003-3299300-3684532

issued by the Registrar of the Court   no. 739   11.10.2010   Forthcoming Chamber judgments   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 23 Chamber judgments   on Tuesday 19 October 2010 and 30 on Thursday 21 October 2010.   Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 11 a.m. (local time) on   the Court’s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int)   Tuesday 19 October 2010   Bazjaks v. Latvia (application no. 71572/01)   The applicant, Igors Bazjaks, is a permanent resident of Latvia who was born in 1963   and lives in Daugavpils (Latvia). In January 1999 Mr Bazjaks was found guilty of   aggravated rape and sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl and sentenced to ten years’   imprisonment. He makes a number of complaints under Articles 3 (prohibition of   inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European   Convention on Human Rights concerning ill-treatment by the police during and after his   arrest as well as the conditions of his detention while held in custody and subsequently   when serving his sentence. He alleges in particular that the conditions in Daugavpils   prison were inhuman and degrading and that he lacked an effective remedy in that   regard.   Just satisfaction   Baroul Partner-A v. Moldova (no. 39815/07)   The applicant, Baroul Partner-A, is a company incorporated in Moldova. In a judgment   delivered on 16 July 2009 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) to the   Convention as a result of the domestic courts’ annulment of the privatisation of a quarry   in which the applicant company was a majority shareholder. It further held that the   question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   This question will be decided in the judgment to be delivered by the Court on 19 October   2010.   Kurkaev v. Turkey (no. 10424/05)   The applicant, Ruslan Kurkaev, is a Russian national who was born in 1983. Fearing for   his life, he left Chechnya in August 2000 and went to Istanbul, where he now lives.   Mr Kurkaev complains that his arrest by the police anti-terrorist branch in June 2004   during the NATO summit in Istanbul was unlawful and that his ensuing detention lacked   adequate judicial review. He relies on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Further relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he also   complains about his detention in the Foreigners’ Department of the Istanbul Security   Headquarters for 91 days in an overcrowded cell with no windows, beds or access to   fresh air or possibility to exercise.   Özpınar v. Turkey (no. 20999/04)   The applicant, Arzu Özpinar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in   Ankara. She was removed from office as a judge by a decision of the Supreme Council of   the Judiciary following a disciplinary investigation concerning, among other subjects, her   alleged close relationships with several men, her appearance and her repeated lateness   for work. Relying, in particular, on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life),   Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination),   she complains of the action taken against her.   Uğur and Others v. Turkey (nos 1968/07, 3608/07, 14474/07, 35240/07,   35252/07, 36503/07, 36505/07, 36509/07, 36541/07, 36544/07, 36556/07,   36563/07, 36571/07, 36573/07, 36582/07, 36586/07, 36593/07, 15637/08,   34229/08, 36489/08, 36492/08, 36493/08, 37232/08 and 37233/08)   The applicants are 25 Turkish nationals who are currently in Diyarbakır Prison (Turkey).   They were remanded in custody on different dates between 1993 and 2002 on charges   of membership of an illegal armed organisation and/or attempting to overthrow the   Turkish constitutional order. As their various applications for release were repeatedly   refused by the authorities, they all remained in pre-trial detention for several years,   either until their release by a court or until the date of the first-instance judgment in   their case. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), they complain   of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention and maintain that they did not have   an effective remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of that detention. They also   complain, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13   (right to an effective remedy) respectively, of the length of the criminal proceedings   against them and of the absence of a remedy enabling them to appeal against the length   of their detention and the length of those proceedings.   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction   De Angelis and Others v. Italy (no. 68852/01)   Emanuele Calandra and Others v. Italy (no. 71310/01)   Ippoliti v. Italy (no. 162/04)   Izzo v. Italy (no. 20935/03)   Janes Carratù v. Italy (no. 68585/01)   Sciarrotta and Others v. Italy (no. 14793/02)   Scozzari and Others v. Italy (no. 67790/01)   In judgments of 21 December 2006, 26 October 2006, 16 November 2006, 2 March   2006, 3 August 2006, 12 January 2006 and 15 December 2005, the Court considered   that the loss of possession of the land at issue amounted to expropriation, in breach of   the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. It accordingly held that in   all seven cases there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of   property). The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just   satisfaction was not ready for decision. This question will be decided in judgments to be   delivered on 19 October 2010.   Bereza v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 42332/06)   In this case the applicant complains about the censorship of his correspondence by the   remand centre authorities. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Cevahirli v. Turkey (no. 15067/04)   This case concerns a retired military officer’s complaint that he was not able to access   the classified documents and information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the   Supreme Military Administrative Court in proceedings with regard to his being banned   from the army’s social facilities. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   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. In the cases of Baczova and Ribič the applicants also rely on Article 13   (right to an effective remedy).   Delfa Montaggi Industriali S.R.L. and Nava S.N.C. v. Italy (no. 19875/03)   Frosio v. Italy (no. 16777/03)   Giobbi and Others v. Italy (nos. 26358/03, 26360/03, 26363/03, 26405/03 and   26407/03)   Iannelli and Others v. Italy (nos. 29413/03, 29696/03, 31401/03, 3346/04,   12581/04, 20410/04 and 593/05)   Silveri v. Italy (No. 2) (no. 36624/02)   Baczova v. Slovakia (no. 18926/07)   Berecova v. Slovakia (no. 31651/06)   Wolff v. Slovakia (no. 42356/05)   Ribič v. Slovenia (no. 20965/03)   Thursday 21 October 2010   Benet Czech spol. s r.o. v. Czech Republic (no. 31555/05)   The applicant, Benet Czech spol. s r.o., is a limited liability company incorporated under   Czech law with its registered seat in Prague. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property), the applicant company complains about the seizure of its   financial assets following criminal proceedings for tax evasion brought against its former   manager and sole shareholder.   Grosskopf v. Germany (no. 24478/03)   The applicant, Ekkehard Alexander Grosskopf, is a German national who was born in   1945. Having served a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment for attempted burglary as   a member of a gang and considered to be a danger to the public on account of his   numerous previous convictions, he is currently in preventive detention in Aachen   (Germany). Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Grosskopf   complains in particular about his placement in preventive detention since February 2002.   Alekseyev v. Russia (nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09)   The applicant, Nikolay Alekseyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lives   in Moscow. He is a gay rights activist. The case concerns his complaint about the   authorities’ repeated ban on Gay Pride marches he organised in 2006, 2007 and 2008 in   Moscow. He relies on Articles 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 13 (right to   an effective remedy). He also alleges that the reason for the ban was official disapproval   of the Gay Pride participants’ sexual orientation, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of   discrimination).   Beloborodov v. Russia (no. 11342/05)   The applicant, Dimitriy Beloborodov, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and   lived, prior to his arrest, in Novotroitsk (Orenburg Region, Russia). Relying in particular   on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that he was   beaten, hit with a chair and hung up with handcuffs when taken into police custody on   suspicion of drug dealing. He further alleges that the investigation into his complaints of   ill-treatment was inadequate.   Gaforov v. Russia (no. 25404/09)   The applicant, Abdurazok Gaforov, is a Tajikistani national who was born in 1973 and is   сurrently living in Moscow. Arrested in Moscow in August 2008, Mr Gaforov alleges that,   if extradited to Tajikstan where he is wanted on charges of membership of Hizb ut-   Tahrir, a transnational Islamic organisation banned in a number of countries, he would   be at real risk of ill-treatment. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or   degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Also relying on Article 5 §§   and 4 (right to liberty and security), he further complains about the unlawfulness and   lack of judicial review of his detention pending extradition. Lastly, he alleges that the   Russian courts’ decisions on his extradition stated that his “actions were punishable”   under the Russian criminal legislation and that that wording could influence the Tajik   courts, in breach of Article 6 § 2 (right to be presumed innocent).   Maryin v. Russia (no. 1719/04)   The applicant, Konstantin Maryin, is a Russian national who was born in 1983 and lives   in Saransk (Republic of Mordoviya, Russian Federation). Relying in particular on Article 3   (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that a remand prison guard   beat him with a rubber truncheon during his detention pending trial on rape charges. He   also alleges that the ensuing investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment was   inadequate. He was ultimately convicted in March 2006 and sentenced to three years’   imprisonment.   Petr Korolev v. Russia (no. 38112/04)   The applicant, Petr Korolev, is a Russian national, now deceased, who was born in 1951   and lived in Vladivostok (Russia). Employed as a crew member of the medium tanker   Argun and sent on trade missions abroad, he complains about the Russian Federation’s   non-enforcement of a South African court judgment in his favour with regard to unpaid   wages. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Further relying   on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he also complains   about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him by the Russian   authorities for fraud with regard to his claims before the South African courts.   Saliyev v. Russia (no. 35016/03)   The applicant, Kakhraman Saliyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives   in Magadan (Russia). The case concerns Mr Saliyev’s complaint that the editor-in-chief of   the newspaper Vecherniy Magadan ordered the withdrawal of the issue in which the   applicant had written an article about the privatisation of a power plant. He alleges in   particular that the withdrawal amounted to political censorship, the article describing   what he considered a crooked deal involving an influential politician. He relies on Article   (freedom of expression).   Ivanov and Dimitrov v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   (no.46881/06)   The applicants, Vasko Ivanov and Lazo Dimitrov, are two Macedonian nationals who live   in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. They were born in 1960 and 1962 and   live in Karbinci and Štip respectively. Former wardens at a State-run weekend retreat,   they complain about the excessive length and unfairness of proceedings they brought   concerning their claims to payment of benefits. They allege in particular that their claims   were rejected despite the fact that identical claims had been accepted in previous cases.