CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 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 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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   549 25.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   29 and 31 July 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 28 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 29 July 2008 and 25 on Thursday 31 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 29 July   Xheraj v. Albania (application no. 37959/02) The applicant, Arben Xheraj, is an Albanian national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a 16 year sentence in Vicenza Prison (Italy) for drug trafficking. Acquitted of murder in Albania in December 1998, Mr Xheraj complains of the unfairness of proceedings to review that decision and that the resulting Supreme Court decision to quash his acquittal represented a second criminal sanction for the same offence. He relies on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the Convention.   Vidal Escoll and Guillan Gonzalez v. Andorra (no. 38196/05) The applicants are Josep Vidal Escoll, an Andorran national, and José Guillán González, a Spanish national. They were born in 1942 and 1944 respectively and live in Escaldes-Engordany (Andorra). They asked the Andorran courts to set aside the planning permission which the municipality of d’Escaldes-Engordany had granted to a company in respect of two construction projects on the ground of illegality. The High Court of Justice gave judgment in their favour in May 2003. The applicants complain of the impossibility of obtaining the execution of that judgment, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   S.H. v. Finland (no. 28301/03) The applicant, S.H., is a Finnish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Porvoo (Finland). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of insurance proceedings with regard to an accident pension, notably that she was denied the opportunity of commenting on two medical opinions included in her case file. She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Gharibashvili v. Georgia (no. 11830/03) The applicant, Robert Gharibashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1948 and is currently serving a 13 year sentence in Tbilisi No. 1 Prison (Georgia) for raping a 14 year old girl. The case concerns Mr Gharibashvili’s allegation that, while in custody, he was ill-treated by the police in order to obtain a confession about the rape and that the Georgian authorities failed to effectively investigate that allegation. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Flux v. Moldova (No. 6) (no. 22824/04) The applicant, Flux , is a newspaper based in Chişinău. The case concerns the newspaper’s complaint about civil proceedings brought against it in 2003 for defamation of a high school principal. The applicant newspaper relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Choumakov v. Poland (no. 33868/05) Czuwara v. Poland (no. 36250/06) Ochlik v. Poland (no. 8260/04) Oleg Choumakov is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and has been detained pending trial in Gdańsk Detention Centre since May 2003 on suspicion of murder and robbery.   Ewa Mirosława Czuwara is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Warsaw. She was arrested in June 2003 on charges of fraud. Released in December 2006, the proceedings against her are still pending.   Aleksander Ochlik is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Warsaw. He was arrested in July 2001 on suspicion of burglary and robbery and was convicted as charged in August 2004.   Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), all the applicants complain about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. In the case of Ochlik, the case also concerns the authorities’ alleged censorship of the applicant’s correspondence, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect of correspondence)   Balcan v. Romania (no. 37380/03) The applicant, Ion Balcan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Galaţi (Romania). In July 2002 his home became unfit for habitation as a result of work carried out by the local authorities in neighbouring streets to lay new drains. He sued the Galaţi Town Council, the Building Inspectorate and the companies which had carried out the work, seeking an order requiring them to rebuild his house. The applicant complains in particular of the length of the proceedings and of the failure to execute two final court decisions in his favour. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Moldoveanu v. Romania (no. 13386/02) The applicant, Victor Moldoveanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bucharest. He was formerly the captain of a ship owned by the national shipping company Navrom SA Constanţa (“CNM Navrom”). He complains of the impossibility of obtaining payment of a debt corresponding to arrears of pay following the opening of liquidation proceedings in respect of CNM Navrom. He relies in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Teodorescu v. Romania (no. 29762/02) The applicant, Dorin   Jean   Teodorescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Bistriţa (Romania). In June 2000 he was dismissed from his post at the Bistriţa prefecture. He brought proceedings in the Romanian courts seeking his reinstatement and payment of unpaid salary. He complains of the administrative authorities’ failure to execute final judgments in his favour given in those proceedings and of the fact that the judgments in question were set aside on appeal by the Procurator General. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Sarı and Others v. Turkey (no. 13767/04) The applicants, İstifaniya Sarı, Eleni Zarbozan and Nikola Sarı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1925, 1944 and 1942 respectively and live in Istanbul. Their complaints concern proceedings they brought in 1972 to have real property registered in their name at the Land Registry. They ultimately lost their case in September 2003. They rely in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) 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.   Mitrea v. Romania (no. 26105/03) The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Oancea and Others v. Romania (no. 5984/02) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ocneanu v. Romania (no. 32019/03) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) 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 Beata Bogusław and Marek Bogusław also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Boiano v. Italy (no. 22768/03) Cappuccitti v. Italy (no. 34646/03) D’Iglio v. Italy (no. 32678/03) Di Micco v. Italy (no. 35770/03) Gardisan v. Italy (no. 35772/03) Giovanni Valentino v. Italy (no. 31434/03) Maria Romano v. Italy (no. 7615/03) Nervegna v. Italy (no. 34573/03) Vallone v. Italy (no. 34904/03) Beata Bogusław v. Poland (no. 34105/03) Marek Bogusław v. Poland (no. 34103/03) Zając v. Poland (no. 19817/04) Gheorghe and Maria Mihaela Dumitrescu v. Romania (no. 6373/03)     Thursday 31 July   Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria (no.   40825/98) The applicants are Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas , a religious community established in Austria, and four Austrian nationals, Franz Aigner, Kurt   Binder, Karl Kopetzky and Johann Renolder who were born in 1927, 1935, 1927 and 1930 respectively and live in Vienna. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the Austrian authorities’ refusal to recognise their community as a religious society and that, although subsequently granted legal personality as a registered religious community, that status was of a more limited scope than other religious communities. They rely on Articles   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Also relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complain about the excessive length of the proceedings concerning their request for recognition as a religious society.   