003-2668877-2912154

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   13.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   17 and 19 March 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing two Chamber judgments on Tuesday 17 March 2009 and four on Thursday 19 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 17 March 2009   Houtman and Meeus v. Belgium (application no. 22945/07) The applicants are Godelieve Houtman and her husband Thomas Meeus, both Belgian nationals who live in Heverlee (Belgium). The case concerns Godelieve Houtman’s detention for several days in a psychiatric institution, against her will. Relying on Article 5 § 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants allege that they did not receive redress for the damage caused by Godelieve Houtman’s loss of liberty, although the unlawfulness of her detention had been recognised by the Belgian courts.   Salmanoğlu and Polattaş v. Turkey (no. 15828/03) The applicants are two Turkish nationals: Nazime Ceren Salmanoğlu who was born in 1983 and lives in Izmir (Turkey); and, Fatma Deniz Polattaş who was born in 1980 and lives in Switzerland. The applicants, 16 and 19 years old at the time, were arrested in March 1999 in the context of a police operation against the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). Ultimately convicted of membership of an illegal organisation and of throwing Molotov cocktails, they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment amounting to more than 12 and 18 years, respectively. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicants allege that were subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody, notably sexual abuse and rape, and that the investigation into their allegations was inadequate. They also allege that they were subjected to virginity tests, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Thursday 19 March 2009   Lang v. Austria (no. 28648/03) The applicant, Gerhard Lang, is an Austrian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Altmünster (Austria). He is a Jehovah’s Witness and is an elder (Ältester) for the community which involves providing pastoral care, leading church services and preaching. The case concerns his complaint that he was not exempt from military service, unlike members of other recognised religious societies holding comparable religious functions. He relies, in particular, on Articles 4 (prohibition of forced labour), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Lyubimenko v. Russia (no. 6270/06) The applicant, Aleksandr Lyubimenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and has been in detention in Volgograd (Russia) on suspicion of aggravated murder and harbouring criminals since July 2003. The criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending before the trial court. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Lyubimenko complains in particular about the inhuman conditions and excessive length of his detention.   Polonskiy v. Russia (no. 30033/05) The applicant, Aleksandr Polonskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and has been detained in Volgograd (Russia) on charges of membership of an armed criminal gang, robbery, infliction of serious injuries and murder since April 2003. Those criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending before the trial court. He was also arrested in January 2003 on charges of unlawful possession of arms and forgery for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant alleges that he was beaten and subjected to electric-shock treatment by the police during his arrest in January 2003 and that the investigation into his allegations was inadequate. Further relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and of his detention pending trial. Lastly, he complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), about the non-enforcement of a judgment in his favour by which two of his cars, impounded by the police during the proceedings against him, should have been returned to him.   Shkilev v. Russia (no. 13541/06) The applicant, Yuriy Shkilev, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and has been in detention in Volgograd (Russia) on suspicion of aggravated murder since April 2003. The criminal proceedings against him are currently still pending before the trial court. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Shkilev complains about the excessive length of his detention.     ***   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.