003-3410444-3827866

issued by the Registrar of the Court no. 054 24.01.2011 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21 judgments on Tuesday 1 February 2011 and 24 on Thursday 3 February 2011. Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on the Court's Internet site (www.echr.coe.int) Tuesday 1 February 2011 Metalco BT. v. Hungary (application no. 34976/05) The applicant, Metalco BT., is a Hungarian limited partnership, presently under liquidation, which is based in P�cs (Hungary). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complains about the unfairness and excessive length of litigation with the Hungarian tax authorities concerning outstanding taxes. It further alleges that a share held in another company, used to secure its debt in the tax litigation, ended up losing its value altogether. Potapenko v. Hungary (no. 32318/05) The applicant, Alexandr Potapenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in B�k�scsaba (Hungary). Resident in Hungary since 1986, he complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in 1998 on charges of aggravated fraud. He was eventually acquitted in 2007. He relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention. Further relying on Article 2 � 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), he also complains that his passport was confiscated for seven and a half years of the proceedings against him. Choumakov v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 55777/08) The applicant, Oleg Choumakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a 25 year-prison sentence in Gdask Detention Centre (Poland) for the robbery and murder of a taxi driver. In a judgment of 29 July 2008 (Choumakov v. Poland, no. 33868/05) the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security) on account of the excessive length of Mr Choumakov's pre-trial detention in connection with those proceedings against him. Despite that judgment, Mr Choumakov has remained in detention. This case concerns his further complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention as well as of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Knyter v. Poland (no. 31820/06) Lesiak v. Poland (no. 19218/07) The applicants are two Polish nationals: Albert Knyter who was born in 1974 and lives in Gdask (Poland); and Zofia Lesiak who was born in 1964 and lives in Zabrze (Poland). Mr Knyter was arrested in June 2004 on homicide charges and convicted in January 2007 of false imprisonment, ill-treatment and unintentionally causing death. Arrested in April 2006 on suspicion of money-laundering, Ms Lesiak was released on bail in November 2007; the criminal proceedings are still pending against her. Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), both applicants complain about the conditions (overcrowding in the first case and inadequate medical care in the second case) and excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Lastly, they both also complain about restrictions on contact with their family/children during their detention, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life for correspondence and the home). Ms Lesiak's case also raises a further issue under Article 8, that of the Polish authorities' monitoring of her correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights. Sambor v. Poland (no. 15579/05) The applicant, Dominik Sambor, is a Polish national who was born in 1974 and lives with his father and grandmother in Wroclaw (Poland). He suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. In August 2003, following an argument with his father, Mr Sambor barricaded himself in his room and threatened his father with a knife and an axe. In possession of an airgun, he then opened fire on the police who had been called to the scene. Negotiations between Mr Sambor, the police, a psychologist and a doctor having failed, the police stormed his room and shot him once in the leg. As a result of the wound, his left leg had to be amputated. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Sambor alleges that his life was endangered during the police intervention and that the force used against him was excessive and amounted to ill-treatment, especially as concerned the loss of his leg. He further complains under Article 3 that the ensuing investigation into the incident was inadequate. Dore v. Portugal (no. 775/08) Karoussiotis v. Portugal (no. 23205/08) The applicant in the first case is Michele Dore, an Italian national who was born in 1963 and lives in London. The mother of his child, a Portuguese national, left for Portugal with the child, who was seven years old at the time, without informing him. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains that the authorities were negligent in their handling of his request to have the child returned to him. The applicant in the second case, Diana Karoussiotis, a German national who was born in 1980 and lives in Krefeld (Germany), submits a similar complaint regarding the return of her child to Germany. She sought an order to that effect when her son was not returned after travelling to Portugal to visit his father, a Portuguese national who had been deported from Germany after being convicted of drug trafficking. The applicants also rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and, in the case of Ms Karoussiotis, on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). A�i v. Turkey (no. 7050/05) The applicants, Saniye A�i, Hanifi A�i, Bari A�i, Veli A�i and Menice A�i, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969, 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1955 respectively and live in Batman (Turkey). They are the wife, children and mother of zettin A�i, who was performing his compulsory military service in south-eastern Turkey at the material time. In June 1992 members of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation) attacked the gendarmerie station in the village and during the ensuing clashes injured zettin A�i and took him hostage. A military operation was launched aimed at finding the young man and an investigation was subsequently opened by the authorities. In 2002 the applicants, having had no news of their relative, sought a declaration that he was to be presumed dead. Their request was refused, in particular because of a letter from the commanding officer of the territorial army stating that zettin A�i had joined the PKK. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicants complain that the authorities failed to protect their relative's life while he was in military service and that the investigation into his disappearance was not effective. Under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they allege that the information provided by the authorities was contradictory and defamatory. In addition, they maintain that the discontinuation of the proceedings in their case because they were unable to pay the court fees was in breach of Article 6 (right of access to a court) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). They allege that they did not have an effective remedy by which to assert their complaints, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in that regard. Desde v. Turkey (no. 23909/03) The applicant, Mehmet Desde, is a German national who was born in 1959 and lives in Berlin. Travelling in Izmir in July 2002, Mr Desde alleges that he was arrested and tortured during his ensuing police custody on suspicion of being a member of the illegal organisation Bolevik Parti-Kuzey K�rdistan/Turkiye (Bolshevik Party-North Kurdistan/Turkey). He complains in particular that, blindfolded and stripped naked, he was beaten and sexually abused and that the authorities did not effectively investigate those allegations. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). He also alleges that the criminal proceedings against him, in which he was convicted as charged and sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment, were unfair, in breach of Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c). Notably he claims that his confession during police custody, made under duress and in the absence of a lawyer, was used in evidence against him at trial. Ebcin v. Turkey (no. 19506/05) The applicant, Ayse Ebcin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul. In 1994, Ms Ebcin, a teacher, was attacked on the street on her way to work by two individuals who threw acid in her face. She spent a year and a half convalescing before she could return to work and underwent three years of psychotherapy. She continues to suffer serious physical after-effects � inability to close her mouth, persistence of a tumour on her neck � and has to use nasal tubes when she is asleep. Relying on Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights), Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant alleges that the authorities failed in their duty to ensure her safety � she maintains that other civil servants had been subjected to similar attacks � and to punish the accused promptly. She also relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complaining of the length of the compensation proceedings. Faruk Temel v. Turkey (no. 16853/05) The applicant, Faruk Temel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Hakkari (Turkey). While he was president of the provincial youth section of HADEP (People's Democracy Party, a legal political party) he read out a press statement at a party conference in 2003 in which he allegedly protested against the United States intervention in Iraq and Abdullah �calan's solitary confinement. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains of his conviction on account of that statement. Under Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial), he alleges in particular that in the proceedings against him he was denied the assistance of a lawyer during the investigation stage, was not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, did not have the time and facilities necessary to prepare his defence and was convicted on the basis of the statements of witnesses who did not appear in court. Under Article 5 � 4 (right to liberty and security), he complains that his pre-trial detention was unlawful and excessively long. He also alleges a breach of Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence). Gereksar and Others v. Turkey (nos. 34764/05, 34786/05, 34800/05 and 34811/05) The applicants are 12 Turkish nationals who owned farmland in Bing�l (Turkey) on which they grew vegetables or, in the case of one of them, a plantation of trees. In 1996 the Bing�l provincial council began building an airstrip on land adjoining the applicants' land. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain that the channels they used to irrigate their land were taken out of operation while the work was in progress. They also rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) with regard to the proceedings following their appeals against that measure. H�seyin Habip Takin v. Turkey (no. 5289/06) The applicant, H�seyin Habip Takin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Izmir (Turkey). He alleges that criminal proceedings brought against him for being a member of the illegal organisation, Bolevik Parti-Kuzey K�rdistan/Turkiye (Bolshevik Party-North Kurdistan/Turkey), in which he was convicted as charged in October 2004 and sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment, were unfair, in breach of Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial). Notably he claims that his statement during police custody, although made in the absence of a lawyer, was used to convict him. Further relying on Article 5 � 2 (right to liberty and security), Mr Takin also complains that he was not promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest. Kutlar and Ocakli v. Turkey (nos. 41433/06, 47936/08) The applicants, Taylan Kutlar, born in 1980, and Osman Nuri Ocakli, born in 1966, are two Turkish nationals, who have been held since 2000 and 2003, respectively, in pretrial detention on charges of membership of an illegal organisation, the MLKP (the "Marxist Leninist Communist Party"). Relying on Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), they complain about the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Mr Osman Nuri Ocakli also complains that he did not have the possibility to challenge his continued detention on remand. Yazg�l Yilmaz v. Turkey (no. 36369/06) The applicant, Yazg�l Yilmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1986 and lives in zmir (Turkey). In 2002, when she was sixteen years old, she was taken into police custody for lending assistance to the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she complains of being subjected without her consent to a gynaecological examination while in police custody � the examination had been ordered by the commissioner responsible for minors to establish whether she bore traces of assault � and of the failure to prosecute the doctors responsible. She also alleges under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that she did not have a remedy by which to assert her complaints. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Just satisfaction Genovese and Others v. Italy (no. 9119/03) Giacobbe and Others v. Italy (no. 16041/02) Quattrone v. Italy (no. 67785/01) In judgments of 2 February 2006, 15 December 2005 and 11 January 2007 the Court held in these three cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the absence of formal expropriation and compensation following the occupation by the authorities of land belonging to the applicants, and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. That question will be dealt with in the judgments to be delivered on 1 February 2011. In the case of Quattrone the Court held, in the judgment of 11 January 2007, that there had also been a violation of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the excessive length of the proceedings (more than 16 years), and awarded the applicant 7,900 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. Mehmet Yildiz and Others v. Turkey (no. 14155/02) In this case the applicants complain that the expropriation compensation awarded to them lost its value because the statutory default interest rate was inadequate. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Length-of-proceedings case In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings. Maksimovic v. Slovenia (No.2) (no. 31675/05) Thursday 3 February 2011 Sporer v. Austria (no. 35637/03) The applicant, Gerald Sporer, is an Austrian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Schalchen (Austria). The case concerns his complaint about custody proceedings with regard to his son, K., born out of wedlock in May 2000. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), he alleges that in those proceedings the District Court failed to hear him in person or to discuss a decisive expert opinion on the question of whether K.'s mother was capable of taking care of him. Mr Sporer also claims that he was discriminated against as the relevant provisions of the Civil Code always awarded sole custody to the mother � rather than the father � of a child born out of wedlock unless it had been proven that she put the child's well-being at risk, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for family and private life and the home) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Pirali Orujov v. Azerbaijan (no. 8460/07) The applicant, Pirali Maharram oglu Orujov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1958 and lives in Baku. The case concerns his complaints about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him in June 2005 on charges of attempted deliberate destruction of property. He notably complains about not being summoned to the hearing of his cassation appeal, in breach of Article 6 � 1 (right to fair trial), and about the law-enforcement authorities' joint statement to the press concerning the criminal case against him, in breach of Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence). Hubka v. Czech Republic (no. 500/06) Palsovic v. Czech Republic (no. 39278/04) The applicants are Stanislav Hubka, a Czech national who was born in 1955 and lives in P�bram (Czech Republic) and Jaroslav Palsovic, a Czech national who was born in 1955 and lives in Kralovice (Czech Republic). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) � and, in Mr Palsovic's case, on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) � they complain of the rejection by the Constitutional Court, without a hearing, of their applications concerning their military retirement pensions, and of the failure of the Constitutional Court to provide them with a copy of the observations of the Ministry of Defence, which participated in the proceedings. Siebenhaar v. Germany (no. 18136/02) The applicant, Astrid Siebenhaar, is a German national who was born in 1964 and lives in Keltern (Germany). Ms Siebenhaar is a Catholic and worked as a childcare assistant in a day nursery run by a Protestant parish in Pforzheim. Relying on Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), she complains that she was dismissed without notice by the Baden Protestant Church on the grounds of her active involvement in a religious community (the Universal Church/Brotherhood of Humanity) whose teachings were deemed to be incompatible with those of the Protestant Church. Geppa v. Russia (no. 8532/06) The applicant, Valentina Geppa, is a Russian national who lives in Kursk (Russia). She is the mother of Yevgeniy Geppa, born in 1974, and who died in 2004 while serving a prison sentence for organised violent robbery. