CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 janvier 2010

.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 }   11 8.1.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   12 and 14 January 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 23 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 12   January 2010 and 13 on Thursday 14 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 12 January 2010   Suuripää v. Finland (application no. 43151/02) The applicant, Keijo Tapani Suuripää, is a Finnish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Espoo (Finland). Formerly a senior crime inspector for the Ministry of the Interior Police Department, Mr Suuripää was arrested in July 1998 and charged with accepting bribes; he was convicted in June 2002 and sentenced to a fine. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleges in particular that, in the criminal proceedings against him, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment to his disadvantage without holding an oral hearing. He further complains under the same article about the excessive length of the proceedings against him.   Mole v. Italy (no. 24421/03) The applicant, Girolamo Mole, is an Italian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Parma (Italy). He is serving a life sentence for murder and other offences connected with the activities of a mafia-type criminal organisation. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that he was placed under the special prison regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act. Relying on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he also complains that the exercise of his right of access to a court was restricted in that a complaint he lodged against a ministerial decree was not examined on the merits by the court responsible for the execution of sentences.   Bąkowska v. Poland (no. 33539/02) The applicant, Emilia Bąkowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Słupsk (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court), she complains that, in a civil claim she brought against a housing co-operative, she was only granted legal aid four days before the expiry of the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal, with the result that she had little time left to find a new lawyer.   Biśta v. Poland (no. 22807/07) The applicant, Jerzy Biśta, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Trzebinia (Poland). Mr Biśta was arrested in August 2005 on suspicion of revealing State secrets and bribery. Released in December 2007, the criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand and censorship of his correspondence by the penitentiary authorities.   Gęśla v. Poland (no. 15915/07) The applicant, Jacek Gęśla, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Chełm (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Gęśla complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of drug dealing and making threats.   Aharon Schwarz v. Romania (no. 28304/02) The applicant, Aharon Schwarz, is a German national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention between 2001 and 2004 (when he was pardoned on humanitarian grounds) while serving a prison sentence for fraud and forgery and uttering of various documents. His main complaints are that the conditions of his detention were inappropriate in view of the various diseases from which he was suffering, and that the treatment he was given for scabies was ineffective.   Al-Agha v. Romania (no. 40933/02) The applicant, Akram Ahmed M. Al-Agha, was born in 1945 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article   3 (prevention of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   1, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), he complains of his detention in the holding centre at Bucharest Airport with a view to his deportation, and of the poor living conditions there.   Boloş v. Romania (no. 33078/03) The applicant, Felician Boloş, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Negreşti Oaş (Romania). A former senior police officer, he was the subject of criminal proceedings instituted in 2003 by the National Anti-Corruption Prosecution Service. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security), he complains about his pre-trial detention in that context, submitting among other things that it was extended twice after hearings were held in his absence (as he was in prison) and that an appeal he lodged was not examined by the Supreme Court of Justice.   Karl Gottfried Schwarz and Helmut Martin Schwarz v. Romania (no. 39740/03) The applicants, Karl Gottfried Schwarz, and his brother, Helmut Martin Schwarz, are German nationals who were born in 1954 and 1966 respectively and live in Augsburg (Germany). They are the former joint owners of half of a property in Valea Lungă, which was confiscated by the authorities in 1989 after the applicants had moved to Germany. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and   Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complain about the proceedings they instituted in 2001 for recovery of possession of the property in question and, in particular, the refusal by the national courts to examine one of their grounds of appeal.   Sâmbata Bihor Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania (no. 48107/99) The applicant, the Sâmbata Bihor Greek Catholic Parish, is an Eastern-rite Catholic church (Greek Catholic or Uniate) of the Sâmbata parish, which belongs to the Romanian Uniate archdiocese of Oradea (Romania). The case concerns the ownership of a church building. In 1948, following the dissolution of the Uniate Church, the church building in which the Sâmbata Uniate priest officiated was transferred to the Orthodox Church. After the Uniate Church was granted recognition in 1990, the law provided that joint committees of Uniate and Orthodox representatives were to settle the status of any property concerned, such as the church building in Sâmbata. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant parish complains of the national courts’ refusal to determine its right to use the church building in question, and of the absence of any authority to which it could submit its application to use this place of worship. On the basis of Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), it complains that the decisions taken by the authorities infringed its freedom of religion and its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. Lastly, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), it submits that it was discriminated against in relation to other denominations in Romania.   Babat and Others v. Turkey (no. 44936/04) The applicants are three Turkish nationals, Aziz and Azime Babat and their daughter, Marifet Akgün (Babat), who were born in 1954, 1954 and 1978 respectively. They live in Tunceli (Turkey) and Istanbul. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), they allege that their 25-year old son and brother, Önder Babat, was shot and killed in the street by State agents, probably the victim of an extra-judicial killing, and that the Turkish authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his death. They also allege that the killing and the ineffectiveness of the ensuing investigation were motivated by the fact that Önder was Kurdish and had strong left-wing political views, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   A.W. Khan v. United Kingdom (no. 47486/06) The applicant, Abdul Waheed Khan, is a Pakistani national who was born in 1975 and has been living in the United Kingdom since the age of three. He currently lives in Bradford (United Kingdom). He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in 2003 for importation of a significant quantity of heroin. Released in 2006 for good conduct, he was served with a deportation order due to the seriousness of his offence. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about the decision to deport him as, a settled immigrant in the United Kingdom for almost his entire life, he has no family or other ties in Pakistan, his mother, brothers, British girlfriend and daughter all residing in the United Kingdom.   Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom (no. 4158/05) The applicants, Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinton, are British nationals who were born in 1977 and 1971 respectively and live in London. The case concerns the police power in the United Kingdom under anti-terrorism legislation to stop and search individuals without reasonable suspicion. In September 2003 both applicants were stopped and searched by the police while on their way to a demonstration close to an arms fair held in the Docklands, East London. They rely on Articles   5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Chelu v. Romania (no. 40274/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in his favour. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Dumitru Georgescu and Ion Georgescu v. Romania (nos. 30995/03 and 31003/03) This case concerns an action for the recovery of property. The applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Just satisfaction Ioan v. Romania (no. 31005/03) In its judgment of 1   July 2008, the Court held that in this case there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning an action to recover property, and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Alexandra Maria Popescu v. Romania (no. 9684/04) Emilian Ştefănescu v. Romania (no. 35018/03) Seceleanu and Others v. Romania (no. 2915/02) These cases concern 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).   Hakan Güçlü v. Turkey (no. 44307/04) In this case the applicant complains that there had been no public hearing in proceedings brought against him. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Serpil Kaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 21313/05) 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 case   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.   Paliga v. Poland (no. 7975/07) Doğru Avşar v. Turkey (no. 14310/05)   Thursday 14 January 2010   Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria (no. 2376/03) The applicant, Tsonyo Ivanov Tsonev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Gabrovo (Bulgaria). The case concerns Mr Tsonev’s complaint that the central element of charges brought against him for breaching public order – following an incident in which he broke down the door of a flat and beat up the occupant – were essentially the same as for which he had already been fined in administrative proceedings. He relies on Article   4 of Protocol No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice). Further relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (b) and   (c) (right to a fair trial), he also complains about the unfairness – notably ineffectiveness of counsel – of those criminal proceedings against him.   Vanjak v. Croatia (no. 29889/04) The applicant, Zdravko Vanjak, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Karlovac (Croatia). Serving as a police officer in Karlovac, Mr Vanjak had disciplinary proceedings brought against him in 1996 for being involved in dealings with regard to a forged certificate of Croatian citizenship. He was found guilty and dismissed from the police force. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complains about the unfairness of those disciplinary proceedings, notably that his statement used in evidence against him was obtained illegally – after a whole night’s questioning – and that further witness statements relied on were never communicated to him or their content revealed. He also complains that, although a criminal investigation – subsequently discontinued for lack of evidence – was still pending concerning the same offence, he was nonetheless found guilty in the disciplinary proceedings against him, in breach of his right to be presumed innocent under Article   6   §   2.   