003-2650120-2894181

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   27.02.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   3 and 5 March 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 16 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 3 March 2009 and 8 on Thursday 5 March 2009.   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 3 March 2009   Ghavtadze v. Georgia (application no. 23204/07) The applicant, Irakli Ghavtadze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1982. He is currently serving a sentence of eight years and six months for armed robbery and carrying an offensive weapon. He was admitted to hospital several times between January and April 2007 and treated there for viral hepatitis type C, tuberculous pleurisy and scabies. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complains that he contracted various diseases in prison and that his state of health was impaired by the lack of the necessary medical treatment and the conditions of his detention.   Duca v. Moldova (no. 75/07) The applicants, Eugenia Duca, and her daughter, Doina Duca, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1953 and 1975 respectively and live in Chişinău. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants complain about the quashing of a judgment in their favour concerning a dispute about shares in a company.   Cibicki v. Poland (no. 20482/03) The applicant, Lesław Cibicki, is a Polish national who was born in Wrocław (Poland). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial and right of access to a court), Mr Cibicki complains that he was prevented from continuing civil proceedings concerning his deceased parents’ estate because he had been required to pay excessive court fees and the costs of having the inheritance in question evaluated by an expert.   Hilgartner v. Poland (no. 37976/06) The applicant, Sebastian Hilgartner, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Strzelce Opolskie (Poland). Mr Hilgartner was arrested in July 2003 on suspicion of kidnapping, robbery and battery; he was convicted as charged and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment in January 2008. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.   Băcanu and SC “R” SA v. Romania (no. 4411/04) The applicants are Petre Mihai Băcanu, a Romanian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Bucharest, and the company “R” SA. Mr Băcanu is the editor of the national daily newspaper România liberâ, published by “R”. In 2001 and 2002 criminal proceedings for criminal libel were brought against them by a politician after articles had been published in România liberâ about his participation in the launch of a new bank. The applicants rely on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses) with regard to the Romanian courts’ refusal to admit evidence they wished to adduce and Article 10 (freedom of expression) with regard to the civil and criminal orders made against them for defamation.   Aba v. Turkey (nos. 7638/02 and 24416/04) The applicant, Sakine Aba, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), she complains about the excessive length of her detention in police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and that, during that detention, she was denied the assistance of a lawyer.   Ali Kemal Uğur and Others v. Turkey (no. 8782/02) The applicants are 21 Turkish nationals. The case concerns their complaint about the excessive length of civil proceedings first brought in the 1950s with regard to a dispute over land situated in Kadirli, near Adana. The applicants rely in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfı v. Turkey (No. 2) (nos. 37639/03, 37655/03, 26736/04 and 42670/04) The applicant, Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfı (Foundation of the Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Greek Orthodox Church) is a foundation under Turkish law established in Çanakkale (Turkey). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant foundation complains in particular of the Turkish courts’ refusal to register its real property in the land register under its name.   Taşçıgil v. Turkey (no. 16943/03) The applicant, Fırat Taşçıgil, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of Hizbullah as a result of which he was convicted and sentenced in May 2002 to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   Temel and Others v. Turkey (no. 36458/02) The applicants are 18 Turkish nationals who, at the relevant time, were students at various faculties attached to Afyon Kocatepe University in Afyon (Turkey). The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that they were suspended from university for between one and two terms for having petitioned the university authorities to provide optional Kurdish language classes. They rely on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education).     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Milisavljević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 7435/04) The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Simões Alves Noronha v. Portugal (no. 35254/05) Vasconcelos do Couto and Others “Agrarian Reform” v. Portugal (nos. 30808/05, 31702/05, 32264/05, 34167/05, 34706/05, 34883/05, 35265/05, 35531/05, 36176/05, 37279/05, 39334/05, 39335/05, 39340/05, 40408/05, 41368/05, 42122/05, 42181/05, 42202/05, 42560/05, 44229/05, 44243/05, 44462/05, 44558/05 and 45602/05) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) with regard to land expropriated or nationalised in 1975 under the agrarian reform policy.   Deneş and Others v. Romania (no. 25862/03) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) with regard to a property nationalised in 1947.   Argunhan v. Turkey (no. 27045/02) The applicants rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) with regard to expropriation of land they owned.     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. He also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Rogelj v. Slovenia (no. 21415/02)     Thursday 5 March 2009   Janković v. Croatia (no. 38478/05) The applicant, Sandra Jancović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Split (Croatia). Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Jancović complains that, despite her attempts to have her allegations of being attacked and threatened by her flatmates investigated, the authorities failed to ensure her adequate protection. She also complains of the excessive length of the civil proceedings she brought against her assailants, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time)   Barraco v. France (no. 31684/05) The applicant, Alain Barraco, is a French national who was born in 1957. He lives in Montchal (France) and works as a road haulier. Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), he complains of his conviction for obstructing the highway on account of his participation in a “snail-pace” demonstration organised as part of a national day of action.   Hachette Filipacchi Presse Automobile and Dupuy v. France (no. 13353/05) Société de Conception de Presse et d’Edition and Ponson v. France (no. 26935/05) In these cases the applicants are two companies incorporated under French law, Hachette Filipacchi Presse Automobile and Société de Conception de Presse et d’Edition, whose registered offices are in Levallois-Perret (France), and two French nationals, Paul Dupuy and Gérard Ponson, who were born in 1938 and 1964 respectively and live in Paris. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain of their conviction for indirectly or unlawfully publishing tobacco advertising, in particular after they had published in the magazines Action Auto Moto and Entrevue in 2002 photographs of the Formula 1 driver Michael Schumacher wearing the logo of a cigarette brand. They further complain, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 10, of a difference in treatment in relation to motor sport broadcasts put out by the audiovisual media in a country where tobacco advertising is not forbidden.   Colak and Tsakiridis v. Germany (nos. 77144/01 and 35493/05) The applicant, Ayse Colak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Wiesbaden (Germany). Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Colak complains that she was denied a fair trial in proceedings for damages she brought against her doctor for failing to inform her that her companion was suffering from AIDS and that the domestic courts refused to award her compensation for not knowing that she was HIV-positive or for not being able to treat herself in time.   Bychkov v. Russia (no. 39420/03) The applicant, Pavel Bychkov, a tax police officer, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving a prison sentence for banditry, robbery and abuse of power. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the appalling conditions in which he was detained pending his trial in the context of those criminal proceedings against him.   Khalitova v. Russia (no. 39166/04) The applicant, Luiza Khalitova, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). On 11 September 2000 her husband, Lecha Khazhmuradov, born in 1964, working in the woods near his home village, was shot dead by a group of armed men equipped with armoured personnel carriers. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains that her husband was killed by Russian servicemen, that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into the matter, and that there were no effective remedies available to her in respect of those violations.     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.   Bozlar v. Germany (no. 7634/05)     ***   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.