CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 }   992 23.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   5 and 7 January 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 20 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 5   January 2010 and 23 on Thursday 7 January 2010.   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 5 January 2010   Bongiorno and Others v. Italy (application no. 4514/07) The applicants, Francesca, Rosa and Margherita Bongiorno and Daniele Saponaro, are Italian nationals who born in 1971, 1974, 1976 and 1972 respectively and live in Fasano (Italy). In 2003 S.B., the father of the first three applicants and the father-in-law of Daniele Saponaro, was placed under police supervision on suspicion of belonging to a Mafia-type organisation; some of his possessions, including four items of immovable property and four cars, were also confiscated. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain of the fact that the proceedings concerning the application of these preventive measures were not conducted in public, and of the unfairness of the proceedings which resulted in their possessions being confiscated although they had not been convicted of any offence. Under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complain of the confiscation of their possessions.   Impar Ltd. v. Lithuania (no. 13102/04) The applicant, Impar Ltd., is a company registered in Lithuania. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant company complains about the excessive length of tax litigation proceedings.   Šulcas v. Lithuania (no. 35624/04) The applicant, Donatas Šulcas, is a Lithuanian national who lives in Lithuania. Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Šulcas complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud, forgery and unlawfully obtaining property. He also complains about the seizure of his and his company’s property during those criminal proceedings, in breach of Article 1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Bucuria v. Moldova (no. 10758/05) The applicant, Bucuria Inc., is a company registered in Moldova. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court), the applicant company complains about not being summoned to a hearing in proceedings brought against it by a former employee for unfair dismissal. It further complains about the ensuing damages it was ordered to pay to the employee, in breach of Article 1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Pădureţ v. Moldova (no. 33134/03) The applicant, Aurel Pădureţ, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1979 and lives in Bozieni (Moldova). Mr Pădureţ alleges that he was tortured when taken to Centru Police station in March 2000 for questioning in connection with a robbery; in particular he was kicked, punched, suspended on a metal bar with his feet and hands tied together behind his back (“Palestinian hanging”) and had a glass bottle repeatedly inserted into his anus. The criminal investigation against him was subsequently discontinued. He also alleges that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his ill-treatment, thus allowing the perpetrators to escape all responsibility. He relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Railean v. Moldova (no. 23401/04) The applicant, Mihail Railean, is a Ukrainian national who was born in1956 and lives in Krutoyarovka (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life), Mr   Railean alleges that the Moldovan authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his son’s death, killed in a hit and run accident in January 2001.   Frasik v. Poland (no. 22933/02) Jaremowicz v. Poland (no. 24023/03) The applicants, Rafał Frasik and Paweł Jaremowicz are two Polish nationals born in 1975 and 1973, respectively. Mr   Frasik lives in Krakow and Mr Jaremowicz is currently detained in Wołów Prison. They were both serving prison sentences – Mr   Frasik for rape and threatening his long-term partner and Mr   Jaremowicz for attempted burglary – when they asked the competent courts, in April 2001 and June 2003, respectively, to allow them to marry in prison. Their requests were refused. Relying in particular on Article   12 (right to marry), both applicants complain that those refusals were arbitrary and unjustified. Mr   Frasik also complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the delay in examination of his appeals against that detention, in breach of Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Kulik v. Poland (no. 40909/08) The applicant, Krzysztof Kulik, is a Polish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Nowogród Bobrzański (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr   Kulik complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in February 2001 for robbery, and which are still pending.   Wrona v. Poland (no. 23119/05) The applicant, Elżbieta Wrona, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Świlcza (Poland). In 1998 lustration proceedings were started against her. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial), she complains that she was merely allowed to consult the confidential file in her case, without being able to take notes, unlike the other party to the proceedings. She also takes issue with the lustration measure itself, pointing in particular to the severity of the penalty, consisting in a ten-year ban on occupying certain positions.   Lexa v. Slovakia (no. 34761/03) The applicant, Ivan Lexa, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava. Former director of the Slovakian intelligence service, Mr   Lexa was arrested in December 2002 on charges of incitement to commit murder, abuse of authority and mishandling of classified State secrets. Released in June 2003, the proceedings against him were discontinued in September 2006 for lack of proof. Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the unlawfulness of his detention and the proceedings concerning its review.   