CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 juillet 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 } .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 }   583 22.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   27 and 29 July 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 31   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 27   July 2010 and 21 on 29   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 27 July 2010   Marcon v. Italy (application no. 32851/02) The applicant, Vittorina Marcon, is an Italian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Udine (Italy). She filed a complaint (under the “Pinto” Act) about the excessive length of proceedings concerning the partition of an estate, which lasted from 1989 to 2000. She was awarded compensation. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mrs Marcon complains about the length of the main proceedings and about the “Pinto” compensation, which she claims was insufficient and only paid after a long delay.   Gineitienė v. Lithuania (no. 20739/05) The applicant, Ilona Gineitienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Vilnius. Relying on Articles   8 (right to respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, she complains about the Lithuanian courts’ decision in 2004 to place her two daughters, born in 1995 and 1996, with their father. In particular, she claims that the real reason for taking away her daughters was that she is a member of the Ojas Meditation Centre, a Lithuanian branch of a new religious movement called Osho.   Gatt v. Malta (no. 28221/08) The applicant, Lawrence Gatt, is a Maltese national, born in 1947, and, until his imprisonment on 28 July 2006, lived in Senglea (Malta). He alleges that converting a guarantee of 23,300 euros (EUR) – which he had been unable to pay – into a 2,000-day term of imprisonment for breaching his bail conditions was excessive and disproportionate. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). The case was communicated to the Government under Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   4 (prohibition of imprisonment for debt).   Louled Massoud v. Malta (no. 24340/08) The applicant, Khaled Louled Massoud, is an Algerian national who was born in 1960 and was, at the time of the introduction of this application, detained in Safi Military Barracks, Safi (Malta). He arrived in Malta in June 2006 by boat and, was immediately detained. He was subsequently charged and found guilty of aiding others to enter Malta. On completing his sentence of imprisonment, he was released but immediately placed in a detention centre for a little more than 18 months. Relying on Article   5   §§   1, 2 and   4 (right to liberty and security), he notably complains about the unlawfulness of his detention for more than 18   months, the maximum allowed according to a policy introduced in Malta in 2005 concerning illegal immigrants, refugees and integration.   Rafał Orzechowski v. Poland (no. 34653/08) The applicant, Rafał Jerzy Orzechowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Gdynia (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), he complains about the excessive length – almost ten years – of criminal proceedings brought against him for, among other offences, robbery. The proceedings are still pending and no hearing has yet been held in his case.   Rokosz v. Poland (No. 15952/09) The applicant, Ryszard Rokosz, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and is currently held in Bialystok Prison (Poland). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he has been kept in prison despite serious health problems and medical opinions that have repeatedly advised against his imprisonment. He further complains of the inadequate medical care in prison.   Just satisfaction Sierpiński v. Poland (no. 38016/07) In a judgment of 3 November 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in this case concerning a refusal by the Polish courts to set aside a decision to expropriate a plot of land he owned. It 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 on 27   July 2010.   Just satisfaction Almeida Santos v. Portugal (no. 50812/06) In a judgment of 6 October 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) on account of a breach of the “equality of arms” principle in proceedings concerning the inventory and partition of an estate. The question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) will be decided in the judgment to be delivered on 27   July 2010.   Ababei v. Romania (no. 34728/02) The applicant, Ştefan Ababei, is a Romanian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Bucharest. In February 1998 he was arrested on suspicion of fraud and forgery and, convicted as charged in December 2008, was sentenced to just over eight years and two months’ imprisonment. While those proceedings were pending against him, his company went into liquidation and was ultimately dissolved by the courts in March 2003. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and right of access to court), Mr   Ababei complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him as well as the unfairness of the insolvency proceedings with regard to his company, arguing that the judgment of March 2003 was not served on him. Lastly, he complains about the loss he incurred as a result of his company being wound up, in breach of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 50213/08) The applicants, Mohsen Abdolkhani and Hamid Karimnia, are two Iranian nationals who were born in 1973 and 1978 respectively and currently live in Sweden. They entered Turkey in June 2008 and, arrested at a gendarmerie road checkpoint as their passports were found to be false, were placed in detention at Hasköy police headquarters. They were subsequently transferred in September 2008 to Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admissions and Accommodation Centre. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain about the conditions of their detention in both those facilities, notably in the police headquarters where they were held for more than three months in a severely overcrowded basement.   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 people. He relies on Article   6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Karaarslan v. Turkey (no. 4027/05) The applicant, Utku Karaarslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains about the unfairness of proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court. In particular, he complains that he was not allowed access to classified information submitted by the Ministry of Defence and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor was not communicated to him.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Chirò and Others v. Italy (No. 1) (no. 63620/00) Chirò and Others v. Italy (No. 2) (no. 65137/01) Chirò and Others v. Italy (No. 4) (no. 67196/01) Chirò and Others v. Italy (No. 5) (no. 67197/01) Dora Chirò v. Italy (No. 65272/01) Gravina v. Italy (no. 60124/00) La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 1) (no. 58119/00 La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 3) (no. 58386/00) La Rosa and Others v. Italy (No. 5) (no. 63239/00) Maselli v. Italy (No. 2) (no. 61211/00) In judgments of 11 October 2005, 15 November 2005 and 11 July 2006, the Court considered that the loss of possession of the land at issue amounted to expropriation, in breach of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. It accordingly held that in all ten cases there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). 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 judgments to be delivered on 27   July 2010.   Ion Popescu v. Romania (no. 6332/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in his favour concerning the return of land. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Just satisfaction Solomonides v. Turkey (no. 16161/90) In a judgment of 20 January 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the applicant’s right of access to his property in the northern part of Cyprus, and 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 27   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. In the cases of Füry , Gézáné Nagy and Gyárfás and Hunaudit Kft. , the applicants also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Bartal v. Hungary (no. 8226/07) Füry v. Hungary (no. 38042/06) Gézáné Nagy v. Hungary (no. 20743/07) Gyárfás and Hunaudit Kft. v. Hungary (no. 15258/06) Zoltánné Kalmár v. Hungary (no. 16073/07) Pala Mobili Snc and Others v. Italy (nos. 26334/03, 26338/03, 26341/03, 26343/03 and 26344/03) Alecu v. Romania (no. 28194/03)     Thursday 29 July 2010   Shchukin v. Cyprus (no. 14030/03) The applicants are ten Ukrainian nationals and one Estonian national who were employed by a Ukrainian travel company as catering and hotel staff on a cruise ship registered in Ukraine. The case concerns their deportation from Cyprus in February 2003 following the insolvency of the ship owners and the ship being impounded at Limassol Port. Relying on Article 3, one of the applicants, Mr   Shchukin, complains that he was hurt and knocked unconscious on being arrested by the immigration police officers with a view to his deportation. All ten applicants complain that their arrest and detention violated their rights under Article 5. They further raise a number of complaints concerning their detention and deportation, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of expulsion of nationals) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).   Karimov v. Russia (no. 54219/08) Konontsev v. Russia (no. 19732/04) The applicants are: Abdumutallib Karimov, an Uzbek national who was born in 1964 and lives in Yoshkar-Ola (Republic of Mari-Al, Russia); and, Valeriy Konontsev, a Kyrgyz national who was born in 1966 in Kyrgyzstan, where he is currently said to be living. Mr Karimov arrived in Russia in June 2005; soon after he was arrested and placed in detention pending extradition at the request of the Uzbek authorities. He was released in June 2009 and granted temporary asylum for one year in August 2009. Mr Konontsev was arrested in Russia in July 2003 and placed in detention pending extradition at the request of the Kyrgyz authorities on account of fraud charges. He was extradited to his country of origin in 2004. Both cases concern the applicants’ allegation that their detention pending extradition was unlawful, in breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security). Mr Karimov further alleges that, if extradited to