CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 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 } .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 }   425 28.05.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   2 and 4 June 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 26 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 2 June 2009 and six on Thursday 4 June 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 2 June 2009   R.H. v. Finland (application no. 34165/05) The applicant, R.H., is a Finnish national who was born in 1953. Convicted of, among other offences, sexual abuse and sentenced to a conditional prison sentence of eight months in May 2004, the applicant complains about the unfairness of the proceedings against him, in particular that on appeal his case had not been given a full examination as his request for an oral hearing had been rejected. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Codarcea v. Romania (no. 31675/04) The applicant, Elvira Codarcea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Târgu Mureş (Romania). She is a lawyer practising in Mureş. She complains, under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), about the length of criminal proceedings that she initiated as a civil party against a doctor on account of the adverse consequences of a series of operations she had undergone in 1996. Under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), she further alleges that the proceedings in which she sought to establish the liability of the doctor who had carried out an operation resulting in facial paralysis and rolling-out of the eye-lid, and also that of the hospital which employed him, had been ineffective.   Silviu Marin v. Romania (no. 35482/06) The applicant, Silviu Marin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Slobozia (Romania). In 1991 the administrative authorities granted him a plot of land – on which he built a house – but the decision was subsequently declared null and void. He complains in particular about a breach of his right to the protection of his property, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and about the uncertain situation of his land. Also relying on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), he alleges that he was the only person summoned to court, although a number of others were also concerned, because of his political neutrality.   Borovský v. Slovakia (no. 24528/02) The applicant, Ján Borovský, is a Slovak national who was born in 1946 and lives in Košice (Slovakia). A former enforcement officer accused of abuse of authority but ultimately acquitted in February 2003, Mr Borovský complains about media coverage of his criminal case and in particular comments made by the police to the press. He relies on Article   6   §   2 (presumption of innocence).   Demirören v. Turkey (no. 583/03) The applicant, Mehmet Demirören, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and has lived in France since 2002. In 1981 he was arrested on suspicion of belonging to an illegal armed organisation. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in 1986. In a decision of 8   June 2001 he was acquitted by the Assize Court, the decision being notified to him in February 2004. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Demirören complains of the length of the proceedings against him.   Doğangün v. Turkey (no. 30302/03) The applicant, Ali Kemal Doğangün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1935 and lives in Ankara. In connection with a claim for compensation that he brought against the authorities following the de facto expropriation of his land, he relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), complaining about the non-payment of his judgment debt that was established by a final judicial decision.   Günaydın Turizm ve İnşaat Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkey (no. 71831/01) The applicant, Günaydın Turizm ve İnşaat Ticaret Anonim Şirketi, is a Turkish limited company. In 1969 it acquired the Villa Zarifi , a palace and outbuildings on more than 14,700 sq.m. of land by the Bosphorus that had originally belonged to a wealthy Greek businessman at the time of the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century. In 1971 the Public Treasury brought proceedings claiming registration of the property in its name and its claim was ultimately granted by a final decision in 1999, following which the applicant company was evicted from the premises and ordered to pay compensation for unlawful occupation. The company alleges, among other things, that it was unfairly deprived of its property, in the absence of any public-interest grounds and without any compensation, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Tamer Aslan and Others v. Turkey (no. 1595/03) The applicants, Tamer Aslan, Mehmet Ali Şeker, Ziver Kartal and Gül Aslan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1965, 1972 and 1974 respectively. They were arrested and taken into police custody in 1993 and 1996 in connection with operations against an illegal Islamic organisation. In a judgment of July 2000 they were given prison sentences ranging from 12 years and 6 months to life. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1, taken together with 6 § 2 and 6 § 3 (b), (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial), the applicants allege that the State Security Court which convicted and sentenced them lacked independence and impartiality.   