CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 décembre 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 } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9B49264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   856 1.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   2 and 4 December 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 29 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 2 December 2008 and 32 on Thursday 4 December 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 2 December 2008   Kirakosyan v. Armenia (application no. 31237/03) Mkhitaryan v. Armenia (no. 22390/05) Tadevosyan v. Armenia (no. 41698/04) The applicants are three Armenian nationals: Lavrent Kirakosyan and Arman Mkhitaryan who were born in 1960 and 1965 respectively and live in Karakert (Armenia); and, Myasnik Tadevosyan who was born in 1944 and lives in Mrgashat (Armenia). In March 2003 the first two applicants were visited at home by police officers in connection with their participation in protest rallies about the presidential elections; following an altercation, they were arrested and taken to their local police station. Mr Tadevosyan was also arrested at home in May 2004 on account of an altercation with the police who had stopped his car for a control. The cases concern the applicants’ ensuing sentence to ten days’ administrative detention for disobeying the lawful orders of the police and using obscene language. In particular, they complain about the conditions of their detention, the unfairness of the proceedings against them and the fact that they did not have a clear and accessible right to appeal. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Juppala v. Finland (no. 18620/03) The applicant, Eine Juppala, is a Finnish national who was born in 1929 and lives in Ylöjärvi (Finland). In July 2000 she took her grandson to a doctor on account of a bruise on his back; she expressed her concern that the injury had been caused by the boy’s father, T. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about her ensuing conviction for defamation of   T. She relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   K.U. v. Finland (no. 2872/02) The applicant, K.U., is a Finnish national who was born in 1986. In March 1999 an unknown individual placed an advertisement on an Internet dating site in the name of the applicant, at that time 12   years’ old, without his knowledge. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about that invasion of his private life and the fact that no effective remedy existed under Finnish law to reveal the identity of the person who had placed the ad on the dating site. He relies on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Gulczyński v. Poland (no. 33176/06) Janicki v. Poland (no. 35831/06) Marecki v. Poland (no. 20834/02) The applicants are three Polish nationals. Sebastian Gulczyński was born in 1976 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland). In   March 2003 he was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery and theft; he was convicted as charged in November 2006 and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Damian Janicki was born in 1976 and is currently detained in Gdańsk Remand Centre. In February 2003 he was arrested on suspicion of homicide and arson and convicted as charged in April 2008; the case against him is currently pending on appeal. Stanisław Marecki was born in 1955 and lives in Brzozów. In December 1998 he was arrested on charges of armed robbery and membership of a criminal gang. In December 2004 he was acquitted and released. Relying on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), all three applicants complain, in particular, about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention and detention on remand.   Apahideanu v. Romania (no. 19895/02) The applicant, Anton Apahideanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest. He alleges that the proceedings for partition of his father’s estate were unreasonably long and unfair, and also complains about the court-ordered partition itself. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Petre Ionescu v. Romania (no. 12534/02) The applicant, Petre Ionescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Sinaia. He complains that the use of his land was restricted by a nearby gas pipeline and that the compensation proceedings brought by him were unreasonably long. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Just satisfaction SC Ruxandra Trading SRL v. Romania (no. 28333/02) The applicant, SC Ruxandra Trading SRL, is a company incorporated under Romanian law, having its registered office in Bucharest. In a judgment of 12   July 2007 the Court found a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) on account of the failure to execute a final judgment in which the city council had been ordered to issue the applicant company with a permit to erect a permanent building on leased land and to enter into a long-term lease agreement with the company in respect of that land. The Court moreover considered that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) as to pecuniary damage was not yet ready for decision.   Adırbelli and Others v. Turkey (no. 20775/03) The applicants, Yetgin Adırbelli, Havil Adırbelli, Gülek Adırbelli, Metin Goran, Mehmet Goran, Ali Nas, Beşir Gasyak, and Resul (Malğaz) Kervanoğlu are Turkish nationals who were members of the People’s Democratic Party (DEHAP) in Sırnak (Turkey). On 27   January 2003 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of having participated in an armed attack on a military battalion during which a soldier was killed. They were released shortly after and in March 2003 a decision was issued not to bring criminal proceedings against them due to insufficient evidence. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain, in particular, about the unlawfulness of their arrest and detention in police custody.   