CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 mars 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   184 6.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   10 and 12 March 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 32 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 10 March 2009 and 22 on Thursday 12 March 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 March 2009   Anakomba Yula v. Belgium (application no. 45413/07) The applicant, Cecile Anakomba Yula, is a Congolese national who was born in 1972 and lives in Koekelberg (Belgium). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, she complains that she had to bear the costs of her action to contest paternity after failing to obtain legal aid because she did not have a valid residence permit.   Cakir v. Belgium (no. 44256/06) The applicant, Turan Cakir, is a Belgian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Schaerbeek (Belgium). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, he alleges that he was ill-treated when arrested at his home and while in police custody, in March 1996, and complains that the Belgian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into these allegations. He also alleges, under Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that being of Turkish origin he was subjected to ill-treatment for reasons of racial prejudice, asserting that police operations in the municipality of Schaerbeek were discriminatory and sometimes violent at the relevant time.   Igual Coll v. Spain (no. 37496/04) The applicant, César Igual Coll, is a Spanish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Valencia (Spain). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), he complains that he had not been granted a public hearing before the appellate court where he had been convicted, on the basis of insufficient evidence, for deserting his family; while before the court of first instance where he had been acquitted, he had been granted such a hearing.   Thilgen v. Luxembourg (no. 2196/05) The applicant, Aloyse Thilgen, is a Luxembourg national who was born in 1960 and lives in Lamadelaine (Luxembourg). Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains that the investigation into the death of his sister in hospital in 1996 was not effective, that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that he was denied access to a court, as a complaint he filed against a decision of discontinuance was declared inadmissible and his appeal on points of law was dismissed.   Ibrahim Mohamed v. the Netherlands (no. 1872/04) Said Botan v. the Netherlands (no. 1869/04) The applicants, Abdullahi Ibrahim Mohamed and Sahra Said Botan, are Somali nationals who were born in 1970 and 1969 respectively and live in Nijmegen (the Netherlands). Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), they complain of the domestic authorities’ refusal to grant them residence permits in order to live with their families in the Netherlands.   Kaźmierczak v. Poland (no. 4317/04) The applicant, Andrzej Kaźmierczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Wrocław (Poland). Relying on Articles   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and 6   §   2 (presumption of innocence), he complains of the length of his pre-trial detention in the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud, and that his right to the presumption of innocence was breached because the court, in deciding on his application for release, stated that Mr Kaźmierczak had organised and led the group of offenders, while the criminal proceedings in respect of him and his co-accused were still pending.   Böke and Kandemir v. Turkey (nos. 71912/01, 26968/02 and 36397/03) The applicants, Rıfat Böke and Halil Kandemir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and 1979 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), both applicants complain of having been detained for seven days, on suspicion of having shot and injured two persons in a bus in 2001, without being brought before a judge capable of authorising their detention, and of having been denied access to a lawyer while in police custody. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Böke also complains of having been tortured while in police custody.   Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo-Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş. v. Turkey (No. 3) (no.   10129/04) The applicant is a limited company, Özgür Radyo-Ses Radyo-Televizyon Yayın Yapım Ve Tanıtım A.Ş., which used to broadcast on radio and television in Istanbul. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), it complains that the total suspension of its radio programmes for thirty days, imposed by the radio-broadcasting regulatory authority in response to the reading on air of an article from the daily newspaper Evrensel in 2003, constituted arbitrary interference with its freedom to impart information and ideas.   Times Newspapers Ltd. (Nos. 1 and 2) v. United Kingdom (nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03) The applicant, Times Newspapers Ltd, is the owner and publisher of The Times newspaper, registered in England. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains that a domestic common law rule breaches its freedom of expression by providing that each time material which might give a cause to libel proceedings is downloaded from the Internet, a new cause of action for libel is generated.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Cifra v. Italy (no. 26735/05) D’Apolito v. Italy (no. 33226/05) Fabiano v. Italy (no. 40807/05) Furno v. Italy (no. 40824/05) Massimo v. Italy (no. 11000/05) Moroni v. Italy (no. 40261/05) Puzella and Others v. Italy (no. 38264/05) Shaw v. Italy (no. 981/04) Umberto Pedicini and Pierpaolo Pedicini v. Italy (no. 8681/05) Valentini v. Italy (no. 40664/05) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicants in the case of Shaw also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement).   Ichim v. Romania (no. 9164/02) Stanciu v. Romania (no. 3530/03) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ahmet Doğan v. Turkey (no. 37033/03) The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Erbey v. Turkey (no. 29188/02) Nural Vural v. Turkey (no. 16009/04) Rimer and Others v. Turkey (no. 18257/04) Sait Işık v. Turkey (no. 19255/02) Şatir v. Turkey (no 36192/03) Temel Conta Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 45651/04) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Şatir also relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     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.   