CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   236 20.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   24 and 26 March 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 23 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 24 March 2009 and nine on Thursday 26 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 24 March 2009   Abdelhedi v. Italy (application no. 2638/07) Ben Salah v. Italy (no. 38128/06) Bouyahia v. Italy (no. 46792/06) C.B.Z. v. Italy (no. 44006/06) Darraji v. Italy (no. 11549/05) Hamraoui v. Italy (no. 16201/07) O. v. Italy (no. 37257/06) Soltana v. Italy (no. 37336/06) The applicants, Mohamed Abdelhedi, Ben Salah, Maher Ben Abdelaziz Bouyahia, C.B.Z., Kamel Darraji, Kamel Ben Boundi Hamraoui, O. and Mohamed Ben Salah Soltana, are Tunisian nationals living in Italy who were born in 1965, 1967, 1970, 1976, 1965, 1977, 1960 and 1973 respectively. In the eight cases, the applicants allege, in particular, under Article   3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) that enforcement of the decisions ordering their deportation to Tunisia would place them at risk of torture. In addition, the applicants in Ben Salah , Darraji and Hamraoui rely on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, and the applicants in C.B.Z. , O. and Soltana rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). In the cases of Bouyahia and Darraji , the applicants also rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   Poppe v. the Netherlands (no. 32271/04) The applicant, Bart Poppe, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1966 and lives in Amsterdam. In April 2000 Mr Poppe was arrested on suspicion of various drugs-related offences; he was ultimately convicted of facilitating drug trafficking and participating in a criminal organisation and sentenced to two years and ten months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to an impartial tribunal), Mr Poppe complains that two of the judges of the first instance court that tried him had taken part in the trial of a number of his co-accused and had, in the judgments convicting them, found him to be connected with the criminal offences at issue.   Mojsiejew v. Poland (no. 11818/02) The applicant, Władysława Mojsiejew, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bojszowy (Poland). The case concerns Ms Mojsiejew’s allegation that staff of a sobering-up centre were responsible for the death of her 25-year-old son, Hubert Mojsiejew, on 28 August 1999 as a result of the steps taken to immobilise him and the lack of ensuing supervision of his state of health. She also alleges that the investigation into her son’s death and the criminal proceedings against those responsible were inadequate. She relies on Article   2 (right to life).   Niţescu v. Romania (no. 26004/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Constantin Niţescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Piteşti (Romania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains of the failure to enforce a final judicial decision in his favour which ordered the setting-aside of two administrative acts authorising the reconversion for commercial use of part of the building in which he was living.   Tudor Tudor v. Romania (no. 21911/03) The applicant, Tudor Tudor, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns Mr Tudor’s complaint about the unfairness of proceedings against him for recovery of possession of an apartment he had bought from the State. He alleges in particular that the same domestic court adopted conflicting decisions in identical cases brought against other buyers of apartments situated in the same building as his. The eviction proceedings lodged by the former owner of the applicant’s apartment are currently still pending before the domestic courts. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Berková v. Slovakia (no. 67149/01) The applicant, Jarmila Berková, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Poprad (Slovakia). The case concerns Ms Berková’s complaint that, suffering from a mental disorder which had resulted in her being appointed a guardian, in 1999 the domestic courts refused to restore full legal capacity to her and decided that she was not allowed to make any further such request for the next three years. She also complains in particular about the excessive length of proceedings concerning her divorce, division of matrimonial property and maintenance. She relies 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).   Beker v. Turkey (no. 27866/03) The applicants, Fadik Beker, Özgür   Beker, Aytekin Beker and Sibel Beker, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1955, 1976, 1979 and 1983, respectively, and live in Ankara. They are the mother, brothers and sister of Mustafa Beker, born in 1977, who, an expert corporal in the Tunceli gendarmerie, was found shot in the head in his army barracks dormitory on 8 March 2001. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that, even though the official military investigation concluded that Mustafa had committed suicide, their relative had either been murdered or had died due to negligence. They rely on Article   2 (right to life), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Vrioni and Others v. Albania (no. 2141/03) The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Marinescu and Mangu v. Romania (no. 26094/03) The applicants rely on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Hasırcı v. Turkey (no. 38012/03) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Mehmet Emin Şahin v. Turkey (no. 6124/02) The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and 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 Pátaková also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Vienonen and Others v. Finland (no. 36989/05) Czifra v. Hungary (no. 13290/05) Katona v. Hungary (no. 20075/05) Pátaková v. Hungary (no. 41453/05) Dorota and Zbigniew Nowak v. Poland (no. 17904/04)     Thursday 26 March 2009   Valentin Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 76942/01) The applicant, Valentin Ivanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Ivanov complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for, among other offences, aggravated murder.   Krejčíř v. the Czech Republic (nos. 39298/04 and 8723/05) The applicant, Radovan Krejčíř, is a national of the Czech Republic and the Seychelles who was born in 1968. He has his permanent residence in Prague but is currently in South Africa, where extradition proceedings are in progress against him. The case concerns the applicant’s detention in the Czech Republic between September 2003 and September 2004 on suspicion of fraud. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Krejčíř alleges, in particular, that the decisions ordering and extending his detention were not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and that the judicial review of his detention did not satisfy the requirements of the Convention.   Valentin v. Denmark (no. 26461/06) The applicant, James Valentin, is a Danish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Copenhagen. He was a partner in a banking and stockbroking firm which went bankrupt in 1988. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Mr   Valentin complains in particular about the excessive length of the bankruptcy proceedings.   Yelizarov v. Russia (no. 36551/07) The applicant, Dmitriy Yelizarov, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. On his way to court to attend a hearing about the Russian authorities’ refusal to register the National Bolshevik Party, Mr Yelizarov got involved in a fight outside the court building. He was arrested in April 2007 and charged with participating in mass disorders, assault and battery. In March 2008 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention pending trial.     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Nikolenko v. Russia (no. 38103/04) The applicant relies 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).     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 Medić also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Petko Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 19207/04) Medić v. Croatia (no. 49916/07) Deiwick v. Germany (no. 7369/04) Vaas v. Germany (no. 20271/05)     ***   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.