794 23.10.2009 Press release issued by the Registrar FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS 27 and 29 October 2009 The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 30 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 27 October 2009 and 11 on Thursday 29 October 2009. Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 11 a.m. (local time) on the Court s Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). Tuesday 27 October 2009 Bayatyan v. Armenia (application no. 23459/03) The applicant, Vahan Bayatyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Yerevan (Armenia). He is a Jehovah s Witness and for reasons of conscience refused to do his military service when called up in 2001. Relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains about his conviction for refusing to serve in the army as a result of which he served ten and a half months in prison. Karapetyan v. Armenia (no. 22387/05) Stepanyan v. Armenia (no. 45081/04) The applicants are two Armenian nationals, Zaven Karapetyan and Stepan Stepanyan, born in 1945 and 1951, respectively. They live in Karakert and Artashat (Armenia). Both cases concern the applicants allegation that they were sentenced to administrative detention on account of their political opinions and or activities. Both rely on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, complaining about the unlawfulness of their arrest and subsequent detention and about the unfairness of the proceedings against them. Mr Karapetyan notably alleges that his case was examined in an expedited procedure, therefore not giving him adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; and, Mr Stepanyan that there had been no oral hearing before the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal which tried him. They also both complain that they had no appeal procedure at their disposal, in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters). Mr Karapetyan also complains that the conditions of his detention were in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Pandjikidze and Others v. Georgia (no. 30323/02) The applicants, Artchil Pandjikidze, Gudjar Kurachvili, Kakhaber Kantharia and Giorgi Giorgadze, are four Georgian nationals who live in Tbilissi. The applicants were charged with high treason in criminal proceedings brought by the Ministry of National Security against a group suspected of plotting against the government, Relying on Article 6 1, 2 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), Mr Pandjikidze, Mr Kurachvili and Mr Kantharia allege in particular that they were not tried by a tribunal established by law and that they were not assisted by a
- 2 - lawyer of their choosing at the various stages of the criminal trial. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Giorgadze also alleges that he was illtreated after his arrest. Miernicki v. Poland (no. 10847/02) The applicant, Jan Miernicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and is currently serving an eight-year sentence in Wołów Prison (Poland) for drug trafficking and being the leader of an organised criminal gang. Relying on Article 5 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Miernicki complains about the length of his detention on remand and about the unlawfulness of the decision reviewing his detention. The case also concerns the Polish authorities censorship of the applicant s correspondence, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence). Haralambie v. Romania (no. 21737/03) The applicant, Nicolae Haralambie, is a Romanian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Bucharest. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains that he did not have access to a court to have a decision regarding the restitution of his land quashed. Under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he also complains of an interference with his right of access to files kept on him by the former secret services. Andreou v. Turkey (no. 45653/99) The applicant, Georgia Andreou, now deceased, was a British national who was born in 1936 and lived in Larnaca (Cyprus). The case concerns Ms Andreou s complaint that she was shot and injured by the Turkish armed forces on 14 August 1996 during tensions at the United Nations buffer zone near Dherynia (Cyprus). She relies on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Er v. Turkey (no. 21377/04) The applicant, Ahmet Kenan Er, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains of the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him on charges, among other things, of professional misconduct, bribery and assault and battery while serving in the Turkish armed forces. Erdem Onur Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 49655/07) The applicant, Erdem Onur Yıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Iskenderun (Turkey). He was sentenced to three years and nine months imprisonment for membership of an illegal organisation. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he alleges that his state of health was incompatible with prison conditions. Kallis and Androulla Panayi v. Turkey (no. 45388/99) The applicants, Kallis Panayi, and his wife, Androulla Panayi, are Cypriot nationals who were born in 1947 and 1950 respectively and live in Nicosia. They allege that their 19-year old son, Stelios Kalli Panayi, a private solider in the Cyprus National Guard, was killed by the Turkish-Cypriot armed forces while he was crossing a wooden bridge towards a sentry post in the United Nations buffer zone in Nicosia. He was apparently off duty and unarmed. They also allege that the investigation into the killing was inadequate. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). M. Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 39994/04) The applicant, Murat Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Ankara. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Articles 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights), he complains of the failure
