CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 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   828 21.11.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   25 and 27 November 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 17 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 25 November 2008 and 14 on Thursday 27 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 25 November 2008   Armonas v. Lithuania (application no. 36919/02 ) Biriuk v. Lithuania (no. 23373/03) The applicants are two Lithuanian nationals: Judita Armonienė, who lives in the village of Ąžuolpamušio (Lithuania) and lodged the application with the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of her husband, Laimutis Armonas, born in 1963 and now deceased; and, Gitana Biriuk who was born in 1970 and lives in the village of Kraštų (Lithuania). In January 2001 Lietuvos Rytas , Lithuania’s biggest daily newspaper, published an article alleging that Mr Armonas and Ms Biriuk were suffering from AIDS and that they had had two illegitimate children together. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that, even though the domestic courts held that the newspaper had seriously violated their privacy, they were awarded derisory damages. In particular, the applicants allege that the low ceiling on non-pecuniary damages under Lithuanian law at the time, in effect, protected the media from lawsuits concerning breach of privacy. The applicants rely on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Jucius and Juciuvienė v. Lithuania (no. 14414/03) The applicants, Marijus Jucius, and his wife, Gertrūda Juciuvienė, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1966 and 1967 respectively, and live in Mažeikiai (Lithuania). In April 1999 Mr Jucius’ sister and her partner died and the applicants were awarded temporary custody of their nieces, at that time four years’ old and six months’ old. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about deficiencies in the decision-making process by which permanent custody of the girls was awarded to their grandparents. They rely on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Švenčionienė v. Lithuania (no. 37259/04) The applicant, Jūrate Švenčionienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Kaunas (Lithuania). The case concerns her complaint that she was not able to attend an appeal hearing in divorce proceedings. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Toşcuţă and Others v. Romania (no. 36900/03) The applicants are seven Romanian nationals who were born in 1943, 1945, 1956, 1933, 1959, 1922 and 1945 and live in Bucharest. They complain in particular of the withdrawal by the domestic courts of their title to plots of land without any compensation being provided. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Kostic v. Serbia (no. 41760/04) The applicants, Nedeljko Kostić, and his wife, Zorka Kostić, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1947 and live in Belgrade. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about the non-enforcement of a demolition order awarded in their favour concerning a co-owned house.   Dağdelen and Others v. Turkey (nos. 1767/03, 14246/04 and 16584/04) The four applicants, Önder Dağdelen, Sami Özbil, Ergül Çiçekler and Murat Telli, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1978, 1977, 1976 and 1978 respectively. In 1996 they were arrested and taken into police custody. In 1997 police officers were charged with extracting confessions using torture. The assize court ruled in 2002 that the prosecution of the police officers was time ‑ barred. The applicants complain, in particular, that they were tortured by police officers while in police custody, of the outcome of the criminal proceedings brought against the police officers concerned and of the length of those proceedings. Önder Dağdelen and Ergül Çiçekler also complain of the use by the court of confessions extracted from them in police custody using torture, and of the length of the criminal proceedings against them. The applicants rely, in particular, on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), 6 § 3 (c) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ömer Aydın v. Turkey (no. 34813/02) The applicant, Ömer Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Istanbul. His son Fatih Aydın committed suicide while performing his compulsory military service in the navy. The applicant alleges that his son killed himself because of ill-treatment by his superior officers and that the military prosecutor’s office did not conduct an effective investigation. He relies, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Oral v. Turkey (no. 18384/04) The applicant, Hüseyin Turgut Oral, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul. He complains of the unfairness of a set of tax proceedings. He relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Enescu and SC Editura Orizonturi SRL v. Romania (no. 9585/04) Ghiga v. Romania (no. 77211/01) Paicu v. Romania (no. 24714/03) Şurtea v. Romania (no. 24464/03) Trifu v. Romania (no. 1242/02) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), except in the case of Trifu . With the exception of the case of Şurtea , the applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Gencer v. Turkey (no. 31881/02) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) 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 applicant in the case of Emin Şirin also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Emin Şirin v. Turkey (no. 40750/04) Yalçın Korkmaz v. Turkey (no. 23085/04)     Thursday 27 November 2008   Just satisfaction Debelianovi v. Bulgaria (no. 61951/00) The applicants, Nikola Georgiev Debelianov and his brother Ivan Georgiev Debelianov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1948 respectively and live in Sofia and Koprivshtitsa (Bulgaria). In a judgment of 29 March 2007 the Court found 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.   