CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 novembre 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 }   858 19.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   24 and 26 November 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 25 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 24 November 2009 and 14 on Thursday 26 November 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 24 November 2009   Halilovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 23968/05) The applicant, Mirsad Halilovic, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1968 and lives in Zenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The case concerns Mr Halilovic’s complaint about the unlawfulness and conditions of his detention in the psychiatric annex of Zenica prison following an attempted murder for which he was found not guilty by reason of insanity (paranoid schizophrenia). He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Shannon v. Latvia (no. 32214/03) The applicant, Lindsey Hughes Shannon, is a citizen of the United States of America who was born in 1955 and is currently thought to be living in the United States of America. Convicted in October 2004 in Latvia to four years’ imprisonment of, among other things, sexual assault of juveniles, Mr Shannon complains about the unlawfulness of his detention on remand during the proceedings against him and of the procedure by which he sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. He relies on Article   5   §§   1   (c) and   4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   Flux v. Moldova (No. 7) (no. 25367/05) The applicant, Flux , is a newspaper registered in Moldova. The case concerns the newspaper’s complaint about defamation proceedings brought against it following an article it had published criticising Parliament for its lack of transparency, in particular with regard to certain State officials being provided housing with public money. The applicant newspaper relies, in particular, on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Ipteh SA and Others v. Moldova (no. 35367/08) The applicants are Ipteh SA, a company incorporated in Moldova; Worldway Limited, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom; Kapital Invest SA, a company incorporated in Romania; and, Ion Rusu, a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Iaşi (Romania). The latter three applicants all hold shares in Ipteh SA. The case concerns the alleged unfairness of proceedings in which the privatisation of Ipteh SA was annulled. The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Hermanowicz v. Poland (no. 44581/08) The applicant, Ziemowit Hermanowicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Krupski Młyn (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Hermanowicz complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud.   Żurawski v. Poland (no. 8456/08) The applicant, Andrzej Żurawski, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Sosnowiec (Poland). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Żurawski complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand on suspicion of establishing and leading an organised criminal group involved in money laundering, illegal trading in liquid fuel and the falsification of tax documents.   Bolovan v. Romania (no. 64541/01) The applicant, Constantin Bolovan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Cioriaşi (Romania). Stopped by the police in June 1997 on suspicion of drunk driving, Mr   Bolovan alleges that he was hit by a police officer and that the ensuing investigation into his allegation was inadequate. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Subsequently convicted of drink driving and disorderly behaviour and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, he also complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him and the fact that his house and car keys were handed over during those proceedings to his girlfriend, in breach of Article 6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   Article 1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Ieremeiov v. Romania (No. 1) (no. 75300/01) Ieremeiov v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 4637/02) The applicant, Laurian Ieremeiov, is a Romanian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Timişoara (Romania). A former journalist of the newspaper Ziua de Vest, Mr Ieremeiov’s cases concern two sets of criminal proceedings brought against him for defamation following the publication in June 2000 of two articles he had written: the first accusing the Head of Timiş Public Health Service of sexual harassment of an intern; and, the second reporting on rumours about the Mayor of Buziaş’ collaboration with the Securitate (the intelligence service during the communist period). Mr Ieremeiov alleges in particular that the proceedings brought against him were unfair and that the resulting fines and compensation he was ordered to pay were in breach of his right to freedom of expression. He relies on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and   10 (freedom of expression).   Çeven v. Turkey (no. 41746/04) The applicant, Güldede Çeven, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. He was taken into custody in connection with an operation against an illegal armed organisation, charged with “attempting to overthrow the Turkish constitutional order” and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the duration of his pre-trial detention and his inability to obtain compensation for the alleged damage.   Nane and Others v. Turkey (no. 41192/04) The applicants are 13 Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. They were born in 1924, 1944, 1946, 1927, 1934, 1959, 1941, 1941, 1968, 1974, 1976, 1938 and 1963. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain about court decisions as a result of which part of their land was transferred to the Public Treasury without payment of compensation, also alleging that the proceedings were unfair and unreasonably long.   Şentürk v. Turkey (no. 27577/04) The applicant, Hasan Şentürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Karacabey (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Şentürk complains that there was no oral hearing during proceedings in which he sought compensation for being unlawfully arrested and detained on charges of armed robbery and murder.   Yıldırır v. Turkey (no. 21482/03) The applicant, Zekeriye Yıldırır, is a Turkish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Mr Yıldırır complains that his house in Boğazkurt, Ankara, was demolished by the local authorities on the grounds that it was an illegal construction and posed a threat to public health and the environment.   