CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 juillet 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 }   545 03.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   7 and 9 July 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 33 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 7 July 2009 and 11 on Thursday 9 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 7 July 2009   Grori v. Albania (application no. 25336/04) The applicant, Arben Grori, is an Albanian national who was born in 1971. He is currently in Peqin High Security Prison (Albania) serving a 15-year prison sentence for international narcotics trafficking and a life sentence for murder and illegal possession of firearms, the latter offences having been committed on Italian territory. The case essentially concerns Mr   Grori’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention pending the outcome of domestic proceedings in Albania for the validation and enforcement of the life sentence imposed by the Italian courts in his absence. He relies on Articles   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law) and 2   of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters). The applicant, suffering from multiple sclerosis, also complains about his inadequate medical treatment in prison, in breach of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), and that, his transfer to a civilian hospital in January 2008, as indicated by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 (interim measures) of its Rules of Court, was delayed, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Stagno v. Belgium (no. 1062/07) The applicants are two Italian nationals who live in Belgium. Maria Stagno was born in 1977 and lives in Dilbeek, and her sister, Manuela Stagno, was born in 1979 and lives in Asse. They allege that while they were minors their mother squandered part of their late father’s life insurance, of which they were the beneficiaries. The applicable Italian legislation on the administration of property for underage children had not been complied with at the time. On reaching adulthood the Stagno sisters applied to the Belgian courts, which declared their action inadmissible on the ground that it was time-barred. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain of a violation of their right of access to a court, alleging that the Belgian courts deprived them of any effective remedy before a court, given that the statutory limitation period had not been suspended while they were minors although they had been unable to bring proceedings before the Italian courts during that period.   D. v. Finland (no. 30542/04) The applicant, Mr   D., is an American national who was born in 1952 and lives in Finland. Convicted in June 2003 of aggravated sexual abuse of his daughter, born in 1997, the applicant complains about the use of the child’s videotaped account as essential evidence in the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   6   §§ 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence) and (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   Annunziata v. Italy (no. 24423/03) Piacenti v. Italy (no. 24425/03) The applicants, Egidio Annunziata and Salvatore Piacenti, are Italian nationals who were born in 1961 and 1957 respectively. When their applications were lodged they were held in Parma Prison, where they were serving sentences for membership of a Mafia-type organisation and, in Mr Piacenti’s case, for breaches of the drugs legislation. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for correspondence), they complain of the special prison regime imposed on them after they were classified as dangerous.   Zavoloka v. Latvia (no. 58447/00) The applicant, Nadežda Zavoloka, previously a national of the former USSR, is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia who was born in 1954 and lives in Liepāja (Latvia). Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains about the Latvian courts’ refusal to award her reparation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the death of her daughter, who was knocked down by a car on the public highway.   Leparskienė v. Lithuania (no. 4860/02) The applicant, Julija Leparskienė, is a Lithuanian national. In May 2001 Ms Leparskienė’s 15-year old son, on refusing to stop the car he was driving, was shot at by a police officer; he was seriously injured and died a few months later. The police officer concerned was subsequently convicted of abuse of office and manslaughter and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment; the execution of his sentence was suspended for three years. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the police officer should have been convicted of murder, that his punishment was inadequate and that there was no effective investigation into her son’ death or legal remedy to obtain compensation. She relies on Article 2 (right to life).   Padalevičius v. Lithuania (no. 12278/03) The applicant, Juozas Padalevičius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in the Kaunas region (Lithuania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr Padalevičius complains about the excessive length of civil litigation. Further relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he also complains about the annulment of his title to a plot of land derived from a transaction which the domestic courts found to have been in breach of the restitution laws.   Vorona and Voronov v. Lithuania (no. 22906/04) The applicants are two Lithuanian nationals, Aleksandr Voronov and Sergej Vorona, who were born in 1958 and 1966 respectively; both live in Klaipėda (Lithuania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about the excessive length of civil proceedings with regard to property disputes.   Dyller v. Poland (no. 39842/05) Feliński v. Poland (no. 31116/03) Grzegorz Hulewicz v. Poland (no. 6544/05) Maciejewski v. Poland (no. 23755/03) Maruszak v. Poland (no. 11253/07) Woźniak v. Poland (no. 29940/06) The applicants are five Polish nationals, Zbigniew Dyller, Ryszard Feliński, Grzegorz Hulewicz, Maksymilian Maciejewski and Robert Maruszak, and one Hungarian national, Richard Woźniak. They were born in 1961, 1948, 1974, 1961, 1982 and 1968, respectively. They all live in Poland, Mr   Hulewicz and Mr   Maruszak being currently in detention. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), all the applicants complain about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention on various charges such as robbery, drug-trafficking and murder. The case of Feliński also concerns censorship of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and the case of Maruszak the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Kata v. Poland (no. 9590/06) The applicant, Stanisław Kata, is a Polish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Lubin (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), Mr Kata complains that he was required to pay excessive court fees on appeal in proceedings concerning his disability pension.   Kisielewski v. Poland (no. 26744/02) The applicant, Witold Kisielewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Cracow (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Kisielewski complains about the unfairness of three sets of criminal proceedings against him for, among other offences, handling stolen property. The case also concerns censorship of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Plechanow v. Poland (no. 22279/04) The applicants, Jerzy Plechanow, Ariadna Plechanow and Andrzej Plechanow, are Polish nationals who were born in 1953, 1924 and 1955 respectively and live in Warszawa (Poland). The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the unfairness of decisions refusing their claim for compensation with regard to expropriation of their property. They rely on Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Polańscy v. Poland (no. 21700/02) The applicants, Krystyna Polańscy and Jan Polańscy, are Polish nationals who live in Bystra (Poland). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain in particular about the delay in payment of compensation for property they owned which was expropriated to widen a road.   Stanca Popescu v. Romania (no. 8727/03) The applicant, Stanca Popescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1921 and lives in Bârla (Romania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Ms Popescu complains, firstly, about the failure to execute two final judgments ordering her neighbours to return a plot of land to her and to move a fence erected on her land, and, secondly, about the length of the proceedings against her neighbours and the review of a final judgment in her favour. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she also complains of the resultant breach of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.   Akyaz v. Turkey (no. 6178/04) The applicant, İhsan Akyaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Istanbul. Suspected of belonging to the PKK (“Workers’ Party of Kurdistan”, an illegal armed organisation), he was taken into police custody in 1996. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains, in particular, about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Cahit Demirel v. Turkey (no. 18623/03) The applicant, Cahit Demirel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Batman (Turkey). Mr Demirel was arrested in April 1996 on suspicion of involvement in the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation. He was released pending trial in May 2003. The proceedings against him were ultimately terminated in May 2005 on the ground that the statutory time-limit had expired. Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains about the excessive length of his detention pending trial as well as of the criminal proceedings against him and the fact that there was no effective remedy to challenge the decisions which ordered his continued detention.   Tağaç and Others v. Turkey (no. 71864/01) The applicants, Sevgi Tağaç, Cihan Kırmızıgül, Mehmet Akbaba, Evrim Sarısaltıkoğlu and Suna Yaşar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1967, 1978, 1979, 1973 and 1965, respectively. They all live in Istanbul, except for Ms   Yaşar who lives in Allschwill (Switzerland). In February 1999 the applicants were convicted of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the MLKP-K (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party Foundation) and sentenced to between eight and 12 years’ imprisonment each. Relying on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing), the applicants complain about the lack of independence and impartiality – on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench – of the Istanbul State Security Court which tried and convicted them as well as of the lack of legal assistance while they were in police custody.   Yerdelenli v. Turkey (no. 41253/04) The applicant, Serkan Yerdelenli, is a Turkish-American national who was born in 1972. Sought by the police for fraud and for leaving the scene of an accident, he was arrested and taken into police custody in 2002. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was ill-treated while in police custody and complains of the impunity granted to the police officers responsible.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Becskei v. Romania (no. 8266/05) Roman v. Romania (no. 30453/04) Turus v. Romania (no. 31566/03) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Turus the applicants 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. The applicant in the case of Gordon-Krajcer also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Gordon-Krajcer v. Poland (no. 5943/07) Prądzyńska-Pozdiakow v. Poland (no. 20982/07) Przybyła v. Poland (no. 42778/07) Tymieniecki v. Poland (no. 33744/06) Waltoś and Pawlicz v. Poland (nos. 28309/06 and 48102/06) Ďurech and Others v. Slovakia (no. 42561/04)     Thursday 9 July 2009   Bubić v. Croatia (no. 23677/07) The applicant, Gorki Bubić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Povlja (Croatia). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complains about the domestic courts’ decision to annul the sale contract of a flat to which he had acquired protected tenancy.   