CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 }   600 24.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   28 and 30 July 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 16   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 28 July 2009 and 26 on Thursday 30 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 28 July 2009   Lee Davies v. Belgium (application no. 18704/05) The applicant, Lee Martin Davies, is a British national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bobbing Hill, Sittingbourne (United Kingdom). In 1998, without a search warrant or any statutory authority, police officers entered private land, where they discovered the applicant and an accomplice, the tenant of the site, as well as a large quantity of cannabis. On the basis of the evidence obtained in this way, Mr Davies was convicted of drug trafficking in June 2004. He alleges, in particular, that he was the victim of a violation of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the evidence used as a basis for his prosecution was obtained unlawfully.   Olaru and Others v. Moldova (nos. 476/07, 22539/05, 17911/08 and 13136/07) The applicants are six Moldovan nationals who live in Moldova. Vasile Olaru, Vera Gusan and Simion Racu were born in 1971, 1955 and 1951 respectively and live in Chişinău. Artur, Corina and Olivia Lungu were born in 1972, 1973 and 1994 respectively and live in Straseni. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain of the authorities’ failure to comply with final judicial decisions delivered by the domestic courts between 1998 and 2006 and ordering the respective municipal authorities to provide the applicants with social housing.   Białas v. Poland (no. 29761/03) The applicant, Janusz Białas, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Rzeszów (Poland). From 2000 onwards he applied to various authorities claiming interest for late payment on account of the failure to comply with a time-limit set for the payment of an allowance to which he was entitled as a member of the prison service. No court assumed jurisdiction in the matter, since the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court (the latter being influenced by the position adopted in the Constitutional Court’s case-law) reached different opinions as to which type of court had jurisdiction. The applicant submits that in these circumstances his right under Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) to have his case examined by a court was infringed.   Rachwalski and Ferenc v. Poland (no. 47709/99) The applicants, Piotr Rachwalski and Agata Ferenc, are Polish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1976 respectively and live in Wagrowiec (Poland). Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   5 (right to liberty and security), they complain of having been harassed and humiliated by the police during an unlawful entry of their house in June 1997.   Smyk v. Poland (no. 8958/04) The applicant, Andrzej Smyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Łuków (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Smyk complains in particular that he has been denied access to the Supreme Court as his legal-aid lawyer refused to prepare a cassation appeal in proceedings the applicant brought seeking compensation for physical injuries and suffering which he sustained while serving in the army.   Dvořáček and Dvořáčková v. Slovakia (no. 30754/04) The applicants, Ivan Dvořáček, and his wife, Jozefa Dvořáčková, are Slovakian nationals who were born in 1942 and 1945 respectively and live in Bratislava. They also filed the application on behalf of their daughter, Ivana, who was born in 1981 and died on 14   March 2004. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain in particular of the failure of the authorities to ensure appropriate medical treatment for their daughter, which led to heart and lung damage and finally to her death, as well as that the civil proceedings for compensation for damage to their daughter’s health have been excessively long.   Arga v. Turkey (no. 27803/02) The applicant, Akın Arga, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He was arrested in October 2001, was tried and was convicted of being a member of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). He submits various complaints concerning his period in police custody, his pre-trial detention and the subsequent trial. In particular, he alleges that his right to adversarial proceedings under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) was infringed in that it was impossible for him to reply to the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, which was not communicated to him.   Ersoy v. Turkey (no. 43279/04) The applicant, Haşim Özgür Ersoy, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul. In September 2001 he was arrested and allegedly ill-treated by the police while on his way to a demonstration organised by a human-rights association. The complaints he lodged on that account were dismissed by the domestic courts. Before the Court, he complains in particular that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the police and that there was no effective investigation into his complaints, in breach of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He also alleges a breach of his right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Gök and Güler v. Turkey (no. 74307/01) The applicants, Orhan Gök and Mazhar Güler, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1975 respectively and live in Istanbul. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain of having been ill-treated in November 1995 while in police custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK, an illegal armed organisation. They also complain under Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) of being denied a fair trial by having been convicted in November 1999 on the basis of statements given under duress by a tribunal on which a military judge sat.   İzzet Özcan v. Turkey (no. 10324/05) The applicant, İzzet Özcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was arrested in December 1997 on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), and was convicted with final effect in September 2004. Relying on Article   6 §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair hearing), Mr Özcan complains of the length of the criminal proceedings against him and submits that he did not have the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody.   Seyithan Demir v. Turkey (no. 25381/02) The applicant, Seyithan Demir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Antalya (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains of having been denied a fair hearing during his trials between 2000 and 2002 on charges of disseminating separatist propaganda, and of the relevant domestic law in force at the time having breached his right to freedom of expression.   