CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 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 } .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 } .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 }   467 12.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   16 and 18 June 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 18 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 16 June 2009 and 23 on Thursday 18 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 16 June 2009   Gasparyan v. Armenia (No. 2) (application no. 22571/05) The applicant, Maksim Gasparyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). The case concerns Mr Gasparyan’s allegation that in May 2004 he was arrested in order to prevent him from taking part in demonstrations organised in Yerevan. Relying on Article   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about the unlawfulness of his detention and the unfairness of the ensuing expedited administrative proceedings brought against him for disturbing public order. The case also concerns the fact that he had no right to contest the decision against him, in breach of Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right to appeal in criminal matters) to the Convention.   Ruotsalainen v. Finland (no. 13079/03) The applicant, Jukka Ruotsalainen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Lapinlahti (Finland). Stopped by the police in January 2001 during a road check, Mr   Ruotsalainen was found to be driving his van with more leniently taxed fuel than diesel oil. The case concerns Mr Ruotsalainen’s complaint that he was first fined for petty tax fraud and later charged the difference in tax, in breach of Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).   Gurgurov v. Moldova (no. 7045/08) The applicant, Sergiu Gurgurov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Chişinău. Arrested and placed in detention in October 2005 on suspicion of theft of some mobile telephones, Mr Gurgurov alleges that the police subjected him to acts of torture, including being suspended by a metal bar and given electric shocks, which have since left him disabled. He also complains that the investigation into the incident was inadequate. He relies in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of torture) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Soare v. Romania (no. 72439/01) The applicant, Ion Soare, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him in 1997 by a bank which lent him money then accused him of deceit and forgery.   Lawyer Partners, a.s. v. Slovakia (nos. 54252/07, 3274/08, 3377/08, 3505/08, 3526/08, 3741/08, 3786/08, 3807/08, 3824/08, 15055/08, 29548/08, 29551/08, 29552/08, 29555/08 and 29557/08) The applicant, Lawyer Partners, a.s., is a private limited company with its registered office in Bratislava. Between 2005 and 2006 the applicant company concluded contracts with Slovak Radio in which it acquired the right to recover unpaid broadcast receiver licences. The case concerns the subsequent refusal by the domestic courts to register and process actions – submitted electronically – by the applicant company in the subsequent debt recovery proceedings against some 70,000 respondents. The reason given for that refusal was the lack of necessary technical equipment to receive and process such submissions. The applicant company relies on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court).   Alptekin v. Turkey (no. 6016/03) İmren v. Turkey (no. 6045/04) The applicants, Cem Alptekin and Abdullah İmren, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1955 and 1949 and live in Istanbul. In 1998 criminal proceedings were brought against Mr Alptekin, a lawyer, on charges of illegally obtaining documents belonging to the Intelligence Service (“the MIT”), submitting them in evidence before a court and making defamatory statements against the MIT. He was acquitted in 2002, but the prosecution appealed on points of law and the case is still pending. The other applicant, Mr   İmren, was sentenced in 1997 to two years’ imprisonment for having knowingly used a cheque that did not belong to him. The sentence was upheld in 2008 by the Assize Court. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), both applicants complain in particular of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them.   Aygül v. Turkey (no. 43550/04) The applicant, Galip Aygül, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul. He was arrested in an anti-terrorist operation in 1992, remanded in custody, sentenced to life imprisonment in 2005, then released in May 2007 by decision of the Assize Court, in view of the length of his detention pending trial. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Aygül complains about the length of his pre-trial detention and the lack of any hearing when the court examined the objections he filed against his detention. Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complains about the length of the proceedings against him, which are still pending.   Aytan and Ömer Polat v. Turkey (no. 43526/02) The applicants, Aytan Polat and her husband, Ömer Polat, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1965 and 1963 and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they complain that they were remanded in custody for eight days after being arrested at their home in the course of an operation against the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party, an illegal organisation).   Bahçeci and Turan v. Turkey (no. 33340/03) The applicants, Ömer Bahçeci and Fikret Turan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1982. They were arrested in 2001 on suspicion of disseminating propaganda for the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party, an illegal organisation) by sending unsolicited SMS text messages. They were sentenced in May 2002 to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for propaganda against the unity of the Turkish nation and the territorial integrity of the State, but the sentences were lifted in October 2003, following the introduction of new legislation. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complain of lack of impartiality on the part of the State Security Court, and under Article 10 (freedom of expression), they allege that their criminal conviction was in breach of their right to freedom of thought and expression.   Bilgin and Bulga v. Turkey (no. 43422/02) Gülabi Aslan v. Turkey (no. 36838/03) Gülçer and Aslım v. Turkey (no. 19914/03) The applicants, Salih Zeki Bilgin, İlhan Bulğa, Gülabi Aslan, Mehmet Tahir Gülçer and Kasım Aslım, are Turkish nationals. They were sentenced to imprisonment by the State Security Court for belonging to an armed gang. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c) (right to a fair trial), they allege that the State Security Court was not impartial, as one of the judges composing it was a military judge. They also complain that the opinion of the Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation was not communicated to them and that they were not assisted by a lawyer while remanded in custody.   Karabil v. Turkey (no. 5256/02) The applicant, Hüseyin Karabil, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). An active member of HADEP (the “People’s Democratic Party”), he was arrested in 1999 by the anti-terrorism branch of the Security Directorate, and sentenced in 2000 to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party, an illegal organisation). In 2005 he was tried again following the entry into force of a new Criminal Code, and his sentence was halved. Mr Karabil complains in general about the repressive regime with regard to offences under the jurisdiction of the State Security Court. Relying in particular on Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial), he also complains of the lack of legal counsel during the preliminary investigation, the fact that the State Security Court took into account confessions extracted by torture, the fact that it was impossible to have defence witnesses examined and the failure to communicate the opinion of the Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation concerning his appeal.     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 cases of Abdulaziz Danış and Başaran and Others the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kęsiccy v. Poland (no. 13933/04) Abdulaziz Danış v. Turkey (no. 23573/02) Başaran and Others v. Turkey (nos. 42422/04, 2102/05, 18194/05, 18772/05, 33222/05, 36990/05 and 37050/05) Erhun v. Turkey (nos. 4818/03 and 53842/07)     Thursday 18 June 2009   Magomadova v. Russia (no. 2393/05) The applicant is a Russian national who lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). She is the mother of Ibragim Uruskhanov, born in 1973, who has not been seen since the early hours of 12   April 2002 when he was abducted from his family home by a group of seven or eight armed men. The applicant alleges that her son disappeared after being unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegation. She relies 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).   Novikov v. Russia (no. 35989/02) The applicant, Andrey Novikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Blagoveshchensk (Russia). The case concerns Mr Novikov’s complaint that aviation fuel seized in 1998, which he subsequently acquired the right to claim on the basis of an assignment agreement, was lost by the authorities but he was not awarded any compensation. He relies in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia (no. 23691/06) The applicant, Yevgeniy Shteyn (Stein), is a Russian and German national who was born in 1980. Arrested in December 2004 on suspicion of smuggling ecstasy, Mr Shteyn was convicted at final instance in March 2009 to 11 years’ imprisonment for drug-trafficking, among other offences. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention. Further relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complains about the unlawfulness of his detention in 2006, delays in the examination of his appeals against detention orders as well as the excessive length of his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against him.   Sukhov v. Russia (no. 32805/03) The applicant, Valeriy Sukhov, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Sertolovo (Russia). A former police officer, he complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for bribe-taking for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He relies in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Bevz v. Ukraine (no. 7307/05) Gavrylyak v. Ukraine (no. 39447/03) The applicants are two Ukrainian nationals: Lyudmyla Bevz, who was born in 1950 and lives in Monastyryshche (Ukraine), and Bogdan Gavrylyak, who was born in 1962 and lives in Lviv (Ukraine). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), both applicants complain about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them on fraud charges.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Batrak v. Ukraine (no. 50740/06) Bilokin and Others v. Ukraine (no. 14298/06) Kashlakova and Others v. Ukraine (no. 40765/05) Khmylyova v. Ukraine (no. 34419/06) Osaulenko v. Ukraine (no. 34692/07) Pidorina and Kyrylenko v. Ukraine (nos. 12477/06 and 31453/06) Shygareva and Mazhanova v. Ukraine (nos. 9450/07 and 22503/07) Snigur and Onyshchenko v. Ukraine (nos. 33064/06 and 35799/06) Vasylyeva v. Ukraine (no. 20511/05) All the applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicants in the cases of Khmylyova and Snigur and Onyshchenko they also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the case of Bilokin and Others 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. The applicant in the case of Rysev also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the cases of Pilipey and Vdovina the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Rysev v. Russia (no. 924/03) Sokorev v. Russia (no. 33896/04) Vdovina v. Russia (no. 13458/07) Bublyk v. Ukraine (no. 37500/04) Koziy v. Ukraine (no. 10426/02) Pilipey v. Ukraine (no. 9025/03) Termobeton v. Ukraine (no. 22538/04) Yeroshkina v. Ukraine (no. 31572/03)     ***   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.