CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 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   769 31.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   4 and 6 November 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 42 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 4 November 2008 and 25 on Thursday 6 November 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 4 November 2008   Balsytė-Lideikienė v. Lithuania (application no. 72596/01) The applicant, Danutė Balsytė-Lideikienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Vilnius (Lithuania). She owns a publishing company. In March 2001 the domestic courts found that the applicant had breached Article 214 of the Code on Administrative Offences on account of her publishing and distributing the “Lithuanian calendar 2000” which, according to the conclusions of political science experts, promoted ethnic hatred. She was issued with an administrative warning and the unsold copies of the calendar were confiscated. Relying on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair hearing and a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that her case was examined by the first-instance court without the experts being summoned to the hearing and that on appeal the Supreme Administrative Court did not hold a hearing. She also complains that the confiscation of the calendar and the ban on its further distribution was in breach of Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   Tudor-Comert v. Moldova (no. 27888/04) The applicant, Tudor-Comert, is a company registered in Chişinău. In June 1997 the police sealed a warehouse rented by the applicant company. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine its appeal in the ensuing proceedings for damages because it could not pay the court fees. The applicant company relies on Article   6 §   1 (right of access to a court) of the Convention.   Bruczyński v. Poland (no. 19206/03) Cynarski v. Poland (no. 30049/06) Janulis v. Poland (no. 20251/04) The applicants are three Polish nationals: Maciej Bruczyński who was born in 1974 and lives in Kórnik (Poland); Krzysztof Cynarski who was born in 1976 and lives in Warsaw; and, Adam Janulis, who was born in 1974 and lives in Ostróda (Poland). In   June 2000 Mr   Bruczyński was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of mugging and extortion. He was released in January 2004. In November 2003 Mr Cynarski was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of car theft. He was released in October 2006 and placed under police supervision. The proceedings against both those applicants are currently still pending on appeal. Mr Janulis was arrested and remanded in custody in March 2002 on suspicion of car theft. He was ultimately convicted as charged in July 2004 and sentenced to three years and eight months’ imprisonment. Relying, in particular, on Article   5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), all three applicants complain of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Mr   Bruczyński further complains that he had no enforceable right to compensation in respect of his pre-trial detention complaint, in breach of Article 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation). Mr Janulis’ case also concerns an alleged censorship of his correspondence, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Demski v. Poland (no. 22695/03) The applicant, Arkadiusz Demski, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Głogów (Poland). In July 2001 he was convicted of raping a 17-year-old girl and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he was not able to examine the main witness, the victim, in the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   d) (right to a fair trial and to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   Eryk Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 12269/02) The applicant, Eryk Kozłowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Szczecin (Poland). In June 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He was convicted as charged in September 2001 and sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld on appeal. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about: the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand; the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him; and, the fact that his parents were refused permission to visit him during most of his pre-trial detention as it was feared that they might obstruct the proceedings. He relies on Article   5 (right to liberty and security), Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Bacso v. Romania (no. 9293/03) The applicants, who are husband and wife, are two Romanian nationals who also have German nationality: Johann Bacso, born in 1939, and Elisabeth Bacso, born in 1942. They live in Grossniedsheim (Germany). A flat belonging to them, situated in Braşov (Romania), was nationalised in 1975. In April 1997 the State sold the flat to a third party who had been living in it as a tenant until then. The applicants allege an infringement of their right of access to a court on account of the refusal of the domestic courts to examine their requests for rescission of the contract of sale and eviction of the purchaser from the building. They also complain of being deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of their flat despite the recognition, by final judgment, of their title to it. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Bota v. Romania (no. 16382/03) The applicant, Pompiliu Bota, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Orǎştie (Romania). At the material time he was the sole member and the manager of S., a limited liability company. The applicant complains about his two-year suspended prison sentence for tax evasion following an application lodged by the Procurator-General to set aside a final judgment in which he had been acquitted of the offence. He also complains that a final decision awarding him compensation for detention during the proceedings was set aside. He relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).   Deak v. Romania (no. 42790/02) The applicant, Adelaida Deak, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns the dismissal by the domestic courts, on grounds of inadmissibility, of the action brought by the applicant relating to her pension rights. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court).   Dinu v. Romania and France (no. 6152/02) The applicant, Cristina Dinu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Braşov (Romania). In May 1995 she obtained a final decision from the Romanian courts ordering her ex-husband, a Romanian national living in France, to pay her maintenance for their minor son. In July 1995 she commenced the procedure provided for under the New York Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance. The applicant complains of the lack of diligence by the relevant Romanian and French authorities in assisting her with enforcing the decisions awarding her maintenance for her son. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Lupascu v. Romania (no. 14526/03) The applicant, Ion Lupascu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1959. He is currently serving a 19-year prison sentence in Brǎila Prison (Romania). In September 1997, while he was shopping at a market, the applicant had an argument with a market seller whom he accused of cheating when weighing the goods. Following a complaint lodged by the market seller, who accused the applicant of punching her in the face and stealing goods, the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on 11 November 1997. The applicant complains that he suffered ill-treatment by the police officers who arrested and questioned him, and complains of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of misconduct by State agents. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation).   Nita v. Romania (no. 10778/02) The applicants, Vasile Mircea Nita and Ionel Viorel Nita, who are twin brothers born in 1971, are Romanian nationals living in Roşiori-de-Vede (Romania). In January 1995 they lodged a criminal complaint with the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office against police officers at Roşiori-de-Vede police station, accusing them of abusing their powers of investigation. They alleged that, after being asked to attend the police station to make statements in connection with a criminal investigation of a robbery, they had been held against their will on a number of occasions by police officers who had inflicted ill-treatment on them. Ultimately, the military prosecutors and courts gave a decision discontinuing the proceedings. The applicants complain that they suffered ill-treatment by the police officers and allege that no effective investigation was carried out in respect of their allegations. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation).   Mihaiu v. Romania (no. 42512/02) The applicant, Liviu Georgicǎ Mihaiu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest. He is a journalist and was sentenced in June 2002 to a criminal fine for defamation and ordered to pay damages for publishing an article in which he claimed that another journalist had accepted a wrist-watch from the group Balli, which, according to the article in question, had caused one of the biggest Romanian businesses to become insolvent. He relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 10 (freedom of expression).   Iselsten v. Sweden (no. 11320/05) The applicant, John Iselsten, is a Swedish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Stockholm. In March 1997 the applicant, claiming that the State had been negligent in the administration of his bankruptcy, sued for damages. The case concerns his complaint that the length of those proceedings had been excessive and that on appeal the courts had refused to hold an oral hearing. He relies on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Evrim Öktem v. Turkey (no. 9207/03) The applicant, Evrim Öktem, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul. In 1995, when she was 14 years old, she was wounded by a bullet fired by a police officer. According to the official version, this had happened during an illegal demonstration. The applicant complains that she was the victim of excessive use of a firearm, in circumstances that did not justify it, and complains of the trauma she suffered as a result of having been wounded by a bullet fired by a police officer. She also complains of the ineffectiveness of the proceedings brought against the police officer, whose sentence was ultimately deferred by virtue of an amnesty . The applicant relies, inter alia , on Articles   2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 42184/05) The applicants are 13 British nationals who were born between 1913 and 1937. The applicants spent most of their working lives in the United Kingdom, paying National Insurance Contributions in full, before emigrating or returning to South Africa, Australia or Canada. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the United Kingdom authorities’ refusal to up-rate their pensions in line with inflation. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Wilkowicz v. Poland (no. 74168/01) Anghelescu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 14578/03) Bone v. Romania (no. 12776/06) Delca v. Romania (no. 25765/04) Ernest v. Romania (no. 2230/02) Gingis v. Romania (no. 35955/02) Jantea v. Romania (no. 29798/03) Olimpia-Maria Teodorescu v. Romania (no. 43774/02) All the applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the case of Delca and Wilkowicz also rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Mihai v. Romania (no. 26842/03) Radu v. Romania (no. 26838/03) Vasiliu v. Romania (no. 26833/03 Văsui v. Romania (no. 26834/03) Zaharia v. Romania (no. 26835/03) All the applicants rely on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Just satisfaction Orha v. Romania (no. 1486/02) In a judgment of 12 October 2006, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final court judgment in favour of the applicants. It also held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Savu v. Romania (no. 19982/04) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Gani Özcan v. Turkey (no. 11189/04) 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) of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicants in the cases of Boboc and Panzari also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicant in the case of Zöhre Akyol