Galotskin v. Greece (no. 2945/07) The applicant, Panayotis Galotskin, is a Greek national who lives in Ano Touba (Greece). Involved in an argument with the police in December 2001 when stopped in a car for an identity check, Mr   Galotskin alleges that he was subjected to police brutality both during his subsequent arrest and detention and that the Greek authorities failed to carry out an adequate investigation into the incident. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complains in particular about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the police officers concerned and of the administrative proceedings in which he sought damages.   Popovitsi v. Greece (no. 53451/07) The applicant, Alina-Mirela Popovitsi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Athens. Having worked in Greece as a cleaner since 1998, she was convicted at first instance in absentia of theft. Relying on Article   6   §§   1, 2 and   3 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), she alleges that the proceedings against her did not comply with any of the safeguards afforded by Article 6, and complains that the arbitrary rejection of her application to set aside her conviction deprived her of a hearing of her case by a court in her presence.   She further complains, under Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), that her conviction for theft was wrongly allowed to stand even though she was unable to challenge it at any time before a higher court.   Kotov v. Russia (no. 54522/00) The applicant, Vladimir Mikhailovich Kotov, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Krasnodar (Russia). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complains that he was unable to obtain effective repayment of a debt owed to him on account of the unlawful distribution of assets following the liquidation of a private bank with which he had deposited a sum of money.   Mastepan v. Russia (no. 3708/03) The applicant, Yevgeniy Sergeyevich Mastepan, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Rubtsovsk (Russia). Suspected of counterfeiting, Mr Mastepan complains that a Government investigator unlawfully broke into and searched his flat in February 2002. He relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Melnikov v. Russia (no. 23610/03) The applicant, Sergey Anatolyevich Melnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and is currently in prison   in the Ulyanovsk Region (Russia). Convicted in March 2003 of robbery and theft, Mr Melnikov complains about the conditions of his pre-trial detention during the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial), he also complains that, at trial, he was not able to examine or have examined a co-accused in relation to two of the theft charges. Finally, he also complains under Article   34 (right of individual petition) that the authorities tried to intimidate him as a result of his application to the European Court: by interfering with his correspondence to the Court; by refusing him permission to have a meeting with his legal representative; and, by detaining him in a punishment cells on numerous occasions.   Moskalyuk v. Russia (no. 3267/03) The applicant, Igor Valeryevich Moskalyuk, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow. Convicted in June 2002 of robbery and assault, Mr Moskalyuk complains about the appalling conditions during his pre-trial detention and lack of adequate medical treatment for tuberculosis during the entirety of his detention. He relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Shugayev v. Russia (no. 11020/03) The applicant, Gennadiy Yuryevich Shugayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a 22-year prison sentence in Orenburg (Russia) for murder. Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), Mr Shugayev alleges that he was not provided with legal assistance at the appeal hearing in his case. He also alleges that the Russian authorities interfered with his correspondence to the European Court, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition).   Atanasovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 36815/03) The applicant, Petar Atanasovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Bitola (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). He had been working for “Aparati za domakinstvo”, a socially-owned company, for 30   years when he was reassigned to the post of technologist. He brought a civil claim in which he sought to have his reassignment annulled, ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains that, in deciding on his case, the Supreme Court departed from previously established practice – according to which employers were required to provide concrete reasons for reassignment – without providing reasons. He also complains under the same article about the excessive length of the proceedings.   Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kazakevich and nine other “army pensioners” cases v. Russia (nos. 14290/03, 19089/04, 42059/04, 27800/04, 43505/04, 43538/04, 3614/05, 30906/05, 39901/05 and 524/06) This case concerns the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants. Four applicants also complain of the non-enforcement of the judgments which were quashed on supervisory review. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and 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. They also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Pavlova v. Bulgaria (no. 39855/03) Tsasnik and Kaonis v. Greece (no. 3142/08)     ***   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.