Abdulkerim Kaya v. Turkey (no. 28069/07) Mehmet Garip Özer and Others v. Turkey (nos. 9603/07, 9894/07 and 16474/07) Sevim and Others v. Turkey (nos. 7540/07, 7859/07 and 11979/07) The applicants, Abdulkerim Kaya, Mehmet Garip Özer, Yusuf Begiç, Sabri Aktaş, Selami Sevim, İsmet Ökmen and Mithat Yılmaz, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1974 and 1964 respectively and live in Turkey. Mr Aktaş lives in Diyarbakır, while the other applicants are currently in Diyarbakır Prison. The applicants were placed in pre-trial detention on different dates between 1998 and 2001 during operations being carried out against Hizbullah, an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Articles   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain of the length of their pre-trial detention. The last three applicants also complain that they did not have an effective remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of that detention. Under Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), the last three applicants also allege that their case was not heard promptly and that they did not have an effective remedy in that regard.   Musa Karataş v. Turkey (no. 63315/00) The applicant, Musa Karataş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and is currently serving a life sentence in Locaeli Prison (Turkey). Mr   Karatas alleges that he was ill-treated while in police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Türkiye Komünist Emek Partisi/Leninist (the Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist, (“the TKEP-L”)), in breach of Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), and that he was convicted on the basis of the statements extracted from him during that ill-treatment and in the absence of his lawyer, in breach of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial).   Ümit Aydın v. Turkey (no. 33735/02) The applicant, Ümif Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was convicted of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation). Relying on Article   6   §§   1, 2 and   3 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he alleges that the court which tried him was not impartial, as a military judge participated in his trial. He also complains that the principle of presumption of innocence was breached, that he was not given a copy of the written opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Chief Prosecutor, that no lawyer was present during the preliminary investigation and that the proceedings were excessively long.   Yardımcı v. Turkey (no. 25266/05) The applicants, Necdet Yardımcı and his wife Özden Yardımcı, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1961 and 1954 respectively and live in Ankara. During pregnancy Mrs   Yardımcı suffered bleeding from the placenta; she was admitted to hospital and gave birth by Caesarean section. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), the applicants complain of medical negligence during the operation following which their son was born suffering from respiratory and cardiac insufficiency, causing irreversible brain damage. Under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they allege, among other things, that the medical expert examinations were not conducted by competent experts, and complain of the excessive length of the civil proceedings which they instituted.     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.   Cudowscy v. Poland (no. 34591/04) Śliwiński v. Poland (no. 40063/06) Mustafa Gürbüs v. Turkey (no. 6016/04)     Thursday 7 January 2010   Maxim Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (no. 36552/03) The applicant, Maxim Iordanov Dimitrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Varna (Bulgaria). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) he complains that the criminal proceedings against him in a fraud case were excessive in length.   Penev v. Bulgaria (no. 20494/04) The applicant, Nikolay Penev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article   6   §   3 (right to a fair trial), he complains of not having been given the opportunity to defend himself against modified charges in the criminal proceedings brought against him in 1999 in relation to his activities as a trustee in the insolvency proceedings concerning the Plama oil refinery.   Petyo Petkov v. Bulgaria (no. 32130/03) The applicant, Mr Petyo Stoyanov Petkov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Sofia. In 2003 he stood trial in a case which received widespread media coverage, concerning a sulphuric acid attack on the deputy director of the National Planning Directorate in Sofia. After being placed in pre-trial detention he was forced to wear a balaclava which left only his eyes visible, each time he left his cell – including during hearings – for reasons linked to the media interest in the trial and the investigative measures being taken. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complains of being obliged to wear a balaclava during his public appearances and of being unable to participate in the activities of the other prisoners while in prison in Sofia. He complains under Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) that he had no remedy in respect of these alleged violations of his rights. Under Article   5   §   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was not released as soon as he was acquitted and about the length of his detention. Under Article   6   §   2 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the remarks made by the district prosecutor at a press conference infringed his right to be presumed innocent. Lastly, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complains of the confiscation of his car, which was seized as physical evidence in the criminal proceedings.   Sashov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 14383/03) The applicants, Trayan Zhorov Sashov, Krum Sotirov Yankov and Zdravko Alexandrov Simeonov, are three Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1977, 1978 and 1980 respectively and live in Sofia. They belong to the Roma ethnic and cultural group. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain of police brutality during their arrest in 2001 (on suspicion of stealing metals) and of the failure of the State authorities to institute an effective criminal investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. Relying on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), they further submit that the violence in question was racially motivated and that the authorities did not investigate this possibility.   