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Bilyy v. Ukraine (no. 14475/03)   The applicant, Valentyn Bilyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and is   currently serving a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence in Mykolayiv (Ukraine) for theft   of firearms. A former police officer, Mr Bilyy alleges that he was ill-treated when arrested   on suspicion of murdering another police officer and that the investigation into his   allegation was inadequate. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading   treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article 5 §§ 1 and 3,   he also complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on   remand. Lastly, he also complains about the excessive length – over five years – of the   criminal proceedings against him, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a   reasonable time).   Diya 97 v. Ukraine (no. 19164/04)   The applicant, Diya 97, is a Ukrainian company registered under Ukrainian law with its   office in Kyiv. The case concerns the alleged unfairness of commercial proceedings   brought by the applicant company against State bailiffs claiming that they had   inappropriately enforced a notary’s writ of execution in the the company’s favour with   regard to some real estate. The company relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Kornev and Karpenko v. Ukraine (no. 17444/04)   The applicants are Denis Kornev and his mother, Larisa Karpenko, two Ukrainian   nationals who were born in 1984 and 1951 respectively, and live in Kharkiv (Ukraine).   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), Mr Kornev complains that,   arrested in May 2003 on suspicion of supplying drugs, he was kept in custody for eight   days before being brought before a judge. He further alleges that his ensuing conviction   was unfair as he had not been given the opportunity to question the main witness   against him, in breach of Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of   witnesses). His mother, who was found guilty of contempt of court on 2 December 2003   and sentenced to 15 days’ administrative detention – later replaced by a fine – for   entering the office of the judge dealing with her son’s case with a support group and   refusing to leave, complains that she was not given adequate time and facilities to   prepare her defence, in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) (right to a fair trial).   Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 43374/02)   The applicant, Vladimir Petukhov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1973 and is   currently serving a life sentence in Sokalska Correctional Colony (Ukraine) for murder   and robbery. Suffering from tuberculosis and a multiple fracture of his left thigh caused   by a gunshot wound, Mr Petukhov complains about inadequate medical care in   detention. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13   (right to an effective remedy). He further complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 about the   unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand and under Article 6 § 1   (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the unfairness of the proceedings   whereby his detention was extended. Lastly, further relying on Article 6 § 1 and   Article 13, he complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against   him and the lack of an effective remedy in respect of that complaint.   Zhuk v. Ukraine (no. 45783/05)   The applicant, Viktor Zhuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and lives in   Kyiv. Found guilty of drug dealing in April 2005 and sentenced to six years’   imprisonment, Mr Zhuk complains that his conviction was unlawful as the Supreme Court   examined his appeal on points of law in his absence. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a   fair trial).   Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Akhmatova v. Russia (no. 22596/04)   This case concerns the applicant’s complaints about the excessive length and unfairness   of civil proceedings with regard to an employment dispute. She relies on Article 6 § 1   (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Karasev v. Russia (no. 35677/05)   Polomoshnkov v. Russia (no. 33655/04),   These cases concern in particular the applicants’ complaints concerning the excessive   length of criminal proceedings brought against them for causing grievous bodily harm.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Lenchenkov and Others v. Russia (nos. 16076/06, 42096/06, 44466/06 and   25182/07)   This case concerns the applicants’ complaints that final judgments in their favour were   quashed by way of supervisory review. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing)   and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Koloskova v. Russia (no. 53051/08)   Zavedyeva and two other “Privileged pensioners” cases v. Russia   (nos. 33201/08, Nº 49557/08 and Nº 51501/08)   These two cases concern the quashing of final judgments in the applicants’ favour. They   rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of   property). The second case includes 539 applications; it is one of the biggest series of   cases in the Court’s history.   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. In the cases of Träxler and Alexakis, the applicants also rely on Article 13   (right to an effective remedy).   Ewald v. Germany (no. 2693/07)   Grumann v. Germany (no. 43155/08)   Niesen v. Germany (no. 32513/08)   Schliederer v. Germany (no. 2651/07)   Träxler v. Germany (no. 32936/09)   Alexakis v. Greece (no. 23377/08)   Schadler and Others v. Liechtenstein (no. 32763/08)   Dzhigarkhanov v. Russia (no. 38321/03)   Sevostyanova v. Russia (no.4665/04)   Oleksandr Palamarchuk v. Ukraine (No. 2) (no. 17156/05)   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its   Internet site. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS   feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)   Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 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.   7