CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s2C7B3542 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#0000ff } .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   134 20.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   24 and 26 February 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 24 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 24 February 2009 and ten on Thursday 26 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 24 February 2009   L’Erablière A.S.B.L. v. Belgium (application no. 49230/07) The applicant association, L’Erablière A.S.B.L., is a non-profit-making association for the protection of the environment whose registered office is in Bande (Belgium). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, it complains of a violation of its right of access to a court concerning the inadmissibility decision delivered by the Conseil d’État in respect of its application for the withdrawal of planning permission to extend a waste collection site.   Jaanti v. Finland (no. 39105/05) The applicant, Anssi Jaanti, is a Finnish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Espoo (Finland). In May 2002 Mr Jaanti was convicted of embezzlement and given a suspended prison sentence. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, he complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Jgarkava v. Georgia (no. 7932/03) The applicant, Nodar Jgarkava, is a Georgian national who was born in 1939 and lives in the village of Lekhaindarao in Georgia. In 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Jgarkava, a member of the regional council, for abuse of his position as elected representative. He was kept in pre-trial detention for over seven months in a 25   m ² cell with no ventilation or water and infested with parasites in which 30 people suffering from tuberculosis had to take turns to sleep and in which Mr Jgarkava himself became ill. A judgment was given on appeal in July 1998 discontinuing the criminal proceedings. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Jgarkava complains of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of his claim for compensation for pecuniary, physical and non-pecuniary damage on the ground that he did not have the status of a rehabilitated person.   Poghossian v. Georgia (no. 9870/07) The applicant, Khvitcha Poghossian, is a Georgian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Bodbiskhevi (Georgia). In 2006, while in prison following his conviction for armed robbery, the applicant underwent an operation at the prison hospital. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was discharged from hospital prematurely and was not given medical treatment for his hepatitis C while in prison.   Ben Khemais v. Italy (no. 246/07) The applicant, Essid Sami Ben Khemais, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1968. He is currently in prison in Tunisia. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleges that his deportation in June 2008 to Tunisia, where he had been sentenced in absentia in 2002 to ten years’ imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation, exposed him to a risk of death, torture and a flagrant denial of justice. He alleges, under Article 34 (right of individual application), that the enforcement of the decision to deport him infringed his right of individual application.   C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy (no. 46967/07) Sergio Cofferati is an Italian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Bologna. The Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro (the "C.G.I.L.") is a trade-union federation whose registered office is in Rome. In 2002, when Mr Cofferati was still General Secretary of the C.G.I.L., the daily newspaper Il Messaggero published an interview   in which Mr Umberto Bossi,   who was then a minister and member of Parliament, drew a connection between the social climate allegedly created by the Left, and in particular the C.G.I.L., and the murder of a Government consultant by the Red Brigades. Relying on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain of the inability to institute proceedings against Mr Bossi for defamation in the domestic courts on account of his parliamentary immunity.   Errico v. Italy (no. 29768/05) The applicant, Giovanni Errico, is an Italian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Benevento (Italy). In 2002 his daughter was placed in a hostel by the Naples Youth Court following criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant for sexual abuse. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains about being separated from his daughter, of the allegedly excessive length of the investigations against him and of the care proceedings, which he considers to be unfair.   Just satisfaction Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova (no. 3052/04) The applicant company is a four-star hotel, the “Dacia”, in Chişinău. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint about the annulment of the privatisation of its hotel and the unfairness of the ensuing legal proceedings. In its judgment of 18   March 2008 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Długołęcki v. Poland (no. 23806/03) The applicant, Jacek Długołęcki, is a Polish national who was born in 1935 and lives in Gdańsk. He is a journalist and at the relevant time was the editor in chief of a free newsletter, Kolbudzkie ABC, Periodical, Private, Independent (“ Periodyk, Prywatny, Niezależny” ). Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr Długołęcki complains about his conviction by the Polish courts in 2002 for insulting a local politician. He was ordered to pay a fine to a charity and to reimburse the costs of the proceedings.   