CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mai 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 } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline }   404 20.5.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   26 and 28 May 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 26 May 2009 and 26 on Thursday 28 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 26 May 2009   Kenedi v. Hungary (application no. 31475/05) The applicant, János Kenedi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest. He is a historian. The case concerns his complaint about the Hungarian authorities’ protracted reluctance to enforce a court order granting him unrestricted access to documents with which he wanted to write a study on the Hungarian State Security Service in the 1960s. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Rossitto v. Italy (no. 7977/03) The applicant, Venera Rossitto, is an Italian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Avola (Italy). In 1984 she became the owner of a plot of land which was included in a series of development plans and repeatedly made subject to construction prohibitions with a view to its expropriation. Although the construction prohibitions later expired, the applicant’s land was not restored to its originally designated use, nor was it expropriated by the administrative authorities. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Mrs   Rossitto alleges that this situation amounts to a de facto expropriation, without compensation.   Kordos v. Poland (no. 26397/02) The applicant, Romana Kordos, is a Polish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Śrem (Poland). Her husband died in 1995 after being hit by a car on a pedestrian crossing. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), she complains about the excessive court fees required from her on appeal in the compensation proceedings against the driver and the insurance company.   Amanalachioai v. Romania (no. 4023/04) The applicant Valentin Amanalachioai, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Botoşani (Romania). In 1999 his wife, the mother of his daughter D., who was born in 1994, died. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr   Amanalachioai alleges that the Romanian authorities did not take appropriate measures to secure the unity of his family through the immediate return of his daughter and to guarantee the exercise of his parental rights.   Damian-Burueana and Damian v. Romania (no. 6773/02) The applicants, Marius Damian-Burueana and his brother, Viorel Damian, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1966 and 1958 respectively and live in Bucharest and Turceni (Romania). Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they allege that they were the victims of ill-treatment when arrested by the police – while selling products on a market – and while they were in police custody. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) they complain of searches of their persons and homes. Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain of the refusal by the prosecution service attached to the territorial military court to comply with a 2003 judgment ordering the prosecution of the arresting officers.   Măciucă v. Romania (no. 25763/03) The applicant, Constantin Măciucă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Sărata. He was imprisoned in 1992 and is serving an 18-year sentence for murder. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), complaining of his conditions of detention, in particular of overcrowding in his cell and the inadequacy of the medical treatment provided.   SC ALEDANI SRL v. Romania (no. 28874/04) The applicant, (SRL) ALEDANI, is a Romanian limited company whose registered office is in Ploieşti (Romania). In 1998 it acquired a building and a plot of land near to land belonging to S. a commercial company with which it later entered into a dispute concerning ownership of the properties. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant company alleges that the annulment of the final judgment confirming its success in the action against S. infringed the principle of legal certainty. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), it complains of an infringement of its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.   Tănase and Others v. Romania (no. 62954/00) The applicants are 24 Romanian nationals of Roma origin who formerly lived in the village of Bolintin Deal, Giurgiu (Romania). In April 1991, following the murder of a non-Roma by a Roma in Bolintin Deal, a crowd of more than two thousand non-Roma inhabitants attacked the Roma population and burnt their houses, including those of the applicants. As a result, the entire Roma community fled and were left homeless for a month; they have apparently not yet returned to their village to live. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about their living conditions following the attack and destruction of their property as well as the length and unfairness of the ensuing proceedings to claim compensation. They rely on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy)   and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants also allege that the violations they suffered as a result of the attack were due to their Roma ethnicity, in violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Batsanina v. Russia (no. 3932/02) The applicant, Svetlana Batsanina, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Gelendzhik (Russia). The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the unfairness of civil proceedings with regard to a property dispute, notably the fact that she was not notified of the appeal hearing and that the public prosecutor participated in the case. She relies in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Esat Bayram v. Turkey (no. 75535/01) The applicant, Esat Bayram, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns the applicant’s allegation that his 20-year-old brother, Halim Bayram, called up for compulsory military service, was shot and killed by his superior, despite the official conclusion that he had committed suicide. He also alleges that his brother did not receive adequate medical care in ç anakkale Military Hospital and that the investigation into his death was inadequate. He relies in particular on Article   2 (right to life).   