CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline }   076 29.01.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   2 and 4 February 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 26 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 2   February 2010 and four on Thursday 4 February 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 2 February 2010   Klaus and Iouri Kiladze v. Georgia (application no. 7975/06) The applicants, Klaus Kiladze and his brother Iouri Kiladze, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1926 and 1928 respectively and live in Tbilisi. Having been the victims of political repression during the Soviet era, they brought an action in 1998 seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on the basis of the Law on victim status for persons subjected to political repression. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complain of the “legislative void” which denied them their economic rights under the Law in question.   Leone v. Italy (no. 30506/07) The applicants, Pietro and Donato Leone and Fosca Immacolata Motolese, are Italian nationals who were born in 1937, 1963 and 1940 respectively and live in San Giorgio Jonico (Italy). Some of their possessions were confiscated under an order made in the context of proceedings concerning the application of preventive measures against a member of their family suspected of belonging to a Mafia-type organisation. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain in particular that the hearings in those proceedings were not conducted in public.   Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova (No. 2) (no. 25196/04) The applicant is the Christian Democratic People’s Party, at the relevant time the opposition political party in the Republic of Moldova. Relying on Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicant political party complains about the authorities’ refusal to authorise a protest about respect for human rights and the Transdniestria conflict it wanted to hold in front of the Government building in Chişinău in January 2004.   Brożyna v. Poland (no. 7147/06) The applicant, Henryka Brożyna, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Olkusz (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Ms   Brożyna complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against her in 1999 – discontinued in 2005 – for threatening to kill and assault. Dąbrowska v. Poland (no. 34568/08) The applicant, Joanna Maria Dąbrowska, is a Polish national who lives in Białystok (Poland). Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Dąbrowska alleges that the Polish authorities have continually failed to enforce decisions in which she was granted custody of her son, born in 1998.   Kadłuczka v. Poland (no. 31438/06) Krosta v. Poland (no. 36137/04) The applicants, Jan Kadłuczka and Roman Krosta, are Polish nationals who were born in 1931 and 1922, respectively. Mr Kadłuczka lives in Kraków and Mr Krosta in Nowe Brzesko (Poland). During the Second World War both applicants were deported from Poland to Germany where they worked as forced labourers until the liberation in 1945. The cases concern the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation’s refusal to grant compensation – to Mr Kadłuczka and to Mr Krosta’s daughter – for the applicants’ forced labour during the war and the fact that there was no authority which could review the Foundation’s decisions. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court).   Kubaszewski v. Poland (no. 571/04) The applicant, Czesław Kubaszewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Kleczew (Poland). A local politician, Mr Kubaszewski complains that he was ordered to make an official apology in a newspaper for accusing the Municipal Board of misappropriation of public funds. He relies on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   Marian Sobczyński v. Poland (no. 35494/08) The applicant, Marian Sobczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Zabrze (Poland). Arrested in 2006 on suspicion of being a member of an organised criminal gang, tax fraud and perjury, Mr Sobczyński was released under police supervision in 2009. The criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand.   Nieruchomości Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (no. 32740/06) The applicant, Nieruchomości Sp. z o.o. , is a limited liability company under Polish law with its registered office in Legnica (Poland). In 2006 it commenced proceedings against two companies, claiming that the latter had not paid it the commission due for the property brokerage services it had provided. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complains of the allegedly arbitrary nature of the authorities’ refusal to exempt it from payment of the court fees for bringing its civil action.   Mariana Marinescu v. Romania (no. 36110/03) The applicant, Mariana Marinescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Oradea (Romania). At the relevant time she was a judge at the Bihor County Court, specialising in judicial reorganisation and liquidation cases. In 2000 she was the subject of a complaint and criminal proceedings were instituted against her. Following trial she was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment for accepting bribes and abuse of position. Relying, among other provisions, on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that she was unable to have examined the witness whose statement formed the basis for her conviction for abuse of position. Under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complains of her conditions of detention in prison, and in particular of overcrowding, the poor quality of the food and the poor conditions of hygiene.   Săileanu v. Romania (no. 46268/06) The applicant, Radu Săileanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns the proceedings relating to his divorce and the custody of his two daughters, born in the United States, which ended in a decision by the Romanian courts declining jurisdiction in the case by virtue of the Law on private international law relationships, on grounds including the fact that the applicant had married a United States national in that country and that the divorced couple’s last joint home had been in the United States. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains that the proceedings concerning his divorce and the custody of his daughters were excessively long. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he also complains of the fact that he was prevented for five years from remarrying and obtaining a court ruling on custody of his children.   Scundeanu v. Romania (no. 10193/02) The applicant, Ion Scundeanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bacău (Romania). After several criminal complaints alleging fraud were lodged by companies which had worked together with the company of which the applicant was a director, a criminal investigation was opened; the applicant was charged and was remanded in custody. Relying, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 2 and 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, that he was kept in pre-trial detention despite his state of health and that his detention was excessively long in view of the offences of which he stood accused.   Aizpurua Ortiz and Others v. Spain (no. 42430/05) The applicants are Magdaleno Aizpurua Ortiz and 55 other Spanish nationals who live or used to live in the province of Vizcaya (Spain). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain that they were deprived of the rights they had acquired to an additional retirement pension under a collective agreement concluded between their former employer and representatives of the company’s active workforce and validated by the Supreme Court.   Aktar v. Turkey (no. 3738/04) The applicant, Naim Aktar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr Aktar complains about the unfairness and excessive length of civil proceedings concerning his claim to title over seven plots of land in the Bozcaada region.   