CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 } .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 }   491 19.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   23 and 25 June 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 27 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 23 June 2009 and 13 on Thursday 25 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 23 June 2009   Minasyan and Semerjyan v. Armenia (application no. 27651/05) The applicants, Nelli Minasyan and her daughter, Yelena Semerjyan, are Armenian nationals who were born in 1960 and 1990 respectively and live in Los Angeles (United States of America). Relying on Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain about the expropriation and demolition of their flat in Yerevan for a construction project.   Kaura v. Finland (no. 40350/05) The applicant, Seppo Vihtori Kaura, is a Finnish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Louko (Finland). He has been unemployed since November 1999. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, he complains of the excessive length and unfairness of proceedings he brought concerning the authorities’ refusal to pay him unemployment benefit from September to November 2000 because he had not promptly responded to a possible employer.   Buzilov v. Moldova (no. 28653/05) The applicant, Petru Buzilov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1961 and lives in Cahul (Moldova). In May 2002 he was arrested on suspicion of racketeering. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that police officers ill treated him, including having cold water poured over him while being given electric shocks, and that the authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into the incident.   Figas v. Poland (no. 7883/07) The applicant, Bartłomiej Figas, is a Polish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Wojkowice (Poland). In 2003 he was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and uttering threats and was remanded in custody. The last decision to extend his pre-trial detention was on 8 January 2007. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the excessive length of his detention.   Wroński v. Poland (no. 473/07) The applicant, Mirosław Wroński, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Gdynia (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud.   Vişan v. Romania (no. 5181/04) The applicant, Nicolae Vişan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Focşani (Romania). He is a retired serviceman. In 2001 he brought an action in the Romanian courts against the Ministry of Defence for reimbursement of tax levied on an end-of-service allowance. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains about the quashing of a final judgment in his favour in the context of those proceedings.   Bodrožić v. Serbia (no. 32550/05) Bodrožić and Vujin v. Serbia (no. 38435/05) The applicants, Željko Bodrožić and Vladislav Vujin, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1970 and 1966 respectively and live in Kikinda (Serbia). They are both journalists and, at the time, were employed by the local weekly newspaper Kikindske . The cases concern the criminal sentencing of the applicants for having written two articles perceived as offensive by a well-known historian and a   lawyer. They rely in particular on Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   6   §   3   (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence).   Stojnšek v. Slovenia (no. 1926/03) The applicant, Franc Stojnšek, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Rogatec (Slovenia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Stojnšek complains that, following a court summons, he was ill-treated by the police on being arrested and taken to prison to serve a three month sentence for “threatening security” and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate his allegations.   Atsız and Others v. Turkey (no. 7987/07) The applicants, Sedat Atsız, Mehmet   Emin Türk, Şerefettin Türk, Mahfuz Siğinç and Orhan Sakci, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1970, 1970, 1966, 1974 and 1970 respectively, and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). They were taken into custody in 1994 on suspicion of membership of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain of the excessive length of their detention during the judicial proceedings against them.   Bilget v. Turkey (no. 23327/05) The applicant, Kemal Bilget, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Istanbul. He was convicted in 2004 of membership of an illegal organisation, following proceedings that had begun in 1993. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains that the proceedings were unfair and excessively long.   Keser and Kömürcü v. Turkey (no. 5981/03) The applicants are, Cemal Keser, now deceased, and Müdet Kömürcü, Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and 1972 respectively. They were convicted of membership of terrorist organisations and at the time of lodging their application were being held in Kocaeli F-type Prison (Turkey). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain in particular that they were subjected to ill-treatment during and after their transfer to the high-security prison and that the investigations into their complaints were ineffective.   Öngün v. Turkey (no. 15737/02) The applicant, Ahmet Öngün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). In 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of arson committed in protest against the arrest of the former leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Öngün alleges that he was denied a fair hearing on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which tried him.   Oral and Atabay v. Turkey (no. 39686/02) The applicants, İsa Oral and Ahmet Atabay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1967 respectively and live in Şırnak (Turkey). They were arrested and taken into police custody in March 2002 on suspicion of being members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain that their detention in police custody was excessively lengthy and unlawful and that there was no remedy available for seeking compensation.   Sorguç v. Turkey (no. 17089/03) The applicant, Doğan Sorguç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1930 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns the defamation proceedings brought against the applicant, a university professor, for allegedly denigrating a colleague in one of his academic papers. He relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Veli Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 43824/07) The applicant, Veli Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978. In January 2003 he was taken into police custody, and subsequently into pre-trial detention, on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation. He is currently being held in Tekirdağ Prison (Turkey). Relying on Article   5   (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains that his detention has been excessively lengthy and is unlawful, and that the length of the proceedings has been excessive.   