CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 janvier 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9B49264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   043 28.01.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING JUDGMENTS   1, 3 and 4 February 2005   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on Friday 4 February 2005 at 9 a.m. (local time) to deliver one Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (application no.   46827/99). The press release and the text of the judgment will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   The Court will also be notifying in writing eight Chamber judgments on Tuesday 1 February 2005 and 12 on Thursday 3 February 2005. Press releases and texts of the judgments will be available at 2.30 p.m. (local time) on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Tuesday 1 February 2005   Chamber   Frangy v. France (application no. 42270/98) The applicant, Didier Frangy, is a French national who was born in 1958 and lives in Aspremont (France). He lodged a criminal complaint against a person or persons unknown for having breached the confidentiality of judicial investigations, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, after he was described in the press as having been involved in drug trafficking.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complains that a civil party who acts alone and is not represented by a lawyer cannot have access to the case file. He also criticises the excessive length of the proceedings in question.   Quemar v. France (no. 69258/01) The applicants, Georges and Nicole Quemar, are French nationals who were born in 1940 and 1946 respectively and live in Paris. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain of the length of the criminal proceedings which they had joined as a civil party and which concerned illegal telephone tapping.   SCP Huglo, Lepage & Associés, Conseil v. France (no. 59477/00) The applicant company, SCP Huglo, Lepage & Associés, Conseil, is a law firm which has its headquarters in Paris. It defended the interests of several public and private entities affected by the sinking of the “Amoco Cadiz” oil tanker in 1978, off the north-west coast of Finistère. Following a dispute, the applicant company instigated proceedings in order to obtain payment of its fees.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complains of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation, arising, in its opinion, from the failure to communicate the reporting judge’s report.   Ziliberberg v. Moldova (no. 61821/00) The applicant, Christian Ziliberberg, is a Moldovan national, born in 1980 and living in Chişinău, Moldova.   He was fined for taking part in a student demonstration on 18 April 2000, which had taken place without authorisation from the local council. His appeal against his fine was dismissed.   The applicant complains that he was not summoned for the hearing of his appeal, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Indra v. Slovakia (no. 46845/99) The applicant, Zdeněk Indra, is a Slovakian national, born in 1931 and living in Bratislava.   In June 1982 he was dismissed from his job. He appealed unsuccessfully. In February 1993 he brought civil proceedings to be reinstated in his job, arguing that his dismissal had been politically-motivated. His case was dismissed. He appealed and his appeal on points of law was finally rejected by the Supreme Court.   The applicant complains, among other things, that one of the judges who rejected his appeal against dismissal was also on the panel of Supreme Court judges who rejected his appeal on points of law. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following three cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of administrative proceedings. No press release will be issued in respect of these cases.   Beller v. Poland (no. 51837/99) Kolasiński v. Poland (no. 46243/99) Crowther v. United Kingdom (no. 53741/00)     Thursday 3 February 2005   Chamber   Ladner v. Austria (no. 18297/03) The applicant, Franz Ladner, is an Austrian national, born in 1964 and living in Vienna.   On 15 January 2002 he was convicted of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents, contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code, which criminalised homosexual acts of adult men with consenting adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18. He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment suspended on probation.   The applicant complains of the maintenance in force of Article 209 and of his conviction. He maintains that Article 209 was discriminatory, as heterosexual or lesbian relations between adults and adolescents in the same age bracket were not punishable.   He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Thaler v. Austria (no. 58141/00) The applicant, Michael Thaler, is an Austrian national, born in 1944 and living in Innsbruck.   The applicant complains that the Regional Appeals Commission which decided on his claims for doctor’s fees could not be regarded as an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Fociac v. Romania (no. 2577/02) The applicant, Mihai Fociac, is a Romanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Petroşani (Romania). He complains that he is unable to obtain enforcement of judicial decisions ordering his employer, who had dismissed him, to reinstate him in post as hotel manager and to pay the salary owed. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Iacob v. Romania (no. 39410/98) The applicant, Eugenia Irinel Iacob, is a Romanian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Bucharest. As an heir, she brought an action for the recovery of property in order to obtain restitution of a house situated in Bucharest and the appurtenant land, which had been nationalised by the State in 1950. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant criticised the refusal by the Supreme Court of Justice to recognise the competence of the domestic courts in deciding actions for the recovery of property. In addition, she complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. Partidul Communistilor (Nepeceristi) and Ungureanu v. Romania (no. 46626/99) The application was lodged by a political grouping named Partidul Comunistilor ( Nepeceristi ) (Party of Communists who have not been members of the Romanian Communist Party, “the PCN”), and by the chairperson of that grouping, Gheorghe Ungureanu, a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Arges (Romania).   The applicants allege that the Romanian courts’ refusal to grant their application to register the PCN as a political party infringed their right to freedom of association, as guaranteed by Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention. In addition, relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they submit that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their political opinions.   Biyan v. Turkey (no. 56363/00) The applicant, Lazgin Biyan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970. He is currently detained in Aydin Prison (Turkey).   The applicant, who was suspected of being a member of a secret committee set up to aid and abet the PKK, was arrested on 12 March 1997 and placed in police custody. On 21 May 1998 the Izmir State Security Court sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for membership of an unlawful organisation.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained of the treatment meted out to him during his detention in police custody. In addition, under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), he complained that the proceedings which had resulted in his conviction had been unfair.   Zülcihan Şahin and Others v. Turkey (no. 53147/99)   The ten applicants, Zülcihan Şahin, Sevgi Kaya, Arzu Kemanoğlu, Devrim Öktem, Özgür Öktem, Sinan Kaya, İsmail Altun, Müştak Erhan İl, Okan Kablan and Bülent Gedik, are Turkish nationals who were born between 1971 and 1980 and live in Istanbul.   The applicants submit that they were subjected to ill-treatment by members of the security forces inside a court-house where they were due to intervene as complainants in the criminal proceedings brought against police officers who had allegedly ill-treated them. They also submit that they did not have an effective remedy. The applicants rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following five cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. No press release will be issued in respect of these cases.   Blum v. Austria (no. 31655/02) Fehr v. Austria (no. 19247/02) Riepl v. Austria (no. 37040/02) Sylvester v. Austria (no. 2) (no. 54640/00) Sadik Amet and Others v. Greece (no. 64756/01)   Friday 4 February 2005   Grand Chamber   Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (no. 46827/99)   The applicants, Rustam Sultanovitch Mamatkulov and Zainiddin Abdurasulovitch Askarov, are Uzbek nationals who were born in 1959 and 1971 respectively. They are members of the “Freedom” ERK Party (an opposition party in the Republic of Uzbekistan).   They were arrested in Turkey on suspicion of murder and an attempted attack, and extradited to Uzbekistan in March 1999. They would currently appear to be detained in the Republic of Uzbekistan.   The applicants complain that they were likely to lose their lives and be subjected to torture following their extradition, contrary to Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) of the Convention. In addition, relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), they complain that the extradition proceedings in Turkey were unfair, as were the criminal proceedings brought against them in Uzbekistan. Referring to the applicants’ extradition, their representatives also allege that Turkey fell short of its obligations arising from the Convention’s provisions by failing to act in accordance with the indications given by the Court under Article 39 (interim measures) of its Rules of Court.       ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments.