003-2268789-2434185

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   22.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   26 and 28 February 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing three Chamber judgments on Tuesday 26 February 2008 and three on Thursday 28 February 2008.   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 26 February 2008   Buczkiewicz v. Poland (application no. 10446/03) The applicants, Wanda Buczkiewicz and Antoni Buczkiewicz, are Polish nationals who were born in 1947 and 1951, respectively, and live in Warsaw. In 1993 they inherited a plot of land in the municipality of Warszawa-Włochy. The case concerns the decision in 1992 by the local authorities to expropriate that land in order to construct a major roadway which would link the municipality with Warsaw. The applicants complain that the expropriation was fixed for an undetermined date in the future, which meant that they could not use their property for anything else other than agricultural purposes, and that, under Polish law, they were not entitled to compensation. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Mansuroğlu v. Turkey (no. 43443/98) The applicants, Emine Mansuroğlu and Şerifali Mansuroğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1932 and 1933, respectively. At the relevant time they lived in the hamlet of Çerme, by the village of Kocakoç, Tunceli Region (Turkey), where a state of emergency had been declared. They are the parents of Mazlum Mansuroğlu, who was born in 1972 and died on 15 August 1996 during an anti-terrorist operation conducted in Çerme for the purpose of arresting three activists from the illegal organisation PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The applicants allege that their son was abducted, tortured and then executed by members of the security forces, in violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. Also under Article 3, the first applicant complains, on her own behalf, that she was ill-treated by the security forces. Finally, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain about the ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings conducted with regard to those allegations.   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.   Karpow v. Poland (no. 3429/03)     Thursday 28 February 2008   Demebukov v. Bulgaria (no. 68020/01) The applicant, Georgi Borisov Demebukov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). In October 1997 he was charged with the theft of some electricity cables from the village of Brod (Bulgaria), where he was living at that time, and ordered not to leave the village. He subsequently moved to Plovdiv without authorisation from the Public Prosecutor’s Office. As a result, the courts were unable to serve the applicant with summons to attend hearings and decided to examine the case in his absence. In November 1998, he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that his trial was held in his absence and that he was subsequently refused a re-trial. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Andĕlová v. the Czech Republic (no. 995/06) The applicant, Valerie Andělová, is a Czech national who was born in 1961 and lives in Nová Ves (the Czech Republic). She has a daughter, born in 1994, whose father was granted custody in 2001. The case concerns custody proceedings brought several years ago by the applicant with respect to her daughter. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains, in particular, of the failure to enforce her right of access to her daughter with the result that she has been unable to take part in her upbringing for five years. She also complains about the excessive length of the proceedings, apparently still pending, in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Tserkva Sela Sosulivka v. Ukraine (no. 37878/02) The applicant, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church of the village of Sosulivka (Tserkva Sela Sosulivka), is a religious group belonging to the patriachate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. In a decision of 26 June 1997 Ternopil Regional State Administration granted the applicant Church the right to share the Sosulivka Church premises with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (Української Православної Церкви Київського Патріархату). The latter refused to comply with that decision and prevented the applicant Church from using the church premises. The case concerns the applicant Church’s ensuing complaint that it could not obtain the transfer of the church premises for its sole use as the Ukrainian courts found that they did not have jurisdiction to decide on the matter. The applicant Church relies on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   ***   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.