CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 } .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   056 23.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   27 and 29 January 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 31 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 27 January 2009 and 10 on Thursday 29 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 ).     Tuesday 27 January 2009   Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia (no. 1704/06) The applicants, Shalva Ramishvili and Davit Kokhreidze, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1961 respectively and live in Tbilisi (Georgia). They were co-founders and shareholders in a private media company which owned the “TV   202” television broadcasting channel in Tbilisi. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain of the conditions of their detention on charges of extortion and the treatment to which they were subjected in the courthouse during their trial, in particular the fact that, exposed to independent observers as “criminals”, they were held in “metal cages”, surrounded by hooded, armed guards. They also complain under Article   5   §§   1   (c) and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the unfairness and lack of speediness of review of their pre-trial detention.   Sandowycz v. Poland (no. 37274/06) The applicant, Jarosław Sandowycz, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Małomice (Pologne). Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains of the excessive length of his detention pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against him.   Burghelea v. Romania (no. 26985/03) The applicant, Ilinca Burghelea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest (Romania). Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, she complains that the authorities acquired her land illegally, with no agreement on the terms, as part of a hydroelectric power station construction project.   Precup v. Romania (no. 17771/03) The applicant, Octavian Precup, is a Romanian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Oradeo (Romania). Relying in particular on Articles 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that the quashing of a final decision acquitting him of manslaughter and the remittal of his case was unfair. The applicant also complains of lack of an effective remedy against that decision. He further relies on Article 6   §   2 (presumption of innocence), complaining that the High Court violated his right to be presumed innocent.   Ştefan and Ştef v. Romania (nos. 24428/03 and 26977/03) The applicants, Gheorghe Ştefan and Gheorghe Ştef, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1954 and 1944 and live in Baia Mare (Romania). They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), complaining of a violation of the principle of legal certainty and of discriminatory treatment in respect of the rejection of their application to be admitted to the Bar Association without an examination.   Tătar v. Romania (no. 67021/01) The applicants, Vasile Gheorghe Tătar and Paul Tătar, a father and son, are Romanian nationals who were born respectively in 1947 and 1979. At the material time they lived in Baia Mare (Romania). Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that the extraction process (using sodium cyanide in the open air) used by S.C. Transgold (formerly “S.C. Aurul S.A Baia Mare”) in their gold mining activity placed their lives in danger. They also complain of inaction on the part of the authorities regarding the numerous complaints lodged by Vasile Gheorghe Tătar about the threat to their lives, to the environment and to his asthmatic son’s health. In its decision on the admissibility of the application in July 2007, the Court considered that the applicants’ complaints fell to be examined under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Just satisfaction Urbárska Obec Trenčianske Biskupice v. Slovakia (no. 74258/01) The applicant, Urbárska obec Trenčianske Biskupice, is an association of landowners in Trenčín (Slovakia). In its judgment of 27   November 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) as regards both the transfer of the applicant association’s land to members of a gardening association and, preceding that transfer, the compulsory letting of their property at a rent which was below the applicable property tax. At the time of delivery of the judgment, the Court held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Mehmet Ali Çelik v. Turkey (no. 42296/07) The applicant, Mehmet Ali Çelik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and is currently remanded in Diyarbakır Prison on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation. Relying on Article 5   §§   3 and   4 (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), he complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him.   Samüt Karabulut v. Turkey (no. 16999/04) The applicant, Samüt Karabulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. He is a member of the Human Rights Association in Turkey. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), he complains that in April 2002 the police intervened at a peaceful demonstration he was taking part in in Istanbul and used excessive force when arresting him.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Pralica v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 38945/05) Cebotari and Others v. Moldova (nos.37763/04, 37712/04, 35247/04, 35178/04 and 34350/04 The applicants in these two cases rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   A.L. v. Finland (no. 23220/04) The applicant relies on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial).   Bizău v. Romania (no. 26852/03) Daniel and Niculina Georgescu v. Romania (no. 2367/04)6 Gologuş v. Romania (no. 26845/03) Ionescu and Istrate v. Romania (no. 10788/06) Ionescu and Maftei v. Roumania (no. 36128/04) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in the case of Bizău and Gologuş . In the cases of Daniel and Niculina Georgescu and Ionescu and Istrate the applicants also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Duman v. Turkey (no. 17149/03) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Economou v. Turkey (no. 18405/91) Evagorou Christou v. Turkey (no. 18403/91) Ioannou v. Turkey (no. 18364/91) Kyriacou v. Turkey (no. 18407/91) Michael v. Turkey (no. 18361/91) Nicola v. Turkey (no. 18404/91) Nicolaides v. Turkey (no. 18406/91) Sophia Andreou v. Turkey (no. 18360/91) All the applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). The applicants in the cases of Economou , Kyriacou , Nicola and Nicolaides also rely on Articles   13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination). The applicants in the cases of Kyriacou , Evagorou Christou, Nicola and Nicolaides also rely on Article   1 (obligation to respect human rights).     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.   Luigi Serino v. Italy (No. 2) (no. 680/03) G. v. Finland (no. 33173/05) Petikon Oy and Parviainen v. Finland (no. 26189/06) Dorić v. Serbia (no. 33029/05) Çayğan v. Turkey (no. 61/04)     Thursday 29 January 2009   Andreyevskiy v. Russia (no. 1750/03) Antropov v. Russia (no. 22107/03) Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia (no. 6954/02) The applicants are four Russian nationals: Vasiliy Andreyevskiy who was born in 1982 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Saratov Region for murder; Dimitriy Antropov who was born in 1971 and lives in Ussuriysk, Primorye Region; and Aleksey and Anton Maltabar who were born in 1969 and live in Tver.   Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), all the applicants complain in particular of the conditions of their detention on charges of murder in the first two cases and of fraud in the third case. Mr Andreyevskiy and Mr Antropov also complain that they were ill-treated while in police custody and that no effective investigation has been carried out into their complaints. The Maltabar brothers also complain about the conditions of their transportation to and from their trial.   Chervonenko v. Russia (no. 54882/00) Kiselev v. Russia (no. 75469/01) The applicants are two Russian nationals. Filipp Chervonenko who was born in 1958 and lives in Moscow; and, Bogdan Kiselev who was born in 1973 and lives in Vyatskiye Polyany (Russia). In September 1997 Mr Chervonenko was found guilty of murder committed in self-defence. In May 2000 Mr Kiselev was found guilty of aggravated rape and violent sexual assault. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), both applicants complain that, following supervisory review proceedings (known as “ nadzor ”) in which there was a retrial of their case, they were tried and punished again for those same criminal offences, with detrimental consequences, notably an aggravation of the charges and/or an increase in their prison term. They also complain that the criminal proceedings against them as a whole were unfair.   Polyakov v. Russia (no. 77018/01) The applicant, Valentin Polyakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is serving a prison sentence in the Tver Region (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was beaten by the police when arrested in October 1999 on suspicion of drug trafficking. He also complains under Article   6   §   3   (d) (right to a fair trial) that the domestic courts arbitrarily rejected his requests to examine witnesses in his favour in the criminal proceedings against him.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kotsar v. Russia (no. 25971/03) Lenskaya v. Russia (no. 28730/03) Levishchev v. Russia (no. 34672/03) The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings case   Missenjov v. Estonia (no. 43276/06) 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. He also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     ***   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.