CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 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 } .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   916 12.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   16 and 18 December 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 28 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 16 December 2008 and 23 on Thursday 18 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 16 December 2008   Gulijev v. Lithuania (application no. 10425/03) The applicant, Ibrahim Gulijev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1971 and lives in Biedermansdorf (Austria). His wife and two children are Lithuanian citizens and live in Lithuania. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Gulijev complains about his expulsion from Lithuania to Azerbaijan.   Levinţa v. Moldova (no. 17332/03) The applicants, Vitalie Levinţa, and his brother, Pavel Levinţa, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1971 and 1974 respectively and live in Cahul (Moldova). In October 2000 the brothers were arrested in Russia on suspicion of murder and membership of a criminal gang. They were handed over to the Moldovan police and flown to Moldova on 3 November 2000. The applicants allege in particular that they were ill-treated by the Moldovan authorities in order to extract confessions from them and, when necessary and requested, were not given sufficient medical assistance; that their complaints regarding that ill-treatment were not properly investigated; that they were convicted on the basis of incriminating evidence obtained as a result of ill-treatment; and, that the rights of the defence had not been observed, notably concerning contact with their lawyers. They rely on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Năvoloacă v. Moldova (no. 25236/02) The applicant, Ştefan Năvoloacă, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1968 and lives in Singerei (Moldova). Acquitted of murder at first instance in 2001, Mr Năvoloacă complains about his subsequent conviction by the Supreme Court of Justice without a re-hearing of the case. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Frankowicz v. Poland (no. 53025/99) The applicant, Ryszard Frankowicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Tarnów (Poland). He is a gynaecologist and President of the Association for the Protection of the Rights of Patients in Poland. The case concerns disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicant for a report he had prepared on the treatment of a patient in which he was critical of another doctor. He was sanctioned by the Medical Court and given a reprimand. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Kaleta v. Poland (no. 11375/02) The applicant, Anton Kaleta, is a German national who was born in 1948 and lives in Taufkirchen (Germany). He has a daughter, M., born in 1989 of whom his ex-wife was awarded parental rights by the Polish courts in June 1995; he was granted visiting rights. The case concerns Mr Kaleta’s allegation that the Polish authorities have failed to enforce his right of contact with his daughter. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Pawlak v. Poland (no. 46887/06) The applicant, Leszek Pawlak, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Lublin (Poland).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the length – which he alleges was excessive – of criminal proceedings brought against him for extorsion with the use of violence and the threatened use of a firearm.   Rupa v. Romania (no. 58478/00) The applicant, Vili Rupa, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Hunedoara (Romania). Mr Rupa alleges, in particular, that he was ill-treated when arrested by the police in January and March 1998, and that he was twice detained in inhuman and degrading physical conditions in Hunedoara and Deva police stations. He also complains of both the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations and the lack of an effective remedy by which to obtain compensation for the ill-treatment suffered. He complains, further, of the unlawfulness and length of his pre-trial detention, the unfairness and length of the proceedings which led to his conviction and an infringement of his right to respect for his home. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 34 (right of individual application).   Sergiu Popescu v. Romania (no. 4234/04) The applicant, Sergiu Popescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Ploieşti (Romania). Mr Popescu complains that a final judgment by which he had been acquitted was quashed on an application lodged by the Procurator General, and that he was subsequently given a one-year suspended prison sentence for making a false statement. He relies, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).   Vlahović v. Serbia (no. 42619/04) The applicant, Dragan Vlahović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Niš (Serbia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant complains about non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour with regard to salary arrears.   Bazo González v. Spain (no. 30643/04) The applicant, José Félix Bazo González, is a Spanish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Trujillanos-Badajoz (Spain). Mr Bazo González complains, among other things, of the lack of a public hearing before the appeal court in criminal proceedings brought against him for attempted smuggling and at the end of which he was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Khurshid Mustafa and Tarzibachi v. Sweden (no. 23883/06) The applicants, Adnan Khurshid Mustafa, and his wife, Weldan Tarzibachi, are Swedish nationals of Iraqi origin, who were born in 1957 and 1963 respectively and live in Västerås (Sweden). Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain that they were forced to move from their rented flat in Rinkeby (a suburb of Stockholm) in June 2006 because they refused to remove a satellite dish.   Ataş and Seven v. Turkey (no. 26893/02) The applicants, Mukadder Ataş and Süheyla Seven, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977 and 1978 respectively and live in Batman (Turkey). The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that they were tortured and raped by the security forces following their arrest in September 1998 on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). The also allege that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They rely in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Revision Davut Miçooğullari v. Turkey (no. 6045/03) The applicant, Davut Miçooğulları, is a Turkish national who was born in 1928 and lives in Tur (Turkey).   