003-3522720-3974804

issued by the Registrar of the Court no. 384 02.05.2011 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 20 judgments on Tuesday 10 May 2011 and two on Thursday 12 May 2011. Please note that two judgments concerning Bulgaria have been added for 10 May. 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 10 May 2011 Shkalla v. Albania (application no. 26866/05) The applicant, Ardian Shkalla, is an Albanian national who was born in 1978 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. He complains that the criminal proceedings � leading to his conviction in January 2003 � were unfair as, living in Greece at the time, they were held in his absence. He also complains that, having surrendered himself to the Albanian police in June 2003, the courts then rejected his constitutional appeal as lodged out of time. He relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial/access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Dimitrov and Hamanov v. Bulgaria (nos. 48059/06 and 2708/09) The applicants, Stoyan Dimitrov and Nikolay Hamanov, are two Bulgarian nationals who were born respectively in 1977 and 1963 and live in Plovdiv. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that the criminal charges against them, respectively for attempted theft and for causing a monetary loss to a bank by engaging in unlawful bank operations, had not been determined within a reasonable time and that they had not had an effective remedy to challenge that. In February 2010, the Court brought the application to the attention of the Bulgarian Government and asked it whether there was a systemic problem in Bulgaria as regards the excessive length of criminal proceedings, and whether the case was suitable for a pilot judgment procedure. Finger v. Bulgaria (no37346/05) The applicant, Maria Finger, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1946 and lives predominantly in Germany. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains that the civil proceedings concerning a division of property to which she had been party, had lasted too long and that she had not had an effective remedy to challenge that. In February 2010, the Court brought the application to the attention of the Bulgarian Government and asked it whether there was a systemic problem in Bulgaria as regards the excessive length of civil proceedings, and whether the case was suitable for a pilot judgment procedure. Gladovi v. Croatia (no. 28847/08) The applicant, Nebojs Gladovi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1957 and is currently serving a prison term in Lepoglava State Prison (Croatia). He alleges that in March 2007, while being detained pending trial on suspicion of possessing drugs, he was beaten by prison guards with rubber truncheons for shouting and throwing a bench against the door of his cell. He also complains that the investigation into his allegation was inadequate. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. Garyfallia Chatzi and Others v. Greece (no. 14817/09) The applicants are nine Greek nationals who live in Greece. In 1991 a number of properties belonging to them were expropriated and they subsequently brought judicial proceedings, which are still pending, concerning the amount of the compensation. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain about the refusal of the Greek courts to update the compensation for expropriation fixed in 1997 so that it corresponds to the current value of their properties. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they further complain about the length of the proceedings in question. Jakubczyk v. Poland (no. 17354/04) The applicant, Ryszard Jakubczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Kielce (Poland). Relying on Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), he complains about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him for drugs offences (producing large quantities of amphetamines). He notably complains that he was not given the opportunity to examine or have examined the witnesses on whose statements his conviction in May 2003 was based. Wloch v. Poland (No. 2) (no. 33475/08) The applicant, Adam Wloch, is a Polish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Krak�w (Poland). In a previous case Mr Wloch brought to the European Court of Human Rights, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 � 4 (right to liberty and security) concerning the lack of procedural guarantees for his detention between September 1994 and January 1995 on charges � of trafficking in children � which were subsequently discontinued. Following that judgment, he tried to obtain compensation before the domestic courts, without success, as, in the meantime, that period of detention was used towards another penalty imposed on him. This case now concerns his allegation that he has not had an effective and enforceable right to compensation for the breach of Article 5 � 4 found in the Court's previous judgment. He relies in particular on Article 5 � 5 (right to liberty and security). Kostin v. Russia (no. 23464/06) The applicant, Sergey Kostin, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and lives in Voronezh (Russia). Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that he was not notified of an appeal hearing in proceedings he brought in 2005 concerning child benefits. Popandopulo v. Russia (no. 4512/09) The applicant, Dimitrios Popandopulo, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in a correctional colony in the YamaloNenetsk Autonomous Region (Russia) for aggravated murder, theft, robbery and escape. Mr Popandopulo was arrested in April 2005 and his conviction was upheld on appeal in July 2009. He makes a number of complaints about his pre-trial detention in St Petersburg: notably he alleges that the conditions there were appalling and that he was beaten up by prison officers in 2007 and 2008 during two separate incidents, the first of which involved a special-purpose unit wearing balaclavas descending upon his cell for an inspection and hitting all its occupants with rubber truncheons. He also complains that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was inadequate and that the length of the criminal proceedings against him was excessively long. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Vadim Kovalev v. Russia (no. 20326/04) The applicant, Vadim Kovalev, is a Russian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Rostov-on-Don (Russia). Former deputy Head of the Transport Safety Department, he was remanded in custody in March 2004 on suspicion of taking bribes and convicted of that offence as well as of abuse of office and forgery in September 2005 and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 � 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the excessive length as well as the appalling conditions (overcrowding) of his detention on remand in Rostov-on-Don. Mosley v. United Kingdom (no. 48009/08) The applicant, Max Rufus Mosley, is a British national who was born in 1940 and lives in Monaco. He is the former president of the International Automobile Federation, a nonprofit association that represents the interests of motoring organisations and car users worldwide and is also the governing body for Formula One. The case concerns the publication in March 2008 of articles, images and video footage in the News of the World newspaper and on its website which disclosed details of Mr Mosley's sexual activities. Mr Mosley complains in particular about the authorities' failure to impose a legal duty on the newspaper to notify him in advance of publication of the material so that he could seek an interim injunction. He relies in particular on 8 (right to private life). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of legal proceedings. Criminal Bouliaris v. Greece (no. 61773/08) Loggos v. Greece (no. 47039/09) Nomikou v. Greece (no. 54617/09) Pavlidis v. Greece (no. 5832/09) These cases concern in particular the applicants' complaints about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them for, in particular, manslaughter (first case), causing bodily harm by a negligent act (second case), unlawfully obtaining a falsified certificate (third case) and manslaughter (fourth case). Non-criminal Frangos v. Greece (no. 46312/09) Intersalonika A.E.G.A.Z. v. Greece (no. 29980/08) Mastorakis v. Greece (no. 61153/09) Panilas and Others v. Greece (no. 3542/09) Pitsaris v. Greece (no. 16463/09) Thursday 12 May 2011 Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of non-criminal proceedings. Fedorova v. Ukraine (no. 1853/08) Lipisvitska v. Ukraine (no. 11944/05) 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) 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