CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt }   697 27.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   5 and 7 October 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 Chamber/Committee judgments on Tuesday 5 October 2010 and 12 on Thursday 7 October 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 5 October 2010   Hartman v. Poland (no. 20342/07) The applicant, Marek Hartman, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Strzelce Opolskie (Poland). Criminal proceedings were brought against him in 2003 for attempted murder, illegal possession of firearms and death threats against his family and partner. After a European Arrest Warrant was issued against him, he was arrested in France and remanded in custody in Poland in March 2005. His trial ended in June 2010 and he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about the length of his detention on remand during the proceedings and alleges that his right to be tried within a reasonable time was breached. He further alleges, relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private life and correspondence), that his trial was unfair, that his prolonged detention represented ill-treatment and that his correspondence was intercepted.   Hinczewski v. Poland (no. 34907/05) The applicant, Leszek Hinczewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Jastrzębie Zdrój (Poland). Mr Hinczewski complains that he was not allowed to vote in the 2005 Parliamentary elections in Poland when serving a two-year-and-three-month sentence for burglary. He relies on Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 (right to free elections). The case also concerns the authorities’ monitoring of his correspondence, in breach of Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Przyjemski v. Poland (no. 6820/07) The applicant, Zbigniew Przyjemski, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Zabrze (Poland). He was arrested and remanded in custody in 2006 on suspicion of threatening and assaulting his partner. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) he complains about the interception of his correspondence with the Court during his detention. Under Article 5 § 1 (c), he alleges that his detention had no legal basis. Lastly, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and alleges that his right to be presumed innocent was breached.   Ghiga Chiujdea v. Romania (no. 4390/03) The applicant, Alin Narcis Ghiga Chiujdea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Făgăraş (Romania). He was arrested in 2002 at Otopeni airport on suspicion of theft at the police headquarters. He alleges that police officers from that station handcuffed him and attached him with wire, threatened him, and kicked and punched him in the liver and stomach after his arrest at the airport, with the aim of forcing him to give statements. He complains about ill-treatment under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and about the proceedings against the officers responsible.   Rakić and Others v. Serbia (nos. 47460/07, 49257/07, 49265/07, 1028/08, 11746/08, 14387/08, 15094/08, 16159/08, 18876/08, 18882/08, 18997/08, 22997/08, 23007/08, 23100/08, 23102/08, 26892/08, 26908/08, 29305/08, 29306/08, 29323/08, 29389/08, 30792/08, 30795/08, 31202/08, 31968/08, 32120/08, 32537/08, 32661/08, 32666/08 and 36079/08) The applicants are Slobadan Rakić and 29 others who are all Serbian nationals and are employed as police officers with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia. They live and work in Kosovo [1] . In 2000 and 2003 the Serbian Government adopted two decisions allowing the salaries of their employees living and working in Kosovo to be doubled. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain that the domestic courts’ decisions concerning their ensuing claims, in which they sought the difference between the salary increase granted by the Government and the one they actually received, were inconsistent with other relevant case-law. In particular, the applicant’s claims were rejected whilst numerous other claims brought by their colleagues were successful, even though they were based on the same facts and concerned identical legal issues.   DMD GROUP, a.s. v. Slovakia (no. 19334/03) The applicant, DMD GROUP, a.s., is a joint-stock company which was established in 1997 and is based in Trenčin (Slovakia). The case concerns the reassignment in June 1999 by the president of a district court – in his administrative capacity to himself as a judge – of a case brought by the applicant company seeking enforcement of a financial claim (2,900,000 euros) against a major company involved in arms production. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complains that the president’s reassignment of the case to himself and his decision on the case to the applicant company’s detriment on the same day breached its right to have a hearing before a tribunal established by law.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Balcer v. Poland (application no. 19236/07) Kramarz v. Poland (no. 34851/07) Staniszewski v. Poland (no. 28157/08) Szparag v. Poland (no. 17656/06) Urbanowicz v. Poland (no. 40459/05) These five cases concern the applicants’ complaints that a lawyer appointed under a legal aid scheme refused to bring a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court in civil or criminal proceedings to which they were a party. They all rely on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court). In the last two cases the applicants also rely on Article 6 § 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing).   Jovančić v. Serbia (no. 38968/04) The case concerns the opening of the applicant’s correspondence by the prison authorities when he was serving a sentence for forgery. He relies in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence).   Ölmez and Turgay v. Turkey (nos. 2318/09, 12616/09, 23563/09, 26801/09, 26837/09, 26846/09, 26851/09 and 26859/09) This case concerns the applicants’ complaints about the suspension of the publication and dissemination of their newspapers, considered propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, as well as the unfairness of the ensuing criminal proceedings brought against them. The applicants rely in particular on Articles   6 (right to a fair hearing) and   10 (freedom of expression).     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.   Čechová v. Slovakia (no. 33378/06) Szigetiová v. Slovakia (no. 40047/06)     Thursday 7 October 2010   Atanasov v. Bulgaria (no. 5359/04) The applicant, Georgi Atanasov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Sofia. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), complaining that in 1997 his vehicle was seized as evidence in criminal proceedings and was not returned to him until 2008 after many requests that had been unsuccessful.   Karandja v. Bulgaria (no. 69180/01) The applicant, Nadezhda Karandja, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Sofia. Her case concerns the death in June 1997 of her 20-year-old son, Peter Robert Karandja, who was shot by the police following his escape from a police station in Sofia where he was being held on charges of stealing and driving without a valid licence. Relying on Articles   2 (right to life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy), she alleges in particular that the police’s use of firearms against her son during the chase through the streets of Sofia was excessive and that the ensuing investigation into the incident was inadequate.   