Wolnicka v. Poland (no. 18414/03) Martin v. Romania (no. 14466/02) Güngil v. Turkey (no. 28388/03)     Thursday 12 March 2009   Gütl v. Austria (no. 49686/99) Löffelmann v. Austria (no. 42967/98) The applicants are two Austrian nationals. Markus Gütl was born in 1977 and lives in Belgrade (Serbia), and Philemon Löffelmann was born in 1976 and lives in Maissau (Austria). Both were baptised, in 1991 and 1994 respectively, as members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Relying on Articles   4 (prohibition of forced labour), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they complain of having been forced to perform civil service in lieu of their military service while members of other recognised religious societies holding religious functions comparable to theirs were exempted from that requirement.   Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia (no. 15217/07) The applicant, Aleksandr Makarov, an ex-mayor of the city of Tomsk (Russia), is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lived in Tomsk until 2006 when he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of abuse of position and aiding and abetting aggravated extortion. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Makarov complains of the appalling conditions and excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   Dzhambekova and Others v. Russia (nos. 27238/03 and 35078/04) Elsiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 21816/03) Khadayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 5351/04) The applicants in the first case are 19 Russian nationals belonging to four families who live in the Urus-Martan district (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Imran Dzhambekov, Magomed Soltymuradov, Rizvan Tatatariyev and Sharpudi Visaitov, born in 1979, 1969, 1977 and 1980, respectively. The four men have not been seen since they were abducted from their family homes in late 2001 and early 2002 by armed, masked men in camouflage uniforms.   The applicants in the second case are eight Russian nationals who live in Tsotsi-Yurt (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Salakh Elsiyev, Iskhadzhi Demelkhanov, Akhmed Demilkhanov, Adam Boltiyev, Lom-Ali Abubakarov, Ramzan Mandiyev, Aslambek Agmerzayev and Dzhabrail Debishev born in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1980, 1968, 1981, 1956 and 1977 respectively. The seven men have not been seen since 2   and   3   September 2002 when they were abducted from their family homes by armed men in camouflage uniforms, some wearing masks.   The applicants in the third case are eight Russian nationals who live in the Urus-Martan district (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Ali Khadayev, born in 1977, who was abducted from his family home in the early hours of 5   January 2003 by a group of armed Russian servicemen wearing camouflage 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).   Plakhteyev and Plakhteyeva v. Ukraine (no. 20347/03) The applicants, Fyodor and Valentina Plakhteyevi, son and mother, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1958 and 1931 respectively and live in Beryozovka (Ukraine). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complain of having been denied access to a court before which they wanted to claim damages for Mr Plakhteyev’s wrongful fine and for the unjustified seizure, lengthy holding and deterioration of their load of wheat and lorry.   Sergey Volosyuk v. Ukraine (no. 1291/03) The applicant, Sergey Volosyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born 1976 and is currently serving a fourteen-year prison sentence in Druzhkivka (Ukraine) for murder and aggravated robbery. 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   8 (right to respect for correspondence), he complains of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings as a whole, of his requests for release not having been examined by a court at all during his entire pre-trial detention, and of having had his letters monitored by the authorities and having been punished for trying to bypass the official correspondence channel while in detention.   Svetlorusov v. Ukraine (no. 2929/05) The applicant, Grigoriy Svetlorusov, is a Belarus national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kyiv (Ukraine). Relying on Article   5   §   1, § 4   and   § 5 (right to liberty and security), he complains that if extradited to Belarus, he would risk torture and an unfair trial in criminal proceedings opened there in 2000 in which he is wanted for swindling, as well as that his arrest in Kyiv on the basis of an arrest warrant from Belarus was unlawful, that his applications for release were not examined promptly and effectively by a court and that he had no right to compensation for this detention.   Vergelskyy v. Ukraine (no. 19312/06) The applicant, Mykola Vergelskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Romny (Ukraine). He was detained in March 2004 on suspicion of having killed, in June 2003, an acquaintance of his at his house. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of having been ill-treated while in detention and that no effective investigation has been conducted into his allegations, of not having been given adequate medical assistance and of having been kept in a cell with smokers, and that the criminal proceedings against him have lasted too long.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kalinichenko v. Russia (no. 19136/04) Veretennikov v. Russia (no. 8363/03) Zakharov v. Russia (no. 51380/07) Krasovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 36772/04) Lebedintseva v. Ukraine (no. 37208/04) Matkivska v. Ukraine (no. 38683/04) Otychenko and Fedishchenko v. Ukraine (nos. 1755/05 and 25912/06) Vasylyeva and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 39876/05, 35532/06 and 37715/06) Voskoboynyk v. Ukraine (no. 39874/05) All the applicants rely on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing). The applicant in the case of Veretennikov also complains under the same Article about the length of the proceedings. With the exception of the applicants in the cases of Krasovskiy , Lebedintseva and Otychenko and Fedishchenko they also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Matkivska also relies 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 applicant in the case of Beckas also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Beckas v. Greece (no. 24454/07) Michailidou and Others v. Greece (no. 21091/07) Nikitaki and Others v. Greece (no. 51380/07)     ***   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.