CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 juin 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline }   478 10.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   15 and 17 June 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 23   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 15   June 2010 and nine on Thursday 17 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 15 June 2010   Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia (application no. 34334/04) The applicant, Ashot Harutyunyan, was an Armenian national who was born in 1952. At the time of his death in January 2009 he was serving his sentence at Kosh penitentiary institution (Armenia) for fraud and falsification of documents. His daughter, Arusyak Harutyunyan expressed the wish to pursue the application on her father’s behalf. Submitted under Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   6   §§   1, 2 and   3 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the complaint concerns the lack of medical treatment the applicant needed in detention between May 2003 and August 2004, the fact that he had been placed in a metal cage when in court during the appeal proceedings, and him not having enjoyed the same conditions for calling his witnesses as the prosecution had.   Grzelak v. Poland (no. 7710/02) The applicants are Urszula Grzelak, and her husband, Czesław Grzelak, who were born in 1969 and 1965 respectively and live in Sobótka (Poland), and their son, Mateusz Grzelak, who was born in 1991. Relying in particular on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), the applicants allege that the school authorities failed to organise a class in ethics for Mateusz, failed to give him a mark in his school report in the place reserved for “religion/ethics”, and that Mateusz was harassed and discriminated against for not following religious education classes.   Pardus v. Poland (no. 13401/03) The applicant, Jerzy Pardus, is a Polish national who lives in Warsaw. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the excessive length of several sets of civil and criminal proceedings in which he was involved between 1992 and 2006.   Ciupercescu v. Romania (no. 35555/03) The applicant, Dragoş Ciupercescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Giurgiu (Romania). A former serviceman, he was arrested in March 2003 on suspicion of stealing munitions and explosives and using them in public places – including a school – to blackmail the authorities for financial gain. During the criminal proceedings, which resulted in an 18-year prison sentence for terrorism, he was held in pre-trial detention, mainly in the wing reserved for “dangerous convicts”. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Ciupercescu complains, first, about being subjected to the same prison regime as dangerous inmates and, second, about the detention conditions in Bucharest-Jilava prison - in particular its alleged overcrowding. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) he contends that his trial was unfair for a number of reasons. Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), he complains that he was detained with convicted prisoners, whilst he was only on remand. Lastly, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about the withdrawal of his parental rights in respect of his minor child as an addition to his sentence.   Creangă v. Romania (no. 29226/03) The applicant, Sorin Creangă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Bucharest. Whilst serving as a junior police officer in Bucharest, he was arrested on suspicion of taking bribes and remanded in custody in July 2003. Relying on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), he argues that his detention during the criminal proceedings against him was unlawful, for a number of reasons.   Ahmadpour v. Turkey (no. 12717/08) The applicant, Latife Ahmadpour (Derya Neverdi), is an Iranian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Kırklareli (Turkey). Having escaped together with her children from conjugal violence in Iran and arrived in Turkey in 2005, she was recognised by the UNHCR as a refugee in 2008. In the meantime, following an initial rejection by the UNHCR of her asylum request, the Turkish Ministry of Interior refused her temporary asylum request and informed her, in November 2007, that she would be deported. Relying on Articles   2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that her removal to Iran would expose her to a real risk of death or ill-treatment   Aşıcı and Others v. Turkey (no. 17561/04) Arpat v. Turkey (no. 26730/05) In the first case the applicants are 13 Turkish nationals, members of a university students’ union. They were arrested in September 2000 during a demonstration outside the US Consulate in Istanbul to protest against the arrival in Turkey of representatives of the International Monetary Fund and against F-type prisons. In the second case, the applicant Müjgan Süheyla Arpat, has Turkish and Germany nationality, was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. She was arrested in June 2003 in connection with a demonstration in support of a campaign entitled “Women’s appeal for dialogue on Kurdish question”. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   11 (freedom of assembly and association), all applicants complain about their arrest and the treatment they allegedly received during their arrest or shortly afterwards.   Just satisfaction Fener Rum Patrikliği (Ecumenical Patriarchate) v. Turkey (no. 14340/05) The applicant, Fener Rum Patrikliği (the Ecumenical Patriarchate), is an Orthodox church in Istanbul. It currently brings together and represents the Orthodox minority in Turkey. It is represented by His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew   I. In a judgment of 8   July 2008 the Court held that the Turkish authorities were not entitled to deprive the applicant church of its property without providing for appropriate compensation. The church had not received any compensation and it had therefore had to bear an individual and excessive burden, entailing a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The Court further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. This question will be decided in the judgment to be delivered by the Court on 15   June 2010.   M.B. and Others v. Turkey (no. 36009/08) The applicants, M.B., his wife, Z.P., and their two children, M.B. and T.B., are Iranian nationals who were born in 1960, 1959, 1989 and 1984 respectively and were living in Hakkari (Turkey) at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. At 12h47 (Strasbourg local time) on 30 July 2008, the European Court of Human Rights, acting under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, indicated by fax to the Permanent Representation of Turkey to the Council of Europe that the applicants should not be deported to Iran until 3   September 2008. However, they were deported at 1.00 p.m. on the same day (Strasbourg local time). When in Iran and escorted by the Iranian police to court, the applicants bribed the officers, escaped and subsequently re-entered Turkey. On 13 November 2008, the Court extended until further notice its indication to Turkey not to deport the applicants. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security), they complain that, as they had converted to Christianity, their removal to Iran would expose them to a real risk of death or ill-treatment and that they had no effective remedy at their disposal with which to challenge their deportation. Relying further on Article   34 (right of individual petition), they complain of their deportation to Iran despite the Court’s indication.   