CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } 573 16.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   20 and 22 July 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 16 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 20 July 2010 and ten on 22 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 20 July 2010   Hovhannisyan and Shiroyan v. Armenia (application no. 5065/06) Yeranosyan and Others v. Armenia (no. 13916/06) The applicants are 11 Armenian nationals who live in Yerevan. Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain about the State’s expropriation of their flat and house in Yerevan to carry out construction projects.   Balčiūnas v. Lithuania (no. 17095/02) The applicant, Laimutis Balčiūnas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Šiauliai (Lithuania). He was arrested in 1998 on charges of armed robbery and, still in pre-trial detention, had another set of criminal proceedings brought against him in May 2000 on suspicion of being a member of a criminal organisation involved in explosions in public places. He was released in September 2003, on being acquitted in the second set of proceedings, and convicted as charged in October 2004, in the first set of proceedings, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article   5   (right to liberty and security), he complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention with regard to the two sets of proceedings against him. He also complains that the proceedings against him for robbery were unfair as he had not been able to challenge two witnesses whose testimony was used to convict him, in breach of Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial).   Dadouch v. Malta (no. 38816/07) The applicant, Mazen Dadouch, is a Maltese national who was born in Damascus (Syria) in 1967 and lives in Sliema (Malta). He acquired Maltese citizenship on marrying a Maltese national. When the marriage was subsequently annulled, Mr Dadouch retained his Maltese nationality. Later, he married a Russian national in Moscow. Relying in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about the failure of the Maltese authorities to register his Russian marriage in Malta, for more than two years. Notably he was asked by the authorities to prove, by other means than his identity papers, that he was a Maltese national.   Ciorap v. Moldova (No. 2) (no. 7481/06) The applicant, Tudor Ciorap, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1965 and lives in Chişinău. Mr Ciorap claims that, arrested in October 2000 on suspicion of fraud, he was beaten by officers in a police station, which reopened a surgical wound, and was refused access to medical care. He also complains that he was held in inhuman conditions. The applicant has previously brought a case before the European Court about force feeding in detention. He relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   A. v. Netherlands (no. 4900/06) Ramzy v. Netherlands (no. 25424/05) N. v. Sweden (no. 23505/09) The first applicant, A., is a Libyan national, born in 1972 and living in the Netherlands. The second applicant, Mr Ramzy, is an Algerian national, born in 1982 and whose current whereabouts are unknown. The third applicant, N., is an Afghan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Fagersta (Sweden). All three cases concern the applicants’ complaints that, if expelled or deported to their country of origin, they would be at risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). A. and Mr Ramzy further complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they could not challenge the argument used – that they were a threat to national security – for the exclusion orders against them.   Aksu v. Turkey (nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04) The applicant, Mustafa Aksu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1931 and lives in Ankara. Of Roma origin, he complains that certain remarks in a book entitled “The Gypsies of Turkey” published by the Ministry of Culture and expressions in a dictionary for pupils financed by that Ministry reflect clear anti-Roma sentiment and that the refusal of the domestic courts to award compensation demonstrates a bias against Roma. He relies on Article   6 (right to a fair trial) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Altıparmak v. Turkey (no. 27023/06) The applicant, Sevgül Altıparmak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Malatya (Turkey). In 2002 she brought an action for damages on account of her husband’s murder. She complains that she was required to pay a fee in order to be notified of the District Court’s judgment, in which she was awarded damages, and submits that she was thus denied the opportunity to institute enforcement proceedings. She relies on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to a court), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (protection of property).   Revision Volkan Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 29105/03) Following the death of Mr Özdemir in February 2007, his representative requests revision of the European Court of Human Right’s judgment of 20   October 2009 in which it held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody and the lack of an effective investigation into that complaint.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Puto and Others v. Albania (no. 609/07) This case concerns the non-enforcement of a final court decision in the applicants’ favour. 