CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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 }   772 16.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   20 and 22 October 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 38 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 20 October 2009 and 20 on Thursday 22 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 20 October 2009   Gorguiladze v. Georgia (application no. 4313/04) The applicant, David Gorguiladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1981. He is currently in Tbilisi Prison (Georgia) serving an eighteen-year sentence following his conviction in 2003 for murder. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains of poor conditions of detention (in particular of overcrowding and unsanitary conditions). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he also alleges that the judicial formation which tried his case at first instance was not a “tribunal established by law”.   Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy (no. 39128/05) The applicant, Luigi Lombardi Vallauri, is an Italian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Florence (Italy). Since 1976 he had been lecturing in legal philosophy at the Faculty of Law of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore in Milan, on the basis of annual contracts. In the 1998/99 academic year his contract was not renewed because some of his views were deemed to be incompatible with Catholic doctrine. His appeals to the courts, aimed in part at establishing the underlying reasons for his removal from the post, were dismissed. Mr   Lombardi   Vallauri argues that his right to freedom of expression, protected by Article   10, was breached and that he was subjected to discrimination contrary to Article   14. He also complains, among other things, of a violation of his right to a court under Article   6   §   1, as the Italian courts did not rule on the failure to give reasons for his dismissal.   Valeriu and Nicolae Roşca v. Moldova (no. 41704/02) The applicants, Valeriu Roşca and Nicolae Roşca, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1960 and 1978 respectively and live in Cotiujenii-Mari (Moldova). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) they complain in particular that they have been ill-treated while in police detention in order to compel them to make self-incriminating statements and that their complaints to that effect have not been examined promptly; they also complain that that they have been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions.   Andrulewicz v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 40807/07) The applicant, Andrzej Andrelewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Suwałki (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) he complains of the length of criminal proceedings against him on a charge of car theft.   Nowiński v. Poland (no. 25924/06) The applicant, Jan Nowiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Trzebnica (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) he alleges that his right of access to a court has been violated as a result of the court’s refusal to accept his statement of claim for damages against the State Treasury.   Wypukoł-Piętka v. Poland (no. 3441/02) The applicant, Barbara Wypukoł-Piętka, is a Polish national who lives in Józefów (Poland). 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 excessive length of the administrative proceedings she brought in view of the demolition of a cesspit constructed close to her home and of the failure of the State to protect her private life and home from the serious nuisance caused by the unlawful construction.   Alves da Silva v. Portugal (no. 41665/07) The applicant, Ricardo Alves da Silva, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1949 and lives in Mortágua (Portugal). During the 2004 carnival he drove around Mortágua in a van displaying a puppet and broadcasting a message suggesting that the municipality’s mayor had acted unlawfully. He alleges, in particular, that his conviction for defamation on account of the incident was in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Agache and Others v. Romania (no. 2712/02) The applicants are six Romanian nationals who live in Romania and Germany. They are the wife and children of Aurel Agache, a miliţia officer who died during the anti-communist demonstrations in Romania in December 1989. Relying, in particular, on Article   2 (right to life), they complain of the lack of an effective investigation into his death.   Trufin v. Romania (no. 3990/04) The applicant, Tatiana Ligia Trufin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Botoşani (Romania). Relying on Article 2 (right to life), she complains of the lack of an effective investigation into the violent death of her brother.   Čanády v. Slovakia (No. 2) (no. 18268/03) The applicant, Vladimír Čanády, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Turany (Slovakia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) he alleges, in particular, that his right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal was violated in proceedings leading to the imposition of a fine on him.   Attı and Tedik v. Turkey (no. 32705/02) The applicants, Hikmettin Attı and Nevzat Tedik, are Turkish nationals who were born in1979 and 1975 respectively and live in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Accused of membership of an illegal organisation, they were sentenced to twelve and a half year’s imprisonment in 2001. Relying on Article   5   §§   2, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) (right to a fair trial) they allege, in particular, that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest, that they were not brought before a judge within a reasonable time, that their families were not informed about their arrests and that they did not have the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in police custody. They also allege that the criminal proceedings against them were not conducted fairly.   Ballıktaş v. Turkey (no. 7070/03) The applicant, Burcu Ballıktaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Ankara. She was sentenced to twelve and a half years in prison for membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) she alleges that she was ill-treated in police custody and that the criminal proceedings against her were not conducted fairly.   Celal Çağlar v. Turkey (no. 11181/04) The applicant, Celal Çağlar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Trabzon (Turkey). The case concerns the civil proceedings he brought to recover a deposit he paid in a business transaction as well the expenses incurred by him in that business venture. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) he complains that the length of the proceedings has caused him a financial lost.   Çolakoğlu v. Turkey (no. 29503/03) The applicant, Sefa Çolakoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Ankara. He was arrested on suspicion of obtaining property by deception and sentenced to four years and eight months in prison in 2000 for forgery and perverting the course of justice. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) he complains about the unfairness and length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Dikici v. Turkey (no. 18308/02) The applicants, Hasan Dikici and Satike Dikici, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1955 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complain about the length of the compensation proceedings that they initiated following the death of their son in an occupational accident, and that this excessive length resulted in a financial loss for them.   Kop v. Turkey (no. 12728/05) The applicant, Hasan Kop, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he was ill-treated during the dispersal of a demonstration against the NATO summit in Istanbul in 2004.   Ürper and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14526/07, 14747/07, 15022/07, 15737/07, 36137/07, 47245/07, 50371/07, 50372/07 and 54637/07) The applicants are 26 Turkey nationals who, at the material time, were the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of four daily newspapers published in Turkey: Ülkede Özgür Gündem , Gündem , Güncel and Gerçek Demokrasi . Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) they complain of the decisions to suspend the publication and distribution of their newspapers.   Volkan Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 29105/03) The applicant, Volkan Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1986 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He was arrested in 2002 on suspicion of robbery. Relying, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complains about being ill-treated in police custody and about the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint.   Yeşilyurt and Tutar v. Turkey (no. 8296/05) The applicants, Tayyar Yeşilyurt and Ramazan Tutar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1984 and 1985 respectively and live in İzmir (Turkey). In 2004, a criminal order was issued against them and they were found guilty of assault with a knife, resulting in actual bodily harm. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) they complain that they were not able to defend themselves in the proceedings brought against them.   Yunus Aktaş and Others v. Turkey (no. 24744/03) The applicants, Yunus Aktaş, Kerem Karakaya and Ergin Tek, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1985, 1983 and 1982 respectively. They were arrested in 2003 in connection with a violent robbery committed by a group of individuals. Two of the applicants were sentenced in 2004 to over sixteen years’ imprisonment; the trial of the third applicant is pending. Relying on Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security) in particular, they allege that they did not have any remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of their police custody. Under Article 6   §§   1 and 3   (c), they further complain that they did not receive a fair hearing as they were not assisted by a lawyer while in police custody.   Yürük v. Turkey (no. 23707/02) The applicant, Ekrem Yürük, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul. Mr Yürük was taken into police custody in 1994 as part of an operation against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), and was sentenced in 2001 to over twelve years’ imprisonment. Relying, in particular, on Article 6   §§   1 and 3   (b) (right to a fair trial), he complains of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court, of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and of the lack of adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence during the proceedings.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Mihai and Radu Rădulescu v. Romania (no. 14884/03) This case concerns an action for the recovery of property, and the failure by the Romanian authorities to enforce a final judgment concerning the restitution of part of this property to the applicants. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Bozak v. Turkey (no. 32697/02) Özerman and Others v. Turkey (no. 3197/05) The applicants in these cases complain that they were deprived of their property, designated as forest area, without compensation. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicants in the case of Özerman and Others also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), and In the case of Bozak the applicant also complains of the length of the proceedings under Article   6   §   1.   Fuat Çalışkan v. Turkey (no. 25506/03) Hünkar Demirel v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 12166/03) These cases concern the applicants’ complaint that they have not been given a copy of the opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Chief Prosecutor. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Özer and Others v. Turkey (no. 783/03) The applicants in this case complain of the amount of compensation for expropriation awarded to them by the authorities, and the loss in its value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Vaide Yıldıs and Others v. Turkey (no. 13721/04) In this case the applicants complain of the delay by the authorities to pay compensation for expropriation which had been awarded to them and the loss in its value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) 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 cases of Ergül and Others , Radoszewska-Zakoś and Selahattin Çetinkaya and Others the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), and the applicants in the cases of Altındağ and İpek , Ergül and Others , Kalgı , Radoszewska-Zakoś and Serçinoğlu further rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Karaván City Bt. v. Hungary (no. 26859/05) Székely v. Hungary (no. 38904/05) Radoszewska-Zakoś v. Poland (no. 858/08) Sequeira v. Portugal (no. 18545/06) Otopeanu v. Romania (no. 29700/04) Altındağ and İpek v. Turkey (no. 42921/02) Ergül and Others v. Turkey (no. 22492/02) Kalgı v. Turkey (no. 37252/05) Selahattin Çetinkaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 31504/02) Serçinoğlu v. Turkey (no. 7755/05)     Thursday 22 October 2009   Mondeshki v. Bulgaria (no. 36801/03) Stoyan Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 36275/02) The applicants are two Bulgarian nationals. Momchil Mondeshki, who was born in 1974 and lives in Troyan (Bulgaria), is the subject of criminal proceedings for forging applications to join a pension fund. Stoyan Dimitrov, who was born in 1958 and is currently in prison in Sofia, was sentenced in 2006 to life imprisonment for murder. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain of their conditions of pre-trial detention. Under Article   5 (right to liberty and security), they complain that the lawfulness of their detention was not examined speedily; Mr   Dimitrov also complains of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), the applicants further allege that their correspondence, in particular with the Court, was hindered and/or monitored by the prison authorities.   