CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 janvier 2009

.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 } .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   001 6.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   8 January 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 50 Chamber judgments on Thursday 8 January 2009.   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 ).     Myashev v. Bulgaria (application no. 43428/02) The applicant, Ivan Krastev Myashev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Mr Myashev was placed under investigation for illegal possession of firearms in July 1993. He was found guilty and sentenced in 2004 to payment of a fine. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains of the excessive length of the proceedings against him.   Shishmanov v. Bulgaria (no. 37449/02) The applicant, Anton Marinov Shishmanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). In November 1997 he was found guilty of issuing death threats against two persons and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. He was taken to Plovdiv Prison in July 2000 in order to serve his sentence. The applicant, who suffers from diabetes, complains of the poor conditions of detention in the prison and of the lack of appropriate medical treatment and an appropriate diet. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Valkov v. Bulgaria (no. 72636/01) The applicant, Minyo Georgiev Valkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Yambol (Bulgaria). Mr Valkov was head of the criminal investigation department of the Yambol regional police directorate. In January 1996 he was placed under investigation for misuse of official authority and forgery and was suspended from his post with suspension of salary. In November 2006, the criminal proceedings against him were still pending at the preliminary investigation stage. The applicant complains of the excessive length of the proceedings and the fact that he has been unable to resign because of the ongoing criminal proceedings. He relies on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Siničić v. Croatia (no. 25803/05) The applicant, Luka Siničić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Nova Kapela (Croatia). The case concerns Mr   Siničić’s complaint about the lengthy non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour which ordered his lorry, forfeited in the context of a criminal complaint against him for theft, to be returned to him. He also complains that the civil proceedings were unfair and that he could not use his vehicle for a prolonged period of time. 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).   Leonidis v. Greece (no. 43326/05 The applicant, Grigorios Leonidis, is a Greek national of Russian-Pontic origin who was born in 1952 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece). His son, Nikolaos Leonidis, 18 years old at the time, was killed on 25   March 2000 when, out with friends in Thessaloniki, he was given chase by a plain clothes police officer who wanted to carry out an identity check; on immobilising him the officer’s gun went off, instantly killing him. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), the applicant alleges that the police officer used excessive firepower and that the Greek authorities failed to carry out an adequate, effective and prompt investigation into the incident.   Panou v. Greece (no. 44058/05) Patsouris v. Greece (no. 44062/05) The applicants, Eleni Panou and Dimitrios Patsouris, are Greek nationals who were born in 1960 and 1952 respectively and live in Athens. The two cases concern criminal proceedings brought against the applicants, who were police officers at the relevant time, for falsification of an official document in Mrs Panou’s case and for carrying out construction work in breach of the terms of a building permit in the case of Mr Patsouris. The applicants were sentenced at first instance to suspended terms of six and five months’ imprisonment respectively, and lodged appeals. However, by virtue of a law enacted subsequently, the time allowed for enforcement of their sentences expired and the cases were closed. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complain, in particular, that they were deprived of the right to request re ‑ examination of their cases by a higher court and must therefore continue to bear the stigma of guilt.   Aupek v. Hungary (no. 15482/05) The applicant, Gábor Aupek, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Ercsi (Hungary). The case concerns Mr   Aupek’s complaint about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in 1998 for negligent driving. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Alekseyenko v. Russia (no. 74266/01) The applicant, Aleksandr Borisovich Alekseyenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Trudovoy (Russia). In 1996 Mr   Alekseyenko was arrested on charges of in particular possession of explosives and murder. In July 1997 he was found guilty of all charges and sentenced to 15   years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains about the fact that he was not notified of and therefore could not attend the subsequent supervisory review hearing of his case. He also alleges that the prison authorities censored his correspondence and that the authorities tried to put pressure on him to withdraw his case before the Strasbourg Court, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence) and Article   34 (right of individual petition).   Abdulkadyrova and Others v. Russia (no. 27180/03) Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia (no. 13670/03) Dangayeva and Taramova v. Russia (no. 1896/04) Dzhamayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 43170/04) Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 27251/03) Zakriyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 20583/04) The applicants in the first case are four Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and children of Ayndi Aliyevich Dzhabayev, born in 1967, who has not been seen since September 2002.   The applicants in the second case are 11 Russian nationals who live in Staryye Atagi (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of nine men who have not been seen since March 2002. Five of the men’s burnt bodies were found and identified two years later.   The applicants in the third case are two Russian nationals who live in Grozny (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and sister of Saidkhasan Khasmagamedovich Dangayev, born in 1948, who was shot and killed in the courtyard of his home in October 2002.   The applicants in the fourth case are four Russian nationals who live in Staryye Atagi (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, sisters and son of Ismail Issayevich Dzhamayev, born in 1981, who has not been seen since March 2002.   The applicants in the fifth case are seven Russian nationals; all but one live in Chechen-Aul (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of six men who disappeared from their village in October and November 2002; the bodies of all six men were subsequently found with signs of a violent death.   The applicants in the sixth case are eight Russian nationals who live in Achkhoy-Martan and Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, wife, children and brothers of Aslanbek Esikovich Khamzayev, born in 1974, who has allegedly not been seen since June 2002 when he was stopped at a Russian military checkpoint.   All the applicants allege that, during security operations carried out in Chechnya in 2002, their relatives were detained by Russian servicemen and subsequently disappeared or were killed. They also claim that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They all rely in particular on Articles   2 (right to life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Barabanshchikov v. Russia (no. 36220/02) The applicant, Vladimir Aleksandrovich Barabanshchikov, is a Rusian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Terbuny (Russia). Mr   Barabanshchikov alleges that he was severely beaten by police officers when arrested in August 2001 on suspicion of using counterfeit money and that the ensuing investigation into his complaints was inadequate. He relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Khudyakova v. Russia (no. 13476/04) The applicant, Svetlana Nikolayevna Khudyakova, was born in 1971 in Kazakhstan. She moved to Russia in October 1997 and currently resides in Petrozavodsk. The case concerns Ms   Khudyakova’s complaint in particular about the unlawfulness of her detention for 14   months with a view to her extradition from Russia to Kazakhstan, where she faced charges of large-scale fraud. She was released in October 2004; the extradition request has since been refused. She relies on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Kuimov v. Russia (no. 32147/04) The applicant, Sergey Aleksandrovich Kuimov, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Kirov (Russia). The case concerns Mr   Kuimov’s complaint that he was denied access to his adoptive daughter, born in 1997 and suffering from acute encephalomyelitis, following her placement by the authorities in December 2003 in intensive care and subsequently in foster care. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Laryagin and Aristov v. Russia (nos. 38697/02 and 14711/03) The applicants, Sergey Vasilyevich Laryagin and Vyacheslav Viktorovich Aristov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1969 and 1967 respectively and are currently serving prison sentences. The case concerns, in particular, their complaint that the trial court in their case had not been a tribunal established by law because it had been composed in breach of domestic regulations. They rely, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). Mr   Laryagin also relies on Article 6 §§1 and   3   (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   Obukhova v. Russia (no. 34736/03) The applicant, Yelena Mikhaylovna Obukhova, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Yaroslavl (Russia). She is a journalist for the newspaper, Solotoye Koltso . Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), she complains in particular that, following defamation proceedings concerning an article she had published about a judge’s involvement in a road traffic accident, she was prohibited from publishing any further information about the incident.   Golf de Extremadura S.A. v. Spain (no. 1518/04) The applicant, Golf de Extremadura S.A., is a company with its registered office in Badajoz (Spain). The applicant company complains, in particular, that the way in which the Supreme Court construed the provisions governing appeals on points of law deprived it of the right of access to a court in the context of proceedings concerning a building development project. It relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Iribarren Pinillos v. Spain (no. 36777/03) The applicant, Mikel Iribarren Pinillos, is a Spanish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Pamplona (Spain). The case concerns the serious injuries sustained by the applicant when he was hit by a smoke bomb thrown by riot police during violent clashes in Pamplona in December 1991. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of an effective investigation), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Mangouras v. Spain (no. 12050/04) The applicant, Apostolos Ioannis Mangouras, is a Greek national who was born in 1935 and lives in Greece. Mr Mangouras was captain of the ship Prestige which, while travelling off the Spanish coast in November 2002, spilled the 70,000 tonnes of fuel it was carrying after a leak developed in its hull. The applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention for an offence against the environment and natural resources and for failing to comply with the instructions of the administrative authorities. The order for his detention specified that he could be released against payment of a security of three million euros. The security was paid in February 2003 and he was subsequently given leave to return to Greece. Relying on Article   5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that the amount of the security he was required to pay by the Spanish authorities was disproportionate.   Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (no. 41615/07) The first applicant, Isabelle M. Neulinger, is a Swiss national who was born in 1959. She is the mother of the second applicant, Noam Shuruk, who was born in 2003 in Tel Aviv (Israel) as a result of her relationship with an Israeli national. The applicants have been living in Lausanne (Switzerland) since June 2005, when Ms Neulinger decided to leave Israel secretly with her son. The applicants complain of the decision of the Swiss Federal Court ordering the child to be returned to Israel. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Schlumpf v. Switzerland (no. 29002/06) The applicant, Nadine Schlumpf, is a Swiss national who was born in 1937 and lives in Aarau (Switzerland). Having been registered at birth as a male under the name Max Schlumpf, the applicant underwent gender reassignment surgery in November 2004. The case concerns the decision by the applicant’s medical insurer not to assume the cost of her sex-change operation because the operation had been performed before expiry of the two-year observation period established by the case-law of the Federal Insurance Court. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Petkoski and Others v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 27736/03) The applicants are six Macedonian nationals, Cvetko Risteski and Stojan Avramoski, both now deceased, Dosta Simonoska, Petkoski Krste, Blagoja Klimoski and Risto Koleski. They all claimed to be members and founders of the agricultural cooperative Rasanec. The case concerns in particular the applicants’ complaint that they were denied access to a court in proceedings in which they requested that a decision to restructure the cooperative be annulled. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Akpolat v. Turkey (no. 35561/06) The applicant, Mehmet Akpolat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Turkey for having participated in activities of an illegal organisation, the PKK (The Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Akpolat complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against him.   Filiz Uyan v. Turkey (no. 7496/03) The applicant, Filiz Uyan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and at the relevant time was serving a 22-year prison sentence in Buca Prison, İzmir (Turkey) for membership of a terrorist organisation. The case concerns Ms   Uyan’s allegation that she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment because she was not allowed to have a gynaecological examination without her handcuffs being removed and without the presence of three male security officers. She relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Kesikkulak v. Turkey (no. 7263/04) The applicant, Ahmet Kesikkulak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Gebze (Turkey). Mr Kesikkulak was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention in February 1997 on suspicion of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. The criminal proceedings against him are currently pending. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   Bullen and Soneji v. United Kingdom (no. 3383/06) The applicants, David Frederick Bullen and Kamlesh Kumar Soneji, are British nationals who were born in 1946 and 1962 respectively, and live in London. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the length of   confiscation proceedings against them for money laundering. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Grant v. United Kingdom (no. 10606/07) The applicant, Joseph Nikita Grant, is a Jamaican national who was born in Jamaica in 1960. He moved to the United Kingdom in 1974. The case concerns his complaint about being deported to Jamaica in November 2007 after a long history of offending, including robbery and drug offences. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Sotira v. Italy (no. 16508/05) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Călinescu v. Romania (no. 8780/04) Cernescu and Manolache v. Romania (no. 28607/04) Constantinescu Elena and Others v. Romania (no. 28584/04) Gherase v. Romania (no. 16890/04) Pascanu v. Romania (no. 41819/05) Sersescu v. Romania (no. 10230/05) The applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the cases of Constantinescu Elena and Others and Sersescu , the applicants also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Gavriş v. Romania (no. 13480/03) The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Rusen v. Romania (no. 38151/05) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Kondrashov and Others v. Russia (nos. 2068/03, 2076/03, 5224/03, 5385/03, 5414/03 and 5656/03) Kulkov and Others v. Russia (nos. 25114/03, 11512/03, 9794/05, 37403/05, 13110/06, 19469/06, 42608/06, 44928/06, 44972/06 and 45022/06) The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   M. Ali Durmaz v. Turkey (no. 22261/03) The applicants rely on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and   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. In the cases of Markova , Dudičová and Umek , the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kustár v. Hungary (no. 42260/05) Markova v. Russia (no. 13119/03) Rypakova v. Russia (no. 16004/04) Dudičová v. Slovakia (no. 15592/03) Umek v. Slovenia (no. 35463/02) Kangova v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 17010/04) Hasefe v. Turkey (no. 25580/03)     *** Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.