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).   Revision Erdoğan and Fırat v. Turkey (nos. 15121/03 and 15127/03) Following the death of Mr   Erdoğan on 12   April 2009, his representative requests revision of the judgment of 2 June 2009. Just satisfaction Keçecioğlu and Others v. Turkey (no. 37546/02) In a judgment of 8   April 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning property belonging to the applicants which had been expropriated in the public interest but subsequently not used. 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 20   July 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.   Biçer and Others v. Turkey (no. 19441/04) Buhur v. Turkey (no. 24869/05)     Thursday 22 July 2010   P.B. and J.S. v. Austria (no. 18984/02) The applicants are P.B., a Hungarian national, and J.S., an Austrian national. They were born in 1963 and 1959 respectively and live in Vienna in a homosexual relationship. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complain about an Administrative Court decision of October 2001 in which it was upheld that J.S.’s insurance cover as a civil servant could only be extended to a heterosexual partner.   A.A. v. Greece (no. 12186/08) The applicant, A.A., is a Palestinian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Chania (Crete, Greece). After escaping from a refugee camp in Lebanon, he entered Greek territorial waters, where he was arrested while his boat was sinking. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was beaten during his arrest and also complains about the conditions in which he was held at the Samos detention centre. He further complains, under Article   5   §§   1, 2 and   4 (right to liberty and security), that he was detained unlawfully, that he was not told the reasons for his arrest and detention in a language he could understand, that he was not informed of the possibility of applying to the administrative court and that he was not able to receive legal aid or the assistance of a lawyer and a translator.   Melis v. Greece (no. 30604/07) The applicant, Nikolaos Melis, is a United States national of Greek origin, who was born in 1929 and lives in New York (United States of America). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), he complains that his application to reopen civil proceedings which, in his view, were flawed as a result of false evidence (given by a witness who had been convicted on that account) was rejected as being out of time.   Ewert v. Luxembourg (no. 49375/07) The applicant, Charles Ewert, is a Luxembourg national who was born in 1952 and is currently being held in Luxembourg Prison. He was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for the attempted murder of a businessman. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence), he complains that, during the proceedings against him, the investigators seized a file containing correspondence with his lawyer. Under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he alleges, in particular, that the Court of Cassation was excessively formalistic in dismissing some of his grounds of appeal.   Akhmatkhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 20147/07) Benuyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 8347/05) The applicants in the first case are the parents, sister and wife of Artur Akhmatkhanov, born in 1980. They live in Shali (Chechnya). The first applicant, Ms Akhmatkhanova, has not seen her son since 2 April 2003 when she went into Shali town centre with him to run some errands and, realising that she had forgotten a document, left him to go home and get it. Ten minutes later she heard shooting coming from a former medical storehouse. Numerous witnesses subsequently stated that they had seen masked armed men in camouflage uniforms cordon off the storehouse and, forcing a young man into one of their military vehicles, had driven away towards the town centre. The 15 applicants in the second case are the parents, brothers and sisters of Abu Zhanalayev, born in 1973, and, Sayd ‑ Selim Benuyev, born in 1982. The two men have not been seen since 24 November 2002 when a group of armed men wearing masks raided their family homes in the village of Martan ‑ Chu (Chechnya). In both cases the applicants allege 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).   Samoshenkov and Strokov v. Russia (nos. 21731/03 and 1886/04) The applicants, Andrey Samoshenkov and Igor Strokov, are Russian nationals. They were born in 1962 and 1967 respectively and are currently serving prison sentences in the Chelyabinsk Region (Russia), Mr Samoshenkov for aggravated murder and both applicants for robbery. Both applicants complain about the unfairness of the proceedings against them, Mr Samoshenkov on account of the absence of legal representation at the appeal proceedings with regard to the murder charge and both applicants on account of the trial court not securing the attendance and examination of witnesses at the proceedings concerning the charge of robbery. Mr Strokov further complains about the unlawfulness of part of his detention and Mr   Samoshenkov about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. They rely on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).     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. They also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Matou and Others v. Greece (no. 54837/08) Petridis v. Greece (no. 53351/07) Tsoukalas v. Greece (no. 12286/08)   ***   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.