CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt }   693 25.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   29 September and 1 October 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 26 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 29   September 2009 and eight on Thursday 1 October 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 29 September 2009   Gjyli v. Albania (application no. 32907/07) The applicant, Ali Gjyli, is an Albanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Durrës (Albania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about the non-enforcement of two court judgments ordering his reinstatement in his post as Director of a vocational training centre and the payment of salary arrears. This complaint also raises questions relating to Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Vrioni and Others v. Albania and Italy (nos. 35720/04 and 42832/06) The applicants are Shahin Vrioni, an Albanian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Albania, and three Albanian and Italian nationals, Gherardo La Francesca, Dario La Francesca and Oliver Vrioni, who were born in 1946, 1950 and 1974 respectively and live in Italy. The case concerns judicial proceedings for recovery of property (a plot of land) and compensation. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they mainly complain of failure to enforce a final domestic judgment entitling them to receive compensation, the excessive length of proceedings and of lack of effective remedies by which to obtain a final determination of their property rights.   Jánosi v. Hungary (no.19689/05) The applicants, Mr   and   Mrs   Jószef Jánosi, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1958 respectively and live in Szolnok (Hungary). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they have been deprived of the ownership of their real estate on the basis of a purported purchase contract, that they did not have an effective remedy available to complain about this situation and that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time.   Sándor Lajos Kiss v. Hungary (no. 26958/05) Talabér v. Hungary (no. 37376/05) The applicants are two Hungarian nationals who live in Hungary. Sándor Lajos Kiss was born in 1976 and lives in Vác and Attila Jószef Talabér was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), they complain of not having been able to take part in the appeal hearings in which decisions were taken about their sentencing to, respectively, four years’ imprisonment and a fine.   Kotowski v. Poland (no. 12772/06) The applicant, Marek Kotowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Bydgoszcz (Poland). Relying, in particular, on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), the applicant complains that his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights was censored by the authorities during his detention for physical and mental cruelty towards his common-law wife.   Tarnowski v. Poland (No. 1) (no. 33915/03) Tarnowski v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 43934/07) The applicants are three brothers: Juliusz Tarnowski, Marek Tarnowski and Aleksander Tarnowski. They are Polish nationals who were born in 1929, 1932 and 1934 respectively and live in Kraków and Sopot (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain about the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning property issues. They also complain that the domestic courts failed to take appropriate and speedy action to restore their property to them, in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Wiśniewski v. Poland (no. 43610/06) The applicant, Janusz Wiśniewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and is currently detained in Wrocław Prison (Poland). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention in criminal proceedings against him concerning thefts and armed robberies.   Chiriţǎ v. Romania (no. 37147/02) The applicant, Marioara Chiriţǎ, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns her arrest, the criminal proceedings against her and her detention after she was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, as well as a civil action to recover a house. Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 34 (right of individual application), she alleges that she suffered ill-treatment into which no effective investigation was carried out, that the criminal and civil proceedings were unfair in several respects (one of which raised an issue of respect for her private life) and that her correspondence with the Court was hindered.   Constantin and Stoian v. Romania (nos. 23782/06 and 46629/06) The applicants are two Romanian nationals: Marius-Georgian Constantin who was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest, and Florin Stoian, who was born in 1971 and lives in Afumaţi (Romania). Relying on Article   6   §§   1, 2 and   3 (right to a fair trial), they complain about the unfairness of criminal proceedings against them on charges of drug trafficking. In particular, they allege that they were incited to commit a criminal offence by an undercover police officer and his collaborator.   Tomčáni v. Slovakia (no. 19011/05) The applicant, Ján Tomčáni, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Hontianske Nemce (Slovakia). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud.   