CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .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   664 26.9.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   30 September and 2 October 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 25 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 30 September 2008 and 16 on Thursday 2 October 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 30 September 2008   Koons v. Italy (application no. 68183/01) The applicant, Jeffrey Lynn Koons, is an American national who was born in 1955 and lives in New York. He is the father of a son born in 1992 from his marriage with a Hungarian national who had acquired Italian citizenship by naturalisation. He alleges in particular that the decisions of the Italian judicial authorities concerning custody of his son led to a violation of his right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private and family life).   Marchi v. Italy (no. 58492/00) The applicant, Maria Pia Marchi, is an Italian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Lucca (Italy). She complains that she was not compensated for the expropriation of land which she used to own. She relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property).   Markoń v. Poland (no. 2697/06) The applicant, Arkadiusz Markoń, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving a ten year prison sentence in Gdańsk Prison (Poland) for armed robbery, illegal possession of weapons and being a member of an organised criminal group. The case concerns, in particular, Mr   Markoń’s complaint about the excessive length of his detention on remand. He relies on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Crăciun v. Romania (no. 5512/02) The applicant, Nicolae Crăciun, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bucharest. In March 1994 criminal proceedings were brought against Mr Crăciun for fraud. He was convicted as charged in July 2001 but the proceedings against him are currently still pending on appeal. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of those criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Işıldak v. Turkey (no. 12863/02) The applicant, Sadi Işıldak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. He alleges in particular that a police search of his workshop, which is part of his home, infringed his right to respect for his home. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Koç and Others v. Turkey (no. 38327/04) Nakçi v. Turkey (no. 25886/04) The seven applicants are Turkish nationals. They are or were detained in Gaziantep Prison (Turkey). They complain of the prison authorities’ refusal to deliver correspondence addressed to them. They rely in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Mehmet Şahin and Others v. Turkey (no. 5881/02) The four applicants, Mehmet Şahin, Ali Ekber Çağlan, Sedat Serçik and Özgür Barış Mercan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1964, 1973, 1971 and 1978 respectively. They were arrested in April 2001 on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). After ten days in police custody they were placed in pre-trial detention and charged with membership of and aiding and assisting the PKK. In October 2002 they were acquitted. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), they complain that the length of their detention in police custody was excessive. In addition, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Şahin alleges that he was ill-treated while in police custody at a gendarmerie post.   Melek Sima Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 37829/05) The applicant, Melek Sima Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Erzurum (Turkey). She complains of unfairness in the conduct of disciplinary and administrative proceedings concerning her dismissal from her teacher’s post on the ground that she had not complied with the dress code laid down in the regulations in force at the relevant time, which prohibited the wearing of headscarves by the staff of public institutions. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Yakışır v. Turkey (no. 51965/99) The applicant, Ebuzeyt Yakışır, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). The applicant complains of delay in executing a judgment in which the authorities had been ordered to pay him compensation for unlawful detention, and of the inadequacy of the default interest attached to the compensation. He relies in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   R.K. and A.K. v. the United Kingdom The applicants, R.K., and his wife, A.K., are British nationals who were born in 1972 and 1976, respectively. They live in Oldham (United Kingdom). They have a daughter, M., who was born in July 1998. In September 1998 she was taken to hospital with a fractured femur; doctors concluded that the injury had not been accidental and she was placed in the care of her aunt. Following another injury, M. was diagnosed with brittle bone disease. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that their daughter was placed temporarily in care due to a medical misdiagnosis. They rely on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Companhia Agrícola Cortes e Valbom S.A. v. Portugal (no. 24668/05) The applicant company relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ana and Ioan Radu v. Romania (no. 24977/03) Cloşcă v. Romania (no. 6106/04) Constantin Popescu v. Romania (no. 5571/04) Gaciu v. Romania (no. 4630/03) Piştireanu v. Romania (no. 34860/02) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Filipescu v. Romania (no. 34839/03) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Karadumanlı v. Turkey (no. 64293/01) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings.   