CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s803AEB62 { margin:0pt 42.5pt 0pt 28.35pt; text-align:right } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC7B59AD2 { margin:0pt 42.5pt 0pt 28.35pt; text-align:center } .s36ABE7BE { margin:0pt 42.5pt 0pt 28.35pt } .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 } .sF4AE8297 { margin:0pt 42.5pt 0pt 28.35pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline }   645 11.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   15 and 17 September 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 15   September 2009 and nine on Thursday 17   September 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 15 September 2009   Aiminen v. Finland (application no. 24732/06) The applicant, Jari Kalervo Aiminen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Fuengirola (Spain). The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for fraud. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia (no. 798/05) The applicants are Father Ivans (Ioanns) Miroļubovs, a Latvian national, Sergejs Pičugins, a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia and Albīna Zaikina, also a Latvian national. The case concerns the authorities’ intervention in a dispute between two groups of followers of an Old Orthodox community. The applicants rely on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.   Pacula v. Latvia (no. 65014/01) The applicant, Eduards Pacula, is a Latvian national who lives in Baldone (Latvia). He alleges, in particular, a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) on account of his conviction based on statements from witnesses whom he had no opportunity to question at the hearing. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and Article 34 (right of individual petition) he also complains of the opening by the prison authorities of his correspondence with the Court and their refusal to send certain items from his case file to the Court.   Amato Gauci v. Malta (no. 47045/06) The applicant, Philip Amato Gauci, is a Maltese national who was born in 1939 and lives in Msida (Malta). The case concerns the applicant’s inability to repossess a house he inherited – despite expiry of the tenants’ lease – and to obtain fair and adequate rent. He relies in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Arciński v. Poland (no. 41373/04) The applicant, Wojciech Arciński, is a Polish national who was born in 1945 and is currently serving an 11-year prison sentence in Płock Prison (Poland) for murder. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains that, in the criminal proceedings against him, he was denied effective access to the Supreme Court as a result of the legal-aid lawyer’s refusal to draft a cassation appeal.   Giermek and Others v. Poland (no. 6669/03) The applicants are four Polish nationals: Kazimiera Giermek and Karol Słomka who were born in 1939; Jadwiga Gawlik who was born in 1934; and, Emil Zak who was born in 1938. They all live in Zator (Poland). The case concerns the non-enforcement of a final administrative decision and the length of administrative proceedings in a dispute about the nuisance caused in their street by their neighbour’s wholesale business. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Jamroży v. Poland (no. 6093/04) The applicant, Władysław Jamroży, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Polanica Zdrój (Poland). The case concerns the length of the applicant’s detention on remand on suspicion of fraud. He relies on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Moskal v. Poland (no. 10373/05) The applicant, Maria Moskal, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Glinik Chorzewski (Poland). This is the first of about 120 similar applications which have been lodged with the Court, all from the same region of Poland, concerning the revocation of erroneously awarded early-retirement pensions awarded to parents with children requiring permanent health care. The applicant relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   E.S. and Others v. Slovakia (no. 8227/04) The applicants are four Slovak nationals who live in Košice (Slovakia). E. S. was born in 1964, and is the mother of Er. S., Ja. S. and Já. S, who were born in 1986, 1989 and 1988 respectively. The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that the Slovakian authorities failed to protect them adequately against domestic violence. They rely on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Arzu v. Turkey (no. 1915/03) The applicant, Fırat Arzu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and was detained in Mardin Prison (Turkey) at the time his application was lodged before the Court. He complains about being tortured while in police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation, about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and about the excessive length and unfairness of the proceedings against him. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Beyazgül v. Turkey (no. 27849/03) The applicant, Ahmet Beyazgül, is a Turkish national who was born in 1924 and lives in Van (Turkey). He complains in particular about the death of his son following the use of force by gendarmes on the Turkish-Iranian border in the course of an operation by the latter in connection with fuel smuggling. Relying on, among other provisions, Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of the fact that the accused were acquitted on the criminal charges against them and of the authorities’ failure to administer first aid to his son.   