CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 mars 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 } .s7AF76660 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline }   206 12.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   16 and 18 March 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 22   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 16   March 2010 and nine on Thursday 18 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 16 March 2010   Mamikonyan v. Armenia (application no. 25083/05) The applicant, Vardan Mamikonyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). Involved in a traffic accident in 2003, he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter resulting from a violation of traffic rules. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains that his additional submissions filed as a supplement to his appeal on points of law were not examined by the Court of Cassation and that he was not given the opportunity to examine a witness whose statements were used as a basis for his conviction.   Di Belmonte v. Italy (no. 72638/01) The applicant, Pietro Bruno di Belmonte, was an Italian national who was born in 1923 and lived in Ispica (Ragusa, Italy). He died on 27 June 2004 and his cousin, Francesco Bruno di Belmonte, has continued the proceedings before the Court. The municipality of Ispica, which had expropriated land belonging to the applicant with a view to using it for the construction of low-rent housing, was ordered to pay him compensation. The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, complaining about a decision of the domestic authorities to apply tax legislation retroactively with the result that 20% tax was deducted at source from the compensation he received.   Jiga v. Romania (no. 14352/04) The applicant, Dan Jiga, is a Romanian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Reghin (Romania). In his capacity, at the material time, as a Director General at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, he was suspected of trading in influence and was remanded in custody. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the conditions, length and unjustified prolongation of his detention on remand. Under Article 6 § 2 (right to a fair trial) he further alleges that statements by the Principal Public Prosecutor, a press campaign and the obligation to wear prison clothing breached his right to be presumed innocent.   Marariu v. Romania (no. 23957/03) The applicant, Dumitru Marariu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Ploieşti (Romania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains about the Romanian authorities’ refusal to examine his request for reimbursement of court costs in connection with proceedings brought against him by a tenants’ association for non-payment of charges.   Papaianopol v. Romania (no. 17590/02) The applicant, Dan Florin Papaianopol, is a Romanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Câmpulung Muscel (Romania). A journalist and trade-unionist, he was prosecuted in respect of an article about a headmaster that he had published in 1999. The article, based on complaints by teachers, portrayed the headmaster as using dictatorial methods in his school. In 2000 the applicant was acquitted of the criminal offence but ordered to pay damages to the headmaster. He complains under Article 10 (freedom of expression) about that order. Relying on Article 6 § 1, he further complains that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair for a number of reasons. Lastly, under Article 8 (right to respect for one’s home), he complains that the bailiff responsible for the enforcement of the payment order threatened him with the sale of his flat by auction.   Aşıcı v. Turkey (no. 26625/04) The applicant, Atilla Aşıcı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul, where he studied at the technical university. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about acts of violence by the police when they clashed with students during a demonstration over an increase in university canteen charges in 2001, and about the lack of a criminal investigation into those acts. The applicant further complains, under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), that he was held in police custody illegally, and under Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), that his right to take part in a peaceful demonstration was breached.   Görkan v. Turkey (no. 13002/05) The applicant, Adnan Görkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Aydın (Turkey). While selling copies of the daily newspaper Evrensel he was asked for his identity papers by the police, who then arrested him. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains that he was deprived of liberty in police custody and was thus prevented from exercising his right to impart information.   Ümit Işık v. Turkey (no. 10317/03) The applicant, Ümit Işık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and was serving a prison sentence in Batman (Turkey) when he lodged his application. In 1994 he was arrested during an operation against the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation) and criminal proceedings were opened against him. Relying on Article   5   §§   1   (c) and   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 2 (right to a fair hearing) he complains that the decision to remand him in custody was unlawful and that the length of his detention was excessive and breached his right to be presumed innocent. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was ill-treated while in police custody and that his imprisonment was incompatible with his state of health, as he was suffering from post-traumatic brain contusion. Further, under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains that the State Security Court lacked independence and impartiality and that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was excessive.   Yiğitdoğan v. Turkey (no. 20827/08) The applicant, Yüksel Yiğitdoğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kocaeli (Turkey). On 25 July 1999 he was arrested and taken into police custody during an operation against an illegal armed organisation, the “Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey”. Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complains that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive and that he had no effective remedy in that connection.   A.D. and O.D. v. United Kingdom (no. 28680/06) The applicants, A.D. and her son O.D., are two British nationals, who were born in 1966 and 1996 respectively and live in Whitefield. The case concerns the domestic authorities’ decision to place O.D. in a family care centre following rib fractures noticed by physicians a few months after his birth and assumed to have been inflicted by squeezing. The applicants complain that the decision, based on mistaken medical assessments, violated their rights under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and that they had no effective remedy for their complaints, contrary to Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Companhia Agrícola das Polvorosas S.A. v. Portugal (no. 12883/06) This case concerns the delay in calculating and paying the compensation awarded to the applicant company for expropriation. It relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Ana Pavel v. Romania (no. 4503/06) Copaci v. Romania (no. 6946/03) Sarchizian v. Romania (no. 3439/07) 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).   Erkmen and Others v. Turkey (no. 6950/05) In this case the applicants complain that the authorities deprived them of their property without paying compensation. They 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.   Atzei v. Italy (no. 11978/03) Briganti and Canella v. Italy (nos.   32860/02 and 32917/02) Landino v. Italy (no. 11213/04) Marzola Centri di Fisiokinesiterapia S.A.S. v. Italy (no. 32810/02) Natale v. Italy (no. 25872/02) Sanchirico and Lamorte v. Italy (nos. 11013/04 and 11080/04) Volta and Others v. Italy (no. 43674/02)     Thursday 18 March 2010   Krumpholz v. Austria (no. 13201/05) The applicant, Claus Krumpholz, is a German national who was born in 1965 and lives in Grafengehaig (Germany). Convicted for speeding by Austrian courts in 2003, he complains that the courts found him guilty only because of his refusal to disclose the identity of the person who had driven his car at the time in question, in violation of Article   6   §§   1 and   2 (right to a fair trial).   Business Support Centre v. Bulgaria (no. 6689/03) The applicant organisation, Business Support Centre, is a non-profit organisation based in Ruse (Bulgaria). It complains that, in spite of its full compliance with its statutory VAT reporting obligations, the domestic authorities deprived it of the right to deduct the VAT it had paid on a supply only because the supplier had failed to comply with its own VAT reporting and payment obligations. The applicant organisation alleges that the authorities’ decision breached its rights under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Kouzmin v. Russia (no. 58939/00) The applicant, Anatolii Kouzmin, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Motyguino (Krasnoyarsk, Russia). In 1998, while serving as district prosecutor in Motyguino, he was charged with the rape of a 17-year-old girl. Shortly after the opening of the criminal proceedings, Mr Alexander Lebed, a candidate for election to the post of governor of the Krasnoyarsk region and a well-known public figure, declared on television that the applicant was a “criminal” who should have been in the “nick” for some time, promising that the “son of a bitch” would soon be “rotting in jail”. Mr Kouzmin was dismissed from the prosecution service, in particular on the ground that he had committed a rape, and was remanded in custody. He was convicted in 1999. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention from May to December 1998, alleging that they were incompatible with his medical condition, acute osteochondrosis. Further relying on Article   6   §   2   (right to be presumed innocent), he complains about the language used by Mr Lebed and by the prosecution service in dismissing him. Relying, lastly, on Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses), he complains that he did not receive, before the start of the trial, the complete bill of indictment with the names of the witnesses to be called by the judges.   Maksimov v. Russia (no. 43233/02) The applicant, Vladimir Maksimov, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Krasnoyarsk (Russia). Mr Maksimov alleges that he was ill-treated by the police in April 2000 – when the police broke into his house following a tip-off about an unregistered weapon – and in December 2001 – when arrested for refusing to be searched in the street. He complains in particular about the fact that, following the first incident, the domestic courts refused to award him compensation for damage; and, following the second incident, the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegation. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   SPK Dimskiy v. Russia (no. 27191/02) Tronin v. Russia (no. 24461/02) The applicant is SPK Dimskiy, an agricultural production co-operative established in 1992 in Novoaleksandrovka (Tambov District, Russia), and Sergey Tronin, a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in the same village. Both applicants are holders of Urozhay-90 bonds introduced by the Government in the 1990s to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of consumer goods in high demand at the time (such as refrigerators, washing machines and cars) following economic reform and privatisation. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about Russia’s continued failure to legislate on the procedure for redeeming their bonds. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), SPK Dimskiy further complains about the unfairness of the commercial proceedings in which it sought compensation for the bonds.     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. They also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and/or Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Maria Ivanova v. Bulgaria (no. 10905/04) Kamilleri v. Greece (no. 9842/08) Nikolaos Kopsidis v. Greece (no. 2920/08)     ***   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.