003-1953504-2066025

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   23.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   27 and 29 March 2007   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing eight Chamber judgments on Tuesday 27 March 2007 and 11 on Thursday 29 March 2007.   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 March 2007   Istratii and Others v. Moldova (application nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05) The applicants, Viorel Istratii, Alexandru Burcovschi and Roman Luţcan, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1971, 1970 and 1976, respectively. They all live in Chişinău.   The case concerns the applicants’ detention on remand from 12 November 2004 on suspicion of fraud. Ultimately, all the applicants were released in April 2005.   The applicants complain about the conditions of their detention and the lack of medical assistance. They further allege that the courts had not given relevant and sufficient reasons for their detention, that the judges who ordered their detention were not competent to do so and that they were prevented from communicating in confidence with their lawyers. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Apostolidi and Others v. Turkey (no. 45628/99) The five applicants are Greek nationals living in Greece.   Their aunt, who had acquired Turkish nationality by marriage, died in 1984 without leaving descendants. She owned a flat in Beyoğlu and a plot of land in Şişli was registered in the land register in her late husband’s name.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants submit that, by annulling their inheritance certificate, the Turkish courts infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They also complain of the length of the proceedings in question.   Asfuroğlu and Others v. Turkey (nos. 36166/02, 36249/02, 36263/02, 36272/02, 36277/02, 36319/02, 36339/02 and 38616/02) The ten applicants are Turkish nationals who live in Hatay (Turkey).   The case concerns plots of land bought by the applicants near the coast in Hatay where they built houses, restaurants and hotels. The land was expropriated by the State on the ground that it was in a coastal area.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that the authorities deprived them of their land without compensation.   Duyum v. Turkey (no. 57963/00) The applicant, Ahmet Duyum, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.   On 22 May 1996 Mr Duyum was taken into police custody on suspicion of having committed a murder. On 7 June 2000, there being insufficient evidence to convict him, he was acquitted and released from prison. He was subsequently awarded compensation.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Duyum complains about the length of his detention on remand. Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Fehmi Koç v. Turkey (no. 71354/01) The applicant, Fehmi Koç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Diyarbakır Prison.   On 12 March 1995 Mr Koç was taken into police custody on suspicion that he was a member of an illegal organisation. He was convicted on 3 June 1999 and sentenced to life imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Koç complains about the length and unfairness of the proceedings against him and claims that the national security court which tried and convicted him was not independent and impartial, owing to the presence of a military judge on the bench.   Karaçay v. Turkey (no. 6615/03) The applicant, Erhan Karaçay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.   He is an electrician and at the material time was a member of the local branch of the trade union Yapı Yol Sen, which is affiliated to Kesk (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Trades Union Confederation of Public Sector Employees).   Relying, in particular, on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains that he was given a disciplinary penalty for taking part in a demonstration and complains of the lack of a domestic remedy by which to challenge the disciplinary measure.   Öztunç v. Turkey (no. 74039/01) The applicant, Hasan Öztunç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Van (Turkey).   The case concerns civil proceedings brought by Mr Öztunç concerning payment for repair work he had carried out in 12 schools in Başkale in 1985.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Mr Öztunç complains about the length of the civil proceedings. He further complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that the compensation he received was too low, because it did not take into account inflation between the date he made his claim and the date compensation was awarded.   Talat Tunç v. Turkey (no. 32432/96) The applicant, Talat Tunç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958. At the material time he was living in Yeleğen (Turkey), and was a farmer.   In 1995 he was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for killing his mother.   The applicant complains that the proceedings ending with his conviction were unfair and, in particular, that he was not assisted by a lawyer. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).     Thursday 29 March 2007   Debelianovi v. Bulgaria (no. 61951/00) The applicants, Nikola Georgiev Debelianov and his brother Ivan Georgiev Debelianov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1951 and 1948 respectively and live in Sofia and Koprivshtitsa (Bulgaria).   In March 1994 the applicants obtained a court order for the return of a house in Koprivshtitsa that had belonged to their father and had been turned into a museum in 1956 after being expropriated. In June 1994 the National Assembly declared a moratorium on restitution laws in respect of property classified as a national monument of cultural value.   The applicants complain of their inability to take possession of their property. They allege a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kovacheva and Hadjiilieva v. Bulgaria (no. 57641/00) The applicants, Lili Georgieva Kovacheva, and her sister, Petya Georgieva Hadjiilieva, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1936 and 1940, respectively, and live in Sofia.   The case concerns civil proceedings brought in May 1990 by the applicants claiming sums allegedly owed to their late father in payment for managing and supervising construction work.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about the length of the proceedings.   Gousis v. Greece (no. 8863/03) The applicant, Dimitrios Gousis, is a Greek national who was born in 1955 and lives in Patras (Greece). He is a mechanical engineer and worked as an assistant professor at the University of Patras from 1991 to 1996.   In July 1997 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party seeking damages, against some of his former colleagues complaining that they had conspired to have him dismissed from the university.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant submits that the conduct of the judicial authorities resulted in the accused not being tried on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred.   Vaden v. Greece (no. 35115/03) The applicant, Dionysios Vaden, is a Greek national who was born in 1953. He is in Kassandra Prison (Greece).   The applicant was arrested on suspicion of forging bank notes and placed in pre-trial detention in Chalkida Prison in March 1998. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in 2003. The case is currently pending before Athens Court of Appeal.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains of the conditions of his detention. He also complains, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Mircea v. Romania (no. 41250/02) Ardeluţa Virginia Mircea is a Romanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Bucharest. At the material time the applicant, who was the director of a commercial company, had business relations with the manager of the company SIGO, which had started a famous pyramid game in Romania.   In April 1996 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of corrupt practice. She was acquitted at first instance, but sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by the Supreme Court in May 2002.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that the proceedings against her were unfair. She also alleges that sentencing her to a term of imprisonment despite her poor state of health amounted to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). She relies, further, on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 7 (no punishment without law) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Andrey Frolov v. Russia (no. 205/02) The applicant, Andrey Leonidovich Frolov, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lived in St. Petersburg until his arrest. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Leningrad Region.   The application concerns Mr Frolov’s complaint about the conditions of his detention from 21 January 1999 following his arrest and conviction for, in particular, robbery and selling stolen property. He complains that for more than four years he was confined to an 8 sq. m. cell with 12 to 14 inmates, day and night, except for one hour of daily outdoor exercise.   Mr Frolov relies, in particular, on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   Repetitive cases   Cholet v. France (no. 10033/02) The applicant, Jean-Luc Cholet, is a French national who was born in 1956 and lives in Montaigu-de-Quercy (France).   In 1998 he lodged a criminal complaint and application to join the proceedings as a civil party against a lawyer whom he accused of collusion and perjury. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal and to the Court of Cassation against the decision that there was no case to answer.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant alleges that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation were unfair.   Arshinchikova v. Russia (no. 74043/01) The applicant, Zinaida Pavlovna Arshinchikova, is a Russian national, who lives in Saratov (Russia).   The case concerns the quashing, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, of a judgment given in Ms Arshinchikova’s favour. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Vydrina v. Russia (no. 35824/04) Mikhaylov v. Ukraine (no. 22986/04) Pobegaylo v. Ukraine (no. 18368/03) The applicants are one Russian national and two Ukrainian nationals who all complain about the delay in enforcement of judgments in their favour.   They all rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). Ms Vydrina and Mr Mikhaylov also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   ***   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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.