CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 }   893 27.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   1 and 3 December 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 23 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 1 December 2009 and 8 on Thursday 3 December 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 1 December 2009   Khachatryan v. Armenia (application no. 31761/04) The applicants, Mikhayel Khachatryan and Elyanora Khachatryan, are Armenian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1962 respectively and live in Yerevan (Armenia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, they complain of the non-enforcement of a judgment against their former employer, a private company whose majority shareholder is the State, in which they were granted damages for salary arrears.   Karsai v. Hungary (no. 5380/07) The applicant, László Karsai, is a Hungarian historian and university professor who was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest. The case concerns civil proceedings brought against him for the publication of an article about the reputation of a right-wing publicist. Mr Karsai complains in particular that he was ordered to publish a rectification at his expense and to bear considerable legal costs. He relies on Article   10 (right to freedom of expression) of the Convention.   G.N. and Others v. Italy (no. 43134/05) The applicants, G.N., G.S., D.C., G.D.M., S.C., E.S. and D.C., are Italian nationals who were born respectively in 1950, 1957, 1937, 1938, 1965, 1920 and 1973 and live in Italy. The case concerns the infection of the applicants or their relatives with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or hepatitis C. The persons concerned suffered from a hereditary disorder (thalassaemia) and were infected following blood transfusions carried out by the State health service. The applicants rely on Article 2 (right to life), complaining in particular that the health service failed to carry out the necessary checks. Under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain in particular of the psychological suffering, endured by the persons concerned as a result of their infection. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they further complain of the length of the domestic proceedings. Lastly, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 2, 3 and 8, they allege that they were discriminated against compared to other groups of infected persons.   Hokic and Hrustic v. Italy (no. 3449/05) The applicants, Ferid Hokic and Djulsa Hrustic, were born in 1952 and 1957 respectively. When the application was lodged they were living with their children in a travellers’ encampment in Rome. The couple are nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina of Roma origin. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), they complain of their detention with a view to their deportation, arguing that the deportation orders had been set aside.   Stolder v. Italy (no. 24418/03) The applicant, Raffaele Stolder, is an Italian national who was born in 1958. Since his arrest in 1992 for, among other offences, criminal conspiracy, he has been held in several Italian prisons. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that he was made subject to a special prison regime which entailed restrictions on, among other things, visits and communications.   Jeronovičs v. Latvia (no. 547/02) The applicant, Viktors Jeronovičs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1962 and is currently in Šķirotava Prison in Riva (Latvia). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he alleges that negligence on the part of the prison authorities prevented his appearance at the Supreme Court hearing in his case. Under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of the conditions in which he was held during his transfer between prisons and between the prison and the courthouse.   Drużkowski v. Poland (no. 24676/07) The applicant, Tomasz Drużkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and is currently serving a 12-year prison sentence in Toruń Remand Centre (Poland) for homicide. He essentially complains that the length of his pre-trial detention of five years and four months has been excessive, in breach of Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Potoniec v. Poland (no. 40219/08) The applicant, Krzysztof Potoniec, is a Polish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Warsaw. He complains that the length – more than eight years for one level of jurisdiction – of criminal proceedings brought against him, after which he was finally acquitted, was unreasonable. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Irinel Popa and Others v. Romania (nos. 6289/03, 6297/03 and 9115/03) The applicants, Irinel Popa, Dorinel Popa, Eduard Colos, Ioana Simona Moroca and Georgeta Pricopoaea, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1961, 1963, 1966, 1968 and 1964 respectively and live in Bacău (Romania). They were company managers or bank employees at the material time, and were placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of financial offences. Relying in particular on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), they allege that their placement in detention was not in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, that they were not brought promptly before a judge and that no adequate reasons were given for extending their detention.   Velcea and Mazare v. Romania (no. 64301/01) The applicants, Stefan Velcea and Florica Mazare, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1919 and 1949 respectively and live in Bucharest. They are the father and sister of Tatiana A. Tatiana and her mother, Mrs Velcea, were killed during a fight started between Tatiana and her husband, which also left Mr Velcea seriously injured. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain of the lack of an effective investigation into the incident. They also complain under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the refusal of the courts to rule that the perpetrator of the crime was unworthy to inherit.   Vinčić and Others v. Serbia (nos. 44698/06, 44700/06, 44722/06, 44725/06, 49388/06, 50034/06, 694/07, 757/07, 758/07, 3326/07, 3330/07, 5062/07, 8130/07, 9143/07, 9262/07, 9986/07, 11197/07, 11711/07, 13995/07, 14022/07, 20378/07, 20379/07, 20380/07, 20515/07, 23971/07, 50608/07, 50617/07, 4022/08, 4021/08, 29758/07 and 45249/07) The applicants are 31 Serbian nationals who were all members of the Independent Union of Aviation Engineers of Serbia. Following a strike organised by their Union, they complain that their claims for an employment-related benefit were rejected by the District Court in Belgrade, while other identical claims were simultaneously accepted. They maintain that this alleged inconsistency in the domestic court’s case-law violated their rights under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia (nos. 8673/05 and 9733/05) The applicant, Johann Ivan Eberhard was born in 1968 and lives in Ponikva (Slovenia). He has a daughter and is divorced from her mother. The case concerns the non-enforcement of an administrative order granting him the right to see his daughter on a regular basis, as a result of which he had almost no contact with her for more than four years.   He primarily relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). There are several similar cases against Slovenia pending before the Court.   