CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 avril 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 } .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 }   279 01.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   6 and 8 April 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 20   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 6   April 2010 and 29 on Thursday 8 April 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 6 April 2010   Flinkkilä and Others v. Finland (application no. 25576/04) Iltalehti and Karhuvaara v. Finland (no. 6372/06) Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland (no. 43349/05) Soila v. Finland (no. 6806/06) Tuomela and Others v. Finland (no. 25711/04) The applicants are 11 Finnish nationals – editors-in-chief and journalists – who live in Finland, and three publishing companies based in Helsinki. The cases concern the applicants’ coverage of a criminal case against a prominent public figure and B., his lover, for public order offences after a drunken public brawl in December 1996 with the former’s wife and children. In all five cases the applicants complain, under Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, about their ensuing prosecution and conviction for invasion of B.’s private life. In four of the cases, the applicants further complain that the provision of the Penal Code on the basis of which they were convicted was not clear enough, in breach of Article   7 (no punishment without law). In three of the cases the applicants also make complaints under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) with regard to the length of the proceedings and lack of reasoning of the domestic courts’ judgments.   Ruokanen and Others v. Finland (no. 45130/06) The applicants are two Finnish nationals – an editor-in-chief and a journalist – who live in Finland and a Finnish limited liability publishing company based in Helsinki.   They complain about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants were ordered to pay over 80,000   euros in damages to compensate each member of the baseball team. They rely on Article   10 (freedom of expression).   C.G.I.L. and Cofferati (No. 2) v. Italy (no. 2/08) The applicants are Sergio Cofferati, an Italian national residing in Italy and C.G.I.L. ( Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro ), an Italian trade union of which Mr Cofferati was the Secretary General. The case concerns proceedings that the applicants wanted to bring against an MP for damaging their reputation by implying that they bore some responsibility for the murder by the Red Brigades of Mr Biagi, a consultant with the Minister of Labour who was advocating greater flexibility in employment contracts. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) they complain that it was impossible for them to bring those proceedings on account of the MP’s parliamentary immunity.   Just satisfaction Lungu v. Moldova (no. 17911/08) The applicant, Artur, Corina and Olivia Lungu, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1972, 1973 and 1994 respectively and live in Straseni (Moldova). In a judgment of 28   July 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) as a result of the non-enforcement of a final judgment awarding the applicants social housing and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Stegarescu and Bahrin v. Portugal (no. 46194/06) The applicants, Simeon Stegarescu and Ivan Bahrin, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1974 and 1973 respectively and are currently imprisoned in Portugal, in Paços de Ferreira and Carregueira respectively. They were placed for several months in high-security cells when the prison authorities feared they were planning an escape. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (right to a fair trial), the applicants allege that they were not able to appeal effectively against that placement. In addition, under Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), they complain that they were discriminated against on account of their Moldovan origin.   Floarea Pop v. Romania (no. 63101/00) The applicant, Floarea Pop, is a Romanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bucharest. Her 17-year-old son was serving a prison sentence for theft when he was diagnosed with serious health problems. In October 1993 an application was lodged for suspension of the enforcement of the prison sentence on health grounds, resulting in his release. He was admitted to hospital in January 1994 and died a few days later. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains of negligence on the part of the authorities in respect of her son’s health in prison and the lack of an effective, impartial and diligent investigation with a view to punishing those responsible. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), she complains about the lack of access to a court because of the shortcomings in the criminal investigation and of the refusal to exempt her from stamp duty in the proceedings that she brought seeking damages. She further complains of the length of the proceedings for damages.   Ştefan v. Romania (no. 28319/03) The applicant, Alexandru Ştefan, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Giurgiu (Romania). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), he alleges in particular that his right to a fair trial and the principle of legal certainty were flouted by the Supreme Court of Justice, which imposed a harsher sentence on him when it quashed a final judgment against him in a murder case.   Arif Çelebi and Others v. Turkey (nos. 3076/05 and 26739/05) The applicants, Arif Çelebi, Mukaddes Çelik, Sultan Arıkan (Seçik), Bayram Namaz, Sedat Şenoğlu and Necati Abay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963, 1954, 1971, 1963, 1975 and 1956 respectively and apparently live in Istanbul. They claim that they were tortured in 1997 while detained in police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation; notably they allege beatings, sleep deprivation, “Palestinian hanging” rape and being squeezed in the testicles. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain about the treatment to which they were subjected and about the manner in which the authorities carried out the investigation and ensuing criminal proceedings concerning their allegations, resulting in impunity. They further rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Mustafa and Armağan Akın v. Turkey (no. 4694/03) The applicants, Mustafa Akın, and his son, Armağan Akın, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1957 and 1988 respectively and live in Ödemiş (Turkey). The case concerns the inability of two children (Armağan Akın and his sister) of divorced parents to see each other, because the father was given custody of the son and the mother custody of the daughter. They rely in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Orhan Adıyaman v. Turkey (no. 32254/05) The applicant, Orhan Adıyaman, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul. A Lieutenant in the army and responsible for a gendarmerie border post, he was prosecuted in 1990 for bribery and abuse of office. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), complaining about the length of the criminal proceedings.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Nita v. Romania (no. 9410/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that a final judgment in his favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. He relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Ursan v. Romania (no. 35852/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in her favour. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Fatih Yürük v. Turkey (no. 4930/05) This case concerns the domestic court’s refusal to grant the applicant legal aid. 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.   