CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 avril 2006

.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 } .sD55E2C77 { width:70.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s2E9F4572 { width:22.62pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   220 13.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   18 and 20 April 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 14 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 18 April 2006 and 13 on Thursday 20 April 2006.   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 18 April 2006   Chadimová v. the Czech Republic (application no. 50073/99) The applicant, Marta Chadimová, is a Czech national who was born in 1952 and lives in Prague.   In 1992 criminal proceedings were instituted against her for fraud and forging of official documents with a view to recovering possession of a building in Prague together with the land on which it had been built.   The applicant complains of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against her, of the fact that she was prohibited for a long time from disposing of the building in question and of the fact that the recordings of telephone conversations with her lawyer were not destroyed. She relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Tariq v. the Czech Republic (no. 75455/01) The applicant, Mohamed Ali Tariq, is a Sudanese national who was born in 1966 and lives in Prague. He entered the Czech Republic in 1983.   On 17 December 1997 he was arrested and detained on remand, charged with attempted fraud. He was released from detention four years later. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending.   He complains in particular that his detention was illegal and unreasonably long and also complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Vezon v. France (no. 66018/01) The applicants, Jean-François Vezon and his wife, are French nationals who were born in 1948 and 1950 respectively and live in Caluire (France).   They complain of the retrospective application of a law during court proceedings between them and their bank. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Kovač v. Hungary (no. 37492/02) The applicant, Kalman Kovač, is a Croatian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Cunski (Croatia).   On 7 April 1992 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand in Hungary on suspicion of having murdered his wife, a German national. On 20 July 1993 he was extradited to Germany. He was acquitted by the German courts on 17 February 1995. He brought proceedings in Hungary seeking compensation, part of which are still pending.   He complains about the length of the proceedings in Hungary and that they were unfair, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   Mora do Vale and Others v. Portugal (no. 53468/99)   Just satisfaction The applicants, 27 Portuguese nationals, are the former owners or heirs of the former owners of a tract of land known as Herdade de S. Bento , with a total area of some 2,405 hectares. They alleged that the determination of compensation for the nationalisation of their land, and its late payment, had infringed their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In a judgment of 29 July 2004 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 owing to the delay in payment of the final compensation for expropriation of the applicants’ land under the programme of land reform in Portugal. At the time, it considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   Roseiro Bento v. Portugal (no. 29288/02) The applicant, Carlos Fernandes Roseiro Bento, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1954 and lives in Vagos (Portugal).   A doctor by profession, he was mayor of Vagos at the material time. In February 2001 he was ordered to pay 1,000 euros (EUR) to an opposition councillor whom he had insulted.   The applicant contends that his conviction infringed his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Katar and Others v. Turkey (no. 40994/98) The applicants, Halil Katar, Abdullah Özcan and Sevkan Aytu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973, 1963 and 1958 respectively. At the material time they lived in Istanbul, Şırnak and Muğla.   In 1992 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants for alleged links with the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complain of the length of the proceedings against them. Mr Katar also complains under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the length of his detention pending trial.   Tanrıkulu and Deniz v. Turkey (no. 60011/00) The applicants, Tamer Tanrıkulu and Mehmet Zeki Deniz, are Turkish nationals born in 1972 and 1965 respectively. In 1999 they were both sentenced to life imprisonment for membership of an armed group.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complain of the length and unfairness of the proceedings leading to their convictions. They also rely on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 34 (right of individual petition).   Dickson v. the United Kingdom (no. 44362/04) The applicants, Kirk and Lorraine Dickson, are British nationals who were born in 1972 and 1958 respectively. Mr Dickson is in Dovergate Prison, Uttoxeter (United Kingdom) and the second applicant lives in Hull (United Kingdom).   In 1994 Mr Dickson was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff (the minimum period to be served) of 15 years. He has no children.   In 1999 he met Lorraine, while she was also imprisoned, by correspondence. In 2001 they married. Mrs Dickson already had three children from other relationships.   The couple requested artificial insemination facilities to enable them to have a child together, arguing that it would not otherwise be possible, given Mr Dickson’s earliest release date and Mrs Dickson’s age. The Secretary of State refused their application.   