CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 novembre 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE293DEAE { width:99.45pt; display:inline-block } .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   628 18.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING JUDGMENTS   22 and 24 November 2005   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 24 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 22 November 2005 and ten on Thursday 24 November 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 22 November 2005   Taal v. Estonia (application no. 13249/02) The applicant, Hermo Taal, is an Estonian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Tallinn.   The applicant complains that he did not have a fair trial and that his rights of defence had been violated since he had had no opportunity to examine or have examined, both during the investigation and at the trial, any of the witnesses against him. He relies on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Freymuth and Golinelli v. France (nos. 65823/01 and 65273/01) The applicants, Patrick Golinelli and Patrick Freymuth are French nationals, who were born in 1951 and 1954 and live in Lantefontaine and Marly (France), respectively. In 1996 they were convicted for importing prohibited waste into France. The Court of Cassation upheld their convictions in 2000.   The applicants contend that they did not have a fair hearing before the Court of Cassation, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Reigado Ramos v. Portugal (no. 73229/01) The applicant, José Manuel Reigado Ramos, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1964 and lives in Lisbon. Custody over his daughter, who was born in 1995, was granted to her mother in 1997 and the applicant enjoyed a right of access. He brought proceedings seeking the judicial enforcement of a parental responsibility agreement.   The applicant alleges that his inability to exercise his right of access breached Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention. Belkiza Kaya and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33420/96 and 36206/97) The ten applicants are relatives of Neytullah İlhan, Abdullah İlhan, Halit Kaya, Ahmet Kaya, Ali Nas, Lokman Özdemir, Hamit Yılmaz, Abdulhalim Yılmaz and Beşir Nas. Those six individuals, who had been taken into custody in January 1996 on suspicion of belonging to the PKK, were killed in an attack on the minibus in which they were being transferred to another police station.   The applicants contend that their relatives were the victims of an extrajudicial execution and that the authorities failed to conduct a serious inquiry into the killings. They also complain of the suffering sustained by the relatives and allege that they were arbitrarily detained. The applicants rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   Emire Eren Keskin v. Turkey (no. 49564/99) The applicant, Emire Eren Keskin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Istanbul. At the material time she was practising law. In 1997, she was convicted of separatist propaganda for giving an interview to the bimonthly review Medya Güneşi and received a prison sentence of one year and four months.   The applicant complains that her criminal conviction breached Article 10 (freedom of expression). She also complains that she was not given a fair hearing, in breach of Article 6 §   1.   Kakoulli v. Turkey (no. 38595/97) The applicants, Chriso Kakoulli, Andreas Kakoulli, Martha Kakoulli and Kyriaki Kakoulli are Cypriot nationals who were born in 1944, 1969, 1972 and 1970 respectively. They all live in Avgorou with the exception of Andreas Kakoulli, who lives in Paralini. Chriso Kakoulli is the widow and the other applicants are the children of Petros Kyriakou Kakoulli, a Greek Cypriot who died on 13 October 1996.   They complain that their husband and father Petros Kakoulli had been intentionally shot and killed by a Turkish soldier on guard duty in the border area within the territory of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 8 (right to respect for family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine (no. 14183/02) The applicants, Aleksey Anatolyevich Antonenkov, Aleksey Anatoliyevich Diukin and Vladimir Petrovich Stolitniy are all Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1967, 1959 and 1970 respectively and who all live in Kyiv.   They complain about the length of criminal proceedings brought against them for fraud and theft relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and the lengthy restriction on their freedom of movement as a result of the undertaking not to abscond relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   Repetitive cases   Bulut v. Turkey (no. 49892/99) Ebru Demir v. Turkey (no. 60262/00) Yağiz and Others v. Turkey (no. 57344/00) In these three Turkish cases, the applicants were charged with belonging to or assisting an illegal organisation and were convicted by a State security court. They complain that they were not given a fair hearing. In the Yağiz and Others case, the applicants also complain of the length of the proceedings against them. They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Gayday v. Ukraine (no. 18949/03) Kozhanova v. Ukraine (no. 27349/03) Krutko v. Ukraine (no. 22246/02) Litovokina v. Ukraine (no. 35741/04) Melnikova v. Ukraine (no. 24626/03) Miroshnichenko v. Ukraine (no. 29420/03) Ovcharenko v. Ukraine (no. 5578/03) Romanchenko v. Ukraine (no. 5596/03) Tsanga v. Ukraine (no. 14612/03) The applicants all complain about the lengthy failure to enforce various judgments awarding them compensation, due to lack of State funds. They all rely on Article   6 §   1 (access to court) with the exception of Tsanga who only relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention. Gayday, Kozhanova, Litovokina, Melnikova and Romanchenko also rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and Ovcharenko relies on Article 6 §   1 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     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.   