CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .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 }   724 02.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   6 and 8 October 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 33 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 6 October 2009 and 21 on Thursday 8 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 6 October 2009   Perinati v. Italy (application no. 8073/05) The applicant, Giovanni Perinati, is an Italian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Vercelli (Italy). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains that compensation he received for the expropriation of his land was insufficient.   Deservire S.R.L. v. Moldova (no. 17328/04) The applicant, Deservire S.R.L., is a company registered in Moldova. 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), the company complains that the proceedings in a case it brought against the authorities in 1994 for unlawful seizure of its property were too long, that the courts did not give sufficient reasons for their judgments and that no effective remedy existed to speed up the proceedings.   Petru Roşca v. Moldova (no. 2638/05) The applicant, Petru Roşca, is a Moldovan national and a school teacher with a third-degree disability. He was born in 1956 and lives in Cahul (Moldova). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial), he alleges that he was ill-treated in May 2004 when arrested by the police and while in detention on suspicion of minor hooliganism, and that he was convicted without being given sufficient time to prepare his defence and without having a lawyer.   Kuliś and Różycki v. Poland (no. 27209/03) The applicants are two Polish nationals. Mirosław Kuliś, born in 1956, owns a publishing house named “Westa Druk” which publishes a weekly magazine, Angora , and its supplement for children, Angorka . Piotr Różycki, born in 1946, was the editor in chief of the magazine. The case concerns the publication by the applicants in May 1999 of an article containing satirical cartoons which referred to   an   advertising campaign for potato crisps marketed by the Star Foods Company and aimed at children. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain that the sanction imposed on them for having published the cartoon was not justified.   Lewicki v. Poland (no. 28993/05) The applicant, Włodzimierz Lewicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Warsaw. Relying, in particular, on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his detention on suspicion of domestic violence lasted for too long and that his appeals against the extension of his detention were not examined promptly.   Almeida Santos v. Portugal (no. 50812/06) The applicant, Rosária Maria Almeida Santos, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1938 and lives in Coimbra (Portugal). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complains that she was not present when an inventory of an estate to which she was an heir was made with a view to its partition.   Stoican v. Romania (no. 3097/02) The applicant, Georgeta Stoican, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest. A judge, she was detained on suspicion of falsifying official documents in order to acquire various properties in the centre of Bucharest. Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), she complains that she was arrested on the basis of an order issued by a prosecutor and not by a judge, and that she was kept in detention for too long.   C.C. v. Spain (no. 1425/06) The applicant, C.C., is a Spanish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Salamanca (Spain). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that information about his medical condition was disclosed in court decisions delivered in civil proceedings between him and his insurance company.   Ali Hıdır Polat v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 7989/05) The applicant, Ali Hıdır Polat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Tunceli (Turkey). Suspected of belonging to an illegal organisation, the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), he was arrested and remanded in custody. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of ill-treatment while in police custody and of the lack of an effective remedy, the criminal proceedings against the police officers responsible having been discontinued as time-barred.   Bahçeli v. Turkey (no. 35257/04) The applicant, Murat Bahçeli, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul. 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 that he was detained for too long pending trial and that the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation (the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front) were too long.   Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfı v. Turkey (No. 4) (nos.   37646/03, 37665/03, 37992/03, 37993/03, 37996/03, 37998/03, 37999/03 and 38000/03) The applicant, Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfı (Foundation of the Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Greek Orthodox Church), is a foundation under Turkish law established in Çanakkale (Turkey). Its statute is in keeping with the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne concerning minority religious foundations. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant foundation complains that it is not possible for it to have its real property – including a cemetery, a chapel and a monastery – officially registered in its name.   Bozoğlu v. Turkey (no. 25099/04) The applicant, Metin Bozoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul. Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complains that no hearing was held in criminal proceedings against him and that the opinion of the public prosecutor at the assize court was not communicated to him.   Çatak v. Turkey (no. 26718/05) The applicant, Uğur Çatak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that proceedings concerning his expulsion in 2004 from a military academy were unfair in that he was denied access to classified information.   Eraslan and Others v. Turkey (no. 59653/00) Gürova v. Turkey (no. 22088/03) Mehmet Zeki Doğan v. Turkey (no. 38114/03) The applicants are 16 Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), they complain of not being assisted by a lawyer during their detention in police custody. The applicants in the case of Eraslan and Others also complain that the Izmir State Security Court, which tried and convicted them, was not independent and impartial as it included a military judge on the bench.   