003-3494280-3937983

issued by the Registrar of the Court no. 293 04.04.2011 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 judgments on Tuesday 12 April 2011 and three on Thursday 14 April 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 12 April 2011 Meidl v. Austria (no. 33951/05) The applicant, Walter Meidl, is an Austrian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Salzburg (Austria). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Meidl complains that the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for tax fraud lasted an unreasonably long time. Gluhakovi v. Croatia (no. 21188/09) The applicant, Stjepan Gluhakovi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Rijeka (Croatia). Mr Gluhakovi, who is divorced, complains that the Croatian authorities have not ensured adequate contact with his daughter, born in December 1999. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) of the Convention. Concei��o Letria v. Portugal (no. 4049/08) The applicant, Joaquim Letria, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1943 and lives in Corroios (Portugal). He is a very well-known journalist. In a judgment which became final in 2007 he was convicted of defamation following remarks made in an article about a local politician, in connection with the collapse of a bridge at Castelo de Paiva in 2001 which resulted in the death of 59 people. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains about his conviction. Adrian Constantin v. Romania (no. 21175/03) The applicant, Adrian Constantin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Brila (Romania). In 2002 he was convicted with final effect in criminal proceedings for an irregularity committed in his capacity as representative of a State-owned company. Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (a) and (b) (right to a fair trial), he contends that, in the proceedings against him, the recaracterisation of the facts by the Supreme Court during its deliberations prevented him from exercising his defence rights and that the assessment of the evidence by the Supreme Court rendered the criminal proceedings against him unfair. Flam�nzeanu v. Romania (no. 56664/08) The applicant, Marian Flam�nzeanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981. He is currently serving a prison sentence for robbery with violence. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of his poor conditions of detention in Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons and in particular of overcrowded cells and inadequate medical treatment (for a spinal injury and urological problems). Republican Party of Russia v. Russia (no. 12976/07) The applicant is the Republican Party of Russia, which was created in November 1990 by the consolidation of the Democratic Wing of the USSR Communist Party and its subsequent secession from that party. In August 2002, the applicant was registered as a party by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicant party complains that in 2006 the Ministry of Justice refused to amend information about it contained in the State register of legal entities, which allegedly disrupted its activities, and that it was dissolved in 2007 for failure to comply with the requirements of minimum membership and regional representation. Just satisfaction B�l�kba 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 located in Belgrade Forest in Istanbul; the applicants claimed ownership of the land on the basis of title deeds registered in 1933 under the name of their ascendant. In a judgment of 9 February 2010 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the authorities' refusal to enter the land in the land register under their names, on the ground that it was part of State-owned forest. The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) will be decided in a judgment to be delivered on 12 April 2011. �elik (Bozkurt) v. Turkey (no. 34388/05) The applicant, Nezahat Nurcan �elik (Bozkurt), is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul. Charged with membership of an illegal organisation, she was dismissed from her post as a primary school teacher in October 2000. Although the criminal proceedings against her were subsequently suspended for lack of evidence, the administrative proceedings brought by her to challenge the dismissal were rejected on the ground that she had committed the offence in question. She complains that her dismissal violated her rights under Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence). Peker v. Turkey (No. 2o (no 42136/06) The applicant, Nurettin Peker, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. On 19 December 2000 a number of security operations were conducted in prisons in Turkey during which many detainees were either killed or injured. Mr Peker alleges that he was shot in the leg and beaten up by gendarmes during one such operation carried out in Gebze Prison, where he was being detained at the time. He relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Just satisfaction Dedda and Fragassi v. Italy (no. 19403/03) Notarnicola v. Italy (no. 64264/01) In judgments of 21 September 2006 and 5 October 2006, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the expropriation of land belonging to the applicants. The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) will be decided in judgments to be delivered on 12 April 2011. Slowik v. Poland (no. 31477/05) This case concerns the applicant's complaint that the legal-aid lawyer assigned to him in criminal proceedings against him for murder refused to file a cassation appeal. He relies on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (c) (right of access to court/right to legal assistance). Passanha Braamcamp Sobral v. Portugal (no. 10145/07) This case concerns the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants for expropriation and the delay in calculating and paying it. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Zolotareva and Others v. Russia (nos. 14667/05, 8046/05, 18801/05, 22673/05, 35094/05, 41741/05, 41955/05, 12594/06, 24148/06, 25030/06, 29207/06, 35527/06, 36526/06, 36722/06, 40478/06, 42952/06, 42976/06, 43721/06, 45039/06, 2406/07, 3459/07, 5670/07, 13462/07, 18996/07, 19650/07, 21952/07, 21959/07, 25299/07, 33073/07, 38214/07, 39434/07, 51385/07, 55274/07, 14752/08, 17050/08, 19776/08, 29608/08, 36283/08, 45832/08 and 6009/09) This case concerns in particular the delayed enforcement of final judgments in the applicants' favour ordering that they be allocated subsidised accommodation. They rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Length-of-proceedings case Domingues Loureiro and Others v. Portugal (no. 57290/08) In this case the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings for compensation following a road-traffic accident, and of the ineffectiveness of an action in tort (before the Portuguese courts) in order to complain of the length of proceedings. Thursday 14 April 2011 Patoux v. France (no. 35079/06) The applicants, Marie-Claude Patoux and her husband Olivier Patoux, are two French nationals who were born in 1946 and 1960 respectively and live in Villers-Saint-Paul (France). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain of the first applicant's continued detention in prison despite the existence of an order for her compulsory admission to hospital, and in particular of the lack of proper medical supervision and psychiatric care. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), they also complain of irregularities in the compulsory admission procedure. Jendrowiak v. Germany (no. 30060/04) The applicant, Richard Jendrowiak, is a German national who was born in 1953. Mr Jendrowiak was convicted in 1990 of attempted sexual coercion and sentenced to three years' imprisonment; his placement in preventive detention was ordered by the sentencing court at the same time. Relying on Article 7 � 1 (no punishment without law), Article 5 � 1 (a) (right to liberty and security), Article 6 �� 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of the retrospective extension of his preventive detention � until his release in August 2009 beyond the maximum period of ten years authorised under German law at the time of his offence. Length-of-proceedings case Karavanskyy v. Ukraine (no.13375/06) This case concerns in particular the applicant's complaint concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for tax evasion and forgery. 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