CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .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   021 14.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   15 January 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 24 Chamber judgments on Thursday 15 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 ).   Georgi Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 31365/02) The applicant, Georgi   Borisov   Dimitrov , is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Sofia . He was arrested and taken into police custody in May 2001 on suspicion of fraud. He was released in August 2004 after serving a term of imprisonment. Relying on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleges that he was beaten by police officers while in custody in May   2001. He also complains of the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.   ** ** **   Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia (no. 46598/06) The applicants are Branko Tomašić, his wife, Ðurđa Tomašić, and their children, Marko Tomašić, Tomislav Tomašić and Ana Tomašić. They are Croatian nationals who were born in 1956, 1963, 1985, 1995 and 2001 respectively and live in Čakovec (Croatia). The applicants are the relatives of M.T. and her child, V.T., born in March 2005, who were both killed in August 2006 by M. M., V.T.’s father. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain that Croatia failed to take adequate measures in order to protect M.T. and V.T., despite M.M.’s numerous public death-threats against them over a considerable period of time.   Ćosić v. Croatia (no. 28261/06) The applicant, Katarina Ćosić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Požega (Croatia). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for one’s home), she complains that the authorities obliged her to vacate the flat in which she had been living for more than 18 years.   Charalambides v. Cyprus (no. 37885/04) The applicant, Michael Charalambides, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1951 and lives in Moutoullas (Cyprus). In 1998, criminal proceedings were brought against him on charges of forgery and obtaining funds through misrepresentation. In November 2002 he was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of the proceedings against him and claims that on this basis he should have been discharged or the prison sentence suspended.   Michael Theodossiou Ltd. v. Cyprus (no. 31811/04) The applicant, Michael Theodossiou Ltd, is a Cypriot registered company that was the owner of 4,462   square metres of immovable property located along the seaside in Limassol. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant company complains about the excessive length of expropriation proceedings concerning its property. It also claims that the expropriation proceedings, and the amount of compensation paid to it more than 30 years after they had started, had violated the company’s rights under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Faure v. France (no. 19421/04) The applicant, Thierry Faure, is a French national who was born in 1966 and is currently in prison in Muret (France). He was sentenced in October 2003 to 20 years’ imprisonment for, among other offences, intentional homicide. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Faure alleges that his arrest and detention prior to his conviction did not comply with “a procedure prescribed by law”.   Guillard v. France (no. 24488/04) The applicant, Pierre Guillard, is a French national who was born in 1929 and lives in La Charité sur Loire (France). He is a retired harbourmaster. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that the proceedings concerning his retirement pension were unfair.   Ligue du Monde Islamique and Organisation Islamique Mondiale du Secours Islamique v. France (no. 36497/05) The applicants, the Ligue du monde islamique and the Organisation islamique mondiale du secours islamique , are two Saudi Arabian non-governmental organisations with their registered offices in Makkah Al Mukarramah and Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) respectively. In October 2003 they each lodged a complaint for defamation and applied to join the proceedings as civil parties, following the circulation in France of an article from the Egyptian daily newspaper Sot al Orouba on the subject of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complain of the fact that their complaints were declared inadmissible on the ground that they had not completed the formalities required in order to be allowed to take part in court proceedings in France.   Orban, de Bartillat and Editions Plon v. France (no. 20985/05) The applicants are Olivier Orban and Xavier de Bartillat, two French nationals who were born in 1944 and 1954 respectively and live in Paris, and the company Editions Plon, which has its registered office in Paris. In January 2002 Mr Orban and Mr de Bartillat, chairman and managing director respectively of Editions Plon, were convicted following publication of a book entitled Services Spéciaux Algérie 1955-1957 (Special Services: Algeria 1955-1957), in which a former member of the special services described torture and summary executions carried out during the war in Algeria. Mr Orban and Mr de Bartillat were found guilty of delivering an apologia for war crimes and complicity in that offence and were each ordered to pay a fine of 15,000 euros. They were also ordered, jointly and severally with the applicant company and the book’s author, to pay certain sums to the associations that had joined the proceedings as civil parties seeking damages. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain about their conviction.   Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece (no. 1234/05) The applicants, Dimitrios Reklos and Vassiliki Davourli, are Greek nationals who were born in 1964 and 1967 respectively and live in Athens. They are the parents of Anastasios Reklos, born on 31 March 1997. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private life), the applicants complain of the Greek courts’ dismissal of an action they brought concerning photos of their new-born baby taken in the clinic without their consent. They also complain of the fact that the negatives were kept by the clinic photographer despite the applicants’ request that they be handed over to them.   