CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 mai 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 } 387 12.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   18 and 20 May 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 23 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 18 May 2010 and 38 on Thursday 20   May 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 18 May 2010   Ogaristi v. Italy (application no. 231/07) The applicant, Alberto Ogaristi, is an Italian national who was born in 1972. He is currently being held in Rome-Rebibbia Prison following his conviction, which became final in 2006, for murder and attempted murder. Relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains that it was impossible for him to examine the sole prosecution witness either during the investigation or at the hearing, since he had become untraceable.   Plalam S.P.A. v. Italy (no. 16021/02) The applicant is a legal entity with its registered office in Ascoli Piceno. It specialises in manufacturing. In 1985 it successfully applied for a subsidy from the Southern Italy Promotion and Development Agency for the expansion of an industrial plant. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant company complains that it was subject to the provisions of a law on public funding that came into force after its request for a subsidy had been approved.   Udorovic v. Italy (no. 38532/02) The applicant, Aldo Udorovic, is an Italian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Terracina (Italy). He is a member of the Sinti community. In decisions of 1996 and 1999 the Rome City Council ordered a census and the evacuation of the travellers’ encampment where he lived. He sought judicial review of those decisions in the administrative courts. He also brought an action in the civil courts, alleging that the same decisions had been discriminatory. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that the civil proceedings were unfair.   Anuşca v. Moldova (no. 24034/07) The applicant, Liuba Anuşca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1957 and lives in Lopatnic (Moldova). Relying on Article   2 (right to life), she complains that the authorities’ investigation into the death of her son, who died in 2004 during his mandatory military service, was not effective.   Vetrenko v. Moldova (no. 36552/02) The applicant, Vilen Vetrenko, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău. Sentenced to 16 years in prison for the alleged participation in a murder committed in 1997, he complains of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, in particular that the domestic courts gave insufficient reasons for his conviction and that it was based on self-incriminatory statements he made without having access to the lawyer chosen by him. He relies in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Belka v. Poland (no. 20870/04) Czekień v. Poland (no. 25168/05) Szal v. Poland (no. 41285/02) The applicants, Walentyna Belka, Helena Czekień and Stefania Szal, are three Polish nationals who were born in 1934, 1930 and 1925 respectively, and live in Poland. Their cases concern compensation entitlements granted by the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation to victims of various forms of persecution by the German occupational authorities during the Second World War (the so-called “second compensation scheme”). During the Second World War, Ms Belka’s family was expelled from their farm, placed in a camp for expelled persons and subsequently shipped off to eastern Poland where they were assigned to live with local farmers. Ms Czekień’s husband was a forced labourer for a railway company under German management. Ms Szal was subjected to forced labour on a farm owned by a German family. Ms Belka and Ms Czekień were refused payments under the compensation scheme for failure to meet the eligibility criteria and, in Ms Belka’s case, for insufficient evidence confirming the imprisonment in the camp for expelled persons. Ms   Szal was granted financial assistance under the scheme, but was refused further payment for her internment in a concentration camp, for insufficient evidence that she had been imprisoned there. All three applicants allege a breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) in respect of the proceedings before the Foundation.   Bessler v. Romania (no. 25669/04) The applicant, Lucie Henriette Bessler, was a Romanian national who was born in 1926 and died in 2008 (her heirs pursued the proceedings before the Court). Her father, a Polish   national who lived in Romania, owned or co-owned several buildings in Bucharest which were seized by the Soviet Union in 1946 on the basis of decisions that erroneously considered him to be German. In 1958 the buildings passed into the ownership of the Romanian State, which from 1995 sold a number of flats in them. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complains that an action for recovery of possession of the buildings was dismissed without an examination of the merits of her claims.   Ozerov v. Russia (no. 64962/01) The applicant, Sergey Ozerov, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Moscow. Sentenced to two years and three months’ imprisonment for a violation of traffic rules which caused bodily harm and for aiding and abetting burglary, both offences allegedly committed in 1999, he complains that his trial was held in the absence of a prosecutor, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Kennedy v. United Kingdom (no. 26839/05) The applicant, Malcolm Kennedy, is a British national who was born in 1946 and lives in London. Convicted of manslaughter – in a case which was controversial on account of missing and conflicting evidence – and released from prison in 1996, he subsequently became active in campaigning against miscarriages of justice. Suspecting police interception of his communications after he had started a small business, he complained to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). He was eventually informed in 2005 that no determination had been made in his favour in respect of his complaints. This meant either that his communications had not been intercepted or that the IPT considered any interception to be lawful. No further information was provided by the IPT. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), the applicant complains about the alleged interception of his communications. He further complains, under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), that the hearing before the IPT was not fair, and, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that as a result he has been denied an effective remedy.