- 3 - to pay him compensation awarded to him in final decisions after the authorities rescinded the sale of a plot of land. Olymbiou v. Turkey (no. 16091/90) The applicant, Andri Olymbiou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1950 and lives in Nicosia. The case concerns Ms Olymbiou s complaint that the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus has deprived her of her home and properties since 1974. She also complains that she was unlawfully arrested and beaten during her participation in an anti- Turkish demonstration in Nicosia in July 1989 and that the ensuing proceedings against her were unfair. She relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Further relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), she also alleges that she was deprived of her property and arrested, beaten and prosecuted following the 1989 demonstration solely because she was a Greek-Cypriot. Yusuf Büyükdağ v. Turkey (no. 22920/04) The applicant, Yusuf Büyükdağ, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him on charges of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation and attempting to overturn the constitutional order. Crompton v. United Kingdom (no. 42509/05) The applicant, Thomas John Crompton, is a British national who was born in 1954 and lives in Stalybridge (United Kingdom). Mr Crompton complains of the excessive length 11 years of proceedings he brought concerning his redundancy from the army and the lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal which determined those proceedings. He relies on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Bohnenschuh v. Romania (no. 14427/05) Vidrascu v. Romania (No. 2) (no. 11138/06) These cases concern the applicants inability to obtain effective compensation for property belonging to them that had been illegally nationalised. They rely in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Vidrascu the applicant also complains of the excessive length of the proceedings, in breach of Article 6 1. Dermendyin v. Romania (no. 17754/06) This case concerns an action for the recovery of property. The applicant relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). S.C. Prodcomexim S.R.L. v. Romania (no. 35877/05) In this case the applicant company complains of the failure by the authorities to fully enforce a final judgment in its favour. It relies on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Efendioğlu v. Turkey (no. 3869/04) Eryılmaz v. Turkey (no. 32322/02) Kahyaoğlu v. Turkey (nos. 53007/99 and 71347/01)
- 4 - These three cases concern deprivation of the applicants land without payment of compensation. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Efendioğlu the applicant also relies on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing). Yavuz Selim Karayiğit v. Turkey (no. 45874/05) In this case the applicant complains that he was not given a copy of the written opinion submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court by the Principal Public Prosecutor. He relies on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing). Yıldız and Sevinç v. Turkey (no. 26892/02) This case concerns the applicants complaints concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court in criminal proceedings against them and the length of those proceedings. They also complain that they were not given a copy of the written opinion submitted to the Court of Cassation by the Principal Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Cassation. They rely on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Mária Menyhárt v. Hungary (no. 33552/05) Oravecz v. Hungary (no. 15481/05) Matei and Tutunaru v. Moldova (no. 19246/03) Ferreira Araújo do Vale v. Portugal (no. 6655/07) Marinică Tiţian Popovici v. Romania (no. 34071/06) Janík v. Slovakia (no. 5952/05) Elif Karakaya v. Turkey (no. 5173/05) Thursday 29 October 2009 Chaudet v. France (no. 49037/06) The applicant, Patricia Chaudet, is a French national who was born in 1958 and lives in La Grande Motte (France). She claims that proceedings before the Civil Aeronautics Medical Council, which declared that the disease on the basis of which she had been declared permanently unfit to exercise her profession as navigator was not attributable to service, was unfair because, among other things, the Medical Council had not given reasons for its decision. Mrs Chaudet also complains of the presence of the Government Commissioner at the Conseil d Etat s deliberations. She relies on Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing). Paradysz v. France (no. 17020/05) The applicant, Antoine-Joseph Paradysz, is a French national who was born in 1959 and is currently in prison in Metz (France). From February 2002 to June 2006 he was held in detention during criminal proceedings brought against him on a number of counts of rape. Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 3 (right to freedom and security), he complains of the conditions in which he was, on three occasions, transferred from the prison to hospital (handcuffed and feet shackled, and not in a wheelchair as he alleges he should have been), and of the excessive length of his detention pending trial. Si Amer v. France (no. 29137/06) The applicant, Yusef Si Amer, is an Algerian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Algiers. Before Algerian independence he had taken out optional supplementary pension
- 5 - insurance with a French supplementary pension fund. He claims to have been discriminated against as a result of the refusal of his request for payment on grounds of his country of residence. He relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), claiming that the grounds for the refusal contained a disguised nationality criterion. Shuvaev v. Greece (no. 8249/07) The applicant, Vladimir Shuvaev, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Salonika (Greece). In September 2006 he was placed in pre-trial detention for selling drugs to a minor. Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains of the conditions of his pre-trial detention in the police headquarters of Salonika and of the excessive length of that detention. Velisiotis v. Greece (no. 39614/07) The applicant, Georgios Velisiotis, is a Greek national who was born in 1966 and lives in Salonika (Greece). Relying on Article 6 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for fraud. Those proceedings lasted from 2000 to 2008, and the applicant was acquitted. Khantiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 43398/06) Satabayeva v. Russia (no. 21486/06) Vakhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 1758/04) These three cases concern the applicants allegations that their close relatives disappeared in Chechnya after being detained by Russian servicemen. All the applicants further 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). In the cases of Satabayeva and Vakhayeva and Others the applicants also complain about the Russian Government s refusal to submit copies of the entire investigation file on the disappearance of their relatives, in breach of Article 38 1 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of the case). Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article 6 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Kalfon v. France (no. 23776/07) Stavrinoudakis v. Greece (no. 26307/07) Troshkin v. Russia (no. 7514/05) Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) ***
- 6 - 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.