Pankov v. Bulgaria (no. 12773/03) The applicant, Ivaylo Pankov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Pleven (Bulgaria). A conscript, Mr Pankov alleges that he was shot in the abdomen by another serviceman during shooting practice and that the authorities failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent such an incident from occurring. He also complains about the inadequacy of the ensuing investigation, which concluded that he had in fact shot himself at close range by accident. Mr Pankov relies on Articles   2 (right to life) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Just satisfaction Antonopoulou and Others v. Greece (no. 49000/06) The applicants, Vagia Antonopoulou, Dimitrios Chrysafis, Emmanouil Mantousis and Nikiforos Mantousis, are Greek nationals. They own land along the main highway between Thessaloniki and Nea Moudania (Greece). In a judgment of 16 April 2009 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). It took the view that the rejection of a ground of appeal on points of law, of which the applicants had complained, constituted an over-formalistic approach to the admissibility conditions for the appeal and that, consequently, the restriction on the applicants’ right of access to a court had not been proportionate to the aim of guaranteeing legal certainty or due process. In addition, the Court held that in refusing to award the applicants compensation for the non-expropriated parts of their land that had been devalued as a result of the widening of the highway, the domestic courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the protection of individual rights and the demands of the general interest. It reserved its decision on the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction). That question will be dealt with in the judgment to be given on 7 October.   Konstantin Markin v. Russia (no. 30078/06) The applicant, Konstantin Markin, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Novgorod (Russia). A divorced serviceman with three children, he complains about the refusal to grant him parental leave, Russian law only entitling servicewomen and civilians (male or female) to such leave. He relies in particular on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article   5 of Protocol No.   7 (equality between spouses).   Merzuyeva and Others v. Russia (nos. 27315/06 and 27449/06) The seven applicants in this case belong to two families. The first six applicants are the sister, wife and children of Khamzat Merzhoyev, born in 1963. The seventh applicant is the mother of Ali Gastamirov, born in 1979. They all live in the Chechen Republic (Chechnya, Russia). The applicants allege that Khamzat and Ali were abducted and killed by Russian servicemen following unacknowledged security operations in November 2003 and May 2002, respectively, in their village, Katyr-Yurt (Chechnya). 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).   Sadykov v. Russia (no. 41840/02) The applicant, Alaudin Sadykov, is a Russian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Grozny (Chechen Republic, Russia). A school teacher who stayed behind in Grozny to look after his house after the renewal of hostilities in October 1999, Mr Sadykov alleges that he was apprehended in March 2000 when out distributing drinking water to residents of Grozny. He claims that he was then tortured by the police while in detention until his release without charge in May 2000. During the ill-treatment he lost most of his teeth and his ribs, jaw, arm and leg were broken. He also had a derogatory word carved on his forehead and his ear cut off. He further alleges that his house was looted and burnt while he was in detention and that the investigation into that allegation as well as the one of ill-treatment were ineffective. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment),   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). Lastly, he complains about the State’s failure to submit to the European Court of Human Rights the investigation files with regard to his case, in breach of Article 38   §   1   (a) (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for examination of the case).   Skachkov v. Russia (Nº 25432/05) The applicant, Igor Skachkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Lyubertsy (Russia). The case concerns his complaint about the appalling conditions of his detention – in particular overcrowding – for three years in a remand prison pending criminal proceedings against him for the kidnapping of the director general of a bank. He was ultimately convicted of that charge as well as robbery and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. He also alleges that, as a result of lack of medical care during his pre-trial detention, his hearing, eyesight and teeth have deteriorated. He relies on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Bogatova v. Ukraine (no. 5231/04) The applicant, Lyudmila Bogatova, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk (Ukraine). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), she complains that, in a case she brought concerning pension arrears, the domestic courts failed to consider her argument that she was entitled under the Constitution to a pension equal to the minimum living standard.   Pokhalchuk v. Ukraine (no. 7193/02) The applicant, Eduard Pavlovich Pokhalchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Kharkiv (Ukraine). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) he complains about the length of two sets of proceedings concerning a dispute between neighbours: civil proceedings brought by him and criminal proceedings against him. Under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) he complains about a decision taken in December 2000 at the beginning of the criminal proceedings, but still in force today, to prohibit him from leaving the place where he lives.   Znaykin v. Ukraine (no. 37538/05) The applicant, Grigoriy Znaykin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1975 and lived in Staryy Krym (Ukraine) before his imprisonment. A former police officer found guilty of abuse of office and sentenced to five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in January 2006, Mr   Znaykin complains about the conditions as well as the unlawfulness of his detention. He relies on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security). Lastly, he also complains that the prosecutor in his case gave an interview to a newspaper about the criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Article   6   §   2 (right to presumption of innocence).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. She also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Utyuzhnikova v. Russia (no. 25957/03)     ***   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. [1] Reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.