CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 avril 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 } .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   286 2.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   7 and 9 April 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 7 April 2009 and ten on Thursday 9 April 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 7 April 2009   Revision Fonyódi v. Hungary (application no. 30799/04) The applicant, Gyuláné Fonyódi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest. On 7 October 2008 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning her complaint about the excessive length of civil proceedings she had brought against a hospital for compensation following complications from plastic surgery. She requests revision of that judgment arguing that an invoice concerning legal fees should have been taken into account in her claim for costs.   Cherif and Others v. Italy (no. 1860/07) The applicants are two Tunisian nationals, Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif and his brother Kais Cherif, and an Italian national, Sonia Brusadelli (the wife of Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif). Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif was born in 1970 and currently lives in Tunisia, and Sonia Brusadelli was born in 1964 and lives in Dazio (Italy). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 34 (right of individual application) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens), the applicants complain in particular about the Italian authorities’ deportation of Foued Ben Fitouri Cherif, who was suspected of terrorist activity, to Tunisia in 2007.   Žičkus v. Lithuania (no. 26652/02) The applicant, Egidijus Žičkus, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in the Vilnius area (Lithuania). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains that, as a result of a law on the basis of which it was publicly announced that he had been a KGB collaborator, he lost his job and his private sector employment prospects were henceforth restricted.   Breabin v. Moldova (no. 12544/08) The applicant, Dumitru Breabin, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1959 and lives in Chişinău. Summonsed to the Ministry of Internal Affairs in December 2004 on suspicion of forgery, Mr Breabin alleges that two police officers beat him with truncheons and punched him in the head in order to try to force him into a confession. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the ill-treatment to which he was subjected and the ensuing inadequacy of the investigation into his allegations.   Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova (No. 4) (no. 18491/07) The applicants are: Hyde Park, a non-governmental organisation registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Justice at the time of the events, since replaced by Hyde Park unincorporated association; and, eight Moldovan nationals, Oleg Brega, Anatolie Juraveli, Roman Cotelea, Mariana Galescu, Radu Vasilascu, Vitalie Dragan, Angela Lungu and Anatol Hristea-Stan. In August 2006 the applicants took part in a demonstration to protest about Chişinău town hall’s refusal to erect a monument donated by Romania; the protest was broken up by the police and the applicants were detained and taken to Buiucani Police Station where they were charged with unlawful assembly and resisting arrest. The applicants complain in particular about the authorities’ refusal to authorise their demonstration, the unlawfulness of their arrest, the conditions of their detention at the police station and the unfairness of the ensuing proceedings they brought against the police officers who had arrested them. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Straisteanu and Others v. Moldova (no. 4834/06) The applicants are three Moldovan nationals, Gheorghe Straisteanu, a well-known businessman and former Member of Parliament, Natalia Straisteanu and Daniela Straisteanu, who were born in 1954, 1957 and 1986 respectively. They are members of the same family and live in Chişinău. The fourth applicant is SRL Codrana-Lux, a limited liability company incorporated in Moldova, the majority of which is owned by the applicant family. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that they were the victims of government harassment and intimidation. All the applicants complain that the Government tried to pressure them into giving up property they owned and that proceedings in which the authorities sought to annul the contracts of lease and sale of that property were unfair. Gheorghe Straisteanu also alleges that the harassment had included him being arrested in 2005 and 2006 and charged with car theft and uttering death threats; he complains in particular about the unlawfulness and conditions of his detention. They rely in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Brânduşe v. Romania (no. 6586/03) The applicant, Ioan Brânduşe, is a Romanian national who was born 1951. Sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for fraud, he is currently detained in Arad Prison (Romania). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains of the conditions of detention in police premises in Arad and the prisons in Timişoara and Arad, referring in particular to prison overcrowding, poor-quality food and sanitary conditions. In addition, under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family), he complains about the offensive smells created by a former refuse tip situated not far from Arad prison, and the absence of confidentiality during telephone calls with persons outside the prison.   Paroisse Gréco-Catholique Sfântul Vasile Polonă v. Romania (no. 65965/01) The applicant is the Greek-Catholic parish of Sfântul Vasile Polonă, under the authority of the Romanian Archdiocese of Alba Iulia and Făgăraş, which is based in Bucharest. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains about two sets of proceedings brought by it against the Orthodox parish in order to obtain the return of property.   Stoişor and Others v. Romania (no. 16900/03) The applicants, Ilie Marcel Stoişor, Maria Işa, Cornelia Stoişor and Carmen Mihaiela Oană, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1945, 1921, 1922 and 1955 respectively and live in Romania. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complain about the setting aside of a final judgment in their favour concerning a building they had owned.   