The applicants complain about the refusal of access to artificial insemination facilities, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 12 (right to marry and found a family).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings. In Kozák v. the Czech Republic and Metzová v. the Czech Republic the applicants, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), also complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy concerning the length of the proceedings.   Kozák v. the Czech Republic (no. 30940/02) Metzová v. the Czech Republic (no. 38194/02) Patta v. the Czech Republic (no. 12605/02) Zbořilová and Zbořil v. the Czech Republic (no. 32455/02) Karácsonyi v. Hungary (no. 37494/02)     Thursday 20 April 2006   I.H. and Others v. Austria (no. 42780/98) The applicants are four Austrian nationals of Turkish origin born in 1978, 1959, 1959 and 1961 respectively, and live in Vorarlberg (Austria).   On 23 May 1997 the applicants – I.H, his parents and uncle – were convicted of raping F.D (who had been engaged to I.H. according to the terms of an arranged marriage) after she told I.H. that she no longer felt bound to marry him.   The applicants complain about the re-qualification of the rape offence by the trial court, which doubled the maximum penalty imposable. They rely on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) (right to a fair trial).   Defalque v. Belgium (no. 37330/02) The applicant, Albert Defalque, is a Belgian national who was born in 1934.   A doctor by profession, the applicant was accused by a fellow doctor of having performed unnecessary procedures. In 1996 he was ordered to repay certain sums paid by the INAMI (National Institute for Health and Invalidity Insurance) and was prohibited from applying the direct payment system for five years.   The applicant complains of the length and unfairness of the proceedings against him. He relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Raichinov v. Bulgaria (no. 47579/99) The applicant, Hristo Peshev Raichinov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Sofia. At the relevant time he was head of the Ministry of Justice’s division responsible for the financial and logistical support for the judicial system.   The applicant complains about being found guilty and fined, on 12 April 1995, for calling the Bulgarian Deputy Prosecutor-General “unclean” at a meeting of the Supreme Judicial Council. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Carta v. Italy (no. 4548/02) The applicant, Salvatore Carta, is an Italian national who was born in 1958. He is currently in Nuoro Prison (Italy). In April 2000 he was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment for abduction, unlawful entry and carrying a prohibited weapon.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that the proceedings leading to his conviction were unfair.   Patrono, Cascini and Stefanelli v. Italy (no. 10180/04) The applicants, Antonio Patrono, Giuseppe Cascini and Vittoria Stefanelli, are Italian nationals who were born in 1956, 1965 and 1959 respectively and live in Rome.   Judges by profession, they were seconded at the material time to the legislative bureau of the Ministry of Justice. In 2001 they lodged a complaint against two members of Parliament for aggravated defamation through the medium of the press. The proceedings against the parliamentarians were discontinued because of their parliamentary immunity.   The applicants contend that the finding that the impugned remarks were covered by parliamentary immunity deprived them of their right to access to a court. They rely on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Başlık and Others v. Turkey (no. 35073/97) The applicants, Aydın Başlik, Esral Karagöz, Yaşathak Aslan, Fercan Kaya and Nizamettin Doğan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960, 1961, 1952, 1960 and 1958 respectively. At the time the application was lodged they were in Sağmalcılar Prison in Istanbul.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complain of the length of the criminal proceedings against them for membership of an illegal organisation, which culminated in 1999 in their being sentenced to life imprisonment.   Berk v. Turkey (no. 41973/98) The applicants, Misbah Berk and his children Edip, Ayşe and Ferhat, are Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır. In October 1997 they were arrested in connection with an investigation into a terrorist organisation.   The applicants complain of the excessive length of their detention in police custody and the lack of a remedy by which to challenge their detention. They allege a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security).     Repetitive cases   De Sciscio v. Italy (no. 176/04) Antonio de Sciscio is an Italian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Benevento (Italy). He was the owner of land totalling 3,478 square metres in Benevento.   He maintains that he was deprived of his land in circumstances which were incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property).   Çelik and Others v. Turkey (no. 56835/00) İbrahim Yayan v. Turkey (no. 57965/00) Uzun v. Turkey (no. 48544/99) In these three Turkish cases, the applicants were accused of membership of illegal organisations and were convicted by a national security court. They complain that they did not receive a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 of the Convention.   Kökmen v. Turkey (no. 35768/02) The applicant, Mehmet Kökmen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Gaziantep. He complains of the delays in paying him additional expropriation compensation. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complains of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Milošević v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 15056/02)   ***   Press contacts   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)   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.