CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 décembre 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 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; 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 }   921 04.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   8 and 10 December 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 29 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 8 December 2009 and 34 on Thursday 10 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 8 December 2009   Bushati and Others v. Albania (application no. 6397/04) The applicants, Ixhlale Bushati, Skender Bushati and Genc Bushati, are Albanian nationals who were born in 1918, 1939 and 1944 respectively and live in Shkoder (Albania). Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and   Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, they complain about the non-enforcement of a court decision in their favour with regard to a plot of land on the Albanian cost. They also complain of the length of the related court proceedings.   Caka v. Albania (no. 44023/02) The applicant, Lulzim Caka, is an Albanian national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Tirana. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, he complains of not having received prompt and adequate medical treatment at the time of his arrest in March 1998 on suspicion of shooting at police officers in 1997. He also complains of the length of his pre-trial detention, of not having been properly represented by a lawyer during his trial and of not having been able to question certain witnesses or to have witnesses appear on his behalf.   Janatuinen v. Finland (no. 28552/05) The applicant, Jukka Pekka Janatuinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vierumäki (Finland). In December 2003 he was found guilty of drugs offences and sentenced to five years in prison. Relying on Article 6 §§ (1) and (3) (right to a fair trial), he complains about the police having destroyed telephone recordings which might have benefited his defence in the criminal proceedings against him.   Taavitsainen v. Finland (no. 25597/07) The applicant, Sirpa Marita Taavitsainen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Tampere (Finland). Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the length of criminal proceedings against her on charges of having provided in 2001, and gained from that arrangement, an apartment for the practice of prostitution.   Miccichè and Guerrera v. Italy (no. 28987/04) The applicants, Gaetano Miccichè, Carmelo and Biagio Guerrera, Ada Micciché, and Elio and Vittorio Micciché, are Italian nationals who born in 1933, 1962, 1965, 1942, 1944 and 1948 respectively and live in Italy. They brought proceedings in the courts after land belonging to them was indirectly expropriated at the end of the 1970s. The compensation they obtained in these proceedings, which lasted from 1986 to 1998, was capped in accordance with an Act that had come into force in 1996. In 2000 the applicants lodged an application with the Court complaining of the length of the proceedings. In 2001 the Court informed them that the “Pinto” Act had come into force, which provided them with a remedy in Italy for their complaint. Their file was subsequently destroyed. In 2002 the applicants were awarded compensation by the Italian courts for the excessive length of the proceedings. The applicants complain of the length of the main proceedings and of the inadequacy of the redress obtained using the “Pinto” remedy. They alleged, among other things, that the application to their case of the 1996 Act – as a result, in their view, of the excessive length of the main proceedings – prevented them from obtaining compensation based on the market value of the land. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Goliszewski v. Poland (no. 14148/05) The applicant, Łukasz Goliszewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Legionowo (Poland). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the length of his pre-trial detention after his arrest in October 2002 on suspicion of aggravated assault.   Kucharczyk v. Poland (no. 3464/06) The applicant, Wiktor Kucharczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Kielce (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains that the proceedings he brought in November 1991 seeking reinstatement in his job have been too long and that he did not have access to court as the domestic court refused to appoint him a legal aid lawyer to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf.   Wieczorek v. Poland (no. 18176/05) The applicant, Krzysztofa Wieczorek, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Cracow (Poland). Relying, in particular, on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and   Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), she complains about the social insurance authorities having stopped in 2000 a permanent disability pension she has been receiving since 1985, and about the domestic court’s refusal to appoint her a legal aid lawyer to lodge a cassation appeal on her behalf.   Şandru and Others v. Romania (no. 22465/03) The applicants, Horia Teodor Şandru, Ştefan Răducan, Silvia Benea and Daniela Moldovan, née Grama, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1941, 1959, 1928 and 1974 respectively and live in Timişoara (Romania). The case concerns the popular uprising in Timişoara of 1989, the first of a series of demonstrations that led to the overthrow of the Romanian communist regime. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complain of the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the violent means used to quell the uprising, which had left numerous victims, and of the length of the criminal proceedings.   