CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 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 } .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 }   343 23.04.09   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   28 and 30 April 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 28 April 2009 and eight on Thursday 30 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 28 April 2009   Karakó v. Hungary (application no. 39311/05) The applicant, László Karakó, a member of Parliament, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Gávavencsellő (Hungary). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleges that the Hungarian authorities failed to act upon a criminal complaint which he brought against another politician for having damaged his reputation during the 2002 Parliamentary elections.   Rózsa v. Hungary (no. 30789/05) The applicants, Ferenc Rózsa and István Rózsa, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1949 respectively and live in Budapest. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, they complain that they were unable to seek compensation in court for the loss of value of their shares in a company whose liquidation had been ordered unlawfully.   Savino and Others v. Italy (no. 17214/05, 20329/05, 42113/04) In the first two cases the applicants, Pericle Savino and Attilio Persichetti, are Italian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1948 respectively and live in Civitella San Paolo and Rome.   The two applicants, a surveyor and an architect, are employees of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. They applied to their administration for a special project allowance and Pericle Savino also requested the reimbursement of insurance contributions. The Judicial Committee for officials of the Chamber of Deputies partly upheld the applicants’ claims; the administration appealed and requested a stay of execution of the decisions. The Judicial Section of the Presidency of the Chamber of Deputies, whilst finding inadmissible the requests for a stay of execution as they were out of time, upheld the administration’s appeals on the merits and set aside the Committee’s decisions.     In the third case the applicants, Andrea Borgo, Davide Carbonara, Andrea Fantoni, Domenico Giordani and Daniela Colasanti, are Italian nationals who were born between 1966 and 1974 and live in Rome. They were selected and invited to sit a written examination organised by the Chamber of Deputies, but they were not on the short-list of candidates who passed the written examination. They appealed to the Judicial Committee for officials of the Chamber of Deputies, which upheld their appeals. The Judicial Section of the Presidency of the Chamber of Deputies upheld the administration’s subsequent appeal. The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation, but to no avail.   The three cases concern the nature of the Judicial Committee and Judicial Section for officials of the Chamber of Deputies. In all three cases the applicants complain that they were denied access to a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) for the adjudication of their claims. They submit that the Judicial Committee and Judicial Section for officials of the Chamber of Deputies are not tribunals established by law or independent and impartial as required by the Convention.   Bijelić v. Montenegro and Serbia (no. 11890/05) The applicants, Nadezda Bijelić, Svetlana Bijelić and Ljiljana Bijelić, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1950, 1973 and 1971 respectively and live in Belgrade. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to home), they complain in particular about the non-enforcement of an eviction order concerning a flat in Montenegro and their consequent inability to live in the flat at issue.   Godysz v. Poland (no. 46949/07) The applicant, Władysław Godysz, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Siemanowice (Poland). In April 2005 he was remanded in custody on suspicion of bribery, evasion of tax and customs duties and forgery committed in an organised criminal gang; he was released on bail in April 2008. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was detained for too long pending his trial.   Rasmussen v. Poland (no. 38886/05) The applicant, Alicja Rasmussen, a retired judge, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Szczecin (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) alone and in combination with Article   6   §   3 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), she alleges that the proceedings concerning her declaration under a lustration law of 1997 were unfair, and that she lost money as a result of the judgments in the lustration proceedings, which deprived her of a social insurance entitlement guaranteed to retired judges.   Milošević v. Serbia (no. 31320/05) The applicant, Slaviša Milošević, was a national of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro when he lodged his application before the Court. He was born in 1972 and lives in Belgrade. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement), he complains of not having been brought promptly before a judge with power to order his release from detention on suspicion of theft, as a result of which his freedom of movement was unduly restricted.   K.H. and Others v. Slovakia (no. 32881/04) The applicants are eight female Slovak nationals of Roma ethnic origin. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they were unable to obtain photocopies of their medical records, which they needed in order to   enable doctors to establish   the reason for their infertility. They also complain that this denied them access to court, as they   were unable to assess in a qualified manner   the position in their cases   for later civil litigation,   or the prospects of success of any such litigation, and to   produce photocopies of their medical records as evidence.   