CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 mai 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } 377 07.05.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   12 and 14 May 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing seven Chamber judgments on Tuesday 12 May 2009 and four on Thursday 14 May 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 12 May 2009   Masaev v. Moldova (application no. 6303/05) The applicant, Talgat Masaev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1957 and lives in Rezeni (Moldova). He is a Muslim and in January 2004, whilst praying with other Muslims in a rented house, the police arrived and dispersed the group. He was subsequently found guilty of practising a religion not recognised by the State and given a fine. Relying on Article   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr   Masaev complains that that conviction and fine infringed his right to freedom of religion. He also alleges that he was not summoned to the appeal hearing in his case, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Mirozowski v. Poland (no. 9258/04) The applicant, Artur Mrozowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Piastów (Poland). On 28 April 2002, Mr Mrozowski was on his way home from work by train when football hooligans started to vandalise the carriage and its windows; the police intervened. Caught up in the incident, the applicant alleges that a policeman hit him in the face with a truncheon; he lost several teeth. Relying on Article   3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the excessive use of force used against him by the police and that the Polish authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations.   Tănase v. Romania (no. 5269/02) The applicant, Niculae Tănase, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest. In February 2001 Mr Tănase, a director of a company selling petroleum products, was placed under investigation and detained on suspicion, among other things, of incitement to deceit, tax evasion, forgery of documents and embezzlement. He was held in Ploieşti Prison. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges, with regard to his detention, that his state of health was incompatible with imprisonment, that he did not receive appropriate medical treatment for his cancer and diabetes and that he was subjected to degrading treatment while placed in a civilian hospital, where he alleges that he was handcuffed to the bed. He also relies on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), complaining that there was no justification for his pre-trial detention – which ended with his final criminal conviction in 2006 – and that the length of the criminal proceedings was unreasonable.   Korelc v. Slovenia (no. 28456/03) The applicant, Janez Korelc, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Ljubljana (Slovenia). In 1990 Mr Korelc moved in with an 86-year-old man, A. Z., who rented an apartment from Ljubljana Municipality; he provided him with daily care. The applicant complains that, when A.Z. died in 1993, he was denied the right to succeed to the tenancy of the apartment on the ground of gender, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). Further relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he also complains about the excessive length of the proceedings against Ljubljana Municipality concerning his tenancy rights.     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Elias v. Romania (no. 32800/02) The applicants rely 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.   Ziętal v. Poland (no. 64972/01) Buľková v. Slovakia (no. 35017/03)     Thursday 14 May 2009   Alibekov v. Russia (no. 8413/02) The applicant, Sulayman Alibekov, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Inchkha (Russia). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Alibekov complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment in August 2002 by a special police unit in a correctional colony in the Tyumen Region where he was serving two sentences for manslaughter and a grave traffic offence. He also alleges that the investigation into the incident was ineffective.   Taysumov and Others v. Russia (no. 21810/03) Turluyeva and Khamidova v. Russia (no. 12417/05) The applicants in the first case are three Russian nationals who live in Chechen-Aul (Chechen Republic). Their son, Kazbek Taysumov, born in 1978; daughter-in-law, Zulpat Eskirkhanova, born in 1978; and, grand-daughter, Ayshat Eskirkhanova, born in 1999, were killed in the evening of 7   September 2002 when their home came under artillery fire and was hit by three shells.   The applicants in the second case are two Russian nationals who live in Alleroy (Chechen Republic). They are the wife and mother of Aslanbek Khamidov, born in 1965, who has not been seen since the morning of 25   October 2000 when he was arrested during a special security operation carried out in his village by the Russian armed forces.   The applicants in the first case allege that their close relatives died as a result of a Russian military artillery attack, and the applicants in the second case allege that their relative disappeared after being unlawfully detained by State agents. In both cases the applicants complain 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).     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.   Vervesos v. Greece (no. 14721/06)     ***   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.