003-3961929-4595208

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 223 (2012) 30.05.2012 Forthcoming judgments The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21 judgments on Tuesday 5 June and three on Thursday 7 June 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 5 June 2012 Muradkhanyan v. Armenia (application no. 12895/06) The applicant, Ararat Muradkhanyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1963 and is currently serving a life sentence for the murder of several people and for illegal possession of firearms, of which he was convicted and sentenced in September 2007. Relying on Article 5 �� 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Muradkhanyan complains in particular that he was detained and kept unlawfully in detention between 2004 and 2007, and that he could not challenge the lawfulness of his detention. Keskinen and Veljekset Keskinen OY v. Finland (no. 34721/09) The applicants are Vesa Petteri Keskinen, a Finnish national who was born in 1967 and lives in T�ys� (Finland) and a Finnish limited liability company, Veljekset Keskinen Oy, based also in T�ys�. Mr Keskinen was found guilty in 2005 of organising an ice-fishing competition without a permit, and was fined 7,500 euros (EUR). Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicants complain that their trial was unfair as an oral hearing was held before the first instance court but not before the Appellate and Supreme Courts, meaning that they were not able to present their evidence. Just satisfaction Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses ltd. v. Poland (no. 51728/99) The applicants are Bronislaw Rosenzweig, a German national who was born in 1941 and lives in Berlin as well as his public company, Bonded Warehouses Ltd. In a judgment delivered on 28 July 2005, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the authorities' withdrawal of the applicant company's permit to export merchandise as well as its business licence. The applicants claimed just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. The Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction), which will be decided in a judgment to be delivered on 5 June 2012. Ciuc v. Romania (no. 34485/09) The applicant, Robert Alexandru Ciuc, is a Romanian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Bucharest. He was sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment in 2008 for theft with aggravating circumstances. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains of his conditions of detention in Bucarest-Jilava Prison, referring in particular to problems of overcrowding, hygiene, ventilation in the cells, drinking water and food. Under Article 6 � 3 (c) (right to legal assistance), he complains about the criminal proceedings against him, and in particular that he was prevented from taking part in the trial. ercu v. Romania (no. 41775/06) The applicant, Ionut Cristian ercu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Craiova (Romania). On 7 April 2004 he was arrested following a traffic incident and, shortly after his arrival at the police station that day, he had to be taken to hospital, where a recent trauma to his head was recorded. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr ercu complains about having been ill-treated by a police officer at the police station following his arrest and about the absence of an effective investigation and a fair trial with regard to his related complaints. Buntov v. Russia (no. 27026/10) The applicant, Vitaliy Buntov, is a Russian national who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence for, among other offences, murder. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 34 (right of individual petition), he complains that - after his conviction in 2003 - prison officers tortured him by pulling off all of his toe and finger nails with pincers, that they tried to poison him, that he was detained and transported in harsh conditions and that he did not have an effective remedy in respect of those complaints. Khodzamberdiyev v. Russia (no. 64809/10) The applicant, Davronbek Khodzhamberdiyev, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1971 and lives in Saratov (Russia). In the 1990s, while living in Uzbekistan, he was involved in the activities of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a pan-Islamic organisation banned in Russia. He moved to Russia in May 2000 and was arrested and detained between February and December 2010 with a view to his extradition to Uzbekistan, where he was wanted in connection with a number of offences including an attempt to overthrow the existing regime. He was released on 28 December 2010 following the annulment of his extradition order by the regional court. In July 2011, the Moscow Office of the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) found that he was eligible for international protection as a refugee. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 �� 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that, if removed from Russia, he risked illtreatment in Uzbekistan, and that he was detained unlawfully with a view to extradition without effective judicial review. Kozhayev v. Russia (no. 60045/10) The applicant, Vadim Kozhayev, is a Belarusian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow. Found guilty of extortion in Belarus in 2004 and sentenced to four years' detention, Mr Kozhayev escaped to Moscow in 2005. The Belarusian authorities issued an arrest warrant against him and in November 2009 he was arrested in Moscow, and remanded in police custody pending extradition. His applications for refugee status and temporary asylum refused, he was released from detention in May 2011 on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Kozhayev claims that, if extradited, he would be at risk of being sentenced to the death penalty as well as of ill-treatment and appalling conditions of detention in Belarusian prisons. Further relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security), he also complains about the unlawfulness of his arrest and detention pending extradition. Shakurov v. Russia (no. 55822/10) The applicant, Askhat Shakurov, is an Uzbek national who was born in and lives in Yasnogorsk, the Tula Region (Russia). An officer in the Uzbek Armed Forces, he left Uzbekistan in March 2002 to look for work in Russia. He was subsequently arrested in October 2009 for threatening to kill his wife. Those proceedings against him were discontinued in January 2010 because of reconciliation between both parties. However, his detention pending extradition was authorised on the ground that he was wanted for desertion in Uzbekistan. His applications for refugee status and temporary asylum refused, he was released in January 2011 and has since been ordered not to leave his town of residence. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that, despite diplomatic assurances given by Uzbekistan, if he were extradited he would be at risk of political persecution and ill-treatment. Further relying on Article 5 �� 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security), he also complains about the alleged unlawfulness of his detention with a view to extradition as well as delays in examining appeals against court orders extending his detention. Lastly, he complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that his extradition would have significant consequences for his wife and children, who live in Russia and have Russian citizenship, and in particular for his eldest daughter who has a neurological problem for which she is treated in Russia. Soliyev v. Russia (no. 62400/10) The applicant, Shokirzhon Soliyev, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1974 and lives in Kazan (Russia). Arrested in Kazan in March 2010, a few months after he had arrived in Russia looking for work, he was detained with a view to extradition to Uzbekistan where he was wanted on charges of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order. He was released in December 2010, as soon as the Supreme Court of Tatarstan annulled the extradition order � with reference to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights � finding that he risked ill-treatment if extradited. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 � 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), he complains about having been detained unlawfully without effective judicial review. Ademovi v. Turkey (no. 28523/03) The applicant, Sefkija Ademovi, is a Serbian national who was born in 1972 and currently lives in Serbia. In 1992 an Italian court convicted Mr Ademovi of drug trafficking in his absence and sentenced him to 17 years' imprisonment. Italy issued an arrest warrant via Interpol and in 1994 he was arrested and taken into custody at a Turkish border (near Edirne). Relying on Article 5 �� 1, 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the unlawfulness of his ensuing provisional detention, without effective judicial review or the right to claim compensation, in a Turkish prison for five years in view of his extradition to Italy. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), he also complains about the excessive length � more than ten years � of the criminal proceedings brought against him in Turkey on the drug trafficking charges. Dzova v. Turkey (no. 40310/06) The applicant, Ali Ekber D�zova, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Hamburg (Germany). At the relevant time he was serving a life sentence in Bayrampaa Prison (Istanbul). On 19 December 2000 the security forces intervened simultaneously in 20 Turkish prisons where prisoners had been on hunger strike in protest at plans to create F-type prisons with living units for one to three inmates. The applicant suffered bullet wounds during the operation. Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that the force used against him was disproportionate and complains that he was not given appropriate medical treatment for his injuries. Under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), he also complains that he was unable to apply to the Administrative Court for compensation. Eski v. Turkey (no. 8354/04) The applicant, G�khan Eski, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in zmir (Turkey). Drunk one night in December 2002, he quarrelled with his friend in a taxi and then went to a police station where he had an argument with an officer. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Eski complains that he was blindfolded and beaten with wooden sticks and truncheons at the police station that night, and that the criminal proceedings he brought against several police officers were too long and ended with a suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment. Tengilimolu v Turkey (no. 26938/08) The applicants, Necmi Tengilimolu, Mehmet Dutuklar, Emrah �erezci and Salih Gazi, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1964, 1978, 1985 and 1973 respectively. They are serving in the armed forces. After being remanded under close arrest, they served their sentence in disciplinary cells. Relying on Article 5 � 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), they complain that the punishment was imposed on them by their military hierarchical superiors and not by an independent and impartial tribunal. �lufer v. Turkey (no. 23038/07) The applicant, G�n�l �l�fer, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Edirne (Turkey). She is the mother of dris �l�fer, born in 1982, who died on 20 April 2003 after being shot by a police officer as he was trying to escape, while handcuffed, from the Criminal Court following a hearing in a trial against him for theft. Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant complains about the use of lethal force against her son and about the investigation following his death. She also relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Carletta v. Italy (no. 63861/00) The applicant, Pietro Romolo Carletta, is an Italian national. Colacrai v. Italy (no 2) (no. 63868/00) The applicant, Rocco Colacrai, is an Italian national. Colazo v. Italy (no. 63633/00) The applicants, William Colazzo, Massimo Colazzo, Donata Colazzo and Maria Teresa Sbocchi, are Italian nationals. Immobiliare Cerro s.a.s. v. Italy (no. 35638/03) The applicant is a company called Immobiliare Cerro s. a. s., incorporated under Italian law. In judgments of 15 July 2005 (Carletta and Colacrai), 13 October 2005 and 23 February 2006 respectively, the Court held that the interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of the applicants' possessions was contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the judgments which it will be delivering on 5 June 2012 the Court will rule on the question of just satisfaction in these cases. La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (no 4) (no. 63238/00) La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (no 8) (no. 63285/00) The applicants, Mario La Rosa, Vincenzo Alba, Maria La Rosa and Vincenzo La Rosa, are Italian nationals. In judgments of 13 October 2005 and 15 July 2005, the Court held that the de facto expropriation of the applicants' property was incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the judgments which it will be delivering on 5 June 2012, the Court will rule on the question of just satisfaction in these cases. Thursday 7 June 2012 Segame SA v. France (no. 4837/06) The applicant company, Segame SA, is a public limited company incorporated under French law. It is based in Paris where it used to manage an art gallery. The Paris Commercial Court first ordered its judicial reorganisation and subsequently ordered it to be liquidated under court supervision. The tax proceedings against it concerned tax payable on proceeds from the sale of works of art. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complains that it was unable to have the question of varying the rate of the fine for non-payment of the tax examined by a court with full jurisdiction. It also alleges that the Conseil d'Etat dismissed its application on the basis of standard wording. G v. Germany (no. 65210/09) K v. Germany (no. 61827/09) The applicants in both cases are German nationals who were born in 1957 and 1968 respectively. Mr K is currently detained in Schwalmstadt Prison and Mr G is detained in Straubing Prison. Mr K was convicted of several counts of rape and sentenced to eight and a half years' imprisonment in 1987. Mr G was convicted of three counts of murder and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in 1992. In both cases, in addition to their respective prison sentence, the sentencing courts ordered the applicants' placement in a psychiatric hospital. Their stay there was terminated by the regional courts dealing with the execution of sentences in 2007. Both applicants were subsequently placed in preventive detention, ordered by the Frankfurt regional court in 2008. Relying in particular on Article 7 � 1 (no punishment without law), the applicants complain of the retrospective order for and execution of their preventive detention, based on a provision inserted into the Criminal Code in 2004, thus years after their conviction. 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 3 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. 6