Erdal Aslan v. Turkey (nos. 25060/02 and 1705/03) The applicant, Erdal Aslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and at the relevant time was imprisoned in Bartın (Turkey). He was arrested in a police operation concerning a bomb plot and held in police custody from 29   April to 14   May 1996. He was then remanded in custody and subsequently convicted of armed attacks. The applicant relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Gemici v. Turkey (no. 25471/02) The applicant, Ahmet Gemici, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). At the relevant time he was the chairman of the local branch of the Labour Party (EMEP) on the premises of which the police seized copies of a party magazine whose distribution or sale had been banned. The applicant complains about that ban and about his subsequent conviction without a public hearing. He relies on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Kadiroğlu v. Turkey (no. 33634/04) The applicant, Turgay Kadiroğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Samsun (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) he complains about the length of proceedings that resulted in his acquittal.   Keş v. Turkey (no. 17174/03) The applicant, Mustafa Keş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Simav (Turkey). In 2002 he was convicted by an Assize Court for drug possession and trafficking as a member of a gang and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and a fine. He complains that certain witnesses were not examined. He also alleges that he was not given access to the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and 6   §   3 (d) (right to examine witnesses).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Dobranici v. Romania (no. 27448/02) Giuglan and Others v. Romania (no. 3834/04) Predescu v. Romania (no. 21447/03) All the applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Predescu they also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ardıçoğlu v. Turkey (no. 23249/04) The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Aydoğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 41967/02) The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).     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.   Jagiełło v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 8934/05) Krzewski v. Poland (no. 11700/04) Kufel v. Poland (no. 9959/06) Pióro and Łukasik v. Poland (no. 8362/02) Serafin and Others v. Poland (no. 51123/07) Śliwa v. Poland (no. 10265/06) Aziz Aydın Arslan v. Turkey (no. 28353/02) Erdal Çalişkan v. Turkey (no. 36062/04)     Thursday 4 December 2008   Marangos v. Cyprus (no. 12846/05) The applicant, Stavros Marangos, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1959 and lives in Nicosia. He is currently an employee of the Republic of Cyprus’ Statistical Service. The case concerns his complaint about being denied legal aid in administrative proceedings in which he contested the refusal of his applications to be appointed elsewhere in the civil service. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court).   Husák v. Czech Republic (no. 19970/04) The applicant, Karel Husák, is a Czech national who was born in 1967 and lives in Zvole (Czech Republic). At the time his application was lodged, he was detained in the remand prison of Brno-Bohunice. In June 2003 he was arrested and remanded in custody on fraud charges. His applications for release were dismissed, as were his appeals. Before the Constitutional Court he complained, unsuccessfully, about the lack of a personal hearing in the proceedings concerning his release. He relies in particular on Article   5   §   4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   Dogru v. France (no. 27058/05) Kervanci v. France (no. 31645/04) The applicants, Belgin Dogru and Esma-Nur Kervanci are French nationals who were born in 1987 and 1986 respectively and live in Flers (France). They are practising Muslims. They complain about their final exclusion from the school they had been attending as a result of wearing a headscarf during physical education and sports classes. They rely on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and on Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 (right to education).   Adam v. Germany (no. 44036/02) The applicants are three German nationals: Eberhard Adam, his wife, Hiltrud Adam, who were both born in 1940 and live in Güstrow (Berlin); and, their son, Henri Adam, who was born in 1968 and lives in Berlin. The case concerns, in particular, the applicants’ complaint about the excessive length of two sets of child access proceedings with regard to Henri Adam’s son, born in March 1995. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Chrysoula Aggelopoulou v. Greece (no. 30293/05) The applicant, Chrysoula Aggelopoulou, is a Greek national who was born in 1939 and lives in Athens. She complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings for defamation which resulted in her acquittal. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Reveliotis v. Greece (no. 48775/06) The applicant, Dimitrios Reveliotis, is a Greek national who was born in 1923 and lives in Athens. He retired in 1982. He complains that the amount of his pension that was readjusted in 1997 and 1998 was not payable until July 1999 onwards. He relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (no. 3026/03) Askharova v. Russia (no. 13566/02) Bersunkayeva v. Russia (no. 27233/03) Ilyasova and Others v. Russia (no. 1895/04) Musikhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 27243/03) Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 20580/04) The applicants in the first case are four Russian nationals: Madina Bilalovna Akhmadova, born in 1954; Magomad Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1979; Kazbek Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1982; and, Turpal Musayevich Akhmadov born in 1984. They live in Grozny (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and children of Musa Mausurovich Akhmadov who has not been seen since he was detained at a military checkpoint on 6   March 2002.   The applicant in the second case is Larisa Askharova, a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in the village, Serzhen-Yurt (Chechen Republic). She has had no news of her husband, Sharani Askharov, born in 1956, since he was taken away from their home on 18   May 2001 by armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks.   The applicant in the third case is Raisa Shamayevna Bersunkayeva, a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). She has had no news of her son, Artur Bersunkayev, born in 1979, since he was taken away from the family home on 13   June 2001 by armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks.   The applicants in the fourth case are four Russian nationals: Mingi Khalidovna Ilyasova, born in 1952; Ayub Abubakarovich Ilyasov, born in 1973; Markha Abubakarovna Ilyasova, born in 1975; and, Maret Abubakarovna Ilyasova, born in 1978. They live in Mesker-Yurt (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, brother and sisters of Adam Abubakarovich Ilyasov, born in 1983, who has not been seen since he was taken away from the family home on 15   November 2002 by armed men wearing masks and uniforms.   