CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } 415 21.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   27 May 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 30 Chamber judgments on Thursday 27 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 ).     Berhani v. Albania (application no. 847/05) The applicant, Gentian Berhani, is an Albanian national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving an 18-year prison sentence in Tirana for, among other offences, premeditated murder. Relying on Article   6 §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about the excessive length and unfairness – lack of reasoning of the domestic courts’ decisions and failure to hear witnesses’ incriminating evidence – of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Tilev v. Bulgaria (no. 25051/02) The applicant, Kiril Tilev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains of the authorities’ failure to comply with a final court ruling setting aside his eviction from land which he had been farming, and of the length of the proceedings he brought seeking compensation from the authorities in that regard.   Đokić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 6518/04) The applicant, Branimir Đokić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia who lives in Niš (Serbia). The case concerns Mr Đokić’s failed attempts, despite a legally valid purchase contract, to repossess a flat – and be registered as its owner – he had bought in Sarajevo in March 1992 and which he left following the outbreak of the 1992 ‑ 1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He relies in particular on Article   1   of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Otava v. Czech Republic (no. 36561/05) The applicant, Martin Otava, is a Czech national who was born in 1963 and lives in Prague. During the 1980s he bought a house from the Czechoslovakian authorities which had been in State ownership following its confiscation. The couple from whom the house had been confiscated subsequently secured the return of the property after bringing proceedings. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains in particular of the length of those proceedings and of the fact that he was deprived of his possession, acquired in good faith, without receiving compensation.   Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia (no. 18768/05) The applicants are six Georgian nationals: Batalbi Saghinadze and his wife, Lia Saghinadze; their son, Vasil Saghinadze, his wife, Nana Bliadze; and their daughters Ketevan and Nino Saghinadze. The case principally concerns the applicants’ complaint about the family’s eviction in November 2004 from the cottage in Tibilisi in which they had been re-settled following their flight from Abkhazia during the 1992-93 armed conflict. Batalbi Saghinadze, offered a post in 1994 in Georgia as a high-ranking law-enforcement officer, alleges that the eviction was in retribution for the way in which he had led a high-profile criminal case concerning the abduction of the brother of a famous Georgian footballer (the so-called “Kaladze” case). Criminal proceedings were subsequently brought against Batalbi Saghinadze for abuse of power during that investigation (extortion of false statements and fabricating evidence); he was arrested in June 2006 and ultimately found guilty as charged and sentenced to seven years in prison. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about their eviction from the cottage and the resulting loss of the home in which they had been living for ten years. Further relying on Article   5   §§ 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security), Batalbi Saghinadze makes various complaints about his pre-trial detention in the context of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Tchitchinadze v. Georgia (no. 18156/05) The applicant, Sulkhan Tchitchinadze, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Belgorod (Russian Federation). He complains about the quashing of a final and enforceable decision in his favour in which the sale – allegedly made under duress – of property he owned in Batumi was annulled and the proceedings reopened. He relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Drăghici and Others v. Romania (no. 26212/04) The applicants, Liliana Drăghici, Ana Mazilu and Adrian Herşiu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1965, 1936 and 1971 respectively and live in Râmnicu Vâlcea (Romania). They are the heirs of a person who owned land covering an area of almost 70 sq. km which was confiscated by the authorities during the communist era. After several unsuccessful attempts, they lodged a claim for restitution with the civil courts in 2002, which was rejected as inadmissible because they had failed to comply with a particular procedure (laid down by Law no. 10/2001). The applicants contend that the procedure in question is ineffective. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain of a breach of their right of access to a court and of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   Ion Constantin v. Romania (no. 38515/03) The applicant, Ion Constantin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Piteşti (Romania). Following the entry into force of the 1991 Land Act, aimed at returning to their former owners certain publicly-owned properties, the applicant’s father recovered ownership of a plot of land he wished to bequeath to his son. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that he was unable to enjoy his property rights as a third party took possession of the land after being recognised as the owner by a different authority, a decision upheld by the courts. However, the applicant’s title to the property had not been annulled by a judicial decision nor was he offered any compensation.   