CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } 164 26.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   2 and 4 March 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 18   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 2   March 2010 and 12 on Thursday 4 March 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 March 2010   Adamkiewicz v. Poland (application no. 54729/00) The applicant, Paweł Adamkiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Pniewy (Poland). At the age of 15 he was accused of murdering a 12-year-old boy. At the close of proceedings conducted under the 1982 Procedure Act as applicable to minors, he was found guilty of the charges against him and placed in a reformatory for six years. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Adamkiewicz complains of the restrictions placed on the exercise of his defence rights during the investigation and the fact that statements made by him then were admitted at the trial. He also alleges that the children’s court that tried him had not been impartial, since the judge who directed the disputed investigation was also a member of the bench that examined his case.   Hajoł v. Poland (no. 1127/06) The applicant, Paweł Hajoł, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Cracow (Poland). He suffers from various chronic health problems, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, cirrhosis of the liver and obesity. For that reason, he was granted early retirement from his duties as a prosecutor. In 2004 proceedings were brought against him (?) for presumed influence peddling. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that, in the course of those proceedings, he was placed and kept in pre-trial detention, in spite of his state of health and for a duration that he considered excessively lengthy.   Kozak v. Poland (no. 13102/02) The applicant, Piotr Kozak, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Szczecin (Poland). Relying in particular on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Kozak alleges that, because of his homosexual orientation, the Polish courts denied him the right to succeed to a tenancy after the death of his partner.   Antică and Company “R” v. Romania (no. 26732/03) The applicants are Andreea Florin Antică, a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Bucharest, and the public company “R”, a publishing company whose registered office is in Bucharest. In January 1999 the newspaper România liberă published two articles concerning the “Megapower case”, which received considerable media coverage at the time. That case concerned the major financial participation by the Romanian State in an American enterprise (Megapower) which went bankrupt. The applicants were held civilly liable for defamation for having published one of these articles accusing a former manager of Megapower of having fraudulently benefited from the case. Relying in particular on Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain not only of their conviction, but also that it was the result of unfair and excessively lengthy proceedings.   Grosaru v. Romania (no. 78039/01) The applicant, Mircea Grosaru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. He was a candidate in the parliamentary elections of November 2000, running for the seat assigned to the Italian minority in Romania. The “Italian Community of Romania" (one of the organisations representing the Italian minority) put him forward as a candidate in 19 out of 42 constituencies. The organisation obtained 21,263 votes at national level, including a majority – 5,624 votes – for Mr Grosaru. The electoral office decided, however, to assign the parliamentary seat to another candidate, who had received only 2,943 votes in total but had received them in a single constituency. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), taken in isolation and together with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Grosaru complains that he was not assigned the seat in Parliament.   Moculescu v. Romania (no. 15636/04) F The applicant, Maria Moculescu, was born in 1947 and lives in Târgu-Jiu (Romania). In 1969 a plot of land belonging to her was nationalised and the use of it granted to a local cooperative for the construction of a building. In 2002 Ms Moculescu succeeded in recovering possession of the land, but her applications for the payment of rent by the cooperative – which had become a private-law commercial company – were dismissed, on the ground that the 1996 Law on Cooperative Organisations gave the cooperative a free right of use over the land. The building was sold to another commercial company in 2003. Ms Moculescu’s action to have that contract set aside and to obtain acknowledgment of her alleged ownership of the building was dismissed. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), she complains that it is impossible to obtain possession of her land.   Barmaksız v. Turkey (no. 1004/03) The applicant, Bülent Barmaksız, is a Turkish national who was born in 965 and lives in Bolu (Turkey). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and to correspondence), he complains about the systematic surveillance in prison of his correspondence with his lawyer and, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), alleges that the tribunals which examined his case – the prison’s disciplinary panel, the judge responsible for the execution of sentences and the assize court – were not impartial and independent and dismissed his applications without giving reasons.   Lütfi Demirci and Others v. Turkey (no. 28809/05) The applicants, Lütfi Demirci, Fadime Demirci, Döndü Demirci, Sabire Demirci and Kadir Demirci, are five Turkish nationals who were born in 1947, 1965, 1980, 1989 and 1985 respectively and live in Samsun (Turkey). They are the father, mother, brothers and sisters of Mr Atalay Demirci, who committed suicide on 6 January 2003 while carrying out his military service. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants allege that the authorities did not take measures which could have prevented the suicide of their relative, who had a medical history of psychological problems and had been prescribed anti-depressants.     Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom (no. 61498/08) The applicants, Faisal Attiyah Nassar Khalaf Hussain Al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi, are Iraqi nationals who were born in 1952 and 1950. They are Sunni Muslims from southern Iraq and former senior officials of the Ba’ath party. They are currently detained in Rusafa Prison, near Baghdad. The case concerns the complaint by the applicants, accused of involvement in the murder of two British soldiers shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, that the British authorities transferred them to Iraqi custody on 31 December 2008 and that they are at real risk of being subjected to an unfair trial followed by execution by hanging. They rely on Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture and or inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 (abolition of the death penalty). They also complain, under Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 34 (right of individual petition), that they were transferred to the Iraqi authorities despite the European Court’s indication to the British Government under Rule 39 (interim measures) of its Rules of Court that they should not be removed or transferred from custody until further notice.