CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   232 19.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   23 and 25 March 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 20   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 23   March 2010 and 13 on Thursday 25   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 23 March 2010   Mullai and Others v. Albania (application no. 9074/07) The applicants are seven Albanian nationals, who live in Albania, the United States of America and Italy, and a limited liability company incorporated under Albanian law and registered in Tirana. The case concerns a dispute over a building permit. The applicants allege in particular that the authorities failed to enforce a final court judgment in which their building permit had been declared valid and then breached the principle of legal certainty by quashing that final judgment. They also complain about the excessive length of those proceedings. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Calabrò v. Italy (no. 17426/02) The applicant, Placido Calabrò, is an Italian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Messina (Italy). He is a lawyer. In civil proceedings concerning him personally, he chose to represent himself in the Court of Cassation. Relying mainly on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, he complains that because he was presenting his own case unassisted, the Court of Cassation did not take into account the submissions he filed to challenge an application by State Counsel for his appeal to be declared inadmissible. He alleges that the Court of Cassation acted in error because he had filed his submissions as his own representative and not as an appellant.   Iorga v. Moldova (no. 12219/05) The applicant, Svetlana Iorga, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1958 and lives in Paşcani (Moldova). She alleges that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the death of her son, a soldier who disappeared during his compulsory military service, and was subsequently found hanging from a tree not far from his unit. She relies on Article   2 (right to life).   I.D. v. Romania (no. 3271/04) The applicant, Mr I.D., is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Târgu Jiu. Relying mainly on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complains about the failure to execute a court decision awarding him royalties for the use of a patent. He further submits, among other things, that the length of the proceedings to secure the payment of the award was excessive, in breach of Article   6   § 1.   Döndü Erdoğan v. Turkey (no. 32505/02) The applicant, Döndü Erdoğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1986 and lives in Istanbul. Stopped in the street for an identity check in April 2001 and arrested, Ms Erdoğan alleges that, while in police custody, she was beaten with a truncheon, hosed down with cold water and banged against walls. On her release she attempted to commit suicide. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complains about that ill-treatment, especially bearing in mind that she was just 15 years old at the time, and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into her allegations.   Hakan Duman v. Turkey (no. 28439/03) The applicant, Hakan Duman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Bursa (Turkey). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr   Duman alleges that he was tortured in January 2002 while in police custody on charges of burglary. He also complains that he was subsequently convicted as charged on the basis of statements obtained from him – and which he later retracted – during the pre-trial investigation in the absence of a lawyer and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was not communicated to him, in breach of Article   6   §   1   (right to a fair trial).   Orhan Çaçan v. Turkey (no. 26437/04) The applicant, Orhan Çaçan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and is currently in prison in Turkey. He was arrested in 1999 on suspicion of being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation) and murder. In 2003 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for carrying out acts designed to bring about the secession of part of Turkey’s territory. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair hearing), he complains that the court which convicted him did not re-examine a key witness despite the fact that he had changed his version of events in the course of the proceedings.   Oyal v. Turkey (no. 4864/05) The applicants, Yiğit Turhan Oyal, born on 6 May 1996, and his parents, Neşe Oyal and Nazif Oyal, are Turkish nationals, born in 1973 and 1961 respectively. They live in Izmir (Turkey). The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about Yiğit’s infection with the HIV virus when, born prematurely, he had to have blood transfusions. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), they allege that the national authorities are responsible for Yiğit’s life-threatening condition as they failed to sufficiently train, supervise and inspect the work of the medical staff involved in his blood transfusions. Further relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), they also complain about the excessive length of the administrative proceedings they brought for compensation and that the compensation finally awarded did not even cover the costs of Yiğit’s medication.   Özgür Uyanık v. Turkey (no. 11068/04) The applicant, Özgür Uyanık, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. Detained in May 1996 in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation, Mr   Uyanık alleges that he was stripped, blindfolded, suspended from the arms, electrocuted and beaten during his police custody. He further alleges that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into his allegations. He relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   S.S. Göller Bölgesi Konut Yapı Koop v. Turkey (no. 35802/02) The applicant, Sınırlı Sorumlu Göller Bölgesi Konut Yapı Kooperatifi, is a housing cooperative with its registered office in Burdur. Relying in particular on Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1(protection of property), it complains of the national courts’ annulment of its title to a plot of land, which was re-registered as Treasury property without any compensation being paid to it.   Süleyman Baba v. Turkey (no. 2150/05) The applicant, Süleyman Baba, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), he complains that more than 37,000 sq. of land belonging to him was designated as public forest in 1988, without any compensation. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he also alleges that the national courts were not fair and impartial.   M.A.K.   and R.K. v. United Kingdom (nos. 45901/05 and 40146/06) The applicants, M.A.K., and his daughter, R.K., are British nationals. who live in the United Kingdom. R.K. was born in 1989. The case concerns R.K.’s hospitalisation for ten days in March 1998 following an examination by a paediatrician who considered that bruising on her legs had been caused by   physical   abuse. On further examination, the paediatrician concluded that R.K. had also been sexually abused and M.A.K. was indentified as a potential perpetrator.   R.K. was   later discharged   after being   diagnosed with a rare skin disease. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), M.A.K. alleges that he was caused distress and humiliation on account of the accusations against him. The applicants also complain, under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), about the visiting restrictions during the ten days that R.K. was in hospital and that a blood sample and photographs were taken without parental consent. Further relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), R.K. complains that legal aid was withdrawn from her during the appeal proceedings against the local authority and hospital for compensation. Lastly, M.A.K. complains that, in breach of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he could not claim compensation for damage caused by the local authority’s handling of his daughter’s case on account of the domestic courts’ finding that there was no common law duty of care owed to parents.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Geta Stanciu and Others v. Romania (no. 29755/06) Maria and Dorel-Dănuţ Barbu v. Romania (no. 14332/03) Popa and Alecsandru v. Romania (no. 2617/04) Tomescu v. Romania (no. 35999/07) These cases concern, in particular, the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and/or Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   SC Vălie Prod SRL v. Romania (no. 23507/04) This case concerns the applicant company’s complaint that a final decision in its favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. It relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Arif Erdem v. Turkey (no. 37171/04) In this case, the applicant complains that he was deprived of his property, designated forest area, without compensation. He relies 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. The applicants in the case of Merter and Others also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Bostan v. Turkey (no. 43945/04) Merter and Others v. Turkey (no. 2249/03)     Thursday 25 March 2010   Angel Vaskov Angelov v. Bulgaria (no. 34805/02) Shishkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 17322/04) The applicants are Bulgarian nationals, Angel Angelov, who was born in 1969 and lives in Marten (Bulgaria), and Svetlyu   and Slaveyko   Shishkov, father and son, who were born in 1953 and 1978 respectively and live in Sofia. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment)   – and also, in the Shishkovs’ case, on   Article   13 (right to an effective remedy)   – they allege that they were ill-treated by police officers and that there was no effective investigation into their allegations. Mr Angelov had been arrested on suspicion of theft, and the Shishkovs had been beaten while spending the day by a lake.   Paraskeva Todorova v. Bulgaria (no. 37193/07) The applicant, Paraskeva Todorova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Trud (Plovdiv, Bulgaria). She belongs to the Roma minority. In 2006 a district court comprising a professional judge and two lay judges sentenced her to three years’   imprisonment for fraud. The court refused to suspend the sentence, in particular on the ground that there was “an impression of impunity, especially among members of minority groups, who consider that a suspended sentence is not a sentence”. Its reasoning was upheld by the higher courts. Relying on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Ms Todorova claims that she was discriminated against on the ground of her membership of the Roma minority as a result of the reasons given for the domestic courts’ refusal to suspend her prison sentence. She further maintains that the district court that heard her case was biased, contrary to the requirements of Article 6 § 1.   Popnikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 30388/02) The applicant, Dimitar Nikolov Popnikolov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Varna. Having rented a State-owned production facility in 1992, he complains that the domestic authorities failed to comply with a final court judgment in his favour and deprived him of a legitimate expectation of acquiring the facility under the preferential privatisation procedure for lessees of State-owned properties. He alleges a violation of his rights under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Mutlag v. Germany (no. 40601/05) The applicant, Saeid Mutlag, is a Jordanian national who was born in Germany in 1981 and lives in Amman (Jordan). He grew up in Germany, where he received all his schooling. He was granted a permanent residence permit in 1997. However, in 2006 he was deported to Jordan with permanent effect, further to a decision taken in 2002 after a succession of serious criminal offences. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about his deportation.   Wetjen v. Germany (no. 30175/07) The applicant, Bernd Rüdiger Wetjen, is a German national who was born in 1951 and lives in Hildesheim (Germany). He complains that the criminal proceedings against him on charges of a number of offences allegedly committed while he acted as a court-appointed liquidator, including the granting of an undue benefit and embezzlement, of which he was eventually acquitted, lasted more than eight years, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Also relying on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he further complains that he had no effective remedy to complain about the length of proceedings.   Mitreski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 11621/09) The applicant, Sime Mitreski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Kicevo (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). He complains in particular that his order for house arrest during a criminal investigation against him on suspicion of extortion of money from a minor was replaced with an order for detention in prison in proceedings which were not adversarial and without holding an oral hearing, in violation of Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security).   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 cases of Ritter-Coulais and Volkmer , the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Petermann v. Germany (no. 901/05) Reinhard v. Germany (no. 485/09) Ritter-Coulais v. Germany (no. 32338/07) Sinkovec v. Germany (no. 46682/07) Volkmer v. Germany (no. 54188/07) Jovanovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 40233/03)     ***   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.