prosecutor General. The applicant newspaper relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Borysiewicz v. Poland (no. 71146/01) The applicant, Krystyna Borysiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1947 and lives in a semi-detached house in a residential area of Pabianice (Poland). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the authorities failed to protect her home from the noise nuisance of her neighbour’s tailoring workshop. She also complains about the excessive length of the proceedings she brought to have the workshop closed or to at least have measures taken to reduce the level of noise. She relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Kowalczyk v. Poland (no. 44131/05) The applicant, Czesław Kowalczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and is currently detained in Gdańsk Remand Centre following his arrest in January 1999 on suspicion of homicide. The case concerns his complaint about the excessive length of his detention during the judicial proceedings against him. He relies, in particular, on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Calmanovici v. Romania (no. 42250/02) The applicant, Viorel Calmanovici, is a Romanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Bucharest (Romania). At the relevant time he was working as a police officer in the service responsible for detecting economic and financial crime. He was remanded in custody in August 2002 on suspicion of receiving bribes and stealing documents. After initially being acquitted he was later found guilty as charged and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. He complains that the order for his pre-trial detention and the prolongation of that detention were not in accordance with the law and that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair. He also complains of the supervision measures imposed on him and of being deprived of his parental rights and the right to vote while serving his prison sentence. He relies in particular on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections).   Elena Negulescu v. Romania (no. 25111/02) The applicant, Elena Negulescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Slatina (Romania). After obtaining damages for assault, she was informed that to have the relevant court orders enforced she would have to pay in advance the court bailiff’s fees. As she was unable to pay, she was never able to have the orders enforced. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains of the lack of effective assistance from the authorities with a view to enforcement of the decisions in her favour.   Tăşchină v. Romania (no. 9415/02) The applicant, Ionel Tăşchină, is a Romanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bucharest. He complains of the length of proceedings concerning payment of compensation awarded to him under an insurance policy following an industrial accident in 1982. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Beyaz v. Turkey (no. 16254/02) The applicant, Hasan Beyaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Tunceli (Turkey). He was formerly a civil servant working in the roads department. He alleges that he was transferred on account of his trade union activities. He relies in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Samsa v. Turkey (no. 3372/05) The applicant, Nurettin Samsa, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey). The case concerns criminal proceedings for forgery brought against him in October 1998. In a judgment of 21 June 2004 the Gaziantep Assize Court acquitted him. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Liberty and Other Organisations v. the United Kingdom (no. 58243/00) The applicants are Liberty, British Irish Rights Watch and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, a British and two Irish civil liberties’ organisations based in London and Dublin, respectively. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that, between 1990 and 1997, their telephone, facsimile, e-mail and data communications, including legally privileged and confidential information, were intercepted by an Electronic Test Facility operated by the British Ministry of Defence. They rely on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Ioan v. Romania (no. 31005/03) The applicant relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     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) of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Peák v. Hungary (no. 20280/04) Conceria Madera S.R.L. v. Italy (no. 4012/03) Berent-Derda v. Poland (no. 23484/02) Piaskowski and Others v. Poland (no. 35431/05) Sadura v. Poland (no. 35382/06) Čeh v. Serbia (no. 9906/04)     Thursday 3 July 2008   Balabanov v. Bulgaria (no. 70843/01) The applicant, Kostadin Stoyanov Balabanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Peshtera (Bulgaria). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length of criminal proceedings against him for, in particular, theft and embezzlement. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Georgieva v. Bulgaria (no. 16085/02) The applicant, Elena Georgieva Georgieva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). In August 2001 she was arrested and remanded in custody for possession of prohibited drugs. The prosecution service discontinued the criminal proceedings against her on 4 March 2002 and she was released on the same day. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that the length of her pre-trial detention was excessive. She further relies on Article 5 § 4 (right to speedy review of the lawfulness of detention). Krushev v. Bulgaria (no. 66535/01) The applicant, Vihur (Victor) Sevdalinov Krushev, is an Australian and Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Eaglemount (Australia). In November 1992 he was confined against his will in a psychiatric institution pursuant to an order of the Sofia district prosecution service. He was released in December 1992, after the order concerned had been declared null and void. In January 1994 he submitted a compensation claim in respect of the prejudice he had suffered on account of his forced confinement. The claim was dismissed by a final decision in August 2003. The applicant complains that he was deprived of his liberty unlawfully and arbitrarily, in breach of Article 5 § 1 (e) (right to liberty and security). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the compensation proceedings were excessively lengthy.   Just satisfaction Kushoglu v. Bulgaria (no. 48191/99) The applicants, Ayten Kushoglu and Mehmet Kushoglu, have both Bulgarian and Turkish nationality. They were born in 1958 and 1956, respectively, and live in Malkara (Turkey). In a judgment of 10 May 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in that the Bulgarian authorities had failed to assist the applicants to recover property they had sold to their local municipality when forced to leave Bulgaria in 1989. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Vokoun v. the Czech Republic (no. 20728/05) The applicant, Antonín Vokoun, is a Czech national who was born in 1939 and lives in Bělá pod Bezdězem (Czech Republic). The case concerns proceedings brought by the applicant to obtain recognition of his title to various properties. He complains that the Constitutional Court did not send him a copy of the observations of the other party to the proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Akhiyadova v. Russia (no. 32059/02) Musayeva v. Russia (no. 12703/02) Ruslan Umarov v. Russia (no. 12712/02) The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in the Chechen Republic. Esila Sultanovna Akhiyadova lives in Makhkety and is the wife and daughter-in-law of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov, born in 1977 and 1932 respectively, whom she has not seen since 13 February 2002. Khapta Musayeva lives in Grozny and is the mother of Yakub Iznaurov, born in 1966, whom she has not seen since 5 February 2000. Ruslan Usmanovich Umarov lives in Grozny and is the father of Magomed Umarov, born in 1975, whom he has not seen since 27   May 2000. The cases concern the applicants’ allegations that their relatives disappeared after being unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen and that the Russian authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. All the applicants rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article   38 §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case) and Article   34 (right of individual petition). Ms Akhiyadova also relies on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Mr   Umarov on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Belov v. Russia (no. 22053/02) The applicant, Igor Vasilyevich Belov is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lived in Yakhroma (Russia). He is currently in detention following his arrest in August 1995 on suspicion of unlawful possession of weapons. In April 2002 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. In the meantime, another set of criminal proceedings were brought against him on suspicion of murder for which he was ultimately acquitted in September 2001. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints about being beaten by prison warders in December 2001 and about the unlawfulness and length of his detention. He also complains about the excessive length of the first set of criminal proceedings against him. He relies, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment), Article   5 §§   1   (c) and   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Chember v. Russia (no. 7188/03) The applicant, Yevgeniy Vitalyevich Chember, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Shakhty (Russia). He has a second-degree disability. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that, in March 2001 during his military service in Astrakhan (Russia), he was ordered to do 350 knee bends as punishment for not cleaning the barracks adequately, despite the fact that he was exempt from physical exercise on account of recurrent knee problems. The applicant collapsed during the exercise and was taken to hospital. Diagnosed with a spinal injury, he can no longer walk properly and has since been discharged from military service on medical grounds. The applicant relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Matveyev v. Russia (no. 26601/02) The applicant, Sergey Nilovich Matveyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Arkhangelsk (Russia). In August 1981 the applicant was convicted of forgery of a postage stamp and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He served the sentence and was dismissed from his job with a state-run company. In supervisory review proceedings, the Russian courts subsequently found that that conviction was unlawful. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that his claim for compensation as a result of his unlawful conviction was dismissed. He relies on Article   3 of Protocol No.   7 (compensation for wrongful conviction)   Jankulovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 6906/03) The applicant, Tomce Jankulovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Bitola (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that a judgment in his favour with regard to the recovery of a debt was not enforced in good time. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) 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.   Regálová v. the Czech Republic (no. 40593/05) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Belotserkovets v. Russia (no. 34679/03) Kolayev v. Russia (no. 43284/02) Lyudmila Smirnova v. Russia (no. 8910/04) The applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and 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 Kuncheva and Vidas also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kuncheva v. Bulgaria (no. 9161/02) Vidas v. Croatia (no. 40383/04) Pavlovska v. Ukraine (no. 36949/02)   *** 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.