003-3575696-4045388

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 051 (2011) 15.06.2011 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 35 judgments on Tuesday 21 June 2011 and three on Thursday 23 June 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 21 June 2011 Anatoliy Ponomaryov and Vitaliy Ponomaryov v. Bulgaria (application no. 5335/05) The applicants, Anatoliy Ponomaryov and Vitaliy Ponomaryov, are Russian nationals who were born in 1986 and 1988 respectively and live in Pazardzhik, Bulgaria. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complain that they have been discriminated against as, unlike Bulgarian nationals and aliens holding permanent residence permits, they were required to pay fees in order to pursue their secondary education. Idakiev v. Bulgaria (no. 33681/05) The applicant, Ivan Idakiev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Pernik (Bulgaria). The case concerns his complaint about restitution proceedings for agricultural land formerly owned by his father and grandfather in the village of Kasilag. He alleges in particular that the domestic courts allowed an appeal against a decision of July 2004 in which the land was restored to him without examining or replying to his claim that that appeal was time-barred. He relies on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. Bernobic v. Croatia (no. 57180/09) The applicant, Vedran Bernobi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Konjscina. He was detained in October 2008 on suspicion of trafficking in illegal drugs. Relying on Article 5 �� 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Bernobi complains that he was detained unlawfully, for too long and neither he nor his lawyer had been heard by a judge when his detention had been ordered and extended. Bulfracht LTD v. Croatia (no. 53261/08) The applicant, Bulfracht LTD, is a company incorporated under Bulgarian law on 7 October 2008. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court), the company complains about the refusal of the Croatian Supreme Court to examine the merits of its appeal on points of law, as well as about the outcome of civil proceedings which it brought seeking the payment of over 500,000 US dollars in freight for the shipping of goods by sea in 1990. Kruskovi v. Croatia (no. 46185/08) The applicant, Branko Kruskovi, is a Croatian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Jurdani (Croatia). Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about being denied the right to be registered as the father of his biological child, born out of wedlock, because, deprived of his legal capacity, he could not recognise the child before the authorities. Maer v. Croatia (no. 56185/07) The applicant, Josip Maer, is a Croatian national who was born in 1950 and is currently serving a prison sentence for murder in Lepoglava State Prison (Croatia). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Mr Maer complains that he was beaten by the police both during his transportation to the police station at the time of his apprehension as well as during the ensuing questioning. He also alleges that he was forced to sit on a chair and was deprived of sleep and food during the three-and-ahalf days that he was questioned. Relying further on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was detained unlawfully, was not promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest and of the charges against him, and was not brought speedily before a judge authorised to order his release. Finally, relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the criminal proceedings against him have been unfair. Orli v. Croatia (no. 48833/07) The applicant, Petar Orli, is a Croatian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Punat on the island of Krk (Croatia). A retired military serviceman, Mr Orli complains about his eviction in October 2004 from a flat which had been allocated to him by the former Yugoslav People's Army (the YPA). The decision was taken after Croatia issued a global ban in July 1991 on transactions concerning YPA property in the country. He relies in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private, family life and the home). Efraimidi v. Greece (no. 33225/08) The applicant, Tia Efraimidi, is a Georgian national who was born in 1974. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 �� 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), she complains of her conditions of detention on the premises of the Thermi border police and of the fact that she was placed in detention with a view to her deportation although she had applied for asylum. Bellizzi v. Malta (no. 46575/09) The applicants are, Joseph Bellizzi, and his children, Jonathan and Tiziana Bellizzi, who are Maltese nationals, born in 1960, 1988 and 1991 respectively. They live in Kirkop (Malta). The case concerns a dispute over the berth where Joseph Bellizzi, a full-time boatman, moored his boat for over 20 years. The applicants notably allege that the related constitutional proceedings were not impartial. They rely in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Ipate v. Moldova (no. 23750/07) The applicant, Nichita Ipate, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1971 and lives in Chinu (Moldova). Relying mainly on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Ipate complains that the prison staff of a pre-trial detention centre in which he was detained beat him severely in May 2003 as he refused to move to a different cell, and that his complaint about it has not been effectively investigated. Kania and Kittel v. Poland (no. 35105/04) The applicants, Dorota Kania and Bertold Knittel, are Polish nationals who live in Warsaw and Rabka (Poland), respectively. A daily newspaper, Super Express, published a number of articles written by the applicants in August 1997. The articles suggested that a Government minister, at the time the Head of the National Security Office, had received an expensive car as a present from a wealthy businessman. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicants complain about the ensuing proceedings brought against them by the minister following which they were ordered to publish an apology and pay compensation, jointly with the newspaper's publisher and editor-in-chief. Giuran v. Romania (no. 24360/04) The applicant, Mihai-Ion Giuran, is a Romanian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Slatina (Romania). Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Giuran complains about the quashing, by way of extraordinary appeal, of a final judgment in his favour ordering the payment of damages to him in connection with a theft from his home. Goh v. Romania (no. 9643/03) The applicant, Yong Seng Goh, is a Singapourean national who was born in 1958 and is currently in Ploiesti Prison, serving a prison sentence for robbery and blackmail. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 6 �� 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), Mr Goh complains about the conditions in which he had been detained in prison and about not having had a fair trial. Sb�rnea v. Romania (no. 2040/06) The applicant, Gheorghe Sb�rnea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest. Following his divorce in 1998, and upon his request, the court formally established, in a final judgment of April 2003, his contact rights with his daughter who was born in 1994. Relying mainly on Articles 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Sb�rnea complains that the authorities took no action to enforce the 2003 judgment regulating his contact rights with his minor daughter. SC Placebo Consult SRL v. Romania (no. 28529/04) Revision The applicant, SC Placebo Consult SRL, was a Romanian company based in Craiova. In a judgment of 21 September 2010 the Court found breaches of Article 6 � 1 (length and fairness) on account of the length of proceedings for damages instituted by the applicant company and the setting-aside by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of a final judgment given in those proceedings. On 15 February 2011 the Romanian Government informed the Court that they had learnt that the company had been wound up and its manager and sole shareholder had died prior to the Court's judgment. They therefore requested revision of the judgment (Rule 80 of the Rules of Court). Chudun v. Russia (no. 20641/04) The applicant, Baylak Chudun, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Kyzyl (Tyva Republic of the Russian Federation). Arrested in May 2000 and ultimately convicted in August 2004 of robbery and theft of firearms and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, Mr Chudun complains about the conditions � notably due to overcrowding � as well as the unlawfulness and excessive length of his detention on remand. He also complains about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 5 �� 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Giriyeva and Others v.Russia (no. 17879/08) Makharbiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 26595/08) Both cases concern allegations of disappearances in the Chechen Republic during unacknowledged security operations carried out by Russian servicemen. The applicants in the first case, Zara Giriyeva, Musost Aygumov and Zarema Aygumova, are Russian nationals who were born in 1957, 1982 and 1991 respectively. They live in Grozny and Avtury (Chechen Republic). They are the mother, brother and sister of Isa Aygumov, born in 1977, who has not been seen since January 2002 when armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into the family home in Avtury and took him away in a UAZ vehicle. The applicants in the second case, Zura Makjarbiyeva, Khamid Makharbiyev, Olga Grigoryeva, Movsar Makharbiyev and Malika Makharbiyeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1951, 1943, 1980, 1999 and 2001 respectively. They live in Grozny and Gekhi. They are the parents, wife and children of Adam Makharbiyev, born in 1973. Adam was stopped at a military checkpoint in March 2001 when returning to Gekhi with two of his cousins; the three men were all arrested and taken for questioning at the Russian military command in Urus-Martan. His cousins were released soon afterwards; the applicants were told that Adam had escaped but they have had no news of him since. The applicants allege that their relatives were abducted and killed by Russian servicemen and that the domestic authorities failed to carry out effective investigations 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). Isayev and Others v. Russia (no. 43368/04) The applicants, Lecha Isayev, Khamzat Isayev, Madina Alkhanova and Lipa Dudusheva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1967, 1975, 1981 and 