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Iacob Pop and Others v. Romania (nos. 12235/05, 13461/05 and 26070/06) Stomff v. Romania (no. 39312/07) Teodor and Constantinescu v. Romania (no. 35676/07) These three 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).   Veli Yalçın v. Turkey (no. 29459/05) In this case the applicant complains of the length of compensation proceedings, and that he was not given a copy of the opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Chief Prosecutor. He 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 Atunes the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), and in the case of Döndü Bilgiç the applicant also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Lefevre v. Italy (no. 34871/02) Antunes v. Portugal (no. 12750/07 Cenoiu and Others v. Romania (no. 26036/02) Akkaya v. Turkey (no. 34395/04) Döndü Bilgiç v. Turkey (no. 43948/02)     Thursday 4 March 2010   F. G. v. Bulgaria (no. 17911/03) The applicant, F.G., is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Sofia. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him for negligent management of public property resulting in a significant loss, concerning the management of the publicly-owned hotel complex of which he had been director.   Getzov v. Bulgaria (no. 30105/03) The applicant, Svetoslav Getzov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kavarna (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 5 § 1 (e) (right to liberty and security), he complains about his placement in a psychiatric institution on the order of a prosecutor, for the purpose of a psychiatric examination to determine the need for compulsory psychiatric treatment.   Patrikova v. Bulgaria (no. 71835/01) The applicant, Galina Patrikova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Isperih (Bulgaria). A trader in alcoholic beverages and tobacco, Ms Patrikova complains that, following an inspection in June 2000, the tax authorities’ seized all her merchandise, worth approximately 150,000 euros, and refused to allow it to be sold while it was still marketable and fit for consumption, eventually declaring it abandoned in March 2007. Due to the seizure her business was declared insolvent in 2006. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), she complains that she was deprived of her property and suffered pecuniary losses. She further complains under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) about the excessive length of the civil proceedings she brought in which she sought damages for unlawful seizure and claimed the full value of the alcoholic beverages.   Khametshin v. Russia (no. 18487/03) The applicant, Rafail Khametshin, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Yaroslavl (Russia). Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial), Mr   Khametshin complains about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him for assaulting a police officer. He complains in particular about the fact that he was not given the opportunity to examine the police officers, witnesses against him, whose pre-trial statements had been read out at his trial. He was found guilty in November 2002 and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment.   Mokhov v. Russia (no. 28245/04) The applicant, Aleksey Mokhov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a 22-year sentence for murder and robbery in a correctional facility in Lepley, Mordoviya (Russia). The case concerns Mr Mokhov’s complaint that a public official made a televised statement on his guilt prior to his trial. He relies on Article   6   § 2 (presumption of innocence). He further complains that the first-instance and appeal hearings in the civil proceedings he brought against the prosecutor’s office and the television company for defamation were held in his absence, in breach of Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Savenkova v. Russia (no. 30930/02 The applicant, Tatyana Savenkova, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Tambov (Russia). Ms Savenkova was arrested in July 2001 and charged with incitement to murder; she was found guilty as charged in February 2004 and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, later reduced to five years. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), she complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of her pre-trial detention and that her applications for release were not examined speedily.   Shalimov v. Ukraine (no. 20808/02) The applicant, Sergey Shalimov is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1968 and is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence in Ukraine for two murders. Mr Shalimov complains about numerous aspects of his pre-trial detention, notably its excessive length, that he was unable to bring court proceedings to contest its lawfulness and that he was not allowed to see his family for four years during that period. He relies on Article   5   §§   3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence). Further relying on Article   6   §§   1,   3   (c) and   (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complains about the unfairness and excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. Lastly, he alleges that there were no effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaints about the refusal of family visits and the length of the criminal proceedings, in breach of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Just satisfaction Shtukaturov v. Russia (no. 44009/05) The applicant, Pavel Shtukaturov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in St Petersburg. He has a history of mental illness and was declared officially disabled in 2003. The case concerned Mr Shtukaturov’s complaint that he had been deprived of his legal capacity without his knowledge and confined to a psychiatric hospital by his mother. In a judgment delivered on 27   March 2008, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) concerning the proceedings which deprived the applicant of his legal capacity; a violation of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the complete deprivation of his legal capacity; violations of Article   5   §§   1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) concerning his confinement in and inability to obtain release from a psychiatric hospital; and, a failure by the Russian Government to comply with its obligations under Article   34 (right of individual petition) as it had hindered the applicant’s access to the European Court. The Court held that it would decide the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) at a later stage.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Rybakova and Others v. Russia (no. 22376/05) This case concerns the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in their favour. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Andreyev v. Russia (no. 32991/05) Tolstobrov v. Russia (no. 11612/05) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints that the final judgments in their favour were quashed by way of supervisory review. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   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 brought by her.   Barantseva v. Russia (no. 22721/04)   ***   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.