Krzysztof Kaniewski v. Poland (no. 49788/06) Drăgănescu v. Romania (no. 29301/03) Duţă v. Romania (no. 29558/02) Nicolae Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 10277/04) S.C. Comprimex S.A. v. Romania (no. 32228/02) Şevket Sarı v. Turkey (no. 40200/04)     Thursday 2 October 2008   Rusu v. Austria (no. 34082/02) The applicant, Cornelia Rusu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Timisoara (Romania). In February 2002 Ms Rusu, travelling without a valid travel document, was detained pending expulsion by the Austrian border police. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of her detention and that she was not informed promptly in a language which she understood of the reasons for that detention. She relies on Article   5 §§   1 and   2 (right to liberty and security).   Atanasova v. Bulgaria (no. 72001/01) The applicant, Radka Hristova Atanasova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Montana (Bulgaria). In January 1992 she was injured in a road accident. She complains that the criminal proceedings against the driver were discontinued and that the criminal courts did not consider her civil claim. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), she complains of an infringement of her right of access to a court and of the length of the proceedings, which she considers excessive.   Just satisfaction Kolona v. Cyprus (no. 28025/03) The applicant, Eleni Kolona, now deceased, was a Cypriot national who was born in 1926 and, at the relevant time, lived in Limassol (Cyprus). In a judgment of 27   September 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) concerning the applicant’s complaint about the unlawful demolition of her home, a house in the village Pelendri (Limassol), in order to build a road and that she had not been given any compensation. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Leroy v. France (no. 36109/03) The applicant, Denis Leroy, is a French national who was born in 1966 and lives in Bayonne (France). He is a cartoonist. He complains of his conviction for publicly condoning terrorism following the publication on 13 September 2001 of a drawing representing the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center with a caption imitating the advertising slogan of a famous brand: “We all dreamt of it... Hamas did it”. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression). In addition, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation were unfair.   Akulinin and Babich v. Russia (no. 5742/02) Belousov v. Russia (no. 1748/02) Samoylov v. Russia (no. 64398/01) The applicants are four Russian nationals: Semen Yuryevich Akulinin and Vladimir Aleksandrovich Babich who were born in 1983 and 1981 respectively and live in Moscow; Ivan Aleksandrovich Belousov who was born in 1973 and lives in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (Russia); and, Leonid Nikolayevich Samoylov who was born in 1963 and lives in Zelenograd (Russia). Mr Akulinin and Mr Babic were arrested in September 2000 on suspicion of car theft. Stopped by the police in December 1999 for an identity check, Mr Belousov was arrested for not providing the relevant papers and for using obscene language. Mr   Samoylov was arrested in February 1999 on suspicion of burglary. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), all four applicants allege that they were tortured in police custody and that the investigations into their allegations were inadequate. Mr Akulinin and Mr Babic also rely on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), Mr Belousov on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Mr   Samoylov on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Khalidova and Others v. Russia (no. 22877/04) Lyanova and Aliyeva v. Russia (nos. 12713/02 and 28440/03) Rasayev and Chankayeva v. Russia (no. 38003/03) The applicants in the first case are five Russian nationals who are members of the same family: Ayset Magomedovna Khalidova, born in 1959; Khasmagomed Khalidov, born in 1924; Nebisat Khalidova, born in 1916; Atbi Isayevich Khalidov, born in 1993; and, Zarina Isayevna Khalidova, born in 1980. They live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are relatives of Isa and Shamil Khalidov, father and son, born in 1950 and 1981 respectively. The two men have not been seen since November 2002 when they were taken away from the factory where they were working by armed men wearing camouflage uniforms.   The applicants in the second case, Asiyat Khusainovna Lyanova and Rashan Mayrbekovna Aliyeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1958 respectively. They live in Ingushetia (Russia) and Grozny. They are the mothers of Murad Lyanov, born in 1983, and Islam Dombayev, born in 1984; they have not seen their teenage sons since they left to spend the night at a friend’s house in   June 2000.   The applicants in the third case, Rizvan Said-Khasanovich Rasayev, and his mother, Raisa Abdulayevna Chankayeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1966 and 1939 respectively. They live in Chechen-Aul (Chechen Republic). They are the brother and mother of Ramzan Said-Khasanovich Rasayev, born in 1963. They have not seen him since December 2001 when he was apprehended by armed men during a security operation in their village.   All the applicants allege that their relatives disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. 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). In the case of Lyanova and Aliyeva the applicants also rely on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life), 34 (right of individual petition) and 38 § 1 (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case). In the case of Rasayev and Chankayeva the applicants also rely on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Ivchenko v. Russia (no. 29411/05) Smelov v. Russia (no. 33660/04) Tibilov v. Russia (no. 38943/04) Zakharov v. Russia (no. 35932/04) Zubarev v. Russia (no. 38845/04) The applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings.   Kurbatov v. Russia   ***   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.