Tiron v. Romania (no. 17689/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Tiron, is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Bucharest. From March 2003 to December 2004 he was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion, inter alia , of tax evasion and forgery. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that he was not brought “promptly” before an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power following his placement in pre-trial detention, and that the Romanian courts did not give reasons for his continued detention.   Mendel v. Sweden (no. 28426/06) The applicant, Sonja Mendel, is a Swedish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Malmö. From 2001 the applicant took part in a programme organised by the State for the long-term unemployed. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Mendel complains that she was not able to make an appeal against a decision which had withdrawn permission for her to participate in the programme.   Karatepe and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33112/04, 36110/04, 40190/04, 41469/04 and 41471/04) The applicants are 17 Turkish nationals who live Turkey. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), they complain about their arrest by the police in Taksim (Istanbul) in August 2003, during a demonstration organised by the association Halkevleri (“houses of the people”), condemning, in particular, the sending of troops to Iraq.   Nafiye Çetin and Others v. Turkey (no. 19180/03) The applicants, Nafiye Çetin, Necat Çetin, Nezir Çetin, Adnan Çetin, Nuriye Kaymış and Leman Ekingen, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1929, 1972, 1956, 1966, 1963 and 1953 respectively and live in Mersin, Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa in Turkey. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the death of their 20-year-old son and brother, Harun Çetin, following his detention in police custody in March 1993. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Turnalı v. Turkey (no. 4914/03) The applicant, Yıldız Turnalı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). She claims that she was born from an extramarital relationship between her mother and Hasan Yavaş (died 2000), who did not legally recognise her as his child. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains about the Turkish courts’ dismissal of her action to establish her paternal affiliation and be recognised as one of Mr Yavaş’s heirs.     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.   Ladoméry v. Slovakia (no. 39783/05)     Thursday 9 April 2009   A. v. Norway (no. 28070/06) The applicant, A., is a Norwegian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Kristiansand (Norway). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfavourable outcome of a defamation suit he brought against the newspaper, Fœdrelandsvennen , following their publication of news coverage about the preliminary investigations into the rape and murder of two young girls (the so-called Baneheia case) in 2000 and which implicated him. The applicant was questioned about the murders but released after 10 hours; two other men were subsequently convicted of the crimes. He relies on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Dokayev and Others v. Russia (no. 16629/05) Dzhabrailova v. Russia (no. 1586/05) Gaziyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 15439/05) Malsagova and Others v. Russia (no. 27244/03) The applicants in the first case are 11 Russian nationals from three families who live in Grozny (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Isa Dokayev, Ruslan Askhabov and Isa Dubayev, born in 1969, 1962 and 1981, respectively. The three men have not been seen since they were abducted from the Dokayev family home in the early hours of 10   December 2002 by a group of masked men in white camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns and pistols.   The applicant in the second case is a Russian national who lives in Goyty (Chechen Republic). She is the mother of Khanpasha Dzhabrailov, born in 1976, who has not been seen since the early hours of 10   April 2003 when he was abducted from his family home by a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns.   The applicants in the third case are three Russian nationals who live in Chechen-Aul (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and children of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev, born in 1968, who has not been seen since the afternoon of 8   February 2001, when he was abducted by men in masks and uniforms who had stopped his lorry at a military roadblock.   The applicants in the fourth case are seven Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, brother and sisters of Saydi Malsagov, born in 1980, who has not been seen since the early hours of 7   November 2002 when he was abducted from his family home by a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns and sniper rifles.   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).   Grigoryevskikh v. Russia (no. 22/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Grigoryevskikh, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Gribanovskiy (Russia). Arrested in January 2001 on suspicion of robbery, theft and unlawful possession of arms, Mr Grigoryevskikh complains about the appalling conditions of his detention pending trial and the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   6   §   3   (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).   Kolesnichenko v. Russia (no. 19856/04) The applicant, Aleksey Kolesnichenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Perm (Russia). At the relevant time he was a practising advocate and member of the Perm Regional Bar. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Kolesnichenko complains about the search of his home and office in the context of criminal proceedings against one of his clients.   Kondratyev v. Russia (no. 2450/04) The applicant, Aleksey Kondratyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in Kaluga (Russia) for firearms trafficking and aggravated murder. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his detention in custody.     Repetitive case   Eduard Chistyakov v. Russia (no. 15336/02) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).     Length-of-proceedings cases   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.   Hub v. Germany (no. 1182/05)     ***   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.