Abay v. Turkey (no. 19332/04) The applicant, Necati Abay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he did not have an effective remedy by which to complain of his placement in pre-trial detention on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation.   Adalmış and Kıkıç v. Turkey (no. 25301/04) The applicants, Sedat Adalmiş and Ercan Kiliç, were born in 1976 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were arrested and convicted of belonging to an armed gang. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), they complain that they did not have the assistance of a lawyer while they were in police custody, that they were convicted on the basis of depositions obtained in those circumstances and that they did not receive an impartial hearing.   Ahmet Engin Şatır v. Turkey (no. 17879/04) Yusuf Gezer v. Turkey (no. 21790/04) The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Ahmet Engin Şatir was born in 1959 and lives in Istanbul. Yusuf Gezer was born in 1972 and is currently detained in Kırıkkale Prison. The applications concern their placement in police custody in murder cases. They complain under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) that they were subjected to violence in custody and, in the case of Mr Gezer, that the police officers responsible were granted impunity. Under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they allege that they were convicted on the basis of evidence obtained under duress. Mr Gezer also relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Akbulut v. Turkey (no. 7076/05) The applicant, Şennur Şensoy Akbulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). The case concerns her conviction by penal order to pay a fine for non-compliance with a number of administrative orders. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 (right to a fair trial), she essentially complains that she was not able to defend herself, as no public hearing was held in her case.     Arikan v. Turkey (no. 14071/04) The applicant, Hacer Arıkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Balıkesir (Turkey). The judgment sentencing her to life imprisonment for an attack on the State’s constitutional order was quashed by the Court of Cassation in 2006 and the case remains pending before the Istanbul Assize Court. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), she complains that she did not have a legal advisor while in police custody and of the length of the proceedings against her.   Özcan Korkmaz and Others v. Turkey (nos. 44058/04, 19807/05 and 26384/05) The applicants are three Turkish nationals who were formerly members of the Turkish Armed Forces and have been dismissed for disciplinary reasons. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain that the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, which they brought following their dismissal, were unfair as they had no access to classified documents submitted to the court by the Ministry of Defence and as the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor was not communicated to them.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Dumitrescu Cristian and Mihail v. Romania (no. 29231/06) This case concerns 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) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing)   Gărdean and S.C. Group 95 SA v. Romania (no. 25787/04) This case concerns the annulment of a final judgment following an appeal by the chief public prosecutor. The applicants rely 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).     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 Trzaskalska , the applicant also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Trzaskalska v. Poland (no. 34469/05) Castro Ferreira Leite v. Portugal (no. 19881/06)     Thursday 3 December 2009   Humbatov v. Azerbaijan (no. 13652/06) Mirzayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 50187/06) The applicants, Nail Humbatov and Yadigar Mirzayev, are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1941 and 1952 respectively and live in Baku. They both complain about the non-enforcement of judgments in their favour, resulting in a violation of their rights guaranteed under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). The judgments by the domestic courts, granted Mr   Humbatov’s company the right to use a plot of land and confirmed Mr Mirzayev’s status as the lawful tenant of a flat occupied by another family.   Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan (no. 37700/05) The applicant, Miraziz Mirasgar oglu Seyidzade, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1949 and lives in Baku. He was denied nomination as a candidate for the parliamentary elections on the grounds that his activities as a clergyman were incompatible with the electoral code. Relying principally on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections), he complains that the rejection of his nomination was arbitrary, as he had resigned from all positions which could be considered professional religious activity.   Aliykov v. Bulgaria (no. 333/04) The applicant, Tefik Cevik Aliykov, is a Bulgarian and Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) he complains of his conviction in absentia – during proceedings against him following his arrest for drink driving – and of the refusal of the Supreme Court of Cassation to reopen the case.   Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 18967/03) The applicants are eight Bulgarian nationals who live in Bulgaria. They were born respectively in 1921, 1928, 1946, 1970, 1944, 1949, 1962 and 1963 and live in Blagoevgrad and Sofia. They are the heirs of the owner of large tracts of land, who died in 1945. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain of the failure to execute a final judgment in their favour restoring their ownership of more than 100 hectares of farmland which was collectivised during the communist era. They also complain of the length of the proceedings leading to that judgment and of the length of the enforcement proceedings.   Daoudi v. France (no. 19576/08) The applicant, Kamel Daoudi, is an Algerian national who was born in 1974 and is currently subject to a compulsory residence order in the département of Creuse. He alleges that his removal to Algeria by the French authorities would place him at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and would infringe his right to respect for his family life (Article 8).   Zaunegger v. Germany (no. 22028/04) The applicant, Horst Zaunegger, is a German national who was born in 1964 and lives in Pulheim (Germany). His daughter having been born out of wedlock, he complains about the fact that, unlike divorced fathers and mothers, German law does not provide him with the opportunity to be granted joint custody without the mother’s consent. He essentially relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Aleksandr Krutov v. Russia (no. 15469/04) The applicant, Aleksandr Krutov, is a Russian journalist who was born in 1960 and lives in Saratov (Russia). He complains that he was sued for defamation following an article in which he alleged that the regional prosecutor had been favoured by the town hall in a conflict between political groups in the region. He relies on Article   10 (right to freedom of expression).   ***   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.