Yılmaz Bozkurt v. Turkey (no. 21213/03) The applicant, Yılmaz Bozkurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was arrested in January 1994 on suspicion of belonging to the illegal organisation PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), and in July 1997 was sentenced to life imprisonment by the State Security Court, a sentence later reduced to 12 years and 6 months by the Assize Court. He complains, among other things, relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of the proceedings against him.   Szuluk v. the United Kingdom (no. 36936/05) The applicant, Edward Szuluk, is a British national who was born in 1955 and is currently in prison in Staffordshire (United Kingdom). Mr Szuluk was sentenced in November 2001 to 14 years’ imprisonment for drugs offences. The case concerns his complaint that, following a brain haemorrhage, his medical correspondence with his external specialist was intercepted and monitored by the prison authorities. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Czaran and Grofcsik v. Romania (no. 11388/06) Enyedi v. Romania (no. 32211/02) Glatz and Others v. Romania (no. 15269/03) Groza and Marin v. Romania (no. 21246/03) All the applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicants in the cases of Groza and Marin and Enyedi also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Just satisfaction Draica v. Romania (no. 35102/02) In a judgment of 3 June 2008 the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Erdoğan and Fırat v. Turkey (nos. 15121/03 and 15127/03) Hacısalihoğlu v. Turkey (no. 343/04) The applicants in both cases rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the case of Erdoğan and Fırat also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     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.   Sinkó v. Hungary (no. 3925/05) Pabjan v. Poland (no. 24706/05) Bošková v. Slovakia (no. 21371/06) Grausová v. Slovakia (no. 14757/06) Hudečková v. Slovakia (no. 16933/03) Novák v. Slovakia (no. 1494/05) Silka v. Slovakia (no. 284/06) Arıkan and Others v. Turkey (no. 43033/02) Emsal Ayaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 32837/02)     Thursday 4 June 2009   Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (No. 2) (no. 21277/05) The applicant, Standard Verlags GmbH, is a limited liability company with its headquarters in Vienna, and owner of the daily newspaper Der Standard . In May 2004 Der Standard published an article on rumours that the then President of Austria, Thomas Klestil, was having marital trouble. The article implied that his wife was having affairs, notably with another politician, Herbert Scheibner. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint that it was ordered to pay compensation to the Klestils and Herbert Scheibner in the ensuing defamation proceedings and about an injunction order preventing it from publishing any further statements about Mr Scheibner and Mrs Klestil’s relationship. The applicant company relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Parousis v. Greece (no. 34769/06) The applicant, Apostolos Parousis, is a Greek national who was born in 1954 and is currently imprisoned in Trikala (Greece). In connection with his conviction in 2004 for drug trafficking, he relies in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), complaining about the length of the proceedings against him – still pending before the Court of Cassation – and about the conditions of his detention which he claims are detrimental to his health.   Pistolis and Others v. Greece (no. 54594/07) The applicants are eight Greek nationals, members of the same family, who live in Larissa (Greece). They are the parents, brothers and grandmothers of Elias Pistolis, who died at the age of three in 1999 when he was knocked down by a motorcyclist as he was crossing the road with his father. In 2003 the first-instance court, ruling on a claim for damages brought against the motorcyclist, found that Elias’ father was 30% liable for the accident as he had not shown the requisite diligence. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain about a violation of their right of access to a court, as the Court of Cassation dismissed two of their grounds of appeal on points of law for lack of precision.   Siasios and Others v. Greece (no. 30303/07) The applicants, Nikolaos Siasios, Georgios Kostoulas, Panayotis Kanelas, Ioannis Chatziefstathiou and Evaggelos Kalamaras, are Greek nationals who were born in 1979, 1960, 1962, 1964 and 1962 respectively. They were arrested in 2006 for drugs-related offences and complain, in particular under Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), about the conditions of their pre-trial detention. Nikolaos Siasios and Panayotis Kanelas additionally complain that, on account of the authorities’ failure to certify them as drug addicts, they were deprived of medical treatment and adequate medication and suffered from withdrawal symptoms during their detention.     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 Kyriazis also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Strobel v. Austria (no. 15929/05) Kyriazis v. Greece (no. 35806/07)     ***   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.