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Di Cola v. Italy (no. 44897/98) In a judgment of 15 December 2005 the Court held that an interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and that there had therefore been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). It further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it. This question will be decided in the judgment to be delivered by the Court on 18   May.   Oktaş and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14604/05, 14609/05, 28820/05, 28822/05, 40338/05, 42038/05, 45287/05 and 45297/05) In this case the applicants’ complain in particular of the delay by the administrative authorities in paying compensation for the expropriation of their land. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).     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 several cases, the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Brignoli and Others v. Italy (nos. 19877/03, 32969/02, 18359/03 and 18363/03) Limata and Others v. Italy (nos. 5486/03, 5491/03, 5495/03, 5498/03, 5499/03, 5501/03, 5502/03, 5506/03, 7591/03, 7598/03, 7602/03 and 7604/03) Kaniewska v. Poland (no. 8518/08) Przybylska-Conroy v. Poland (no. 49490/08) Ciută v. Romania (no. 35527/04) Bíro v. Slovakia (No. 3) (no. 22050/05) Bíro v. Slovakia (No. 4) (no. 26456/06) Bíro v. Slovakia (No. 5) (no. 45109/06) Kocianová v. Slovakia (no. 21692/06) Kocianová v. Slovakia (No. 2) (no. 45167/06)     Thursday 20 May 2010   Lelas v. Croatia (no. 55555/08) The applicant, Čedo Lelas, is a Croatian national who lives in Vrlika (Croatia). A serviceman employed by the Ministry of Defence, he occasionally participated in demining operations during the 1990s. Claiming an entitlement to a special daily allowance for such work on the basis of a Decision of the Minister of Defence in 1995, he complains that the refusal of the domestic courts to grant his claims infringed his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in violation of in particular Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). 28   similar applications against Croatia are pending before the Court.   Oluić v. Croatia (no. 61260/08) The applicant, Marina Oluić, is a Croatian national. She is the owner of part of a house in Rijeka (Croatia) in which she lives with her family. The other part of the house has been used as a bar since 1999. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that the level of noise in her home was excessive every night over a period of about eight years and that the competent administrative authorities failed to protect her from that noise by taking appropriate measures to limit it.   Alajos Kiss v. Hungary (no. 38832/06) The applicant, Alajos Kiss, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Rózsaszentmárton (Hungary). Diagnosed with manic depression and placed under partial guardianship in 2005, he was excluded from the electoral register. Relying on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections) alone or in conjunction with Articles   13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains that his disenfranchisement constitutes an unjustified deprivation of his right to vote.   Engel v. Hungary (no. 46857/06) The applicant, Zoltán Peter Engel, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Szeged (Hungary). In 2003, he was caught committing an armed robbery during which he killed a police officer and was himself injured in the spine. As a consequence he became paralysed from the waist down and has been suffering from incontinence. Sentenced to life imprisonment, he complains of the prison conditions inappropriate for disabled persons, to which he was exposed for almost two years, and of being transported with his hands handcuffed due to his classification as a high-security-level prisoner, which he considers absurd in view of his health condition. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) read alone or in conjunction with Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (no. 3678/06) The applicants are three Russian nationals. The case concerns their allegations that one of them, Aslan Dzhabrailov, and his brother were abducted by State servicemen in Chechnya in 2003 and that those servicemen had subsequently killed the latter. They 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).   Khaydarov v. Russia (no. 21055/09) The applicant, Mamurdzhon Khaydarov, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1958 and is currently detained in a remand prison in Moscow. Ordered to be extradited to Tajikistan, where he is wanted for his alleged participation in an illegal armed group in 1997, he alleges that, if extradited, he would be subjected to ill-treatment in violation of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He further complains, in particular, that his continued detention pending extradition has been unlawful, in breach of Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), and that he did not have effective remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Larin v. Russia (no. 15034/02) The applicant, Vitaliy Larin, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Slavyanovka (Kaliningrad region, Russia). While serving a prison sentence for theft, robbery and forgery, a civil claim was brought against him. He alleges in particular that the ensuing court proceedings at two levels of jurisdiction, which resulted in his being ordered to return a car he had purchased, were held in his absence, that he was not provided with legal aid and that he was therefore unable to present his case on an equitable basis, in violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Vladimir Kozlov v. Russia (no. 21503/04) The applicant, Vladimir Kozlov, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow. Convicted of aiding and abetting a murder and planning another murder, he complains that the conditions of his detention on remand and his confinement at the courthouse during trial were inhuman and degrading, in violation of in particular Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Adnan Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 4574/06) The applicant, Adnan Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Van (Turkey). Relying mainly on Article 6   § 1 (right of access to a court), the applicant complains that he was denied the opportunity to bring compensation proceedings in the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the damage he had sustained after contracting hepatitis   B during his military service, as he did not pay the court fees and was refused legal aid.   