CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 février 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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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   90 6.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   10 and 12 February 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing seven Chamber judgments on Tuesday 10 February 2009 and 15 on Thursday 12 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 10 February 2009   Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland (application no. 3514/02) The applicants are: the publishing company Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet ; its former editor-in-chief, Matti Paloaro, a Finnish national, now deceased, who was born in 1942; and, a freelance journalist, Pentti Eerikäinen, also a Finnish national who, born in 1946, lives in Kauvatsa (Finland). Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain that they were ordered by the Supreme Court to pay damages because of an article Mr Eerikäinen wrote in 1997 concerning criminal proceedings pending against a business woman accused of deceiving the social security service and insurance companies.   Iordachi and Others v. Moldova (no. 25198/02) The applicants, Vitalie Iordachi, Vitalie Nagacevschi, Snejana Chitic, Victor Constantinov and Vlad Gribincea, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1972, 1965, 1980, 1961 and 1980, respectively, and live in Chişinău. They are members of “Lawyers for Human Rights”, a Chişinău-based non-governmental organisation specialised in the representation of applicants before the European Court of Human Rights. Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicants allege that, given the current legislation in force, they are at a serious risk of having their telephones tapped, on account of their bringing cases to the Court which have resulted in financial loss for and significant damage to the image of the Moldovan Government.   Novinskiy v. Russia (no. 11982/02) The applicant, Ernest Novinskiy, was a Russian national who was born in 1963. He died in 2009 when he was still serving a prison sentence in the Samara Region (Russia) for organising and inciting others to murder and bribery. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Novinskiy, and subsequently his surviving wife, complain about the appalling conditions of his detention during different periods in 2001. They also complain under Article   34 (right of individual petition) that, in connection with his application to the European Court, the prison authorities put pressure on Mr Novinskiy by transferring him to another detention facility and, on one occasion, not allowing his wife to visit.   Güçlü v. Turkey (no. 27690/03) The applicant, İbrahim Güçlü, is a Turkish national who was born in 1949. He is a lawyer and at the time of the events was also vice-chairman of the HAK-PAR (Rights and Freedoms Party). At the time of the application he was in prison in Ankara. The applicant complains, under Article 10 (freedom of expression), about his criminal conviction for disseminating separatist propaganda on account of a speech he gave at a press conference on “democracy and the Kurdish problem”.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kindler de Barahona v. Portugal (no. 31720/05) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Bezzubikova v. Russia (no. 32048/03) The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, 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.   Kharitonashvili v. Georgia (no. 41957/04)     Thursday 12 February 2009   Spas Spasov v. Bulgaria (no. 31646/02) The applicant, Spas Petrov Spasov, was a Bulgarian national who was born in 1951 and lived in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). He died in 2003. His heirs, Stoyanka Spasova, Petar Spasov and Lazar Spasov, informed the Court that they wished to pursue the application. In 2001 the applicant, a lorry driver, was placed in police custody and subsequently in pre-trial detention for misappropriation of goods. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained, in particular, that the length of his detention had been excessive.   Giosakis v. Greece (No. 1) (no. 42778/05) Giosakis v. Greece (No. 2) (no. 36205/06) The applicant is Iakovos-Pavlos Giosakis, an archimandrite. He was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Korydallos Prison (Greece). The case of Giosakis v. Greece (No. 1) concerns his complaints about his pre-trial detention in the course of criminal proceedings against him for incitement to handle, and handling, stolen antiquities, including icons removed from various churches on the island of Kythira (Greece). In the case of Giosakis v. Greece (No. 2) the applicant complains about his pre-trial detention in the course of criminal proceedings against him for incitement to abuse of public office, offering bribes to a judge, incitement to form a criminal organisation, fraud and money laundering. In both cases the applicant relies, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   Ayubov v. Russia (no. 7654/02) Bantayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 20727/04) Meshayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 27248/03) The applicant in the first case was a Russian national who lived in Grozny (Chechen Republic) and who is now deceased. His widow is pursuing the application on her late husband’s behalf. Their son, Adam Ayubov, born in 1959, has not been seen since 19   January 2000 when he was apprehended by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and driven away in a military truck.   The applicants in the second case are 11 Russian nationals who live in Komsomolskoye (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Abubakar Bantayev, born in 1957, and Salman Bantayev, born in 1962. The two men have not been seen since 2   January 2003 when they were abducted from their family homes by masked armed men in camouflage uniform.   The applicants in the third case are 16 Russian nationals who live in Martan-Chu (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Leoma Meshayev, born in 1952, and Bislan Saydayev, born in 1977, who have not been seen since they were abducted from their family homes in the early hours of 17   December 2002 by masked armed men in camouflage uniforms.   The applicants allege that their relatives disappeared after being abducted by Russian servicemen and complain that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They rely, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life), Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia (no. 3811/02) The applicants, Aleksandr Denisenko, born in 1982, and Vitaliy Bogdanchikov, born in 1979, are Russian nationals who are serving prison sentences for aggravated robbery, grievous bodily harm and hooliganism committed in concert in two correctional colonies in the Saratov Region (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Denisenko complains that he was ill-treated while in pre-trial detention in 2001, that no effective investigation has been carried out into that complaint, that he has been detained in over-crowded cells with bad sanitary conditions, and that he has been held in appalling conditions at the premises of a district court in Moscow during the court hearings of his case. Mr Denisenko further complains under Article   5 §   1 (right to liberty and security) that he was detained unlawfully and for too long in 2001.   Nolan and K. v. Russia (no. 2512/04) The applicants, Patrick Francis Nolan, and his son, K., are citizens of the United States of America who were born in 1967 and 2001 respectively and live in Tbilisi (Georgia). Mr   Nolan is a member of and foreign missionary for the Unification Church, a spiritual movement founded by Mr   Sun Myung Moon in 1954. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Nolan complains that on 2 June 2002, upon his return from a short absence abroad, he was locked in a holding cell for 9 hours at Sheremetyevo Airport (Moscow) and, although he had a valid Russian visa, he was not allowed to re-enter Russia. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Nolan and his son further complain that they were physically separated on 2 June 2002, when K was only an infant, and were only reunited approximately ten months later. Lastly, Mr Nolan complains that he was prevented from re-entering Russia in order to punish him for manifesting and spreading his religion, in breach of Articles   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Under Article   38   §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case), the Court asked the Russian Government to provide them with a copy of a report by the Federal Security Service in order to clarify the reasons why the applicant was excluded from Russia.   Samokhvalov v. Russia (no. 3891/03) The applicant, Roman Samokhvalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence for theft and premeditated murder in the Kurgan Region (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair hearing), he complains that the record of a first instance court hearing on his case in February 2002 was falsified, that he could not question two witnesses, that part of a first instance court hearing in March 2002 was not public, and that the appeal hearing of his criminal case was held in his absence.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi v. Bulgaria (no. 56753/00) Mihaylovi v. Bulgaria (no. 6189/03) Miteva v. Bulgaria (no. 60805/00) Simova and Georgiev v. Bulgaria (no. 55722/00) All the applicants rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Bodrov v. Russia (no. 17472/04) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, 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.   Mikhaylovich v. Russia (no. 30019/05)     ***   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 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.