CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   976 18.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   22 December 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 17 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 22 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 ).     Palushi v. Austria (application no. 27900/04) The applicant, Naser Palushi, born in 1972, was previously a national of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; he is now an Austrian national and lives in Vienna. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleges that, when held in custody in April 1994 in Vienna Police Prison with a view to his expulsion for illegal residence, prison officers ill-treated him and, in particular, kicked and beat him, dragged him down the stairs causing injuries to his back, and stabbed him behind the ears with ballpoint pens. Placed in solitary confinement immediately afterwards, Mr   Palushi further complains about being refused access to a doctor.   Parlov-Tkalcic v. Croatia (no. 24810/06) The applicant, Marija Parlov-Tkalčić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Zlatar (Croatia). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant complains about issues of bias and excessive length concerning civil proceedings brought against her by an insurance company seeking to recover overpaid interest on compensation she had received following a road accident.   Bezymyannaya v. Russia (no. 21851/03) Sergey Smirnov v. Russia (no. 14085/04) The applicants are two Russian nationals, Galina Aleksandrovna Bezymyannaya, who was born in 1973 and lives in Belgorod (Russia), and Sergey Yuryevich Smirnov who was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. Both cases concern refusal of access to a court for the determination of the applicants’ civil claims: Ms   Bezymyannaya’s action to have a property contract invalidated was never examined as the domestic courts all declined jurisdiction over her case and Mr Smirnov’s actions against a hire agency and telecommunications provider were refused on the ground that he had no fixed abode. Both applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court).   Butusov v. Russia (no. 7923/04) The applicant, Mikhail Sergeyevich Butusov, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence for aggravated robbery in the Chelyabinsk region (Russia). Relying on Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security), Mr   Butusov alleges that the appeal hearing to review his detention on remand during the criminal proceedings against him was delayed and examined in his and his counsel’s absence.   Makarenko v. Russia (no. 5962/03) A former regional deputy governor, the applicant, Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Makarenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lived in Smolensk (Russia) until his arrest in December 2002 on charges of aggravated fraud, unlawful possession of ammunition and forgery. He was convicted as charged in June 2004 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the unlawfulness of his arrest, the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and delays in examining his requests for release as well as failure to examine his appeals against his detention orders. Further relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) and Article   10 (freedom of expression), he also complains about another set of proceedings in which he was convicted of libel following statements he had made to the press accusing a top ranking governmental official of having tried to have him killed.   Skorobogatykh v. Russia (no. 4871/03) The applicant, Sergey Dmitriyevich Skorobogatykh, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and is serving a prison sentence in Kaliningrad (Russia) for possession of illegal drugs. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the conditions of his detention on remand pending investigation and trial. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he further complains that the domestic courts did not ensure his presence at a hearing concerning his compensation claims with regard to those appalling detention conditions.   Tapia Gasca v. Spain (no. 20272/06) The applicants are Maria Tapia Gasca, a Spanish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Saragossa (Spain), and her daughter, D., who was born in 1994. Mrs   Tapia Gasca complains about her inability to enforce judicial decisions granting her custody of   D. after the child’s abduction in 1997, at the age of two, by her former partner. 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), Mrs   Tapia Gasca complains in particular about inactivity and inefficiency on the part of the Spanish authorities,   especially when she filed her first complaint, and also alleges that the public prosecutor and judicial authorities failed to be cooperative throughout the very lengthy proceedings as a result of which she remained separated from her daughter. Relying on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains that she did not benefit from an effective remedy in respect of the judicial decisions in question.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Gudkov v. Russia (no. 13173/03) Talysheva v. Russia (no. 24559/04) These cases concern in particular the applicants’ complaints 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).   Just satisfaction Ignatyeva v. Russia (no. 10277/05) In a judgment of 3   April 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in this case concerning the quashing of final judgments in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review, and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.     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.   Jesse v. Germany (no. 10053/08) Kressin v. Germany (no. 21061/06) Gorovaya v. Russia (no. 20882/04) Lekhanova v. Russia (no. 43372/06) Makarova v. Russia (no. 20886/04) MP Kineskop v. Russia (no. 16141/05)     ***   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.