Turgay and Others v. Turkey (nos. 8306/08, 8340/08 and 8366/08) The applicants are 12 Turkish nationals, who, at the relevant time, were the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of two weekly newspapers published in Turkey: Yedinci Gün and Toplumsal Demokrasi . The publication of those newspapers was suspended for a month in January 2008 and the applicants were criminally prosecuted for disseminating terrorist-aligned propaganda. Relying on Articles   6 (right to a fair hearing), 7 (no punishment without law),   10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), the applicants complain in particular of the suspension of the publication and distribution of the two newspapers, which they claimed, amounted to censorship.   S.H. v. United Kingdom (no. 19956/06) The applicant, S.H., is a   Bhutanese national of   ethnic   Nepalese origin who was born in 1978 and   currently lives in Huddersfield. He claimed asylum in the United Kingdom but the application was refused and he was served with removal directions. Prior to his removal,   the Court indicated to the United Kingdom Government   that he should not be expelled pending the Court’s decision on the merits of his application. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains that his removal to Bhutan would expose him to a risk of ill-treatment on account of his ethnicity, his status as a failed asylum seeker, and as the close relative of a human rights activist who has been granted asylum in the United Kingdom.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Pinto Romão de Sousa Chaves and Others v. Portugal (no. 44452/05) This case concerns the delay in calculating and paying the compensation awarded to the applicants for expropriation. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Just satisfaction Forna v. Romania (no. 34999/03) In a judgment of 5   May 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) on account of the failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour concerning a plot of land. 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 15   June 2010.   Mureşanu v. Romania (no. 12821/05) This case concerns the partial non-enforcement of a final judgment in favour of the applicant. He relies on Article   6   §   1 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Adem Yılmaz Doğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 25700/05) In this case, the applicants complain that they were deprived of their property, designated as forest area, without compensation. They rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Köksal and Durdu v. Turkey (nos. 27080/08 and 40982/08) This case concerns the failure to provide the applicants with a copy of the opinion of the public prosecutors to the Supreme Administrative Court and the length of the proceedings. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time)   Kurt and Others v. Turkey (no. 20313/03) This case concerns the failure by the domestic authorities to enforce final judgments in favour of the applicants with regard to compensation in good time. The applicants 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.   Kokavecz v. Hungary (no. 39138/05) Váraljai v. Hungary (no. 31172/07) Seweryn v. Poland (no. 33582/08) Cemil Aydın v. Turkey (no. 8537/05)   Revision Adamczuk v. Poland (no. 30523/07) The Government requests revision of the judgment delivered on 17   July 2008.     Thursday 17 June 2010   Batayev and Others v. Russia (nos. 11354/05 and 32952/06) Tovsultanova v. Russia (no. 26974/06) The ten applicants in the first case belong to six families. Their seven male relatives were detained in two separate incidents in 2000 in Grozny or the Grozny district and subsequently disappeared. The applicant in the second case is the mother of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov, born in 1970, and who currently lives in the village of Katyr-Yurt (Chechnya). Both cases concern the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives were abducted and killed by Russian servicemen following unacknowledged security operations. 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).   Gubin v. Russia (no. 8217/04) The applicant, Aleksey Gubin, is a Russian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Moscow. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the appalling conditions of his detention on remand from August 2003 to September 2004 on suspicion of kidnapping and rape. He further complains that one of the appeal hearings with regard to the extension of his pre-trial detention was held in his and his counsel’s absence, in breach of Article   5 §   4 (right to liberty and security).   Kolesnik v. Russia (no. 26876/08) The applicants are, Irina Kolesnik, a Turkmenistan national, and, her husband, Viktor Kolesnik, a Russian national; they were born in 1961 and 1946 respectively and live in the Tula Region (Russia). The case concerns Irina Kolesnik’s complaint that, if extradited to Turkmenistan, where she stands accused of fraud, she would be at real risk of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), she also alleges that her detention pending extradition between August 2007 and August 2008 was unlawful and not subject to judicial review. Ms Kolesnik also complains about the wording of decisions by the Russian authorities and statements by public officials as regards her guilt in the offences she was charged with in Turkmenistan, in breach of Article   6   §   2 (presumption of innocence). Lastly, both applicants, who have a daughter together, born in 1992, allege that the extradition would violate their family life, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Logvinenko v. Russia (no. 44511/04) The applicant, Viktor Logvinenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1984 and is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence in the Ivanovo Region (Russia) for manslaughter. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1   and   3 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that his pre-trial detention from September to December 2005 was unlawful as it had not been covered by a court order and that the overall length of his pre-trial detention – almost three and half years – was excessive.   Ovchinnikov v. Russia (no. 9807/02) The applicant, Igor Ovchinnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in St.   Petersburg (Russia). Former deputy mayor of the town of Magadan, he was convicted in April 2001 of bribery and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the deplorable conditions of his detention from December 1999 to August 2003 in a Magadan facility.   Roslov v. Russia (no. 40616/02) The applicant, Andrey Roslov, is a Russian national who lives in Orel (Russia). A former secondary school principal in Orel, he complains of the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for misappropriation. His conviction was set aside in January 2005 due to lack of evidence. He relies in particular on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Shcherbakov v. Russia (no. 23939/02) The applicant, Igor Shcherbakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Tula (Russia). Arrested and detained in 1995 on suspicion of murder, he was ultimately released in 2002 for lack of evidence. He was subsequently awarded compensation. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains in particular about the appalling conditions of his detention in a Tula remand centre. Further relying on Articles   5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention, which prevented him from having contact with his family, as well as the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Shulenkov v. Russia (no. 38031/04) The applicant, Aleksandr Shulenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence in the Tula Region (Russia) for robbery. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he alleges that his detention from April to November 2004 was unlawful and that this appeals against the orders for his continued detention were not properly examined.   ***   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   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.