CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 septembre 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 }   632 6.9.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   14 and 16 September 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 14 September 2010 and 13 on Thursday 16 September 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 14 September 2010   Hyde Park and Others v. Moldova (Nos. 5 and 6) (application nos. 6991/08 and 15084/08) The applicants are Hyde Park, formerly a registered non-governmental organisation lobbying for freedom of expression and the right to free assembly, and four of its members, Ghenadie Brega, Anatolie Juraveli, Oleg Brega and Anatol Hristea-Stan, Moldovan nationals who were born in 1975, 1988, 1973 and 1953, respectively, and live in Chişinău and Pepini (Moldova). Hyde Park’s members decided to discontinue registration in 2007 on grounds of alleged intimidation from the State. Relying on Articles   11 (freedom of assembly and association) and   10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicants complain about the police’s suppression of – as well as the arrests made during – three demonstrations held in Chişinău in August and September 2007 in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office in protest of alleged harassment of Hyde Park.   Kuczera v. Poland (no. 275/02) The applicant, Jerzy Kuczera, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Pleśna (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court), Mr Kuczera complains about the excessive court fees required of him in order to proceed with a claim against his brother regarding a dispute over profits from crops and agricultural machines they co-owned.   Subicka v. Poland (no. 29342/06) The applicant, Iwona Subicka, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Gdańsk-Zaspa (Poland). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court), Ms Subicka complains that, in proceedings concerning the authorities’ refusal to grant her a monthly social assistance benefit, the lawyer appointed under the legal-aid scheme refused to prepare a cassation appeal. Furthermore, she was informed of that refusal only after expiry of the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal, with the result that she had no time left to find a new lawyer.   Florea v. Romania (no. 37186/03) The applicant, Gheorghe Florea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Botoşani (Romania). He was detained from March 2002 until February 2005 in Botoşani Prison and in Târgu Ocna Prison Hospital. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains in particular of overcrowding and poor hygiene conditions, including having been detained together with smokers in his prison cell and in the prison hospital and being provided with food which was unsuited to his various medical conditions.   Dink and Others v. Turkey (nos. 2668/07, 6102/08, 30079/08, 7072/09 and 7124/09) The applicants are six Turkish nationals: Fırat Dink, who was known under the pen name of Hrant Dink and died on 19 January 2007, Rahil Dink, Delal Dink, Arat Dink, Sera Dink and Hasrof Dink. They were born respectively in 1954, 1959, 1978, 1979, 1986 and 1957 and live in Istanbul. Fırat Dink, a Turkish journalist of Armenian origin, was publication director and editor-in-chief of Agos , a bilingual Turkish-Armenian weekly newspaper published in Istanbul since 1996. Following the publication in Agos between November 2003 and February 2004 of eight articles in which he expressed his views on the identity of Turkish citizens of Armenian origin, Mr Dink was found guilty in 2006 of “denigrating Turkish identity” under Article 301 of the Criminal Code. In 2007 he was killed by three bullets to the head as he left the offices of Agos . Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants allege that the State failed in its obligation to protect the life of Fırat Dink and to conduct an effective investigation aimed at determining the responsibility of State agents. On the latter point they rely also on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Under Article 10 (freedom of expression) they complain of the guilty verdict against Fırat Dink which, they claim, made him a target for extreme nationalist groups.   Taylan and Others v. Turkey (nos. 9209/04, 40056/04 and 22412/05) These cases concern three applications brought by 21 Turkish nationals with regard to the excessive length of domestic proceedings. The first application, brought by Vesim Taylan, concerns proceedings in which he sought damages following termination of his contract with a Turkish company in Libya; the second application, brought by Abdullah Yücel and others, concerns compensation for expropriated property; and, the third application concerns criminal proceedings brought against Hakkı Nazsız for alleged bribery and forgery. All the applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing/trial within a reasonable time).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Chiş v. Romania (no. 3360/03) Flaviu and Dalia Şerban v. Romania (no. 36446/04) In these two cases the applicants complain of the authorities’ failure to enforce final judgments in their favour. They all rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). In the case of Flaviu and Dalia Şerban the applicants also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Akın Şahin v. Turkey (no. 9871/05) This case concerns denial of access to classified documents in proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court. The applicant relies in particular on Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction Bozak v. Turkey (no. 32697/02) Temel Conta Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 45651/04) These two cases concerned the applicants’ complaint that the authorities had deprived them of their property without paying compensation. In judgments of 20   October 2009 and 10   March 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) in both cases, and a further violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) in the case of Bozak ; 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 judgments to be delivered by the Court on 14   September 2010.