CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 }   749 09.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   13 and 15 October 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 45 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 13 October 2009 and 31 on Thursday 15   October 2005.   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 13 October 2009   de Schepper v. Belgium (application no. 27428/07) The applicant, Georges de Schepper, is a Belgian national who was born in 1944 and is currently interned in Bruges prison. He was convicted in 2001 for the rape and indecent assault of a minor. Relying on Articles 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains that he was arbitrarily deprived of his freedom by a decision to intern him in prison after the expiry of his sentence because of a lack of adequate treatment for him as a paedophile. He argues that it has been impossible to receive such treatment in prison and that he has not been admitted to any other institution.   Ferré Gisbert v. Spain (no. 39590/05) The applicant, José Ferré Gisbert, is a Spanish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Barcelona. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, he complains that he was denied his right to a fair hearing, in connection with summary proceedings brought against him by a bank over a mortgage, and to an effective remedy, as the Constitutional Court had declared inadmissible his first amparo appeal for being out of time.   Business şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi v. Moldova (no. 39391/04) The applicant company, Business şi Investiţii Pentru Toţi, is registered in Moldova. The case concerns the applicant company’s complaint that its property rights with regard to some office space had been affected by decisions in proceedings to which it had not been a party. The applicant company relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Bartosiński v. Poland (no. 13637/03) The applicant, Krzysztof Bartosinski, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Lubianka (Poland). Mr Bartosinski complains that, while in detention on suspicion of offences involving illegal sale of alcohol and cigarettes, his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights and his family was monitored. He relies in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Kasza v. Poland (no. 45668/06) Wojciech Kowalski v. Poland (no. 33734/06) The applicants, Krzysztof Kasza and Wojciech Kowalski, are Polish nationals who were born in 1972 and 1968, respectively, and live in Kraków (Poland). Arrested on suspicion of armed robbery in 2000 and 1997, respectively, both applicants complain of the excessive length of their detention pending trial and of the criminal proceedings against them, which are currently still pending. They rely on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within reasonable time).   Costreie v. Romania (no. 31703/05) The applicant, Valentin Sorin Costreie, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that he was unable to exercise his rights of access in respect of his two minor daughters.   Eugen Gabriel Radu v. Romania (no. 3036/04) The applicant, Eugen Gabriel Radu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953. He was given two prison sentences, in 2001 and 2006 respectively, for aggravated theft and is currently in Baia-Mare prison. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention, which he alleges to have caused permanent partial paralysis in his left hand. Under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) he also complains about the length of his pre-trial detention and its consequences for his family life.   Ioan Moldovan v. Romania (no. 31334/03) The applicant, Ioan Moldovan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1921 and lives in Cluj-Napoca. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complains about the partial annulment of his title to property and also alleges that the proceedings were excessive long and unfair.   Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia (no. 36500/05) The applicant, Slavko Salontaji-Drobnjak, was born in 1949 and lives in Vrbas (Serbia). At the time of his application to the Court he was a national of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. Declared to be suffering from litigious paranoia, Mr   Salontaji-Drobnjak complains about the partial deprivation of his legal capacity in February 2005, as well as his inability to date to have it restored. He relies on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Abi and Others v. Turkey (no. 18387/02) The applicants are 31 Turkish nationals who were arrested and taken into police custody in 2001 in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation (the PKK, Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), they complain about their arrest, alleging that it was unlawful, and about their police custody, alleging that its length was excessive, that they were subjected to ill-treatment, and that they were not informed of the charges against them.   Ahmet Akman v. Turkey (no. 33245/05) The applicant, Ahmet Akman, is a Turkish national who was born 1987 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the use of force by the police when he was arrested in connection with a demonstration.   Alkın v. Turkey (no. 75588/01) The applicant, Behice Alkın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Şırnak (Turkey). In 1996 Ms Alkın, 11 years old at the time, stepped on a landmine when playing with other children near the village of Ortabağ; as a result, her left leg was amputated. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), she complains that the authorities failed to take adequate precautions to safeguard the lives of citizens residing within the vicinity of landmines laid by the security forces and that the investigation into the incident was ineffective. She also complains about the excessive length of the compensation proceedings and the delay in enforcement of the judgment in which she was awarded compensation, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ceyran v. Turkey (no. 17534/03) The applicant, Süleyman Ceyran, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Winterthur (Switzerland). The case concerns Mr Ceyran’s complaint about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him on charges of membership of the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way), an illegal organisation. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Dayanan v. Turkey (no. 7377/03) The applicant, Seyfettin Dayanan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975. In 2001 he was arrested and taken into police   custody during operations against Hizbullah , an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that he had no legal assistance while he was in police custody and that he did not receive the opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation.   Demirkaya v. Turkey (no. 31721/02) The applicant, Hasan Demirkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). Mr Demirkaya complains that he was denied the assistance of a lawyer during his police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation. He relies on Article 6 §§ 1 and   3 (c) (right to a fair trial).   Engin v. Turkey (no. 6194/04) The applicant, Ezgin Engin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in Kocaeli F-Type Prison (Turkey). Arrested in 1997 on suspicion of membership of the DHKP-C (the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party), Mr Engin complains about the excessive length of his detention during the ensuing criminal proceedings against him, which are currently still pending. He relies on Article   5   § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Fatma Tunç v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 18532/05) Fikret Çetin v. Turkey (no. 24829/03) Oğraş v. Turkey (no. 13918/03) The applicants are three Turkish nationals: Fatma Tunç who was born in 1980 and lives in Kocaeli; and, Yahya Oğraş, born in 1972, and, Fikret Çetin, born in 1969, who both live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). All three applicants complain about being denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody on suspicion of membership of illegal organisations. Mr Fikret Çetin and Mr   Oğraş further complain about the subsequent non-communication to them of the prosecutor’s written observations in the criminal proceedings against them. They all rely in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (c) (right to a fair trial). Mr Fikret Çetin also alleges that he was ill-treated in police custody, in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Gasyak and Others v. Turkey (no. 27872/03) The applicants are four Turkish nationals who live in Cizre (Turkey). The applicants allege that four of their close relatives, stopped at a military checkpoint in March 1994, were taken away and then shot and killed, allegedly by gendarmes and the security forces. They also complain that the Turkish authorities failed to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into the killings. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Geçgel and Çelik v. Turkey (nos. 8747/02 and 34509/03) The applicants, Halis Geçgel and Recep Çelik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977 and 1965 respectively. Both are serving prison sentences. The applicants complain that they were denied the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and that the ensuing criminal proceedings brought against them were too long. They rely on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Mr Geçgel also complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand, in breach of Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), and Mr Çelik about the fact that the main prosecution witness was not heard at his trial, in breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   Güvenilir v. Turkey (no. 16486/04) The applicant, Mr   Mehmet Reşat Güvenilir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956. In 1996 he was arrested in connection with a police operation against the TKEP-L (Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist, an illegal armed organisation) following a bomb plot. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that he was convicted on the basis of confessions obtained under duress, that his right to be presumed innocent was breached, that he had no legal assistance in police custody and that the length of the proceedings against him was excessive.   Harun Kartal v. Turkey (no. 23574/04) The applicant, Mr   Harun Kartal, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Düzce (Turkey). In 1993 he was arrested and taken into police custody in connection with an operation against an illegal organisation, the Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front – Revolutionary Left (THKP/C-Devrimci Sol). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   İnan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 19637/05, 43197/06 and 39164/07) The applicants, Barış İnan, Muhabbet Kurt and Azimet Ceyhan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973, 1978 and 1970 respectively and are currently detained on remand in prisons in Kocaeli (Turkey) on charges of attempting to undermine the constitutional order; the criminal proceedings against them are still pending. All three applicants complain about the excessive length of their detention pending trial, in breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). Ms Kurt also alleges that she was raped while in police custody, in breach of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), and that there was no effective domestic remedy to challenge the lawfulness of her detention orders, in breach of Article 5   §   4. Lastly, Ms Kurt and Ms Ceyhan also complain about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against them, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Just satisfaction Köktepe v. Turkey (no. 35785/03) The applicant, Halil İbrahim Köktepe, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Çanakkale (Turkey). The case concerns the inclusion of land belonging to him within the public forest area. In a judgment of 22   July 2008 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the nature of the restriction imposed on the applicant’s property rights and the lack of compensation. The question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) not being ready for decision, it was reserved.   Övüş v. Turkey (no. 42981/04) The applicant, Emel Övüş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Darmstadt (Germany). She has been separated from her husband since 1998. 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), she complains about the length of the proceedings for the return of her children, further alleging that she was not informed about the divorce proceedings and that the Turkish authorities did not take any steps to ensure that she could see her children.   Sağnak v. Turkey (no. 45465/04) The applicant, Saygı Sağnak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article   5 §§ 3, 4   and   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (c) (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that while in police custody he was ill-treated and had no legal assistance, and that the proceedings against him were unfair and excessive in length. Under Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) he further complains that there was no remedy for the purposes of seeking compensation for his pre-trial detention and submitting his complaints.   Selin Aslı Öztürk v. Turkey (no. 39523/03) The applicant, Selin Aslı Öztürk, is a Turkish national who was born 2000 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Articles   6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complains that she was unable to apply for recognition of her deceased father’s divorce decree and was thus deprived of part of her inheritance.   Serkan Yılmaz and Others v. Turkey (no. 25499/04) The applicants are seven Turkish nationals who were born in 1980, 1985, 1986, 1984, 1980, 1976 and 1980 and live in Istanbul. The case concerns their arrest during a demonstration, that the authorities considered illegal, to commemorate hunger strikes organised in about 20 prisons in 2000. They rely in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Şıneğu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 4020/07, 4021/07, 9961/07 and 11113/07) The applicants are four Turkish nationals, Zeki Şıneğu, Mahmut Kılıç, Abdurrahman Orhan and Sait Özbey, who were born in 1973, 1973, 1971 and 1974 respectively and are currently being held in Diyarbakir prison. They were arrested and taken into custody during operations against Hizbullah, an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (effective remedy), they complain that the length of their pre-trial detention and the proceedings against them was excessive.   Tunce and Others v. Turkey (nos. 2422/06, 3712/08, 3714/08, 3715/08, 3717/08, 3718/08, 3719/08, 3724/08, 3725/08, 3728/08, 3730/08, 3731/08, 3733/08, 3734/08, 3735/08, 3737/08, 3739/08, 3740/08, 3745/08 and 3746/08) The applicants are seven Turkish nationals who are currently being held in Diyarbakır prison (Turkey). They were arrested and taken into custody in 1994 during operations against Hizbullah, an illegal armed organisation. They were sentenced to life imprisonment in two decisions that became final in 2008 and 2009. Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (effective remedy), the applicants complain that the length of their pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against them was excessive.   Just satisfaction Turgut and Others v. Turkey (no. 1411/03) The applicants are seven Turkish nationals. In its judgment of 8   July 2008 the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the annulment of the applicants’ title to a plot of land which was re-registered in the name of the Public Treasury, without compensation, on the ground that it had originally been part of the public forest area. The question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) not being ready for decision, the Court reserved it.   Uzunget and Others v. Turkey (application no. 21831/03) The applicants are 14 Turkish nationals who live in Ankara. Following violent clashes in Bergama prison in July 2000, the applicants took part in a protest in a park in Ankara. The police broke up the protest and arrested the applicants who were subsequently convicted of taking part in an illegal demonstration. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complain about the unjustified interference with their right to freedom of assembly and the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against them.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Anea and Nitescu v. Romania (no. 45924/06) This case concerns an action for the recovery of property. The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Anişoara and Mihai Olteanu v. Romania (no. 37425/03) This case concerns the quashing of a final decision in the applicants’ favour on an application by the Procurator-General. The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Diver v. Romania (application no. 35510/06) Schuster v. Romania (nos. 36977/03 and 37375/03) These cases concern the inability to recover possession of property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Diver the applicant also relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ghiţoi and Others v. Romania (nos. 2456/05, 5085/05 and 6149/05) This case concerns the applicants’ complaint that the Romanian authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in their favour. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Stürner v. Romania (no. 17859/04) This case concerns the applicants’ inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised, and the failure by the authorities to enforce a final decision confirming the award of damages. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Hüseyin Ateş and Mehmet Ateş v. Turkey (no. 28270/02) In this case the applicants complain of the failure by the authorities to pay compensation for expropriation which had been awarded to them and the loss in value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate. 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).     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 Bakırcı and Others , the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Keszeli v. Slovakia (no. 34602/03) Kiš v. Slovakia (no. 3673/05) Komanický v. Slovakia (No. 5) (no. 37046/03) Bakırcı and Others v. Turkey (no. 41902/04)     Thursday 15 October 2009   Kuralić v. Croatia (no. 50700/07) The applicant, Mustafa Kuralić, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1957 and is currently serving a 12-year sentence in Lepoglava State Prison (Croatia) for murdering his wife. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Kuralić complains of being ill-treated while in police custody and that his complaints to that effect had not been investigated effectively, as well as that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair as he was convicted on the basis of statements he gave at the investigation stage under duress.   Prežec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07) The applicant, Zlatko Prežec, is a Croatian national who was born in 1972. He is incarcerated in Zagreb Prison Hospital where he is serving a 12-year prison term for murder for which he was convicted in 1997. While serving his sentence, criminal proceedings were brought against him in 2003 for threatening a prison employee. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains of not being granted free legal assistance at the trial stage in the criminal proceedings against him and that the lawyer assigned to him subsequently on appeal had not contacted him.   Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Czech Republic (nos. 32921/03, 28464/04 and 5344/05) The applicants are Bruno Kohlhofer, an Austrian national, and Roman Minarik and Susanne Minarik who are both German nationals. They were minority shareholders in joint stock companies incorporated under Czech law. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain that Czech law did not permit them to challenge in court proceedings either a company’s resolution to wind up the company against their will or an asset transfer contract granting all assets to the main shareholder.   Georgios Papageorgiou v. Greece (No. 2) (no. 21032/08) The applicant, Georgios Papageorgiou, is a Greek national who was born in 1947 and lives in Aghios Stafnos Attikis (Greece). Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about a failure to ensure equality of arms and a disregard of the adversarial principle in the criminal proceedings against him, further alleging that their length was excessive.   Konstantinos Petropoulos v. Greece (no. 55484/07) Roumeliotis v. Greece (no. 53361/07) The applicants, Konstantinos Petropoulos and Romeos Roumeliotis, are two Greek nationals. The first was born in 1955 and lives in Patras (Greece); the second was born in 1956 and lives in Lamia (Greece). Their cases concern civil actions for damages. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and, in the case of Mr Roumeliotis, also Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that their right of access to the Court of Cassation was breached because their appeals were declared inadmissible, and that the length of the proceedings was excessive. Mr Petropoulos further complains about an alleged manifest error of judgment on the part of the Court of Cassation and about its composition.   Tsourlakis v. Greece (no. 50796/07) The applicant, Konstantinos Tsourlakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1956 and lives in Athens. Relying, in particular, on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that he was not given access to a report by the Child Protection Society in proceedings concerning custody of his son.   Union of Private Clinics of Greece and Others v. Greece (no. 6036/07) The applicants are the Union of Private Clinics of Greece (representing all private clinics other than psychiatric clinics), a number of local unions of private clinics and the private clinic “Grigorios Solomos”. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain that the Greek authorities failed to comply, or delayed complying, with a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (concerning pricing in their field of activity), alleging that this has breached their right to an effective judicial protection of their rights.   Antipenkov v. Russia (no. 33470/03) The applicant, Roman Antipenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and is currently serving a sentence for robbery and assault in the correctional colony of Kamenka (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was ill-treated by the police and that his complaints to that effect were not investigated effectively.   