CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 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   75 30.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   3 and 5 February 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 26 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 3 February 2009 and 12 on Thursday 5 February 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 3 February 2009   Dauti v. Albania (application no. 19206/05) The applicant, Ramiz Dauti, is an Albanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Tirana (Albania). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Dauti alleges that he was not able to challenge before the domestic courts decisions given by administrative bodies concerning incapacity benefits.   Kaprykowski v. Poland (no. 23052/05) The applicant, Robert Kaprykowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Poznań (Poland). He suffers from severe epilepsy and other neurological disorders. A recidivist offender, he has served a number of prison sentences in various detention facilities in Poland. The case concerns Mr Kaprykowski’s complaint that, in view of his state of health, he received inadequate medical care during periods of his detention in Poznań Remand centre between 1999 and 2007. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention.   Kauczor v. Poland (no. 45219/06) The applicant, Adam Kauczor, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Siemianowice Śląskie (Poland). Arrested and remanded in custody in February 2000 on suspicion of murder, Mr Kauczor was ultimately released in December 2007; the criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him.   Kupiec v. Poland (no. 16828/02) The applicant, Michaeł Kupiec, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Cracow (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), Mr Kupiec complains about the excessive court fees requested from him so that proceedings in which he wished to sue three of his University professors could be pursued.   Women on Waves and Others v. Portugal (no. 31276/05) The applicants are Women on Waves, a Dutch foundation based in Amsterdam, and two Portuguese associations, Clube Safo and Não te Prives (Group for the defence of sexual rights), based in Santarém and Coimbra respectively. These three associations are active in the promotion of family planning rights. In 2004 they had intended to enter Portuguese waters on the ship Borndiep to organise activities relating to the legalisation of abortion. Banned by a ministerial order, the ship was blocked from entering national waters by a Portuguese naval vessel. The applicant associations complain, mainly under Article 10 (freedom of expression), that this ban on their activities breached their right to impart their ideas without interference.   Jones v. Romania (no. 36478/02) The applicant, Daniel Jones, is a German national who was born in 1932 and lives in Frankfurt. He complains, mainly under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that the actions of the administrative authorities prevented him from securing the return of his father’s property, in the context of statutory proceedings for the recovery of possession of nationalised property.   L.Z. v. Romania (no. 22383/03) The applicant, L.Z., is a Romanian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ploiesti (Romania). He complains, relying mainly on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), that there was no effective investigation into his allegation of rape in prison by other inmates.   Marin v. Romania (no. 30699/02) The applicant, Emilia Marilena Marin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Alexandria (Romania). In 1998, while employed as a teacher, she sent a letter to the Minister for Education in which she criticised an inspector. Her letter was published in the magazine Şcoala românească . The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) about the criminal proceedings brought against her for defamation. The applicant alleges that the court, before convicting her on that charge, had not taken testimony from her or examined all the evidence. She also complains under Article 10 (freedom of expression) about the publication of her letter without her permission.   Voiculescu v. Romania (no. 5325/03) The applicant, Anca Carmen Voiculescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Braşov (Romania). Her mother was run over by a poorly maintained military vehicle. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), she complains that the investigation into the circumstances of her mother’s death was not effective.   Amutgan v. Turkey (no. 5138/04) Çimen v. Turkey (no. 19582/02) Şükran Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 4661/02) The applicants are three Turkish nationals: Nusret Amutgan who was born in 1970 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Gaziantep H-type Prison; Ali Çimen who was born in 1969 and lives in Izmir; and, Şükran Yıldız who was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), all the applicants complain that they were denied access to a lawyer when taken into police custody on suspicion of being involved in illegal armed organisations. Ali Çimen further complains that the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was not communicated to him in his case, in breach of Article   6   §§   1. Şükran Yıldız further complains that the length of her detention on remand was excessive and that she had no effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of that detention on remand, in breach of Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Ayla Özcan v. Turkey (no. 36526/04) The applicant, Ayla Özcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Istanbul. She complains, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), that the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against her for forgery of official documents caused her serious damage, especially because of her suspension from legal practice. She also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of the same complaint.   İpek and Others v. Turkey (nos. 17019/02 and 30070/02) The applicants, Çetin İpek, Murat Özpamuk and Seyithan Demirel, are Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır (Turkey) and were all born in 1985. In December 2001 the applicants, 16   years old at the time, were arrested and taken into police custody in order to establish whether they had any link with an illegal armed organisation, the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). They were released pending trial in February 2002. Relying on Article   5 §§   1, 3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain in particular about the unlawfulness of their arrest and the excessive length of their detention in police custody.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Hamzaraj v. Albania (No. 1) (no. 45264/04) Nuri v. Albania (no. 12306/04) The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Just satisfaction Ilutiu v. Romania (no. 18898/02) The Court held, in a judgment of 6 December 2007, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the sale by the State of the applicant’s property to a third party, combined with the failure to grant her effective compensation for nine years. At the time of the judgment the Court found that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Kalyoncu v. Turkey (no. 41220/07) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Booth v. the United Kingdom (no. 27961/02) Mitchard v. the United Kingdom (no. 42711/02) Murray v. the United Kingdom (no. 28045/02) Turner v. the United Kingdom (no. 42709/02) Twomey v. the United Kingdom (no. 28095/02) The applicants rely 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.   