CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 } .s394C7864 { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffff00 } .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   646 19.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   23 and 25 September 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 24 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 23 September 2008 and 15 on Thursday 25 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 23 September 2008   Ahtinen v. Finland (application no. 48907/99) The applicant, Seppo Ahtinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Rovaniemi (Finland) where he was a parish priest with the Evangelical Lutheran Church for more than ten years. The case concerns, in particular, Mr Ahtinen’s complaint that in November 1998 he was transferred to another parish 100 km away without his consent and without being heard properly on the real reasons for his transfer. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Kachel v. Poland (no. 22930/05 The applicant, Jan Kachel, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence in Tarnów (Poland) for murder. The case concerns, in particular, Mr Kachel’s complaint about the excessive length of his detention on remand. He relies on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Dumitrescu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 29517/02) The applicant, Iulia Dumitrescu, was a Romanian national, born in 1934, who lived in Bucharest. She died on 2 July 2006. She complained that for a prolonged period of time she had been unable to dispose of flats that had been returned to her and receive rent for them. She relied on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Zăinescu v. Romania (no. 26832/03) The applicant, Dănuţ Zăinescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest. He was an officer in the border police and as such was a memb er of the armed forces . He alleges that income tax was unlawfully levied on the severance pay he received upon his retirement and complains of discrimination on account of the fact that other servicemen in his situation received non-taxable severance pay. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Vrenčev v. Serbia (no. 2361/05) The applicant, Ljubiša Vrenčev, is a Serbian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Pančevo (Serbia). Detained on 6 July 2004 on suspicion of illicit possession of narcotics, Mr   Vrenčev was released 20 days later following a hearing in which he was found guilty and given a fine. The case concerns Mr Vrenčev’s complaint about the unlawfulness of that detention because, essentially, the domestic courts had failed to note his correct address. He relies on Article   5 §§   1, 3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security).   Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 54334/00) The applicant, Ivan Lexa, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava. Between 1995 and 1998 Mr Lexa was the Director of the Slovakian intelligence service ( Slovenská informačná služba ). From April to July 1999 he was detained on remand on suspicion of having been involved in 1995 in the abduction of M. Kováč, at that time the President of the Slovak Republic’s son. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about that detention on remand despite previous decisions granting him amnesty. He relies on Article   5 §   1 (right to liberty and security).   Rosival and Others v. Slovakia (no. 17684/02) The five applicants are three Slovakian nationals: Viktor Rosival, who was born in 1930 and lives in Trnava (Slovakia), Viktória Lužáková, née Rosivalová, who was born in 1957 and lives in Trnava (Slovakia), and Ladislav Rosival, who was born in 1968 and lives in Bratislava; one Austrian national, Klára Trugerová, who was born in 1957 and lives in Graz (Austria); and, one Slovakian and Austrian national, Agneša Trugerová, who was born in 1964 and also lives in Graz. The case concerns, in particular, the applicants’ complaint about the unfairness of proceedings with regard to their claim for restitution of 1,500 hectares of land. Notably, retroactive legislative interference with the applicants’ case meant that they were only allotted a maximum of 250 hectares. They rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Aktan v. Turkey (no. 20863/02) The applicant, Sakine Aktan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Zürich (Switzerland). She is a journalist. The case concerns her conviction for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on account of the publication in the daily Özgür Bakış of a news report which criticised the intimidation of journalists working for the Kurdish press. She relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant also complains of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation.   Araç v. Turkey (no. 9907/02) The applicant, Emine Araç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul. She is a student at the İnönü Theology Faculty in Malatya. Her application to enrol at the Theology Faculty of Marmara University was rejected because she had failed to supply a photo of herself without a veil, as required by the rules in force at that time. The applicant sought judicial review of the decision not to allow her to enrol and was ultimately unsuccessful in those proceedings. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she complains of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court.   Ekici and Others v. Turkey (no. 28877/03) The applicants are five Turkish nationals, Niyazi Ekici, Şükrü Güntoğar, Bayram Akbulut, Salih Demircan and Müzeyyen   Kalkan, employees of Diyarbakır Sur Municipality who were dismissed in May 1999. The case concerns the non-enforcement since November 1999 of final judgments by Diyarbakır Labour Court awarding compensation to the applicants following their claims for outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities and severance pay. They rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Habip Çiftçi v. Turkey (no. 28485/03) The applicant, Habip Çiftçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving life imprisonment in Ümraniye Prison, Istanbul, for membership of an illegal organisation. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his detention on remand and the lack of a remedy to challenge the lawfulness of that detention as well as the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   5 §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Müdet Kömürcü v. Turkey (no. 2623/04) The applicant, Müdet Kömürcü, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). In November 1997 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention for being a member of the illegal organisation MLSPB/DK (Marxist-Leninist Armed Propaganda Union/Revolutionary Liberation Front) and using explosives. He was released in September 2004. According to the case file, the criminal proceedings brought against him are still pending. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains of the length of his pre-trial detention.   