CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 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 } .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 }   565 10.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   16 July 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 36 Chamber judgments on Thursday 16 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 ).     Zehentner v. Austria (application no. 20082/02) The applicant, Bernardina Zehentner, is an Austrian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Vienna. Relying in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, she complains that the judicial sale of her flat deprived her of her possessions. The case further concerns the questions of whether the judicial sale deprived her of her “home” in breach of Article 8 (right to home) and whether she had access to a court and an effective remedy in that respect, in accordance with Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Féret v. Belgium (no. 15615/07) The applicant, Daniel   Féret, is a Belgian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Brussels. He was a member of the Belgian House of Representatives at the relevant time. In his capacity as chairman of the political party “Front National” he was convicted in 2006 for public incitement of discrimination or hatred, following the distribution of leaflets during his party’s election campaign between 1999 and 2001. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Féret alleges that his conviction represented an excessive restriction on his right to freedom of expression.   Nenov v. Bulgaria (no. 33738/02) The applicant, Iordan Nenkov Nenov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges in particular that his inability to benefit from the advice of officially assigned counsel infringed his right to a fair hearing. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13, and in view of the subject-matter of the dispute, which led to a change in his right of contact with his minor children, he further complains of a breach of his right to respect for his family life and of the lack of a remedy by which to seek redress.   Christodoulou v. Cyprus (no. 30282/06) The applicants, Elsa Christodoulou and Lydia Christodoulou, are Cypriot nationals who were born in 1964 and 1936 respectively and live in Paphos (Cyprus). They rented a shop together; in 2001 they challenged the amount of their rent before the national courts. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain that these proceedings have been unfair: in particular that they have been unfairly ordered to pay costs, that they have not been heard in relation to this matter and that the judgment delivered following their appeal has not been reasoned in this respect. They also complain about the length of the proceedings.   Willem v. France (no. 10883/05) The applicant, Jean-Claude Fernand Willem, is a French national who was born in 1934 and lives in Seclin (France). Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) he complains about his conviction for “provoking discrimination” when, in his capacity as mayor of Seclin, he publicly called on the town’s municipal services to boycott Israeli goods.   Kobelyan v. Georgia (no. 40022/05) The applicant, Leva Kobelyan, is a Georgian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Ninotsminda (Georgia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains in particular about the length of criminal proceedings instituted against him in 2000 for economic crimes.   Christodoulou v. Greece (no. 514/07) The applicant, Grigorios Christodoulou, is a Greek national who was born in 1938 and lives in Athens. After his request to have his old-age pension readjusted was rejected in 2001, he appealed to the Audit Court. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains about a breach of his right of access to a court on account of the annulment of his proceedings before the Audit Court, which found that the acknowledgment of receipt of the notice of appeal he had served on the other party had been filed in court out of time, according to the legislation then in force. As his pension has not been readjusted, he also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Sulejmanovic v. Italy (no. 22635/03) The applicant, Izet Sulejmanovic, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1973. His place of abode is unknown. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complains about the conditions of his detention between November 2002 and October 2003 when he was serving a sentence in Rebibbia Prison (Rome). Referring among other things to prison overcrowding, insufficient daily exercise outside his cell and to the fact that he could not work in prison, he alleges non-compliance with the standards of the CPT (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) in that connection.   Ņikitenko v. Latvia (no. 62609/00) The applicant, Vladimirs Ņikitenko, previously a national of the former USSR (Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics), is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia who was born in 1964. According to the most recent information available to the Court he was in prison in Jelgava (Latvia), serving a sentence for aggravated rape and sexual assault. He complains about the conditions of his detention in a temporary isolation cell in Jelgava police station from 24 January to 28 February 2000. He also complains about the absolute ban on corresponding with his mother and girlfriend during his detention, and about the opening and monitoring of letters sent to him by the Court. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and 34 (right of individual application).   Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova (no. 39815/07) The applicant, Baroul Partner-A, is a company incorporated in Moldova. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), it alleges that certain judicial proceedings against it for economic crimes were unfair in particular since the domestic courts examined the case, brought by the Prosecutor General, notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, the company further complains that its purchase of shares has been annulled in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Prencipe v. Monaco (no. 43376/06) The applicant, Josette Prencipe, is a French national who was born in 1940 and lives in Nice (France). Criminal proceedings were brought against her for acts of embezzlement that she had allegedly committed while working as a bank clerk in Monaco. She complains that the duration of her pre-trial detention, from 7 January 2004 to 13 December 2007, was excessive. She also complains that her state of health was incompatible with such detention, arguing among other things that her physical and mental health declined on account of an extension of her detention that she claims was unjustified. The applicant relies essentially on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). This judgment is the first one delivered by the Court in respect of Monaco.   Mgłosik v. Poland (no. 8403/02) The applicant, Rafal Mgłosik, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Tychy (Poland). He is currently serving a prison sentence. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that his pre-trial detention - from February 1999 to his conviction in February 2003 - was excessively long. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he also complains that the proceedings against him were both unfair and too long, and that his court-appointed lawyer refused to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf. The case further concerns censorship of the applicant’s correspondence on account of the Court having received from him a letter with a “censored” stamp, which raises a question with respect to Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Pasternak v. Poland (no. 42785/06) The applicant, Adam Pasternak, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Warsaw. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), he complains that while in detention in 2006 and 2007 his correspondence with the Court was censored by the authorities.   