Pieniak v. Poland (no. 19616/04) The applicant, Jerzy Pieniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Sieradz (Poland). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Pieniak alleges that he was ill-treated by the police following his arrest in September 2001 on charges of rape. He further complains that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was inadequate.   Abramiuc v. Romania (no. 37411/02) The applicant, Ilie Abramiuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Negostina (Romania). In 1992 Mr Abramiuc, a chemical engineer in a State-owned company until 1991, sued his former employer for using his invention between 1984 and 1991 in its industrial production without paying him royalties. In 1994, by a court decision, the former State-owned company was ordered to compensate Mr Abramiuc.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the failure to enforce the final judgment of 1994, of the length of the two sets of proceedings determined in 2002 and of his inability to complain of that length under Romanian law.     Gagiu v. Romania (no. 63258/00) The applicant, Traian Gagiu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954. He died in September 2001. In 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Gagiu for the murder of a shepherd following which he was imprisoned. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained of his conditions of detention (and the lack of an investigation in that regard) and of an accident that occurred in 2000 when he was taken to the prison hospital. As he suffered from a number of chronic illnesses, he also complained of carelessness in administering medical treatment. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 34 (right of individual application), he also complained that the prison authorities had refused him the documents, supplies and correspondence necessary for his application to the European Court of Human Rights. In 2004, despite the applicant’s death, the Court – the applicant having no family – decided to pursue its examination of his application, contrary to the Romanian Government’s submissions.   Tarău v. Romania (no. 3584/02) The applicant, Daniela Tarău, is a Romanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Bucharest (Romania). In 2001 she was placed in pre-trial detention in connection with criminal proceedings brought against her for fraud and conspiracy, committed while working for a company acting as an intermediary in obtaining employment contracts abroad. Ms   Tarău’s pre-trial detention was extended several times. Relying in particular on Article 5   §§   3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses), the applicant complains of the allegedly excessive length of her pre-trial detention – which was not justified by the authorities – and of the failure to secure the essential procedural guarantees when keeping her in detention and of the courts’ refusal to hear evidence from defence witnesses during the criminal proceedings.   Toma v. Romania (no. 42716/02) The applicant, Marius Ionel Toma, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Constanţa (Romania). On 9 September 2002 he was arrested for illegal possession of cannabis, questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer on 10 September and then placed in pre-trial detention by a prosecutor.   On the same day journalists filmed and photographed the applicant at the police headquarters. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Toma complains of ill-treatment inflicted by the police during questioning, of the lack of an investigation by the authorities regarding those allegations,   of the fact that he was not brought before “promptly” before a judge after his arrest and of the time taken by the courts to rule on his complaint against the order of the prosecutor placing him in pre-trial detention. He also relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), alleging that the police had contacted the journalists who had photographed him.   Çamçi and Others v. Turkey (no. 25172/02) The applicants, Mehmet Şerif Çamçi, Mehmet Can Tekin and Hasan Hayri Eroğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962, 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain of the circumstances surrounding their police custody – including ill-treatment – following their arrest during a demonstration and of the ineffectiveness of the investigations carried out in that regard.   Gülbahar and Tut v. Turkey (no. 24468/03) The applicants, Süleyman Gülbahar and Hüseyin Tut, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1972 respectively. They rely on Articles 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance) and Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) regarding the length of the criminal proceedings against them for terrorist acts perpetrated in the name of an illegal organisation and the circumstances and length of their pre-trial detention.   Just satisfaction Nacaryan and Deryan v. Turkey (nos. 19558/02 and 27904/02) The applicants, Yeran-Janet Nacaryan and Armen Deryan, are Greek nationals who were born in 1945 and 1948 respectively and live in Greece. The case concerns the refusal of the Turkish courts to recognize their status as heirs to an estate including immovable property. In a judgment of 8 January 2008, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). When the Court delivered its judgment, it stated that the question of application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision.   