Reyhan v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 60123/00) The applicant, Hasan Hüseyin Reyhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953. At the relevant time he was in Aydın Prison where he was serving a 12-and-a-half year prison sentence for membership of an illegal organisation. The applicant complains of the interception by the prison authorities of two audiotapes in Kurdish that had been sent to him. He relies in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Grayson and Barnham v. the United Kingdom (nos. 19955/05 and 15085/06) The applicants are two British nationals, Mark William Grayson and John Barnham, who are serving prison sentences in, respectively, Nottingham and Ashwell (the United Kingdom) for drugs offences. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that, in confiscation proceedings following their convictions, the legal burden of proof was on them to show that their realisable property was less than the amount to which they had been assessed to have benefited from drug trafficking. They rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) 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.   Prepeliţă v. Moldova (no. 2914/02) Amurăriţei v. Romania (no. 4351/02) Samoilă and Others v. Romania (no. 14073/03) Tripon v. Romania (No. 1) (no. 36942/03) Tripon v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 4828/04) Urbanovici v. Romania (no. 24466/03) The applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Sociedade Agrícola da Herdade das Várzeas, Lda v.   Portugal and 22 other “Agrarian Reform” cases (nos.   17199/05, 24311/05, 24315/05, 24674/05, 24677/05, 25946/05, 26244/05, 28628/05, 30793/05, 30850/05, 31044/05, 31066/05, 31348/05, 31706/05, 31781/05, 31784/05, 31793/05, 31807/05, 31809/05, 32267/05, 32269/05, 32270/05 and 33221/05) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Eyüp Kaya v. Turkey (no. 17582/04) The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court).   İrkin v. Turkey (no. 30200/02) The applicant relies on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair hearing).     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. He also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ambrosino v. Italy (no. 32745/02)     Thursday 25 September 2008   Paraponiaris v. Greece (no. 42132/06) The applicant, Vassilios-Panormitis Paraponiaris, is a Greek national who was born in 1948 and lives on Leros island (Greece). He is a firefighter and was prosecuted for smuggling petroleum products. The applicant complains of the Indictment Division’s decision, which, although it terminated the criminal proceedings on the ground that they were time-barred, imposed a “fine” on him of approximately 54,086 euros on the ground that it had been “objectively established that he had committed the offence of smuggling”. The applicant relies on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial), 2 (presumption of innocence) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance).   K.T. v. Norway (no. 26664/03) The applicant, K.T., is a Norwegian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Stavanger (Norway). Since his former wife moved to Finland in 2001, the applicant has had care of their two boys, born in 1994 and 1996 respectively. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about an investigation by the child welfare services to assess whether it was necessary to take child care measures. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). He also complains that the Norwegian courts subsequently refused to examine the merits of his case, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Akhmadova and Akhmadov v. Russia (no. 20755/04) The applicants, Ayset Khamidovna Akhmadova, and her husband, Yusup Sayd-Akhmetovich Akhmadov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1953 respectively and live in Urus-Martan (Chechnya). They have four children. Their eldest son, Adnan Yusupovich Akhmadov, was born in 1982; they have not seen him since 29 September 2002. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that their eldest son disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen during a security operation in Urus-Martan 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).   Mezhidov v. Russia (no. 67326/01) The applicant, Ruslan Olegovich Mezhidov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Nadterechnoye (Chechnya). The case concerns Mr Mezhidov’s allegation that his parents, brother and two sisters were killed on 5   October 1999 when the village where they were living at the time, Znamenskoye, was shelled by Russian artillery. He relies on Articles   2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 34 (right of individual petition) and 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia (no. 30997/02) The applicants, Sergey Anatolyevich Polufakin and Ivan Vladimirovich Chernyshev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1966 and 1977 respectively. They are currently serving sentences for aggravated robbery in correctional facility UE-148/5 in Sviyazhsk (Russia). Mr   Polufakin complains about the conditions of his detention in that facility and in remand prisons as well as of transportation by train between those prisons. He also alleges that he was ill-treated by the convoying officers during his transportation. Suffering from hepatitis, Mr Chernyshev complains about a lack of adequate medical treatment in UE-148/5. Both applicants rely on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article   6 §§   1 (right to a fair trial) and   3   (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses), they further complain that, at their trial, self-incriminating statements made in their lawyer’s absence were used against them and that they were not given the possibility to cross-examine the prosecution or defence witnesses.   Seliverstov v. Russia (no. 19692/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Vladimirovich Seliverstov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Sarapul (Russia). In April 2001 Mr Seliverstov was found guilty of bribe-taking and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The case concerns, in particular, the applicant’s complaint that on appeal the domestic courts subsequently recharacterised his acts as attempted large-scale fraud. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial), §   3   (a) (right to be informed promptly of the accusation against him), §   3   (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) and §   3   (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Antonova v. Russia (no. 25749/05) Krestyaninovy v. Russia (no. 27049/05) Levin v. Russia (no. 35893/04) Shafranov v. Russia (no. 24766/04) Kripak v. Ukraine (no. 6164/05) Lisovol v. Ukraine (no. 22343/04) Tishchenko v. Ukraine (no. 33892/04) Ustimova v. Ukraine (no. 24335/03) All the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Lisovol they also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1(protection of property). The applicants in the cases of Lisovol , Tishchenko and Ustimova also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, 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.   Savov and Others v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 12582/03)     *** Press contacts Adrien Raif-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.