Abdurzakova and Abdurzakov v. Russia (no. 35080/04) Medova v. Russia (no. 25385/04) The applicants in the first case are two Russian nationals: Taisa Sayd Aliyevna Abdurzakova, born in 1962, and her husband, Khavazh Khozh-Akhmedovich Abdurzakov, born in 1949. They live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the parents of Vakha Khavazhovich Abdurzakov, born in 1981, who has not been seen since he was taken from his home on 25   October 2002 by several armed men.   The applicant in the second case is Zalina Akhmetovna Medova who was born in 1980 and lives in Karabulak, Ingushetia (Russia). In the night of 16   to 17   June 2004, her husband, Adam Medov, born in 1980, called his brother on his mobile phone and said that his car had broken down. In the evening of 17   June 2004, the Medovs were informed that their relative was being detained at the Sunzhenskiy District Department of the Interior. He has not been seen since.   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 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 applicant in the case of Medova also relies on Article   34 (right of individual petition).   Burdov v. Russia (No. 2) (no. 33509/04) The applicant, Anatoliy Tikhonovich Burdov, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Shakhty (Russia). In 1986 he participated in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster and, as a result, suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The domestic courts subsequently awarded him various social benefits. In 2002, in its judgment Burdov v Russia (no. 59498/00), the first of its judgments in respect of the Russian Federation, the European Court of Human Rights found violations of Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 on account of the authorities’ failure for years to take the necessary measures to comply with those domestic court decisions. That judgment was complied with by the Russian Federation and the sums due to the applicant were paid. In this case, the applicant further complains under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) about the authorities’ failure to enforce several new domestic judgments in the applicant’s favour with regard to social benefits.   Menchinskaya v. Russia (no. 42454/02) The applicant, Anna Stefanovna Menchinskaya, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Norilsk (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) she alleges that the principle of equality of arms was infringed in civil proceedings in which she claimed unemployment allowances. She alleges in particular that the prosecutor had participated in those proceedings on the side of the State agency which the applicant was suing.   Oblov v. Russia (no. 22674/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Sergeyevich Oblov, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Sagan-Nur (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for murder.   Sharomov v. Russia (no. 8927/02) The applicant, Vadim Gennadyevich Sharomov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Irkutsk (Russia). In 1999, he was convicted for theft and sentenced to a term in prison. Supervisory review proceedings were applied to his case upon his request. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he was ill-treated while in prison and there had been no effective remedy for it. Relying on Article   6   §§1 and 3 (b) and (c) (right to a fair trial), he claims that the supervisory review proceedings had been unfair, that he had not been brought to some of the hearings, that he had not been able to submit his arguments and that he had not had sufficient time to prepare his defence.   Yudayev v. Russia (no. 40258/03) The applicant, Nikolay Viktorovich Yudayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Rostov (Russia). In March 2003 the applicant was arrested and criminal proceedings brought against him on suspicion of forging payment orders which were used to receive large amounts of diesel fuel. In 2004 he was sentenced to two years in prison subject to three years’ probation period. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that his detention on remand had been unlawful and excessively long and had not been attended by appropriate procedural guarantees.   Association of Citizens “Radko” and Paunkovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 74651/01) The applicants are the Association of Citizens “Radko”, and its Chairman, Boris Paunkovski, a national of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Bulgaria, who was born in 1954 and lives in Ohrid (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). The case concerns the dissolution by the Constitutional Court of the applicant association for being unconstitutional and for inciting national or religious hatred and intolerance. The applicants complain about the Constitutional Court’s decision, claiming that their activities, articles and programme did not advocate violence or the use of anti-democratic or unconstitutional means. They rely on Article 11 (right to freedom of association). Boris Paunkovski further relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression), complaining that the dissolution of the association deprived him of the possibility to express his views on the ethnic origin of parts of the population.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Koprinarovi v. Bulgaria (no. 57176/00) Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that they were deprived of property as a result of its return to its pre-nationalisation owners.   Kozodoyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 2701/04, 3597/04, 11898/04, 31964/04 and 34826/04) Zhuravlev v. Russia (no. 5249/06) Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain about the delayed enforcement of court judgments in their favour.     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.   Holzinger (No. 3) v. Austria (no. 9318/05) Klug v. Austria (no. 33928/05) Argyrou and Others v. Greece (no. 10468/04)     ***   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.