CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 février 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 }   123 12.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   16 and 18 February 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 14 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 16 February 2010 and 28 Chamber judgments on Thursday 18 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 16 February 2010   Barbaro v. Italy (application no. 16436/02) The applicant, Francesco Barbaro, is an Italian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Carinola (Italy). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains of severe restrictions on his right of access to a court to challenge ministerial decrees placing him under the special regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act.   Kostka v. Poland (no. 29334/06) The applicant, Stanisław Kostka, is a Polish national, born in 1934, and lives in Chmielno (Poland). Having been deported to Germany as a child with his parents with a view to performing forced labour in agriculture, he applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation for compensation. The Foundation’s verification commission decided that he was not eligible, as it could not be established that the family’s assignment to work in Germany had been compulsory. The applicant’s appeal against the decision was dismissed by the Foundation’s Appeal Commission and the administrative courts, at two levels of jurisdiction, refused to examine his appeals. He complains of this refusal, relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Albert v. Romania (no. 31911/03) The applicant, Almos Albert, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Sfântu Gheorghe (Romania). In 2002, while he was mayor of that town, which has a substantial Hungarian minority, he ordered a number of measures including removal of the Romanian national flag from the façade of the town hall and translation of the municipality’s name into Hungarian on the letterhead of its official documents. As a result he was served with a notice that he had committed a minor offence and was fined. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he submits that the proceedings to have the notice set aside were unfair.   Lazăr v. Romania (no. 32146/05) The applicant, Eugenia Lazăr, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Dobra (Romania). She complains about the death of her 22-year-old son, caused in her view by shortcomings on the part of the hospital departments to which he was admitted, and about the manner in which the authorities conducted the investigation of her criminal complaint against the doctors who treated her son.   V.D. v. Romania (no. 7078/02) The applicant, V.D., is a Romanian national who was born in 1969 and is currently being held in Giurgiu Prison (Romania). Having been initially detained pending trial and subsequently imprisoned following his conviction for rape and armed robbery, he complains, under Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §§   1 and 3   (d) (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) in particular, about the refusal to provide him with dentures – after he had lost all his teeth while in prison – and alleges that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair, especially as regards the issue of expert reports. He further alleges, under Articles 34 (individual applications) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), that his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights was hindered.   Akdaş v. Turkey (no. 41056/04) The applicant, Rahmi Akdaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Bandırma (Turkey). He is a publisher and in 1999 published the Turkish translation of Guillaume Apollinaire’s erotic novel Les onze mille verges , first published in France in 1907 .   Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), he complains about the seizure of the book by the authorities and the criminal penalty imposed on him for publishing obscene material. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains in particular about the length of the criminal proceedings and the financial loss resulting from the seizure of the publications in question.   Alkes v. Turkey (no. 3044/04) The applicant, Ali Ümit Alkes, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Istanbul. While still a minor, he was arrested during a search of his home on suspicion of taking part in an armed robbery on behalf of an illegal organisation. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody (including beatings, squeezing of the testicles, electric shocks, hosing with cold water, “Palestinian hanging” and psychological harassment) and that the police officers involved went unpunished. In addition, relying on Article   6   §§   1, 2 and 3 (d) (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains about the length of the proceedings against him and alleges that his case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal and that his right to presumption of innocence was infringed.   Tokmak v. Turkey (no. 16185/06) The applicant, Fatma Tokmak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. She was arrested in 1996 in the course of an operation against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal armed organisation). Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), she complains about the length of her pre-trial detention, which lasted nine years.   Yeşilmen and Others v. Turkey (no. 7078/02) The applicants, Şabeddin Yeşilmen, Mehmet Çelik and Gülseren Özdemir, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1971, 1967 and 1978 respectively and are currently imprisoned in Tekirdağ and Gebze (Turkey). They were arrested on different dates in the course of an operation against an illegal armed organisation. Relying on Article 5   §§   3, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security), they complain in particular about the length of their pre-trial detention. Under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain about the length of the criminal proceedings against them and the lack of any remedies in respect of that complaint.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Ciobaniuc v. Romania (no. 13067/03) Pică v. Romania (no. 25434/05) These cases concern the applicants’ inability to recover possession of property or effective compensation for property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. The applicants rely 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 Raita the applicant also relies on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and in the case of Pereira the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Raita v. Finland (no. 16207/05) Pereira v. Portugal (no. 46595/06) Ateşsönmez v. Turkey (no. 22487/05)     Thursday 18 February 2010   Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06) The applicant, Dražen Lesjak, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1974 in lives in Trnovec Bartolovečki (Croatia). Having been employed by a local police department where he worked at the catering service, he was dismissed without a formal decision after the catering service had been outsourced to a third party. A civil action he brought against his former employer was, after a conflict of jurisdiction, eventually declared inadmissible. He complains that the domestic courts’ refusal to examine the merits of his case violated his rights under Articles 6 § 1 (access to court) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). He furthermore invokes Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, as in the case of a former colleague in the same situation the courts had eventually decided to examine its merits.   Baccichetti v. France (no. 22584/06) The applicant, Yves Baccichetti, is a French national who was born in 1954 and lives in Jussy (France). He is a stomatologist qualified to perform jaw and facial surgery. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that disciplinary proceedings instituted against him in 2003 by a patient disputing the cost and appropriateness of four operations were unfair, in particular because of a breach of the equality-of-arms principle.   Taffin and Contribuables Associés v. France (no. 42396/04) The applicants are Benoite Taffin, a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Paris, and Contribuables Associés, a non-profit-making association. The first applicant was publication director of the magazine Tous contribuables , published by the second applicant. In 2001 the magazine published an article accusing a tax official of serious irregularities allegedly committed in the course of a tax inspection concerning G.L., a well-known former television presenter and producer. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain about their criminal conviction for public defamation of a civil servant as a result of the article.   Matthaiou and Others v. Greece (no. 17556/08) The applicants are four Greek nationals, together with the daughters and sole heirs of a fifth applicant who died in 2008 (after the application was lodged). The five applicants were the co-owners of a townhouse in Naousa (Greece), known as the “House of the Hagiographer Christodoulos Matthaios”. In 2000 the State expropriated the house for use as a museum and for general cultural activities. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain that the State did not comply with court decisions awarding them compensation for expropriation and ordering the State to pay them the sums awarded, plus interest.   Pechlivanidis and Others v. Greece (no. 48380/07) The applicants are eight Greek nationals who live in Athens and are the co-owners of a 210 sq. m plot of land in Moschato (Greece). In 1987 the town council reclassified their land as a “green area” and a “sports and leisure zone”. As no steps had been taken in the meantime to develop the land for that purpose, the applicants obtained a decision from the Piraeus Administrative Court in 2007 ordering the State to lift the encumbrance on their property. Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain about the refusal by the Greek authorities to comply with that decision.   Aliyeva v. Russia (no. 1901/05) Iriskhanova and Iriskhanov v. Russia (no. 35869/05) These two cases concern the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives disappeared and were then killed after being detained by Russian servicemen in Chechnya. All applicants further complain that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They rely in particular on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Anatoliy Tarasov v. Russia (no. 3950/02) The applicant, Anatoliy Tarasov, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a prison sentence in correctional colony IK-3 in the Bashkortostan Republic (Russia). Convicted of a number of offenses including murder and robbery, he complains that the criminal charges against him were reclassified in a supervisory review hearing without him being able to present his arguments, in breach of Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial). Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) and   34 (right of individual petition), he also alleges that the prison authorities had interfered with his correspondence and that he had been intimidated in connection with his application to the Court.   