CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 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 }   673 20.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   28 and 30 September 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six Chamber judgments on Tuesday 28 September 2010 and eight on Thursday 30 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 28 September 2010   A.S. v. Finland (application no. 40156/07) The applicant, A.S., is a Finnish national who was charged with sexual abuse of a four-year-old boy. He was acquitted of the charges by the first-instance court, but later sentenced on appeal to a one year’s suspended term of imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, in particular that he was convicted on the basis of a video-taped interview with the child, the only direct evidence against him. The applicant, who was not given the opportunity to have questions put to the child at any stage of the proceedings, complains that he did not waive that right by consenting to the viewing of the video recording in the trial courts. Just satisfaction Schembri and Others v. Malta (no. 42583/06) The applicants are 11 Maltese nationals; all but one live in Ghaxaq (Malta). Their complaint concerns the expropriation of two plots of land in Ghaxaq that belonged to them. In a judgment of 10 November 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention on account of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded, which reflected values applicable decades earlier, and the delay in the payment of such compensation. 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 by the Court on 28   September 2010.   Just satisfaction Gusan v. Moldova (no. 22539/05) The applicant, Vera Gusan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1955 and lives in Chişinău. In a judgment of 28 July 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the authorities’ failure to comply with a final judicial decision of July 1998 in Ms Gusan’s favour ordering the municipal authority to provide her with social housing. 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 by the Court on 28   September 2010.   San Argimiro Isasa v. Spain (no. 2507/07) The applicant, Mikel San Argimiro Isasa, is a Spanish national who was born in 1962 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Badajoz (Spain). He was arrested in May 2002 on suspicion of belonging to an armed group, terrorism, storing arms and ammunition, and several counts of attempted murder. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains that he was subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and while in detention, including blows to the head, suffocation with a plastic bag over his head, sexual harassment and humiliation and threats of death and rape. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that none of his appeals to the domestic authorities led to an effective investigation or the identification of those responsible for the alleged ill-treatment.   J.M. v. United Kingdom (no. 37060/06) The applicant, J.M., who is a British national, is the divorced mother of two children, born in 1991 and 1993, who live mostly with their father. The rules in force at the relevant time (2001-2002) regarding child maintenance payments provided for a lower payment where the absent parent entered into a new relationship. The applicant, who following her divorce entered a same-sex relationship, complains that the rules only recognised heterosexual relationships. She relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   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 (non-criminal) proceedings.   Reina and Others v. Italy (nos. 26311/03, 26312/03, 26320/03, 26323/03 and 40766/04)     Thursday 30 September 2010   Kerimova v. Azerbaijan (no. 20799/06) The applicant, Flora Alakbar qizi Kerimova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1941 and lives in Baku. A candidate of the opposition bloc ( Azadliq ) in the November 2005 parliamentary elections, she complains about the invalidation of her election as a Member of Parliament. She relies on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections).   Deyanov v. Bulgaria (no. 2930/04) The applicant, Todor Deyanov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Sofia. The case concerns Mr Deyanov’s complaint that the authorities failed to react adequately to the disappearance in 1997 of his eight-year-old son, Savestin, and that related civil proceedings to which he had been a party were unreasonably long. The case will be examined under Article   2 (right to life), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy). Savestin disappeared when out playing; he has never been found.   Marinov v. Bulgaria (no. 37770/03) The applicant, Bilyan Biserov Marinov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Shumen (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Marinov alleges that he was beaten by two police officers who stopped him in the street one night to check his identity. He claims they hit him in the mouth with a torch and kicked him repeatedly, then left him on the ground unconscious. He also complains that the Bulgarian courts failed to convict his presumed aggressors.     Žirovnický v. Czech Republic (no. 23661/03) The applicant, Albert Žirovnický, is a Czech national who was born in 1968 and is serving a prison sentence in Mirov (Czech Republic). Arrested in March 2001 on suspicion of murder, he was convicted as charged and sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment in March 2002. Relying in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the unlawfulness and lack of a speedy review of his detention pending the criminal proceedings against him. He also complains that under domestic law he had no enforceable right to compensation for his detention, in breach of Article   5   §   5.   Korogodina v. Russia (no. 33512/04) The applicant, Lidiya Korogodina, is a Russian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Orel (Russia). Ms Korogodina complains about the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation into the death in 2000 of her 42-year-old son, who she alleges died as a result of medical negligence, in breach of Article   2 (right to life).   Pakhomov v. Russia (no. 44917/08) The applicant, Anton Pakhomov, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Artyom (Primorye Region, Russia). The case concerns Mr Pakhomov’s allegation that his conviction and sentencing to eight years’ imprisonment in December 2007 for drug trafficking was based on statements by witnesses he had been unable to confront in open court, in breach of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial). In supervisory review proceedings in January 2010 he was acquitted of the trafficking charge and released. Further relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant, who suffers from tuberculosis, also complains about the inadequacy of the medical care during his imprisonment.   Vladimir Polishchuk and Svetlana Polishchuk v. Ukraine (no. 12451/04) The applicants, Vladimir Polishchuk, and his wife, Svetlana Polishchuk, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1966 and live in Tokmak (Ukraine). The case concerns the alleged unlawfulness of a search carried out by the police of the applicants’ flat in March 2001 following a crime – six windows were broken – committed in the neighbourhood, of which Mr Polishchuk was a suspect. The applicants rely in particular on Articles   8 (right to respect for home) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Matveyev and Others v. Russia (nos. 43578/06, 19435/07, 21338/07, 23022/07, 23593/07, 25297/07, 28442/07, 28660/07, 30287/07, 33161/07, 40602/07, 51107/07, 51354/07, 52279/07, 52280/07, 42131/08, 43194/08, 51692/08, 52128/08, 58990/08, 59582/08, 59834/08, 60533/08, 60790/08, 3456/09, 3514/09, 4193/09, 4550/09, 5402/09, 6194/09, 6198/09, 7214/09, 7229/09 and 9021/09) This case concerns 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), Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).     ***   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.