CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 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 } .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   108 13.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   17 and 19 February 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 16 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 17 February 2009 and 16 on Thursday 19 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 17 February 2009   Vilén v. Finland (application no. 22635/04) The applicant, Pauli Vilén, is a Finnish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Parola (Finland). Submitting a certificate signed by his doctor, the applicant requested sickness benefits for a period of almost seven months in 2002; however, his request was refused by the Social Insurance Institution. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Vilén complains that he did not have access to the documents prepared by the Social Insurance Institution’s medical expert for the examination of his case.   Gospodarczyk v. Poland (no. 6134/03) The applicant, Mirosław Gospodarczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Zielona Góra (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), Mr   Gospodarczyk complains about the excessive amount of court fees required from him to proceed with a claim for compensation.   Jałowiecki v. Poland (no. 34030/07) The applicant, Stanisław Jałowiecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Stronie Śląskie (Poland). The domestic courts found in a judgment in 2006 that he had violated the Polish legislation on lustration by declaring, in April 2004, that he had not collaborated with the communist-era secret services, although in fact he had. Relying on Article   6   §   1 in conjunction with Article   6   §   3 (right to a fair trial), Mr Jałowiecki complains that the lustration proceedings were unfair.   Ileana Lazăr v. Romania (no. 5647/02) The applicant, Ileana Lazăr, is a Romanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Râmnicu-Sărat (Romania). The case concerns   a mill and the adjacent land belonging to Ms   Lazăr which were unlawfully nationalised in 1971. Relying, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complains about the right to retain possession granted to the Romanian State in respect of her property   until such time as   she     reimbursed the value (disputed by her) of the State’s investments in the mill.   Akan v. Turkey (no. 9574/03) The applicant, Ahmet Akan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains of the length of the criminal and administrative proceedings – more than 25 years – brought against him following his arrest for undeclared importation and the seizure of his lorry.   Ancel v. Turkey (no. 28514/04) The applicant, Emmanuelle Ancel, is a French national who was born in 1968 and lives in Colmar (France). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she complains of the excessive length of civil proceedings brought by her and the failure to execute a judicial decision awarding her residence rights in respect of her daughter, who was born in 1994 from a relationship with a Turkish national.   Aslan and Demir v. Turkey (nos. 38940/02 and 5197/03) Ek and Şıktaş v. Turkey (nos. 6058/02 and 18074/03) The applicants, Mahmut Aslan, Hüseyin Demir, Mehmet Şirin Ek and Hüseyin Şıktaş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1960, 1975 and 1978 respectively and live in Turkey. Relying on Article   6   §   3   (c) (right to legal assistance of one’s own choosing) in conjunction with Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complain about being denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody and their subsequent convictions.   Baızı v. Turkey (no. 7306/02) The applicant, Ebrahim Baizi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He relies, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), and complains that he was not brought promptly before a judge following his arrest by the anti-terrorist branch of the İzmir Security Directorate.   Balcı v. Turkey (no. 31079/02) The applicants, Keziban Balcı and Binali Balcı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and 1965 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey). Relying, in particular, on Article 2 (right to life), they allege that the authorities were responsible for the death of their 11-year-old son as a result of his fall from swings in a park, and complain that the criminal proceedings did not establish where responsibility lay and could not be considered as having afforded them sufficient satisfaction.   İbrahim Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 16500/04) The applicant, İbrahim Öztürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (c) (right to the assistance of a lawyer), he complains that, arrested for an attempted bomb attack, a confession was obtained from him through torture and that he did not have access to a lawyer during his police custody.   Mehmet Koç v. Turkey (no. 36686/07) The applicant, Mehmet Koç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Koç complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Saygılı and Falakaoğlu v. Turkey (no. 38991/02) The applicants, Fevzi Saygılı and Bülent Falakaoğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the owner and the editor-in-chief of a daily newspaper, Yeni Evrensel . They were sentenced to fines by the domestic court for publishing in October 2000 the declarations of detainees belonging to illegal armed organisations. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain about their conviction and sentence, and the temporary closure of the newspaper. Relying further on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), they complain that they were denied a fair hearing.   Onur v. the United Kingdom (no. 27319/07) The applicant, Ümit Onur, is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin who was born in 1978 and now lives in Turkey where he was deported in July 2007. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Onur complains about his deportation.   Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Dumbravă v. Romania (no. 25234/03) The applicant relies on 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.   Aras v. Turkey (no. 1895/05)   Thursday 19 February 2009   Doronin v. Ukraine (no. 16505/02) Nikolay Kucherenko v. Ukraine (no. 16447/04) The applicants are two Ukrainian nationals who live in Ukraine. Igor Doronin was born in 1960 and lives in Kharkiv, and Nikolay Kucherenko was born in 1969 and lives in Odessa. Mr Doronin was arrested and detained in 2000 on suspicion of murdering his grandfather, and Mr Kucherenko in 2002 for drug trafficking. Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain that they were detained unlawfully and allege that their pre-trial detention was too long.   Khristov v. Ukraine (no. 24465/04) The applicant, Dmitriy Khristov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1939 and died on 1   August 2006. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Mr Khristov, and subsequently his surviving three children who continued the proceedings before the Court, complain that the domestic administrative proceedings in his case, which resulted in the confiscation of his car and the imposition of a fine, were unfair and that he could not recover his car nor have its value compensated, as the final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of extraordinary review.   Malenko v. Ukraine (no. 18660/03) The applicant, Valeriy Malenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a prison sentence for murder. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Malenko complains of the conditions of his detention, that he was not provided with appropriate treatment and of the regular practice of strip searches in the prison in which he is serving his sentence.   Marchenko v. Ukraine (no. 4063/04) The applicant, Mykhaylo Marchenko, is a Ukrainian national, a teacher and head of a trade union represented in the school where he works. He was born in 1946 and lives in Pasiky-Zubrytski (Ukraine). In 2001 he was given a suspended sentence and a fine for publicly and unfoundedly accusing the director of the school of misappropriating public funds. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (a)   and   (b) (right to a fair hearing) and Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr Marchenko complains that he was found guilty of an offence of which he had not been charged, and also about his conviction for defamation.   Miroshnichenko v. Ukraine (no. 34211/04) The applicant, Roman Grigoryevich Miroshnichenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Pavlograd (Ukraine). He was found guilty of theft and robbery and served a prison sentence which came to an end on 17 November 2005. Relying on Article   5   §§   3, 4   and   5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Miroshnichenko complains that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive, that he could not challenge his detention, and that he could not seek compensation for it.   Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03) The applicant, Dmitriy Shabelnik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and is serving a life sentence for double murder in Zhytomyr (Ukraine). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), Mr Shabelnik complains in respect of one of the murders that he was convicted on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of his right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination, and that he could not properly defend himself when questioned at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings concerning the murder in question.   Suptel v. Ukraine (no. 39188/04) The applicant, Aleksandr Suptel, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Kyiv. In 1999 Mr Suptel was arrested on suspicion of incitement to murder; the criminal proceedings against him are still pending. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Suptel complains that he was ill-treated by police officers who forced him to confess to that crime. Mr Suptel further complains under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Andriychuck v. Ukraine (no. 18024/04) Bondar and Others v. Ukraine (no. 12380/05) Kooperativ Kakhovskiy-5 v. Ukraine (no. 20728/04) Kryshchuk v. Ukraine (no. 1811/06) All the applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Andriychuck they also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the cases of Kooperativ Kakhovskiy-5 and Kryshchuk also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     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. The applicants in the cases of Mitakiy and Voronenkov also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Buryak v. Ukraine (no. 1866/04) Mitakiy v. Ukraine (no. 183/06) Voishchev v. Ukraine (no. 21263/04) Voronenkov v. Ukraine (no. 41286/04)   ***   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.