Wojtas-Kaleta v. Poland (no. 20436/02) The applicant, Helena Wojtas-Kaleta, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Wrocław (Poland). She was a journalist employed by a Polish public television company (TVP). In April 1999, she was reprimanded by her employer for having expressed, in her capacity as President of the Polish Public Television Journalists’ Union, a somewhat critical opinion on the classical music policies adopted by TVP. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), she complains that by rejecting her claims against the reprimand the national courts have restricted unduly her freedom of expression.   Baka v. Romania (no. 30400/02) The applicant, György Baka, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Gyula (Hungary). He complains as follows under Article 6 §§ 1, 3 (c), 3 (d) and 3 (e) (right to a fair trial): that the length of criminal proceedings against him was excessive, that he did not have satisfactory legal assistance, that he was not able to examine the person who had identified him as the perpetrator of the offences with which he was charged, and lastly that he was convicted after proceedings conducted in a language that he did not understand (Romanian) in the absence of an interpreter. He also relies on Article 5 § 2, complaining that on his arrest he was not informed in a language he understood about the charges against him.   Marian Stoicescu v. Romania (no. 12934/02) The applicant, Marian Stoicescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Port-Vendres (France). Relying essentially on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complains about the conditions of his detention between September 2002 and April 2003 in Bucharest-Jivala Prison, where he was serving a sentence for attempted murder with aggravating circumstances. He refers among other things to prison overcrowding, poor-quality water and a deplorable lack of hygiene. He also complains that his pre-trial detention was unlawful, that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair and that his right to be presumed innocent and defence rights were disregarded. He further alleges that, as a result of his criminal conviction, he was the victim of “torture”, discrimination and an abuse of the law. He relies on Article 3, Article 5 § 1, Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (b), (c) and (d), and Articles   14 and 17 of the Convention.   Karimov and Others v. Russia (no. 29851/05) The applicants are four Russian nationals who live in Grozny district (Chechen Republic). They are relatives of Arbi Karimov, born in 1981, who has not been seen since the early hours of 11   January 2003 when he was abducted from the family home by a group of armed masked men wearing helmets and driven away in a military vehicle. Relying 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), the applicants allege that, after being detained unlawfully, their relative was killed and the domestic authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation into his killing; that his disappearance caused them psychological suffering; and of the search carried out at their house and the seizure of their property. Finally, the applicants complain that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of the above violations of the Convention.   Potapov v. Russia (no. 14934/03) The applicant, Vyacheslav Potapov, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Novosibirsk Region (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains, in particular, that his conviction was upheld on appeal as a result of the Supreme Court’s failure to provide him with legal assistance during those proceedings.   Tsarkov v. Russia (no. 16854/03) The applicant, Vitaliy Tsarkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Tomsk (Russia). Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that his arrest and detention pending investigation were unlawful, and that his pre-trial detention was extended indefinitely.   Gorgievski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 18002/02) The applicant, Ljupco Gorgievski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Kriva Planka (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). The applicant alleges, among other things, that he was entrapped into committing an offence by an agent provocateur whose testimony then served, to a decisive extent, to secure his conviction. He further alleges violations of the principle of equality of arms and of his defence rights since the Court of Appeal which upheld his conviction refused to call a witness on his behalf, and ignored the statements of other witnesses relevant to his case. He also complains that the domestic courts’ decisions have not been sufficiently reasoned. He relies on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial).   Ali Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 35160/05) Yananer v. Turkey (no. 6291/05) The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Ali Yavuz was born in 1963 and lives in Bursa. Bülent Yananer was born in 1976 and lives in Bodrum. Both of them complain that they were subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody; Mr. Yananer also complains that the authorities have failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations. Mr. Yavuz further complains of having had an unfair trial due to the lack of an effective remedy to challenge his ill-treatment. He further alleges that, due to statutory limitations in respect of the criminal proceedings against the police officers, he could not seek compensation before the civil courts. The applicants rely on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Daneshpayeh v. Turkey (no. 21086/04) The applicant, Davud Daneshpayeh, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Adana (Turkey). Relying on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that the length of civil court proceedings against him was excessive and that no remedy was available by which to challenge that length. He alleges that the length of the proceedings also entailed a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Çimen Işık v. Turkey (no. 12550/03) Elçiçek and Others v. Turkey (no. 6094/03) The applicants, Çimen Işık, Hadi Elçiçek, Kulink Sevilgen and Salih Tuğrul, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979, 1968, 1961 and 1956 respectively. They were convicted for various offences related to their membership of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation. They all complain that they had no legal assistance during their police custody. Ms Işık also complains that she was unable to obtain the examination of witnesses on her behalf. They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) §§ 1, 3 (b) and 3 (c).   Mücek v. Turkey (no. 7605/05) The applicant, Ahmet Akif Mücek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Kandıra (Turkey). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the length of his pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation (the Dev-Yol , “Revolutionary Way”).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Aurel Popa v. Romania (no. 21318/02) Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture of Timişoara (No. 1) v. Romania (nos.   13248/05, 13321/05, 23462/05, 23471/05, 23475/05, 23482/05, 23490/05, 23493/05, 23496/05, 23501/05, 23504/05 and 23517/05) Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture of Timişoara (No. 2) v. Romania (nos.   nos 23520/05, 23524/05, 23544/05, 23550/05, 26288/05, 27175/05, 27176/05, 27177/05, 27178/05, 27179/05, 27180/05, 27181/05 and 27182/05) David v. Romania (no. 34247/06) The applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     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.   Bayer v. Germany (no. 8453/04) D.E. v. Germany (no. 1126/05) Naugzemys v. Lithuania (no. 17997/04) Suchecki v. Poland (No. 1) (no. 20166/07) Kharitonov v. Russia (no. 39898/03) Karataş and Yıldız and Others v. Turkey (nos. 4889/05, 4897/05, 24009/05, 33694/05, 37759/05, 42996/06, 43031/06, 43019/06, 43038/06 and 43054/06)     ***   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.