CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 juillet 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 } .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 } 535 2.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   6 and 8 July 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 17   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 6 July 2010 and nine on Thursday 8   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 6 July 2010   Backlund v. Finland (application no. 36498/05) Grönmark v. Finland (no. 17038/04) The applicants are two Finnish nationals who live in Finland. Sven Backlund was born in 1937 and lives in Norrnäs, and Maarit Grönmark was born in 1968 and lives in Mäntsälä. Both cases concern the applicants’ complaint that, despite conclusive evidence – DNA tests – of their (now deceased) biological fathers’ paternity, they could not have this fact legally confirmed due to a strict time-limit imposed under national law. They rely on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and   Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Mariapori v. Finland (no. 37751/07) Niskasaari and Others v. Finland (no. 37520/07) The applicant in the first case, Anna-Liisa Mariapori, is a Finnish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Muurola (Finland). The applicants in the second case are a Finnish publishing company, Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy , based in Helsinki, and, a freelance journalist and editor-in-chief of Seura magazine, Mikko Niskasaari and Jouni Flinkkilä, Finnish   nationals born in 1952 and 1948, respectively, who live in Helsinki. The applicants’ complaints concern their criminal convictions for defamation: in the first case, following the publication of a book in which Ms Mariapori, a tax expert, accused a tax inspector of perjury in tax fraud proceedings; and, in the second case, after publication of an article which contained inaccuracies about a Child Ombudsman’s removal from her functions. They rely on Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. Further relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they also complain about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against them.   Turán v. Hungary (no. 33068/05) The applicant, Tünde Turán, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest. A lawyer, Ms Turán complains about the unlawfulness of a search of her office by the police in October 2004 during which documents concerning one of her clients, suspected of involvement in illegal financial activities, were seized. She relies on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Pocius v. Lithuania (no. 35601/04) Užukauskas v. Lithuania (no. 16965/04) The applicants are Vidas Pocius, born in 1962, and, Robertas Užukauskas, born in 1972, Lithuanian nationals who live in Kaunas (Lithuania). The cases concern the entry of the names of the applicants, holders of firearms licences, into a secret police file which contained information about them being a danger to society. As a result, their licences were revoked and they were required to hand over their weapons to the authorities. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants notably complain that the administrative proceedings they brought in which they challenged their names being entered into such files were unfair as classified information about them was not disclosed, despite their repeated requests.   Jarkiewicz v. Poland (no. 23623/07) The applicant, Adam Jarkiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Warsaw. Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence), Mr Jarkiewicz complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand following his arrest in April 2005 on suspicion of drug trafficking, and about the censorship of his correspondence by the remand centre authorities. He was released in September 2007. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending.   Zawadzki v. Poland (no. 648/02) The applicant, Jan Zawadzki, is a Polish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Hajnówka (Poland). Convicted of theft in August 2000 and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, Mr Zawadzki complains that the legal-aid lawyer assigned to his case refused to file a cassation appeal. He relies on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial).   Degeratu v. Romania (no. 35104/02) The applicant, Romulus Degeratu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Râmnicu Vâlcea (Romania). Mr Degeratu, a police officer, was taken into custody and criminal proceedings were opened against him on suspicion of aiding and abetting the theft of oil from pipelines. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Degeratu complains about the excessive length of his detention pending trial and the lack of reasoning given for the decisions to keep him in detention. Relying on Article   5 § 5, he further complains that there was no possibility of seeking compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention.   Nicuţ-Tănăsescu v. Romania (no. 25842/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Nicuţ-Tănăsescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Constanţa (Romania). Suspected of corruption and abuse of public office, he was taken into custody and criminal proceedings were opened against him. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Nicuţ-Tănăsescu complains that when he was arrested he was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, in order to verify the lawfulness of his detention.   Dimakos v. Romania (no. 10675/03) The applicant, Ioannis Dimakos, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and is currently living in Certeze (Satu Mare, Romania). Arrested in March 1998 and released in June 2009 after serving a sentence for bribery, embezzlement, forgery and smuggling, Mr   Dimakos complains about the conditions of his detention in the various Romanian prisons in which he was held during that period. He relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), he also complains that he was not allowed visits from his family while in prison.   Gözel and Özer v. Turkey (nos. 43453/04 and 31098/05) The applicants are two Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul. Aylin Gözel, who was born in 1978, is the owner and editor of the monthly magazine “Maya”, and Aziz Özer, who was born in 1964, is the publisher and editor of the monthly “Yeni Dünya İçin Çağrı”. Both magazines have their offices in Istanbul. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression), they complain about their conviction for publishing what the domestic courts considered to be declarations made by illegal organisations. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), Mr   Özer complained in particular that the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was not communicated to him, and under Article 7 (no punishment without law), he complains that he was convicted for publishing statements of which he was not the author. He also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in respect of the seizure order issued by the Assize Court.   Yetiş and Others v. Turkey (no. 40349/05) The applicants, Hüsne Yetiş, Gülhan Yücel, Fatma Ergin, Hatice Ergin and Ali Mehmet Yetiş, are five Turkish nationals who were born in 1928, 1969, 1947, 1963 and 1965 respectively and live in Niğde (Turkey). Farm land they owned was expropriated in 2000 to build a motorway. They complain that the compensation they received for the expropriation did not reflect the real value of their property at the time when it was paid. They submit that a long time passed between the estimation of the land’s value and the payment of the compensation, and that no provision was made for the resulting depreciation. They further argue that in order to remedy the loss they suffered the domestic courts should have applied the maximum interest rate provided for in Article 46 of the Constitution, but they did not. The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Postolache v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 48269/08) This case concerns the annulment by the domestic courts of an appeal lodged by the applicant because he had not paid stamp duty. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   S.C. Prodcomexim S.R.L. v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 31760/06) In this case the applicant company complains of the authorities’ failure to enforce a final judgment in its favour. It relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     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.   Rejzmund v. Poland (no. 42205/08)     Thursday 8 July 2010   Hajiyeva and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 50766/07, 50786/07, 50871/07 and 50913/07) Isgandarov and Others v. Azerbaijan (nos. 50711/07, 50793/07, 50848/07, 50894/07 and 50924/07) The applicants are nine Azerbaijani nationals. Holders of vouchers for flats in a recently ‑ constructed building in Baku currently occupied by internally displaced families from regions under the control of Armenian military forces following the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the applicants complain about the non-enforcement of domestic court judgments which ordered the occupants’ eviction. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), Article   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Vachkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 2747/02) The applicants, Veronika Simeonova Vachkova and Petar Ganchev Vachkov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1937 and 1935 respectively and live in Sofia. The case concerns the applicants’ allegation that the police shot in the head and killed their 28-year-old son, Gancho Vachkov, on a wanted list of robbery suspects, when giving chase after locating him in a playground in central Sofia. Relying on Article   2 (right to life), they complain about the excessive use of force against their son and the inadequacy of the ensuing investigation.   Döring v. Germany (no. 40014/05) The applicant, Peter Döring, is a German national who was born in 1956 and lives in Berlin. He is the father of a child born out of wedlock in 1995 of a woman from whom he subsequently separated. In early 2002 he applied for full parental authority to be taken away from the mother, and also for access to the child. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of the ensuing proceedings. Under Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about the civil courts’ refusal to grant him unaccompanied access.   Sitaropoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 42202/07) The applicants, Nikolaos Sitaropoulos, Stephanos Stavros and Christos Giakoumopoulos, are Greek nationals who were born in 1967, 1961 and 1958 respectively and live in Strasbourg, where they work for the Council of Europe. When parliamentary elections were held in Greece in 2007, they were unable to exercise their right to vote because of the Greek State’s failure to make arrangements for Greek voters living abroad to be able to vote. They rely on Article   3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).   Rausch v. Luxembourg (no. 29733/08) The applicant, Gustave Rausch, is a national of Luxembourg who was born in 1951 and lives in Mertzig (Luxembourg). In 1998 he lodged a criminal complaint and a claim for damages against his neighbour, for allegedly stealing a head of cattle and fraudulently changing its identification number. The proceedings are still pending. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains about the excessive length of the proceedings.   Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia (no. 14049/08) Yuldashev v. Russia (no. 1248/09) The applicants, Abdulazhon Isakov and Murod Yuldashev, are Uzbek nationals who were born in 1963 and 1972 respectively. They were arrested in Russia and placed in detention pending extradition in March 2008 and October 2007, respectively; they have both since been released. They allege that their detention pending extradition was unlawful and that, if extradited to their country of origin, where they are on a wanted list for suspected involvement in extremist movements, they would be at real risk of politically-motivated persecution, torture and ill-treatment. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5 §§   1 and   4 (right to liberty and security) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Aleksandr Matveyev v. Russia (no. 14797/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Matveyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Pestovo (Novgorod Region, Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Matveyev complains in particular about the appalling conditions of his detention on remand in facilities in Petersburg and Moscow during criminal proceedings against him for murder.   ***   Press contacts echrpress@echr;coe.int / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) 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.