Özver v. Bulgaria (no. 22774/03) The applicant, Celalettin Özver, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946. In 2001 he was arrested on suspicion of a drugs-related offence and remanded in custody. He was subsequently convicted. Relying, in particular, on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   Raykov v. Bulgaria (no. 35185/03) The applicant, Milcho Raykov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Turgovishte (Bulgaria). In 2001 he was convicted of a repeat offence of burglary. Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains that he did not have the assistance of an officially appointed lawyer as he had requested.   Yankov and Manchev v. Bulgaria (nos. 27207/04 and 15614/05) The applicants, Dimitar Yankov and Stoyan Manchev, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1960 respectively and live in Stryama (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), both applicants complain that the criminal proceedings on suspicion of theft of sheep, brought against them in 1993 and 1995 respectively, have lasted too long.   Europapress Holding d.o.o. v. Croatia (no. 25333/06) The applicant, Europapress Holding d.o.o., is a limited liability company incorporated under Croatian law in 1990 and having its registered office in Zagreb. It is the biggest newspaper and magazine publishing company in Croatia which publishes five daily newspapers and more than 30   magazines with an average annual circulation of 177   million copies. In February 1996,   an article   was published by newspapers run by the company stating that a then deputy prime minister pointed a gun at a journalist   while saying that he would kill her. Proceedings for defamation brought by the minister against the company ended up in a court decision ordering the company to pay compensation to the minister for having harmed his reputation. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the company complains of that court decision.   Paulić v. Croatia (no. 3572/06) The applicant, Smiljan Paulić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Požega (Croatia). Relying, in particular, on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains of a court decision ordering him to vacate the flat in which he has been living with his family for more than 17   years.   Apostolakis v. Greece (no. 39574/07) The applicant, Michail Apostolakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1938 and lives in Neo Iraklio (Greece). He contends that the withdrawal of his retirement pension as a result of his criminal conviction infringed his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Just satisfaction Paraponiaris v. Greece (no. 42132/06) The applicant, Vassilios-Panormitis Paraponiaris, is a Greek national who was born in 1948 and lives on the island of Leros (Greece). In a judgment of 25 September 2008 the Court held that the Indictment Division of the Dodecanese Court of Appeal had not given the applicant full guarantees in respect of the requirements of a fair trial and the rights of the defence, and that its reasoning had been incompatible with the presumption of innocence, in breach of Article 6   §§   1, 2 and 3   (c). As the question of application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it.   Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) The applicants are two Polish nationals who live in Poland. Krzysztof Orchowski, born in 1971, is currently serving a prison sentence in Wrocław Remand Centre, and Norbert Sikorski, born in 1975, is currently detained at “la Maison d’arrêt de Koszalin” . Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) they complain of the conditions of their detention which include overcrowding and confinement in the cell.   Isayev v. Russia (no. 20756/04) The applicant, Sergey Isayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lived until his arrest in Astrakhan (Russia). In March 2003 he was arrested on suspicion of murder. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complains of having been beaten severely and repeatedly by the police in order to extract a confession from him, of his complaints to that effect not having been investigated effectively, of his detention on remand having been unlawful and too long, and of his applications for release not having been examined sufficiently rapidly.   Pasko v. Russia (no. 69519/01) The applicant, Grigoriy Pasko, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Vladivostok (Russia). At the material time he was a Navy officer and worked as a military journalist on the Russian Pacific Fleet’s newspaper Boyevaya Vakhta (“Battle Watch”). In 2001, he was convicted for treason through espionage for having prepared, between 1996 and 1997, hand-written notes containing information classified as State secrets with a view to transferring this information to two Japanese nationals. Relying on Articles   7 (no punishment without law) and   10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains of having been convicted on the basis of retrospective application of the relevant criminal law, and of having been subject to a politically motivated criminal persecution as a reprisal for his critical publications.   Rodin v. Russia (no. 5511/05) The applicant, Oleg Rodin, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (Russia). In 1997, he was charged with manslaughter, infliction of bodily harm and dangerous and disorderly conduct; in 2004 the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued because of the expiration of the prescribed period for prosecuting him. Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) he complains of the length of criminal proceedings against him.   Trajče Stojanovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 1431/03) The applicant, Trajče Stojanovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Štip (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). The case concerns periodic judicial review of the applicant’s compulsory confinement in a psychiatric hospital in which the domestic courts refused the hospital’s request for the applicant’s conditional release. Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) he complains that his continued confinement in the hospital has been unlawful since the courts had wrongly based their decisions on police reports instead of on the findings of the hospital.     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Mikhaylov v. Russia (no. 22156/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that a final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. He relies on Article   6   (right to a fair hearing) 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.   Otto v. Austria (no. 12702/08) Tzvyatkov v. Bulgaria (no. 2380/03) Kamberi v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 39151/04) Trpeski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 19290/04)     ***   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: 00 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.