Schneider v. Austria (no. 25166/05) The applicant, Jürgen Schneider, is a German national who was born in 1944 and lives in Stephanskirchen (Germany). The case concerns Mr Schneider’s complaint about the excessive length of administrative criminal proceedings against him for driving offences. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Vasil Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 57883/00) The applicant, Vasil Kimov Petrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Sofia. He is a musician and photographer. The applicant was arrested and taken into police custody in February 1998 after being reported to the authorities by two underage girls who claimed that he had asked them to pose for nude photographs. The applicant was charged with sexual assault and the production of pornographic material. The prosecution service dropped the case in June 2001. The applicant complains of violence he allegedly suffered at the hands of the police while in their custody and of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations. He further complains that the length of the proceedings against him was excessive. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Družstevní Záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 72034/01) The applicants are Družstevní Záložna Pria, a credit union registered in Brno, and eight Czech nationals, members of the credit union and of its management and supervisory organs. 633 other members of the credit union have also joined the proceedings before the Court. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the credit union being placed in receivership in January 2000 and the ensuing effect on shares and deposits. They also complain that the decisions concerning the receivership could not be contested before independent and impartial authorities with full jurisdiction to examine the case. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Charalambidis v. Greece (no. 4723/07) Sossoadouno v. Greece (no. 29845/06) The applicant in the first case is Charalambos Charalambidis, a Greek national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece). Charles Amara Sossoadouno, the applicant in the second case, is a Guinean national who was born in 1969.   Mr Charalambidis is a private detective. In August 1998 he was charged with telephone tapping. He was found guilty and sentenced on appeal to seven months’ imprisonment, suspended. He lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by the Court of Cassation in July 2006.   Mr Sossoadouno was arrested in January 2003 on suspicion of conspiracy, forgery, abduction and attempted blackmail. The proceedings against him are still pending.   In both cases the applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), complaining that the length of the proceedings was excessive.   Kabili v. Greece (no. 28606/05) The applicant, Skender Kabili, is an Albanian national who was born in 1970 and lives on the island of Euboea (Greece). He was arrested and remanded in custody in May 2003 on suspicion of murder and unlawful possession of weapons. In October 2004 he was acquitted. On 14 January 2005 the Athens Court of Appeal dismissed a claim in which the applicant sought compensation for his pre-trial detention on the ground that, having failed to prove his innocence, the applicant had “deliberately made himself responsible for his own detention”. Relying on Article 6 § 2 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleges that the reasons the Athens Court of Appeal gave for dismissing his compensation claim were incompatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof in criminal cases.   Louli v. Greece (no. 43374/06) The applicant, Dionysia Louli, is a Greek national who was born in 1925 and lives in Athens. The case concerns a complaint she lodged on her own behalf and as the legal representative of her husband, who was senile, alleging that money had been fraudulently removed from their joint bank account. When she lodged an appeal after the death of her husband she mentioned that she was acting on her own behalf and as his sole heir. However, the Court of Cassation pointed out that this did not tally with the information given in the document prepared by its registrar and refused her leave to appeal in that capacity. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the Court of Cassation, by its excessive formalism, had infringed her right of access to a court.   Shore Technologies v. Luxembourg (no. 35704/06) The applicant, Shore Technologies SA, is a company based in Luxemburg whose registered office is in Rombach. In October 2001, the applicant company joined criminal proceedings concerning a case of forged cheques, as an injured party. The proceedings are still pending at the investigation stage. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complains that the length of the proceedings has been excessive.   Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway (no. 265/07) The applicants are three members of the same family: Louis Osaze Darren Omoregie, a Nigerian national, who, born in Sierra Leone in 1979, entered Norway and claimed asylum on 25   August 2001; his wife, Elisabeth Skundberg Darren, a Norwegian national, born in 1977; and, their daughter, Selma, a Norwegian national, born in 2006. In March 2007, Mr Omoregie was expelled to Nigeria. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain about the decisions to expel Mr   Omoregie to Nigeria with a prohibition of re-entry into Norway for five years.   Nadrosov v. Russia (no. 9297/02) The applicant, Andrey Yuryevich Nadrosov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a nine year sentence in a correctional colony in Bataysk (Russia) for aggravated robbery. The case concerns Mr Nadrosov’s complaint that, when arrested on suspicion of that robbery and taken to the local police station, he was severely beaten by the police and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his complaint. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Salmanov v. Russia (no. 3522/04) The applicant, Saipudi Zeindinovich Salmanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and is currently serving a ten year prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region (Russia) for, in particular, conspiracy to commit murder. The case concerns Mr Salmanov’s complaint that, kept in the same cell as an inmate who was HIV-positive, he was exposed to a risk of HIV infection. He also complains about the conditions of his transport to and from, and confinement at, Moscow City Court courthouse, the excessive length of his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 42239/02) The applicant, Nikolay Anatolyevich Starokadomskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a ten and a half year prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region (Russia) for aggravated murder. The case concerns Mr Starokadomskiy’s complaints about: the conditions of his detention on remand, of transport to and from, and confinement at, Moscow City Court courthouse; and, the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bormotov v. Russia (no. 24435/04) Filonenko v. Russia (no. 22094/04) Protsenko v. Russia (no. 13151/04) Sukhorukov v. Russia (no. 23596/04) All the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Protsenko , they also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Sukhorukov also relies 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 Krnić also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Krnić v. Croatia (no. 8854/04) Rizman v. Croatia (no. 28704/06) Chatzimanikas v. Greece (no. 487/07) Chelmi v. Greece (no. 48701/06) Gorou v. Greece (no. 4350/03) Lambropoulou v. Greece (no. 8009/07) Lemonidou v. Greece (no. 509/07) Siafaka v. Greece (no. 32025/06)     *** 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.