CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   670 18.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   22 and 24 September 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 51 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 22 September 2009 and eight on Thursday 24 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 22 September 2009   Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen v. Finland (application no. 13566/06) The applicant, Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki. He complains about the unfairness of the proceedings against him for aggravated fraud as his appeal trial was discontinued on account of his failure to appear in person. He relies on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Knaster v. Finland (no. 7790/05) The applicant, Riitta Knaster, is a Finnish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Helsinki. The case concerns her complaint about the length of criminal proceedings against her for aggravated embezzlement. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   Cimolino v. Italy (no. 12532/05 The applicant, Gian Paolo Cimolino, is an Italian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Milan (Italy). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that proceedings before the Court of Cassation were not adversarial, in a dispute concerning his fees as a legal adviser to the public authorities.   Stochlak v. Poland (no. 38273/02) The applicant, Wojciech Stochlak, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Canada; his daughter, who was then three years old, was abducted by her mother in Poland. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Stochlak complains of the Polish authorities’ failure to act in proceedings to enforce judicial decisions ordering that his daughter be returned to him in Canada.   Bican v. Romania (no. 37338/02) The applicant, Gheorghe Bican, is a Romanian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Tulcea (Romania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning his status as an adopted child, which, he alleges, caused him psychological suffering and financial loss.   Just satisfaction S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa v. Romania (no. 1477/02) The applicant company, S.C. Pilot Service S.A. Constanţa, is a commercial company that was formed in 1991 when a former State enterprise was turned into a joint-stock company. Its registered office is in Constanţa (Romania) and its main activity is providing pilot services to shipping. By a judgment of 3 June 2008, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) on account of the failure to execute final decisions authorising the company to exercise its piloting activities. The Court also held that the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision.   Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey (no. 30471/08) The applicants, Mohsen Abdolkhani and Hamid Karimnia, are Iranian nationals who were born in 1973 and 1978 respectively and are currently being held in Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in Kırklareli (Turkey). Former members of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation in Iran, they complain in particular that, if deported to Iran or Iraq, they are at real risk of death or ill-treatment. They rely 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).   Ahmet Arslan v. Turkey (no. 24739/04) Çelebi and Others v. Turkey (no. 2910/04) Halil Kaya v. Turkey (no. 22922/03) The applicants, Ahmet Arslan, Mehmet Ali Çelebi, Abdurrahim Şen, Cevdet Sinan Özdemir et Halil Kaya, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979, 1956, 1971, 1974 and 1983 respectively and live in Turkey. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial) they complain of the lack of legal assistance during their detention in police custody.   Akdüz and Others v. Turkey (no. 6982/04) The applicants, Zeliha Akdüz, Sultan Kale and Murat Hızarcı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1938, 1930 and 1937 respectively. Their land was expropriated in 2001 to allow for the construction of a dam. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain that the authorities failed to pay a debt that had been established by judicial decision, and of the inadequate rate of interest applied to that debt.   Andreou Papi v. Turkey (no. 16094/90) Christodoulidou v. Turkey (no. 16085/90) Diogenous and Tseriotis v. Turkey (no. 16259/90) Epiphaniou and Others v. Turkey (no. 19900/92) Hadjiprocopiou and Others v. Turkey (no. 37395/97) Hadjithomas and Others v. Turkey (no. 39970/98) Hapeshis and Hapeshi-Michaelidou v. Turkey (no. 35214/97) Hapeshis and Others v. Turkey (no. 38179/97) Iordanis Iordanou v. Turkey (no. 43685/98) Josephides v. Turkey (no. 21887/93) Loizou and Others v. Turkey (no. 16682/90) Ramon v. Turkey (no. 29092/95) Roch Ruby Hotels Ltd v. Turkey (no. 46159/99) Saveriades v. Turkey (no. 16160/90) Strati v. Turkey (no. 16082/90) Skyropiia Yialias Ltd v. Turkey (no. 47884/99) Vrahimi v. Turkey (no. 16078/90) Zavou and Others v. Turkey (no. 16654/90) All 18 of these cases concern the applicants’ allegations that the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus deprived them of their home and properties. They all rely in particular on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and most also on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). In four of the cases ( Andreou Papi , Christodoulidou, Strati and Vrahimi ) the applicants further complain that they were subjected to ill-treatment during an anti-Turkish demonstration, in breach in particular of Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),   11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Just satisfaction Baş v. Turkey (no. 49548/99) The applicant, Sefine Baş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Giresun (Turkey). By a judgment of 24 June 2008, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the refusal to pay a widow’s pension and the length of the proceedings brought by Mrs Baş in order to have that right recognised. The Court also held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision with regard to the pecuniary damage.   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 border between Turkey and Iran, where they were carrying out anti-smuggling operations against a fuel-trafficking network. Relying, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the legislation in force at the relevant time on the use of force by police in border areas, and the authorities’ failure to provide first aid to his son.   Çetiner and Yücetürk v. Turkey (no. 24620/04) The applicants, Sabahat Çetiner, Rukiye Yücetürk, Metin Yücetürk and Mehmet Yücetürk, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1959, 1941, 1964 and 1961 respectively and live in Sapanca (Turkey). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about the decision to designate their land as public forest without compensation.   Göksel Tütün Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 32600/03) The applicant, Göksel Tütün Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş., is a limited company incorporated under Turkish law and has its registered office at İzmir. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), it complains that it was deprived of part of its land, without compensation, under an urban-planning law on contributions to the cost of urban development. Under Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), it also complains about the length of the proceedings before the Turkish courts.   Kapçak v. Turkey (no. 22190/05) The applicant, Felemez Kapçak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). Relying, in particular, on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), he alleges that his correspondence was intercepted by prison staff.   Singar v. Turkey (no. 13467/05) The applicant, Mahmut Singar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Ağrı (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of an illegal organisation.   Talay v. Turkey (no. 34806/03) The applicant, Turan Talay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). Relying, in particular, on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was kept in detention in spite of a decision ordering a stay of execution of a sentence imposed by the State Security Court.   Ünay v. Turkey (no. 24801/05) The applicant, Selim Ünay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and is currently remanded in custody in Kandıra (Turkey) on charges of membership of an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   Uyanık and Kabadayı v. Turkey (no. 7945/05) The applicants, Özgür Uyanık and Ozan Kabadayı, are Turkish nationals who were detained on remand in Kartal Prison (Turkey) on charges of membership of an illegal armed organisation when lodging their application before the Court in 2005; they have since been released. Relying on Articles   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain about the excessive length of their detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings against them.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   S.C. Concordia Internaţional S.R.L. Constanţa v. Romania (no. 38969/02) Simionescu-Râmniceanu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 43953/02) These cases concern actions for the restoration of property. The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Aldemir v. Turkey (no. 37215/04) Relying on Article   6   (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains that he was issued with a penal order without a public hearing being held in his case.   Ali Taş v. Turkey (no. 10250/02) Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that he was deprived of his property, designated as forest area, without compensation.   Hasan Polat v. Turkey (no. 32489/03) Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court in the context of the criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of an illegal organisation, and about the length of those proceedings.     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 applicants in the cases of Oy Hopotihoi Suomen Lelukamarit Toy & Hobby Ltd and Matti Kangasluoma and M.V. also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Oy Hopotihoi Suomen Lelukamarit Toy & Hobby Ltd and Matti Kangasluoma v. Finland (no.   38158/07) Balea v. Romania (no. 31253/03) Lǎzǎrescu v. Romania (no. 3912/03) M.V. v. Serbia (no. 45251/07) Barker v. Turkey (no. 34656/03) Saruhan and Çelik v. Turkey (no. 5298/06) Seval Tekstil Sanayi ve Mümessillik Dış Ticaret Ltd. Şti. v. Turkey (no. 8476/05) Sürgit v. Turkey (no. 27597/06)     Thursday 24 September 2009   Agromodel Ood v. Bulgaria (no. 68334/01) The applicant company, “Agromodel” OOD, is a limited liability company that has its registered office in Ruse (Bulgaria). Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), it complains in particular about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine its claims for damages, brought against the prosecutor's office, on the ground that it had not paid the court tax.   Georgi Yordanov v. Bulgaria (no. 21480/03) The applicant, Georgi Angelov Yordanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Varna (Bulgaria). Sentenced to life imprisonment for aggravated murder, he complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence), about the recording of a meeting with his lawyer.   Mérigaud v. France (no. 32976/04) The applicant, Claude Mérigaud, is a French national who was born in 1946 and lives in Brive (France). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that he was not examined by an impartial court during disciplinary proceedings brought against him with regard to the practice of his profession as a chartered surveyor.   Sartory v. France (no. 40589/07) The applicant, Guy Sartory, is a French national who was born in 1955 and lives in Fontaine (France). He worked as a police inspector at the relevant time. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains of the length of proceedings before the administrative courts in which he challenged a transfer decision. He alleges that the excessive length of those proceedings deprived him of any opportunity to enjoy a normal career.   Procedo Capital Corporation v. Norway (no. 3338/05) The applicant, Procedo Capital Corporation, is a limited liability company registered in Panama. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint about the lack of impartiality of the Norwegian High Court as a whole in proceedings with regard to a civil dispute over security dealings between the applicant company and a Norwegian securities broker, Sundal Collier. The applicant company relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Babusheva and Others v. Russia (no. 33944/05) Rezvanov and Rezvanova v. Russia (no. 12457/05) These two cases concern the applicants’ allegations that their close relative disappeared in Chechnya after being detained by Russian servicemen and 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), 8 (right to respect for home), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Pishchalnikov v. Russia (no. 7025/04) The applicant, Aleksandr Pishchalnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lived, until his arrest, in Revda (Russia). Convicted of among other things murder, kidnapping, theft and robbery, the applicant complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and about being denied legal assistance at various stages of those proceedings. He relies on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial).     ***   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.