Stoyan Mitev v. Bulgaria (no. 60922/00) The applicant, Stoyan Mitev, was a Bulgarian national who was born in 1934. Following his death in 2001, his son expressed the wish to continue the application on behalf of his father. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained that his lengthy detention for murder he had committed in 1997, despite of his constantly deteriorating medical condition, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.   Zvezdev v. Bulgaria (no. 47719/07) The applicant, Mr Alexander Dimitrov Zvezdev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article   5   §§   3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), he complains that after his arrest in 2007 for issuing threats using a weapon, he was not brought “promptly” before a judge. He further alleges that he had no possibility of challenging the lawfulness of his detention or of obtaining compensation for the alleged violations.   Onoufriou v. Cyprus (no. 24407/04) The applicant, Andreas Onoufriou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1951 and is currently detained in Nicosia Central Prison for murder. In September 2003, when he did not return to prison after a 24-hour leave he was granted, he was arrested and placed in solitary confinement for 47   days. Relying in particular on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 8 (right to private or family life) and 13   ( right   to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the conditions in which he was detained during that period, of   the prohibition on family visits during his period in solitary confinement   and of   the surveillance of his correspondence. He also alleges that he had no   effective remedy to challenge all the above.   Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (no. 25965/04) The applicant, Nikolay Rantsev, is a Russian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Svetlogorsk, Russia. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 4 (prohibition of   slavery and forced labour), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial)   and 8 (right to private and family life), he complains that no adequate investigation was carried out   by the Cypriot authorities into the death of his daughter   who died in Cyprus, where she had gone to work, in March 2001. He also alleges that the Cypriot police did not do everything possible to protect his daughter   from alleged trafficking while she was alive and to punish those responsible for her death. Mr Rantsev also complains about the failure of the Russian authorities to investigate his daughter's alleged trafficking and subsequent death and to take steps to protect her from the risk of trafficking. Finally, he complains about the inquest proceeding in Cyprus.   Jovanoski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 31731/03) The applicant, Krste Jovanoski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Gorno Lakocerej (Macedonia). He complains of the non-enforcement of his claim against a Croatian company for payment of a debt, originating from the period before the dissolution of former Yugoslavia, following a long period of inaction by the Macedonian courts and the eventual destruction of the case-files. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court).   Dimopoulos v. Greece (no. 34198/07) The applicant, Konstantinos Dimopoulos, is a Greek national who was born in 1925 and lives in Athens. When working as a plumber for a company that owned a hotel complex, he brought proceedings against his employer in respect of overdue salary and allowances. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he alleges that the dismissal of his appeal on points of law in those proceedings breached his right to have access to a court and complains, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that no remedy was available to him in that connection.   Aribaud v. Luxembourg (no. 41923/06) The applicant, Mr Pierre-Olivier Aribaud, is a French national who was born in 1962. According to the information in the case file, he is currently in Gradignan Prison (France). Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security), he complains about several periods of detention in the context of different sets of criminal proceedings against him. He submits firstly that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive and that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty (for the seven hours between the authorisation for his release in one set of proceedings and the issuing of a warrant for his arrest in a different set of proceedings). He further complains of his detention pending extradition, claiming that it was excessively long and that he was unable to challenge its lawfulness.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bachvarovi v. Bulgaria (no. 24186/04) Georgievi v. Bulgaria (no. 10913/04) Kayriakovi v. Bulgaria (no. 30945/04) Parvanov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 74787/01) These cases concern the applicants' complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) of having been deprived of their property   arbitrarily, through no fault of theirs and without adequate compensation.   Basarba OOD v. Bulgaria (no. 77660/01) Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 69855/01) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and applicants' complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property) of having been deprived of their property as a result of the non-enforcement of final judicial decisions in their favour.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following case, 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 Karokis and Mageiras the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ivanovi v. Bulgaria (no. 14226/04) Von Koester v. Germany (No. 1) (no. 40009/04) Gargasoulas v. Greece (no. 51500/07) Karokis v. Greece (no. 17461/08) Mageiras v. Greece (no. 9893/08) Pikoula and Others v. Greece (no. 1545/08)   ***   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.