Terzi and Erkmen v. Turkey (no. 31300/05) The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Abdulvahap Terzi was born in 1969 and lives in Malatya and Recahi Erkmen was born in 1971 and lives in Sivas. Relying, in particular, 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   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain of having been tortured in May 1997 during their detention in custody of security forces on suspicion of car theft and that the authorities failed to establish the responsibility of the accused police officers.   Zeki Bayhan v. Turkey (no. 6318/02) The applicant, Zeki Bayhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Hakkari (Turkey). He was arrested in June 1998 on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), and was found guilty. His conviction became final in December 2000 after his appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed. Mr Bayhan alleges, in particular, that he did not have a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), in that he did not have the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody and the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was not communicated to him.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Colceru v. Romania (no. 4321/03) Relying in particular on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that a final court judgment was called into question and that she was deprived of the property awarded to her in the judgment as a result of its quashing.   Dumitraş v. Romania (no. 17979/05) Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was infringed on account of the sale of immovable property and the refusal of the domestic courts to rescind the sale.   Just satisfaction Alexandrou v. Turkey (no. 16162/90) In its judgment of 20   January 2009 in this case, the Court found a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the applicant’s right of access to her property in the northern part of Cyprus. In its judgment the Court examines the case under Article   41 (just satisfaction).     Thursday 30 July 2009   Dattel v. Luxembourg (No. 2) (no. 18522/06) The applicants, Dany and Margot Dattel and their children Sascha and Nathalie Dattel, are four German nationals who live in Cologne (Germany). Dany Dattel’s date of birth has not been specified and the other applicants were born in 1939, 1966 and 1968 respectively. During a first set of proceedings the applicants unsuccessfully sought an order, in the context of the liquidation of the H.B. Luxembourg bank, for payment of a debt owed to them by the bank. The bank argued that the debt was null and void as it derived from an illegal purpose originating in the actions of Dany Dattel, the head of the bank’s subsidiary in Cologne. In August 2005 the European Court of Human Rights, to which the applicants had applied, gave a judgment in which it found a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the length of the proceedings. In July 2001 the applicants instituted a second set of civil proceedings with a view to recovering their debt, but without success. On 10 November 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants on account of the vagueness of their grounds of appeal. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants allege that the dismissal of their appeal on points of law breached their right of access to a court and that the decisions against them infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   Alekhin v. Russia (no. 10638/08) The applicant, Aleksandr Alekhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in St   Petersburg (Russia). In 2005 he was charged with unlawful business activities and money laundering. He was held in detention pending trial and was convicted as charged in 2008. He experienced several strokes while in the remand centre, which resulted in a paralysis of the right part of his body. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §§   3, 4   and   5 (right to liberty and security), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Alekhin alleges in particular that he has not received adequate medical care in detention, that his detention pending trial has been excessively long, that he had no enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention, that the criminal proceedings against him have been excessively long, and that he had no adequate remedies at his disposal for the above complaints.   Ananyev v. Russia (no. 20292/04) The applicant, Sergey Ananyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Smolensk region (Russia). He was found guilty of murder in 2003 and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He decided to plead his own defence at his trial of July 2003 because he was dissatisfied with legal-aid counsel appointed to represent him. He was however removed from the courtroom after an altercation with a witness. Mr Ananyev refused to participate in the appeal trial in February 2007; he questioned the effectiveness of the state-appointed lawyer who appears to have made oral submissions to the court on the grounds originally filed by the applicant. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) and   (d) (right to a fair trial) he alleges in particular that he was not present or represented at the trial hearings.   Ananyin v. Russia (no. 13659/06) The applicant, Oleg Ananyin, is a Russian national who was born in1973 and lives in Volgograd (Russia). The applicant has been held in custody since April 2003 on suspicion of membership of an armed criminal gang, several counts of aggravated robbery, extortion, kidnapping, infliction of serious injuries and murder. The proceedings are still pending before the trial court. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) Mr Ananyin complains in particular of the appalling conditions and excessive length of his detention and that he has been refused access to materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their requests for extension of his detention.   Danilenkov and Others v. Russia (no. 67336/01) The applicants are 32 Russian nationals who are members of the Kaliningrad branch of the Dockers’ Union of Russia (DUR), established and registered with the Kaliningrad Justice Department in 1995 as an alternative to the traditional Maritime Transport Workers’ Union. The case concerns alleged discrimination against members of this trade union and harassment to penalise them for a 1997 strike over pay, better working conditions and health and life insurance. Relying on Articles   11 (freedom of assembly and association),   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and   Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) they complain that the authorities have tolerated the discriminatory policies of their employer and refused to examine their discrimination complaint due to the absence of effective legal mechanism in domestic law.   