Özbek and Others v. Turkey (no. 35570/02) The applicants are 16 Turkish nationals. On 20 December 2000 they decided to set up a public-benefit foundation, which they called Kurtuluş Kiliseleri Vakfı (the Foundation of Liberation Churches), based in Ankara. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complained about the Turkish courts’ refusal to register their foundation.   Özcan Çolak v. Turkey (no. 30235/03) The applicant, Özcan Çolak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Tekirdağ (Turkey). The case concerns the applicant’s complaints of numerous breaches of the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation (the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), including that statements obtained from him under torture were used to convict him. He relies in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) and   (b) (right to a fair trial).   Seyfettin Acar and Others v. Turkey (no. 30742/03) The applicants are six Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Seyfettin Acar, Talat Acar, Yusuf Acar, Süleyman Acar, Narinci Acar and Hasbiye Acar, were born in 1945, 1967, 1945, 1953, 1957 and 1959, respectively. Talat Acar lives in İzmir. The other applicants live in Midyat. In April 1992 the applicants, travelling with relatives in south-east Turkey, allege that they were stopped by a group of village guards who opened fire on them injuring two of the applicants and killing two of their relatives. Relying, in particular, on Article   2 (right to life), the applicants complain that the Turkish authorities did not do all that was necessary to identify and punish those responsible.   Soyhan v. Turkey (no. 4341/04) The applicant, Tülin Soyhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul. Suspected of being a member of the illegal organisation DHKP/C (the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front), she was arrested and remanded in custody. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains of ill-treatment and the fact that she was not assisted by a lawyer while in police custody, and also that the Turkish courts took into account confessions obtained from her under duress.   Uygurer İnşaat SaN. TiC. LtD. ŞtI. V. Turkey (no. 26664/05) The applicant company, Uygurer İnşaat SaN. TiC. LtD. ŞtI., is a limited liability company based in Ankara. Its complaint, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), concerns the non-payment by a municipality of sums owed to the company for renovation work carried out on public buildings.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Ricci and Others v. Italy (no. 42021/02) This case concerns the applicants’ complaint of the inadequacy of compensation awarded to them for the expropriation of their property. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Gǎtitu v. Romania (no. 16535/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint of not having obtained compensation for property belonging to him that had been illegally nationalised. He relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Godorozea v. Moldova (no. 17023/05) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the domestic court failed to summon her when her case was examined on appeal. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Musteaţǎ and Others v. Romania (nos. 67344/01, 10772/04, 14819/04, 14025/05 and 23596/06) These cases concern the applicants’ complaint that the Romanian authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Fırat and Others v. Turkey (no. 17597/03) Gezer v. Turkey (no. 18704/04) In these cases the applicants complain of damage sustained when compensation they were awarded for expropriation lost value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate, and of the delay by the authorities in paying additional compensation. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Gezer , the applicant also complains of the length of the proceedings.   Hasan Coşkun v. Turkey (no. 15360/05) In this case the applicant complains that there was no public hearing in proceedings brought against him. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).     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.   Karasińska v. Poland (no. 13771/02) Puchalska v. Poland (no. 10392/04) Baltutan and ANO İnşaat ve Ticaret Ltd. Şti. V. Turkey (no. 9522/03) Tur-Ko Turizm Yatırım ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 41421/05) Yücel Doğan v. Turkey (no. 24647/04)     Thursday 8 October 2009   Maksimov v. Azerbaijan (no. 38228/05) The applicant, Rahib Shaval oglu Maksimov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison (Azerbaijan) for having created an anti-government criminal group which carried out a bomb attack in 1994 in the Baku metro killing several people and injuring many more. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complains of the domestic courts’ failure to summon him to the hearings of his cassation appeals.   Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan (no. 37083/03) The applicants are Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti, a non-profit non-governmental organisation, and an Azerbaijani national, Sabir Israfilov. The organisation is an association registered in Baku which was active in the environmental field between 1995 and 2002. Mr Israfilov, the organisation’s former Chairman, was born in 1948 and lives in Baku. Relying on Article   11 (freedom of association and assembly), the applicants complain that their association was dissolved arbitrarily by the authorities in 2003.   Mikolenko v. Estonia (no. 10664/05) The applicant, Nikolai Mikolenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 in Ukraine and lives in Tallinn (Estonia). Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), he complains that, following the authorities’ refusal to extend his residence permit, he was detained unlawfully in 2003 in a deportation centre and was kept there for too long, until his release in 2007.   Brunet-Lecomte and Tanant v. France (no. 12662/06) The applicants are two French nationals. Philippe Brunet-Lecomte is the publishing director of the magazine Objectifs Rhône Alpes , and Loïc Tanant is a journalist there. They were born in 1954 and 1968 respectively and live in Lyons (France). Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), they complain about their conviction for public defamation of a private individual following the publication of an article criticising an MP and president of the supervisory board of the Regional Savings Bank.   Maloum v. France (no. 35471/06) Naudo v. France (no. 35469/06) The applicants are two French nationals, born respectively in 1963 and 1959. Karim Maloum is currently serving a sentence at Saint-Martin de Ré Central Prison (France) and Jean-Jacques Naudo at Saint-Maur Central Prison (France). Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), they complain about the length of their pre-trial detention.   Adzhigovich v. Russia (no. 23202/05) The applicant, Yuliya Adzhigovich, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Moscow. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Ms Adzhigovich complains that the Russian customs inspection authorities confiscated about 3,000 US dollars which she had not declared when travelling from Sheremetievo airport in Moscow to Ukraine in October 2004.   Bordikov v. Russia (no. 921/03) The applicant, Viktor Bordikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and is serving a prison sentence in the Kirov Region (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that he was detained in inhuman and degrading conditions without being given adequate medical treatment, and that his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings opened against him in 1998 on suspicion of unlawful possession of ammunition and drugs lasted too long.   Malkin v. Russia (no. 67363/01) The applicant, Boris Malkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Barnaul (Russia). Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was kept in detention in 2000 despite a court decision ordering his release.   Merzhoyev v. Russia (no. 68444/01) The applicant, Isa Merzhoyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Moscow. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complains of not being able to withdraw his savings deposited in the Chechen branch of the Savings Bank of Russia between 1990 and 1992.   Porubova v. Russia (no. 8237/03) Romanenko and Others v. Russia (no. 11751/03) The applicant in the first case is Yana   Porubova,   a Russian national who lives in Yekaterinburg (Russia);   she was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper D.S.P. The applicants in the second case are three Russian nationals,   Tatyana Romanenko, Irina Grebneva and Vladimir Trubitsyn, who live in Vladivostok and Arsenyev (Russia) and are the   founders of the weekly newspaper,   Arsenyevskie Vesti . The cases concern the applicants’ complaints about actions brought against them for criminal libel in the first case and defamation in the second case.   Ms Porubova   had published an   article in 2002   which accused two local officials of misappropriation of funds.   The   applicants in the second case   had published articles criticising the management of public resources in the Primorskiy region, in particular with regard to the unlawful felling of trees and undocumented sale of timber to Chinese companies. All the applicants rely on Article   10 (freedom of expression). Ms Porubova also complains under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial)   that the trial in her case was not public.   Shemilova and Shemilov v. Russia (no. 42439/02) The applicants, Selikhat Shemilova and her relative Magomed Shemilov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1912 and 1966 respectively, and at the relevant time lived in a privately owned house in Grozny (Chechen Republic). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complain that their property was destroyed by State representatives in 2000 and that they had no access to the courts to have their claim for compensation examined.   Gsell v. Switzerland (no. 12675/05) The applicant, Mario Gsell, is a Swiss national who was born in 1958 and lives in Kaltbach (Switzerland). He is a journalist and editor of Gastro-News, a good-food magazine. For the “World Economic Forum” in Davos in 2001, he was asked to write an article about the effects of the demonstrations on local restaurants and hotels. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains that the police prevented him from entering Davos on the morning of 27 January 2001, for security reasons. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that his case was not examined by a “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. He also complains about the excessive length of the proceedings.   Kamilova v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 34151/03) The applicant, Katerina Kamilova, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Gevgelija (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), she complains about the non-enforcement of a court settlement reached in 1998 according to which a debtor was to repay her a loan she had given him in 1995.   Lazoroski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 4922/04) The applicant, Jovče Lazoroski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Kičevo (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   2 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains that his arrest in 2003 was unlawful given that he was not informed of the reasons for it, that his lawyer could not assist him and that the arrest was carried out in the absence of a court order. He further complains that the court proceedings in which he sought a review of the lawfulness of his arrest were unfair as he was unable to participate effectively in them and they were too lengthy.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Finkov v. Russia (no. 27440/03) Prokhorova v. Russia (no. 13869/05) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints about the Russian authorities’ non-enforcement of final judgments in their favour and the quashing of those judgments by way of supervisory review. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). In the case of Finkov the applicant also complains of the length of the proceedings and further 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.   Kindereit v. Germany (no. 37820/06) Sopp v. Germany (no. 47757/06) Yildiz v. Germany (no. 23279/06)     ***   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.