003-3855127-4432415

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 072 (2012) 22.02.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten judgments on Tuesday 28 February 2012 and three on Thursday 1 March 2012. 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 28 February 2012 Atakishi v. Azerbaijan (application no. 18469/06) The applicant, Abbas Musa Olu Atakishi, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1959 and lives in Baku. An independent candidate in the 2005 national elections, Mr Olu Atakishi complains that he was disqualified following allegations that he bribed voters and insulted his opponents as well as disrupted their meetings. He relies in particular on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Pashayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 36084/06) The applicant, Chingiz Amirhamza Oglu Pashayev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1957 (in Baku) and is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison for involvement in organised crime and murder with premeditation. Convicted in November 1991, he complains about the conditions of his detention, resulting in him contracting tuberculosis, and the ensuing lack of adequate medical care. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. He also alleges that the proceedings he brought before the domestic courts to complain about this lack of medical care were held in his absence, in breach of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial). Lastly, he also complains that the domestic courts failed to examine his appeal against his criminal conviction, in further breach of Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court). Mutishev and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 18967/03) Just satisfaction The applicants are Said Mutishev, Edip Mutishev, Yordanka Mutisheva, Ivayla Mutisheva, Kornelia Lisiyska, Katia Angelova, Kristina Yovcheva and Iliya Iliev, eight Bulgarian nationals who live in Blagoevgrad and Sofia. In its principal judgment of 3 December 2009 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the failure to execute a final judgment of March 2002 in their favour restoring their ownership of more than 100 hectares of farmland near the village of Balgarchevo and which was collectivised during the communist era. The Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), which will be dealt with in the judgment to be delivered on 28 February 2012. The Court has received a number of other applications raising similar issues. Samaras and Others v. Greece (no. 11463/09) The applicants, twelve Greek nationals and a Somali national, were detained in Ioannina Prison at different times for an average length of more than fifteen months. Some are still being held there. The applicants complain of having to live and sleep in cramped, overcrowded dormitories and cells. The prisoners are confined to the dormitories eighteen hours a day and are obliged to remain in their beds. Some of them suffer from serious illnesses for which they do not receive treatment. There is a strong risk of contamination because of the overcrowding. The applicants submit that both the Ministry of Justice and the prison management are aware of the situation as a result of previous complaints. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Melntis v. Latvia (no. 30779/05) The applicant, Aigars Melntis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Rencni parish (Latvia). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the conditions of his detention in Valmiera Prison where he was detained on remand from May to October 2005 for resisting a public official. He alleges in particular that he constantly felt dirty and humiliated because the prison authorities refused to provide him with soap, toilet paper, a toothbrush or toothpaste and because he had to go to the toilet in front of his cellmates, there being no partition between the toilet and the rest of the cell. Edilova v. Russia (no. 14662/07) Khamzatov and Others v. Russia (no. 31682/07) Both cases concern the alleged killings of civilians by Russian servicemen in the Chechen Republic. The applicant in the first case is Nura Edilova, a Russian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in the village of Goyty, the Chechen Republic. She alleges that her son, Abdula Edilov, born in 1976, was abducted from the family home on 26 August 2001 by a group of masked, armed men in camouflage uniforms. Three neighbours witnessed Ms Edilova's son being led out of the house and into a military vehicle. Ms Edilova, at the local market at the time, has not seen her son since. The applicants in the second case are six Russian nationals who are the parents, brothers, wife and son of Movsar Khamzatov, born in 1972. His parents live in the village of Starye Atagi and his other relatives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. They allege that Movsar, visiting relatives in Starye Atagi, was killed when Russian troops stationed nearby opened fire with submachine guns as well as anti-aircraft guns on the vehicle in which he was a passenger. The driver was also killed. The Government admit that the applicants' relative was killed by Russian servicemen but submit that the car in which he was travelling, during curfew in an area where troops were carrying out a counterterrorist operation, had its headlights off and refused to stop when warning shots were fired. They further allege that troops decided to use force only when the occupants of the car opened fire on them. The applicant in the first case alleges that her son was abducted by Russian servicemen and presumably later killed by them. The applicants in the second case allege that the Russian troops used excessive force against their relative and that it was not possible that their relative had opened fire on the troops, as the vehicle was subsequently inspected and no weapons or ammunition were found. Nor was the village aware of any curfew at the time. All the applicants also allege that the ensuing investigations into their relatives' killings were inadequate. They rely in particular on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicant in the first case also relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security). Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia (nos. 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05) The applicants, Raisa Kolyadenko, Svetlana Tkachuk, Svetlana Kulikova, Valentina Kulikova, Anatoliy Bolsunovskiy and Valentina Zaretskaya, are six Russian nationals who were born in 1938, 1941, 1973, 1945, 1942 and 1946 respectively. They live in Vladivostok (Russia) near the Pionerskaya river and water reservoir. The case concerns a flash flood in Vladivostok on 7 August 2001. The applicants allege that the authorities were responsible for the flood because the State-owned Pionerskaye reservoir released a large amount of water � without prior warning � into its adjoining river which had not been properly cleared for years, despite numerous previous warnings of the risks that this entailed. Barely escaping the flood alive, they complain that their homes and property were severely damaged during the flood and that, apart from a derisory sum awarded in financial aid as victims of the flood, they did not receive any compensation as the domestic courts rejected their relevant claims. Lastly, they complain that the investigation into the flood was discontinued due to lack of evidence of a crime despite numerous shortcomings being indentified, notably the local authorities' poor maintenance of the river as well as their failure to apply planning restrictions in Vladivostok, a flood-prone area. The applicants rely on Article 2 (right to life), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Mehmet Emin imek v. Turkey (no. 5488/05) The applicant, Mehmet Emin imek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Batman (Turkey). He was an imam at a mosque. In February 2000 he was arrested and taken into pre-trial detention in the context of proceedings concerning the illegal armed fundamentalist organisation Hizbullah. On 5 May 2000 the Office of the Director of Religious Affairs decided to dismiss him because of his links with the illegal organisation, stating that he no longer met the requirements for working as an imam. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr imek complains that he did not have the benefit of adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court since he was not provided with an advance copy of the opinion of State Counsel at that court. Length-of-proceedings case In the following case, the applicant union complains in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Midzyzakladowa Organizacja Zwizkowa NSZZ Solidarno de widnica v. Poland (no. 13505/08) Thursday 1 March 2012 Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia (no. 30268/03) The applicant, Dmitriy Sazonov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in the Leningradskiy Region (Russia). Arrested in December 1998 on suspicion of robbery and murder, Mr Sazonov complains about the appalling conditions of his detention in a remand centre in St Petersburg from 1998 to 2003 and that, as a result, he contracted tuberculosis. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Repetitive case The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Kolegovy v. Russia (no. 15226/05) The applicants, wheelchair-bound, complain about not being notified of appeal hearings in civil proceedings they brought concerning the social-security services' refusal to provide them with a car adapted to their disability. They rely on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing). Further relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), the first applicant also complains that the domestic courts refused to give access to the case file to her representative in the proceedings before the European Court. Length-of-proceedings case C. v. Ireland (no. 24643/08) In this case, the applicant, a former school teacher in Dublin, complains in particular about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for sexually assaulting five students at his school. 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 www.echr.coe.int. 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 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 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) 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