Cihangül v. Turkey (no. 44292/04) Dikel v. Turkey (no. 8543/05) İlter v. Turkey (no. 43554/04) Merdan v. Turkey (no. 38011/05) Okan Erdoğan v. Turkey (no. 43696/04) Tamay and Others v. Turkey (nos. 38287/04, 1416/05, 1688/05, 2596/05, 12342/05, 17250/05, 20241/05, 26665/05, 29859/05, 30476/05, 31959/05, 37140/05, 37196/05 and 23484/06) Tevfik Okur v. Turkey (no. 2843/05) The applicants are 21 Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain about the lack of access to classified information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court in judicial proceedings before that court and/or the non-communication to them of the written opinion of that court’s principal public prosecutor. Okan Erdoğan and various applicants in the case of Tamay and Others also rely on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), complaining that secret investigations carried out by the Ministry of Defence into them and their families breached their right to private life. Finally, Nazım İlter also contends that a measure taken by the Turkish General Staff (prohibition from entering any social facilities of the Armed Forces) is in breach of Articles   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Erkuş v. Turkey (no. 30326/03) The applicant, Ergin Erkuş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). The case concerns his detention in military custody after he was arrested for not returning to his army barracks at the end of ten days’ leave. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his detention was unlawful and excessively long.   Fokas v. Turkey (no. 31206/02) The applicants, Ioannis Fokas and Evangelos Fokas, are Greek nationals who were born in 1945 and 1948 respectively and live in Katerini (Greece). The case concerns the applicants’ inability as Greek citizens to inherit their sister’s immovable property in Turkey on account of their nationality and of the principle of reciprocity between Greece and Turkey. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Ümit Gül v. Turkey (no. 7880/02) The applicant, Ümit Gül, is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin who was born in 1982 and lives in Düsseldorf (Germany). In 2001 he was arrested on suspicion of having written slogans on a wall in support of an illegal organisation. Relying, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains that he was tortured while in police custody and that criminal proceedings brought against him were unfair.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Costǎchescu v. Romania (no. 37805/05) Tǎnǎsescu v. Romania (no. 23692/02) These cases concern the Romanian authorities’ non-enforcement of final judgments in the applicants’ favour. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     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. In the case of Panzari the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Panzari v. Moldova (no. 27516/04) Korcz v. Poland (no. 33429/07)     Thursday 1 October 2009   Antonovi v. Bulgaria (no. 20827/02) The applicants, Stefka Antonova and Kostadin Antonov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1944 and 1935 respectively and live in Popovo (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that for many years the authorities failed to provide them with the apartment to which they were entitled as compensation for expropriated property.   Stanchev v. Bulgaria (no. 8682/02) The applicant, Angel Petkov Stanchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Pazardzhik (Bulgaria). Relying in particular on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), he complains that it was not possible for him to appeal against a district court judgment ordering his detention for five days for a minor public-order offence. Under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he alleges that he was beaten by the police when they arrested him and complains that no effective investigation into his alleged ill-treatment was carried out.   Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria (no. 33726/03) The applicant, Tsonyo Ivanov Tsonev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Gabrovo (Bulgaria). Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains in particular that his correspondence was monitored in prison and that no effective remedy was available to him.   Amanat Ilyasova and Others v. Russia (no. 27001/06) This case concerns 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) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kimlya and Others v. Russia (nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03) The first applicant, Yevgeniy Kimlya, was born in 1977 and lives in Surgut (Russia). He is the president of the Church of Scientology of Surgut City. The second applicant, Aidar Sultanov, was born in 1965 and lives in Nizhnekamsk (Russia). He is a co-founder and member of the Church of Scientology of Nizhnekamsk, a religious group without legal entity status, which is the third applicant. The applicants complain in particular about the authorities’ decisions, based on the Russian Religions Act, refusing State registration of their religious groups as legal entities.   Makarova v. Russia (no. 23554/03) The applicant, Yekaterina Makarova, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Pechora (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), she complains of the length of proceedings concerning her dismissal from her post as an accountant and the authorities’ subsequent failure to assist her in obtaining enforcement of the judgment in her favour, thus preventing her from being   reinstated   and receiving the compensation awarded.   Toporkov v. Russia (no. 66688/01) The applicant, Sergey Toporkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is serving a prison sentence in Sorda (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of ill-treatment by police officers while in police custody and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his allegations.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complained in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Donka Stefanova v. Bulgaria (no. 19256/03)     *** 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.