Just satisfaction Kalinova v. Bulgaria (no. 45116/98) The applicant, Bonka Petrova Kalinova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Nova Zagora (Bulgaria). In a judgment of 8 November 2007 the Court found 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.   Mirchev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 71605/01) The applicants are nine Bulgarian nationals, Stoyan Mihaylov Mirchev, Stanish Bonev Panayotov, Emil Yordanov Hristov, Milko Kalev Balev (now deceased), Yordan Nikolov Yotov, Grigor Georgiev Stoichkov, Ivan Stoyanov Iliev, Georgi Mitev Karamanev and Georgi Yordanov Momchev, born in 1930, 1925, 1920, 1920, 1926, 1931, 1934, 1931 and 1924, respectively. Prior to 1989 all nine applicants had leading positions in the Council of Ministers (the government) and the Bulgarian Communist Party. The case concerns their complaint about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against them for abuse of office and misappropriation. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Slavcho Kostov v. Bulgaria (no. 28674/03) The applicant, Slavcho Dimitrov Kostov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Zhelyu Voivoda (Bulgaria). In September 1995 he was arrested and placed in pre ‑ trial detention on charges of aiding and abetting murder. Released in October 1995, the criminal proceedings against him were subsequently terminated due to lack of evidence. The case concerns his complaints about the unlawfulness and conditions of his pre-trial detention and that the compensation subsequently awarded to him on that account was inadequate. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   5 (right to liberty and security).   Rashed v. Czech Republic (no. 298/07) The applicant, Mohamed Magdi Mansour Rashed, is an Egyptian national who was born in 1988. He is reportedly in Egypt at present. In August 2006 the applicant applied for asylum on arriving at Prague international airport. In September 2006 he was transferred to the Velké Přílepy facility of the Ministry of the Interior, where he remained until April 2007. The applicant alleges that his detention was in breach of his rights under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and § 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention).   Krivonosov v. Russia (no. 3023/03) The applicant, Yaroslav Yakovlevich Krivonosov, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Barnaul (Russia). He was the president of a private commercial bank and owns several businesses in Barnaul. The case concerns his complaint about the length of criminal proceedings against him for fraud. He relies, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Ismailov v. Ukraine (no. 17323/04) The applicant, Alim Ayderovich Ismailov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine). In March 2001 he was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of armed robbery; he was subsequently convicted as charged. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that he was ill-treated while in police custody and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations.   Miroschnik v. Ukraine (no. 75804/01) The applicant, Aleksey Vasilyevich Miroshnik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Akimovka (Ukraine). Dismissed from the military forces in December 1998, he complains about several sets of proceedings he subsequently brought in the military courts against the military enlistment offices and the Ministry of Defence. In particular, he complains about the lack of independence of the military courts and non-enforcement of a decision in his favour with regard to his uniform expenses. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine (nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03) The applicants, Igor Yevgenyevich Solovey and Anton Valentinovich Zozulya, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1981 and are currently serving, respectively, a 10-year and 14-year prison sentence for aggravated murder and robbery. Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complaint about the unlawfulness and length of their pre-trial detention. They further complain about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Spinov v. Ukraine (no. 34331/03) The applicant, Vitaliy Vologymyrovych Spinov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Donetsk (Ukraine). On 29 November Mr Spinov, who was drunk, was arrested for allegedly grabbing a bag from a passerby and trying to run away. Released on 30   November 2001, he was subsequently convicted of attempted robbery and given a fine. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that he was ill-treated by the police during his arrest and subsequently at the police station and that the investigation into his allegations was inadequate.   Svershov v. Ukraine (no. 35231/02) The applicant, Dmitriy Viktorovich Svershov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1985 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence in Kherson (Ukraine) for having robbed and murdered his grandmother. The case concerns his complaints about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand and that the domestic courts failed to consider his complaints about the unlawfulness of his detention in due time. He relies on Article   5   §§   1, 3   and   4 (right to liberty and security).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Krutko (No. 2) v. Ukraine (no. 33930/05) Peretyatko v. Ukraine (no. 37758/05) Stadnyuk v. Ukraine (no. 30922/05) All the applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). The applicants in the cases of Peretyatko and Stadnyuk also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and the applicants in the cases of Krutko (No. 2) and Peretyatko also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     *** 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.