CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 septembre 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   625 12.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   16 and 18 September 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 9 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 16 September 2008 and 17 on Thursday 18 September 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 16 September 2008   Naus v. Poland (application no. 7224/04) The applicant, Piotr Naus, is a Polish national who was born in 1975. He is currently in prison in Wołów (Poland). He was arrested and taken into custody in May 1999 on suspicion of hostage-taking, assault and wounding, extortion and aggravated robbery, among other offences. Mr Naus was ultimately convicted on some of the charges in November 2006 and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. He complains that his pre-trial detention and the proceedings against him were excessively long. He relies in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Cuc Pascu v. Romania (no. 36157/02) The applicant, Florian Cuc Pascu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Oradea (Romania). A journalist by profession, he was convicted in February 2002 for proffering insults and defamation, and ordered to pay a fine and damages, on account of an article containing offensive remarks about a Member of Parliament, who was also the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of Oradea University. The applicant relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   Lamarche v. Romania (no. 21472/03) The applicant, Rodica Iulia Lamarche, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bucharest. She complains about the refusal by Romanian criminal courts to grant her the status of civil party in proceedings against a number of individuals who had unlawfully sold her flat. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Tehleanu v. Romania (no. 1578/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Tehleanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Iaşi (Romania). He was a fire-fighter and on that basis had military status. He alleges that income tax was unlawfully charged on the severance pay he received on retirement and complains of discrimination in view of the fact that other servicemen in the same situation had received severance pay free of tax. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Maria Peter and Others v. Romania (no. 54369/00) In a judgment delivered on 31 May 2007 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 because of failure to enforce part of a final judicial decision ordering the restitution of land to the applicants. The Court further found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in view of the applicants’ inability to enjoy peaceful possession of the land in question. At the time the Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Petrulian Ioanovici v. Romania (no. 30307/02) The applicant relies on 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.   Figiel v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 38206/0) Bercaru v. Romania (no. 8870/02) Păunoiu v. Romania (no. 32700/04)     Thursday 18 September 2008   Müller v. Austria (No. 2) (no. 28034/04) The applicant, Pierre Müller, is an Austrian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Vienna. He is the owner and managing director of a building company. In October 1997 an employee died as a result of falling off scaffolding on one of the company’s building sites. The case concerns, in particular, Mr Müller’s complaint about the excessive length of the ensuing administrative criminal proceedings against him for breach of safety regulations. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   4 of Protocol   No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).   Chalabi v. France (no. 35916/04) The applicant, Nadji Chalabi, is a French national who was born in 1958 and lives in Vaulx-en-Velin (France). Mr Chalabi complains about his conviction for public defamation, on account of the publication of an article concerning the director of the Grand Mosque of Lyon. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Kandler and Others v. France (no. 18659/05) The applicants are Stephan Kandler, Claire Kandler née Pourteau, Christine Kandler née Rémy and Anne-Marie Ader, French nationals, and Ortwin Kandler, a German national. They were born in 1970, 1970, 1944, 1951 and 1940 respectively and live in Blagnac and Toulouse (France). The case concerns searches and seizures of documents by the tax authorities on the basis of suspicions that the applicants were involved in tax fraud. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they had no effective remedy by which to challenge the legality of the searches and seizures carried out at their homes.   Vlachos v. Greece (no. 20643/06) The applicant, Charalambos Vlachos, is a Greek national who was born in 1962 and lives in Ilion Attikis (Greece). He complains of the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for producing counterfeit bank notes and participating in an organised criminal group, at the end of which he was sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Fokin v. Russia (no. 75893/01) The applicant, Aleksandr Pavlovich Fokin, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Insar (Russia). The case concerns Mr Fokin’s complaint that the Russian authorities failed to notify him of an appeal hearing with regard to proceedings he brought due to being dismissed from his job as a security guard. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Takhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 23286/04) The applicants, Rabu Mutushovna Takhayeva, Khashim Nurdinovich Takhayev, Zaira Khashimovna Takhayeva, Islam Sultanovich Tumanov and Razet Zayndiyevna Terkibayeva are five Russian nationals who live in Mesker-Yurt, a village in the Shalinskiy District of Chechnya. They are the parents, brother, nephew and grandmother of Ayub Khashidovich Takhayev, born in 1982. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that their relative disappeared on 13 November 2002 after being abducted by Russian servicemen during a “sweeping” operation in their village and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegation. They rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Atalay v. Turkey (no. 1249/03) Dur v. Turkey (no. 34027/03) Türkan v. Turkey (no. 33086/04) The applicants are three Turkish nationals: Yunus Atalay, who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul; Hadiye Dur, who was born in 1973 and lives in Cologne (Germany); and, Mahfuz Türkan, who was born in 1968 and lives in Batman (Turkey). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), all three applicants allege that they were subjected to ill-treatment by the police and that the investigations into their allegations were inadequate. Mr Atalay further complains that the Turkish authorities failed to punish those responsible for his ill-treatment.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bakharev and Others v. Russia (no. 32786/04) Denisova v. Russia (no. 34431/04) Dokolin v. Russia (no. 28488/04) Glukhova and Bragina v. Russia (no. 28785/04) Kholodenko v. Russia (no. 33617/04) Lyatskaya v. Russia (no. 33548/04) Karpenko and Markov v. Ukraine (nos. 1351/06 and 2433/06) All the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in Karpenko and Markov also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Laudanna v. Italy (no. 4289/03)     ***   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.