CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 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 } .sC9E58E76 { width:26.63pt; display:inline-block } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .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   013 9.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   13 January 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 47 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 13 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 ).     Amiryan v. Armenia (application no. 31553/03) Gasparyan v. Armenia (no. 35944/03) Sapeyan v. Armenia (no. 35738/03) The applicants are three Armenian nationals: Sargis Amiryan who was born in 1948 and lives in Ashtarak (Armenia); Maksim Gasparyan who was born in 1948 and lives in Yerevan; and, Zhora Sapeyan who was born in 1954 and also lives in Ashtarak. Relying, in particular, on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain about administrative penalties for having participated in unauthorised demonstrations in February 2003.   Taxquet v. Belgium (no. 926/05) The applicant, Richard Taxquet, is a Belgian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Angleur (Belgium). He was accused in 2003 of murdering a government minister and attempting to murder the minister’s partner. He was sentenced in January 2004 to 20 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (right to a fair trial and right to examine witnesses), he complains that he did not have a fair hearing.   Sorvisto v. Finland (no. 19348/04) The applicant, Juha Sorvisto, is a Finnish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Espoo (Finland). Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Sorvisto complains of the excessive length of criminal and civil proceedings against him for notably aggravated fraud. He also relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), complaining about a search of a storage facility during which material containing allegedly privileged information between him and his lawyer was seized.   Aliev v. Georgia (no. 522/04) The applicant, Abdulhamit Aliev, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and has been living in Georgia as a refugee since March 1999. His details were circulated by Interpol and he was arrested by the Georgian authorities in May 2002 under an arrest warrant issued by the Russian authorities. He was released in January 2005. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complains in particular of his conditions of detention in Tbilisi no. 5 Prison and of ill-treatment inflicted on him there.   Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia (no. 37048/04) The applicant, Giorgi Nikolaishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Tbilisi (Georgia). Summoned as a witness in a murder case in which his brother was a suspect, Mr Nikolaishvili complains about the unlawfulness of his ensuing arrest. He alleges in particular that the authorities arrested him in order to oblige his fugitive brother to give himself up to the authorities. He relies on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). Further relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he also complains that his photograph as a “wanted person” was publicly posted in police stations.   Todorova v. Italy (no. 33932/06 The applicant, Temenuzhka Ivanchova Todorova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Bari (Italy). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant, who is the biological mother of twin children, complains of the decision to put them up for adoption taken by the children’s court only 27 days after their birth.   Janusz Dudek v. Poland (no. 39712/05) The applicant, Janusz Dudek, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Częstochowa (Poland). A police officer, Mr Dudek was suspended from duty in 2003 on charges of abuse of power. That suspension was lifted in October 2007 but the investigation remains pending. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of those criminal proceedings against him.   Lewandowski and Lewandowska v. Poland (no. 15562/02) The applicants, Czesław Lewandowski and Danuta Lewandowska, are Polish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1953 respectively and live in Legionowo (Poland). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that their son, Paweł Lewandowski, now deceased, was ill-treated by the police following his arrest in August 2000 when, on an evening out drinking beer, a friend of his had broken a windowpane of a notice board.   Filon v. Poland (no. 39163/06) Lemejda v. Poland (no. 11825/07) Łoś v. Poland (no. 24023/06 The applicants are three Polish nationals: Alicja Fiłon and Halina Maria Łoś were both born in 1952 and live in Józefosław (Poland) and Warsaw, respectively; and, Maciej Lemejda who was born in 1977 and also lives in Warsaw. In June 2003 Alicja Fiłon and Halina Maria Łoś were both detained on suspicion of fraud committed in an organised criminal group. In December 2006 both applicants were released while the criminal proceedings against them were still pending. Maciej Lemejda was detained in July 2004 on suspicion of, in particular, drug trafficking. He was released in 2008 while the criminal proceedings against him were still pending. All three applicants, relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), complain that the length of their detention on remand was excessive.   Mirosław Orzechowski v. Poland (no. 13526/07) The applicant, Mirosław Orzechowski, was born in 1963 and lives in Szydłowiec (Poland). At the relevant time he was unemployed and did not receive benefits. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Orzechowski complains that he was refused legal aid without reasons in a cassation appeal with regard to his claim for compensation against a court bailiff.   Rybacki v. Pol   and (no. 52479/99) The applicant, Andrzej Rybacki, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Włocławek (Poland). Mr Rybacki was detained in May 1996 on charges of aggravated robbery. The applicant was ultimately sentenced in 1999 to a term in prison and a fine. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his detention on remand had been excessive. He also complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) that for a certain period during the investigation he had been unable to communicate with his defence counsel out of earshot of a person appointed by the prosecutor.   Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo v. Portugal (no. 30844/05) The applicants are Francisco Gustavo de Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo, who was born in 1957 and lives in Oeiras (Portugal), and Pedro Miguel de Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo, who was born in 1949 and died in 2007. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they alleged that they had been deprived of land belonging to them without receiving compensation.   Bălăucă v. Romania (no. 23887/03) Bozian v. Romania (no. 8027/03) The applicants Ion Bălăucă and Gheorghe Bozian, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1947 and 1949 respectively and live in Copălău and Iaşi (Romania). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination), they complained that they had been required to pay tax on the allowances they received on retirement.   Faimblat v. Romania (no. 23066/02) The applicants are two Romanian nationals. Solomon Faimblat was born in 1949 and lives in Tulcea (Romania). His sister Salomeia Faimblat, who was born in 1947, died in 2008. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained of the dismissal of their claim for restitution of a nationalised property, which was declared inadmissible on the ground that they had not followed the procedure laid down in Law no.   10/2001 on the legal rules applicable to real property wrongly nationalised between 1945 and 1989.   Crnišanin and Others v. Serbia (nos. 35835/05, 43548/05, 43569/05 and 36986/06) The applicants, Mukadesa Crnišanin, Arifa Hamidović, Milodarka Kostić and Faza Paljevac, are Serbian citizens who were born in 1953, 1957, 1951 and 1955, respectively, and currently live in Novi Pazar (Serbia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about the failure of the state to enforce final court judgments given in their favour concerning monthly paid benefits, insurance and social security contributions.   Açık and Others v. Turkey (no. 31451/03) The applicants, İnci Açık, Rüya Kurtuluş, Serpil Ocak, Erdinç Gök, Ayfer Çiçek, Nuri Günay, Haşim Özgür Ersoy and Murat Kaya, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1980, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1980, 1983, 1978 and 1983 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were students at Istanbul University at the relevant time and members of Istanbul University Students’ Coordination. In October 2002, during the opening ceremony of the University attended by politicians, businessmen and the press, the applicants, who had staged a protest, were forcefully removed from the conference hall by policemen in plain clothes. Beaten and their arms twisted behind their backs, they were dragged to a police station. They rely on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   10 (freedom of expression and information).   Amer v. Turkey (no. 25720/02) The applicant, Yassir Faathelrahman Amer, is a Sudanese-Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and is currently serving a life sentence in a prison in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” for having killed a businessman by slitting his throat in 2001. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention in prison. He also alleges that he was not informed promptly, in a language which he understood, of the reasons for his arrest, in breach of Article 5 § 2 (right to liberty and security). Lastly, he complains in particular about the excessive length of the appeal proceedings in his case and that he was not provided with an interpreter to enable him to understand the accusations against him, in breach of Article   6   §   1 and   3   (e) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Ayhan Erdoğan v. Turkey (no. 39656/03) The applicant, Ayhan Erdoğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Istanbul. He is a practising lawyer. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr   Erdoğan complains that he was ordered to pay compensation to an Istanbul district mayor for having referred to him as “cruel and a bigot” in a petition for a client.   Bozlak and Others v. Turkey (no. 34740/03) The applicants, Murat Bozlak, Bahattin Günel and İsmail Arslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952, 1950 and 1946 respectively and live in Ankara. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complain of the unfairness and excessive length of criminal proceedings against them for membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).   Halıs Akın v. Turkey (no. 30304/02) The applicant, Halis Akın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Van (Turkey). In June 2001 he was injured by shots fired by gendarmes as he was bringing sheep down from their pasture. The related judicial proceedings were discontinued because the Turkish courts found that the gendarmes had acted in accordance with section 11(3) of the Contraband Act (Law no. 1918). Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complains that at the material time the legislation governing the use of firearms in frontier areas was incompatible with the Convention.   Mehmet Cevher İlhan v. Turkey (no. 15719/03) The applicant, Mehmet Cevher İlhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara. At the material time he was the Ankara representative of the daily newspaper Yeni Asya . Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains of of his criminal conviction as a journalist for articles published in Yeni Asya .   Yeter v. Turkey (no. 33750/03) The applicants, Ayşe (Yeter) Yumli, Sırma Yeter, Mustafa Yeter and Dursun Yeter, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1970, 1924, 1955 and 1957 respectively. The first three applicants live in Turkey and the fourth in Austria. They are the wife, mother and brothers of Süleyman Yeter, who was born in 1962 and died on 7   March 1999. Mr Süleyman Yeter was taken into police custody on 5 March 1999 on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. Relying on Articles   2 (right to life) and   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants allege that their relative was tortured to death during his police custody and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegation.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Grosu v. Romania (no. 2611/02) In a judgment of 28 June 2007 the Court held that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision.   Marinescu v. Romania (no. 17955/05) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Nina Kazmina and Others v. Russia (nos. 746/05, 13570/06, 13574/06, 13576/06 and 13579/06 The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Arat and Others v. Turkey (nos. 42894/04, 42904/04, 42905/04, 42906/04, 42907/04, 42908/04, 42909/04 and 42910/04) Berber v. Turkey (no. 20606/04) Gür and Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 473/03) Kemal Kılıç v. Turkey (no. 36424/06) Yavuz Sarıkaya v. Turkey (no. 11098/04) All the applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). With the exception of the applicants in Berber and Gür and Yıldız , they also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Thorne v. United Kingdom (no. 28091/02) The applicant relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) 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.   Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 47628/06) Arkadiusz Kubik v. Poland (no. 45097/05) Górkiewicz v. Poland (no. 41663/04) Kliber v. Poland (no. 11522/03) Makuszewski v. Poland (no. 35556/05) Pelizg v. Poland (no. 34342/06) Sokołowska v. Poland (no. 7743/06) Tekiela v. Poland (no. 35785/07) Wysocka and Others v. Poland (no. 23668/03) Załuska v. Poland (no. 41701/07)   Just satisfaction Uoti v. Finland (no. 61222/00)     *** Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chantalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva (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.