CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 novembre 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   793 7.11.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   13 and 14 November 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 35 Chamber judgments on Thursday 13 November 2008 and 12 on Friday 14 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 ).     Thursday 13 November 2008   Bochev v. Bulgaria (application no. 73481/01) The applicant, Konstantin Bochev Bochev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and is currently serving a 30-year sentence in Sofia Prison for, in particular, murdering a police officer. The case concerns Mr Bochev’s complaint about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention, the judicial review of that detention and the lack of an enforceable right to compensation. He relies on Article   5   §§   3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), and the monitoring of his correspondence by the prison administration, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the Convention.   Fešar v. the Czech Republic (no. 76576/01) The applicant, Jaromír Fešar, is a Czech national who was born in 1965 and lives in Bayreuth (Germany). In May 1996 he was arrested on suspicion of tax evasion; he was convicted as charged in May 1998 and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. The case concerns Mr   Fešar’s complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court to determine the lawfulness of his continued detention. He relies on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Ommer v. Germany (No. 1) (no. 10597/03) Ommer v. Germany (No. 2) (no. 26073/03) The applicant, Manfred Ommer, is a German national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bergisch Gladbach (Germany). He was an Olympic Games sprinter in the 1970s and, from 1986 to 1993, was the president of FC Homburg, a German Football League club. In February 1987 Mr Onmer was questioned on charges of fraud with regard to business activities for an investment trust corporation, DETAG. He was ultimately acquitted in November 2001. In December 1990 he was notified of further fraud charges against him in relation to another company IHV, a real estate company; those investigation proceedings against him were discontinued in February 2003. The cases concern Mr Ommer’s complaints about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him concerning DETAG and of the investigation proceedings against him concerning IHV. He also alleges that German law does not provide adequate compensation for those length of proceedings complaints. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Malai v. Moldova (no. 7101/06) The applicant, Nicolai Malai, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1963 and lives in Chişinău. In November 2004 charges were brought against him for unlawful fishing. Shortly after a detention warrant was issued against him; he was, however, only arrested in December 2005. He was released in January 2006 when the detention warrant expired. The criminal proceedings against him were terminated in October 2006 and he was ordered to pay a fine. The case concerns his complaint about the unlawfulness and conditions of his pre-trial detention. He relies on Article   5   (right to liberty and security), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Muszyński v. Poland (no. 24613/04) The applicant, Waldemar Muszyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Rzeszów (Poland). He was arrested and remanded in custody in March 2001 on suspicion of murdering his father. In June 2004 he was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. He complains in particular that his pre-trial detention was excessively lengthy and relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Wierzba v. Poland (no. 20315/04) The applicant is a Polish national, Sławomir Wierzba, who was born in 1980 and lives in Gdańsk. In April 2002 he was arrested on suspicion of robbery and remanded in custody. In July 2004 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, upheld on appeal in July 2007. Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him.   Pijevschi v. Portugal (no. 6830/05) The applicant, Pavel Pijevschi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1976 and lives in Chişinău. At the time when he lodged his application he was imprisoned in Portugal. On 20   January 2004 the Setúbal Court of First Instance found the applicant guilty of conspiracy, aiding and abetting illegal immigration, extortion and negotiating the employment of undocumented workers. He was sentenced to six years and nine months’ imprisonment and excluded from Portugal for 15 years. He complains of the decision to declare an appeal against that judgment inadmissible, as out of time, although he had complied with the time limit fixed by the Court of First Instance. He relies in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court).   Hagiescu and Others v. Romania (no. 7901/02) The applicants, Mircea Dumitru Grigore Hagiescu, Andrei Alexandrescu and Domnica Manicatide, are all Romanian nationals who were born in 1931, 1943 and 1944 respectively and live in Bucharest. They complain that they lost their action for recovery of possession in October 2001 on the ground that the building to which they claimed title belonged to the State, even though in 1994, in a final judgment, the Romanian courts had held its nationalisation to have been illegal. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Sýkora v. Slovakia (no. 31519/02) The applicant, Mila Sýkora, is a Slovak national who was born in 1961 and, at the time of introduction of this application, was living in Bratislava. The case concerns his complaint about civil proceedings with regard to the use of a flat. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Kayasu v. Turkey (nos. 64119/00 and 76292/01)) The applicant, Sacit Kayasu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952. At the relevant time he was a public prosecutor. The case concerns a disciplinary sanction imposed on him on account of a petition he had written, in August 1999, as a private citizen, against former generals of the Turkish army believed to be the main instigators of the military coup d’état of 12 September 1980, and his criminal conviction for drawing up an indictment against them. He complains of his subsequent dismissal from his public prosecutor’s post and of being barred from working as a lawyer. He relies in particular on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Khaylo v. Ukraine (no. 39964/02) The applicants, Sergey Fyodorovich, and his wife, Svetlana Ivanovna Khaylo, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1954 and currently live in Kyiv. On 30 April 2002 they found their relative, Mr A.Kh., aged 44, who lived in an annex to their house, dead in his bed. The autopsy concluded that it was not possible to establish the cause of death. The case concerns, in particular, the applicants’ complaint about the authorities’ inadequate investigation into the death of their relative, who had no record of any illness and was, according to the applicants, a key witness in criminal proceedings involving organised crime. They rely, in particular, on Article   2 (right to life).   Muravskaya v. Ukraine (no. 249/03) The applicant, Tatyana Petrovna Muravskaya, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Slavyansk (Ukraine). The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that the authorities failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into the death of her son, aged 18, who disappeared in January 1999 and was found dead in a lake two months later. She relies on Article   2 (right to life).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Russu v. Moldova (no. 7413/05) The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Dreptu v. Romania (no. 19835/03) The applicants rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Kerekeş v. Romania (no. 2736/02) Moroianu and Others v. Romania (no. 25008/05) Reichardt v. Romania (no. 6111/04) The applicants rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Onofrei v. Romania (no. 26841/03) Poppov v. Romania (no. 26839/03) Ranete v. Romania (no. 26837/03) The applicants rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Preoteasa v. Romania (no. 40335/02) The applicant relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Devecioğlu v. Turkey (no. 17203/03) The applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Erükçü v. Turkey (no. 4211/02) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Shapkina v. Ukraine (no. 20028/04) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Veritas v. Ukraine (no. 39157/02) The applicant company relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     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. With the exception of the applicants in the cases of Rafael Ahlskog and Fontana they also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Rafael Ahlskog v. Finland (no. 23667/06) Buffolino v. Italy (no. 32769/02) Di Maria v. Italy (no. 32750/02 Di Vico v. Italy (no. 32751/02) Fontana v. Italy (no. 1452/03) La Frazia v. Italy (no. 32775/02) Morone v. Italy (no. 32770/02) Rubortone v. Italy (no. 32776/02) Kushnarenko v. Ukraine (no. 18010/04)     Friday 14 November 2008   Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG v. Austria (No. 5) (no. 9605/03) The applicant, Krone Verlag GmbH & Co KG, is the owner of the daily newspaper Neue Kronenzeitung with its registered office in Vienna. In May 1999 the newspaper ran a series of articles criticising Mr Bruck, at that time managerial director of Techno-Z FH, a scientific research company sponsored notably by the Region of Salzburg. The articles accused Mr   Bruck in particular of “financial wanderlust” and shortcomings in Techno-Z FH’s bookkeeping. Mr Bruck was dismissed from his post in October 1999. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicant company complains about its ensuing conviction for defamation.   Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06) The applicants, Elisavet Fakiridou and her sister Aikaterini Schina, are Greek nationals who were born in 1959 and 1962 respectively and live in Komotini (Greece). They complain of the refusal of the administrative authorities and the administrative courts to revoke an expropriation order which had affected their property since 1933. They rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Akhmadov and Others v. Russia (no. 21586/02) The applicants are eight Russian nationals: Abzat Abzotovich Akhmadov, Marzhan Abdulayevna Mezhidova, Amkhad Akhmedovich Mezhidov, Vakha-Khazha Abubakarovich Gekhayev, Ayna Abzotovna Gekhayeva, Makhmud Abzotovich Akhmadov, Magamed-Ali Makhmudovich Akhmadov and Iman Magomedovna Akhmadova, born in 1943, 1947, 1949, 1963, 1968, 1978, 1999 and 2001, respectively. They live in the Gudermes District (Chechen Republic). The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that on 27 October 2001 their relatives, Amkhad Vakha-Khadzhiyevich Gekhayev, 15 years old, and Zalina Amadovna Mezhidova, a 23-year-old mother of two small children (the last two applicants), were attacked by a Russian military helicopter when driving home from their work in a field. Once landed, Russian servicemen fired on the car with machine guns and then carried the applicants’ relatives into the helicopter and left; a few days later their severely mutilated bodies were delivered to a district military commander’s office. Relying on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   38   §   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case), the applicants complain, in particular, about the killing of their relatives by Russian servicemen and the authorities’ inadequate investigation into the incident.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Azaryev v. Russia (no. 18338/05) Bronich v. Russia (no. 805/03) Galikhanova v. Russia (no. 15407/05) Zhuk v. Russia (no. 42389/02) Kabanov v. Russia (no. 37758/03) Kuzminskiy v. Russia (no. 40081/03) Larionov v. Russia (no. 42431/02) Vakulenko v. Russia (no. 38035/04) The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Litvinova v. Russia (no. 34489/05) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     *** 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.