CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 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 } .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   741 17.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   21 and 23 October 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 34 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 21   October 2008 and 18 on Thursday 23   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 21 October 2008   Bessenyei v. Hungary (application no. 37509/06) The applicant, Károly Bessenyei, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Kál (Hungary). He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement) to the Convention.   Clemeno and Others v. Italy (no. 19537/03) The 12 applicants are Italian nationals. They are all members of the same family. The case concerns care arrangements for Y., then aged seven, her placement in a care centre and the declaration of her availability for adoption following criminal proceedings brought against six of the applicants, including Y’s father for sexual abuse and rape. The applicants rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Guziuk v. Poland (no. 39469/02) The applicant, Stanislaw Gusiuk, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and is currently detained in Goleniów Prison (Poland). He relies in particular on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Kuśnierczak v. Poland (no. 19961/05) The applicant, Wadim Kuśnierczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Szczecin (Poland). He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Łakomiak v. Poland (no. 28140/05) The applicant, Anna Łakomiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Łódź (Poland). She relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Just satisfaction Skibińscy v. Poland (no. 52589/99) The applicants, Urszula Skibińscy and Henryk Skibińscy, are Polish nationals who live in Częstochowa where they owned a number of plots of land.   In a judgment of 14   November 2006 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 concerning land owned by the applicants having been designated for expropriation at some undetermined point in the future. As a result, they had been refused final construction permits and under domestic legislation had not been entitled to any compensation. The Court held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Ali Güzel v. Turkey (no. 43955/02) The applicant, Ali Güzel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). At the relevant time he was in İzmir F-type prison. The case concerns the prison administration’s refusal to dispatch the applicant’s correspondence with another detainee. The applicant relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Çağlayan v. Turkey (no. 30461/02) The applicant, Erol Çağlayan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Muğla (Turkey). In October 1997 he was arrested on charges of insulting a police officer. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he was ill-treated during his police custody and that the ensuing criminal proceedings against the police officers were not thorough or effective. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation).   Fedai Şahin v. Turkey (no. 21773/02) The applicant, Fedai Şahin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey (no. 5264/03) The applicants are four Turkish nationals: Süleyman Gülbahar who lives in Antakya (Turkey) and was born in 1973; Ömer Berber who lives in Adana (Turkey) and was born in 1975; and, Nuri Akalın and İdris Yiğit who were in Kandıra Prison at the time of making their applications and were born in 1977 and 1975, respectively. In December 2000 a security operation was carried out at a number of prisons in Turkey; many detainees were killed and hundreds were injured. It was decided to transfer detainees to other prisons. The case concerns the applicants’ complaints that they were subjected to ill-treatment during their transfer from the prison where they were being detained at the time and that the authorities failed to adequately investigate their allegations. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation).   Güzel Erdagöz v. Turkey (no. 37483/02) The applicant, Güzel Erdagöz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1930 and lives in Kars (Turkey). She complains that she was unable to obtain rectification of the spelling of her first name in the civil-status register. She relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   İsak Tepe v. Turkey (no. 17129/02) Unay v. Turkey (no. 5290/02) The applicants are two Turkish nationals: İsak Tepe and Mehmet Zeynettin Unay, who were born in 1943 and 1956 respectively and live in Istanbul and Izmir (Turkey) respectively. The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against them for disseminating propaganda against the territorial integrity of the State on account of speeches they had made as members of the People’s Democracy Party ( Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – HADEP). They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Mr Tepe also relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Mr   Unay on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   İsmail Kaya v. Turkey (no. 22929/04) The applicant, İsmail Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Kanat and Bozan v. Turkey (no. 13799/04) The applicants, Kadriye Kanat and Gülsen Bozan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1978 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul. At the relevant time they were chief editor and owner respectively of the monthly review Özgür Kadının Sesi (“The Free Woman’s Voice”). The case concerns their sentence to a fine for publishing a statement by the leader of the illegal armed organisation PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and a temporary injunction against publication of the review in question. They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Kılavuz v. Turkey (no. 8327/03) The applicant, Nihal Kılavuz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Bilecik (Turkey). She is the mother of Baybars Geren, who was born in 1972 and died on 24   November 2001 after hanging himself in Bilecik Prison. The applicant alleges that her son had suffered ill-treatment during his detention and complains of the circumstances surrounding his presumed suicide. She relies on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Nehyet Günay and Others v. Turkey (no. 51210/99) The applicants, Nehyet Günay, Narin Günay, Kudret Günay, Hüsniye Öğlü, Suzan Saruhan and Behiye Özdek, were born in 1975, 1941, 1961, 1968, 1971 and 1982 respectively. They all live in Silopi (Turkey). They are respectively the brother, mother and sisters of Deham Günay, who was born in 1980 and disappeared in the night of 11 to 12 July 1997, aged 17. Deham and Nehyet Günay, who were suspected of bringing arms into Turkey from Iraq, were arrested by police while working in their field near the Iraqi border. The circumstances of the arrest and Deham Günay’s disappearance are in dispute. The applicants allege that Deham Günay was killed by members of the security forces at the time of his arrest and complain of the lack of an effective investigation into their allegations. They also complain of the suffering they had to endure following his disappearance and of the unfairness of the proceedings following which Nehyet Günay was convicted. They rely, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial).   