CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 juillet 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   505 4.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   8 and 10 July 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 28 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 8 July 2008 and 11 on Thursday 10 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 8 July 2008   Tokić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application nos. 12455/04, 14140/05, 12906/06 and 26028/06) The applicants are four citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mehmed   Tokić, Jusuf   Alibašić, Danijel   Marinić and Adis   Hadžić who were born in 1934, 1971, 1966 and 1982, respectively. They live, respectively, in Lukavac, a care home in Fojnica, the psychiatric wing of Zenica Prison and Sarajevo. Between 1999 and 2003 the applicants were charged with criminal offences: Mr Tokić with possession of an illegal weapon; Mr Alibašić with threatening behaviour; Mr Marinić with murdering his parents; and, Mr Hadžić with murder. They were all found not guilty by reason of insanity and ordered to be detained in the psychiatric wing of Zenica Prison. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the unlawfulness of their detention in that institution following the introduction of new legislation requiring the competent civil court to take a decision concerning their compulsory confinement. They rely on Article   5 §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Gigolashvili v. Georgia (no. 18145/05) The applicant, Koba Gigolashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Rustavi (Georgia). In December 2003 Mr Gigolashvili was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of unlawful possession of drugs. He was also subsequently charged with, in particular, robbery and murder. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention from 5 May 2004. He relies on Article   5 §   1   (c) (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia (no. 9103/04) The applicant, the Georgian Labour Party, is a political party based in Tbilisi. The case concerns the applicant party’s complaint about the conduct of the March 2004 parliamentary elections. In particular, it challenges the system of preliminary voter registration and the rules on the composition of electoral rolls. It also complains that it was deprived of its chance to win parliamentary seats because the general election results were finalised without a vote having been held in two electoral districts, thus disfranchising approximately 60,000 voters. The applicant party relies on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06) The applicant, Attila Vajnai, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest. At the relevant time Mr Vajnai was the Vice-President of the Workers’ Party ( Munkáspárt ), a left-wing political party. The case concerns Mr Vajnai’s complaint about his conviction for wearing a five-pointed red star, the symbol of the international workers’ movement, at a demonstration in February 2003 in central Budapest. He relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Luciana Forgione v. Italy (no. 62471/00) The applicant, Luciana Forgione, is an Italian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Città Sant’Angelo (Italy). In April 2002 she lodged an application in the Italian courts under the “Pinto Act” to complain of the excessive duration of administrative proceedings to which she was a party. In January 2003 the Campobasso Court of Appeal awarded her 6,300 euros in compensation for the damage sustained, but this sum was paid to her only in February 2005. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Perre and Others v. Italy (no. 1905/05) The applicants, Francesco Perre, Maria Barbaro and Maria Perre, are Italian nationals who were born in 1950, 1958 and 1976, respectively, and live in Plati (Italy). The first two applicants are a married couple and the third applicant is their daughter. In October 1997 proceedings were brought to have preventive measures applied against B.F., the father of the second applicant, who was suspected of belonging to a mafia-type criminal organisation. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complain about those proceedings not being held in public.   Backes v. Luxembourg (no. 24261/05) The applicant, Ernest Backes, is a Luxembourg national who was born in 1946 and lives in Bech-Kleinmacher (Luxembourg).   The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for proffering insults in a book entitled Révélation$ against a lawyer, Mr N.S. The applicant complains about a violation of his right to freedom of expression and about the unfairness of the proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Kita v. Poland (no. 57659/00) The applicant, Sławomir Kita, is a Polish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kazimierza Wielka (Poland) where he works as a teacher. The case concerns Mr Kita’s complaint about civil proceedings brought against him under the Local Elections Act for distributing leaflets in the run-up to the 1998 local elections in which he alleged financial irregularities in the municipality. He relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Konrad v. Poland (no. 33374/05) Mirosław Jabłoński v. Poland (no. 33985/05) The applicants are: a German-Polish national, Thomas Konrad, who was born in 1964 and is currently detained in Sztum Remand Centre (Poland); and, Mirosław Jabłoński, a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Warsaw. Mr Konrad was arrested in Berlin in October 2004 on suspicion of, in particular, being a member of an organised criminal group and taking hostages. The proceedings against him are still pending. Mr Jabłoński was arrested in December 2003 on suspicion of, in particular, assault resulting in death. He was convicted as charged in June 2007 and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The case is currently still pending on appeal. Both cases concern the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length of their detention on remand. They rely on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Marchowski v. Poland (no. 10273/02) The applicant, Jacek Marchowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Kraków (Poland). In January 1997 Mr Marchowski was arrested on suspicion of homicide. He was acquitted in March 2001 and released. The proceedings are, however, currently still pending. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his detention on remand, notably being kept in solitary confinement, and about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5 §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Creţu and Others v. Romania (no. 34877/02) The applicants, Ascenia, Simona and Petru Dorin Creţu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1933, 1962 and 1960 respectively and live in Botoşani (Romania). The case concerns an action for recovery of possession granted against them by the Romanian courts. The applicants rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ţară Lungă v. Romania (no. 26831/03) The applicant, Traian   Ţară   Lungă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Constanţa (Romania). He was a police officer and as such was a member of the armed forces. He alleges that income tax was unlawfully levied on his severance pay upon retirement and complains of discrimination on account of the fact that other servicemen in his situation had received non-taxable severance pay. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Fener Rum Patrikliği ( Ecumenical Patriarchate ) v. Turkey (no. 14340/05) The applicant, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, is a church based in Istanbul. It represents the Orthodox minority in Turkey today. The case concerns property belonging to the applicant church for more than a century which was re-registered at the land registry in the name of the “Foundation of the Büyükada Greek Orphanage for Boys”, currently under the management of the Turkish administrative authorities. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant church alleges that the Turkish courts, in their ruling, breached its right to the enjoyment of its possessions. It further complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that the proceedings were unfair.   Kart v. Turkey (no. 8917/05) The applicant, Atilla Kart, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara. Since November 2002 he has been a member of the Turkish parliament for the CHP (People’s Republican Party). The applicant alleges in particular that the failure to waive his parliamentary immunity prevents him from participating in criminal proceedings against him, thus depriving him of his right of access to a court. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Kuş v. Turkey (no. 27817/04) The applicant, Remzi Kuş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Sinn (Germany). The case concerns the expropriation by the Iğdır municipal authority of a plot of land belonging to the applicant, without compensation. The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Nurgül Doğan v. Turkey (no. 72194/01) The applicant, Nurgül Doğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul. In February 1999 she was arrested and taken into police custody after an identity check. In March 1999 she was charged with belonging to an armed group (EKIM-TKIB). The criminal proceedings against her are apparently still pending. The applicant complains of being ill-treated when she was held in police custody on the premises of the anti-terrorist branch of the security police, and contends that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegations. She relies in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment).   Paşaoğlu v. Turkey (no. 8932/03) The applicant, Turan Paşaoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Salonika (Greece). The case concerns the refusal of the Turkish authorities to grant the applicant a renewal of his passport on account of a restriction imposed by the Turkish Ministry of the Interior. The applicant relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Satık v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 60999/00) The applicant, Kadir Satık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Ankara. The case concerns Mr Satık’s allegation that he was ill-treated in police custody when arrested on suspicion of giving official and confidential information to the Greek intelligence service. Ultimately, the General Staff Military Court convicted him of espionage and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. He further complains that, tried by a military court, the proceedings against him were not independent and impartial. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Turgut and Others v. Turkey (no. 1411/03) Nihal Ayser Turgut, Tevfik Güneş, Turgay Güneş, Saffet Güneş, Nermin Solmaz Güneş, Ayşe Ayata and Hurşit Güneş are Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul and Ankara. The case concerns land of more than 100,000 square metres in the village of Kefken, Kandıra (Turkey), which the applicants claim has been owned by their families for more than three generations. The applicants complain about a decision of the Turkish courts to register the land in the name of the Public Treasury, without their being paid any compensation. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about the disproportionate breach of their right to the enjoyment of their possessions.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Hubley v. the United Kingdom (no. 63480/00) Wakeling v. the United Kingdom (no. 61395/00) Wells v. the United Kingdom (no. 63477/00) The applicants rely on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and/or Article   8 (right to respect for private or family life).     