Gladyshev v. Russia (no. 2807/04) The applicant, Yevgeniy Gladyshev, is a Russian national who was born in 1943 and is currently serving a sentence in Kostroma OT-15/1 correctional colony (Russia). In 2002 he was convicted of the murder of a law enforcement official and illegal manufacture and possession of weapons, and sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) Mr Gladyshev complains of ill-treatment by the police after his arrest, the absence of effective investigation into his allegations and of the subsequent use at trial of confession statements obtained as a result of coercion.   Lamazhyk v. Russia (no. 20571/04) The applicant, Orlan Lamazhyk, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and is currently serving a prison sentence. He was arrested in January 2000, and found guilty of aggravated robbery and aggravated theft of weapons in August 2004. He spent more than four years in detention pending trial and was sentenced to eight years and two months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) he complains about the unlawfulness and the excessive duration of his detention, the failure of the domestic courts to examine “speedily” detention issues and the unreasonably long criminal proceedings against him.   Pitalev v. Russia (no. 34393/03) The applicant, Sergey Pitalev, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving his sentence in a penitentiary institution in Yekaterinburg (Russia). The case concerns his conditions of pre-trial detention from April 2001 to December 2002, before he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for inflicting grievous bodily arm resulting in death. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) Mr Pitalev complains in particular of the conditions in the correctional facilities, where he was allegedly infected with tuberculosis, as well as of the lack of adequate medical care and insufficient personal space.   Sergey Medvedev v. Russia (no. 3194/08) The applicant, Sergey Medvedev, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lives in the Moscow region. A member of the National Bolshevik Party at the relevant time, he was involved in a fight outside of the district court, on the day of a hearing concerning the refusal to register the National Bolshevik Party. Mr Medvedev was placed in custody in May 2006, charged with participation in mass disorder and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment in March 2008. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security) he complains that his detention on remand has been unlawful and excessively long.   Sorokin v. Russia (no. 7739/06) The applicant, Nikolay Sorokin, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Volograd (Russia). The case concerns the pre-trial detention of Mr Sorokin who has been held in custody since September 2003 after criminal proceedings were instituted against him. The proceedings are still pending before the trial court. Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) the applicant complains that his detention pending trial has been excessively long and not accompanied by appropriate procedural guarantees.   Svetlana Orlova v. Russia (no. 4487/04) The applicant, Svetlana Orlova, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Maykop, Republic of Adygeya (Russian Federation). The case concerns Mrs Orlova’ s dispute with her former employer, in which the domestic courts examined the case in six rounds of proceedings, since the appeal and supervisory review court repeatedly sent the case back to the first-instance court. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) she complains that the courts in her case were not impartial, that she has been deprived of access to a court and that her claim was not examined within a reasonable time.   Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia (no. 19223/04) The applicant, Vladimir Fedorov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving his sentence in a correctional colony in Kemerovo (Russia). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr. Fedorov complains in particular that in March 2003 he was ill-treated in the Prokopyevsk police station and that the authorities have not carried out an effective investigation into his complaints.   Yevgeniy Kornev v. Russia (no. 30049/02) The applicant, Yevgeniy Kornev, is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Kurgan (Russia). In August 2001, Mr. Kornev was arrested and charged with extortion and convicted by a final decision in March 2002; he was subsequently convicted for kidnapping in separate proceedings. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was beaten up by police officers during and after his arrest. Relying further on Article   6   (right to a fair trial), he complains that, owing to belated notification, he was denied the opportunity to attend the supervisory-review hearing before the competent Regional Court and his submissions were disregarded.   Drozd v. Ukraine (no. 12174/03) The applicant, Nikolay Drozd, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Velykyy (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr. Drozd alleges that he was beaten up by the police officers in 1997, and that the investigation undertaken by the domestic authorities into his complaints has been lengthy and insufficient.   Yefanov and Others v. Ukraine (no. 13404/02) The applicants, Oleksandr Yefanov, Irina Yefanova, Yuriy Boyev and Svitlana Boyeva, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1951, 1959, 1952 and 1953 respectively and live in Smila (Ukraine). Several criminal proceedings were instituted against them lasting from 1999 to January 2006 for smuggling, forging documents and tax evasion. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain that the proceedings have been excessively lengthy.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Khotuleva v. Russia (no. 27114/04) Prokopyeva v. Ukraine (no. 48771/06) Semenovych v. Ukraine (no. 9480/06) Shventkovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 27589/05) Solonskiy v. Ukraine (no. 39760/05) Sorokina and Goncharenko v. Ukraine (nos. 41313/06 and 42206/06) Tereshchenko v. Ukraine (no. 33959/05) With the exception of the applicant in the case of Tereshchenko all the applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). With the exception of the applicant in the case of Shventkovskiy they also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Semenovych relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     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.   Sebova v. Ukraine (no. 4430/04) Shastkiv and Valitska v. Ukraine (no. 3638/04) Smirnov v. Ukraine (no. 1409/03) Yakubovych v. Ukraine (no. 29025/05)     ***   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.