CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 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 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } 556 08.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   13 and 15 July 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 13   July 2010 and 17 on Thursday 15 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 13 July 2010   Just satisfaction Manole and Others v. Moldova (application no. 13936/02) The applicants, Larisa Manole, Corina Fusu, Mircea Surdu, Dinu Rusnac, Viorica Cucereanu-Bogatu, Angela Aramă-Leahu, Ludmila Vasilache, Leonid Melnic and Diana Donică are Moldovan nationals living in Chişinău. They are or were all employed by Teleradio-Moldova (TRM), which was, at the relevant time, the only national television and radio station in Moldova. In a Chamber judgment of 17   September 2009, the Court found that the safeguards against political control of TRM had been inadequate and concluded that there had been a violation of Article   10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it 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 13   July 2010.   Parnov v. Moldova (no. 35208/06) The applicant, Vladimir Parnov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1986 and lives in Chişinău. Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, Mr Parnov alleges that he was subjected to police brutality in March 2005, when he was arrested and detained on charges of possession and sale of marijuana, and complains that the investigation into that allegation was inadequate. He was acquitted of the charges against him in February 2007.   Giza v. Poland (no. 48242/06) The applicant, Józef Giza, is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bystra Podhalańska (Poland). Mr Giza complains about the excessive length of proceedings concerning his neighbour’s illegal construction of a sawmill and the non-enforcement of the judgment in which the neighbour was ordered to demolish the mill. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Ahmed v. Romania (no. 34621/03) The applicant, Hamdoon Ahmed Ahmed, is an Iraqi national who was born in 1962. His current place of residence is unclear. In March 2003 an order by the public prosecutor of Bucharest banned him from Romania for a period of 10 years. He was provisionally placed in a transit centre and then deported to Iraq. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens) he complains that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and that his deportation was not accompanied by the requisite procedural safeguards.   Carabulea v. Romania (no. 45661/99) The applicant, Viorel Carabulea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest. The case concerns Mr Carabulea’s allegation that his 27-year-old brother, Gabriel, died after being tortured in police custody, where he was being held on suspicion of robbery, and not, as alleged by the Government, as a result of an embolism due to a pre ‑ existing chronic disease. He also alleges that the police failed to provide his brother with adequate medical care after his arrest and that the authorities’ ensuing investigation into his brother’s death was inadequate. He relies on Articles   2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment),   6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Lastly, he alleges that his brother’s ill-treatment and death, as well as the authorities’ refusal to launch an investigation into the incident, was due to his Roma origins, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Fuşcă v. Romania (no. 34630/07) The applicant, Marius Fuşcă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Câmpulung Muscel (Romania). Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Fuşcă complains about the public authorities’ alleged failure to enforce his right to contact with his son, born in 1999, ever since the mother and the child left the couple’s home in 2005.   Lopata v. Russia (no. 72250/01) The applicant, Aleksandr Lopata, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence for murder. The case notably concerns the authorities’ alleged intimidation of Mr   Lopata who complains to the European Court of Human Rights that he was subjected to police brutality and convicted on the basis of a forced confession and that his allegations were not investigated effectively. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (c) (right to a fair trial) and Article   34 (right of individual petition).   Kurić and Others v. Slovenia (no.26828/06) The 11 applicants are: Mustafa Kurić, Ljubomir Petreš, Velimir Dabetić, and Ilfan Sadik Ademi, all stateless persons; Milan Makuc (now deceased), and Ana Mezga, both Croatian nationals; Jovan Jovanović and Tripun Ristanović, both citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and, Ljubenka Ristanović, Ali Berisha and Zoran Minić, all Serbian nationals. They belong to a group of people known as the “erased” of whom there are now potentially several thousand. Mainly former citizens of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the “SFRY”) who had their permanent residence in Slovenia, following the declaration of independence by Slovenia   in 1991, they either did not request Slovenian citizenship within the prescribed time-limit or their request was not granted. As a result, their names were “erased” from the Slovenian Register of Permanent Residents in February 1992. The applicants complain in particular that they have been arbitrarily deprived of   the possibility of   acquiring citizenship of the newly-established Slovenian State in 1991 and/or of preserving their status as permanent residents. They rely on: Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and some, notably with regard to the denial of their pension benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Tendam v. Spain (no. 25720/05) The applicant, Hans Erwin Tendam, is a German national who was born in 1937 and lives in Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Spain). In 1986 he was prosecuted for theft and handling stolen goods but was acquitted. Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), he complains about the refusal by the Spanish authorities to grant him compensation for his detention during the criminal proceedings against him for theft. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) he also complains about the loss of and damage to property that was confiscated from him in connection with the charge of handling stolen goods.   Alipour and Hosseinzadgan v. Turkey (nos. 6909/08, 12792/08 and 28960/08) The applicants, Mohammad Jaber Alipour and Raha Hosseinzadgan, are Iranian nationals who were born in 1973 and 1978 respectively. Mr Alipour fled Iran and arrived in Turkey in November 2000 as he was being persecuted by the Iranian authorities. To avoid a forced marriage with her cousin, Ms Hosseinzadgan left Iran and arrived in Turkey in August 2004. Both applicants now live in Sweden where they have been granted refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The applicants mainly complain that their removal to Iran would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment and death. They also complain about the unlawfulness and conditions of their detention in the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre where they were held between 2008 and 2009. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security).   Çerikçi v. Turkey (no. 33322/07) The applicant, Turan Çerikçi, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul. He is a council employee in Beyoğlu. He was disciplined for unauthorised absence from work after participating, as a trade union member, in a national Labour Day celebration on 1 May 2007. His appeals were dismissed. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the disciplinary measure and the lack of a remedy by which to challenge it.   D.B. v. Turkey (no. 33526/08) The applicant, D.B., is an Iranian national who was born in 1984. He is currently living in Sweden where he has been granted refugee status. Before that, in 2008 he illegally entered Turkey, where he unsuccessfully requested asylum as an opponent to the Iranian regime. He alleges that his detention pending deportation to Turkey was unlawful and that, if he had been removed to Iran, he would have been at real risk of ill-treatment or death. He relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of ill treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article 3, he also complains of being held in solitary confinement for eight months during his detention pending deportation. Finally, the case also concerns a refusal to allow the applicant to be visited by the lawyer representing him before the European Court of Human Rights, in breach of Article 34 (individual applications).   Dbouba v. Turkey (no. 15916/09) The applicant, Saafi Ben Fraj Dbouba, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1967. An active sympathiser of the Islamic Tendency Movement, now known as Ennahda , he left Tunisia in 1990 due to persecution by the security forces. He is currently being held in the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in Kırkareli (Turkey) and has criminal proceedings pending against him for membership of Al-Qaeda. He alleges that his detention is unlawful and that, if extradited to his country of origin, he would be at real risk of torture and ill-treatment due to his affiliation with Ennahda . He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   5   §§   1, 2, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article   3, he also complains about the conditions of his detention in Kocaeli Police Headquarters and where he is currently been held.   Karagöz and Others v. Turkey (nos. 14352/05, 38484/05 and 38513/05) The applicants, Gönül Karagöz, Haydar Ballıkaya and Bekir Çadırcı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1974, 1965 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul. Arrested in 1997 on suspicion of involvement in terrorist organisations, the applicants allege that they were tortured while in police custody at Istanbul Security Headquarters and that the ensuing criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned were ineffective. They rely on Article   3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Clift v. United Kingdom (no. 7205/07) The applicant, Sean Clift, is a British national who was born in 1966 and lives in Westcliff-on- Sea (United Kingdom). In April 1994 he was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder. The case concerns the difference in treatment as regards early release of prisoners depending on the length of the sentence originally imposed. Mr Clift complains in particular about his continued imprisonment despite a recommendation by the Parole Board in March 2002 that he be released on licence. As a prisoner serving a fixed-term sentence of more than 15 years, the approval of the Secretary of State was also required under the legislation in force at the time before he could be released on licence. The Secretary of State refused to approve the applicant’s release and he therefore remained in detention. The applicant relies on Article   5 (right to liberty and security) in conjunction with Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Panov v. Moldova (no. 37811/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in her favour. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Fernandes Formigal de Arriaga and Others v. Portugal (nos. 24678/06, 25037/06, 25041/06, 25042/06, 27611/06, 30761/06, 36143/06, 38316/06, 38336/06, 41911/06, 44751/06, 51097/06, 5357/07, 5360/07, 6247/07 and 6261/07) Monteiro de Barros de Mattos e Silva Adegas Coelho and Others v. Portugal (no.   25038/06) These cases concern the delay in calculating and paying the compensation awarded to the applicants. In both cases they rely in particular on 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. In the case of Czajkowska and Others the applicants also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Czajkowska and Others v. Poland (no. 16651/05) Kurtucu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 31301/05, 4532/06 and 19640/06)     Thursday 15 July 2010   Mladoschovitz v. Austria (no.38663/06) The applicants, Nadine Mladoschovitz and Jeanine Mladoschovitz, are Austrian nationals who were born in 1998 and 2002 respectively and live in Linz (Austria). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain about the unfairness of proceedings against their father for the enforcement of maintenance claims. In particular, they complain that they were not heard in the proceedings to postpone enforcement and, having lost that case, ended up having to reimburse their father’s legal costs.   Šikić v. Croatia (no. 9143/08) The applicant, Hrvoje Šikić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Vinkovci (Croatia). Mr Šikić complains about the unfairness and excessive length of the proceedings in which he was dismissed from his post as Chief Constable of Vukovar Police Station. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Further relying on Article   6   §   2 (presumption of innocence), he also complains that even though the criminal proceedings brought against him – for not properly reporting a road accident involving a police vehicle – were dropped, he was nonetheless dismissed in the administrative proceedings on identical grounds.   Chagnon and Fournier v. France (nos. 44174/06 and 44190/06) The applicants, Jean-Marie Chagnon and Nicolas Fournier, are French nationals who were born in 1953 and 1966 and live in France, at Rezay and Nérondes respectively. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) they complain that measures taken for the slaughter of sheep, taken in 2001 by the authorities in connection with the prevention of the foot-and-mouth disease that started in the United Kingdom, were illegal, and that the compensation paid to them was insufficient.   Dumas v. France (no. 34875/07) The applicant, Roland Dumas, is a French national who was born in 1922 and lives in Paris. He is the former Minister for Foreign Affairs and former President of the Constitutional Council. He relies in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression), complaining that he was found guilty in 2006 of defamation against a public prosecutor, following the publication of his book L’épreuve – les preuves (The ordeal and the evidence) about the so-called “Elf” case in which he was acquitted.   Gelayev and Others v. Russia (no. 20216/07) The applicants are six Russian nationals who live in Gikalo (Chechnya). They are the parents, sister, grandparents and uncle of Murad Gelayev who was born in 1976. They allege that Murad was tortured and killed by Russian servicemen following his abduction from the family home in Gikalo during a special operation carried out on 27 February 2000, and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. Men detained with Murad, but later released, informed the applicants that their relative had had an ear cut off by one of his interrogators at a temporary detention facility in Oktyabrskiy and had then been taken to a basement where he and other detainees had been repeatedly beaten with iron pipes and steel rods and had had dogs set on them. The applicants, having had no news of him since, assume that their relative is dead. Murad’s   mother and grandmother further allege that the servicemen beat them with their rifle butts during the abduction. 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).   Medvedev v. Russia (no. 9487/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Medvedev, is a Russian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   4 (right to liberty and security), he complains   that he was beaten by the police after his arrest in order to make him confess in a theft, that the prosecutor did not examine properly his related complaint,   and that it had taken the domestic courts too long to review the lawfulness of his detention.   Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia (no. 7772/04) The applicant, Vladimir Krivonosov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Taganrog (Rostov Region, Russia). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about having been detained in appalling conditions in the pre-trial detention centre and in the Regional Court in Rostov-on-Don, and that he could not challenge that effectively. Relying on Article   5   §§   1 (c), 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) Mr Krivonosov complains about having been detained unlawfully and for too long pending trial, and about his detention not having been reviewed by a judge. Mr Krivonosov further complains under Article   6   §§   1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the criminal proceedings against him having lasted for too long and about the absence of legal representation at the initial stages of the proceedings.   Buryaga v. Ukraine (no. 27672/03) The applicant, Andrey Buryaga, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Krasnoselka (Odessa Region, Ukraine). Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security) he complains about being detained unlawfully in March 2001, and for too long, pending his trial on suspicion of robbery. Relying further on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Buryaga complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr v. Ukraine (no. 16695/04) The applicant is a Ukrainian company, Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr. It is the editorial body of a limited liability company called the Ukraina-Tsentr Newspaper and is registered in Kirovograd (Ukraine). In December 2002, Gazeta Ukraina-Tsentr was ordered by the domestic courts to pay compensation for defamation following an article it had published in June 2002. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complains about the lack of independence and impartiality of the domestic courts given that the plaintiff in the case against it was the chairman of the regional council of judges. Relying further on Article   10 (freedom of expression), the company complains that the sanction against it was unlawful and that the compensation it had been ordered to pay was disproportionately high.   Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine (no. 38683/06) The applicant, Aleksandr Smirnov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Yevpatoriya (Ukraine). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about being ill-treated by the police in March 2002 after his arrest on suspicion of theft, as well as about those complaints not being investigated effectively by the Ukrainian authorities.   Vinokurov v. Ukraine (no. 2937/04) The applicant, Konstantin Vinokurov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Lugansk (Ukraine). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his detention awaiting trial on suspicion of financial fraud and forgery.   Yushchenko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 73990/01, 7364/02, 15185/02 and 11117/05) The first three applicants are Vladimir Mikhaylovich Yushchenko, Vladimir Vladimirovich Yushchenko and Pavel Vladimirovich Yushchenko . They are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1934, 1967 and 1976 respectively and live in Yevpatoriya (Ukraine). The fourth applicant is a private transport company, YUVM-Avtoservis ( ПП «ЮВМ-Автосервіс» ).   Relying on Article   6   (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Vladimir Mikhaylovich Yushchenko complains that even though a final decision had been taken by the courts in civil proceedings against him concerning the misappropriation of a photocopying machine, paper and ink cartridges, a civil claim about the same issues was nonetheless allowed within the related criminal proceedings against him. He also complains about the excessive length of various civil and criminal proceedings against him.   Also relying on Article 6, Pavel Vladimirovich Yushchenko complains about the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud. In particular, he complains that he was not presumed innocent given that the domestic court had referred to him as an accomplice in the criminal case against Vladimir Mikhaylovich Yushchenko, while he had participated in those proceedings as a witness.   Finally, relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Vladimir Mikhaylovich Yushchenko complains of a breach of his property rights given that the value of a petrol tanker seized from him to pay compensation ordered by the court in favour of a third party was higher that the compensation owed.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Nikitina v. Russia (no. 47486/07) Salikova v. Russia (no. 25270/06) In these cases the applicants complain, in particular, of the non-enforcement by the domestic authorities of final judgments in their favour.   In the case of Salikova , the applicant also complains of   excessive length of the civil proceedings. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). In the case of Nikitina the applicant also relies on 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 civil proceedings.   Kotaridis v. Greece (no. 205/08) Kolomoyets v. Ukraine (no. 11208/03) Palamarchuk v. Ukraine (no. 28585/04) Slanko v. Ukraine (no. 6508/05)   ***   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 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.