CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 }   521 26.06.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   30 June and 2 July 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 30 June 2009 and 19 on Thursday 2 July 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 30 June 2009   Bárkányi v. Hungary (application no. 37214/05) The applicant, Pál Bárkányi , is a Hungarian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Szeged (Hungary). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Bárkányi complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and ensuing house arrest on charges of theft.   Fiume v. Italy (no. 20774/05) The applicant, Francesco Fiume, is an Italian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Fisciano (Italy). In 2002 he brought proceedings before the Italian courts seeking to have the decision appointing one of his colleagues to the post of customs manager set aside and to have a lawful recruitment procedure put in place. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing), Mr Fiume complains that he was unable to secure the enforcement of a judgment given in his favour in the course of those proceedings.   Artimenco v. Romania (no. 12535/04) The applicant, Steluţa Artimenco, is a Romanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Galaţi (Romania). In 2003 she was sentenced to two years and ten months’ imprisonment for trading in influence. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she complains of her conditions of detention in the various prisons where she was held during her pre-trial detention and while serving her sentence, of the unlawfulness of her pre-trial detention and the unfairness of the proceedings against her, and of a breach of her right to respect for her private and family life on account of a prohibition on prison visits by her husband.   Viorel Burzo v. Romania (no. 75109/01)   The applicant, Viorel Burzo, is a Romanian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Cluj ‑ Napoca. In 2001 Mr Burzo, who was President of the Criminal Division of the Cluj ‑ Napoca Court of Appeal, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for trading in influence and was barred from exercising his parental rights in respect of his daughter during that time. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains in particular of a lack of appropriate medical treatment and of poor conditions of detention in Cluj and Jilava Prisons and during his transfer to Bistriţa. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he also complains that he was not brought before a judge promptly after his arrest, that he was not presumed innocent, that his telephone conversations were intercepted and that he was barred from exercising his parental rights.   Fırat v. Turkey (no. 37291/04) The applicant, Mehmet Fırat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Fırat complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention on charges of membership of an organised criminal gang and kidnapping.   Füsun Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 16234/04) The applicants, Füsun Erdoğan, İbrahim Çiçek, Birol Paşa and Delil İldan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960, 1956, 1967 and 1973 respectively. In March 1996 they were arrested and taken into police custody as part of an investigation into the MLKP (Marxist Leninist Communist Party), an illegal organisation. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants allege that they were tortured while in police custody, and complain that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their allegations of ill-treatment. Under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they also complain of the excessive length of the proceedings they brought against the police custody officers.   Kara v. Turkey (no. 22766/04) The applicant, İsmail Kara, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul. He is the president of Anadolu TAYAD, the Anatolian Solidarity Association for Prisoners’ Families ( Anadolu Tutuklu ve Hükümlü Aileleri Yardımlaşma Derneği ). Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr Kara complains of his criminal conviction for distributing leaflets and organising a hunger strike in protest against F-type prisons.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Mandola v. Italy (no. 38596/02) The applicant relies on Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Daniel Ionel Constantin v. Romania (no. 17034/03) Octavian Popescu v. Romania (no. 20589/04) Priotese v. Romania (no. 2916/04) Schmidt v. Romania (no. 28777/03) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and/or Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complain in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of taxation proceedings.   Synnelius and Edsbergs Taxi AB v. Sweden (no. 44298/02)     Thursday 2 July 2009   Dimitar Yanakiev v. Bulgaria (no. 1152/03) The applicant, Dimitar Yanakiev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of the failure to enforce a court decision in his favour concerning compensation for past expropriation of property.   Ignatov v. Bulgaria (no. 50/02) The applicant, Mihail Velikov Ignatov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Varna. In June 2001 he made an urgent application for a passport in order to travel to Romania to fetch his daughter. The application was refused by the Regional Directorate for Internal Affairs on the ground that the applicant was the subject of an administrative measure barring him from obtaining a passport. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Ignatov complains that his right to move freely and to leave his country was infringed on account of a measure barring him from obtaining a passport, of which he was not informed in good time and in respect of which he had no remedy.   Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 23530/02) The applicants are three Bulgarian nationals. Iordan Iordanov and Kamen Ivanov were born in 1950 and 1955 respectively and live in Sofia. Milcho Kirilov was born in 1949 and died in August 2003. At the relevant time the three applicants were working for the Interior Ministry’s operational and technical information department. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they alleged in particular that the domestic courts, in the course of proceedings to challenge their dismissal, adopted decisions which were contradictory and contained no statement of reasons. Under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), they also complained of the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them. In addition, relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), they complained of the length of the prohibition on their leaving the country ordered by the public prosecutor’s office.   Zaharievi v. Bulgaria (no. 22627/03) The applicants are two Bulgarian nationals, Kiril Grigorov Zahariev and Ventzeslav Grigorov Zahariev. They were born in 1926 and 1928 respectively and live in Sofia. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about the determination of the compensation payable to them for a wheat mill owned by their father and of the manner of execution of the court decision awarding the compensation.   Kochetkov v. Estonia (no. 41653/05) The applicant, Mikhail Kochetkov, is a Russian national born in 1979 and currently serving a prison sentence in Jõhvi (Estonia). Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Kochetkov complains about the conditions of his detention in Narva Arrest House while awaiting his trial and the fact that the domestic authorities failed to provide adequate compensation for the deterioration of his health and mental suffering during that period of his detention.   Chuwunonso v. Greece (no. 43407/06) Ekonomi v. Greece (no. 39870/06) Sarantidou v. Greece (no. 2002/07) The applicants are three Greek nationals: Ifediora Kingsley Chuwunonso, who was born in 1973 and is currently being held in Korydallos Prison (Greece); Arian Ekonomi, born in 1974 and currently in Malandrinos Prison (Greece); and Christina Sarantidou, born in 1987 and living in Athens. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against them for drug trafficking, in the case of Mr Chuwunonso and Mr Ekonomi, and for embezzlement in the case of Ms Sarantidou. Mr Ekonomi also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   “Athina” Vrilission S.A.R.L. psychiatric clinic and Lyrakou S.A. clinic v. Greece (no.   32838/07) The applicants are the Athina Vrilission S.A.R.L. psychiatric clinic and the Lyrakou S.A. clinic, two private clinics with their registered offices in Vrilissia and Melissia (Greece) respectively. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain of the authorities’ failure to comply with a final decision concerning the fixing of charges for hospital treatment.   Vafiadis v. Greece (no. 24981/07) The applicant, Ioannis Vafiadis, is a Greek national who was born in 1984 and lives in Salonika (Greece). Mr Vafiadis is a drug addict who is dependent on cannabis and heroin. He suffers from withdrawal symptoms and at the relevant time was following a course of treatment for his addiction. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of the conditions of his pre-trial detention in a cell in Salonika police headquarters following his arrest in September 2006 for selling drugs to a minor. Under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also complains that his pre-trial detention was unlawful.   Pukhigova v. Russia (no. 15440/05) The applicant, Zina Pukhigova, is a Russian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). She has not seen her husband, Salman Abdulazizov, born in 1950 and disabled, since the early hours of 12   February 2001 when he was abducted from the family home by a group of armed men. The applicant alleges that her husband disappeared after being unlawfully detained by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegations. 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).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kirova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 31836/04) Panayotova v. Bulgaria (no. 27636/04) Peshevi v. Bulgaria (no. 29722/04) Ruga v. Bulgaria (no. 7148/04) Tsonkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 27213/04) Yurukova and Samundzhi v. Bulgaria (no. 19162/03) All the applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Some also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).     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 Marinova and Radeva the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Marinova and Radeva v. Bulgaria (no. 20568/02) Nielsen v. Denmark (no. 44034/07)     ***   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.