Araz v. Turkey (no. 44319/04) The applicant, İbrahim Araz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul. Taken into police custody in 1999 at the age of seventeen and charged with membership of an illegal armed organisation, he was remanded in detention pending trial for a total period of more than four years, including the time spent in detention after his conviction at first instance was quashed. He complains under Article   5   §§   3 and   5 (right to liberty and security) that the length of this detention was excessive, and under Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) that the criminal proceedings against him, which are still pending, have not been concluded within a reasonable time.   Aytimur v. Turkey (no. 20259/06) Erhan Dinç v. Turkey (no. 28551/06) The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Turkey. Delil Aytimur was born in 1990 and lives in Mardin, and Erhan Dinç was born in 1988 and is currently in prison in Diyarbakır. In 2005 they were taken into police custody on suspicion of being members of an illegal armed organisation. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   4 and   5 (right to liberty and security), they complain that the length of their pre-trial detention was excessive and that they had no effective remedy to contest its lawfulness. Mr Aytimur also complains, under Article 5   §   3, about the length of time he spent in police custody and, under Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), about his transfer to the prison and his detention there.   Baran and Hun v. Turkey (no. 30685/05) The applicants, Gülderen Baran (San), and Hacı Aziz Hun, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973 and 1965 respectively, and, at the time of lodging the application, were in prison in Turkey. Convicted of undermining the constitutional order of the State (the first applicant) and of membership in an illegal armed organisation (the second applicant) by a judgment that was eventually upheld in 2001, they complain under Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they were subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations. They further complain, relying in particular on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial), that they were convicted on the basis of statements given under torture and without the assistance of a lawyer while being held in police custody, and that they were denied a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge during their trial.   Cox v. Turkey (no. 2933/03) The applicant, Norma Cox, a national of the United States, was born in 1944 and lives in Philadelphia. Having been expelled from Turkey and banned by the Ministry of the Interior from re-entering the country on account of statements on Kurdish and Armenian issues considered “separatist”, which she made during her work as a lecturer at a Turkish university, she complains that she was subject to unjustified treatment on account of her Christian religion. She relies in particular on Article 9 (freedom of religion).   Gedik v. Turkey (nos. 22478/06 and 37667/08) The applicants, Bülent Gedik, and his mother, Hatice Gedik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1952 respectively. Mrs   Gedik lives in Istanbul and her son is currently in Kocaeli Prison (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 to contest its lawfulness, following his arrest in 1996 in the course of a police operation against an illegal organisation, the TKEP/L (Communist Labour Party/Leninist). The applicants also complain under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5, that the second applicant, who was suspected of an offence classified as an act of terrorism, was treated less favourably than persons suspected of ordinary offences as regards the possibility of applying for release on bail.   Perişan and Others v. Turkey (no. 12336/03) The applicants are 46 Turkish nationals. 34 of them are acting both in their own name and on behalf of eight of their relatives who died during an anti-riot operation in 1996 at Diyarbakır Prison (Turkey), and the other 12, who were injured, are acting in their own name. The applicants complain under Articles   2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) about the killings and ill-treatment perpetrated by the security forces. The applicants whose relatives died argue that the suffering they themselves have endured as a result of the appalling circumstances surrounding the deaths amounts to a separate violation of Article 3 in respect of them. The applicants also complain, under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) in particular, of deficiencies in the preliminary investigation and of dilatory conduct on the part of the Assize Court, and submit, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), that they were discriminated against on the grounds of their ethnic origin and political opinions. The applicants whose relatives died also allege a violation of their rights under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Saygılı and Bilgiç v. Turkey (no. 33667/05) The applicants, Fevzi Saygılı and Nizamettin Taylan Bilgiç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1966 and 1972 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the owner and editor ‑ in ‑ chief respectively of a daily newspaper, Günlük Evrensel , which Mr   Saygılı launched in July 2001 with a new team after ceasing to publish another daily newspaper. That paper, Yeni Evrensel , had been ordered to close for one month by the State security court for publication of articles in violation of the penal code. Concluding that the new paper was the successor of the previous one, the domestic courts ordered the seizure of Günlük   Evrensel for 30   consecutive days. The applicants complain that the seizure violated their rights under Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Galat v. Ukraine (no. 716/05) The applicant, Valentina Galat, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kremenchug (Ukraine). Convicted by a final court decision in November 2004 of embezzlement during her work as an accountant at a State company in 1998, she complains of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against her. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Kamyshev v. Ukraine (no. 3990/06) The applicant, Oleg Kamyshev, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Zhytomyr (Ukraine). Ordered to be extradited to Belarus, where criminal proceedings against him are pending for alleged offences during his employment as customs officer in 2002 and 2003, he complains, relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), that if extradited to Belarus he would face the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment by the authorities. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he alleges a flagrant denial of justice by the Belarus authorities. He further complains under Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination) that he had no effective remedy to challenge his extradition and that he had been discriminated against by the Ukrainian authorities, and under Article   5   §§   1   (f) and   4, that he had been unlawfully detained in Ukraine.   Kurochkin v. Ukraine (no. 42276/08) The applicant, Vladyslav Kurochkin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kyiv. He complains that the domestic courts annulled his adoption of a boy following the request of his former wife after their divorce, alleging that this decision violated his rights under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Lopatin and Medvedskiy v. Ukraine (nos. 2278/03 and 6222/03) The applicants, Sergey Lopatin and Aleksandr Medvedskiy, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1975 and 1976 respectively. Convicted of robbery (Mr Lopatin) and robbery and murder (Mr Medvedskiy), they allege that they were ill-treated by the police during three days of detention at a police station following their arrest in 1999 and that this detention was unlawful as it was not recorded. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   1. Mr Lopatin also complains under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that he had no effective remedy in respect of these complaints. Both applicants further complain under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the length of the proceedings, which lasted more than three years.   Moskalenko v. Ukraine (no. 37466/04) The applicant, Aleksey Moskalenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1982 and is currently apparently serving a sentence in the Donetsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre (Ukraine). Convicted of a number of offences, including aggravated murder, he complains of the excessive length of his detention on remand, which lasted more than four years and ten months. He relies on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Myrskyy v. Ukraine (no. 7877/03) The applicant, Rudolf Myrskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Lviv (Ukraine). He is a political science professor. Following his participation in a round table in 1999, he was quoted by a newspaper as having made statements about the extremist and anti-Semitic position of a political party. Despite his insistence that his words had been misrepresented he was ordered by a court decision in 2002 to publish a disclaimer and apologies. He complains about a violation of his rights under Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Pelevin v. Ukraine (no. 24402/02) The applicant, Mykola Pelevin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in L’viv (Ukraine). Sentenced to an administrative fine in 2001 for inflicting a minor bodily injury on another person in 1999, he complains of lack of access to a court on account of the Ukrainian Supreme Court’s initial failure to review his case within the ordinary cassation review proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Pokhlebin v. Ukraine (no. 35581/06) The applicant, Dmitriy Pokhlebin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine). Having served a prison sentence of more than two years for a number of offences, he complains of the poor conditions of his detention and of the fact that he was not provided with appropriate medical assistance. He relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Just satisfaction Ukraine-Tyumen v. Ukraine (no. 22603/02) The applicant, the Ukraine-Tyumen Joint Stock Company, is a Ukrainian joint venture based in Kyiv. It was originally made up of a number of entities including several state companies. In a judgment of 22 November 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of the quashing by way of supervisory review of a decision of 11 March 1999 in its favour and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), as it had not been open to the applicant company to seek any form of compensation to make up for the loss of its property as a result of the judicial decision. The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) as regards pecuniary damage was not ready for decision and reserved it. This question will be decided in the upcoming judgment on 20 May.   Visloguzov v. Ukraine (no. 32362/02) The applicant, Sergey Nikolayevich Visloguzov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Frunze (Kherson region, Ukraine). Having served a prison sentence of more than four years and nine months, he complains of the poor conditions of his detention and the lack of effective remedies in this respect, relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). He further complains of the alleged interference with his correspondence and of the alleged seizure and retention by prison officials of the documents necessary for lodging an application with the European Court of Human Rights, relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and Article   34 (right of individual petition).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Butenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 2109/07, 2112/07, 2113/07 and 2116/07) 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), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Garagulya v. Russia (no. 12157/06) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that final judgments in his favour were quashed by way of supervisory review. He relies on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Nurten Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 14295/05) This case concerns the failure by the authorities to enforce final decisions with regard to a provisional title deed of property. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     Just satisfaction Nural Vural v. Turkey (no. 16009/04) Rimer and Others v. Turkey (no. 18257/04) Şatir v. Turkey (no. 36192/03) In a judgment of 10 March 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the applicants’ complaint that the authorities had deprived them of their property without paying compensation, and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. This question will be decided in the upcoming judgments on 20 May.     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 several cases, the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy); and, in the case of Mkrtchyan , the applicant also relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   VR-Bank Stuttgart eG v. Austria (no. 28571/06) Rogošić v. Croatia (no. 55520/07) Tsaganou and Georgiou v. Greece (no. 18556/08) Bakırcıoğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 41123/04) Mkrtchyan v. Ukraine (no. 21939/05)   *** 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.