Buzhinayev v. Russia (no. 17679/03) The applicant, Aleksey Buzhinayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Barguzin (Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about his inhuman and degrading conditions while in detention on remand on suspicion of robbery. He also complains under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) that the criminal proceedings against him lasted for too long and that he could not challenge that effectively.   Sokur v. Russia (no. 23243/03) The applicant, Valentin Sokur, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kaliningrad (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that he was unable to participate in the civil proceedings in which he claimed compensation for damage resulting from his unlawful detention and conviction in 1998-1999 for robbery and assault.   Chaykovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 2295/06) The applicant, Vladimir Chaykovskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Solone Ozero (Ukraine). Relying, in particular, on Articles   8 (right to respect for correspondence) and   34 (right of individual petition), he complains that in March 2003, while he was serving a sentence for attempted murder and robbery, the prison authorities opened a letter sent to him by the European Court of Human Rights and withheld its contents. In addition, he complains that the prison authorities prevented him from taking his case to the European Court by refusing to give him copies of documents he needed in order to lodge his application.   Dubovik v. Ukraine (nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08) The applicant, Yekaterina Dubovik, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Kyiv. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains that she risks being tortured and not obtaining a fair trial if extradited to Belarus. She also complains that she was detained unlawfully in July 2007 in Kyiv on suspicion of aggravated trafficking in human beings and organised crime, that her application for release was not examined promptly and that she had no right to compensation for her detention.   Nichitaylov v. Ukraine (no. 36024/03) The applicant, Gennadiy Nichitaylov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Sukhodolsk (Ukraine). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of negligence – the death in 2000 of 80 miners and the injuries of several more – had lasted too long.   Okhrimenko v. Ukraine (no. 53896/07) The applicant, Sergey Okhrimenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and is currently detained in Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre No.   27 (Ukraine). Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   5 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he did not receive adequate medical treatment for his advanced cancer while in pre-trial detention on suspicion of theft and inflicting bodily harm causing a person’s death, that he was handcuffed in hospital and that the conditions in which he was transported for about 50 kilometres to the court hearings amounted to torture. He further complains of being unlawfully detained and of not being able to challenge that.   Polishchuk v. Ukraine (no. 21231/04) The applicant, Viktor Poishchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the criminal proceedings brought against him in 1997 on suspicion of extortion have lasted for too long.   Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine (no. 40450/04) The applicant, Yuriy Ivanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. He retired from the Ukrainian army in October 2000. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that domestic court judgments ordering the military authorities to pay him an outstanding retirement debt were not enforced and that he could not effectively challenge non-enforcement.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Goncharova and Others and 68 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia (nos.   23113/08, 23123/08, 23130/08, 23137/08, 23143/08, 23146/08, 23149/08, 23157/08, 33921/08, 35054/08, 35068/08, 35073/08, 35130/08, 35189/08, 35194/08, 35197/08, 35222/08, 35234/08, 35244/08, 35249/08, 35255/08, 35257/08, 37978/08, 38012/08, 38130/08, 38147/08, 38152/08, 41789/08, 41791/08, 41792/08, 41793/08, 41797/08, 41801/08, 41811/08, 41812/08, 41813/08, 41816/08, 41818/08, 41831/08, 41878/08, 41882/08, 41885/08, 41887/08, 41889/08, 41892/08, 41894/08, 41898/08, 41908/08, 41909/08, 41915/08, 41918/08, 41980/08, 41983/08, 41987/08, 41989/08, 41994/08, 41998/08, 42008/08, 42010/08, 42013/08, 42015/08, 42016/08, 42018/08, 42020/08, 42021/08, 42022/08, 42023/08, 42024/08 and 42025/08) This case concerns the applicants’ complaint that final judgments in their favour were quashed by way of supervisory review. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Glushko v. Ukraine (no. 22358/06) Gvozdetskiy v. Ukraine (no. 28070/04) Komnatskyy v. Ukraine (no. 40753/07) Korniychuk v. Ukraine (no. 28808/07) Krivenko v. Ukraine (no. 19547/06) Rotar v. Ukraine (no. 34126/05) Rukas v. Ukraine (no. 15879/06) Shebanov v. Ukraine (no. 30664/05) Solomatin v. Ukraine (no. 8191/04) Storozhuk v. Ukraine (no. 2387/06) These cases concern the applicants’ complaint that the Ukrainian authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in their favour. They mainly rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property); and some also rely 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. In the case of Shepeleva , the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Dovidyan v. Russia (no. 42277/04) Plemyanova v. Russia (no. 27865/06) Shepeleva v. Ukraine (no. 14403/04)     ***   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) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.