CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 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 } .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 }   586 17.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   21 and 23 July 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 26   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 21   July 2009 and nine on Thursday 23 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 21 July 2009   Kvitsiani v. Georgia (application no. 16277/07) The applicant, Amiran Kvitsiani, is a Georgian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Tbilisi (Georgia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that a judgment delivered in his favour in December 2000 and obliging the authorities to pay him compensation for having destroyed his house during a police operation in September 1997, has not been enforced for several years.   Aleksa v. Lithuania (no. 27576/05) Igarienė and Petrauskienė v. Lithuania (no. 26892/05) The applicants, Valentinas Aleksa, Laima Sofija Igarienė and Diana Petrauskienė, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1951, 1938 and 1968 respectively and live in Kaunas (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), the applicants complain of the excessively long civil proceedings regarding the restitution of parts of a building in Kaunas, of not being able to obtain restitution of the premises in kind and of not being able to enjoy their property because of the protracted nature of the proceedings.   Janus v. Poland (no. 8713/03) The applicant, Antoni Janus, was a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lived in Czarne (Poland). Following his death on 29   November 2008, his mother expressed the wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in her late son’s stead. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains in particular of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention on charges of murder which started in September 2001. The case further concerns whether the fact that the applicant’s letter of 9   February 2003 sent to the Court’s Registry from the Chojnice Remand Centre was stamped “censored” breached his right to correspondence under Article 8 (right to correspondence).   Kacprzyk v. Poland (no. 50020/06) The applicant, Rafał Kacprzyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Ustka Prison (Poland) after being convicted at first instance of having committed a series of criminal offences against banks and pending his appeal. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the excessive length both of his pre-trial detention, which started in October 2004, and of the criminal proceedings against him.   Kania v. Poland (no. 12605/03) The applicants, Leon and Agnieszka Kania, are Polish nationals who were born in 1929 and 1936 respectively and live in Mielec (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), they complain of the excessive length of administrative proceedings related to the functioning of a craftsmen’s cooperative established next to the applicants’ home in 1978 further allege that due to the cooperative’s continuous activities they have been subjected to serious noise and pollution for a number of years, which resulted in their sustaining serious and long-term health problems.   Seliwiak v. Poland (no. 3818/04) The applicant, Maciej Seliwiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Łęczyca Prison (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains in particular that his defence rights have been seriously limited because he could not attend the only hearing held before the appellate court in July 2003 in his criminal case on charges of burglary and that he has been deprived of access to the Supreme Court.   Alexandru Marius Radu v. Romania (no. 34022/05) The applicant, Alexandru Marius Radu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1974 and is currently detained in Ploieşti Penitentiary (Romania) after being sentenced in May 2006 for robbery with violence. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of the failure of the authorities to protect him from physical abuse which he claims he suffered while in pre-trial detention.   Luka v. Romania (no. 34197/02) The applicant, Gusztav Luka, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Târgu-Mureş (Romania). In 1999 he was dismissed by the company for which he had been working as a managing director and head of the IT division. In proceedings brought by Mr Luka against his former employer for payment of interest in respect of damages awarded by a final decision in his favour, the applicant alleges, relying in particular on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), that the courts were not impartial and independent because lay judges sat on the tribunal hearing his case and, on appeal, the court failed to address his submission that the composition of the tribunal had been unconstitutional.   Grišević and Others v. Serbia (nos. 16909/06, 38989/06 and 39235/06) The applicants, Safa Grišević, Dragoš Vranić and Mladomirka Vučićević, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1962, 1954 and 1965 respectively and live in Novi Pazar (Serbia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complain of the authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgments rendered in their favour ordering their employer to pay them leave benefits for a period when they were placed on compulsory paid leave in 1995 and 1998.   Gaspari v. Slovenia (no. 21055/03) The applicant, Alenka Blaž (later changed to Gaspari), is a Slovenian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Ljubljana (Slovenia). Relying on Articles 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention and on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality between spouses) to the Convention, she alleges, that the domestic proceedings which started in May 1993 and which concerned the annulment of a divorce-related agreement between her and her late ex-husband have been unfair, and, in particular,   that she has not had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court as the constitutional appeals of the opposite party had not been served on her and she therefore had no possibility to reply to them.   Lesjak v. Slovenia (no. 33946/03) The applicant, Robert Lesjak, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Petrovce (Slovenia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of the excessive length of the civil proceedings he brought seeking compensation from the person who injured him in a car accident in April 1995 and from that person’s insurance company, as well as that he had no effective remedy in that respect under the new legislation concerning remedies for the length-of-proceedings complaints in Slovenia.   Dün v. Turkey (no. 17727/02) The applicant, Özgür Dün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). On suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation, he was arrested and taken into police custody three times – in April 2000 and August and December 2001. Relying in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that he was ill-treated while in police custody and complains of the length of his periods in police custody.   Koç and Yürek v. Turkey (no. 15179/02) Pehlivanoğlu v. Turkey (no. 45873/05) The applicants, Ali Koç and Yılmaz Yürek, are two Turkish nationals. They were born in 1971 and 1972 respectively and live in Gaziantep (Turkey). In January 1993 they were remanded in custody on suspicion of being members of the illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), and attacks against police officers. In April 2000 they were found guilty of the offences as charged; their conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation in October 2001. Relying on, among other provisions, Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain in particular of the length of the criminal proceedings against them. They also complain, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), of ill-treatment while in police custody.   