Molnar Gabor v. Serbia (no. 22762/05) The applicant, Istvan Molnar Gabor, is a Serbian national who was born in 1926 and lives in Subotica (Serbia). Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and   Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complains about the continuous refusal of the authorities to release to him all of his foreign currency savings deposited in a bank and, in particular, about the non-enforcement of a domestic judicial decision rendered on this question in his favour.   Aguilera Jiménez and Others v. Spain (nos. 28389/06, 28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06, 28961/06 and 28964/06) The applicants, José Antonio Aguilera Jiménez, Juan Manuel Palomo Sánchez, Francisco Antonio Fernández Olmo, Agustín Alvarez Lecegui, Francisco Beltrán Lafulla and Francisco José María Blanco Balbas, are Spanish nationals living in Barcelona (Spain). Relying on Articles   10 (freedom of expression) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association), they complain of their dismissal from the company which had employed them as deliverymen and where they had been members of the executive board of a trade union, following the publication in the trade union’s news bulletin of cartoons and articles about other employees, including the head of human resources, who considered them insulting.   Muñoz Diaz v. Spain (no. 49151/07) The applicant, María Luisa Muñoz Díaz, is a Spanish national belonging to the Roma community. She was born in 1956 and lives in Madrid. She was married according to the rites of her community. Her husband, also a Spanish national and a member of that community, died in 2000. She then applied for a survivor’s pension but it was refused. Relying on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and on Article   14 taken together with Article   12 (right to marry), she complains about the authorities’ refusal to grant her a survivor’s pension on the ground that her marriage had no civil effects under Spanish law, and about their failure to recognise Roma marriage in general. A public hearing concerning this case was held in the Human Rights Building on 26 May 2009.   Aytaş and Others v. Turkey (no. 6758/05) The applicants are 17 Turkish nationals living in Turkey. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association), they complain that in 2004 the police broke up a demonstration in which they were taking part in protest at a government bill on higher education.   Çayan Bilgin v. Turkey (no. 37912/04) The applicant, Çayan Bilgin, is a national who was born in 1978 and lives in Tekirdağ (Turkey). In 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against him during an operation carried out against the illegal organisation Halkın Devrimci Adaleti (“People’s Revolutionary Justice”). Relying on Articles   5   §   3 (right to freedom and security) and 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the allegedly excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings.   Kenan Engin v. Turkey (no. 60683/00) The applicant, Kenan Engin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Tunceli (Turkey). In 1998 he was convicted by the Istanbul National Security Court of membership of an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he argues that the court did not constitute an “impartial and independent tribunal” on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench. He also complains that he was not assisted by a lawyer while in police custody. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant also complains that he was tortured while in police custody and did not have an effective domestic remedy by which to complain. Relying, further, on Article 5 §§ 2, 3 and 4 (right to freedom and security), he complains of the failure to inform him of the reasons for his arrest; of the length of time spent in police custody and in detention; and also of the lack of a remedy by which to seek judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention.   Osman Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 18896/05) The applicant, Osman Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains of the failure to enforce a court decision awarding him damages following a road accident as a result of which he was 100% disabled. He alleges that by failing to ensure enforcement of that decision the domestic authorities infringed his right to a fair hearing and his right of access to a court.   Savaş v. Turkey (no. 9762/03) The applicant, Uğur Savaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Balıskesir (Turkey). In 2001 criminal proceedings were brought against him for armed robbery. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5   §   2 (right to freedom and security), he complains that he was arrested without being informed of the reasons for his arrest and that he was forced to make a statement by the police officers. Relying on Article 6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he also complains that his trial was unfair. He claims that he was not given a copy of the written submissions of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation on the merits of his appeals; that he was denied access to a lawyer while in police custody; and that the Balıkesir Assize Court was not impartial. Lastly, he complains that the trial court failed to examine all the evidence.   