CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 octobre 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   718 10.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   14 and 16 October 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 34 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 14 October 2008 and 15 on Thursday 16 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 14 October 2008   Mezey v. Hungary (application no. 7909/05) The applicant, Tamás Mezey, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest. The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Blumberga v. Latvia (no. 70930/01) The applicant, Ināra Blumberga, is a Latvian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Ventspils (Latvia). She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Hagen v. Poland (no. 7478/03) The applicant, Jacek Kamiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Lublin (Poland). He subsequently changed his name to Dawid Hagen. He relies on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Folea v. Romania (no. 34434/02) The applicant, Gabriel Folea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bucharest. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Iordache v. Romania (no. 6817/02) The applicant, Florian Iordache, is a Romanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Giurgiu (Romania). He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Petrina v. Romania (no. 78060/01) The applicant, Liviu Petrina, is a Romanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Bucharest. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Vînătoru v. Romania (no. 18429/02) The applicant, Mihai Vînătoru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bucharest. He relies in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Buzychkin v. Russia (no. 68337/01) The applicant, Viktor Mikhaylovich Buzychkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Dzerzhinsk (Russia). On May 1998 the applicant was arrested and detained in remand prisons on charges of unlawful possession of firearms and attempted murder of a police officer. The applicant’s detention on remand lasted from 26 May 1998 until 28 May 1999. Between May 1998 and March 1999 he was kept in Nizhniy Novgorod and thereafter transferred to Moscow. The applicant was ultimately convicted as charged in April 1999 and sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. On March 2004, he was released on parole. The case concerns Mr Buzychkin’s complaint about appalling conditions of detention during his pre-trial detention. He also alleges that he contracted tuberculosis during his detention in Nizhniy Novgorod, that his health deteriorated, and that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment during his detention in Moscow. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Dyundin v. Russia (no. 37406/03) The applicant, Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Dyundin, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Orsk (Russia). He is a journalist. The applicant was found civilly liable for publishing an interview with two former suspects in a theft case who alleged that the police had beaten them to extract confessions. The interview was followed by the applicant’s comment denouncing the authorities’ failure to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment and bring those responsible to justice. He relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Timergaliyev v. Russia (no. 40631/02) The applicant, Firdavis Favizovich Timergaliyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Sverdlovskiy Region (Russia). He relies on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial).   Just satisfaction Kanala v. Slovakia (no. 57239/00) The applicant, Ivan Kanala, is a Slovak national who was born in 1964 and lives in Rožňava (Slovakia). He is a businessman. In a judgment of 10   July 2007 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) on account of his property having been sold to the co-owner, in the context of enforcement of his debt, at a price which was below its actual value. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Ayhan and Others v. Turkey (no. 29287/02) Köklü v. Turkey (no. 10262/04) The applicants are four Turkish nationals. Mehmet Ali Ayhan, Ali Akkurt and Şükrü Töre were born in 1961, 1959 and 1964 respectively, and are currently serving a term of life imprisonment in Turkey, and Turgut Köklü was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. They all rely on Article   5 (right to liberty and security). Mr Köklü also relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Erdoğan Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 19374/03) Mehmet Eren v. Turkey (no. 32347/02) The applicants in the first case are seven Turkish nationals. Erdoğan Yılmaz, Ayşe Yılmaz, Birsen Kaya, Sırma Yeter, Mustafa Yeter and Ayşe (Yeter) Yumli were born in 1960, 1955, 1974, 1924, 1955, and 1970 respectively and live in Turkey, and Dursun Yeter was born in 1957 and lives in Austria. Sırma Yeter, Mustafa Yeter, Dursun Yeter and Ayşe (Yeter) Yumli are the relatives of Süleyman Yeter, who was arrested by police officers on 22   February 1997 on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist Leninist Communist Party). On the same day, Erdoğan Yılmaz, Ayşe Yılmaz and Birsen Kaya were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the MLKP.   The applicant in the second case is Mehmet Eren, a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He is a journalist. He was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters along with 108 other persons. At the time of the arrest, the applicant and the other arrestees were in the Diyarbakır branch of the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), where demonstrations and hunger strikes were allegedly being organised, in order to protest about the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation.   The first three applicants in the case of Erdoğan Yılmaz and Others and Mehmet Eren complain that they were ill-treated in police custody and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. The remaining applicants raise the same allegations in respect of their relative. All the applicants rely on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation). Mr   Eren also relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Gülen v. Turkey (no. 28226/02) The applicants, Fatma Gülen and Necdet Gülen, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1942 and 1931 respectively and live in Germany. They are the parents of Ayşe Gülen Uzunhasanoğlu who was killed during a police operation conducted by the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on 17   April 1992. They rely on Article   2 (right to life).   