Sadıkoğulları and Erdem v. Turkey (nos. 4220/02 and 8793/02) The applicants, Ramadan Sadıkoğulları and Rauf Erdem, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1965 and 1968 respectively and live in Istanbul. They rely on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Salihoğlu v. Turkey (no. 1606/03) The applicant, Sevim Salihoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Muş (Turkey). At the relevant time she was President of the Muş Human Rights Association. The case concerns her sentence to a fine for possession of illegal publications. She relies, in particular, on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 10 (freedom of expression).   Saygılı and Falakaoğlu v. Turkey (no. 39457/03) The applicants, Fevzi Saygılı and Bülent Falakaoğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the owner and editor of Yeni Evrensel , a newspaper published in Istanbul. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that they were convicted and sentenced to pay heavy fines for the publication in their newspaper in February and March 2001 of two articles concerning forced disappearances in south-east Turkey They rely in particular on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Senaş Servis Endüstrisi A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 19520/02) The applicant company, Senaş Servis Endüstrisi A.Ş., is a public limited company incorporated under Turkish law. It relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Uyan v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 15750/02) The applicant, Sait Oral Uyan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965. At the relevant time he was in Bursa Prison serving a life sentence for membership of an extreme left-wing terrorist organisation. The applicant complains that he suffered ill-treatment while being transferred to Kartal Prison. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (no. 58858/00) In a judgment delivered on 8 December 2005 the Court had held that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was not compatible with the principle of lawfulness and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Chiorean v. Romania (no. 20535/03) Dragomir v. Romania (no. 31181/03) The applicants rely 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. The applicants in the cases of Ayıc , Faella and Giovanni Iannotta also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), and the applicant in the case of Helwig also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Lajos Németh v. Hungary (no. 3840/05) Mészáros v. Hungary (no. 21317/05) Faella v. Italy (no. 32752/02) Giovanni Iannotta v. Italy (no. 32768/02) Helwig v. Poland (no. 33550/02) Lidia Nowak v. Poland (no. 38426/03) Ratyńska v. Poland (no. 12253/03) Ayıc v. Turkey (no. 10467/02) Mahmut and Zülfü v. Turkey (nos. 19895/03 and 21302/03)     Thursday 23 October 2008   Godlevskiy v. Russia (no. 14888/03) The applicant, Gennadiy Vasilyevich Godlevskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Oryol. At the relevant time he was a journalist and editor-in-chief of the Orlovskiy Meridian newspaper. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about defamation proceedings following an article published in the Orlovskiy Meridian with regard to the problem of drug dealing in the Oryol Region and, in particular, the allegation that officers from the anti-narcotics unit had discontinued prosecution of drug-dealers in order to share the profits from drug sales. He relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Khuzhin and Others v. Russia (no. 13470/02) The applicants are three brothers who are Russian nationals. They are Amir Gilvanovich Khuzhin who was born in 1975, his twin brother, Damir Gilvanovich Khuzhin,   now deceased, and Marat Gilvanovich Khuzhin who was born in 1970. The surviving brothers live in Glazov (Russia). The brothers were arrested in April 1999 on suspicion of kidnapping. The case concerns, in particular,     their   conditions of transport and detention, statements by the prosecution authorities allegedly prejudicial for their trial,   broadcasting of their photographs on television   and the fact that     they were not allowed to take   part in civil proceedings to which they had been parties. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6 §§   1 and   2 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Magomed Musayev and Others v. Russia (no. 8979/02) The applicants are four Russian nationals who live in Raduzhnoye (Chechen Republic). Magomed Musayev was born in 1950 and is the father of Said-Rakhman Musayev. Zargan Mitayeva was born in 1949 and is the mother of Odes Mitayev. Magomed Magomadov, who was born in 1969 and Aynap Magomadova are the brother and mother of Magomed Magomadov who was also born in 1969. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that their three relatives were killed after being abducted by Russian servicemen on 10 December 2000 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), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia (no. 10877/04) The applicant, Sergey Vladimirovich Kuznetsov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Yekaterinburg (Russia). In March 2003, the applicant and others held a picket in front of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court to attract public attention to violations of the   human right of access to a court. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about his subsequent fine for breach of the procedure for organising a picket and breach of public order during the picket, and for distributing publications about the president of the regional court. He relies on Articles   10 (freedom of expression) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Soldatenko v. Ukraine (no. 2440/07) The applicant, Nikolay Ivanovich Soldatenko, was born in 1961 and is currently detained in a penitentiary institution in the Kherson region (Ukraine), awaiting his extradition to Turkmenistan. The applicant’s lawyer claims that Mr   Soldatenko is a stateless person; according to the Government, he is a Turkmen national. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that, if extradited, he would risk torture and inhuman and or degrading treatment. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 5 (right to liberty and security) and   6 (right to a fair trial).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Vučak v. Croatia (no. 889/06) The applicants rely on Article   8 (right to respect for respect for private and family life) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Bogunov v. Russia (no. 27995/05) Ignatovich v. Russia (no. 19813/03) Kardashin and Others v. Russia (no. 29063/05) Kazantseva v. Russia (no. 26365/05) Rodichev v. Russia (no. 3784/04) Suslin v. Russia (no. 34938/04) Tulskaya v. Russia (no. 43715/05) All the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Suslin also complains under Article   6   §   1 of the excessive length of the proceedings. The applicants in the cases of Bogunov and Kardashin and Others also rely 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 applicants in the cases of Oreb and Nikolov also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Oreb v. Croatia (no. 9951/06) Bodeving v. Luxembourg (no. 40761/05) Guber v. Russia (no. 34171/04) Yerkimbayev v. Russia (no. 34104/04) Nikolov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”     *** 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.