his country of origin, where he is on a wanted list for suspected involvement in, among other things, terrorism and membership of extremist organisations (including Hizb-ut-Tahrir), he would be at real risk of politically-motivated persecution, torture and/or ill-treatment. He further relies on Article 3 (prohibition of torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kopylov v. Russia (no. 3933/04) The applicant, Oleg Kopylov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Lipetsk (Russia). Psychiatrists diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2002. Arrested in January 2001 on suspicion of murdering a policeman, he alleges that he was repeatedly ill-treated – beaten, slapped, kicked threatened with rape and, a gas-mask put over his face, forced to inhale cigarette smoke – by the police in order to extract a confession for murder. The murder charge was dropped in May 2001, as, his confession retracted, there was no other evidence against him; another person was subsequently convicted for the policeman’s murder. He also alleges further ill-treatment when, on his way to a hearing in June 2002 in another case against him (for robbery), there was a rebellion and escorts forced the applicant and other defendants into the courtroom by beating them with rubber truncheons. The applicant had an epileptic fit and was taken from the courtroom by ambulance to hospital. Lastly, he complains that the authorities’ investigations into his allegations of ill-treatment were inadequate and ineffective. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Shaposhnikov v. Russia (Nº 8998/05) The applicant, Igor Shaposhnikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Ulyanovsk (Russia). Arrested in September 2004 on suspicion of drug trafficking, he alleges that a part of his pre-trial detention in January 2005 was unlawful as it had been authorised retroactively, in violation of domestic law. He relies on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security).   Agraw v. Switzerland (no. 3295/06) Mengesha Kimfe v. Switzerland (no. 24404/05) The applicants, Ms Agraw and Ms Mengesha Kimfe, are Ethiopian nationals living in Switzerland who were born in 1972 and 1974. They applied for asylum but were unsuccessful. In both cases the applicants complain that the Swiss authorities refused to assign them to a different canton so that they could be with their husbands – also Ethiopian nationals – who had been placed in a reception centre in a different canton after their asylum applications were rejected. The repatriation of the two couples was prevented by the Ethiopian authorities and so the applicants remained separated from their husbands for several years. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan (no. 36079/06) Galina Kuznetsova v. Russia (no. 3006/03) These cases concern the applicants’ complaints that the domestic authorities failed to enforce final judgments in their favour in good time. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). In the case of Jafarli and Others the applicants also rely on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Carla Binotti v. Italy (no. 63632/00) Laura Binotti v. Italy (no. 71603/01) Ceglia v. Italy (no. 21457/04) Colacrai v. Italy (No. 1) (no. 63296/00) De Sciscio v. Italy (no. 176/04) Fiore v. Italy (no. 63864/00) La Rosa   and Others v. Italy (No. 6) (no. 63240/00) La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 7) (no. 63241/00) Lo Bue and Others v. Italy (no. 12912/04) Maselli v. Italy (no. 63866/00) Zaffuto and Others v. Italy (no. 12894/04 In judgments of 15 July 2005, 13 October 2005, 17 November 2005, 20 April 2006, 13   July 2006 and 19   October 2006, the Court considered that the loss of possession of the land at issue amounted to expropriation, in breach of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. It accordingly held that in all 11 cases there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). 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 judgments to be delivered on 29   July 2010.   Streltsov and 86 other “Novocherkassk military pensioners cases” v. Russia (nos.   8459/06, 17763/06, 18352/06, 18354/06, 18835/06, 18848/06, 18851/06, 18856/06, 18916/06, 18952/06, 19350/06, 19352/06, 19353/06, 20423/06, 20904/06, 20906/06, 20907/06, 21081/06, 21123/06, 21124/06, 21179/06, 21189/06, 24041/06, 24048/06, 24055/06, 24058/06, 24816/06, 25029/06, 25043/06, 25044/06, 25442/06, 25717/06, 25721/06, 25827/06, 25831/06, 25920/06, 25922/06, 25923/06, 26440/06, 26654/06, 26706/06, 26709/06, 26766/06, 26972/06, 26981/06, 26983/06, 27709/06, 27710/06, 27714/06, 27716/06, 27718/06, 27833/06, 27840/06, 28105/06, 28231/06, 28886/06, 28888/06, 30481/06, 30494/06, 31309/06, 31324/06, 31410/06, 31411/06, 31414/06, 31419/06, 31422/06, 31424/06, 31427/06, 31429/06, 31433/06, 31436/06, 31439/06, 32419/06, 32421/06, 34443/06, 40256/06, 41560/06, 42694/06, 42695/06, 42696/06, 42697/06, 42701/06, 5648/07, 6167/07, 6902/07, 7869/07 and 39423/07) This case concerns, in particular, the quashing of final judgments in favour of the applicants and the non-enforcement of the judgments which were quashed on supervisory review. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     ***   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.