Şayık and Others v. Turkey (nos. 1966/07, 9965/07, 35245/07, 35250/07, 36561/07, 36591/07 and 40928/07) The applicants, Hayrettin Şayık, Mehmet Ali Oğuzhan, Murat Aslan, Turgay Bilge, Fahri Arcagök, Mehmet Özboğa (Aksa) and Mehmet Salih Şimşek, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963, 1969, 1975, 1976, 1974, 1976 and 1978 respectively and are currently in prison in Diyarbakır and Siirt (Turkey). Criminal proceedings were brought against them between 1995 and 2001 during operations carried out against Hizbullah , an illegal fundamentalist organisation. Relying, at least in substance, on Article 5   §§   3 and   4 (right to freedom and security), the applicants complain of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention and argue that they did not have an effective remedy by which to seek judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention. Relying, further, on Articles 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), they also complain that their case was not heard within a reasonable time and that there was no domestic remedy available by which to complain.   Yeşilkaya v. Turkey (no. 59780/00) The applicant, Ali Rıza Yeşilkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972. On the date his application was lodged he was in Sivas Prison (Turkey). Relying on, among other provisions, Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) et (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains that he did not have a fair trial because his conviction for drug trafficking was based on confessions of his co-accused that he never had the opportunity to contest; that he did not have access to legal assistance throughout the trial including the preliminary investigation phase; and that he did not have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. Additionally, he claims that he was deprived of any contact with his family while in police custody.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Revision Bortesi and Others v. Italy (no. 71399/01) The case concerned the inadequacy of the expropriation compensation paid to the applicants. On 8   September 2008, the Government requested that the judgment in this case (10   June 2008) be revised.   Gennari v. Italy (no. 32550/03) Vacca v. Italy (no. 8061/05) These cases concern the inadequacy of expropriation compensation awarded to the applicants. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Darnai v. Romania (no. 36297/02) This case concerns the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour in good time. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Gherghiceanu and Others v. Romania (no. 21227/03, 18377/05 and 18730/05) 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).   Öztok v. Turkey (no. 42082/02) In this case the applicant complains that he was deprived of his property, designated forest area, without compensation. He relies 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. The applicant in the case of Nemet also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Puczyński v. Poland (no. 32622/03) Nemet v. Serbia (no. 22543/05) Petrincová v. Slovakia (no. 11395/06) Rošková v. Slovakia (no. 36818/06)     Thursday 10 December 2009   Almesberger v. Austria (no. 13471/06) The applicant, Alfred Almesberger, is an Austrian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Pischelsdorf (Austria). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought in 1999 against him for failing to carry a fire-extinguisher in his truck while transporting dangerous goods.   Koppi v. Austria (no. 33001/03) The applicant, Matthias Stefan Koppi, is an Austrian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Rankweil (Austria). He is a member of the “Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in Österreich”, a registered religious community since July 1998. Mr Koppi was recognised in 2000 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs as a conscientious objector and, as such, exempt from the duty to perform military service but liable to perform civilian service. Relying on Articles   4 (prohibition of forced labour), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains about not being exempt from the obligation to perform civil service duties, while members of recognised religious societies holding religious functions comparable to his own were.   Koottummel v. Austria (no. 49616/06) The applicant, Geethakumari Koottummel, is an Austrian national who was born in India, lives in Lustenau (Austria) and runs an Indian restaurant. Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), she complains about there not being an oral hearing before the administrative court in proceedings which she brought seeking to obtain a permit to employ a specific person as a cook (Ayurvedic chef).   Just satisfaction Grifhorst v. France (no. 28336/02) The applicant, Robert Grifhorst, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1949 and lives in Erts la Massana (Andorra). In a judgment of 26   February 2009 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) on account of the disproportionate nature of the penalty imposed on Mr   Grifhorst for failing to declare a sum of money when going through customs. The Court also held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Dudnyk v. Ukraine (no. 17985/04) The applicant, Kateryna Dudnyk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Chapayivka (Ukraine). Relying on Articles   2 (right to life), 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains that an effective investigation was not carried out into an incident of 30 May 2000 when an unidentified person broke her son’s skull at a dormitory in the Cherkasy Technological University from which he subsequently died.   Koktysh v. Ukraine (no. 43707/07) Kreydich v. Ukraine (no. 48495/07) The applicants, Igor Koktysh and Viktor Kreydich, are two Belarusian nationals who were born in 1980 and in 1961 respectively. Igor Koktysh is currently detained in the Pre-Trial Detention Centre No.   15 in Simferopol (Ukraine); Viktor Kreydich lives in Kyiv (Ukraine). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial, and Articles   5   §§   1, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), both applicants complain that if extradited to Belarus, they would risk being tortured and facing an unfair trial. They further allege that their detention pending extradition has been unlawful, that they were not able to challenge their arrest, subsequent detention and the decision on their extradition before the national courts, and that they have no right to compensation for their detention. Mr Koktysh also complains under Articles   2 (right to life) that he risks facing the death penalty if extradited to Belarus.   Matsyuk v. Ukraine (no. 1751/03) The applicant, Vadym Matsyuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Bila Tserkva (Ukraine). Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains of not having had access to court as a result of the domestic courts’ refusal to examine a complaint he lodged against a decision of the tax police on the ground that that decision had not been given in the correct form.   Mikhaylyuk and Petrov v. Ukraine (no. 11932/02) The applicants, Iraida Mikhayluuk and Vladimir Petrov, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1951 respectively and live in Odessa (Ukraine). Mr Petrov worked between 1976 and 1996 for a penitentiary institution on the premises of which he still has his permanent place of residence registered. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), they complain about the authorities having opened the letters addressed to them and sent to that penitentiary colony.   Mironenko and Martenko v. Ukraine (no. 4785/02) The applicants, Vladimir Mironenko and Nikolay Martenko, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1971 respectively and live in Kiev. Relying on Articles   5   §§   3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security) and   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), they complain of the unlawfulness of their arrest, detention and criminal proceedings brought against them in February 2000 on suspicion of involvement in a kidnapping.   Panchenko v. Ukraine (no. 10911/05) The applicant, Ivan Panchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Brovary (Ukraine). He is a disabled war veteran. Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complains that the civil proceedings he brought against the town council asking to be provided with an apartment on a priority basis lasted for too long. He also complains about the non-enforcement of a domestic court judgment of June 2003 ordering the relevant ministry to provide him an apartment within three months and about the lack of an effective remedy to challenge non-enforcement at domestic level.   Shagin v. Ukraine (no. 20437/05) The applicant, Igor Shagin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Kiev. On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were opened on the suspicion that a network of private commercial enterprises, “Top-Service”, directed by the applicant, organised an armed group with conspiracy to kill State officials and businessmen who were allegedly obstructing its business. In March 2004 the applicant was found guilty of several offences including forming a criminal organisation and incitement to murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §§   1 and   2 (right to a fair trial), he complains that he did not have a public trial and that certain statements by high-ranking public officials published in the media concerning his case affected negatively the presumption of innocence in his respect.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Biletskaya v. Ukraine (no. 25003/06) Gimadulina and Others v. Ukraine (30675/06, 30785/06, 32818/06, 34468/06 and 49001/06) Ilchyshyn and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 8802/07, 8729/07, 8739/07, 8991/07, 8996/07, 9447/07 and 10058/07) Karpukhan and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 45524/05, 39316/07, 39326/07, 39329/07, 39331/07, 39332/07, 39333/07, 39335/07, 39337/07, 39339/07, 39342/07, 39360/07, 39407/07, 39411/07, 39418/07, 39422/07, 39426/07, 39429/07, 39433/07, and 45858/07) Kasyanchuk v. Ukraine (no. 4187/05) Khrypko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 43507/07, 45747/07, 46107/07, 46109/07, 50412/07, 917/08, 964/08, 1796/08 and 9046/08) Kutsenko v. Ukraine (no. 41936/05) Tamara Vasilyevna Len and Grigoriy Kuzmich Len v. Ukraine (no. 825/05) Logachova and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 4510/05, 13273/05, 26704/06 and 30757/06) Lyudmyla Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 14728/07) Osokin and Osokina v. Ukraine (nos. 8437/06 and 8470/06) Panov v. Ukraine (no. 21231/05) Ramus and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 11867/08, 11868/08, 28969/08, 28971/08, 28979/08 and 37484/08) Savula v. Ukraine (no. 12868/05) Sergeyeva v. Ukraine (no. 43798/05) Shastin and Shastina v. Ukraine (no. 12381/04) Skrypets v. Ukraine (no. 41236/06) Vasilchuk v. Ukraine (no. 31387/05) Yangolenko v. Ukraine (no. 14077/05) These cases concern the applicants’ complaint that the Ukrainian authorities failed to enforce a final judgment or decision in their favour in good time or at all. 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) of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Goriany v. Austria (no. 31356/04) Bendryt v. Ukraine (no. 1661/04) Goncharov v. Ukraine (no. 7867/06)   ***   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) 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.