Ogică v. Romania (no. 24708/03) The applicant, Stancu Ogică, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Mirău (Romania). At the end of January 2001 he was placed under investigation for attempted fraud and remanded in custody. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of his conditions of detention. Under Article   5   §   1 (right   to liberty and security) he further complains that he was detained without any legal basis for more than two days after 31 January 2003, the date of a final judgment ordering his release.   De Hohenzollern (de Roumanie) v. Romania (no. 18811/02) The applicants are Carol Mircea Grigore de Hohenzollern (de Roumanie) and his son Paul   Philip de Hohenzollern. They are United Kingdom and Romanian nationals who were born in 1920 and 1948 respectively and lived (or still live) in London. The first applicant died in 2006. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain of the length of the proceedings seeking authority to enforce in Romania a 1955 judgment of the Lisbon District Court – recognising the first applicant, who was born outside marriage, as the son of King Carol II of Romania. They also allege that the domestic courts lacked impartiality and that the principle of equality of arms was breached in the proceedings before the Supreme Court.   Artyomov v. Russia (no. 14146/02) The applicant, Sergey Artyomov, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in Gvardeysk. He was found guilty of aggravated blackmail in 1999 and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; he is currently serving a ten year prison sentence for disruption of order in a detention facility. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the appalling conditions of his detention when held in a detention facility in Kaliningrad from 2003 to 2004. Further relying on Article 3, he also alleges that, when held in a correctional colony in Slavyanonvka in 2001 and 2002, he was severely beaten on one occasion by an officer on duty and on two other occasions by officers of a special unit carrying out searches; he also alleges that there was no effective investigation into his complaints of that ill ‑ treatment. Lastly, relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complains about the unfairness of the four sets of civil proceedings he brought in which he sought compensation for the conditions of his detention and the alleged beatings.   Khutsayev and Others v. Russia (no. 16622/05) The applicants are ten Russian nationals from two families who live in the village of Gekhi, Urus-Martan district (Chechnya). They allege that their close relatives, Beslan and Movsar Khutsayev, born in 1981 and 1984, and Adam Didayev, born in 1977, were detained by Russian servicemen during an unacknowledged security operation on their homes in Gekhi in the early hours of the morning of 16 December 2001; the three men have not been seen since. They also allege that during the raid three of the applicants as well as their disappeared relatives were beaten by the abductors. Lastly, they complain that the authorities’ subsequent investigation into their allegations was ineffective. 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). Also relying on Article   8 (right to respect of private and family life), and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about the searches of their homes and seizure of their possessions (money, clothes and a videotape recorder) during the raid.   Nasteska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 23152/05) The applicant, Marina Nasteska, is a national of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” who was born in 1963 and lives in Skopje. Former director of the Inter-county Centre for Social Care, she was convicted in May 2004 of abuse of office and given a six month suspended sentence. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), she complains about the unfairness – decision on appeal given in her absence – as well as the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against her.   Sandel v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 21790/03) The applicant, Gideon Sandel, is an Israeli national who was born in 1941. In January   2007 Mr Sandel was convicted in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” of fraud and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length as well as unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, notably that the trial court had discontinued interpretation into Hebrew, the only language he understood.   Asproftas v. Turkey (no. 16079/90) Petrakidou v. Turkey (no. 16081/90) The applicants, Tasos Asproftas and Marianna Petrakidou, are two Cypriot nationals who were born in 1963 and live in Nicosia. They were both arrested by the Turkish police while taking part in a demonstration on 19 July 1989 in Nicosia. Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for home) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), both applicants complain of not being able to return to and enjoy their homes, situated in the area under the control of the Turkish military authorities. Relying further on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain of being ill-treated during the demonstration and the ensuing proceedings against them. Finally, relying on Articles   5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial),   7 (no punishment without law), 11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (read in conjunction with Articles   5, 6   and   7), Mr Asproftas and Ms Petrakidou complain that they were prevented from gathering peacefully, detained unlawfully and then convicted in unfair trials of acts which did not constitute criminal offences.   