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complains that her son died in prison as a result of a combination of regular beatings by the prison staff and a lack of medical care. Igor Kabanov v. Russia (no. 8921/05) The applicant, Igor Kabanov, is a Russian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Arkhangelsk (Russia). He was initially removed, in August 2003, from the position of defence counsel in a criminal case for advising both a defendant and witnesses in the same trial. Subsequently, in April 2004, his membership in the Regional Bar Association was terminated for making offensive comments about the judge who had initially removed him and about the judge who had refused to reinstate him. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains that the proceedings terminating his Bar Association membership were unfair, and breached his right to freedom of expression. Igor Vasilchenko v. Russia (no. 6571/04) The applicant, Igor Vasilchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Shebekino (Belgorod Region, Russia). The case concerns his complaint that, despite a decision to discharge him from his contractual military service, he was only actually relieved of his duties more than five years later. He further complains that the authorities failed to give him a flat despite a judgment to that effect in his favour, that the judgment awarding him housing was quashed under the supervisory review procedure, and that the authorities failed to notify him of an appeal hearing of June 2006 in new proceedings concerning ownership and eviction so he could not state his position. He relies in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 (protection of property). Kharin v. Russia (no. 37345/03) The applicant, Andrey Kharin, is a Russian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Arkhangelsk (Russia). The case concerns Mr Kharin's complaint about the unlawfulness of his overnight detention in October 2001 in a sobering-up centre for drunken and disorderly behaviour in a local shop. He relies in particular on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security). Dushka v. Ukraine (no. 29175/04) The applicant, Yuriy Dushka, was a Ukrainian national who was born in 1985 and lived in Bilgorod-Dnistrovsky (Ukraine) until his death in March 2005. His mother informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application after his death. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that the police ill-treated him in custody in November 2002 in an attempt to extract a confession that he had participated in a robbery. Relying further on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that he was arrested unlawfully, that he did not have a fair court hearing or an effective remedy in respect of those complaints. Stebnitskiy and Komfort v. Ukraine (no. 10687/02) The applicants are Komfort, a company based in Donetsk, and its director, Vladimir Stebnitskiy, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Donetsk (Ukraine). The case concerns in particular the applicants' complaints about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against Mr Stebnitskiy for tax evasion, the unlawfulness of insolvency proceedings brought against the applicant company by the tax authorities, and a number of other complaints related to the insolvency proceedings as well as the non-enforcement of judgments in favour of the applicant company. They rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing/trial within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Repetitive cases The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court. Akhundov v. Azerbaijan (no. 39941/07) The case concerns the applicant's complaint about the failure to enforce a judgment in his favour with regard to his unlawful dismissal and salary arrears. He 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). Manova and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 32626/06) This case concerns the applicants' complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of being deprived of their property, without adequate compensation, following the application of restitution legislation in Bulgaria. Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of legal proceedings. Criminal Cha�kalis v. Greece (no. 32362/08) Panagiotis Vassiliadis v. Greece (no. 7487/08) Stefanakos v. Greece (no. 33081/08) These cases concern in particular the applicants' complaint concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them for drug trafficking (first case), repeated armed assault, possession and use of an illegal weapon and drug trafficking (second case), and causing a shipwreck (third case). Non-criminal Argyris and Others v. Greece (no. 22489/08) Fountis and Others v. Greece (no. 40049/08) Ftylakis and Others v. Greece (no. 27153/08) Iliopoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 40298/08) Kardaras and Others v. Greece (no. 41714/08) Vrachliotis and Others v. Greece (no. 40317/08) Meshcheryakov v. Russia (no. 24564/04) Kutsenko v. Ukraine (No. 2) (no. 2414/06) 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) C�line Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Fr�d�ric 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. 8