CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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   527 11.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   17 July 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 44 Chamber judgments on Thursday 17 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 ).   Ashughyan v. Armenia (application no. 33268/03) The applicant, Gayane Ashughyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). After the 2003 presidential elections, Ms   Ashughyan participated in a series of protest rallies in Yerevan organised by the opposition parties. She was arrested on two of those occasions, 7 and 9 April 2003, and was first sentenced to an administrative fine and then to five days’ administrative detention. The case concerns Ms Ashughyan’s allegation that she was arrested simply because she had participated in those demonstrations. She also complains about the unlawfulness of her detention, the unfairness of the proceedings against her and the fact that she had no right to contest the decisions against her. She relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article   2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Schmidt v. Austria (no. 513/05) The applicant, Harald Schmidt, is an Austrian national who lives in Vienna. He is a practising lawyer. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he was issued with a reprimand following proceedings brought against him for infringing the Vienna Food Inspection Agency’s honour and reputation in observations he had filed with regard to charges against one of his clients. He alleged, in particular, that the Agency had attempted to play tricks ( Schummelversuch ) on his client. He also complains about the length of those proceedings against him. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Leschiutta and Fraccaro v. Belgium (nos. 58081/00 and 58411/00) The applicants, Carlo Leschiutta and Luigi Fraccaro, are Italian nationals who were born in 1948 and 1959 and live in Cerea and Tolmezzo (Italy). They are the respective fathers of Andrea and Elia, who were born in 1995 and 1987 to the same woman, A.M. The applicants complain that they were separated from their children, who were taken to Belgium by their mother, despite the fact that they had been awarded custody of them in two decisions by the Italian courts in 1995 and 1998. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they allege that the Belgian authorities did not take the necessary measures to reunite them with their sons.   Oršuš and Others v. Croatia (no. 15766/03) The applicants are 14 Croatian nationals of Roma origin. They were born between 1988 and 1994 and live in Orehovica, Podturen and Trnovec (Croatia). The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that they were placed in Roma-only classes at primary school. They allege, in particular, that that segregation had deprived them of their right to education in a multicultural environment and had made them endure severe educational, psychological and emotional harm, and in particular feelings of alienation and lack of self-esteem. They also complain about the excessive length of the proceedings they brought before the civil courts concerning those complaints. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 (right to education) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   X. v. Croatia (no. 11223/04) The applicant, X., is a Croatian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Zagreb. In May 2001 the applicant was divested of her capacity to act on the ground that she was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that her daughter, A., born in 1999, was given up for adoption without her knowledge, consent or participation in the proceedings and even though she had never been formally divested of her parental rights. She relies, in particular, on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   I. v. Finland (no. 20511/03) The applicant, I., is a Finnish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Finland. Between 1989 and 1994 the applicant worked on fixed-term contracts as a nurse in a public hospital. From 1987 she consulted that hospital’s polyclinic for infectious diseases as she had been diagnosed as HIV-positive. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that, following certain remarks made at work at the beginning of 1992, she suspected that colleagues had unlawfully consulted her confidential patient records and that the district health authority had failed to provide adequate safeguards against unauthorised access of medical data. She relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing and   Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Galuashvili v. Georgia (no. 40008/04) The applicant, Tamaz Galuashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Tbilisi. Mr Galuashvili was arrested in June 2004 and subsequently charged with the unlawful transportation and storage of firearms and ammunition. In November 2004 he was convicted as charged and, sentenced to a one year suspended prison sentence, was immediately released. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints that he was arrested without reasonable suspicion, that he was not immediately informed of the reasons for his arrest and that the domestic courts’ decisions ordering his pre-trial detention lacked adequate reasoning. He relies on Article   5 §§   1, 2 and   3 (right to liberty and security).   Lajos Kovács v. Hungary (no. 8174/05) The applicant, Lajos Kovács, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Veszprém-Kádárta (Hungary). The case concerns Mr Kovács’ complaint about the excessive length of proceedings against him with regard to income tax. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   De Pace v. Italy (no. 22728/03) The applicant, Tommaso de Pace, is an Italian national who was born in 1942. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and membership of a Mafia-type organisation and at the time of his application was being held in Spoleto Prison (Italy). He complains, in particular, about the special prison regime imposed on him which involves, among other things, repeated strip searches, restrictions on family visits and monitoring of his correspondence. He relies, in particular, on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Riolo v. Italy (no. 42211/07) The applicant, Claudio Riolo, is an Italian national who was born in 1951. He is a researcher in political science and a journalist. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about his conviction for defamation of a local politician in an article entitled “Mafia and law. Palermo: the province versus itself in the Falcone trial. The strange case of Mr Musotto and Mr Hyde”. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Just satisfaction Edwards v. Malta (no. 17647/04) Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta (no. 35349/05) Ghigo v. Malta (no. 31122/05) Joseph John Edwards is a British and Maltese national who was born in 1919 and lives in London. Anna Fleri Soler and Herbert Camilleri are Maltese nationals who were born in 1932 and 1934 respectively and live in Malta. Attilio Ghigo is a Maltese national who was born in 1928 and lives in Tarxien (Malta). In judgments delivered on 24   October 2006 and 26   September 2006, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) regarding property belonging to the applicants requisitioned by the Government (for more than 30 years in the case of Edwards , for almost 65 years in the case of Fleri Soler and Camilleri and for almost 22   years in the case of Ghigo ) which resulted in a landlord-tenant relationship being imposed on the applicants under which they received only a small amount of rent and a minimal profit. The Court declared that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision.   