Leonardi v. Belgium (no. 35327/05) Poelmans v. Belgium (no. 44807/06) Saçlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 42710/04)     Thursday 5 February 2009   Gabrić v. Croatia (no. 9702/04) The applicant, Darinka Gabrić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Serbian origin who was born in 1952 and lives in Pforzheim (Germany). Stopped at the border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia in January 2002 by the Croatian customs authorities, Ms Gabrić was searched and found, in particular, to be in possession of undeclared German currency. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), she complains about the ensuing proceedings against her in which she was fined and had confiscated 20,000   German   marks (the equivalent of approximately 10,226   euros   (EUR)).   Olujić v. Croatia (no. 22330/05) The applicant, Krunislav Olujić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Zagreb (Croatia). He was a judge and President of the Supreme Court before being dismissed in October 1998 for harming the reputation of the judiciary by fraternising in public with known criminals. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains about the unfairness of those disciplinary proceedings against him.   Brunet-Lecomte and Others v. France (no. 42117/04) The applicants are Philippe Joseph Louis Brunet-Lecomte and Bernard Monnot, French nationals who were born in 1954 and 1944 respectively and live in Lyons (France), together with the company LM Développement, which publishes the monthly magazine Objectif Rhône Alpes, having its registered office in Lyons. Mr Brunet-Lecomte is the publication director of the magazine and Mr Monnot the former director of the Lyons branch of the Banque Cantonale de Genève. They complain in particular, under Article 10 (freedom of expression), that the courts found against them in defamation proceedings following the publication in Objectif Rhône Alpes of an interview with Mr Monnot in which he had criticised the Banque Cantonale de Genève.   Sarantidis v. Greece (no. 23163/07) The applicant, Minas Sarantidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1975 and lives in Athens. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the criminal proceedings against him for embezzlement were excessively long, having lasted for more than six years.   Vontas and Others v. Greece (no. 43588/06) The applicants, Christos Vontas, Anna Kapetanaki and Filia Vontas, are Greek nationals who live in Athens. The case concerns a dispute between the applicants and the State about the ownership of a plot of land on the island of Spetses (Greece). They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Idalova and Idalov v. Russia (no. 41515/04) Khaydayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1848/04) The applicants in the first case are two Russian nationals who live in Akhkinchu-Borzoy (Chechen Republic). They are the parents of Marvan Idalov, born in 1985, whom they have not seen since 22   November 2002 when he was   abducted from the family home by a group of armed   men in camouflage uniform who had arrived in military vehicles.   The applicants in the second case are eight Russian nationals who live in Duba-Yurt (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Suliman Malikov, Adlan Khatuyev, Aslan Khatuyev, Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mansur Ismailov, born in 1975, 1977, 1983, 1975 and 1984, respectively. The five men have not been seen since 9   June 2002 when they were apprehended at a checkpoint by Russian servicemen who were carrying out a security operation in Duba-Yurt.   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, 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).   Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia (no. 21519/02) The applicants, Salambek Khadisov and Islam Tsechoyev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1977 respectively and live in Ingushetia (Russia). On 9 September 2001 Mr   Khadisov and other villagers of Verkhny Alkun were shot at when cutting grass for hay in local meadows. They allege that the attack came from Russian troops stationed nearby despite the fact that they had been forewarned that local villagers would be working there that day. Mr   Khadisov and Mr Tsechoyev were subsequently requested to go to Sunzhenskiy District Department of the Interior, the former to give further explanations about the incident, the latter on suspicion of having taken part that same day in an attack on the Russian servicemen posted near Verkhny Alkun. The applicants allege that, then transferred to Khankala military base, they were tortured in order to make them confess to being involved with paramilitary groups. They were released on 12 October 2001. They rely on Articles   3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to liberty and security), 34 (right of individual petition) and 38   § 1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case).   Makeyev v. Russia (no. 13769/04) The applicant, Anatoliy Makeyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in the Moscow Region. In June 2003 he was convicted of armed robbery and robbery and sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial), he alleges that the criminal proceedings in his case were unfair as he had not been able to question the three witnesses against him.   Sakhnovskiy v. Russia (no. 21272/03 ) The applicant, Sergey Sakhnovskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Novosibirsk (Russia). In December 2001 he was convicted of murdering his father and uncle and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he alleges that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, in particular because, at an appeal hearing, he was not provided with adequate legal assistance and could not effectively defend himself as he could only communicate with the court via a video link.   Sun Huan Xin v. Russia (no. 31004/02) The applicant, Sun Huan Xin, is a national of the People’s Republic of China who was born in 1949 and lives in Khabarovsk (Russia). He is a salesman. Stopped in July 2001 by the Russian customs’ authorities when arriving at Khabarovsk Seaport, he was charged with attempted smuggling for not declaring a substantial amount of money in dollars and Chinese yuan. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains that the subsequent confiscation measure with regard to that money was unlawful.     Repetitive case   The following case raised an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Drăculeţ v. Romania (no. 20294/02) The Court held, in a judgment of 6 December 2007, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the double registration of title to a plot of land. At the time of the judgment the Court found that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.     ***   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (téléphone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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.