Kanbur v. Turkey (no. 9984/03) The applicant, Yaşar Kanbur, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul. On 30 October 2001 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 following an application lodged by the applicant on 21 July 1995 concerning the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for his membership of Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). By then the proceedings had lasted for over 19 years. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Küçük and Others v. Turkey (no. 63353/00) The 12 applicants are Turkish nationals. The first is the wife and the others the children of Yusuf Küçük, who died on 4 June 1998. At the relevant time, the applicants lived in the village of Ovacik in Tunceli province, south-eastern Turkey, where a state of emergency had been declared as a result of serious clashes between security forces and members of the illegal armed organisation PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Yusuf Küçük, while he was looking for his lost sheep, was killed by a shell fired from a tank. The applicants rely in particular on Article 2 (right to life).   Mesutoğlu v. Turkey (no. 36533/04) The applicants, Hanım Mesutoğlu, Dilek Mesutoğlu, Yusuf Mesutoğlu and Emrah Mesutoğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955, 1986, 1984 and 1988 and live in Elazığ (Turkey). They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Gianazza v. Italy (no. 69878/01) In a judgment of 5 October 2006 the Court held that the deprivation of the applicant’s property was contrary to the requirement of lawfulness and breached Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court moreover considered at that time that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Dragalina v. Romania (no. 17268/03) Hanganu v. Romania (no. 12848/05) Megheleş and Popa v. Romania (no. 28266/05) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Maria Dumitrescu and Sorin Mugur Dumitrescu v. Romania (no. 7293/02) Prodanof and Others v. Romania (no. 6079/02) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Just satisfaction Weigel v. Romania (no. 35303/03) In a judgment of 8 March 2007 the Court held that the sale by the State of the applicant’s property to a third party, acting in good faith, before final confirmation by the courts of his title, combined with a total lack of compensation, constituted deprivation of property contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court moreover considered at that time that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.     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 Hidvégi also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Hidvégi v. Hungary (no. 5482/05) Mrúz v. Hungary (no. 3261/05) Abate v. Italy (no. 7612/03) Belperio v. Italy (no. 39258/03) D’Alessio v. Italy (no. 36308/03) Di Brita v. Italy (no. 32671/03) Čavajda v. Slovakia (no. 65416/01) Tarımcı v. Turkey (no. 30001/03)     Thursday 16 October 2008   Stoine Hristov v. Bulgaria (No. 2) (no. 36244/02) The applicant, Stoine Zinoviev Hristov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Sofia. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Vladimir Georgiev v. Bulgaria (no. 61275/00) The applicant, Vladimir Angelov Georgiev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Sofia. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints that he had been ill-treated in police custody and that the authorities had not properly investigated his allegations. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Just satisfaction Vajagić v. Croatia (no. 30431/03) The applicants, Mirko Vajagić and Ružica Vajagić, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1937 and 1942, respectively, and live in Virovitica (Croatia). In a judgment of 29   June 2006, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) on account of the continuing failure of the domestic authorities to decide on the amount of compensation payable to them for the expropriation of their land. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Kyriakides v. Cyprus (no. 39508/05) Taliadorou and Stylianou v. Cyprus (nos. 39627/05 and 39631/05 The applicants are three Cypriot nationals who live in Limassol (Cyprus): Ilias Kyriakides, born in 1938; Charalambos Taliadorou, born in 1940; and, Theodoros Stylianou, born in 1946. They all rely on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicants in the case of Taliadorou and Stylianou also rely on Article   6 §   2 (presumption of innocence).   Fonfrede v. France (no. 44562/04) The applicant, Michel Fonfrede, is a French national who was born in 1942 and lives in Vichy. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Maschino v. France (no. 10447/03) The applicant, Erich Maschino, is a French and Costa Rican national who was born in 1948 and lives in Dublin. He relies 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).   Renolde v. France (no. 5608/05) The applicant, Hélène Renolde, is a French national who was born in 1962 and lives in Chatou (France). She is the sister of Joselito Renolde, who died in July 2000 after hanging himself in his cell at Bois-d’Arcy prison, where he was being held on remand. The applicant alleges that the French authorities failed to take the necessary measures to protect her brother’s life and that his placement in a disciplinary cell for 45 days was excessive in view of his psychological fragility. She relies on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Vamvakas v. Greece (no. 36970/06) The applicant, Alexandros Vamvakas, is a Greek national who was born in 1953 and is currently being held in Korydallos prison (Greece). He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Lobanov v. Russia (no. 16159/03) The applicant, Igor Ivanovich Lobanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow. He relies on Article   5 §§   1 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Salatkhanovy v. Russia (no. 17945/03) The applicants, Reyzilya Nasrudinovna Salatkhanova, and her husband, Movlid Yusup-Khadzhiyevich Salatkhanov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1938 respectively and live in Dyshne-Vedeno (Chechen Republic). The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that their son, Ayub Salatkhanov born in 1984, was killed by a Russian serviceman and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation. They rely on Articles   2 (right to life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Sazonov v. Russia (no. 1385/04) The applicant, Igor Alekseyevich Sazonov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Dolgoprudnyy (Russia). He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Abdulmanova v. Russia (no. 41564/05) The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) 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 case of Štokalo and Others also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Štokalo and Others v. Croatia (no. 15233/05) Geromanolis and Others v. Greece (nos. 30460/06, 30477/06, 30486/06, 30506/06, 30508/06, 30522/06, 30526/06, 30534/06, 30540/06, 30547/06, 30550/06, 30553/06 and 30563/06)     *** 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.