Zaichenko v. Russia (no. 39660/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Zaichenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Lazarevo (Russia). Convicted of stealing diesel from the company for which he worked as a driver and sentenced to a suspended prison sentence, he complains that his conviction was based on admissions he made to police before the trial in the absence of a lawyer, in breach of Article   6 (right to a fair trial).   Baysakov and Others v. Ukraine (no. 54131/08) The applicants, Yesentay Baysakov, Zhumbai Baysakov, Arman Zhekebayev, and Sergei Gorbenko, are Kazakhstani nationals born in 1962, 1960, 1971 and 1963 respectively. They currently live in Kyiv. The case concerns their possible extradition to Kazakhstan for prosecution on charges of a number of offenses including organised crime, conspiracy to murder and tax evasion. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain that if extradited to Kazakhstan they would be subjected to ill-treatment by the authorities and unacceptable conditions of detention. They further maintain that in Kazakhstan they would be subjected to an unfair trial, in violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial), and   that they have no effective remedies to prevent their extradition, in violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Chesnyak v. Ukraine (no. 1809/03) The applicant, Fedir Chesnyak, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Zaporizhzhya (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) he complains that the criminal proceedings instituted against him in connection with smuggling goods to Ukraine, lasting seven years and two months for pre-trial investigation and three levels of jurisdiction, were excessively long.   Garkavyy v. Ukraine (no. 25978/07) Gavazhuk v. Ukraine (no. 17650/02) The applicants are two Ukrainian nationals. Aleksandr Garkavyy was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Ukraine, and Boris Gavazhuk was born in 1971 and is serving a prison sentence at the Berdychiv Town Correctional colony (Prison) No.   70 Zhytomyr (Ukraine). In 1999, Mr Gavazhuk’s name was placed on the list of persons suspected of a crime and he subsequently was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. As for Mr Garkavyy, he was placed in detention under the Convention on Extradition on the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the Prague City Court after he had been found guilty of murder and unlawful possession of arms there. Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) the applicants allege that their detentions were unlawful. Mr   Gavazhuk also relies on Article   6   §1 (right to a fair trial), complaining about the admission of evidence by the domestic courts.   Myronenko v. Ukraine (no. 15938/02) The applicant, Kateryna Myronenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Lozova (Ukraine). Relying on Article   2 (right to life) she complains about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of her son who was found dead in his house, in which he lived alone.   Nikiforenko v. Ukraine (no. 14613/03) The applicant, Lyudmila Nikiforenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Chervonopartizansk (Ukraine). In 1997, criminal proceedings were instituted against her for having broken into an apartment and taken a bicycle which had belonged to her ex-husband. Relying on Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains of the length of these proceedings, which were terminated by the prosecutor in 2009 for lack of proof of crime. Relying on Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 (freedom of movement), she complains of having been placed under an obligation not to abscond during the proceedings.   Puzan v. Ukraine (no. 51243/08) The applicant, Dmitriy Puzan, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1980 and is currently detained in Simferopol pre-trial detention centre awaiting his extradition to Belarus following drug-related offences. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that if extradited he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment and flagrant denial of justice by the Belarus authorities. Relying on Article   5   §§   1   (f) and   4 (right to liberty and security), he further complains that he is unlawfully detained by the Ukrainian authorities and that there is no effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention. Finally, relying on Article 34 (individual applications), he complains of having been questioned by the assistant prosecutor in order to deter him from applying to the Court.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Abbasov v. Russia (no. 11470/03) Gribanenkov v. Russia (no. 16583/04) These cases concern the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour in good time. They rely on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Gribanenkov the applicant also complains of the length of the proceedings and he further relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Nikolay Zaytsev v. Russia (no. 3447/06) This case concerns in particular the applicant’s complaints that a final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. He relies on Articles   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), as well as 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.   Chubakova v. Ukraine (no. 17674/05) Gurynenko v. Ukraine (no. 37246/04) Khalak v. Ukraine (no. 39028/04) Malanchuk and Vavrenyuk v. Ukraine (no. 5211/05) Mykulyn v. Ukraine (no. 35187/04) Prekrasnyy v. Ukraine (no. 33697/04) Rostunova v. Ukraine (no. 20165/04) Udovik v. Ukraine (no. 39855/04) Yelena Ivanova v. Ukraine (no. 4640/04)   *** 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.