Etem Karagöz v. Turkey (no. 32008/05) The applicant, Etem Karagöz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Arrested in 1994 in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation, he complains about his detention on remand and the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Göksel Tütün Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 32600/03) The applicant, Göksel Tütün Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş., is a public limited company under Turkish law with its registered office in İzmir. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complains that it was deprived of part of its land under a planning law concerning participation in the cost of urban development, and received no compensation. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant further complains of the length of the proceedings before the Turkish courts.   Güli Kara v. Turkey (no. 30944/04) The applicant, Güli Kara, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Şırnak (Turkey). Ms Kara was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for membership of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation). She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) in connection with the proceedings against her.   Hatipoğlu v. Turkey (no. 23945/05) The applicant, Ali Hatipoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Sakarya (Turkey). He complains of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him for forging official documents. He relies in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   İhsan Baran v. Turkey (No. 1) (no. 8180/04) The applicant, İhsan Baran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He was arrested and convicted for membership of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation). He complains that he was not assisted by a lawyer either in police custody or when giving evidence to the judge of the State Security Court. He relies on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial).   Kaya and Seyhan v. Turkey (no. 30946/04) Saime Özcan v. Turkey (no. 22943/04) The applicants are three Turkish nationals, Ms Saime Özcan (born in 1963 and living in İzmir) and Ms Güldeniz Kaya and Mr Ahmet Seyhan (born in 1964 and 1956 respectively and living in Mersin). They complain of the criminal and disciplinary penalties imposed on them for participating, as teachers and members of the trade union Eğitim ‑ Sen , in national days of strike action organised by the trade union in December 2000 and December 2003. They rely on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Ms Kaya and Mr Seyhan also allege that no effective remedy was available to them in Turkey by which to complain of the situation. They rely, in particular, on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in that regard.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Rasidescu v. Romania (no. 39761/03) Tamir and Others v. Romania (no. 42194/05) These cases concern actions for recovery of possession of property. All the applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the case of Rasidescu also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     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.   Lorenc v. Poland (no. 28604/03)     Thursday 17 September 2009   Manole and Others v. Moldova (no. 13936/02) The applicants, Larisa Manole, Corina Fusu, Mircea Surdu, Dinu Rusnac, Viorica Cucereanu-Bogatu, Angela Aramă-Leahu, Ludmila Vasilache, Leonid Melnic and Diana Donică are Moldovan nationals living in Chişinău. They are or were all employed by Teleradio-Moldova (TRM), which runs the only national state television and radio station in Moldova. The case concerns their complaint about censorship and Government interference with editorial policy. They rely on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Asadulayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 15569/06) Magomadova and Others v. Russia (no. 33933/05) Zabiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 35052/04) The first two cases concern the applicants’ allegations that a close relative disappeared in Chechnya after being detained by Russian servicemen; the third case that a close relative was killed by Russian servicemen. All the applicants further complain that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They rely 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).   Kozlov v. Russia (no. 30782/03) The applicant, Sergey Kozlov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974. He is currently in detention in Bezhetsk (Russia). The case concerns the applicant’s alleged inability to attend the hearings in the civil proceedings against him because he was in detention. It further relates to the applicant’s allegations that, in the course of criminal proceedings against him, the court of appeal omitted to reply to several of his grounds of appeal and that a preparatory hearing of the first-instance court was held in his lawyer’s absence. He relies on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial).   Yevdokimov v. Russia (no. 17183/05) The applicant, Aleksey Yevdokimov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Saransk (Russia). Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), he complains that the period he spent in detention on suspicion of theft exceeded his final prison sentence.   Bočvarska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 27865/02) The applicant, Nevenka Bocvarska, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Skopje. She complains about enforcement proceedings concerning a judgment debt established in favour of an undertaking of which she was sole proprietor and manager. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Borodkin v. Russia (no. 42234/04) The case concerns the quashing of a judgment in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review. He relies 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.   Zharkova v. Russia (no. 32380/06)     ***   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 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.