have a hosting certificate. Mr Yıldırım complains that it is impossible for him to have access to his Internet site on account of a measure ordered as part of a criminal case that had no connection with his site. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he considers that this measure breaches his right to freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas. Taşarsu v. Turkey (no. 14958/07) The applicant, Hacer Taşarsu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Adana. On 16 February 2006, with several hundred other persons, she took part in a gathering in Adana for the purpose of making a statement to the press, held in front of a local branch of the DTP, a left-wing party in the pro-Kurdish movement. After a warning not to make this press statement, the police took demonstrators into custody. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Taşarsu alleges that she was subjected to ill-treatment while held in police custody. She also complains of the inadequacy of the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities. Repetitive cases The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court. Andreyeva v. Azerbaijan (no. 19276/08) Gurbanova v. Azerbaijan (no. 18005/08) Heydarova v. Azerbaijan (no. 59005/08) Yusifova v. Azerbaijan (no. 25315/08) These four cases concern the applicants’ complaints of non-enforcement of judgments in their favour. The applicants in the cases of Andreyeva, Gurbanova, and Yusifova are either owners of, or holders of occupancy vouchers for, properties occupied by internally displaced persons from the regions under the control of Armenian military forces. They complain of non-enforcement of domestic judgments which had ordered the occupants’ eviction. The applicant in the case of Heydarova complains that the domestic authorities had failed to correct an official document determining the size of her plot of land, despite a judgment to that effect. The applicants rely in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and, in the cases of Andreyeva, Heydarova, and Yusifova, also on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Vuldzhev v. Bulgaria (no. 6113/08) The applicant in this case complains of the prison authorities monitoring the correspondence between him and his lawyers. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Chillemi v. Italy (no. 70800/01) de Gregorio v. Italy (no. 24294/03) Maselli v. Italy (no. 24887/03) Scala v. Italy (no. 70818/01) Uguccioni v. Italy (no. 62984/00) In these cases, the applicants lost their land through constructive expropriation and claimed damages from the State. They allege that they were deprived of their land in a manner that was incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In addition, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain of the excessive length of the civil proceedings, and of the inadequacy of the redress obtained under the Pinto Act. Collarile and Thirteen Other Applications v. Italy (nos. 10652/02, 21532/05, 37211/05, 6723/06, 12373/06, 13553/06, 23446/06, 28978/06, 29698/06, 29699/06, 29704/06, 23003/06, 25473/06, and 29693/06) 5