CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 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 }   060 22.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   26 and 28 January 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 32   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 26   January 2010 and seven on Thursday 28 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 26 January 2010   Balint v. Romania (application no. 44954/04) Bogdan v. Romania (no. 21750/04) The applicants, Ion Balint and Constantin Bogdan, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1969 and 1957 respectively and live in Bucharest. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) both applicants complain, in particular, of the length of criminal proceedings concerning robbery and trespassing in the first case, and of a claim for damages in the second case.   Abdo v. Turkey (no. 17681/04) The applicant, Şükrü Abdo, is a Syrian national who was born in 1970 and is currently in prison in Midyat (Turkey). He was arrested in 1996 by police from the Counter-Terrorism Department for being a member of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), Article   6 § 2   (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about his pre-trial detention, its duration and the lack of a remedy for challenging its lawfulness, and of having been tortured while in police custody. Relying on Article 6, he also complains about the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him before the domestic courts.   Alican v. Turkey (no. 21868/02) The applicants, Kamuran Alican, Ramazan Alican and Ahmet Alican, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1983, 1946 and 1936 respectively and live in Turkey. The case concerns the death of the second and third applicants’ sons and the wounding of the first applicant by a grenade explosion in the vicinity of a military base in 1994. The applicants complain, in particular, that no effective investigation was conducted into the incident, in breach of Article   2 (right to life), and that their rights under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) were violated by the excessive length of the compensation proceedings.   Alıcı and Omak v. Turkey (no. 57653/00) The applicants, Halim Alıcı et Hamza Omak, are Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1951 and 1967 and live in Bingöl (Turkey). On suspicion of being members of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation), they were arrested in 1999 and placed in police custody following a search at their homes. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain of ill-treatment during police custody and of the lack of an investigation into their allegations. Under Articles   5   §§   2, 3, 4 (right to liberty and security), they also complain that they were not informed of the reason for their arrest, that they had no means of having the lawfulness of their detention verified and that they had not been brought promptly before a judge. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they alleged that the judicial authorities lacked independence and impartiality and complained that they had not been assisted by a lawyer while in police custody.     Atlı v. Turkey (no. 43529/04) The applicant, Şükrü Atlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Midyat (Turkey). Having received warning of an imminent attack by the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation), the police on duty at the border with Iraq arrested the applicant and placed him in custody. The applicant relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning his police custody. Under Article   6   §§   1, 2, and   3   c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that he was tortured in police custody and that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair.   Çoban v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 4977/04) Ömer Berber v. Turkey (no. 45084/04) The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Küçük Hasan Çoban was born in 1975 and was in prison in Ankara at the time the application was lodged. Ömer Berber was born in 1975 and lives in Adana. They were arrested in 1998 and 1995 respectively, on suspicion of working with illegal organisations. Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they complain that they were not assisted by a lawyer while in police custody and that the subsequent criminal proceedings against them were unfair. Mr   Ömer Berber also complains about the length of the proceedings.   Demir and İpek v. Turkey (nos. 42138/07 and 42143/07) The applicants, Mahmut Demir and Mustafa İpek, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1970 respectively and are currently detained in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, they complain that the length of their pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against them was excessive, in breach of Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial).   Emen v. Turkey (no. 25585/02) The applicant, Habil Emen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Mardin (Turkey). In 2001 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in the service of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). The court based its findings on evidence from the file in a previous case, in which the applicant was not involved. Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   d) (right to a fair trial), Mr Emen complained that he had not been able to question the people whose statements had played an essential part in establishing his guilt. He submits that the fact that the Turkish courts took those statements – which he alleges were extracted under duress – into account violated his right to a fair trial.   Kürüm v. Turkey (no. 56493/07) The applicant, Kazım Kürüm, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and is currently in prison in Edirne (Turkey). In March 1997 he was arrested and placed in custody as part of an operation carried out in Istanbul against an illegal armed organisation. He was convicted in 2002 by a first-instance judgment that was set aside by the Court of Cassation in 2003. The criminal proceedings are apparently still pending and the applicant is still in detention pending their outcome. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains of the length of his detention and the lack of an effective remedy to challenge the length and lawfulness of his detention and claims compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention. Relying on Article   6   §1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was excessive.   Mızrap Ateş v. Turkey (no. 7933/05) The applicant, Mızrap Ateş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey). He was arrested in 1998 in the course of an operation against the illegal organisation DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the length of his detention pending trial.   Özer v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 871/08) Ürper and Others v. Turkey (nos 55036/07, 55564/07, 1228/08, 1478/08, 4086/08, 6302/08 and 7200/08) The applicants are 19 Turkish nationals. They are, or were, journalists, editors, executive directors or owners of newspapers and press companies. Since 2001 in one case and 2007 in the other they have had criminal proceedings brought against them and editions of their newspapers have been suspended or seized. In the Özer (no. 2) case this was because of the publication of an article about brutal police intervention in Turkish prisons and, in Ürper and Others, for supporting the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain about the measures taken against them or their publications. They allege that their trials were not fair for various reasons, and/or that their right to be presumed innocent was not respected, in breach of Articles 6 and/or 13. They also complain that the principle “no punishment without law”, enshrined in Article 7, was violated, as was their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article1 of Protocol No.   1.   Ebanks v. the United Kingdom (no. 36822/06) The applicant, Kurt Ebanks, is a British national from the Cayman Islands who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence   for murder in the Cayman Islands. He complains that his rights under Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) were violated by the fact that in   his appeal against his conviction, on the grounds of inadequate legal representation, no oral evidence was heard regarding a factual dispute as to the conduct of his defence at trial.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Aldo Leoni v. Italy (application no. 67780/01) In this case the applicant complains of failure to pay compensation for the expropriation of his land and a building. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Just satisfaction Avramenko v. Moldova (no. 29808/02) In a judgment of 6 February 2007, 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 late enforcement of a judgment in the applicant’s favour, and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Bădoi v. Romania (no. 22815/07) This case concerns the applicant’s inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to him that had been illegally nationalised. He relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ilie Ionescu v. Romania (no. 25963/03) This case concerns an action for recovery of property. The applicant relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Loewenton v. Romania (no. 111/07) Nita v. Romania (no. 24202/07) Veniamin v. Romania (no. 19438/05) 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) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Aurelia Popa v. Romania (no. 1690/05) Niculae Petre Popa v. Romania (no. 11249/06) Tureanu v. Romania (no. 9822/06) 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).   Ţuluş and Others v. Romania (no. 40892/04) This case concerns the applicants’ complaint that a final decision in their favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Gümrükçüler and Others v. Turkey (no. 9580/03) Keçeli and Başpınar v. Turkey (no. 21426/03) Pak v. Turkey (no. 21516/04) In these cases 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). In the case of Gümrükçüler and Others the applicants also rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Yener and Albayrak v. Turkey (no. 42900/04) In this case the applicants complain that there was no public hearing in proceedings brought against them. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).     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 Zeytinli the applicant also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Gökçek and Others v. Turkey (no. 6219/04) Zeytinli v. Turkey (no. 42952/04)     Thursday 28 January 2010   Puchstein v. Austria (no. 20089/06) Stechauner v. Austria (no. 20087/06) The applicants, Hans Herbert Puchstein and Michael Stechauner, are two Austrian medical practitioners who live in St   Oswald and Großau respectively. The cases concern their claim for reimbursement of fees under their contract with the Regional Health Insurance Board. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within a reasonable time) both applicants complain that the length of the proceedings was excessive and that the Regional Appeals Commission was not independent and impartial.   Simeonov v. Bulgaria (no. 30122/03) The applicant, Tihomir Kolev Simeonov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Dobrich (Bulgaria). He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for burglary. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the conditions in which he was detained pending trial and about the length of his pre-trial detention. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that his wife, and consequently his daughter, a minor, were not allowed to visit him in prison.   Just satisfaction Brauer v. Germany (no. 3545/04) The applicant, Brigitte Brauer, is a German national who was born in 1948 in Oberschwöditz (the former German Democratic Republic (GDR)). She now lives in Lennestadt (Germany (FRG)). In a judgment delivered on 29   May 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the fact that the applicant, having been born out of wedlock, was unable to assert her inheritance rights. The Court held that the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and invited the parties, within three months   from the date of   the judgment, to notify the Court of any agreement that they might reach.   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 cases of Rambauske and Pavić the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Rambauske v. Austria (no. 45369/07) Pavić v. Croatia (no. 21846/08) Risteska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 38183/04)   ***   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.