Biçici v. Turkey (no. 30357/05) The applicant, Kiraz Biçici, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Biçici complains that she was ill-treated when arrested for attempting to take part in a demonstration in Istanbul in October 2003. She also alleges that the investigation into her complaints was ineffective.   Çelik v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 39326/02) The applicant, Murat Çelik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. At the time of lodging the application with the Court he was a member of the board of directors of the Istanbul Bar Association and an active human rights lawyer. He was injured in a court building in April 1998 during a commotion which occurred after the delivery of a judgment sentencing six police officers of torturing and killing a detainee. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair trial), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr   Çelik complains about being hurt at the court house and about the manner in which the investigation and the subsequent criminal proceedings against the suspected perpetrators was conducted, resulting in impunity for those responsible.   Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey (no. 23872/04) The applicants, Fadime Karabulut and Turan Karabulut, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963 and 1950 respectively and live in Sivas (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain that their 14 ‑ year ‑ old daughter was killed by a group of soldiers on 29 July 1998, who shot her when she was hitchhiking with her sister to Sivas.   Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey (no. 13279/05) The applicants, Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1950 respectively and live in Ankara. Their son, an army pilot, died in May 2001 in a plane crash which occurred during the transport of troops from Diyarbakır to Ankara. They applied unsuccessfully for the monthly pension payable to family members under the Anti ‑ Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain that the subsequent proceedings before the military administrative courts were unfair on account of the alleged disparity between the restrictive approach taken by those courts in the matter and the rulings of the ordinary administrative courts, which accepted that Law no. 3713 should be applicable to the families of soldiers who died in the same accident.   Özbek v. Turkey (no. 25327/04) The applicant, Nuri Özbek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Walldorf (Germany). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains that the army unlawfully occupied land belonging to him for at least four years. He further complains of the dismissal by the Turkish courts of his claim for compensation, and alleges that the State authorities exerted pressure on the domestic courts examining the claim.   Şahap Doğan v. Turkey (no. 29361/07) The applicant, Şahap Doğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974. He was detained in June 1996 on suspicion of membership in the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation, and is currently detained in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison (Turkey) pending the criminal proceedings against him. Relying on Article   5   §§   3 and   5 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of not having the right to compensation for that in domestic law. He also complains under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Sarıca and Dilaver v. Turkey (no. 11765/05) The applicants are İsmail Sarıca, Hüseyin Sarıca, Yalçın Sarıca, Hüseyin Adnan Sarıca and Şehbal Sarıca Dilaver, Turkish nationals who were born respectively in 1940, 1951, 1958, 1934 and 1945 and live in Kocaeli (Turkey). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain of a breach of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, alleging that the administrative authorities occupied their land for many years without a formally valid expropriation order having been issued. The applicants further allege that the decision of the domestic courts to apply the statutory default interest rate to their claims rather than the maximum rate applicable to public debts, as defined by Article 46 of the Constitution, resulted in the amount of compensation due to them being reduced.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bîrlă v. Romania (no. 18611/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that a final decision in her favour was quashed by means of an extraordinary appeal. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Marin and Gheorghe Rădulescu v. Romania (no. 15851/06) In this case the applicants complain of their inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Papuc v. Romania (no. 44476/04) This case concerns the applicants’ complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce in good time a final judgment in their favour ordering the restitution of land belonging to them which had been occupied. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Düzdemir and Günger v. Turkey (nos. 25952/03 and 25966/03) This case concerns the domestic authorities’ failure to enforce in good time judgments granting compensation to the applicants. The applicants rely in particular 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.   Georgi Georgiev v. Bulgaria (no. 22381/05) Alves Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 30358/08)   ***   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.