also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Bell v. Belgium (no. 44826/05) Boboc v. Moldova (no. 27581/04) Panzari v. Moldova (no. 27516/04) Bartczak v. Poland (no. 15629/02) Graczyk v. Poland (no. 21246/05) Văcăruş v. Romania (no. 1012/02) Bič v. Slovakia (no. 23865/03) Ağrakçe v. Turkey (no. 29059/02) Zöhre Akyol v. Turkey (no. 28668/03)     Thursday 6 November 2008   Gulub Atanasov v. Bulgaria (no. 73281/01) The applicant, Gulub Atanasov Atanasov, now deceased, was a Bulgarian national who suffered from schizophrenia. In July 1999 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of robbery and murder. He was subsequently placed under house arrest until July 2001. Between 8 August and 4 September 2000, in the context of the criminal proceedings against him, he was placed for examination in a psychiatric hospital. Ultimately, the proceedings against him were discontinued due to his death. The case concerns the applicant’s complaints about the length of his pre-trial detention, the alleged unlawfulness of his confinement in the psychiatric hospital and the fact that he did not have the right to take proceedings before a court in that regard. He relied on Article   5 §§   1, 3, 4   and   5 (right to liberty and security).   Kandzhov v. Bulgaria (no. 68294/01) The applicant, Aleksandar Bogdanov Kandzhov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Pobeda (Bulgaria). On 10 July 2000 he set up a stand in the centre of Pleven (Bulgaria) to gather signatures for a petition which called for the resignation of the then Minister of Justice, Teodosiy Simenov. The posters on his stand referred to the Minister as “a top idiot”, a phrase which had been popularised by the press following a controversial comment the latter had made about Libya. The applicant was arrested the same day and, criminal proceedings brought against him for publicly insulting the Minister of Justice, was detained for almost four days. He was ultimately acquitted in February 2000. The case concerns, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about his arrest and detention and that those measures had infringed his freedom of expression. He relies on Article   5 §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Yosifov v. Bulgaria (no. 74012/01) The applicant, Gavril Yordanov Yosifov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Sofia. In November 1996 he was arrested and charged with, in particular, theft and robbery. Sofia District Court found him guilty as charged in December 1998 and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. His appeal dismissed, he was detained on 30 November 1999 in Sofia Prison to serve his sentence. On 17 July 2000 Sofia City Court found that the district court had erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was released on 26   October 2000 pending the district court’s fresh examination of the case. He was ultimately convicted and sentenced to one and a half years’ imprisonment in March 2001. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention between 30   November 1999 and 26 October 2000. He relies on Article   5 §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Leela Förderkreis e.V. and Others v. Germany (no. 58911/00) The applicants are, in particular, three associations registered under German law, Leela   Förderkreis e.V., Wies Rajneesh Zentrum für spirituelle Therapie und Meditation e.V. and Osho Uta Lotus Commune e.V.. They are religious or meditation associations belonging to the Osho movement, formerly known as the Shree Rajneesh or Bhagwan movement, which emerged in Germany in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1979 the German Government launched a campaign to draw attention to the potential dangers of such groups in which it referred to the applicant associations as “sects”, “youth sects”, “youth religions” and “psycho sects”. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant associations complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings in which they requested that the Government refrain from issuing such statements. They also allege that the Government had infringed their duty to be neutral in religious matters and had embarked on a repressive and defamatory campaign against them, in breach of Article   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   14 (prohibition of dscrimination).   Angelov v. Greece (no. 22035/05) The applicant, Marian Angelov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977. He is currently in Patras Prison (Greece). He was arrested in July 2003 for drug trafficking and sentenced, at first instance, to 12 years’ imprisonment. His appeal hearing was listed for 17 January 2008. The parties have not provided any further information about the proceedings. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the excessive length of the proceedings.   Kokkinis v. Greece (no. 45769/06) The applicant, Charalambos Kokkinis, is a Greek national who was born in 1926. He was a civil servant and took compulsory retirement in February 1982. The case concerns a dispute regarding the adjustment of his old-age pension. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Petroulia v. Greece (no. 919/06) The applicant, Eleni Petroulia, is a Greek national who was born in 1953 and lives in Athens. In December 1998 she was prosecuted for fraud and forgery against a bank. The proceedings are still pending. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the excessive length of the proceedings brought against her.   İsmayılov v. Russia (no. 30352/03) The applicant, Adil Yunus oğlu İsmayılov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow. On arrival in Moscow in November 2002 he was charged with smuggling for not declaring the 21,348 US dollars (approximately 17,059 euros) he was carrying with him from the sale of a flat he had inherited in Baku. He was found guilty as charged and given a suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment; the money was also confiscated. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that that confiscation order had not been lawful. He relies, in particular, on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 3013/04) Magamadova and Iskhanova v. Russia (no. 33185/04) Shaipova and Others v. Russia (no. 10796/04) Tsurova and Others v. Russia (no. 29958/04) The applicants in the first case are three Russian nationals: Salman Saidovich Khadzhialiyev and Alpaty Elikhanova, born in 1932 and 1937 respectively, who are the parents of Ramzan and Rizvan Salmanovich Khadzhialiyev, born in 1977 and 1979; and, Magamed Ramzanovich Khadshialiyev, born in 2002, who is Ramzan Khadzhialiyev’s son. In the early hours of the morning on 15 December 2002 Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev were abducted from the family home in Samashki, a village in the Chechen Republic, by armed men in camouflage uniforms. They were allegedly seen being taken away in UAZ vehicles. Four days later the bodies of the two men were found near their village; they had been decapitated and dismembered. The missing parts of their bodies have never been found.   The applicants in the second case are two Russian nationals: Luiza Abdulbekovna Magamadova and Alpatu Didievna Iskhanova, who were born in 1964 and 1958 respectively and live in Mesker-Yurt (Chechen Republic). They are the wives of Viskhadzhi Shatayevich Magamadov, born in 1962, and Khasan Shakhtamirovich Mezhiyev, born in 1963. The two men have not been seen since the early hours of 14 November 2002 when they were taken away from the Magamadovs’ home in armoured personnel carriers by armed men in camouflage uniforms.   The applicants in the third case are five Russian nationals: Tamara Daliyevna Shaipova, born in 1953; Yakhita Musayevna Shaipova, born in 1974; Ramzan Akhmedovich Shaipov, born in 1995; Askhab Akhmedovich Shaipov, born in 1998; and, Magomed Akhmedovich Shaipov, born in 2002. They live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic.) They are the mother, wife and sons of Akhmed Musayevich Shaipov, born in 1972, who has not been seen since the early hours of 9 April 2003 when he was abducted from the family home by armed men in camouflage uniforms.   The applicants in the fourth case are four Russian nationals: Isa Beksultanovich Tsurov, born in 1948; Aminat Tarkhanovna Tsurova, born in 1949; Leyla Isayevna Tsurova, born in 1973; and, Magomed Isayevich Tsurov, born in 1982. They live in Ingushetia (Russia). They are the parents, sister and brother of Ibragim Isayevich Tsurov, born in 1970, an advocate admitted to the Bar of the Chechen Republic. He has not been seen since 26 April 2003 when, his car stopped by armed men, he was seen being taken away in the boot of a car.   All the applicants allege that their relatives were abducted and killed by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They rely, in particular, 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).   Ponushkov v. Russia (no. 30209/04) The applicant, Andrey Fyodorovich Ponushkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Minusinsk (Russia) for notably murder, robbery, kidnapping and unlawful possession of arms. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains about the conditions of his detention in a facility in Irkutsk and the unfairness and excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He further complains of censorship of his correspondence with the Court, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition).   Tkachevy v. Russia (no. 42452/02) The applicants, Aleksandr Viktorovitch Tkachev and Olga Ivanovna Tkacheva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1939 respectively and live in Moscow. They complain of the failure to enforce a final judgment allocating them subsidised housing. They also allege that the Russian authorities applied undue pressure on them in order to intimidate them and prevent them from exercising their right of application before the Court. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Carlson v. Switzerland (no. 49492/06) The applicant, Scott Norman Carlson, is an American national who was born in 1962 and lives in Washington. He is the father of a boy born in 2004 of his relationship with a Swiss national. In the summer of 2005 the mother, who was living with her husband and son in the United States, went to Switzerland with the child and decided to establish her residence there. The applicant alleges, in particular, that the decisions of the Swiss judicial authorities dismissing his application for his son’s return to the United States have entailed a violation of his right to respect for his family life guaranteed by Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Mikhaniv v. Ukraine (no. 75522/01) The applicant, Andrey Antonovich Mikhaniv, is a Ukrainian and Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kyiv. In January 2000 the applicant was arrested and charged with embezzlement of public funds. He was released in February 2002; the criminal proceedings against him are still pending. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about: inadequate medical treatment during his detention; the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand; and, the excessive length of the proceedings against him. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Yeloyev v. Ukraine (no. 17283/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Vladimirovich Yeloyev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kherson (Ukraine). In August 1998 he was arrested and charged with tax evasion. In September 2003 he was convicted of fraud, embezzlement and abuse of power and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment, upheld on appeal. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains of the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention and that the lawfulness of that detention was not reviewed. He further complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Arulepp v. Russia (no. 35774/04) Dementyev v. Russia (no. 3244/04) Krivonozhko and Demchenko v. Ukraine (nos. 7435/05 and 7715/05) All the applicants rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Dementyev , they 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) of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Dali v. Greece (no. 497/07) Karvountzis v. Greece (no. 35172/05) Dimitrieva v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 16328/03) Pecevi v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 21839/03) Velova v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 29029/03)     *** 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.