Müdet Kömürcü v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 40160/05) The applicant, Müdet Kömürcü, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of having been tortured in late November 1997 during his detention in police custody on suspicion of his involvement in a terrorist organisation and that the authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation capable of establishing the facts and punishing those responsible for torturing him. He also complains that he has been denied the right to seek compensation before the civil courts as the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been dismissed for exceeding the statutory time-limit.   Okçu v. Turkey (no. 39515/03) The applicant, Hadin Okçu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turjey). While working as a district watchman for the Diyarbakır police headquarters he was wounded by a bullet fired by armed robbers. As a result he was compelled to take early retirement, in 1991. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Mr   Okçu complains of the loss in value of the compensation awarded him by the domestic courts following proceedings lasting more than fifteen years, which he deems to be an excessive length of time. Relying also on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he did not have effective remedies by which to complain of the length of the proceedings or secure redress for the depreciation in value of his compensation.   Osmanağaoğlu v. Turkey (no. 12769/02) The applicant, Ünal Osmanağaoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and is currently in Metris Prison (in Turkey). On 3 October 1978, during a spate of terrorist acts in Turkey, the president of the local branch of a right-wing party and his son were murdered in Istanbul. On 9 October 1978 seven young left-wing extremists were killed in Ankara, in what became known as “the Bahçelievler massacre”, believed to have been organised by a secret nationalist group out of revenge for the murders committed on 3 October. In the course of the investigations criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Osmanağaoğlu and fourteen others. In November 1999 the applicant was given seven death sentences, one for each murder. This ruling was upheld by the Court of Cassation in 2001 and subsequently commuted to forty years’ imprisonment, with ineligibility for parole during the first twenty-five years, following the abolition in 2002 of the death penalty in time of peace in Turkey. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial), Mr Osmanağaoğlu complains that he was convicted on the basis of an arbitrary assessment of evidence extracted from two of his co-accused who had subsequently complained that the statement had been taken from them under torture,   contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He complains, further, that he was never able to contest that evidence. Relying also on Article   5 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he has been imprisoned on the basis of an unfair conviction.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Brezeanu v. Romania (no. 10097/05) Cernitu v. Romania (no. 11474/04) Ciornei v. Romania (no. 6098/05) Naghi v. Romania (no. 31139/03) Simionescu-Râmniceanu v. Romania (no. 16272/03) Ştefănescu and Others v. Romania (no. 34741/07) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicants in the cases of Brezeanu , Ciornei , Simionescu-Râmniceanu and Ştefănescu and Others also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and the applicant in the case of Simionescu-Râmniceanu also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Giç v. Turkey (no. 8126/02) The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Üçpınar v. Turkey (no. 41479/05) The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Thursday 23 July 2009   Bowler International Unit v. France (no. 1946/06) The applicant, Bowler International Unit, is a British company whose registered office is in Basildon (United Kingdom). In 1998 it organised the transfer of goods – a consignment of 276   dolls – from Spain to the United Kingdom. The French customs authorities found 17   boxes containing cannabis in the consignment. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant company complains that the order confiscating the toys was unfair because the company was not involved in the attempt to smuggle the cannabis and did not, as the owner of goods that had served to disguise the smuggling attempt, have an opportunity to plead good faith before the French courts.   Hachette Filipacchi Associés (“Ici Paris) v. France (no. 12268/03) The applicant, Hachette Filipacchi Associés, is a French commercial partnership having its registered office in Levallois-Perret (France). It is the publisher of the weekly magazine Ici Paris . Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), it complains of a court ruling against it in 2002 for damaging the image and failing to respect the private life of the singer Johnny Hallyday, following the publication in November 1996 of an article by Ici Paris entitled “What if he flops in Las Vegas? Panic stations, Johnny!”.   Joubert v. France (no. 30345/05) The applicants, François Joubert and his wife, Monique Joubert, are French nationals who were born in 1944 and 1949 respectively and live in Saint-Romain-la-Virvée (France). They unsuccessfully appealed against a supplementary tax demand they had received in 1993. They rely in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), complaining of the unfairness of the tax proceedings, and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), complaining that a legislative provision with retrospective effect was passed during the course of the proceedings as a result of which the dispute was decided in favour of the authorities.   Mutsayeva v. Russia (no. 24297/05) The applicants are the parents of Khizir Tepsurkayev, born in 1980. His father died in January 2006 and his mother decided to pursue the application. She is a Russian national who lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). Her son has not been seen since 27   August 2001. The applicant alleges in particular 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 allegations, which caused her psychological suffering. 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).   Sutyazhnik v. Russia (no. 8269/02) The applicant, “Sutyazhnik”, is an association registered in 1994 in Russia.   Following the entry into force of a new law of non-governmental organisations, the association applied to the Regional Department of Justice in order to re-register as required by the law, however,   its applications were refused. In June 1999 the regional commercial court ordered the Department to register the association, which decision was upheld in October 1999 by a higher level commercial court.   However, in 2000 that decision was put aside by the Supreme Commercial Court on the basis that the dispute at issue was outside the jurisdiction of commercial courts and should have been decided by a court of general jurisdiction. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the   applicant association complains of having been deprived of access to a court as a result of quashing, by way of supervisory review, of the earlier   court decisions   in its favour.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Klimenko and Ostapenko v. Russia (nos. 30709/03 and 30727/03) Markovtsi and Selivanov v. Russia (nos. 756/05 and 25761/05) Molodyka and Others v. Russia (nos. 3447/05, 15560/05 and 21613/05) All the applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     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.   Veljanoska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 35640/04)     ***   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) 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) 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.