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 company in the case of Bieffe Rifugi Antiatomica S.R.L. also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Bieffe Rifugi Antiatomica S.R.L. v. Italy (no. 62354/00) Bonasia and Pozzi v. Italy (no. 62156/00) Caglioni v. Italy (no. 65082/01) Fuggi v. Italy (no. 64894/01) Maugeri v. Italy (no. 62250/00)     Thursday 10 July 2008   Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan (no. 16528/05) The applicant, Vagif Mustafa oglu Hajibeyli, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1960 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan). Mr Hajibeyli was a politician of one of the opposition parties in Azerbaijan. In April 2000 he participated in a demonstration at Fuzuli Square in Baku and, following clashes between demonstrators and the police, he was arrested. He was subsequently charged with obstructing the police and, released from detention on remand, he was prohibited from leaving his place of residence. That measure came to an end in September 2005 when the proceedings against him were discontinued because the charges had become time-barred. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and that he was not allowed to leave his place of residence for approximately five years and four months. He relies, in particular, on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement).   Rahmanova v. Azerbaijan (no. 34640/02) The applicant, Leyli Pasha qizi Rahmanova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1938 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan). Ms Rahmanova complains that a final judicial decision in her favour concerning a dispute with her daughter-in-law over an apartment was quashed by way of an additional cassation procedure. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Blandeau v. France (no. 9090/06) The applicant, Mireille Blandeau, is a French national who was born in 1950 and lives in Poitiers (France). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the secretariat of the Judicial Division of the Conseil d’Etat did not give her notice of two decisions rejecting her applications for legal aid and the dismissal of her appeals on points of law by the Conseil d’Etat on the ground that she had not had legal representation. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Garriguenc v. France (no. 21148/02) The applicant, Pierre   Garriguenc, is a French national who was born in 1955 and lives in Rognes (France). He was placed under judicial investigation and remanded in custody, in January 1996, on suspicion of murder. He lodged several applications for release which were rejected. His release was granted in July 2000 but he was ultimately convicted as charged and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in December 2001. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains about the length of his pre-trial detention.   Medvedyev and Others v. France (no. 3394/03) The applicants are Oleksandr Medvedyev and Borys Bilenikin, Ukrainian nationals, Nicolae Balaban, Puiu Dodica, Nicu Stelian Manolache and Viorel Petcu, Romanian nationals, Georgios Boreas, a Greek national, and Sergio Cabrera Leon and Guillermo Luis Eduar Sage Martinez, Chilean nationals. They were crew-members of the Winner , a cargo vessel flying the flag of Cambodia. As part of an international operation against drug trafficking, the French authorities were informed that the ship was likely to be carrying significant quantities of narcotics and it was apprehended. The applicants claim to have been the victims of an arbitrary deprivation of liberty on account of being detained on board the Winner for 13 days under the surveillance of personnel of the French armed forces, without any judicial scrutiny of that detention. They also complain of the lack of precision in the legal instruments on which that confinement was based. They rely on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Soulas and Others v. France (no. 15948/03) The applicants, Gilles Soulas and Guillaume Faye, are French nationals who were born in 1955 and 1949, respectively, and live in Paris. The third applicant is a company, Société européenne de diffusion et d’édition , having its registered office in Paris. The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in connection with the publication of a book entitled “The colonisation of Europe”. The proceedings resulted in their conviction for inciting hatred and violence against Muslim communities from northern and central Africa. They complain in particular that their freedom of expression was breached (Article 10).   Sudarkov v. Russia (no. 3130/03) The applicant, Vladimir Anatolyevich Sudarkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Mineralniye Vody (Russia). In May 2000 Mr Sudarkov was arrested on charges of passing counterfeit money. He was found guilty in April 2002 and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the conditions: of his detention on remand; of transport from a remand centre in Moscow to a correctional colony in the Stavropol Region; and, of his detention in “transit” remand centres during that journey to the colony. He relies, in particular, 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.   Abramov v. Ukraine (no. 39491/03) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Skrypnyak and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 9177/05, 14241/05, 10596/06, 17346/06, 20912/06 and 34604/06) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) 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.   Nikolac v. Croatia (no. 17117/06) Pleteš v. Croatia (no. 21591/06)   ***   Press contacts Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.