003-3011899-3332193

096 05.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   9 and 11 February 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 9 February 2010 and 22 on Thursday 11 February 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 9 February 2010   Asatryan v. Armenia (application no. 24173/06) The applicant, Silva Asatryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Yerevan. She was arrested and taken into custody on 23 September 2005 on suspicion of attempted murder. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, she complains that she was not released from custody between 23 November 2005 – when the decision authorising her detention expired – and 24 November 2005 – when the Court of Appeal decided to prolong her detention.   Bölükbaş and Others v. Turkey (no. 29799/02) The applicants are 15 Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul. The case concerns a plot of agricultural land measuring 45,350 m2, located in the Belgrade Forest in Istanbul; the applicants claim ownership of this land on the basis of title deeds registered in 1933 under the name of their ascendant. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, they complain about the authorities’ refusal to enter the land in the land register under their names on the ground that it was part of the public forest.   Boz v. Turkey (no. 2039/04) The applicant, Mehdi Boz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ankara. In 1995 he was arrested on suspicion of belonging to the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation). At the end of his trial he was sentenced to the death penalty for “membership of an armed gang”, a sentence which was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the length of the criminal proceedings, the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court on account of the presence of a military judge in its composition, the fact that he did not have access to a lawyer while in police custody and the fact that it was impossible to have the witnesses examined.   Cemalettin Canlı v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 26235/04) The applicant, Cemalettin Canlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Ankara. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of the ill-treatment to which he was allegedly subjected in the course of his arrest at a demonstration organised in Ankara by the Confederation of Public-Sector Workers’ Unions. Relying also on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that the criminal investigation brought against the police officers presumed responsible was ineffective.   Emine Yaşar v. Turkey (no. 863/04) The applicant, Emine Yaşar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul. Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), taken alone and together with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains of the ill-treatment to which she was allegedly subjected by police officers during the dispersal by force of a forty-strong group of women, including the applicant, who were seeking to make a statement to the press in protest of war following the events of 11 September 2001; she also alleges that the courts granted impunity to the accused police officers.      Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Bistriţeanu and Popovici v. Romania (no. 5855/05) Evolceanu v. Romania (no. 37522/05) Mărăcineanu v. Romania (no. 35591/03) These cases concern the applicants’ inability to recover possession of property that was nationalised and subsequently sold by the State. They all rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the cases of Bistriţeanu and Popovici and Mărăcineanu the applicants also rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Just satisfaction Marioara Anghelescu v. Romania (no. 5437/03) In a judgment of 3 June 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the non-enforcement of a judgment in the applicant’s favour, and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Mlădin v. Romania (no. 5381/04) This case concerns the applicant’s complaint that the Romanian authorities failed to enforce a final judgment in her favour. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Tăutu v. Romania (no. 17299/05) This case concerns the quashing of a final judgment in the applicant’s favour on an application by the Procurator-General. The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Bora v. Turkey (no. 14719/03) This case concerns the failure by the domestic authorities to enforce a final judgment with regard to a title deed of land. The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     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. The applicants in the cases of A.R., spol. s r.o. and Richard Anderson also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicant company in the case of Evrim İnşaat  A.Ş. also relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   A.R., spol. s r.o. v. Slovakia (no. 13960/06) Evrim İnşaat  A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 19173/03) Richard Anderson v. United Kingdom (no. 19859/04)     Thursday 11 February 2010   Raza v. Bulgaria (no. 31465/08) The applicants are Ali Raza, a Pakistani national, and his wife, Zoya Georgieva Raza, a Bulgarian national. They were born in 1969 and 1975 respectively and live in Sofia. Mr Raza was arrested on 30 December 2005 and placed in a special detention facility pending enforcement of an expulsion order issued on the ground that he posed a serious threat to national security. Released in July 2008, he is currently awaiting expulsion from Bulgaria to Pakistan. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complain about the order to expulse Mr Raza. They also allege that Mr Raza’s detention pending deportation was unlawful and unjustified and was not subject to speedy judicial review, in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Javaugue v. France (no. 39730/06) The applicant, Patrick Javaugue, is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives in Goos (France). He is an employee in the public hospital system. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains about the refusal to allow him to take early retirement, especially the retrospective application of the Law of 30 December 2004 – amending the provisions of the Code of Civil and Military Pensions – and of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the Conseil d’État. Under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains that he was prevented from enjoying a right to which he was nonetheless entitled under domestic law, and of a violation of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   Malet v. France (no. 24997/07) The applicant, Lilian Malet, is a French national who was born in 1957 and lives in La Possession (Réunion, France), a commune of which he was deputy mayor with responsibility for urban planning until 19 April 1990. In 1991 a complaint was made about him, alleging that he had acquired or retained a prohibited interest in the exercise of his duties, and accusing him of having taken a personal interest in the revision of the land-use plan. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, which he considers excessive.   