CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 juin 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 }   446 5.6.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   9 and 11 June 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 17 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 9   June 2009 and 11 on Thursday 11   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 9 June 2009   Silvestri v. Italy (application no. 16861/02) The applicant, Nicola Silvestri, is an Italian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Casalguidi (Italy).   He was appointed governor of Empoli Women’s Prison in September 1996, but transferred by the Director General of the Prison Administration Department in March 1997 on grounds of relational difficulties. He complains, under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention, of the authorities’ refusal to enforce the judgment of the Tuscany Regional Administrative Court of 29   October 1997 and reinstate him in his post, and of his inability to obtain severance pay.   Jan Pawlak v. Poland (no. 8661/06) Marzec v. Poland (no. 42868/06) The applicants are two Polish nationals. Jan Wiesław Pawlak was born in 1966 and lives in Zgierz, Poland. Paweł Marzec was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence for drug trafficking, unlawful possession of a firearm and acting in an organised criminal gang. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), the two applicants complain of having been detained for too long pending trial. Mr   Pawlak also complains that during his detention on suspicion of having committed extortion, car insurance fraud and bribery he was deprived of personal contacts with his family for a significant period of time, for which he relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Krawiecki v. Poland (no. 49128/06) The applicant, Stanisław Krawiecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Lubiąż (Poland). Diagnosed as suffering from severe schizophrenia, he has been detained in a pre-trial detention centre and in a mental hospital. Relying on all Articles of the Convention, Mr Krawiecki submits that he was ill-treated during his arrest and pre-trial detention. The case further concerns monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence on account of the Court having received a letter with a “censored” stamp from Mr Krawiecki while he was still in detention, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence).   Matoń v. Poland (no. 30279/07) The applicant, Adam Matoń, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Kraków (Poland). In February 2008 he was convicted of drug trafficking, unlawful possession of firearms and membership of an organised criminal gang. The proceedings against him, for which 200 hearings have been held, are still pending. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Matoń complains that the proceedings in the criminal case against him have lasted for too long.   Sobolewski v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 19847/07) Strzałkowski v. Poland (no. 31509/02) The applicants, Daniel Sobolewski and Janusz Strzałkowski are Polish nationals who were born in 1963 and 1964 respectively. They are currently serving prison sentences in Poland, Mr Sobolewski for fraud and Mr Strzałkowski for murder. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), the two applicants complain of the proceedings in their cases having been unfair and their defence rights seriously limited as a result of them not having been present at the sole hearing held before the appellate court in their cases.   Kvasnica v. Slovakia (no. 72094/01) The applicant, Roman Kvasnica, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Piešťany (Slovakia). Formerly the legal representative of several companies involved in steelworks, Mr   Kvasnica complains that his telephone calls were intercepted for a few months in 2000, and that the records were leaked to various interested groups, including politicians and journalists. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Bendayan Azcantot and Benalal Bendayan v. Spain (no. 28142/04) The applicants, Gimol-Violeta Bendayan Azcantot and Samuel Benalal Bendayan, are Spanish nationals living in Madrid. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they allege that the judgment delivered in the criminal proceedings instituted by them for fraud, forgery and fraudulent price increases, which had become final on 24 June 1997, was not enforced within a reasonable time.   Moreno Carmona v. Spain (no. 26178/04) The applicant, Agustín Moreno Carmona, is a Spanish national who was born in 1947 and lives in Santa Amalia (Spain). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the length of the criminal proceedings, brought against him in 1985 for robbery of a bank in Madrid, during which he was placed in detention and then released on bail.   Opuz v. Turkey (no. 33401/02) The applicant, Nahide Opuz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Ms Opuz alleges that the Turkish authorities failed to protect the right to life of her mother, who was killed by Ms Opuz’s husband, and that they were negligent in the face of the repeated violence, death threats and injury to which she herself was subjected by him. She relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). She further complains about the lack of protection of women against domestic violence under Turkish domestic law, in violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 17095/03) The applicant, Cihan Öztürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Istanbul. In November 2001, he was ordered by the domestic courts to pay damages to the former director of the State postal service due to an article in which he criticised her mismanagement of a project to restore a post office building with historic value. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr Öztürk complains of the domestic court’s decision ordering him to pay damages having been unfair and having unduly limited his freedom of expression.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Di Pasquale v. Italy (no. 27522/04) Scannella and Others v. Italy (no. 33873/04) All the applicants rely on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). In the case of Di Pasquale , the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Vessichelli v. Italy (no. 29290/02) The applicant relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and 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.   Henryk Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 17731/03) Kamecki and Others v. Poland (no. 62506/00)     Thursday 11 June 2009   Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02) The applicants are three Bulgarian nationals who live in Bulgaria. Naum Ivanov Petkov was born in 1941 and lives in Vratsa, Boris Radkov Georgiev was born in 1944 and lives in Montana, and Ventseslav Asenov Dimitrov was born in 1945 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), they allege in particular that they were prevented from running in the 2001 parliamentary elections in Bulgaria and have not had effective remedies in that respect.   Trgo v. Croatia (no. 35298/04) The applicant, Fabjan Trgo, is a Croatian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Krilo Jesenice (Croatia). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Mr Trgo alleges in particular that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions has been violated because the domestic courts refused to acknowledge his ownership of certain plots of land he had acquired by adverse possession.   Dubus S.A. v. France (no. 5242/04) The applicant company, Dubus S.A., is an investment firm whose registered office is in Lille (France). In September 2000 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against it by the Banking Commission, an independent administrative monitoring body, presided over by the Governor of the Bank of France. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Dubus S.A. complains of the lack of impartiality of the Banking Commission on account of the   concurrent administrative and disciplinary functions conferred on it.   Laudette v. France (no. 19/05) The applicant, Francis Laudette, is a French national who was born in 1960 and lives in Paris. In 2003 he attempted to lodge a criminal complaint and join the proceedings as a civil party seeking damages for assault and slander committed against him by his wife in Singapore and in London.   His complaint was declared inadmissible by the domestic courts. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing)   and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains, in particular, that he did not have access to a court on account of his complaint being declared inadmissible. He also alleges that the failure to communicate the submissions of the advocate-general and the report of the reporting judge before the Court of Cassation amounted to a breach of the principle of equality of arms.   S.D. v. Greece (no. 53541/07) The applicant, S.D., is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Athens. Criminal proceedings were brought against him for possessing and using forged travel documents and illegally entering the country. He was arrested, and later released on 12 May 2007. Several days later, however, S.D. was re-arrested by the police and a deportation order issued against him. Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his detention was not decided in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law – as he had been detained while being an asylum seeker – and that the Administrative Tribunal refused to examine the lawfulness of his detention. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complains, further, of the lack of physical exercise, contact with the outside world and medical assistance during his detention for two months pending his deportation.   Khalitova and Others v. Russia (no. 33264/04) Khasuyeva v. Russia (no. 28159/03) The applicants in the first case are four Russian nationals who live in the Groznenskiy District (Chechen Republic). The first applicant is the wife of Ali Uspayev and the mother of Amir Magomedov, who were seen for the last time at around 5   a.m. on 18   July 2001, when they were taken from the family home by a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms. The second and third applicants are the sister and wife of Aslan Dokayev, and the fourth applicant is the father of Rustam Achkhanov; the two men have not been seen since early in the morning of 18   July 2001 when the car in which they were travelling came under fire from servicemen in four personnel carriers. The applicants allege that Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov, shot and wounded when they left the car, were loaded into one of the military vehicles and have not been seen since. The Government denies that the men were shot and submits that they escaped and have since been missing.   The applicant in the second case is a Russian national who lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). She is the mother of Abu Khasuyev, born in 1978, who has not been seen since the early afternoon of 30   August 2001 when he was abducted from the family home by a group of about ten armed men in camouflage uniforms – all but two wearing masks.   The applicants allege in particular that their relatives disappeared after being detained by Russian servicemen 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) and   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 Mianowicz , the applicant also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Deiwick v. Germany (no. 17878/04) Mianowicz v. Germany (No. 2) (no. 71972/01) Examiliotis v. Greece (no. 15545/07) Stamouli v. Greece (no. 55862/07   ***   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.