Hunt and Miller v. United Kingdom (nos. 10578/05 and 10605/05) The applicants are two British nationals: Carl Andrew David Hunt, who was born in 1966 and lives in Poole; and Allan Miller, who was born in 1960 and lives in Glasgow. Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that, while they were serving in the armed forces, investigations were carried out into their sexual orientation. Both applicants claim that they subsequently resigned   because life in the armed forces had become unbearable.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Carbè and Others v. Italy (no. 13697/04) Diurno v. Italy (no. 37360/04) Roccaro v. Italy (no. 34562/04) Vinci Mortillaro v. Italy (no. 29070/04) All the applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). In the case of Carbè and Others three of the applicants also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement).   Athanasiu Marshall v. Romania (no. 21305/05) Babei and Clucerescu v. Romania (no. 27444/03) Brumǎrescu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 28106/03) Paula Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 28976/03) All the applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Brumǎrescu they also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). In the case of Athanasiu Marshall , the applicant further relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   Günseli Kaya v. Turkey (no. 2) (no. 40886/02) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).     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.   Gajdoš v. Slovakia (no. 19304/04)     Thursday 25 June 2009   Konstantin Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 15035/03) The applicant, Konstantin Popov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Saedinenie (Bulgaria). Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for correspondence) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that the prison authorities opened and checked his correspondence with his counsel with regard to criminal proceedings against him.   Titovi v. Bulgaria (no. 3475/03) The applicants, Venka Titova, and her husband, Petko Titov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1968 and 1964 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Petko Titov complains of the conditions and excessive length of his pre-trial detention on charges of counterfeit.   Stoyanova-Tsakova v. Bulgaria (no. 17967/03) The applicant, Margarita Viktorova Stoyanova-Tsakova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms.   Stoyanova-Tsakova complains in particular about the unfairness of proceedings concerning a dispute with her former husband over the use of a flat.   Beganović v. Croatia (no. 46423/06) The applicant, Darko Beganović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Luka (Croatia). The case concerns Mr Beganović’s complaint that following a violent attack against him, the domestic authorities failed to carry out effective investigation and prosecution. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   3, he alleges that both the attack and the subsequent proceedings showed that he had been discriminated against on account of his Roma origin.   Maresti v. Croatia (no. 55759/07) The applicant, Armando Maresti, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Pazin (Croatia). In 2005 he was found guilty of particularly offensive behaviour in a public place. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), Mr Maresti alleges that the court’s decisions dismissing his request for extraordinary review of the final judgment as time-barred were erroneous and that he was tried and convicted twice for the same offence.   Liivik v. Estonia (no. 12157/05) The applicant, Jaak Liivik, is an Estonian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Saku (Estonia). Formerly acting Director General of the Estonian Privatisation Agency, Mr Liivik had criminal proceedings brought against him in 2001 for misuse of his official position in a privatisation agreement concerning Estonian Railways. Relying on Article   7 (no punishment without law), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   17 (prohibition of rights), he alleges that the law on the basis of which he was convicted was not clear and comprehensible and that he did not have a fair trial.   Zouboulidis v. Greece (No. 2) (no. 36963/06) The applicant, Ioannis Zouboulidis, was born in 1960 and lives in Prague. He is an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and between 1993 and 2002 worked as an usher at the Greek Embassy in Berlin. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains about the decrease in the value of payments due to him as a result of the preferential treatment granted to the State in settling its debt to him – the supplementary expatriation allowance to which he was entitled in respect of his dependent children – through the fixing of limitation periods and of the point from which default interest was payable.   Bakhmutskiy v. Russia (no. 36932/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Ivanovich Bakhmutskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and is currently serving a   13-year prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Rostov Region (Russia) for, among other offences, fraud, kidnapping, extortion, theft and burglary. The case concerns Mr Bakhmutskiy’s complaints about the appalling conditions, unlawfulness and excessive length   of his detention as well as deficiencies in its judicial review. He also alleges that   the length of the   criminal proceedings against him were excessive. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security),   Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Gyuleva and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 76963/01) The applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).     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 Vujčić and Zaytsev and Others the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Vujčić v. Croatia (no. 33867/06) Zaytsev and Others v. Russia (no. 42046/06) Blage Ilievski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” Josifov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”     ***   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.