Sud Parisienne de Construction v. France (no. 33704/04) The applicant company, Sud Parisienne de Construction, is a company incorporated under French law with its head office in Mandres-Les-Roses (France). The case concerns enforcement proceedings before the administrative courts involving the applicant company – a sub-contractor in a hospital construction project – and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris with regard to remuneration for the above work. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company alleges that the retrospective application during the proceedings of the decree of 31 May 1997 (in application of a Budget Amendment Act of 30 December 1996) amounted to an unjustified interference in its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, namely the sum owed in respect of contractual default interest, the rate of which had been fixed at the moment of concluding the public contract.   Alfantakis v. Greece (no. 49330/07) The applicant, Georgios Alfantakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1939 and lives in Athens. He was the lawyer for a popular Greek singer in a case that received considerable media coverage, pitting the singer against his wife with regard to accusations of fraud and falsification of documents. The applicant was ordered to pay compensation for infringing the personality rights of the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal after expressing his opinion on the criminal proceedings in question during a live broadcast on the main Greek television news programme. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains about this civil judgment, and under Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that the court of appeal’s judgment was not sufficiently reasoned.   Syngelidis v. Greece (no. 24895/07) The applicant, Polychronis Syngelidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1957 and lives in Athens. The case concerns his complaint about the Greek Parliament’s refusal to waive immunity of his former wife, a Greek member of Parliament, so that criminal proceedings could be brought against her for not complying with a court decision concerning custody of and contact with their son, born in 2004. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Dubayev and Bersnukayeva v. Russia (nos. 30613/05 and 30615/05) Guluyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1675/07) These two cases concern the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives disappeared and were then killed after being detained by Russian servicemen in Chechnya. All the applicants 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).   Fedchenko v. Russia (no. 33333/04) Fedchenko v. Russia (No. 2) (no. 48195/06) The applicant, Oleg Dmitriyevich Fedchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Suponevo (Russia). Founder and editor of the weekly newspaper Bryanskiye Budni (Брянские будни), Mr Fedchenko complains about being found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay damages for articles in which he criticised a member of parliament (in the first case) and the regional educational system and Bryansk Head of Department of Education (in the second case). He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Kayankin v. Russia (no. 24427/02) The applicant, Aleksandr Sergeyevich Kayankin, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Sosnovo (Russia). The case concerns his allegation that, despite suffering from a serious brain illness, he was drafted into the army. He also alleges that during his military service he was beaten by an officer and fellow soldiers and that no effective investigation was carried out into the incidents. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he also complains about the excessive length of the tort proceedings he brought in which he claimed compensation for medical negligence by the State military and medical authorities.   Malysh and Others v. Russia (no. 30280/03) The applicants are six Russian nationals who live in the Armur Region (Russia). They are all holders of Urozhay-90 bonds introduced by the Government in the 1990s to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of consumer goods in high demand at the time (such as refrigerators, washing machines and cars) following economic reform and privatisation. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about the Government’s failure to implement the procedure for redeeming their bonds.   Sabirov v. Russia (no. 13465/04) The applicant, Radmir Rinatovich Sabirov, is a Russian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Sharan (Russia). Convicted in February 2004 of battery and sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment, he complains about the unlawfulness of his custody from October to December 2003. He relies on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security). Further relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he also complains that his state-appointed counsel failed to appear before the cassation court in his case.   Salakhutdinov v. Russia (no. 43589/02) The applicant, Khalil Sultanovich Salakhutdinov, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and is currently serving a ten year and six month prison sentence in Kazan correctional colony (Russia) for inflicting severe injuries resulting in death. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention, notably in Bugulma remand centre between January and August 2002 and in Chistopol prison from August 2002 to August 2003.   Zakayev and Safanova v. Russia (no. 11870/03) The applicants are Ramzan Zakayev, a Kazakh national who was removed from Russia to Kazahkhstan in April 2003 for a breach of residence regulations, and his wife, Imani Safanova (Zakayeva), a Russian national who lives in Moscow. They were born in 1958 and 1963 respectively and come from families of ethnic Chechens forcibly deported to Kazakhstan in the 1940s who returned to Chechnya between 1980 and 1990. They have four young children who have Russian citizenship. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain that their nuclear family has been separated following Ramzan’s expulsion.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Jafarov v. Azerbaijan (no. 17276/07) This case concerns the authorities’ failure to enforce a judgment in the applicant’s favour in which an internally displaced family was to be evicted from a flat for which the applicant had been granted occupancy rights. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Abdullayev v. Russia (no. 11227/05) Kucherov and Frolova v. Russia (no. 14390/05) Votintseva v. Russia (no. 44381/04) Zalevskaya v. Russia (no. 23333/05) These cases concern the quashing of final judgments in the applicants’ favour by way of supervisory review. All the applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). In the cases of Abdullayev and Zalevskaya the applicants also complain about the fairness of the proceedings. They further rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     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.   Alagić v. Croatia (no. 17656/07) Leandro Da Silva v. Luxembourg (no. 30273/07)     ***   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)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.