Eyüp Akdeniz v. Turkey (no. 11011/05) The applicant, Eyüp Akdeniz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. While he was performing his military service at Ereğli gendarmerie headquarters he contracted the hepatitis C virus. He was unable to bring an action for damages against the State on this account before the administrative courts because of the amount of the court fees and the fact that he was refused legal aid. He complains of this situation, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)   Güvercin v. Turkey (no. 28923/02) The applicant, Gökhan Güvercin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Ankara. In late 2001 he was arrested in the street on suspicion of theft. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was ill-treated by the police while in their custody following his arrest.   İsmail and Şeyhmus Kinay v. Turkey ( nos. 34683/07 and 34685/07) The applicants , İsmail Kinay and Şeyhmus Kinay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1955 respectively and are currently in Diyarbakır Prison (Turkey). They have been in pre-trial detention since the beginning of 2000 and criminal proceedings are pending against them for, among other offences, attempting to overthrow the Turkish constitutional order. Relying on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complain of the excessive length of both their pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against them.   Kaçmaz v. Turkey (no. 43648/05) The applicant, Abdulcelil Kaçmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and is currently in Kocaeli Prison (Turkey). In June 1996 he was arrested during an operation conducted against an illegal armed organisation in Istanbul. He was held in pre-trial detention throughout the ensuing criminal proceedings. After his initial conviction in 2003 was quashed and the case was reheard, he was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007; the sentence became final in April 2008. Relying, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the length of his pre-trial detention and the absence of effective remedies by which to appeal against the length of his detention and to obtain compensation for its allegedly unlawful nature. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also alleges that the proceedings against him were excessively long and that he had no effective remedy by which to complain of their length.   Mehmet Nuri Özen v. Turkey (no. 37619/05) The applicant, Mehmet Nuri Özen, is a Turkish national. He is currently serving a prison sentence in İzmir F-type Prison in Turkey for membership of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). On an unspecified date he handed over a fax to the prison authorities for forwarding to a newspaper. In July 2005 a prison disciplinary board refused to forward the fax and ordered its destruction; this decision was upheld by the courts. Relying, in particular, on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), the applicant complains about this measure. The case also raises issues under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) in relation to the disciplinary proceedings, and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in relation to the applicant’s conditions of detention.   Savgın v. Turkey (no. 13304/03) The applicants, Esmer Savgın and his brother, Kerem Savgın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1977 and 1981 respectively and live in Bitlis (Turkey). In late 2001 they received criminal convictions for aiding and abetting the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation) after they and some other youths chanted slogans in support of the PKK during the traditional Kurdish festival of Newroz . Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), they complain of their criminal conviction for chanting slogans, an offence not covered by the provisions of the Criminal Code. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), they further complain that they were given no opportunity to reply to the written opinion submitted by the Principal Public Prosecutor to the Court of Cassation concerning their appeal on points of law and that they did not have the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody.   Sinan Işık v. Turkey (no. 21924/05) The applicant, Sinan Işık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in İzmir (Turkey). He is a member of the Alevi faith (regarded by some Alevi scholars as a separate religion and by others as a branch of Islam). In 2004 he requested that his identity card – on which the holder’s religion is indicated – feature the word “Alevi” rather than the word “Islam”. Relying on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), he complains of the fact that his request was refused. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he further complains of the fact that the authorities’ refusal was based solely on the opinion of the Religious Affairs Directorate, a public body.   Kemal Taşkın and Others v. Turkey (nos. 30206/04, 37038/04, 43681/04, 45376/04, 12881/05, 28697/05, 32797/05 and 45609/05) The applicants are eight Turkish nationals of Kurdish origin. At the end of 2003 they each brought proceedings before the competent court seeking to have their Turkish first names changed to Kurdish names. Their requests were refused (or, at least, they were not allowed to spell the name in the way they wished) because the names they had chosen contained characters not in the Turkish official alphabet. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they complain of the decisions refusing them permission.   Müslüm Çiftçi v. Turkey (no. 30307/03) The applicant, Müslüm Çiftçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey). He is a civil servant and veterinary surgeon and belongs to a trade union ( Tarım-Gıda Sen ). He was transferred to another province on disciplinary grounds for having taken part in a hunger strike organised by his trade union in late 1998. The move separated him from his family and allegedly had adverse effects on his health. He complains of his transfer relying, in particular, on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   Zehni Doğan v. Turkey (no. 1515/04) The applicant, Zehni Doğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul. Mr Doğan was arrested in October 2001 on suspicion of involvement in fraud and forgery. He was released in July 2003 and subsequently acquitted for lack of evidence. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3 and   5 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the fact that he had no right to compensation for the excessive length of that detention.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Magoch v. Poland (no. 29539/07)     Thursday 4 February 2010   Dechko Raykov v. Bulgaria (no. 35256/02) The applicant, Dechko Donchev Raykov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Belomortsi, in the municipality of Omurtag (Bulgaria). In October 2000 he was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of rape; he was convicted with final effect in July 2002. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he alleges that he was subjected to police brutality during questioning, that no effective investigation was conducted in that regard and that his treatment resulted from the fact that he belonged to the Roma community. Further relying, in particular, on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, particularly because he was obliged to prepare his appeal submissions without knowing the reasons for the first-instance judgment and because he was not assisted by an officially appointed lawyer during the preliminary investigation.   Gerdzhikov v. Bulgaria (no. 41008/04) The applicant, Dimitar Iliev Gerdzhikov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Rosen (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Gerdzhikov complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for mismanagement of the assets of an agricultural co-operative for which he was acting as liquidator.   Malkov v. Estonia (no. 31407/07) The applicant, Deniss Malkov, is a stateless person who was born in 1979 and is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence in Estonia for murder and destruction of property. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Malkov complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him.   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Gromzig v. Germany (no. 13791/06)     ***   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.