1981 respectively and live in the village of Goi-Chu, (the Chechen Republic). They are the brothers and sister-inlaws of Zelimkhan Isayev, born in 1979. Zelimkhan was arrested at the family home on 9 May 2004 on suspicion of participating in illegal armed groups and terrorist activities and taken to Urus-Martan military command for questioning. Admitted to hospital on 12 May 2004 with serious injuries, he died there four days later. The applicants allege that Zelimkhan died as a result of being tortured during his detention and of a failure to provide him with prompt and adequate medical care for the injuries he had sustained. They also allege that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into these allegations. They rely in particular on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Nakayev v. Russia (no. 29846/05) The applicant, Ibragim Nakayev, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Urus-Martan (the Chechen Republic). He was wounded to the head during the armed clashes in Chechnya in December 1999. Some years later he sought criminal investigation into the matter; these proceedings are still pending. He complains that the attack in which he was wounded constituted a violation of his right to life and that no effective investigation was carried out into it. He relies in particular on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment). Orlov v. Russia (no. 29652/04) The applicant, Andrey Orlov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1960 and is serving a prison sentence for murder in the Altay region, Russia. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 �� 1 and 3, he complains about the conditions in which he has been kept in prison, that he had no remedy with which to challenge that, and that the criminal proceedings against him have been unfair, mainly because of the inadequate legal assistance at the appeal stage. Shimovolos v. Russia (no. 30194/09) The applicant, Sergey Shimovolos, is a Russian national, who was born in 1969 and is the head of the Nizhniy Novgorod Human Rights Union. His name was registered in a surveillance database run by the authorities, which contained information about those perceived by the authorities as "potential extremists", such as, in particular, skinheads and human rights activists. Relying notably on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he complains that he was unlawfully arrested and detained for about one hour in May 2007 when on his way to a protest march associated with the political opposition. He also alleges that the police's registering him in the surveillance database and keeping track of his journeys breached Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Zylkov v. Russia (no. 5613/04) The applicant, Konstantin Zylkov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Vilnius, Lithuania. A retired serviceman, he applied in 2003, unsuccessfully, to the social security division of the Russian embassy in Vilnius for an allowance payable to parents of minor children. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court), he complains that the Moscow district and city courts subsequently refused to examine his claim, finding that they lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. Dobric v. Serbia (no. 2611/07 and 15276/07) The applicants, Zdravko and Miladin Dobric, are two Serbian nationals, who were born in 1932 and 1934 respectively. Zdravko Dobric lives in Mala Mostanica (Serbia) and Miladin Dobric lives in Clamart (France). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court), they complain about the Supreme Court's rejection of their cassation appeal in a real estate case against them. Fruni v. Slovakia (no. 8014/07) The applicant, Vladimir Fruni, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Kosice. Relying on Article 6 � 1, Mr Fruni complains that a special court, established in 2003 to try serious cases of corruption and organised crime, which convicted him for financial fraud in 2007 was neither impartial nor independent in view, among other things, of its abolishment in 2009. Further relying on Article 5 �� 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he also complains that he was detained unlawfully and for too long pending his trial, that the decisions to extend his detention were taken in his absence and by a biased judge, and that his requests for release were not examined speedily. Adamov v. Switzerland (no. 3052/06) The applicant, Yevgeni Adamov, is a Russian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Moscow. He is a former Russian Energy Minister. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), he complains of his detention in Switzerland from 2 May to 30 December 2005 with a view to his extradition to the United States. He alleges in particular that the Swiss authorities summoned him to Switzerland to appear as a witness in criminal proceedings against his daughter but took advantage of the summons to arrest him with a view to extraditing him to the United States, in flagrant breach of the safe-conduct clause contained in, among other instruments, the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Akar v. Turkey (no. 28505/04) The applicant, Fikret Akar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Tekirda (Turkey). Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), he complains of the monitoring of his correspondence while he was in prison in 2004. Cingil v. Turkey (no. 29672/02) The applicant, Coar Cingil, is a Turkish national who was born in 1958 and lives in zmir (Turkey). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he complains of the excessive length of judicial proceedings concerning compensation for work-related illness. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he further complains of the amount of compensation awarded to him and the insufficient level of statutory interest in relation to the rate of inflation. Just satisfaction G�naydin Turizm ve naat Ticaret Anonim irketi v. Turkey (no. 71831/01) The applicant, G�naydin Turizm ve naat Ticaret Anonim irketi, is a Turkish limited company. In a judgment of 2 June 2009 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), as the transfer to the Public Treasury, without compensation, of a palace and outbuildings (Villa Zarifi) belonging to the applicant company had not been sufficiently foreseeable. The Court will rule on the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) in a judgment to be delivered on 21 June 2011. Havva Dudu Albayrak and Others v. Turkey (no. 24470/09) The applicants, Havva Dudu Albayrak, Halil Albayrak and Serhan Albayrak, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1956, 1960 and 1988 respectively and live in Mersin (Turkey). Relying in substance on Article 2 (right to life), they allege that the Turkish authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect the life of their son and brother, who committed suicide during his compulsory military service. Uur and Abi v. Turkey (no. 28234/06) The applicants, Mr Beytullah Uur and Mr Murat Abi, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1986 respectively and live in Van (Turkey). Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they allege that they were subjected to police brutality in February 2005 on the anniversary of the arrest of Abdullah �calan, head of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal organisation) and that the State authorities failed in their duty to conduct an effective investigation. Ziya �evik v. Turkey (no. 19145/08) The applicant, Ziya �evik, is a Turkish national who was born in 1932 and lives in Ankara. In 1963 he became joint owner of a plot of land situated in �ankaya, Ankara. In 1973 the municipality earmarked the land for development as a children's playground. In 1978 an entry to that effect was made in the land register, stating that the land would be expropriated. Owing to a lack of funds, however, the project was not completed. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains of a breach of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Repetitive case The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court. Subicka v. Poland (no.s 34043/05 and 15792/06) The case concerns the applicant's complaint that her lawyers appointed under a legal-aid scheme refused to bring a cassation appeal in her case. She relies on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular about the excessive length of legal proceedings. Criminal Winerowicz v. Poland (no. 4382/10) This case concerns in particular the applicant's complaint concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him on several counts of receiving and counterfeit. Non-criminal Jovicic v. Croatia (no. 23253/07) Thursday 23 June 2011 Zdravko Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 20024/04) The applicant, Zdravko Petrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and is serving a life sentence in Belene Prison (Bulgaria) for several murders and other offences. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), 6 �� 1, 2 and 3 (access to court, presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), he alleges there had been various irregularities in the criminal proceedings against him. Relying further on Article 34, Mr Petrov complains that the Ruse regional court refused to provide him with copies of certain documents in support of his application to the European Court. Diallo v. Czech Republic (no. 20493/07) The applicants, Ibrahima Diallo and Mamadou Dian Diallo, are two Guinean nationals who were born in 1980 and 1985 respectively. They arrived at Prague airport in the autumn of 2006, and applied immediately for asylum claiming they would be detained, and possibly even killed, if they returned to Guinea, where the police had been searching for them following their involvement in activities of which the Government disapproved. Their asylum applications rejected, they were removed from the Czech Republic to Guinea on 15 May 2007 at about 4 a.m. without their lawyers being informed. Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they complain that they had no effective remedy with which to challenge their return to Guinea. Matushevskyy and Matushevska v. Ukraine (no. 59461/08) The applicants, Petro and Mariya Matushevsky, are two Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1952 and 1956 respectively and live in Lviv (Ukraine). Relying in particular on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they allege that their 30-year-old son died after being ill-treated when in pre-trial detention in February 2008 on suspicion of drug-trafficking, and that the authorities failed to effectively investigate that. 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. 8