CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   035 15.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   19 and 21 January 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 37   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 19   January 2010 and seven on Thursday 21 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 19 January 2010   Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium (no. 41442/07) The applicants, Aina Mushkhadzhiyeva and her four children Alik, Liana, Khadizha and Louisa, are Russian nationals of Chechen origin who were born respectively in 1966, 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2006 and currently live in a refugee camp in Debak-Podkowa Lesna (Poland). After fleeing from Grozny in Chechnya, they arrived in Belgium on 11 October 2006 and claimed asylum there. As the applicants had previously spent time in Poland, the Polish authorities agreed to take charge of them (under Council Regulation (EC) No   343/2003 of 18 February 2003). Pending their transfer to Poland they were held in administrative detention for over a month in the “127 bis” closed centre. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complain of the conditions in which they were detained there. Under Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, they further complain that their detention was unlawful, that the remedy by which they sought to complain of it was ineffective and that they received no compensation in that regard.   Ahmed Hussun and Others v. Italy (nos. 10171/05, 10601/05, 11593/05 and 17165/05) The applications concern a group of 84 persons who arrived on the island of Lampedusa (Italy) by boat from Libya in March 2005. Most of them appear to be Palestinians, but the applicants also include Iraqis, Algerians, Jordanians, Moroccans and a Tunisian. They rely on some or all of the following Articles: 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 34 (right of individual petition), and on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens). The applicants complain of the risks to which they were exposed on account of their deportation to Libya, that they did not have an effective remedy against the decisions to deport them, that they were subjected to collective expulsion and that they were hindered in the exercise of their right to lodge an application with the Court. In an admissibility decision of 11 May 2006 the Court adjourned its examination in relation to 57 of the applicants in the absence of information as to their fate, and declared the applications partly admissible in respect of 14 applicants with regard to their complaints under Articles 2, 3, 13 and 34 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, and in respect of 13 applicants with regard only to their Article 34 complaints.   Montani v. Italy (no. 24950/06) The applicant, Andrea Montani, is an Italian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Parma (Italy). He was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for criminal conspiracy, murder, extortion, drug trafficking and other offences. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), he complains of being made subject to the special prison regime provided for by the Prison Administration Act – entailing restrictions on visits and monitoring of his correspondence – and of the lack of an effective remedy by which to obtain review of the decrees imposing the regime.   Andrzej Wierzbicki v. Poland (no. 48/03) The applicant, Andrzej Wierzbicki, was a Polish national who was born in 1949 and lived in Wrocław (Poland) at the relevant time. He died in July 2006 and the application to the Court was pursued by his mother. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained of his placement in pre-trial detention and of the treatment to which he was subjected as a result of his imprisonment, despite concerns about his state of health.   Wegera v. Poland (no. 141/07) The applicant, Marian Wegera, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and is currently in Lublin Prison in Poland. He was remanded in custody in 2004 on suspicion of four counts of serious fraud. Relying, among other provisions, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains, in particular, of the length of his pre-trial detention and of the restrictions imposed on contact with his family.   Felix Blau sp. z o.o. v. Poland (no. 1783/04) The applicant, Felix Blau sp. z o.o., is a limited liability company based in Wrocław (Poland). The applicant company complains about the excessive court fees required from it in order to proceed with an appeal in proceedings it had brought against the National Sickness Fund seeking payment of debts. The applicant company relies in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court).   Laranjeira Marques Da Silva v. Portugal (no. 16983/06) The applicant, António José Laranjeira Marques da Silva, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1963 and lives in Leiria (Portugal). He was the editor of a regional weekly newspaper at the relevant time and was convicted of breaching the confidentiality of the judicial investigation and of aggravated defamation, following the publication of two articles concerning proceedings brought against a well-known doctor and politician in the region for the sexual assault of a patient. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that the appeal court failed to examine his ground of appeal in which he alleged that the aggravating circumstance provided for by the Criminal Code should not apply. Under Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains of his conviction for defamation.   Palamariu v. Romania (no. 17145/04) The applicants, Constantin Palamariu and his wife Dorina Palamariu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1932 and 1940 respectively and live in Bacău (Romania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain of the length and the outcome of the proceedings which followed the criminal complaint with a civil-party application which they lodged against the persons occupying land belonging to them.   Abdurrahim Demir v. Turkey (no. 41213/02) The applicant, Abdurrahim Demir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul. He was taken into police custody in 1995 following a police operation in a house belonging to the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and complains of the lack of an effective investigation into the matter.   Aslantürk v. Turkey (no. 3884/04) The applicant, Ejder Aslantürk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Ankara. A building contractor, Mr Aslantürk complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for forgery. He relies in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Çetkin v. Turkey (no. 30068/02) The applicant, Bülent Çetkin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). In September 1999 he was arrested in connection with a murder investigation and was taken into police custody at Yenişehir gendarmerie headquarters in Bursa. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that he was ill-treated while in police custody and that no effective investigation was carried out into the actions of the gendarmes concerned.   Nisbet Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 23143/04) The applicant, Nisbet Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Istanbul. In February 2003 she was arrested while on her way to an unauthorised demonstration on the square at Kadıköy landing stage in Istanbul to protest against the possible intervention of US forces in Iraq. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), she complains that she was ill-treated by police officers and that no effective investigation was carried out in that regard, and that she was prevented from demonstrating peacefully.   Ocak v. Turkey (no. 33675/04) The applicant, Mehmet Ocak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Antalya (Turkey). His forebears owned land which in 1977 became part of State forestry land following a change to the land register which was not contested at the time. In 1998 he obtained a court decision granting him title to the land, which was then set aside by a higher court. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) he complains of the setting-aside of the decision in question and of the failure to pay him compensation.   Tuna v. Turkey (no. 22339/03) The applicants, Ahmet Baran Tuna and Mustafa Tarık Tuna, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1934 and 1958 and live in Istanbul. Their son and brother Faruk Tuna died in 1980 when he was a student from injuries sustained while he was being held in police custody for putting a poster on display. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain of the lack of an effective investigation to identify the police officers responsible for Faruk Tuna’s death; prosecution of the offence is now time-barred. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they further complain of the excessive length of the proceedings against the police officers.   Z.N.S. v. Turkey (no. 21896/08) The applicant, Z.N.S., is an Iranian national who was born in 1967. She entered Turkey in February 2005 and is currently held in the Kırkareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre (Turkey). Granted refugee status in December 2008, the applicant complains about the unlawfulness and conditions of her detention as well as her threatened deportation to Iran where she would be at real risk of death or ill-treatment. She relies on Article   2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   D’Aniello v. Italy (no. 28220/05) Zuccala v. Italy (no. 72746/01) In these cases the applicants complain of the inadequacy of expropriation compensation and the failure to pay compensation for the expropriation of their land. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Mrs   Zuccala also relies on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Andreescu Murăreţ and Others v. Romania (no. 4867/04) Caragheorghe and Others v. Romania (no. 38742/04) Stanca Ciobanu v. Romania (no. 38800/02) Varodi v. Romania (no. 8704/06) These cases concern the applicants’ 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). The applicants in the cases of Caragheorghe and Others and Varodi also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Just satisfaction Chibulcutean v. Romania (no. 19588/04) In a judgment of 21 April 2009, 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) on account of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicants’ favour, and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Chiva v. Romania (no. 46011/06) Hăbăgău v. Romania (no. 47166/06) Ion Olteanu and Others v. Romania (nos. 3198/04, 12040/06, 15534/06 and 49645/07) These cases concern the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Corbu v. Romania (no. 12393/05) Rogojină v. Romania (no. 6235/04) These cases concern the applicants’ inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Serban v. Romania (no. 3729/03) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that a final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Bozüyük v. Turkey (no. 3595/05) In this case the applicant complains of the delay by the authorities to pay compensation for expropriation which had been awarded to him and the loss in value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Nazmi Apaydın v. Turkey (no. 33742/05) In this case the applicant complains that he was deprived of his property, designated as 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. In the case of Demirtürk the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Huoltoasema Matti Eurén Oy and Others v. Finland (no. 26654/08) Rangdell v. Finland (no. 23172/08) Sobieccy v. Poland (no. 32594/03) Čižková v. Serbia (no. 8044/06) Dimitrijević and Jakovljević v. Serbia (no. 34922/07) Zongorová v. Slovakia (no. 28923/06) Demirtürk v. Turkey (no. 31345/05)     Thursday 21 January 2010   Just satisfaction Družstevní záložna Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic (no.72034/01) The applicants are Družstevní Záložna Pria, a credit union registered in Brno (the Czech Republic), and eight Czech nationals, members of the credit union and of its management and supervisory organs. In the course of the proceedings before the Court 633   other members of the credit union also joined the proceedings. In its judgment of 31   July 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) concerning the applicant credit union’s complaint about having been placed in receivership and the lack of impartiality of the judicial proceedings in that regard. All complaints by the individual applicants were declared inadmissible. The Court held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision.   Barret and Sirjean v. France (no. 13829/03) Fernandez and Others v. France (no. 28440/05) R.P. v. France (no. 10271/02) The applicants are eight French nationals who live in France and one company incorporated under French law. R.P. was born in 1932 and lives in Perpignan. Jean-Louis Barret and Paule Sirjean were born in 1946 and 1947 respectively and live in Ortiporio and Ghisonaccia. Marie-Ange Fernandez, Joséphine Fernandez, Electre Garcia and Lydia Fernandez Nougaro were born in 1945, 1923, 1920 and 1927 respectively and live in Marseilles, Aix-en-Provence and Paris. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they complain of the inaction of the authorities, who refused to provide police assistance in order to enforce final decisions in their favour concerning the unlawful occupation of their farmland and vineyards, located in Corsica, by farmers and Corsican nationalists.   Xavier Da Silveira v. France (no. 43757/05) The applicant, Caio Xavier Da Silveira, is a French and Brazilian national born in 1937. His principal occupation is as a lawyer practising in Porto (Portugal), but he also has a home in Châteaunef-en-Thymerais in France. In June 2005, in the course of an investigation concerning a person or persons unknown, a search was carried out and items were seized at his private residence in France, despite his objections and the fact that he had told the investigators that he was a lawyer practising in the European Union (the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for special guarantees in relation to searches of lawyers’ homes). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant complains of a breach of his right to respect for his home. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he also argues that he was not provided with an effective remedy before a domestic court by which to appeal against the search and the seizure of items.   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 Wildgruber the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Wildgruber v. Germany (nos. 42402/05 and 42423/05) Pakom Slobodan Dooel v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no.   33262/03)     ***   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.