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complain in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of administrative proceedings.   Iskrzyccy v. Poland (no. 9261/02)     Thursday 16 September 2010   Just satisfaction Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v.   Bulgaria (nos. 412/03 and 35677/04) In a judgment of 22   January 2009, the Court held in particular that there had been a violation of Article   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) on account of the Bulgarian authorities having forced the divided Orthodox religious community to unite under one of its two rival leaderships. The Court held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision in so far as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was concerned. This question will be decided in the judgment to be delivered by the Court on 16   September 2010.   Anagnostou-Dedouli v. Greece (Nº 24779/08) The applicant, Artemis Anagnostou-Dedouli, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and lives in Athens. In 2004, while she was director-general of a department within the Employment Ministry, a law entered into force which automatically ended the term of office of all directors-general. She re-applied for the position of director-general, but was appointed only as a director. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), she argues that the conditions governing her appeal against the downgrading of her post breached her right of access to a court.   Chernichkin v. Russia (no. 39874/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Chernichkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Moscow. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right of access to court), Mr Chernichkin complains about the Moscow courts’ refusal to examine a claim he brought against the Ministry of Finance for the excessive length of proceedings concerning the unilateral reduction of the interest rate on savings he had deposited in 1995 with the Savings Bank of Russia ( Sberbank ).   Danilin v. Russia (no. 4176/03) The applicant, Zakhar Danilin, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow. Convicted in April 2004 of robbery, Mr Danilin complains in particular about the deplorable conditions of his detention pending the criminal proceedings against him. He relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Dmitrachkov v. Russia (no. 18825/02) Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia (no. 75472/01) The applicants, Aleksey Dmitrachkov and Tigran Ayrapetyan, are two Russian nationals who were born in 1977 and 1983 respectively. Mr   Dmitrachkov lives in Buzuluk (Orenburg Region, Russia) and Mr   Ayrapetyan in Moscow. Both cases concern the applicants’ allegations that they were ill-treated while being held in police detention. Mr   Dmitrachkov alleges that he was beaten in order to force him into confessing to theft and robbery; in December 2001 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Mr   Ayrapetyan, arrested on 10 February 2001 on suspicion of extortion, alleges that he was forced to squat while holding a metal plate and, on dropping it, would be kicked and beaten; he was released the next day. A student and 18 years’ old at the time of his arrest, the criminal proceedings against him were terminated in December 2001 following an Amnesty Act in respect of minors passed by the Duma. Both applicants also complain about the lack of an effective investigation into their allegations of ill-treatment. They rely in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Baloga v. Ukraine (no. 620/05) The applicant, Petro Baloga, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Fediyivka (Kirovograd Region, Ukraine). A former district police officer, Mr Baloga complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for abuse of authority and forgery. He was found guilty as charged in May 2005 and was amnestied for the one-year prison sentence. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Vitruk v. Ukraine (no. 26127/03) The applicant, Nikolay Vitruk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Kiev. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Vitruk alleges that he was ill-treated by the police when arrested in May 1999 on suspicion of murder. Released in July 2004 with an obligation not to abscond, he further complains about the excessive length and unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention without proper review. He relies on Article   5   §§   1   (c), 3 and   4 (right to liberty and security). Lastly, he complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him which are still at the preliminary-investigation stage, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kravchenko and 23 Other “military accommodation” cases v. Russia (nos. 11609/05, 12516/05, 17393/05, 20214/05, 25724/05, 32953/05, 1953/06, 10908/06, 16101/06, 26696/06, 40417/06, 44437/05, 44977/06, 46544/06, 50835/06, 22635/07, 36662/07, 36951/07, 38501/07, 54307/07, 22723/08, 36406/08 and 55990/08) This case concerns in particular the delayed enforcement of final judgments in the applicants’ favour. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and 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 Koukouris the applicant also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Breiler v. Germany (no. 16386/07) Koukouris v. Greece (no. 24089/08) Kyriazis and others v. Greece (no. 51382/08) Papadopoulou v. Greece (no. 53311/08)     ***     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.