Ersoy and Aslan v. Turkey (no. 16087/03) The applicants, Mr Hasim Özgür Ersoy and Mr Korkmaz Aslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1978 and 1979 and live in Istanbul and Edirne respectively. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of torture), they allege that they suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the security forces dispersing a demonstration in which they were taking part, then in the van in which they were taken to the police station. After hearing the police officers, the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings in a judgment subsequently upheld by the Assize Court. The applicants also relied on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), complaining that they had been prevented from demonstrating.   Gülecan v. Turkey (no. 23904/03) The applicant, Mahmut Gülecan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1989. In 2002 he was sentenced to imprisonment as a member of an illegal organisation. He alleges that he was convicted on the strength of a statement he made in the absence of his lawyer, while in police custody. He also alleges that the Court of Cassation upheld the impugned judgment without notifying him in writing of the opinion of the court’s Principal State Counsel. Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that he did not have the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody and that he was not informed of the opinion of the Principal State Counsel.   Kelekçier v. Turkey (no. 5387/02) The applicant, Mr Sidik Kelekçier, is a Turkish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Diyarbakir. He alleges that he suffered ill-treatment at the hands of security forces who went to his home to arrest his brother, who was wanted on suspicion of fraud. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture), the applicant alleges that he was beaten during the journey to the police station where he was taken for questioning. He also complains under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that there was no effective remedy against the ill-treatment he allegedly suffered.   Kuyu v. Turkey (no. 1180/04) The applicant, Mr Yadigar Kuyu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and was being held in Ermenek prison (Karaman) when the application was lodged. He alleges that the proceedings that followed his arrest were particularly long. Relying on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that he was not judged within a reasonable time.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Arıcı and Others v. Turkey (no. 35528/03) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) concerning the failure to enforce judgments in their favour delivered by the labour tribunal following their dismissal from Sofulu town hall (Adana).   Fatihoğlu and Ugutmen v. Turkey (no. 43498/04) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in a case concerning the transfer of ownership of their property to the State Treasury without compensation.   Blackgrove v. the United Kingdom (no. 2895/07) The applicant relies on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in combination with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).     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.   Klimkiewicz v. Poland (no. 44537/05) Revision   Trojańczyk v. Poland (no. 11219/02)     Thursday 30 April 2009   Roubies v. Greece (no. 22525/07) The applicant, Mr Nikolaos Roubies, is a Greek national who lives in Neoi Poroi Pierias. Relying in particular on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains of the excessive length of proceedings in which he sought to recover the reserved portion of an estate to which he believed he was entitled, and of the rejection of certain grounds of appeal, according to him, for purely formal reasons.   Tsotsos v. Greece (no. 25109/07) The applicant, Mr Konstantinos Tsotsos, is a Greek national who was born in 1964 and lives in Chalkida. Relying on Articles 6   §§   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 3   (d) (right to have witnesses examined), he complains of the length of criminal proceedings against him for reckless arson and the fact that he was convicted on the strength of witness statements.   Glor v. Switzerland (no. 13444/04) The applicant, Sven Glor, is a Swiss national who was born in 1978 and lives in Dällikon. He suffers from diabetes and was declared unfit for military service by a military doctor, but was nevertheless required to pay a tax for not doing his military service. He considers this as discrimination and, relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), argues that he was quite willing to do military service but was prevented from doing it, yet nevertheless obliged to pay a tax by the competent authorities, who considered his disability a minor one. He alleges that the disability threshold (40% physical or mental disability) used as the criterion for exemption from the impugned tax has no legal basis.   Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Blinov and Blinova v. Russia The applicants rely 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. The applicant in the case of Kontogouris also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Kontogouris v. Greece (no. 38463/07) Nikolopoulou v. Greece (no. 54581/07) Papathanasis v. Greece (no. 46064/07) Gasanova v. Russia (no. 23310/04)     ***   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.