Omojudi v. the United Kingdom (no. 1820/08) The applicant, Steven O. Omojudi, is a Nigerian national who was born in 1960 and is currently living in Nigeria. A former settled immigrant in the United Kingdom, Mr Omojudi complains that, following his conviction for a sexual offence, he was deported to Nigeria. He relies in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Petroiu v. Romania (no. 33055/09) Petroiu and Others v. Romania (no. 30105/05) This case concerns an action for recovery of property. The applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Popović v. Serbia (no. 33888/05) This case concerns the non-enforcement of a final decision by the Serbian authorities in the applicant’s favour. She relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Anthousa Iordanou v. Turkey (no. 46755/99) This case concerns the applicant’s allegation that the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus deprived her of access to her property. She relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property)   Just satisfaction Devecioğlu v. Turkey (17203/03) In a judgment of 13 November 2008 the Court held that the authorities had deprived the applicants of their property without paying compensation in violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Kök and Others v. Turkey (no. 20868/04) In this case the applicants 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).     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.   Horváth and Others v. Hungary (no. 45407/05) Polkowska v. Poland (no. 20127/08) Simić v. Serbia (no. 29908/05) Majeríková v. Slovakia (no. 21057/06) Kaygısız v. Turkey (no. 33106/04)     Thursday 26 November 2009   Gochev v. Bulgaria (no. 34383/03) The applicant, Georgi Gochev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Varna (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement), he complains that the authorities confiscated his passport and prohibited him from renewing it, on the ground that he was a debtor in proceedings brought by private companies to enforce a claim.   Koriyski v. Bulgaria (no. 19257/03) The applicant, Kostadin Koriyski, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Krichim (Bulgaria). He was remanded in custody on a charge of robbery. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), he complains about the length of his detention, also alleging that his applications for release were not examined effectively or promptly and that his correspondence with his lawyer was monitored.   Naydenov v. Bulgaria (no. 17353/03) The applicant, Zahari Naydenov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1923 and lives in Montana (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length and ineffectiveness of proceedings for restitution and compensation in respect of land that was nationalised at the beginning of the Communist era, alleging that to date he has not really been able to exercise his right to restitution or compensation, as recognised by the competent domestic authorities.   Dolenec v. Croatia (no. 25282/06) The applicant, Branko Dolenec, is a Croatian national who was born in 1967 and is at present serving a prison term in Croatia for theft. Mr Dolenec’s case notably concerns his complaint about his conditions of detention in various prisons and the alleged lack of adequate medical care for his psychiatric condition, post-traumatic stress disorder. He also alleges that he has been assaulted by prison guards and that there has been no effective and thorough investigation into his allegation. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life). He also complains that his detention between 2 and 30 March 2005 was unlawful and that he has not been able to obtain compensation in that respect, in breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), and lastly that the proceedings against him were unfair, in breach of Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial).   Pešková v. the Czech Republic (no. 22186/03) The applicant, Eva Pešková, is a Czech national who was born in 1954 and lives in Prague. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), she complains about the length and unfairness of restitution proceedings in which she was dispossessed of property she owned in Neštěnice.   Vautier v. France (no. 28499/05) The applicant, Corinne Vautier, is a French national who was born in 1953 and lives in Orléans (France). Relying in particular on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains about the placement in care of her minor daughters in 2003-2004 and about the lack of compensation for the damage that she claims to have sustained as a result. Also relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she further complains that she did not benefit from effective access to the Court of Cassation, as that court found that it did not need to rule on an appeal against judgments that had lost all effect after discontinuance of a placement measure, whereas the situation was not final from a legal point of view.   Tabesh v. Greece (no. 8256/07) The applicant, Rafk Tabesh, is an Afghan national who was born in 1986. His current place of abode is unknown. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention pending deportation. Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he further complains that his placement in detention was unlawful, the reasoning of the administrative and judicial decisions being insufficient in this connection, and that when he was arrested he was informed of the reasons for his arrest in a language that he did not understand.   Nazarov v. Russia (no. 13591/05) The applicant, Rakhmatullo Nazarov, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1980 and is currently serving a three-year prison sentence in Vladimir (Russia) for drug-related offences. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the poor conditions of his detention. He also complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention and failure to "speedily" examine his appeals against decisions to extend his detention, in breach of Article 5   §§   1, 3   and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Ismailov and Others v. Russia (no. 33947/05) Ustarkhanova v. Russia (no. 35744/05) These two cases concern the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives disappeared in Chechnya after being detained by Russian servicemen. All the applicants further complain that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They rely in particular on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for home) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Botskalev and Rostovtseva and 42 other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia (nos.   22666/08, , 22673/08, 22675/08, 22677/08, 22683/08, 22686/08, 22688/08, 22691/08, 22699/08, 22709/08, 39366/08, 39414/08, 39460/08, 39492/08, 39514/08, 39522/08, 40477/08, 40482/08, 40495/08, 42002/08, 42004/08, 42026/08, 43817/08, 43827/08, 43834/08, 43844/08, 43861/08, 44339/08, 44343/08, 44344/08, 44348/08, 44364/08, 45346/08, 46204/08, 46214/08, 59620/08, 59622/08, 59630/08, 59691/08, 59692/08, 59695/08, 59696/08, and 59701/08) This case concerns the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Zaytseva v. Russia (no. 11583/05) This case concerns the Russian authorities’ failure to notify the applicant of an appeal hearing. She relies on 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.   Abduvalieva v. Germany (no. 54215/08) Ivanovski and Others v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no 34188/03)     ***   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.