003-3452620-3883389

issued by the Registrar of the Court no. 166 28.02.2011 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 11 judgments on Tuesday 8 March 2011 and six on Thursday 10 March 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 8 March 2011 Sekerovi and Pasali v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application nos. 5920/04 and 67396/09) The applicants, Mladen Sekerovi and Anka Pasali, are two citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina who were born in 1932 and 1926 respectively and live in Tuzla (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Belgrade. The case concerns their complaint about non-enforcement of judgments in their favour with regard to their pensions. Internally displaced in 1992 during the time of the armed conflict in the region, they received a pension from the Republika Srpska fund. When they returned to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovnia in 2000 and 2001, respectively, their pension, still paid by the Republika Srpska fund, was lower than that of pensioners who had not moved away during the conflict and who received their pension from the Federation Fund. The domestic Human Rights Chamber ordered the authorities, in a final and enforceable decision, to ensure that the applicants and others in their situation would not be treated differently as regards the level of pension entitlements and that legislative and administrative action be taken to rectify any difference, in particular by transferring the applicant from the Republika Srpska fund to the Federation Fund. The applicants rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria (no. 12739/05) The applicant, Koprinka Petkova Goranova-Karaeneva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Montana (Bulgaria). A former neurologist at Montana Regional Hospital, she was occasionally called upon to act as a court-appointed expert. The case concerns her complaint about the tapping of her telephone conversations in January 2001 in the context of criminal proceedings brought against her for bribe-taking. She was notably accused of offering to corroborate � in exchange for money � a former patient's civil claim against the Montana hospital. She was found guilty as charged in November 2003 and given a three-year suspended prison sentence, later reduced on appeal to one-and-a-half years. She relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life, the home and correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Vistis and Perepjolkins v. Latvia (no. 71243/01) The applicants, Jnis Vistis and Gendijs Perepjolkins, are two Latvian nationals. By deeds of gift inter vivos signed in 1994 they became the owners of land amounting to several tens of thousands of square metres on the island of Kundzisala (which is part of Riga and mainly consists of port facilities). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, they complain about the expropriation of the land in question. They argue in particular that they were deprived of their property in breach of national law. They further complain, under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, that they were discriminated against on the ground of "property". Lpuan and Others v. Romania (nos. 29007/06, 30552/06, 31323/06, 31920/06, 34485/06, 38960/06, 38996/06, 39027/06 and 39067/06) The applicants, Dorel Lpuan, Mircea Ioan Niu, Nicolae Nemeti-Cristea, Dragomir Dumitru Inclezan, Leontin Lung, Cornel Mati, Liviu-Ioan Borig, Dorel Lupa and DeliaLiana Mati, are nine Romanian nationals who were born in 1964, 1968, 1941, 1956, 1967, 1966, 1937, 1957 and 1960 respectively and live in Cluj-Napoca (Romania). They were either injured or are close relatives of people who were killed in December 1989 in Cluj-Napoca in the course of demonstrations against the communist regime. Relying in particular on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain that the criminal investigation into those events was ineffective. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they also complain about the length of the criminal proceedings concerning the events, in which they were civil parties. The Arge College of Legal Advisers v. Romania (no. 2162/05) The applicant is an association of legal advisers from Piteti (Arge County, Romania) whose registration was refused by the domestic courts in October 2004. Notably, the courts refused the registration as one of the aims set down in the association's statute (the protection and promotion of the rights of individuals in their relation with public authorities) led them to believe that it wanted to practise activities similar to those of lawyers, which, under domestic law, was forbidden outside the Romanian Bar Association. Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicant complains about this refusal to register it as an association. Beristain Ukar v. Spain (no. 40351/05) The applicant, Aritz Beristain Ukar, is a Spanish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Hernani (Spain). In 2002 he was arrested in San Sebasti�n on suspicion of having taken part in violent clashes in the city. Relying mainly on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he submits that he was ill-treated during his arrest and while he was detained for five days in San Sebasti�n and Madrid. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Delvina v. Albania (no. 49106/06) Eltari v. Albania (no. 16530/06) These cases concern the non-enforcement of final court decisions in the applicants' favour. They rely 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). Emirolu v. Turkey (no. 40795/05) This case concerns the applicant's complaint that the authorities expropriated his property without paying compensation. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Kizirolu v. Turkey (no. 52154/07) This case concerns a navy captain's complaint that he was not able to access the classified documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court in proceedings in which he sought the annulment of his appointment to a different post. He relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing). Length-of-proceedings case In the following case, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of administrative proceedings concerning expropriation of their house and land. Zivaljevi v. Montenegro (no. 17229/04) Thursday 10 March 2011 Just satisfaction Forminster Enterprises Limited v. the Czech Republic (no. 38238/04) The applicant, Forminster Enterprises Limited, is a company registered in Cyprus. In a judgment of 9 October 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the excessive duration of the seizure of shares held by the applicant company in the context of pending criminal proceedings against a member of the board of directors of a Czech company with whom it had entered into a purchase agreement. 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 10 March 2011. Kiyutin v. Russia (no. 2700/10) The applicant, Viktor Kiyutin, was born in the Uzbek SSR of the Soviet Union in 1971 and acquired citizenship of Uzbekistan upon the collapse of the USSR. He has been living in the Oryol Region of Russia since 2003 and is married to a Russian national. The case concerns the authorities' refusal to grant Mr Kiyutin a Russian residence permit because he is HIV positive. He relies in particular on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home). Ryazantsev v. Russia (no. 21774/06) The applicant, Valeriy Ryazantsev, is a Russian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Tver (Russia). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains about the unfairness and excessive length of proceedings he brought against a construction company in which he sought to finalise a co-investment agreement as well as to register title to a flat. Suk v. Ukraine (no. 10972/05) The applicant, Grygoriy Suk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Poltava (Ukraine). Formerly employed by the Poltava Regional Fire Safety Department, he complains about the domestic courts' dismissal of his claim for payment arrears of a monthly subsistence allowance owed to him from 1999 to 2000. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of legal proceedings. Criminal Hatzigiannis v. Greece (no. 41769/08) Concerning in particular the length of criminal proceedings against the applicant for having unlawfully offered State housing intended for Roma to other people. Non-criminal Titarenko v. Russia (no. 25966/04) Concerning an employment dispute. 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. 4