CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 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 } .sEA5CB6F2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#000080 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   321 17.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   21 and 23 April 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 21 April 2009 and 13 on 23 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 21 April 2009   Marttinen v. Finland (application no. 19235/03) The applicant, Mikko Marttinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Helsinki. Mr Marttinen alleges that the   fact that he was fined in debt recovery proceedings   for refusing to give an overall account of his assets and other financial means, although at the same time he was suspected of debtor’s fraud, violated his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Stephens v. Malta (No. 1) (no. 11956/07) Stephens v. Malta (No. 2) (no. 33740/06) The applicant, Mark Charles Stephens, is a British national who was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Malta for drugs offences. In August and November 2004, following a request for extradition by the Maltese authorities, Mr   Stephens was arrested in Spain on two occasions on suspicion of having conspired in drug trafficking.   In both cases, he relies on Article   5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   The first case concerns Mr   Stephens’s complaint that he was detained in Spain on the basis of an unlawful order issued in Malta and that Malta did not have jurisdiction to try him. He also alleges that he was not able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention on appeal.   The second case concerns Mr Stephens’s complaint that the domestic courts did not address the issues raised by his lawyer when challenging the lawfulness of his arrest, and failed to review speedily the lawfulness of his detention.   Jelitto v. Poland (no. 17602/07) The applicant, Dariusz Jelitto, is a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Zielona Góra (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the length of the fraud proceedings against him were excessive.   Rusiecki v. Poland (no. 36246/97) The applicant, Edmund Rusiecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Poland. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand on charges of acting in an organised criminal gang and aggravated assault.   Răducu v. Romania (no. 70787/01) The applicant, Ion Răducu, was a Romanian national who was born in 1939 and lived in Alexandria (Romania). Following his death on 27 December 2000, his widow Mrs Saveta Răducu expressed her wish to pursue the application and also submitted new complaints to the Court. Mr Răducu, who had been the mayor of Alexandria, was prosecuted for trading in influence and was remanded in custody in August 2000. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complained in particular that his pre-trial custody and the monitoring of his telephone conversations had been unlawful. Under Article 2 (right to life), Mrs Saveta Răducu further alleges that her husband died as a result of insufficient medical treatment during his detention.   Abdullah Yalçin v. Turkey (no. 2723/07) Çığdem v. Turkey (no. 16963/07) The applicants in these cases, Abdullah Yalçin and Sadun Çığdem, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1971 respectively and who are currently imprisoned in Diyarbakır (Turkey). They were arrested and remanded in custody in the course of operations against the illegal armed organisation Hizbullah. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), they complain that the length of their pre-trial detention was excessive.   Enerji Yapı-Yol Sen v. Turkey (no. 68959/01) Enerji Yapı-Yol Sen is a union of civil servants working in the fields of land registration, energy, infrastructure services and motorway construction. It was founded in 1992 and is based in Ankara. Relying in particular on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicant union alleges that the national authorities have breached its right to trade-union freedom.   Miran v. Turkey (no. 43980/04) The applicant, Murat Miran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1987 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains of unfairness in proceedings concerning his expulsion from an academy for non-commissioned officers in Mızıka following a disciplinary investigation.   Soykan v. Turkey (no. 47368/99) The applicant, Tugay Soykan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Istanbul. He was arrested in 1996 and ultimately sentenced to two years and six months in prison for assisting the illegal organisation Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Cephesi Partisi (DHKP/C – Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges among other things that he was ill-treated while in police custody. In addition he complains, under Article   6   §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, in particular because he was tried in a court for adults even though he was only 16 at the time.   Topal v. Turkey (no. 3055/04) The applicant, Mücahit Topal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Ankara. Relying mainly on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains of unfairness in proceedings concerning his expulsion from a specialised gendarmerie academy in Beytepe, following a secret investigation carried out by the competent public authorities.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Velocci v. Italy (no. 1717/03) In its judgment of 18   March 2008 in this case, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) but reserved its decision on the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) for further consideration.   