ECHR: Press release issued by the Registrar

HAMZARAJ v. Albania (no. 2) Application no. 45265/04

The applicant, Ms Aferdita Hamzaraj, is an Albanian national，who claims the restitution of his mother’s piece of land. To date, the Agency for Restitution and Compensation of Property has not taken any decision.
Without relying on any particular Convention articles, the applicant appears to rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in so far as the authorities have not yet recognised her mother's property rights on the basis of the Lushnjë District Court decision of 16 February 1995.

JELLA and others v. Albania (I) Applications no. 7564/07 and 58058/08

The applicants, Mr Ilir Jella, Ms Zamira Jella, Mr Xhemali Nova, Mr Ilir Jella, Mr Besnik Jella and Ms Firdes Jella are Albanian nationals， whose ancestor owned a plot of land measuring 43,100 sq. m, which was nationalised on an unspecified date by the former communist regime. After the collapsing of the communism regime, they want the totally right on the land back.
The applicants complained that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention had been violated, in so far as the authorities had not yet recognised their property rights. They also complained that Article 14 of the Convention had been violated, in that they had been discriminated against in relation to the enjoyment of their properties.


ZAKHARKIN v. Ukraine  Application no. 1727/04

The applicant, Mr Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin, is a Ukrainian national, who was arrested on suspicion of the possession of illegal drugs in small amounts (an administrative offence) also was taken to the local police station where he was accused of about fifty robberies that had been. Allegedly, the applicant had been tortured many times.  The conclusion of the domestic investigation is that “the investigation had been carried out superficially and insufficiently”. The investigation is still pending.

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that in the course of his detention by police officers he was subjected to ill-treatment which amounted to torture, also the investigation into his alleged ill-treatment was ineffective. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complains that his detention between 17 and 24 May 2003 was unlawful, alleging in particular that it was not authorised by any court order. The applicant also complains that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, claiming that he was not brought promptly before a judge after his arrest.

DUMAN v. Turkey     Application no. 15450/03

The applicant, Mr Müdür Duman,  a Turkish national, was the director of the Eminönü district branch of HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – the People's Democracy Party) in Istanbul. In a research by policemen, illegal publications and flags and symbols of the PKK had been found there, together with pictures, articles and books by Mr Öcalan were found and the applicant was also questioned in a police station. Finally, The Istanbul Criminal Court convicted the applicant of praising and condoning acts punishable by the former Criminal Code in the absent of the applicant, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and a fine of 91,260,000 Turkish liras.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1, Article 6 § 3 (b) , Article 6 § 3 (d),  of the Convention, Article 10, also under Article 14 of the Convention .

ALKES v. Turkey  Application no. 16047/04

The applicant, Mr Ali Ümit Alkes, is a Turkish national， who was convicted of membership of an illegal organisation and armed robbery, sentenced to12 years together for the first stance trial. Finally the applicant was convicted of under Article 146 (1) of the former Criminal Code for attempting to undermine the constitutional order and was sentenced him to sixteen years and eight months' imprisonment.
The applicant complains under Articles 1, 6 and 7 of the Convention. He also maintains that the additional term of imprisonment that was imposed on him by the second judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty and thus violated Article 5 of the Convention.

 

STOJANOVSKI v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Application no. 41916/04

The applicant, Mr Boris Stojanovski, is a Macedonian national, who was hurt in a fight. The criminal proceedings about the issue was discontinued because the prosecution had become time-barred, which becomes final judgement at present.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings in question and the lack of a decision in respect of his compensation claim.

ZUYEV v. Russia  Application no. 16262/05

The applicant, Mr Roman Igoryevich Zuyev, is a Russian national, who was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a fine. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. In this criminal case, the applicant was remanded in pre-trial detention, which was extended several times.
 The applicant complained under Article 3, Article 5 § 1, Article 5 § 2, Article 13 of the Convention.

PETROV v. Russia (no. 2)  Application no. 12097/05

The applicant, Mr Vitaliy Sergeyevich Petrov, is a Russian national，whose house had been researched related to a crime in the situation of with a warrant in which the applicant's name nor the targeted flats were indicated. The court noted that the search had been subject to prior judicial approval and had been conducted by authorised persons.
The applicant used Article 1， 5 § 1 (c)，Article 6 § 1，Articles 7 § 2，Article 8，Article 13， 14，34  and 35 of the Convention.

MAKHANOV v. Russia Application no. 30927/05

The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Sergeyevich Makhanov, is a Russian national，who are transferred a right to be paid by a company which is reorganised into a joint-stock company by a previous state owned company. Afterwards, he was convicted of aggravated fraud.
The applicant complains under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention.

