CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 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   305 9.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   14 and 16 April 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 14 April 2009 and 16 on Thursday 16 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 14 April 2009   Manninen v. Finland (application no. 28631/05) The applicant, Rainer Kaarlo Tapio Manninen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Helsinki. Suspected of aggravated debtor’s dishonesty and false accounting concerning a company he owned, Mr Manninen was questioned by the police in April 1997. He was ultimately convicted as charged in February 2005 and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about the excessive length – almost eight years – of the criminal proceedings against him.   Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary (no. 37374/05) The applicant, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért (the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union), is an association founded in 1994 and registered in Hungary with its seat in Budapest. It is a non-governmental organisation which aims to promote fundamental rights as well as to strengthen civil society and the rule of law in Hungary; it is active in the field of drug policy. In 2004 the Hungarian courts refused the applicant association access to a complaint which was pending before the Constitutional Court in which a parliamentarian requested scrutiny of amendments to the Criminal Code with regard to drug-related offences. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért allege that that refusal breached its right to have access to information of public interest.   Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (No. 4) (no. 41870/05) Ferreira Alves v. Portugal (No. 5) (no. 30381/06) The applicant, Jorge de Jesus Ferreira Alves, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1953 and lives in Matosinhos (Portugal). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complains, in the first case, that he was not provided with a copy of a note from the judge and that the Porto Court of Appeal failed to reply to one of his grounds of appeal, in the context of proceedings to secure the payment of fees he was owed, and in the second case that he had been unable to reply to a note from the judge and had not been provided with a copy of it, in the context of a dispute between the applicant and the cooperative Université Portucalense de Porto .   Dan Cristian Ionescu v. Romania (no. 17782/02) The applicant, Dan Cristian Ionescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. 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 proceedings he brought concerning the illegal demolition by the Romanian authorities in 1987 of a property he owned and the impossibility of obtaining payment of the building’s market value.   Didu v. Romania (no. 34814/02) The applicant, Ion Didu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Craiova (Romania). In proceedings which started in April 1995 and lasted until 2002 he was charged with falsifying and using reports drawn up at an auction sale and with assault. Among other procedural incidents, the case was remitted twice after the Court of Cassation had quashed judgments of the lower courts. Relying on Article   6   §§   1   and   2 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and respect for the presumption of innocence), Mr Didu submits that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that the presumption of his innocence was infringed through the erroneous interpretation of the evidence made by the Court of Cassation, which convicted him after the lower courts had at first acquitted him on the basis of the same evidence.   Olteanu v. Romania (no. 71090/01) The applicant, Nicu Olteanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Bucharest. On 16 May 1997 he was arrested by the police on suspicion of being in the act of stealing six bottles of mineral water. A bullet fired by police officers pursuing Mr Olteanu after he had managed to get away from them hit him in the foot. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was beaten and injured by the police during his arrest, that he did not receive appropriate medical assistance despite his injury and that there was no effective investigation into his allegations.   Felbab v. Serbia (no. 14011/07) The applicant, Nedeljko Felbab, is a Serbian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Zrenjanin (Serbia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains about the non-enforcement of a final access order by the Municipal Court concerning the dissolution of his marriage and the custody of his children, and that he had had no effective domestic remedy to expedite the enforcement proceedings.   Ditaban v. Turkey (no. 69006/01) The applicant, Savaş Ditaban, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He was arrested in April 2000 in connection with an investigation conducted by the organised crime and arms traffic branch of the Izmir police. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), he alleges that while being questioned he was subjected to insults, electric shocks and blows struck with an iron bar and a handgun until one of his arms and one of his hands were broken. He complains that there was no effective investigation into these allegations and that he had no lawyer while he was in police custody.   Mecail Özel v. Turkey (no. 16816/03) The applicant, Mecail Özel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). In February 2000, while taking part in a demonstration, he was arrested and taken into custody by police officers ordered to disperse the demonstrators. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he was raped after his arrest and while he was in police custody and that his allegations of ill-treatment had not been seriously investigated or examined by independent and impartial authorities.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   S.C. Ghepardul S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 29268/03) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Karakuş v. Turkey (no. 19467/07) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) 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. In the Rusňáková v. Slovakia case the applicant also relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Paliga and Adamkowicz v. Poland (no. 23856/05) Tomaszewska v. Poland (no. 9399/03) Rusňáková v. Slovakia (no. 51071/06)     Thursday 16 April 2009   Hanževački v. Croatia (no. 17182/07) The applicant, Davor Hanževački, is a Croatian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Daruvar (Croatia). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains about the unfairness of proceedings brought against him for violation of computer software copyrights.   Antonopoulou and Others v. Greece (no. 49000/06) The applicants, Vagia Antonopoulou, Dimitrios Chrysafis, Emmanouil Mantousis and Nikiforos Mantousis are Greek nationals. They are the owners of land adjoining a national road between Thessaloniki and Nea Moudania (Greece). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complain, among other matters, that proceedings concerning the expropriation of their land were unfair and of the Greek courts’ refusal to award them special compensation for the non-expropriated parts of their land.   Dellis v. Greece (no. 24977/07) Kanakis v. Greece (no. 16634/07) In these cases the applicants are two Greek nationals. Demetris Dellis, who was born in 1982, is currently detained in Larissa Prison (Greece) after being convicted of possessing, trafficking and using prohibited drugs and possessing ammunition. Vassilios Kanakis, who was born in 1952, was convicted of drug trafficking and is currently imprisoned in Corfu (Greece). Relying on Article   6   §   1   (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain that the length of the criminal proceedings against them was excessive.   Karavelatzis v. Greece (no. 30340/07) The applicant, Georgios Karavelatzis, is a Greek national who was born in 1960 and lives on the island of Rhodes (Greece). The case concerns a dispute about ownership of a house on the island of Castellorizo (Greece), which ended with the applicant’s conviction for fraud. Relying on Article 6   §§   1 and   2 (right to a fair trial), Mr Karavelatzis alleges that his trial was conducted in a climate of hostility, responsibility for which lay mainly with the local press and which in his submission infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence.   Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway (no. 34438/04) The applicants are two Norwegian nationals: John Olav Egeland who was born in 1951 and lives in Bekkestua (Norway); and, Einar Hanseid who was born in 1943 and lives in Oslo. At the relevant time, the first applicant was Editor in Chief of Dagbladet and the second applicant Editor in Chief of Aftenposten , two major national newspapers in Norway. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain, in particular, about their conviction and sentencing to a fine by the Norwegian courts for unlawful publication of photographs of a woman leaving a court building where she had just been convicted and sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment for a triple murder.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Buchkovskaya v. Ukraine (no. 32832/06) Garashchenko v. Ukraine (no. 26873/05) Gnitzevich v. Ukraine (no. 29925/04) Yarmola v. Ukraine (no. 7060/04) The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Buchkovskaya 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 Bykov also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Davaris v. Greece (no. 43394/06) Gioka v. Greece (no. 44806/07) Vlastos v. Greece (no. 28803/07) Bykov v. Ukraine (no. 26675/07) Popilin v. Ukraine (no. 12470/04) Pysatyuk v. Ukraine (no. 21979/04)     ***   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.