CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 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 }   494 17.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   22 and 24 June 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 20   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 22   June 2010 and nine on Thursday 24 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 22 June 2010   Flieger v. Poland (application no. 36262/08) The applicant, Waldemar Flieger, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained in Chelmno (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains of the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for burglaries committed between December 1998 and February 1999.   Kurłowicz v. Poland (no. 41029/06) The applicant, Zbigniew Kurłowicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Knyszyn (Poland). At the relevant time, Mr Kurłowicz was the President of the City Council in Knyszyn. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, he complains of his criminal conviction for defamation following statements he made in February 2004 during a City Council meeting about the professional conduct of a school manager.   Boroancă v. Romania (no. 38511/03) The applicant, Pavel Boroancă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954. In 2002 he was convicted in absentia at first instance and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for trading in influence. His conviction was later upheld in his presence. He served part of his sentence in Craiova Prison. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Boroancă maintains that no effective investigation was conducted into an allegation that he had been raped in prison, and also complains about the poor detention conditions there, in particular overcrowding. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he further alleges that he was convicted in absentia without having been properly summoned to appear in court. He submits that the courts with which he lodged an ordinary appeal and an appeal on points of law did not cure that initial procedural defect.   Gavriliţă v. Romania (no. 10921/03) The applicant, Mr Anatolii Gavriliţă, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1972 and lives in Căuşani (Moldova).   In 2000 he was placed in pre-trial detention at Constanţa police headquarters, and was subsequently transferred to Poarta Albă Prison following his conviction for drug trafficking. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he contracted syphilis at the police headquarters and tuberculosis   in prison. He further complains in general about the detention conditions which, in his view, caused both these diseases.   Bingöl v. Turkey (no. 36141/04) The applicant, Mr Abdulkerim Bingöl, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Muş. At the relevant time he was a committee member in the DEHAP party (Democratic People’s Party) and took part in political activities in that capacity. He was sentenced in criminal proceedings to one year and six months’ imprisonment after criticising the Turkish State over the Kurdish question in a speech at the DEHAP congress. Relying on Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant complains that his conviction was harsh and amounted to discrimination on the basis of his membership of the Kurdish ethnic minority.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Economou v. Turkey (no. 18405/91) Evagorou Christou v. Turkey (no. 18403/91) Gavriel v. Turkey (no. 41355/98) Ioannou v. Turkey (no. 18364/91) Kyriacou v. Turkey (no. 18407/91) Michael v. Turkey (no. 18361/91) Nicolaides v. Turkey (no. 18406/91) Orphanides v. Turkey (no. 36705/97) Sophia Andreou v. Turkey (no. 18360/91) In judgments of 20 and 27   January 2009, the Court held that in all these cases, concerning the applicants’ right of access to their property in the northern part of Cyprus, there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). With the exception of Economou and Nicolaides, the Court also held that there had been a violation of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). The Court held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision in any of those cases. The decisions concerning that question will be announced in the judgments to be delivered by the Court on 22   June 2010.     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.   Baccini and Artuzzi v. Italy (nos. 26314/03 and 26326/03) Ciampa and Others v. Italy (nos. 7253/03, 7596/03 and 7608/03) Rossi and Iuliano and Others v. Italy (nos. 676/03, 678/03, 682/03, 693/03, 695/03 and 697/03) Toscana Restaura s.a.s. and Azienda Agricola S. Cumano s.r.l. v. Italy (nos.   4428/04 and 5481/05) Garcia Franco and Others v. Portugal (no. 9273/07) Maksimovič v. Slovenia (no. 28662/05)     Thursday 24 June 2010   European University Press GmbH v. Austria (no. 36942/05) The applicant, European University Press GmbH, is a limited liability company with its seat in Vienna. In 2002 the company published a book about the then Federal President of Austria. In April of the same year, the Vienna Commercial Court issued an injunction against the company prohibiting it from disseminating statements, contained in that book, concerning an alleged abortion which the President’s wife had been forced by him to undergo. Not having complied with that injunction, the company was fined more than 30 times by the domestic courts and was also ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings in those cases. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complains about not being informed of the then President and his wife requesting the Supreme Court to oblige the applicant company to pay costs in respect of ten of the injunction-related decisions.   Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (no. 30141/04) The applicants, Horst Michael Schalk and Johann Franz Kopf, are Austrian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1960 respectively and live in Vienna. They are a same-sex couple and live together. Relying on Article   12 (right to marry), they complain of the authorities’ refusal to allow them to marry. Relying further on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) they complain that they were discriminated against on account of their sexual orientation since they were denied the right to marry and have no other possibility to have their relationship recognised by law. Finally, under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they allege that they suffer financial disadvantages compared to married couples.   Mancel and Branquart v. France (no. 22349/06) The applicants, Jean-François Mancel and Roland Branquart, are two French nationals who were born in 1948 and 1950 respectively and live in Paris. The first applicant was chairman of the Oise département council and the second was manager of a company. In May 1998 they were placed under investigation for conferring unjustified benefits and acquiring or retaining a prohibited interest (Mr Mancel), and handling the proceeds of the former offence and aiding and abetting the latter offence (Mr Branquart). After a decision given in their favour on appeal had been quashed, they were eventually found guilty as charged and an appeal on points of law against their conviction was dismissed. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants submit that the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation that upheld their conviction was not impartial. In particular, they complain that seven of the nine judges had already considered the initial appeal on points of law in their case.   Veliyev v. Russia (no. 24202/05) The applicant, Tudzhar Ali ogly Veliyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1964 and is currently serving a prison sentence for armed robbery in Vyazniki (Vladimir Region, Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §§   1   (c),   3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the appalling conditions in which he was detained during the criminal proceedings against him, of his detention on remand being unlawful, too lengthy and otherwise irregular, and of the criminal proceedings lasting for too long.   Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine (no. 1727/04) The applicant, Oleksiy Zakharkin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and lived, at the relevant time, in Kalush (Ivano-Frankivsk Region, Ukraine). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that, arrested in May 2003 on suspicion of possession of illegal drugs, he was ill-treated by the police, detained unlawfully and not brought quickly enough before a judge after his arrest.   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.   Afflerbach v. Germany (no. 39444/08) Kuchejda v. Germany (no. 17384/06) Perschke v. Germany (no. 25756/09) Schädlich v. Germany (no. 21423/07)   *** 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.