ANTONESCU v. Romania Application no. 5450/02

The applicant, Mihai-Bogdan Antonescu, is a Romanian national who was a supervisor for the local weekly newspaper. The newspaper published an article concerning with certain scandalous and illegal alleged acts of a chief police officer in the town by a pseudonym writer. And the chief police officer sued the applicant and another person for defamation even if the article is not wrote by the applicant.
The court convicted the applicant and fined him for damages. In the first instance procedure, the applicant did not realize there had been a criminal case against him, as he was notified all the procedural acts to his registered address in Câmpina and later the summonses were posted at the Cluj local council. The applicant’s residence address registered in the police records was at that time an address in the city of Câmpina, even though he was not living there in fact.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention .

KURLOWICZ v. Poland Application no. 41029/06

The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Kurłowicz, is a Polish national who serves as a President of the City Council in Knyszyn. He criticized a manger of a school very much during a secession of the City Council. And this manger lodged a complaint for defamation. The domestic court convicted the applicant, and the appellate court believed that taking into consideration the social consequences of the prohibited act and the conduct of the applicant, as well as his personal and family situation, it would be unnecessary to sentence the applicant and conditionally discontinued the proceedings for a probationary term of one year, ordered the applicant to pay PLN 750 in damages and lifted the publication of the applicant's conviction. The applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint, holding that Article 212 of the Criminal Code was incompatible with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, which was refused to hear because a similar matter had already been examined by the Court in its judgment of 30 October 2006.

 

The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his right to freedom of expression has been unjustifiably interfered with. He further submits that the protection of freedom of expression by means of criminal law is generally contrary to Article 10 of the Convention.

DRAGOSTEA COPIILOR - PETROVSCHI - NAGORNII v. Moldova Application no. 25575/08

 

The applicant, Dragostea Copiilor - Petrovschi - Nagornii, is a company registered in Moldova, whose primary school was ordered to pay for another person some money. The paying for the money was not enforced for some time, and the person applied for the enforcement of the court which was supported by the Supreme Court.
The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention

 

USTINOVS v. Latvia  Application no. 9000/03

 

The applicant, Mr Viktors Ustinovs, is a Latvian national，who was remanded in custody for the alleged involving in fraudulently obtaining money from clients, at present, the criminal procedure was still pending. And the applicant’s attorney appealed because of the formalistic and unreasoned of the detention.
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his pre-trial detention on remand. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about the lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention on remand.

PAPP v. Hungary, Application no. 19313/08

The applicant, Ms Judit Papp, is a Hungarian national, who was sentenced to 30 days' confinement after her conviction in regulatory offence proceedings for having committed prostitution while ten weeks pregnant. Her request to abortion was rejected by court.

 

The applicant complains under Article 8 that the authorities effectively prevented her from having an abortion. Also, her rights under Article 9 have equally been violated. Moreover, in her view, the proceedings before the District Court were unfair in that they were unsuitable to remedy her situation. Lastly, relying on Protocol No. 12, she complains of discrimination against her as a prostitute.

IBISHI AND OTHERS v. Greece Application no. 47236/07

 

The sixteen applicants are Albanian nationals of Roma ethnic origin, who lived for more than ten years, until June 2007, together with other numerous Roma families, on a plot of land close to the centre of Athens belonging to the Municipality of Athens. There are several eviction of the Roma people, after which they settled down in an area next to a highly polluted stream, small industrial facilities and warehouses.
The applicants submit, under Article 3 of the Convention, that their right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment has been violated; Article 8, constitute a violation of Article 13 taken together with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention was violated on account of their inhuman living conditions and secondly because of the fact that agents of the State carried out their eviction. Also,  The applicants submit that all the alleged violations of their rights that they have experienced are intrinsically related to their Romani ethnic origin, in violation of Article 14 taken together with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

PETROV v. Bulgaria Application no. 20024/04

 

The applicant, Mr Zdravko Ivanov Petrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1972 and is serving a life sentence in Belene prison.

the Ruse Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder, accessory to murder, causing bodily injury, theft, armed robbery, abduction and illegal possession of firearms, and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole，which was upheld by appellate court. The applicant claimed that he had been beaten up by policemen so as to confess. And it appears that the applicant was detained throughout the proceedings.
The applicant used Articles 2, 3, 7, 9 of the Convention, 5 § 1 (c), 6 § 3 (c), 8, 34, 6 § 1, 13, 14.

 

NERSESYAN v. Armenia  Application no. 15371/07

 

The applicant, Mr Beniamin Nersesyan, is a Canadian national who instituted civil proceedings against his brother, seeking to have annulled a number of documents relating to his brother's acquisition of their deceased father's estate and to be recognised as one of the heirs. The court dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. The District Court found that the applicant had been aware of his father's death and was therefore aware that an inheritance procedure had been opened. In spite of this, he had missed the six month time-limit prescribed by law to claim the inheritance.The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was denied access to the Court of Cassation which decided to return his appeal on points of law without reasoning its decision. He also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that his property rights were violated by the actions of the notary and the court judgments.