Chibulcutean v. Romania (no. 19588/04) Niţescu v. Romania (no. 20763/03) In these two cases the applicants rely in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Kurt and Fırat v. Turkey (no. 26828/03) The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Mustafa Koçer v. Turkey (no. 9738/06) The applicant relies on 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 applicants in the case of Tamási and Others also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Tamási and Others v. Hungary (no. 25848/06) Serafin and Others v. Poland (no. 36980/04) Gerstbrein v. Slovakia (no. 17252/04) Coşkun v. Turkey (no. 620/03)     Thursday 23 April 2009   Kamburov v. Bulgaria (No. 2) (no. 31001/02) The applicant, Zahari Bechev Kamburov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Dimitrovgrad (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), he alleges in particular that he had no right of appeal before a higher court against his conviction by the district court for a minor breach of the peace.   Rangelov v. Bulgaria (no. 14387/03) The applicant, Stefan Georgiev Rangelov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia. He was arrested and remanded in custody in May 1998 on suspicion of murder. Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complains about his pre-trial detention and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Alaudinova v. Russia (no. 32297/05) Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 36156/04) Gakiyev and Gakiyeva v. Russia (no. 3179/05) Israilova and Others v. Russia (no. 4571/04) Khachukayev v. Russia (no. 28148/03) The applicant in the first case is a Russian national who lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). She is the mother of Bekkhan Alaudinov, born in 1976, who has not been seen since the early hours of 8   November 2001 when he was abducted from the family home by a group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniform and driven away in a military lorry.   The applicants in the second case are 38 Russian nationals who live in Duba-Yurt (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Bayali and Sharip Elmurzayev, born in 1968 and 1971; Khusin and Isa Khadzhimuradov, born in 1975 and 1965; Lechi Shaipov, born in 1960; Apti Murtazov, born in 1964; Zelimkhan Osmayev, born in 1975; and, Idris Elmurzayev, born in 1974. They were abducted from their family homes in the early hours of 27   March 2004 by groups of armed men, some wearing uniforms and masks. Their dead bodies were discovered on 9   April 2004.   The applicants in the third case are two Russian nationals who live in Argun (Chechen Republic). They are the parents of Idris Gakiyev, born in 1980, who was abducted from his family home in the early hours of 30   November 2003 by a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms. His dead body showing signs of a violent death was found on 29   March 2004.   The applicants in the fourth case are 16 Russian nationals who live in Gekhi and Kulary (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Sharpuddin Israilov, born in 1973, and Adlan Dovtayev, born in 1971, who were stopped at a checkpoint by a group of armed men on 30   December 2002 and driven to the Khankala military base. The following day they were tied up and blindfolded and driven away in a military vehicle. They have not been seen since.   The applicant in the fifth case is a Russian national who lives in Goyty (Chechen Republic). He is the father of Murad Khachukayev, born in 1974, who was abducted from the family home in the early hours of 5   February 2003 by a group of armed, masked men wearing camouflage uniforms. His body was found several days later.   The applicants allege that their relatives disappeared – and in three of the cases were then killed – after being unlawfully detained by State agents 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), 6 § 1 (access to court), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Gubkin v. Russia (no. 36941/02) The applicant, Sergey Gubkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving an 11-year prison sentence in Russia for, among other offences, fraud, kidnapping, extortion and robbery. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),   5   (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). The case concerns in particular Mr Gubkin’s complaint about the inhuman conditions of his detention and a lack of effective remedies in that connection, the unlawfulness and excessive length of detention, deficiencies in its judicial review, excessive length of the criminal proceedings in general and a lack of effective domestic remedies in this respect.   Moskovets v. Russia (no. 14370/03) The applicant, Nikita Moskovets, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is currently in prison in Russia serving a life sentence for aggravated murder, theft and fraud. Relying in particular on Articles   5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Moskovets complains about the unlawfulness of his detention and of the composition of the court at his trial as well as about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him.   Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia (no. 1606/02) The applicants, Sergey Popov and Vadim Vorobyev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1963 respectively and live in Vladivostok (Russia). Former police officers, they were arrested in January 2000 with regard to firearms offences. They were ultimately given suspended sentences and released in March 2001. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain about the conditions of their detention in Vladivostok pre-trial detention centre. Further relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), they also complain about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention and that they had not been able to obtain judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention.   Sibgatullin v. Russia (no. 32165/02) The applicant, German Sibgatullin, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in Nizhniy Tagil (Russia) for having committed three murders and theft. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair because appeal hearings had been held in his absence.     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.   Bratovanov v. Bulgaria (no. 28583/03) Ballhausen v. Germany (no. 1479/08)     ***   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.