CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 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 } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline }   517 25.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   29 June and 1 July 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing five Chamber judgments on Tuesday 29 June 2010 and seven on Thursday 1   July 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 29 June 2010   Hakimi v. Belgium (application no. 665/08) The applicant, Abdelkader Hakimi, is a Moroccan national who was born in 1965 and is currently in prison in Andenne (Belgium). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains of the fact that his appeal against a judgment given against him in his absence by the Brussels Court of Appeal, sentencing him to eight years’ imprisonment for terrorist activities, was dismissed as being out of time. In particular, he alleges that he was not informed by the prison authorities about the time allowed for lodging an appeal.   Just satisfaction Ipteh SA and Others v. Moldova (no. 35367/08) The applicants are Ipteh SA, a company incorporated in Moldova; Worldway Limited, incorporated in the United Kingdom; Kapital Invest SA, incorporated in Romania; and, Ion Rusu, a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Iaşi (Romania). The latter three applicants all hold shares in Ipteh SA. In a judgment of 24   November 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) to the Convention on account of the unfairness of proceedings in which the privatisation of a building in Chişinău belonging to Ipteh SA was annulled. 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 its judgment to be delivered on 29   June 2010.   Pawel Gładkowski v. Poland (no. 24216/06) The applicant, Paweł Franciszek Gładkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Sieradz (Poland). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) he complains, in the context of a case concerning misappropriation of loans, of the length of the criminal and civil proceedings he brought seeking compensation for the losses he had sustained.   Karadağ v. Turkey (no. 12976/05) The applicant, Serdar Menderes Karadağ, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974. At the time his application was lodged he was serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder in Sinop Prison (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (right to a fair trial) he complains, in particular, that he did not have the assistance of a lawyer while he was in police custody, that the proceedings against him were unfair in several respects – particularly because he did not have a genuine lawyer during part of his trial as his lawyer was found guilty of assuming a false identity – and that his right to be presumed innocent was breached when some police officers took part in a television programme about his case which was screened during the trial. Relying also on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) he complains in particular that his detention in police custody was unlawful, alleging that he was subjected to police violence, and that the length of his detention was excessive. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he also complains about the fees paid to the bogus lawyer.     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.   Révész v. Hungary (no. 5417/06)     Thursday 1 July 2010   Hađi v. Croatia (no. 42998/08) The applicant Đerđet Hađi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Osijek (Croatia). Relying on Article   5   §§   1 and   4 and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr   Hađi complains about the unlawfulness of his detention from 12 December 2007 to 30   January 2008 on charges of aggravated larceny as well as about the inadequacy of the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of that detention. He was released In January 2008 due to lack of evidence.   Vusić v. Croatia (no. 48101/07) The applicant, Zvonko Vusić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Varaždin (Croatia). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Vusić complains about the unfairness of proceedings in which he sought to repossess a house in Varaždin. In particular, he alleges that the Supreme Court declared his appeal on points of law admissible in February 2004 and then, a year later, declared it inadmissible without any valid explanation.   Bala v. Greece (no. 40876/07) The applicant, Martin Bala, is an Albanian national who was born in 1977 and is currently in Korydallos Prison (Greece), having been sentenced in 2007 to three years and six months’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains of the domestic courts’ refusal grant him leave to appear in person so that he could challenge the public prosecutor’s submissions in favour of his continued pre-trial detention.   Vogiatzis and Others v. Greece (no. 17588/08) The applicants are nine Greek nationals who live in the Attica region of Greece. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain of the delay by the State in complying with a court judgment awarding them additional compensation in a case concerning the expropriation of their land with a view to the widening of a trunk road.   Nedayborshch v. Russia (no. 42255/04) The applicant is, Sergey Nedayborshch, a Russian national who was born in 1985 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kopeysk (Chelyabinsk Region, Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions in which he was held in Kopeysk temporary detention centre.   Nikiforov v. Russia (no. 42837/04) The applicant, Vyacheslav Nikiforov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence in Kostroma (Russia) for robbery. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was beaten during his police custody in December 2003 and that the ensuing investigation into that allegation was ineffective.   Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02) The applicants are 13 Ukrainian nationals, most of whom were serving their sentences at Zamkova Correctional Colony no.   58, situated in Iziaslav (Khmelnytsky Region, Ukraine) at the time of the events. Relying, in particular, on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and   34 (right of individual petition), the applicants complain in particular of having been ill-treated in prison during training exercises conducted by special and rapid reaction forces. They further complain that their allegations about that treatment were not investigated and, in general, about the inadequate conditions in prison and failure to provide them with the necessary medical assistance for their injuries.   ***   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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.