Falco and Others v. Italy (nos. 34375/02, 34708/02, 675/03, 688/03, 691/03, 694/03, 11965/03 and 16766/03) Ghirotti and Benassi v. Italy (nos. 28104/02 and 28217/02) Soylu and Others v. Turkey (no. 37532/02)     Thursday 8 April 2010   Frodl v. Austria (no. 20201/04) The applicant, Helmut Frodl, is an Austrian national who was born in 1957 and is currently detained in Garsten Prison (Austria). Sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, he is excluded from the electoral register. He complains that his disenfranchisement violated his rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).   Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 18705/06) The applicant, Namat Faiz oglu Aliyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1966 and lives in Baku. A candidate for parliamentary elections in November 2005, Mr Aliyev alleges that the domestic authorities failed to effectively address his complaints concerning election irregularities, making it impossible to determine the true opinion of the voters and thus infringing his right to stand in free elections. He relies in particular on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections). Further relying on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant also alleges that, as an opposition candidate (for the Azadliq party), he was discriminated against during the entire election process on account of his political affiliation.   Peša v. Croatia (no. 40523/08) The applicant, Robert Peša, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Zagreb. The case concerns what was widely referred to in the Croatian national press as the “Maestro” affair; notably, Mr Peša, vice-president of the Croatian Privatisation Fund, was arrested and remanded in custody in June 2007 on suspicion of taking bribes. He was found guilty and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in May 2009; the case is currently still pending on appeal. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Peša complains about the conditions and duration of his detention as well as the proceedings concerning its lawfulness. He further complains about statements made to the media on his case by high-ranking State officials, in breach of Article   6   §   2 (presumption of innocence).   Abayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 37542/05) Abdurashidova v. Russia (no. 32968/05) Mudayevy v. Russia (no. 33105/05) Sadulayeva v. Russia (no. 38570/05) Seriyevy v. Russia (no. 20201/05) Tasatayevy v. Russia (no. 37541/05) Umalatov and Others v. Russia (no. 8345/05) All seven cases concern the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives were killed by Russian agents of the State in Chechnya, notably after detention and disappearance or – as in the case of Abdurashidova – during a security operation. All the 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). In the case of Abdurashidova the applicant also complains that her property was damaged during the security operation in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Bezymyannyy v. Russia (no. 10941/03) The applicant, Vladimir Bezymyannyy, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Belgorod (Russia). A businessman, Mr Bezymyannyy requested in March 2000 that criminal proceedings be brought against a judge, who had allegedly delivered a deliberately unjust decision in a dispute with regard to shares in his company. Relying in particular on Article   10 (freedom of expression), Mr Bezymyannyy complains about the ensuing civil proceedings the judge in question brought against him for defamation.   Lutokhin v. Russia (no. 12008/03) The applicant, Andrey Lutokhin, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Gatchina (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Lutokhin complains about the conditions of his detention awaiting trial on charges of abduction, robbery and extortion.   Sabayev v. Russia (no. 11994/03) The applicant, Maksim Sabayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kolomna (Russia). Convicted of aggravated blackmail and kidnapping and sentenced to 16   years’ imprisonment in September 1999, Mr Sabayev complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him as well as of the ensuing supervisory review hearing in his case. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Sinichkin v. Russia (no. 20508/03) The applicant, Andrey Sinichkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Orenburg Region (Russia) for aggravated concerted robbery. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), he complains about the unfairness of the appeal hearing in his criminal case, notably that it was held in his absence without free legal representation.   Bugayev v. Ukraine (no. 7516/03) The applicant, Aleksey Bugayev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving a 13-year prison sentence in Makeyevka (Ukraine) for murder. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Bugayev complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Feldman v. Ukraine (nos. 76556/01 and 38779/04) The applicant, Boris Feldman, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk (Ukraine). A former manager and majority shareholder of the Bank Slavyansky, he was arrested and detained in March 2000 on suspicion of tax evasion. He was ultimately acquitted of that charge but found guilty of embezzlement and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1   (c), 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention and that his applications for release were not examined diligently. Further relying on Article   6 (right to a fair trial), he also complains about the unfairness of the proceedings against him, notably that jurisdiction was changed in his case, with the result that it was considered by courts which were biased against him. Lastly, he alleges that the authorities put pressure on him to withdraw his application to the European Court of Human Rights, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition).   Gurepka v. Ukraine (No. 2) (no. 38789/04) The applicant, Nikolay Gurepka, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   2 of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters), Mr Gurepka complains that he was found guilty of an administrative offence – contempt of court – even though he was not notified of the proceedings against him and that, at the relevant time, there was no ordinary appeal procedure against decisions of first-instance courts on such offences.   Lotarev v. Ukraine (no. 29447/04) The applicant, Vitaliy Lotarev, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a life sentence in Zhytomyr Prison (Ukraine). He alleges that in June   2004 staff of that prison beat him, fracturing his ribs, and that the ensuing investigation into his allegation was inadequate. He further complains about the conditions of his detention in Zhytomyr Prison. He relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Menshakova v. Ukraine (no. 377/02) The applicant, Aleksandra Menshakova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Sevastopol (Ukraine). The case concerns Ms Menshakova’s complaint about the domestic courts’ refusal to consider her compensation claims against her former employers, State-owned companies, for their failure to pay her salary arrears in due time. She further complains about the excessive length of the compensation proceedings against one of the employers. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court and right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bulychevy v. Russia (no. 24086/04) Sizintseva and Others v. Russia (nos. 38585/04, 2795/05, 18590/05, 24012/07 and 55283/07 Yershova v. Russia (no. 1387/04) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour and/or quashed them on 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 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 Belous , Gutka , and Khurava the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), and in the case of Khurava the applicant also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Belous v. Ukraine (no. 22580/04) Gutka v. Ukraine (no. 45846/05) Kostychev v. Ukraine (no. 27820/04) Khurava v. Ukraine (no. 8503/05) Shaposhnikov v. Ukraine (no. 30853/04) Shapoval v. Ukraine (no. 7411/05) Voyt v. Ukraine (no. 22149/05)     ***   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.