Borowski v. Poland (no. 21340/04) The applicant, Winicjusz Borowski, was a Polish national who was born in 1933 and died in December 2005. In September 1992 he was charged with tax evasion. The criminal proceedings ended with his acquittal in October 2004. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was excessive.   Szklarska v. Poland (no. 21105/06) The applicant, Ewa Szklarska, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Warsaw. She was a police officer at the relevant time. In April 2001 she was prosecuted on suspicion of having been involved, together with other police officers, in organised car theft. The criminal proceedings against her are still pending. The applicant complains that they have been excessively lengthy. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kabkov v. Russia (no. 12377/03) The applicant, Nikolay Ivanovich Kabkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Sergiyev Posad (Russia). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the domestic courts’ continued refusal to examine an employment dispute. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Çamdereli v. Turkey (no. 28433/02) The applicant, Fatma Çamdereli, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). The case concerns Ms Çamdereli’s complaint that she was ill-treated in February 1999 when taken to her local gendarmerie station following a dispute with her neighbour. She also alleges that the gendarme who ill-treated her enjoyed impunity as, due to the application of a law allowing the proceedings to be suspended, the charges were subsequently dropped in 2006. She relies, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).     Erdem v. Turkey (no. 42234/02) The applicant, Mehmet Ümit Erdem, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul. He is a lawyer. The case concerns Mr Erdem’s allegation that, during an anti-war protest organised by a number of political parties and non-governmental organisations on 14   October 2001 in Istanbul, the police sprayed pepper gas in his face, kicked him and beat him with truncheons. He also complains that the Turkish authorities failed to adequately investigate his allegations. He relies, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Erten v. Turkey (no. 10477/02) The applicant, Hüseyin Erten, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Ankara. In June 1996 the applicant was arrested and charged with criminal bankruptcy. In April 2003 the Turkish courts discontinued the proceedings as the prosecution had become time-barred. The applicant complains that the length of the proceedings against him was excessive. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Kızıl v. Turkey (no. 29098/03) The applicant, Yunus Kızıl, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Batman (Turkey). On 9 September 2002 he was arrested following a clash with police officers. The applicant complains that he was beaten by the police officers and that no effective remedies were available to him in respect of their actions. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Urcan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 23018/04, 23034/04, 23042/04, 23071/04, 23073/04, 23081/04, 23086/04, 23091/04, 23094/04, 23444/04 and 23676/04) The 11 applicants are Turkish nationals who live in İzmir (Turkey). They are teachers and all but one of them were members of the trade union Eğitim-Sen. The case concerns criminal proceedings in which the applicants were fined and temporarily barred from the civil service, both penalties being suspended, for taking part in a national one-day strike calling for improved working conditions for civil servants. They rely on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Ütebay v. Turkey (no. 40555/04) The applicant, Ekrem Ütebay, was a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lived in Istanbul. He died on 14   June 2005. In March 1994 Mr Ütebay was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). He was ultimately released in April 2004 pending trial. The proceedings were still pending before the domestic courts when the applicant died. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his detention pending trial and of the proceedings against him. He relies on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Yılmaz and Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 68514/01) The applicants, Abdullah Yılmaz and Erdem Kılıç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1978 and 1977 respectively. At the relevant time they were members of Hadep (the People’s Democracy Party) in Çiğli (Turkey). They were both arrested following demonstrations in İzmir (Turkey) in November 1998 which had been organised in protest at the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the former leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal armed organisation. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about their conviction by the İzmir National Security Court which sentenced them respectively to three years and nine months and three years and 16 months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. They also allege that the proceedings in the National Security Court were unfair on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench. They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Yürekli v. Turkey (no. 48913/99) The applicant, Ferit Yürekli, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). In March 1997, while performing his compulsory military service, the applicant fell 13 metres and was seriously injured. The precise circumstances of the fall are disputed: the applicant submits that he fell accidentally while carrying out work, whereas the Turkish Government allege that it was a suicide attempt. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complains that his right to life was not protected by the military authorities and that the investigations carried out into the incident were inadequate.   NA. v. the United Kingdom (no. 25904/07) The applicant, NA., is an ethnic Tamil who was born in 1975 in Sri Lanka and currently lives in London. He entered the United Kingdom clandestinely on 17   August 1999 and claimed asylum the next day. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that, if returned to Sri Lanka, he would be at real risk of ill-treatment by the Sri Lankan army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (the so-called “Tamil Tigers”). He relies on Articles   2 (right to life) and   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Matteoni v. Italy (no. 65687/01) Sarnelli v. Italy (no. 37637/05) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Just satisfaction Serrilli v. Italy (no. 77822/01) In this case concerning indirect expropriation without compensation, the Court held in a judgment of 6 December 2005 that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Burlacu and Others v. Romania (no. 3041/04) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Stan and Rosemberger v. Romania (no. 3113/02) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Hidayet Akgül v. Turkey (no. 19728/02) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ginnifer v. the United Kingdom (no. 65507/01) Harrison v. the United Kingdom (no. 10721/02) Jackson v. the United Kingdom (no. 63647/00) O’Brien v. the United Kingdom (no. 61391/00) Thomas v. the United Kingdom (no. 63701/00) 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 and 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 applicants in the cases of Sándor and Roman Wilczyński also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and the applicants in the case of Kaić and Others also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kaić and Others v. Croatia (no. 22014/04) Douglas v. Cyprus (no. 21929/04) Muity v. Hungary (no. 31802/04) Sándor v. Hungary (no. 99077/05) Adamczuk v. Poland (no. 30523/07) Bieńkowska v. Poland (no. 13282/04) Figiel v. Poland (No. 1) (no. 38190/05) Roman Wilczyński v. Poland (no. 35840/05)   *** 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.