Kántor v. Hungary (no. 458/03) Kármán v. Hungary (nos. 6444/02 and 26579/04) Szikora v. Hungary (no. 28441/02) Szoboszlay v. Hungary (no. 16348/02) Karakullukçu v. Turkey (no. 49275/99)     Thursday 24 November 2005   Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria (no. 49429/99) The applicant is Capital Bank AD, a company in bankruptcy which had its registered office in Sofia. The application was introduced on its behalf by Anguel Ivanov Parvanov and Mancho Markov Markov, chairman and vice ‑ chairman of its board of directors. The application form was also signed by its three shareholders, First Financial AD, a company with its registered office in Sofia (Bulgaria), TOO Royal Flash, a company with its registered office in Moscow (Russia), and OOO Rontadent Trade, a company with its registered office in Tver (Russia).   The applicant bank alleges that the courts deciding on the bankruptcy petition against it had not examined in substance whether it had in fact been insolvent, that the proceedings in which this issue had been decided had not been adversarial, and that the Bulgarian National Bank’s decision to revoke its licence had not been made in accordance with the law. The applicant bank invokes Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 46336/99) The applicants, Kiril Kostadinov Ivanov, Vladimir Ivanov Kotzelov, Dimcho Dimitrov Hristov and Angel Georgiev Sharov, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1942, 1939, 1955 and 1934 respectively and were all living in Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) on 15 January 1999 with the exception of Mr Hristov who had passed away.   The applicants allege that the bans on two rallies they had intended to organise in Sofia had not been imposed in accordance with the law and had not been necessary in a democratic society in violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). They further allege that the courts had improperly refused to examine the appeal against the second ban and thus denied them an effective remedy in that respect, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). They also assert that the approach of the authorities was influenced by their proclaimed Macedonian ethnic consciousness. They rely on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Tourancheau and July v. France (no. 53886/00) The applicants, Patricia Tourancheau and Serge July, are French nationals who were born in 1959 and 1942 respectively.   In 1996 the daily newspaper Libération , of which Mr July is the editor, published an article by Ms Tourancheau entitled “Adolescent love ends in stabbing”, about the murder of a young girl who was stabbed to death. The applicants were prosecuted for publishing extracts from documents in the case file before the proceedings in open court and were sentenced to a fine.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants contend that their criminal conviction breached their right to freedom of expression.   Katsoulis and Others v. Greece (no. 66742/01)   Just satisfaction The applicants are 39 Greek nationals. They were all involved in a long-standing dispute with the State concerning the ownership of a plot of land known as “Omorphokklisia” in Galatsi, a suburb of Athens.   The applicants alleged that their property rights, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), had been violated. They also complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), about the length of the proceedings (five years, six months and 25 days) that they instituted before the Supreme Administrative Court.   In a judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1. The Court reserved the question of just satisfaction. Ouzounoglou v. Greece (no. 32730/03) The applicant, Stavroula Ouzounoglou, is a Greek national, who was born in 1938 and lives in Igoumenitsa (Greece). In 1997 part of the land on which her house had been built was expropriated to make way for a main road leading to Igoumenitsa port. The authorities considered that she was not entitled to any compensation for the partial expropriation of her property, on the ground that the work on the road would be beneficial to her.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains of not having obtained full compensation for the expropriation of her property. She also alleges a breach of Article 8 (right to respect for one’s home).   Proios v. Greece (no. 35765/03) The applicant, Christos Proios, is a Greek national who was born in 1956 and lives in Salonika (Greece). He is a retired army officer.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains of the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him, leading in 2003 to his conviction for instigating the embezzlement of public funds and a five-month suspended prison sentence.   Shofman v. Russia (no. 74826/01) The applicant, Leonid Mikhaylovich Shofman, is a German national who was born in 1957 and lives in Gross-Rohrheim (Germany). He was a Russian national at the time of the events about which he complains.   The applicant alleges a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, in that proceedings to disclaim his presumed paternity were held to be time-barred under the law in force at the time.     Repetitive cases   Enrico Cecere v. Italy (no. 70585/01) Paolo Cecere v. Italy (no. 68344/01) In these two cases the applicants complain of their protracted inability to recover possession of their flats, in the absence of police assistance, together with the length of the eviction proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complains of the excessive length of civil proceedings. No press release will be issued in respect of this case.   Posedel-Jelinović v. Croatia (no. 35915/02)   ***   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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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.