Khider v. France (no. 39364/05) The applicant, Cyril Khider, is a French national who was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Liancourt Prison (France). He has been held since 27 August 2001 in the context of proceedings against him for armed robbery carried out as part of a gang, false imprisonment with voluntary release by the seventh day, attempted murder of a prison officer, conspiracy and participation in an attempted escape. Relying in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Khider complains of his conditions of detention and the security measures imposed on him as a “prisoner requiring special supervision”, in particular repeated transfers from one prison to another, prolonged periods in solitary confinement and systematic body searches.   Moon v. France (no. 39973/03) The applicant, Timothy Moon, is a British national who was born in 1965 and lives in Otford (United Kingdom). In 2001 he was convicted of failing to declare a sum of money when passing through customs at the French-Swiss border. Relying, in particular, on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Moon complains about the confiscation of the entirety of the undeclared amount, accompanied by a fine.   Elezi and Others v. Greece (no. 33863/07) The applicants, Zyhdi Elezi, Albert Beqiraj, Benard Tafaj, Apostol Biba, Ndue Guri, Afrim Voci, Leonat Murisi and Kuburi Kreshnik, are Albanian nationals who are currently detained in Patras Prison (Greece). They were arrested at different dates in 2004 and 2005 for breaches of the drugs legislation and also, in the case of Mr Kreshnik, for unlawfully entering Greek territory. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against them and of the absence of a Greek court to which to complain.   Zeïbek v. Greece (no. 46368/06) The applicant, Bedrie Zeïbek, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and lives in Xanthi (Greece). The authorities refused to grant Mrs Zeïbek, a Muslim, or her children a large-family allowance, payable for life, on the ground that none of her children had Greek nationality. All the members of the Zeïbek family had previously had their Greek nationality withdrawn under Article 19 of the Nationality Code. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), taken in isolation and in combination with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mrs Zeïbek complains that her family was divided by these decisions, which had been based on their religion and nationality, and of the fact that she was deprived of the large-family allowance, payable for life.   Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia (no. 2737/04) The applicants, Aleksandr Avdeyev and Yevgeniy Veryayev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1975 and 1971 respectively, and live in Sasovo (Russia). In 2001 the applicants, investigators in the Sasovo District Police at the time, had criminal proceedings brought against them for abuse of position as they had tried to make a witness change his statement concerning a fight in which Mr Avdeyev’s brother had been involved. Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain about the ensuing unlawfulness and excessive length of their detention on remand.   Generalov v. Russia (no. 24325/03) The applicant, Yuriy Generalov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Ferzikovo (Russia). From August 2001 to December 2002 Mr Generalov served a sentence for theft in a correctional facility in Lepley in the Republic of Mordovia (Russia). He complains that, during his detention in that facility, the conditions were inadequate, the prison authorities failed to diagnose and treat his tuberculosis, he was ill-treated on three occasions and the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). He also complains about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine his claim for compensation following his ill-treatment, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court).   Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04) The applicant, Oleg Ilatovskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in St.   Petersburg (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Ilatovskiy alleges that criminal proceedings in which he was convicted for aggravated robbery were not fair due to the selection procedure of the lay judges in his case.   Kononovich v. Russia (no. 41169/02) The applicant, Bogdan Kononovich, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and is serving a nine-year prison sentence in Izhevsk (Russia) for theft. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Kononovich alleges that he was subjected to psychological and physical pressure during his police custody in order to force him into a confession. He also complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention, in breach of Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia (no. 11093/07, 14558/07, 19660/07, 30166/07, 46736/07, 52681/07, 52985/07, 10633/08, 10652/08, 12694/08, 15437/08, 16691/08, 19447/07, 19457/08, 20857/08, 20872/08, 22546/08, 25820/08, 25839/08 and 25845/08) In the 1980s and 1990s the 20 applicants in these cases emigrated from the USSR to Israel where they obtained Israeli nationality. When they emigrated, the old-age pensions they were receiving from the Soviet authorities were discontinued. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about the quashing through the supervisory review procedure of the binding and enforceable judgments in their favour between 2005 and 2007 with regard to restoration of their pension payments.   Yusupova and Others v. Russia (no. 5428/05) The applicants are three Russian nationals who lived at the relevant time in Achkhoy-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, wife and daughter of Khasan Yusupov, born in 1979, who served as a private in Achkhoy-Martan military commandant’s office. He has not been seen since the morning of 15   November 2002 when he left by car with two other servicemen for an appointment at the military prosecutor’s office with regard to a criminal investigation against one of the servicemen. The applicants allege that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the disappearance of their relative. They rely on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).     ***   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.