CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 }   143 19.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   23 and 25 February 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 24   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 23   February 2010 and eight on 25   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 23 February 2010   Nousiainen v. Finland (application no. 45952/08) The applicants are two Finnish nationals who live in Finland. Toivo Pekka Nousiainen was born in 1931 and lives in Oulu, and his son, Veli-Pekka Nousiainen, was born in 1958 and lives in Espoo. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complain of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought in June 2000 as a result of their complaint concerning an incident that same month in which the first applicant was attacked by a group of men and in which both applicants suffered injuries.   Pińkowski v. Poland (no. 16579/03) The applicant, Mariusz Pińkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Częstochowa (Poland). Relying, in particular, on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, he complains about having been detained on remand, starting in March 2000, for an excessively long time on charges of being an accomplice to an armed robbery and murder in France, and with being a member of an organised criminal gang in France.   Wasilewska and Kałucka v. Poland (nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04) The applicants are two Polish nationals who were born in 1980 and 1949, respectively, and live in Łódź (Poland). Sylwia Wasilewska was the girlfriend of Przemysław Kałucki who was killed by the police on 23   August 2002 after they fired about 40 bullets within 15 seconds at the car in which Przemysław was driving away from them outside of Spała sports centre. The second applicant, Barbara Kałucka, is Przemysław’s mother. Relying on Articles   2 (right to life) and   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Ms Wasilewska and Ms Kałucka complain about Przemysław having been killed unjustifiably by the police and about no effective investigation having been carried into the circumstances of his death.   Sychev v. Russia (no. 14824/02) The applicant, Oleg Sychev, is a military serviceman, having served between 1996 and 2000 as the head of road construction department in Tyumen Garrison. He is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Novyy Urengoy (Russia). Relying, in particular, on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains about his detention on remand in June 2000 on suspicion of aggravated theft and especially about his repeated placement in psychiatric institutions for an examination of his mental condition. He also complains about not having been released pending trial and about his trial not having been conducted within reasonable time.   Đermanović v. Serbia (no. 48497/06) The applicant, Dušan Đermanović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Novi Sad (Serbia). Relying, in particular, on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the length of his pre-trial detention on suspicion of abuse of power and forging of official documents, which started in February 2004, as well as about the inadequate medical care he received while in detention.   Ağnidis v. Turkey (no. 21668/02) The applicants, Ekaterina Ağnidis and her daughter Evridiki Ağnidis, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1912 and 1937 respectively and live in Istanbul. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they complain of the annulment of their certificate of inheritance by the domestic courts. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they allege that they did not receive a fair hearing during the proceedings before the Istanbul Court of First Instance.   Ahmet Arslan and Others v. Turkey (no. 41135/98) The applicants are Ahmet Arslan and 126 other Turkish nationals who all belong to a religious group known to its members as Aczimendi tarikatÿ . Following a religious ceremony in Kocatepe mosque, the applicants were arrested while wearing the distinctive dress of their sect, which includes a turban and a tunic. They were convicted following criminal proceedings on account of their manner of dress in a public place, which was held to be in breach of the legislation on the wearing of headgear and certain religious garments. Relying on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), they complain of their criminal conviction.   Alpdemir v. Turkey (no. 17251/03) The applicant, Yılmaz Alpdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). He was twice taken into police custody for membership of an illegal armed gang. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his detention in police custody was unlawful, that he had no remedy by which to have its lawfulness reviewed and that he was not brought promptly before a judge.   Ekşi and Ocak v. Turkey (no. 44920/04) The applicants, Yılmaz Ekşi and Behlül Ocak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1953 and 1986 respectively and live in Istanbul. In 2003 they took part with around fifty other people in a ceremony to commemorate the events of 1 May 1977, known as “Bloody May Day”, when thirty-four people died on Taksim Square in Istanbul. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they were ill ‑ treated by police officers during the forced dispersal of their demonstration and that the courts granted impunity to the officers concerned.   Emil Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 45652/04) The applicant, Emil Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Antalya (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the length of the proceedings brought against him for fraud in relation to a purchase of textiles.   Erkan İnan v. Turkey (no. 13176/05) The applicant, Erkan İnan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Van (Turkey). In January 2005 he was arrested and taken into police custody as part of a police operation against the perpetrators of a bomb attack. He was suspected of membership of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation). Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the proceedings in which he sought to challenge the lawfulness of his subsequent pre-trial detention.   Gökhan Yıldırım v. Turkey (no. 31950/05) The applicant, Gökhan Yıldırım, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Kayseri (Turkey). Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains about having been tortured in police custody in February 2001 after he was arrested following his attempt to escape from the police, who had arrived at his flat, and his taking some of his neighbours hostages. Relying further on 6 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Yıldırım complains of not having had a fair hearing in the subsequent proceedings against the police officers accused of having tortured him.   Nurten Deniz Bülbül v. Turkey (no. 4649/05) The applicant, Nurten Deniz Bülbül, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), she alleges in essence that the authorities did not take the necessary steps to prevent her son’s suicide in 2003, while he was performing his military service. She also complains that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation in order to establish with certainty the circumstances of his death and did not consider the possibility that he had been killed.   Sebahattin Evcimen v. Turkey (no. 31792/06) The applicant, Sebahattin Evcimen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Istanbul. Relying, in particular, on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains about the unfairness and excessive length of the civil proceedings in which he sought compensation for an accident he had at work in February 1993 in which he injured seriously his leg.   Yeşilyurt v. Turkey (no. 15649/05) The applicant, Bahar Yeşilyurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Batman (Turkey). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, and of the excessively long criminal proceedings brought against him in October 1995.   Yoldaş v. Turkey (no. 27503/04) The applicant, Mehmet Yoldaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Elbistan (Turkey). In December 2003 he was handed over to the Turkish authorities by the Syrian authorities, having been accused of membership of the PKK/KONGRA-GEL, an illegal organisation. He was detained in police custody for six days. Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the excessive length of that detention. Under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he further complains that he did not have the assistance of a lawyer while in police custody.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Man and Cusa v. Romania (no. 33768/04) Maria Violeta Lăzărescu v. Romania (no. 10636/06) These cases concern the applicants’ inability to recover possession of property that had been nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Marton v. Romania (no. 22960/06) Traian-Constantin Nicolescu v. Romania (no. 10311/03) These two cases concern the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final decisions in their favour. The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   S.C. Silvogrecu Com. S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 5355/04) This case concerns the annulment by the domestic courts of an appeal lodged by the applicant company because it had not paid stamp duty. The applicant company relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   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 Gürkan (Yavaş) the applicant also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and in the cases of Anticor-Sociedade de Anti-Corrosão, Lda. and Uyar the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Anticor-Sociedade de Anti-Corrosão, Lda. v. Portugal (no. 33661/06) Gürkan (Yavaş) v. Turkey (no. 34294/04) Uyar v. Turkey (no. 17756/06)     Thursday 25 February 2010   Lisica v. Croatia (no. 20100/06) The applicants, Zlatko Lisica and Meri Lisica, are Croatian nationals who were both born in 1978 and live in Zadar (Croatia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), they complain that the criminal proceedings against them on charges of robbery of a bank vehicle in 2000 were unfair, alleging that they were not informed of or present during the search of two cars, when evidence was obtained.   Crabtree v. Czech Republic (no. 41116/04) The applicant, Ronald David Crabtree, is a British national who was born in 1957 and lives in Liphook (United Kingdom). He complains that his pre-trial detention in the Czech Republic on suspicion of fraud in 2003 was in violation of, in particular, Article   5   §§   1   (c) and   5 (right to liberty and security), as it was not extended every three months as required by the relevant provisions of national law.   Renaud v. France (no. 13290/07) The applicant, Patrice Renaud, is a French national who was born in 1967 and lives in Sens (France). In 2005 (and on appeal in 2006) he was convicted in criminal proceedings for defaming and publicly insulting a citizen discharging a public mandate, on account of remarks concerning the mayor of Sens published on the Internet site of the association of which he was president and webmaster. Relying, in particular, on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains of his conviction.   Kazyulin v. Russia (no. 31849/05) The applicant, Vladimir Kazyulin, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow. He complains that the criminal proceedings against him on charges of hooliganism and unlawful possession of firearms, which started in 1995 and are still pending, were excessively long and that he did not have an effective remedy in this respect, in violation of Articles   6   § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Korovina v. Russia (no. 24178/05) Mordachev v. Russia (no. 7944/05) These cases concern the applicants’ complaint that final judgments in their favour were quashed by way of supervisory review. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   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 Kupriny the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kurt Müller v. Germany (no. 36395/07) Kupriny v. Russia (no. 24827/06)     ***   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.