Protopapa v. Turkey (no. 16084/90) The applicant, Eliade Protopapa, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1937 and lives in Nicosia. Involved in an anti-Turkish demonstration on 19 July 1989 in the Ayios Kassianos area in Nicosia, an area within the United Nations buffer zone, Ms Protopapa alleges in particular that she was severely beaten by Turkish police armed with electric batons. Remanded in custody, she was then brought before Nicosia District Court and convicted for having illegally entered the territory of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. She was sentenced to two days’ imprisonment and a fine. She was released on 24 July 1989. She relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Decev v. Moldova (no. 7365/05) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Melo e Faro Maldonado Passanha and Others v. Portugal (no. 44386/05) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning land expropriated in 1975 under the land reform.   Găină v. Romania (no. 16707/03) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) regarding expropriated land.   Petrini v. Romania (no. 3320/05) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning nationalised apartments.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicant in the case of Laurenciu Popovici also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Eösöly v. Hungary (no. 32069/05) Laurenciu Popovici v. Romania (no. 30043/04)     Thursday 26 February 2009   Verein der Freunde der Christengemeinschaft and Others v. Austria (no. 76581/01) The applicants are a religious community, Verein der Freunde der Christengemeinschaft, established in Austria in 1998, and four of its members: Martin David, Christoph Leisegang, Erich Cibulka, three Austrian nationals; and, Ute König, a German national. They live in Vienna. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the Austrian authorities’ refusal to grant their community legal personality as a religious society and the excessive length of the related proceedings. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Lisev v. Bulgaria (no. 30380/03) The applicant, Ivan Danchov Lisev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Mirkovo (Bulgaria). He relies in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complaining of the allegedly excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for bodily injury inflicted on his uncle.   Grifhorst v. France (no. 28336/02) The applicant, Robert Grifhorst, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1949 and lives in Erts la   Massana (Andorra). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains that the penalty imposed on him for failing to declare a sum of money to the customs authorities at the Franco-Andorran border, namely, confiscation of the amount undeclared and a fine amounting to half that sum, was disproportionate to the offence alleged.   Astamirova and Others v. Russia (no. 27256/03) Sagayev and Others v. Russia (no. 4573/04) Vagapova and Zubirayev v. Russia (no. 21080/05) The applicants in the first case are seven Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Aslanbek Astamirov, born in 1974, who has not been seen since the early hours of 5   August 2002 when he was abducted from the family home by a group of masked, armed men in camouflage uniforms.   The applicants in the second case are ten Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Ilias Sagayev, born in 1972, and his nephew, Yunadi Sagayev, born in 1986, who were both abducted from their family homes in the early hours of 30   August 2002 and 13   September 2002, respectively, by a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks.   The applicants in the third case are ten Russian nationals who live in Chechen-Aul (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Alis Zubirayev, born in 1986, who was abducted from the family home on 21   December 2004 by a group of armed men wearing military uniforms.   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)   Eminbeyli v. Russia (no. 42443/02) The applicant, Gunduz Aydin ogly Eminbeyli, is a stateless person of Azeri ethnic origin who was born in 1956 and currently lives in Sweden. In February 1996 he left Azerbaijan for Russia, where he was granted refugee status and the right to move to Sweden. However in September 2001, at the request of the Azerbaijani authorities, the Russian police arrested him with a view to his extradition. He was ultimately released in October 2001. Relying on Article   5   §§   1   (f) and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his detention was unlawful, that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest and that the judicial review of his detention was ineffective.   Fedoerov v. Russia (no. 63997/00) The applicant, Vladimir Fedorov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Taganrog (Russia). Relying on Article   6 §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Fedorov complains about the quashing by way of supervisory review of a final judgment in a criminal case against him for theft. He also complains that he had not been notified of that application for supervisory review and could therefore not defend himself in the ensuing proceedings.   Kudeshkina v. Russia (no. 29492/05) The applicant, Olga Borisovna Kudeshkina, is a Russian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Moscow. A judge for more than 18   years, at the relevant time she held office at Moscow City Court. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), she alleges that she was dismissed from the judiciary in 2004 because she had publicly accused higher judicial and prosecution officials of putting pressure on her in connection with a high-profile criminal case.     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Vladimirova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 42617/02) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     ***   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.