In a judgment of 24 May 2007 the Court had held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) because the applicant had received no compensation following the transfer of a plot of land belonging to him to the State, and of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). It had also awarded the applicant 30,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR   900 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   500 for costs and expenses.   The Turkish Government request the revision of the judgment by the Court on the ground that on 5 December 2006 part of the applicant’s property had been registered in his name in the land register.   Dedeman v. Turkey (no. 12248/03) The applicant, Nazire Dedeman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul. She complains of the length – which she alleges was excessive – of criminal proceedings brought against her for defamation through the press. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Samatya Surp Kevork Ermeni Kilisesi, Mektebi Ve Mezarlığı Vakfı Yönetim Kurulu v. Turkey (no. 1480/03) Yedikule Surp Pirgic Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfı v. Turkey (no. 36165/02) The applicants, Samatya Surp Kevork Ermeni Kilisesi, Mektebi Ve Mezarlığı Vakfı Yönetim Kurulu ( The Board of Governors of the Samatya Surp Kevork Armenian Church, School and Cemetery ) and Yedikule Surp Pırgiç Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfı ( Foundation for the Armenian Hospital in Yedikule ), are foundations under Turkish law that were established by Imperial Decree in 1832 under the Ottoman Empire. The charter of both foundations complies with the provisions of the Lausanne Treaty affording protection to foundations that provide public services for religious minorities. The applicants complain of decisions of the Turkish courts setting aside their title to property they had acquired by donation on the ground that their charter did not give them the right to acquire immovable property. They rely, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Sousa Carvalho Seabra v. Portugal (no. 25025/05) The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Postolache v. Romania (no. 24171/02) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Terzioğlu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 16858/05, 23953/05, 34841/05, 37166/05, 19638/06 and 17654/07) The applicants rely in particular 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.   Chmielecka v. Poland (no. 19171/03) Ludwiczak v. Poland (no. 31748/06) Poznańska v. Poland (no. 822/05) Zakrzewska v. Poland (no. 49927/06) Stanković v. Serbia (no. 29907/05) Softel spol. s r.o. v. Slovakia (No. 1) (no. 32427/06) Softel spol. s r.o. v. Slovakia (No. 2) (no. 32836/06) Dokdemir and Others v. Turkey (nos. 44031/04, 44045/04, 44050/04, 44053/04, 44105/04, 44108/04, 44111/04, 44112/04, 44123/04, 44131/04, 44133/04, 44194/04, 44197/04, 44199/04, 45260/04 and 45283/04) Mehmet Ali Kaplan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 3224/05, 4884/05, 9504/05, 9545/05, 9568/05, 9600/05, 9658/05, 9695/05, 9720/05 and 13516/05)     Thursday 18 December 2008   Richter v. Austria (no. 4490/06) The applicant, Richard Richter, is an Austrian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Wolfurt (Austria). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr Richter complains about the length and unfairness of proceedings concerning his complaint that the ramp of an underground car park failed to comply with the statutory distance from his property.   Saccoccia v. Austria (no. 69917/01) The applicant, Stephen Anthony Saccoccia, is a national of the United States of America who was born in 1958 and is currently serving a 660-year prison sentence in the United States for large-scale money laundering. In the context of those criminal proceedings, the Austrian courts decided to take over the execution of a final forfeiture order issued by a United States court in respect of Mr Saccoccia’s Austrian assets, amounting to 80,000,000   Austrian   schillings (approximately 5,800,000   euros   (EUR)). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains about the lack of a public hearing concerning the execution of the forfeiture order in Austria. Further relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he alleges that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property has been infringed.   Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 28736/05) The applicants are ten Azerbaijani nationals. In   May 2003 they founded “Azerbaijani Lawyers Forum”, a non-profit organisation. Relying in particular on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association), they complain about the significant delay in the state registering their association.   Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan (no. 35877/04) The applicants, Rovshan Asgar oglu Mahmudov and Yashar Vaqif oglu Agazade, are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1961 and 1979 respectively and live in Baku (Azerbaijan). They were the editor and a journalist for the newspaper, Müxalifət. Relying in particular on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain about their conviction and sentencing to five months’ imprisonment for defamation of a prominent politician and well-known expert on agriculture on account of their publication of an article concerning problems in Azerbaijan’s agricultural sector.   Unédic v. France (no. 20153/04) The applicant, A.G.S. Unédic, is an association that manages an insurance scheme for salary claims. Its registered office is in Paris. It complains of the retroactive reversal of case-law of the Court of Cassation, particularly its application of a new rule to a situation that existed prior to its own departure from precedent. The applicant association relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Vaillant v. France (no. 30609/04) The applicant, Philippe Vaillant, is a French national who was born in 1959 and lives in Nancy (France). He is a dental surgeon. The case concerns proceedings instituted following a complaint against him brought before the Social Insurance Division of the National Council of the Dental Surgeons Association ( l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes ). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains of the lack of impartiality and independence of that division.   Nerattini v. Greece (no. 43529/07) The applicant, Gianni Nerattini, is an Italian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Samos (Greece). Relying on Article   6   §   2 (presumption of innocence), Mr Nerattini complains that his indictment in 2007 on drug-related charges also stated that he was guilty of misappropriation of antiquities even though he had not been formally accused or tried for such acts. He also alleges that his pre-trial detention was not necessary, in breach of Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Brovchenko v. Russia (no. 1603/02) The applicant, Sergey Vasilyevich Brovchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. Arrested on suspicion of drug dealing, Mr Brovchenko was remanded in custody in May 1997; he was released in January 2004 pending trial. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to six years and seven months’ imprisonment, upheld on appeal. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him. He relies on Article   5   §§ 1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Kazakov v. Russia (no. 1758/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Nikolayevich Kazakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Karachev (Russia). He is a former military officer. Relying in particular on Article   10 (freedom of expression), he complains that he was found liable for defamation following his letter of complaint about a military unit commander, ordered to pay damages and make a written apology.   Nasukhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 5285/04) The applicants are six Russian nationals: Zara Khasanovna Nasukhanova, born in 1954; Magomed Dulayevich Kasumov, born in 1936; Razet Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1976; Luiza Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1981; Kristina Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1984; and, Kamila Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1982. They live in Pervomayskaya (Chechen Republic). They are the parents and sisters of Ruslan Magomedovich Kasumov, born in 1974, who has not been seen since the early hours of 3   February 2003 when he was taken away from a relative’s house by armed men wearing camouflage uniforms. Relying 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), the applicants allege that Ruslan Kasumov disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations.   Aybabin v. Ukraine (no. 23194/02) The applicant, Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Aybabin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence in Zhovti Vody Prison (Ukraine) for murder. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Aybabin complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Kats and Others v. Ukraine (no. 29971/04) The applicants are three Ukrainian nationals: Oleg Volodymyrovych Kats and his wife, Tetiana Volodymirivna Kats, both born in 1946, and their grandson, Stanislav Igorevich Biliak, born in 1993. They all live in Kyiv. They are the parents and son of Olga Olegivna Biliak, born in 1971, who died in pre-trial detention in February 2004. At the time of her arrest on charges of robbery, she was a registered schizophrenic and infected with HIV. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants allege in particular that the Ukrainian authorities were responsible for their relative’s death as they had failed to provide her with adequate medical care during her detention.   Lutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 30663/04) The applicant, Stanislav Nikolayevich Lutsenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Makiyivka (Ukraine). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr   Lutsenko complains that he was convicted of murder and unlawful possession of firearms on the basis of statements made by his co-accused during the pre-trial investigation, which were then retracted as they had allegedly been made under duress.   Novik v. Ukraine (no. 48068/06) The applicant, Valeriy Valeryevich Novik, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Kyiv. The case concerns Mr Novik’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention from 30   November to 27   December   2006 pending extradition to Belarus. He relies on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security).   Saviny v. Ukraine (no. 39948/06) The applicants, Sergiy Leonidovych Savin, and his wife, Valentyna Oleksandrivna Savina, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1956 respectively and live in Romny (Ukraine). They have both been blind since childhood. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complain in particular about a decision of December 2004 to place their three children, born in 1991, 1998 and 2001, in public care.   Ukhan v. Ukraine (no. 30628/02) The applicant, Ivan Dmytrovych Ukhan, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Nekhvoroshch (Ukraine). Convicted in 1997 of inflicting grievous bodily harm and released on probation in June 2003, Mr Ukhan was re-arrested in October 2003 on suspicion of hooliganism. He was subsequently convicted of that charge and sentenced to six and half years’ imprisonment. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the conditions of his detention in the various penitentiaries in which he was held during those periods of detention and that he was ill-treated in police custody when re-arrested in October 2003.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Igor Kolyada v. Russia (no. 19097/04) Kotlyarov v. Russia (no. 750/02) Sladkov v. Russia (no. 13979/03) Veselyashkin and Veselyashkina v. Russia (no. 5555/06) Ziabreva v. Russia (no. 23567/06) Samoylenko and Polonska v. Ukraine (no. 6566/05) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Sladkov the applicants also rely 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.   Dimitrievski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 26602/02)     *** 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.