The applicants in the fifth case are 11 Russian nationals: Yakhita Ibragimovna Musikhanova, born in 1951; Vakha Idisovich Musikhanov, born in 1949; Luiza Iznorovna Umysheva (Musikhanova), born in 1975; Markha Vakhidovna Musikhanova, born in 1995; Seda Vakhidovna Musikhanova, born in 1997; Nokha Vakhidovich Musikhanov, born in 2001; Naib Vakhidovich Musikhanov, born in 2002; Asiyat Idisovna Musikhanova, born in 1953; Valid Vakhayevich Musikhanov, born in 1980; Roman Vakhayevich Musikhanov; born in 1983; and, Timur Vakhayevich Musikhanov, born in 1986. They live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the parents, wife, children, brothers and aunt of Vakhid Musikhanov, born in 1976, who has not been seen since he was taken away from the family home on 9   November 2002 by armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks.   The applicants in the sixth case are seven Russian nationals: Zaynap Zhazhayevna Tagirova, born in 1950; Taus Daudovich Tagirov, born in 1950; Musa Tausovich Tagirov, born in 1982; Zarema Abdullayevna Tagirova, born in 1983; Madina Tausovna Tagirova, born in 1983; Milana Tausovna Tagirova, born in 1981; and, Ratkha Tausovna Tagirova, born in 1972. They live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the parents, wife, brother and sisters of Movsar Tausovich Tagirov, born in 1978, who has not been seen since he was taken away from the family home on 7   February 2003 by armed men wearing camouflage uniforms.   All the applicants allege that their relatives disappeared after being detained 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). All the applicants, except in the cases of Ilyasova and Others v. Russia and Tagirova and Others v. Russia , also rely on Article   38   §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Bakhitov v. Russia (no. 4026/03) The applicant, Nikolay Khayrullovich Bakhitov, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence in the Ryazan region (Russia) for, in particular, murder and robbery. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Belashev v. Russia (Nº 28617/03) The applicant, Vladimir Ilyich Belashev, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lived in Moscow until his arrest in April 1998 on suspicion of participating in the bombings of two statues of the Tsars Nicholas II and Peter the Great. He was subsequently convicted of, in particular, terrorism and unlawful production of weapons and explosive devices and sentenced to 11   years’ imprisonment, reduced by six months on appeal in February 2003. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains, in particular, about his appalling conditions of detention for approximately one year in a detention facility in Moscow. He also complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and the lack of a public hearing in his case, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Gandaloyeva v. Russia (no. 14800/04) The applicant is a Russian national, Lyuba Gandaloyeva, who was born in 1942 and lives in Achkhoy-Martin (Chechnya). The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that her husband, Alaudin Ayubovich Gandaloyev, born in 1938, was killed by Russian servicemen on 17   September 2003 in woods where he had worked as a forester since 2003 and that the Russian authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegation. She relies, in particular, on Articles   2 (right to life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Umayeva v. Russia (no. 1200/03) The applicant is a Russian national, Lipatu Makhmudovna Umayeva, who was born in 1959 and lives in Grozny. In October 1999 hostilities resumed between Russian forces and Chechen armed groups and Grozny came under heavy aerial and artillery bombardment. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that on 23   January 2000 she and a group of other civilians, who were tying to leave the fighting through what they had been told was a humanitarian corridor, came under attack; the applicant received several shell and bullet wounds. The applicant claims that she was wounded by the Russian military and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the attack.   She relies, in particular, on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 34 (right of individual petition) and   38   §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Trofimov v. Russia (no. 1111/02) The applicant, Gennadiy Mikhaylovich Trofimov, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Apatity (Russia). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the domestic courts’ failure to secure the attendance of a prosecution witness at his trial on charges of drug trafficking for which he was convicted and sentenced to 11   years and three months’ imprisonment. He relies on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial).   Y. v. Russia (no. 20113/07) The applicants are Mr Y., a Chinese national, who was born in 1934, and, his wife, a Russian national, who was born in 1951. Both applicants lived in St.   Petersburg (Russia) until Mr   Y., his asylum requests refused, was deported to China in May 2007. The applicants allege in particular that, as a follower of the Falun Gong movement, Mr   Y. was put at real risk of persecution following his removal to China. Mrs   Y. further complains about her husband’s deportation given his medical condition at the time; he had suffered from a stroke and allegedly could not move without assistance. She has had little contact with her husband since his deportation. They rely on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life),   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Chistyakov v. Russia (no. 41395/04) Gorbunov v. Russia (no. 9593/06) Lyudmila Dubinskaya v. Russia (no. 5271/05) Magomedov v. Russia (no. 20111/03) Mozhayeva v. Russia (no. 26759/03) Roman Ponomarev v. Russia (no. 31105/05) Semochkin v. Russia (Nº 3885/04) Siverin v. Russia (no. 24664/02) Tishkevich v. Russia (no. 2202/05) Trufanova v. Russia (no. 11756/06) Voronin v. Russia (no. 40543/04) Yevdokiya Kuznetsova v. Russia (no. 8355/07) 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 Siverin also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Examiliotis v. Greece ( No. 3) (no. 44132/06)     *** 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.