CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 mai 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 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline }   430 28.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   1 and 3 June 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing nine Chamber judgments on Tuesday 1   June 2010 and six on Thursday 3 June 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 1 June 2010   Mawaka v. the Netherlands (application no. 29031/04) The applicant, Sita Mawaka, is a Congolese national who was born in 1969 and lives in Rotterdam (the Netherlands). Granted asylum and a residence permit in the Netherlands since July 1996, Mr Mawaka is currently awaiting expulsion to the Democratic Republic of the Congo following the withdrawal of his residence permit on account of a criminal conviction in 1997 in Belgium for drug trafficking. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he alleges that he would be at real and personal risk if expulsed to his country of origin. He also alleges an interference with his right to respect for his family life with his wife and son who live in the Netherlands, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). . Bieniek v. Poland (no. 46117/07) The applicant, Robert Bieniek, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and is currently in Warsaw Remand Centre on suspicion of having committed a number of murders. He complains, under Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and 6   § 1 (right to a fair trial), about the extension of his detention pending trial – which has lasted since 1999 – and about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Jasińska v. Poland (no. 28326/05) The applicant, Kazimiera Jasińska, is a Polish national who was born in 1938 and lives in Krasnystaw (Poland). The case concerns her grandson’s suicide while serving a prison sentence for theft with aggravating circumstances. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she alleges that as a result of negligence on the part of the prison authorities her grandson was able to steal medicines and kill himself.   Bulfinsky v. Romania (no. 28823/04) The applicant, Cristian-Răzvan Bulfinsky, is a Romanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest. He was found guilty of drug trafficking in April 2003 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, later increased on appeal to 12 years. Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, notably alleging that he was entrapped by police undercover agents.   Dumitru v. Romania (no. 4710/04) The applicant, Gheorghe Ioan Dumitru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Pâncota (Arad, Romania). The case concerns his criminal conviction for defamation for having told a journalist, who subsequently published an article on the subject, about illegal acts allegedly committed by a superintendent and involving real estate. Mr Dumitru relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 10 (freedom of expression) regarding his conviction for defamation, which, he alleges, contained no reasons and infringed his freedom of expression. He also complains, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), about the non-enforcement of a decision granting him title to a 17.98 ha pond.   Iamandi v. Romania (no. 25867/03) The applicant, Grigore Iamandi, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1956. He is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in Rahova Prison in Bucharest for robbery and aggravated murder. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of the conditions of detention in Giurgiu and Rahova Prisons, particularly prison overcrowding, appalling hygiene and lack of medical assistance. Under Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) and 34 (right of individual petition), he alleges that the prison authorities interfered with his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights.   Răcăreanu v. Romania (no. 14262/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Răcăreanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Bucharest. Convicted of drug trafficking in November 2001 and sentenced to ten years and four months’ imprisonment, he complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him as well as the conditions of his detention, including inadequate medical treatment. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial).   Gutiérrez Suárez v. Spain (no. 16023/07) The applicant, José Luis Gutiérrez Suárez, is a Spanish national who was born in Madrid. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), he complains of his conviction for having published in the daily newspaper Diario 16 , of which he was the publication director, an article about drug trafficking that implicated the Moroccan royal family. Under Articles   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he complains of an infringement of his defence rights and of having been convicted despite being neither the author of the article nor the owner of Diario 16 .     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Derda v. Poland (no. 58154/08)     Thursday 3 June 2010   Dimitras and Others v. Greece (nos. 42837/06, 3237/07, 3269/07, 35793/07 and 6099/08) The applicants, Panayote Dimitras, Theodoros Alexandridis, Nafsika Papanikolatou and Andrea Gilbert, are Greek nationals who were born in 1953, 1976, 1955 and 1947 respectively and live in Athens. They were summoned to appear on various dates in connection with criminal proceedings. They complain under Articles   9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination) about the obligation imposed on them to disclose their non-Orthodox religious convictions when asked to take the oath before the courts. They also allege, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), that the presence of religious symbols in the courtrooms and the fact that Greek judges are Orthodox Christians raises doubts as to their impartiality.   Alapayevy v. Russia (no. 39676/06) (copied from AJ of 22/4) The applicants are two Russian nationals who live in the village of Sernovodsk (Chechnya). They are the mother and wife of Salambek Alapayev, born in 1982, who has not been seen since the early hours of 27 December 2004 when a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms raided the family home in Sernovodsk. They allege that Salambek was detained and subsequently killed by Russian servicemen and 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).   Galeyev v. Russia (no. 19316/09) The applicant, Dmitriy Galeyev, is a Belarus national who was born in 1974. On a wanted list in Belarus on extortion charges, Mr Galeyev was arrested in Russia in July 2008 and placed in custody; the request to have him extradited to Belarus was subsequently accepted by the Russian prosecuting authorities. He was released in September 2009 and is currently living in Novokuybyshevsk (Samara Region, Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   § 1 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that his detention pending extradition in Russia was unlawful and that, if extradited to Belarus, he would be in danger of being subjected to inhuman treatment.   Kamaliyevy v. Russia (no. 52812/07) The applicants are Abdugani Kamaliyev, an Uzbekistan national, and his wife, Maymuna Kamaliyeva, a Russian national, both born in 1958. The case concerns in particular Mr   Kamaliyev’s deportation to Uzbekistan in December 2007 for a breach of residence regulations despite the European Court of Human Right’s indication to the Russian Government under Rule   39 (interim measures) of its Rules of Court not to expel him pending its decision. Mr   Kamaliyev is apparently currently serving a prison sentence in Uzbekistan for belonging to an extremist religious organisation; his representatives have had no contact with him since his expulsion. His wife died in August 2008. The applicants raise/d a number of complaints about the expulsion under Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   34 (right of individual petition). Mr Kamaliyev also complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) about the seizure of his Russian passport in Feburary 2006.   Konashevskaya and Others v. Russia (no. 3009/07) The applicants, Nina Konashevskaya, Margarita Belikova, Oktyabrina Zharkova and Lyubov Gorokhova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1919, 1930, 1939 and 1941 respectively and live in Moscow. Relying on Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complain about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them for aggravated fraud.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. She also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Lelik v. Russia (no. 20441/02)       ***   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.