Naif Demirci v. Turkey (no. 17367/02) The applicant, Naif Demirci, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). In December 2001 he was arrested and taken into police custody in the course of an investigation into an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ party of Kurdistan). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was subjected to physical and psychological torture while in the custody of the gendarmerie. He also alleges violations of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), complaining of arbitrary arrest, of the length of his pre-trial detention and of the lack of remedies and means of obtaining compensation.   Ünal Akpınar İnşaat İmalat Sanayi ve Ticaret S.A. and Akpınar Yapı Sanayi S.A. v. Turkey (no. 41246/98) Ünal Akpınar İnşaat İmalat Sanayi ve Ticaret S.A. and Akpınar Yapı Sanayi S.A., are two joint stock companies incorporated under Turkish law. In July 1981 the Turkish Water Board, an administrative body responsible to the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, put out a public call for tenders for the construction of the Şanlıurfa aqueduct. A contract was then signed between the Water Board and the applicant companies. A few years later the companies broke off the work, arguing that the terms of the contract no longer reflected the unforeseeable economic changes that had taken place since it was signed. In the context of proceedings they brought against the Water Board for sums owed and damages, the Turkish courts gave a number of rulings awarding various sums to the applicant companies. Final judgment was given on 30 December 2004. The applicants have submitted that the rulings whereby the courts had awarded them certain sums of money had each in turn become final. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, they allege that the Water Board has waited until the final termination of the proceedings before paying them a derisory sum which cannot compensate them for the losses caused by inflation and the fluctuation of the exchange rates. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they further complain of the unfairness and excessive length of the civil proceedings they had to bring to recover the sums they are owed.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Cavalleri v. Italy (no. 30408/03) Colombi v. Italy (no. 24824/03) Mur v. Italy (no. 6480/03) Vicari v. Italy (no. 13606/04) All the applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Some of the applicants also rely on Articles   8 (right to respect for correspondence) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement).   Cârstea v. Romania (no. 28998/04) Mureşan v. Romania (no. 8015/05) The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Ekmekçi and Others v. Turkey (nos. 2841/05, 2873/05, 2875/05, 2878/05, 2895/05, 2947/05, 3577/05, 5498/05, 6192/05, 6793/05, 6306/05, 6356/05, 6375/05, 6377/05, 12950/05 and 12331/06) All the applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Murat Güler also complains under the same article of the excessive length of the proceedings.     Thursday 28 May 2009   Ilievi v. Bulgaria (no. 7254/02) The applicants, Todor Ivanov Iliev and Lena Dimitrova Ilieva, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). They are the victims of fraud and complain in particular of the refusal to accept their application to join the criminal proceedings as civil parties and of the length of those proceedings. They rely on Article 6 §1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Brauer v. Germany (no. 3545/04) The applicant, Brigitte Brauer, is a German national who was born in 1948 in Oberschwöditz (the former German Democratic Republic). She now lives in Lennestadt (Germany). Born outside of marriage, she was immediately recognised by her father. She had regular contact with him despite the fact that they each lived in one of the separate German States; after the reunification they met in person. Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination), she complains that, following her father’s death in 1998, she was excluded from any statutory inheritance entitlement.   Bigaeva v. Greece (no. 26713/05) The applicant, Violetta Bigaeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Athens. She is a graduate of the Athens University Law Faculty. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), she complains of the refusal by the Athens Bar Association to put her name forward for the examinations to become a member of the Athens Bar on the ground that she was not a Greek national, a condition required by the lawyers’ code.   Elyasin v. Greece (no. 46929/06) The applicant, Yousef Elyasin, is a Syrian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Athens. Having been convicted of handling stolen goods and bribing a civil servant, he complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, and in particular of an infringement of his right of access to a court. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Stamouli and Others v. Greece (no. 1735/07) The applicants, Evaggeli Stamouli, Ilias Stamoulis and Dimitrios Stamoulis, are Greek nationals who were born in 1938, 1973 and 1974 respectively and live in Athens. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complain of unfairness in proceedings before the Court of Audit.   Varnima Corporation International S.A. v. Greece (no. 48906/06) The applicant, Varnima Corporation International S.A., is a joint stock company whose registered office is in Panama. The case concerns a dispute between the applicant company and the Greek State, with whom it entered into a contract for the importation of petroleum products from Iraq to Greece. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant company alleges an infringement of the principle of equality of arms. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), it further complains of discrimination against it on account of the preferential treatment afforded to the Greek State regarding the limitation periods applied in the related legal proceedings.   Just satisfaction Z.A.N.T.E. – Marathonisi A.E. v. Greece (no. 14216/03) The case concerns actions for compensation brought by the applicant company in the context of a dispute over an island which it had acquired. In its judgment of 6 December 2007 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision.   Basayeva and Otherss v. Russia (nos. 15441/05 and 20731/04) Khumaydov and Khumaydov v. Russia (no. 13862/05) Nenkayev and Others v. Russia (no. 13737/03) The applicants in the first case are 11 Russian nationals who live in the village of Martan-Chu (Chechen Republic). They are the close relatives of Lecha Basayev, born in 1955, and Lema Dikayev, born in 1965, who have not been seen since the early hours of 6   July 2002 when they were abducted from their family homes by armed, masked men wearing camouflage uniforms.   The applicants in the second case are two Russian nationals who live in Chervlennaya (Chechen Republic). They are the husband and son of Khava Magomadova, born in 1956, who disappeared on her way to work on the morning of 16   December 2002 and has not been seen since.   The applicants in the third case are ten Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the relatives of Muslim Nenkayev, born in 1982, who has not been seen since the early hours of 8   June 2002 when he and his brother, Isa Nenkayev, an applicant in the case, were abducted from their family home by a large group of armed, masked men wearing camouflage uniforms. Isa Nenkayev was released and returned home after being detained for 24   hours.   The applicants allege in particular that their relatives disappeared after being unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. Isa Nenkayev also complains about his unlawful detention and lack of compensation on that account. 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).   Karyagin, Matveyev and Korolev v. Russia (nos. 72839/01, 74124/01 and 15625/02) The applicants are three Russian nationals who live in Magnitogorsk (Russia): Valeriy Karyagin and Sergey Matveyev who were both born in 1955; and, Sergey Korolev who was born in 1953. Former police officers, they were convicted in 1998 of bribe-taking and sentenced to between nine and ten years’ imprisonment each. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial), they complain about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them, notably on account of discrepancies between the copy of the judgment served on them and that examined by the appeal court.   Kokoshkina v. Russia (no. 2052/08) The applicant, Natalya Kokoshkina, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in the Moscow Region. Arrested in October 2006 on suspicion of drug trafficking, Ms   Kokoshkina complains about the excessive length and inhuman conditions of her ensuing detention. She was released on bail in May 2008; the criminal proceedings against her are still pending. She relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Isayev v. Ukraine (no. 28827/02) The applicant, Yuriy Isayev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). Arrested in November 1997 on charges of theft, Mr Isayev alleges that he was beaten by the police while in custody and that, suffering from neurological problems, the medical assistance during his detention until his release in October 2003 was inadequate. He was ultimately sentenced to almost six years’ imprisonment for numerous robberies and burglaries in March 2007. He also complains about the excessive length of his overall detention and of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Senchenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 32865/06, 3137/07, 3158/07, 5650/07, 5654/07, 5657/07, 5663/07, 6727/07, 6822/07, 6828/07, 6846/07, 8553/07, 8560/07, 11576/07, 11578/07, 11582/07, 11583/07, 11584/07, 11585/07, 12966/07, 13830/07, 13831/07, 13833/07, 13835/07, 19001/07, 19003/07, 19736/07, 19738/07, 19740/07, 19741/07, 19744/07, 19746/07, 19749/07, 19752/07, 20343/07 and 20939/07) Filshteyn v. Ukraine (no. 12997/06) Ovcharov and Khomich v. Ukraine (nos. 32910/06 et 50081/06) Nuzhdyak v. Ukraine (no. 16982/05) Shylkin and Poberezhnyy v. Ukraine (nos. 6924/06 et 8252/06) Stukalkin v. Ukraine (no. 35682/07) Zakharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 34119/07) Zhushman v. Ukraine (no. 13223/05) With the exception of the applicants in the case of Shylkin and Poberezhnyy , all the applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicants in the case of Ovcharov and Khomich , they also all rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In four of the cases, the applicants also rely 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. In the case of Demirevi , the applicants also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Demirevi v. Bulgarie (no. 27918/02) Roïdakis v. Greece (No. 2) (no. 50914/06) Tselika-Skourti v. Greece (no. 44685/07) Yeliseyev v. Russia (no. 12098/04) Nesterova v. Ukraine (no. 10792/04)     ***   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.