003-3539074-3996110

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 001 (2011) 16.05.2011 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 17 judgments on Tuesday 24 May 2011 and six on Thursday 26 May 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 24 May 2011 Elsner v. Austria (nos. 1-6) (application nos. 15710/07, 31805/07, 36230/07, 40937/07 17239/08 and 41402/08) The applicant, Helmut Elsner, is an Austrian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Vienna. A former bank manager (Bank f�r Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG) and well known in Austria, Mr Elsner had criminal proceedings brought against him in 2006 for breach of trust and fraud. Retired and living in France at the time, he was arrested there and eventually brought to Austria in February 2007 where he was placed in pre-trial detention. He was convicted of those charges in May and July 2008; ultimately the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of breach of trust and sentenced him to sevenand�a-half years' imprisonment in December 2010. Relying on Article 5 �� 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Elsner complains about the unlawfulness and excessive length of his pre-trial detention. Further relying on Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence), he also alleges that statements made in public by Austrian politicians and public officials amounted to finding him guilty without his being convicted by a court. Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria (no. 23302/03) The applicant, Anna Todorova, is a Bulgarian and Belgian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Seraing (Belgium). The case concerns the death of Ms Todorova's 22-year old son, Zhivko Todorov, in 1994 when the car he was travelling in had a head-on collision with the trailer of a lorry. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, she complains about the inadequacy of the investigation into her son's death and the excessive length of the proceedings in which she claimed damages. Konstas v. Greece (no. 53466/07) The applicant, Dimitrios Konstas, is a Greek national who was born in 1946 and lives in Athens. He is a former university professor who has also been acting Minister for the Press and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Council of Europe. Criminal proceedings were instituted against him for offences including misappropriation of public funds. Relying mainly on Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about statements made to Parliament by the Prime Minister and other ministers in which he was portrayed as guilty even though the judicial proceedings in the Court of Appeal had not yet been concluded, and alleges that no effective remedy was available in Greece in respect of his complaint. Onorato v. Italy (no. 26218/06) The applicant, Pierluigi Onorato, is an Italian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Fiesole (Italy). He is a judge. He alleged that a member of parliament made defamatory statements about him to the press. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (access to a court), he complains that he was unable to bring defamation proceedings against the member of parliament on account of the latter's parliamentary immunity under the Constitution. Abou Amer v. Romania (no. 14521/03) The applicants are Fahed Youseef Abdalla Abou Amer, a stateless person of Palestinian origin who was born in 1969, and his wife since 2000, Ana-Maria Abou Amer, a Romanian national who was born in 1979. They have a daughter who was born in 2001. They currently all live in Sweden. Mr Abou Amer was granted refugee status � along with his father and brothers � in Romania in 1998. He was taken into custody in March 2003 pending expulsion on the ground that he was a danger to national security. The deportation order also banned him from re-entering Romania for ten years. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 �� 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Abou Amer complains about the unlawfulness as well as the conditions of his detention pending expulsion in a holding centre in Otopeni as well as in the transit zone of Bucharest airport. Further relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), the applicants complain that in order to keep their immediate family together, they were forced to leave Romania, leaving their respective families behind. Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08) The applicants are the 21 December 1989 association, registered in Bucharest; its president, Teodor Mrie, a Romanian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Bucharest; and Elena Vlase and her husband Nicolae Vlase, two Romanian nationals who live in Braov (Romania). They were, or represent, participants, injured victims or relatives of those who died in the crackdown on anti-communist demonstrations in December 1989. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), Mr and Mrs Vlase complain of the lack of an effective investigation into their son's death during those events. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Mrie complains of the lack of an effective investigation into the ill-treatment to which he was subjected while taking part in the demonstrations in question. Relying in particular on Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 34 (right of individual application), he further complains, in his own name and on behalf of the applicant association, that he was subjected to secret surveillance measures, in particular telephone tapping, as a form of pressure by the authorities in connection with his activities as president of an association campaigning for an effective investigation into the events of December 1989. Ionescu v. Romania (no. 24916/05) The applicant, Florin Ionescu, is a German national who was born in 1947 and lives in Moosthenning (Germany). The case concerns his complaint about the unfairness and excessive length of criminal proceedings for fraud and forgery which he brought against his partner in a commercial company set up in 1993. He relies on Article 6 � 1 (access to a court/right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Maayevy v. Russia (no. 7964/07) Malika Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia (no. 37193/08) The applicants in the first case are two Russian nationals who live in Urus-Martan (Chechen Republic). They are the parents of Isa Maayev, born in 1975, who they allege was abducted from the family home by Russian servicemen in the early hours of the morning of 10 March 2003 during an unacknowledged security operation. The applicant in the second case is a Russian national who lives in Shali (Chechen Republic). She is the wife of Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev, born in 1963, who she alleges disappeared after being stopped at a checkpoint on 20 April 2005 near the village of Mesker-Yurt. Her husband was the brother of Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, former speaker of the Chechen Parliament, who also disappeared in May 2000. The applicants allege that Russian servicemen were responsible for the abductions and presumed deaths of their relatives. They also complain that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They rely in particular on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy. Saleck Bardi v. Spain (no. 66167/09) The applicant, Knana Mohamed Saleck Bardi, a stateless person, lives in the Sahrawi refugee camps in Tindouf (Algeria). In 2002 her nine-year-old daughter went on a trip to Spain organised by an association, and stayed with a host family. When the child was found to be suffering from health problems, proceedings were initiated to extend her stay in Spain. They ended in 2007 when the host family was awarded guardianship of the child. Relying mainly on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Bardi complains that she was deprived of responsibility for her child in proceedings in which she was unable to take part. Anidis v. Turkey (no. 21668/02) Just satisfaction The applicants, Ekaterina Anidis and her daughter Evridiki Anidis, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1912 and 1937 respectively and live in Istanbul. In a judgment of 23 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 annulment of their certificate of inheritance by the domestic courts. The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) will be decided in the judgment to be delivered on 24 May 2011. Aydemir v. Turkey (no. 17811/04) The applicants, Ayten Aydemir, Abdullah Aydemir and S�leyman Aydemir, are three Turkish nationals who were born in 1977, 1968 and 1976 respectively and live near Aydin Prison (Turkey). The fourth applicant, Muhacir Aydemir, died in August 2005. His widow and children indicated that they wished to pursue his application to the Court. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain about the death of their relative during a search of their home by the security forces, alleging that the events in question also entailed ill-treatment and an infringement of their right to respect for their home. Further relying, in particular, on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they did not have a hearing within a reasonable time and that they did not have a remedy under Turkish law in respect of that complaint. Celal Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 16227/06) The applicant, Celal Kaplan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Turkey. He was taken into police custody in 2005 on suspicion of being the leader of a criminal gang. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains that he was ill-treated while in police custody and that no effective investigation was carried out into his allegations. Firat Can v. Turkey (no. 6644/08) The applicant, Firat Can, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and is currently detained in Kirklareli E-type Prison (Turkey) pending criminal proceedings against him on charges of being a member of an illegal organisation. A student, Mr Can alleges that, taken temporarily to a prison in Istanbul in order to attend his final exams at Marmara University in June 2007, he was ill-treated by gendarmes during his transfer back to Kirklareli Prison. He relies in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Further relying on Article 5 �� 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he also complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention � and the lack of judicial review of his continued detention � as well as of the criminal proceedings against him. Sabri G�ne v. Turkey (no. 27396/06) The applicant, Sabri G�ne, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in zmir (Turkey). After suffering physical injury during his military service, he was awarded compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. He then brought a claim for additional compensation for permanent invalidity. Relying in particular on Article 6 � 1 (access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that his claim was dismissed as being time-barred and that no effective remedy was available to him under Turkish law in respect of his complaints. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. �alar v. Turkey (no. 11192/05) Just satisfaction In a judgment of 13 April 2010, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the applicant's complaint that he had been deprived of his property, designated as forest area, without compensation. The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) will be decided in the judgment to be delivered on 24 May 2011. Loizou and Others v. Turkey (no. 16682/90) Just satisfaction In a judgment of 22 September 2009 on this case, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the applicants' deprivation of their home and properties following the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) as concerned one of the applicants (Kostas Kalisperas) will be decided in the judgment to be delivered on 24 May 2011. Thursday 26 May 2011 Golha v. Czech Republic (no. 7051/06) The applicant, Vojtch Golha, is a Czech national who was born in 1937 and lives in Stochov (Czech Republic). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Golha complains about the excessive length of proceedings brought by his former wife for the division of matrimonial property. upa v. Czech Republic (no. 39822/07) The applicant, Milos upa, is a Czech national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bystice nad Pernstejnem (Czech Republic). Mr upa alleges that following disputes with his family, the police were called to his home in January 2007 and he was taken to Jihlava psychiatric hospital where he was detained until March 2007. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), he complains about his psychiatric confinement, even though he had no history of psychiatric illness or violence and had never even been examined by a psychiatrist before. Duval v. France (no. 19868/08) The applicant, Michel Duval, is a French national who was born in 1950 and lives in Laon (France). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains in particular about the conditions in which he was transferred to hospital on several occasions while in prison (use of handcuffs and restraints, coupled with the presence of a prison escort). Legrand v. France (no. 23228/08) The applicants, Herv� Legrand, and his wife, Florence Chevalier Legrand, are two French nationals who were born in 1960 and 1965 respectively and give their address as their lawyers' office in Paris. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complain that a departure from precedent by the Court of Cassation was retrospectively applied to their detriment in proceedings to establish the professional liability of a doctor whom they held responsible for an infection contracted in hospital by the second applicant in 1989. R.R. v. Poland (no. 27617/04) The applicant, R.R., is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Poland. The case concerns R.R.'s complaint that she was not allowed to have access to the prenatal genetic examination to which she was entitled when she was pregnant due to doctors' lack of proper counselling, procrastination and confusion. She therefore missed the timelimit for a legal abortion and subsequently gave birth in July 2003 to a baby suffering from Turner syndrome1. She relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Doroshenko v. Ukraine (no. 1328/04) The applicant, Oleg Doroshenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Lugansk Region (Ukraine). Mr Doroshenko had criminal proceedings brought against him for large-scale tax evasion in May 2001 for which he was convicted as charged in June 2007 and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. That conviction was upheld on appeal in December 2008. He complains, under Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the excessive length of those criminal proceedings against him. Also relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), he alleges that the undertaking he gave in June 2001 not to abscond during those proceedings still remains in force. 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. 1 Turner syndrome is a genetic condition that affects girls with such health problems as infertility, kidney and heart abnormalities, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, cataracts and arthritis. 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. 6