CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 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 } .sB347D098 { width:96.79pt; display:inline-block } .sAC030EB3 { width:24.59pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s100ACDBF { width:212.14pt; display:inline-block } .s62D211E4 { width:19.42pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   230 21.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   25, 26 and 27 April 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 22 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 25 April 2006, two on Wednesday 26 April and 38 on Thursday 27 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 25 April 2006   Bruncrona v. Finland (application no. 41673/98)   Just satisfaction The applicants are the heirs of the late Olof Bruncrona, in particular Marcus and Petter Bruncrona, Finnish nationals who were born in 1964 and 1967 and live in Helsinki (Finland).   The case concerned the ownership of a number of islands covering 27.6 hectares and an area of water within the city limits of Tammisaari. The applicants claim to have been deprived of their ownership of the islands or at least of a right of usufruct.   In its Chamber judgment of 16 November 2004 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Machard v. France (no. 42928/02) Léopold and Paulette Machard are French nationals who were born in 1919 and 1925 respectively and live in Farges (France).   They brought proceedings to contest a consolidation plan involving plots of land belonging to them.   The applicants complain of the failure to execute court decisions in which certain plots of land were reassigned to them. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Roux v. France (no. 16022/02) The applicants are two French nationals, Roger Roux and his wife, Gisèle, who were both born in 1921 and live in Simandres (France), and a property holding company managed by Mr Roux.   They owned a housing development on 2,300 square metres of land in Vénissieux, which was expropriated in 1998 to make way for a multimedia library and a car park.   The applicants complain that the proceedings for the assessment of compensation for the expropriation were unfair and consider that the sum they were awarded was inadequate. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   László Kocsis v. Hungary (no. 32763/03) The applicant, László Kocsis, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Ács (Hungary).   In April 1993 criminal proceedings were brought against him and, on 22 May 2003, he was convicted of explosives offences and given an eight-month suspended prison sentence.   He complains of the length of the criminal proceedings against him, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Macovei and Others v. Moldova (nos. 19253/03, 17667/03, 31960/03, 19263/03, 17695/03 and 31761/03) The applicants are six Moldovan nationals who live in the Republic of Moldova.   In 2001 and 2002 the applicants obtained final and enforceable judgments ordering ASITO (an insurance company incorporated in Moldova) to pay them pension arrears and to resume the execution of their contracts.   However, ASITO subsequently obtained final favourable judgments against all the applicants terminating their contracts concluded in 1994.   The applicants complain in particular about the re-examination of a dispute which previously had ended in a final judgment favourable to them. They rely on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Prodan v. Moldova (no. 49806/99)             Just Satisfaction The applicant, Tatiana Prodan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1924 and lives in Chişinău.   In its Chamber judgment of 18 May 2004 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in relation to the non-enforcement of a judgment concerning the eviction of tenants from the applicant’s flat. The Court awarded Mrs Prodan a total of 13,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and held that the application of Article 41 concerning the failure to restore one of the apartments in the case to the applicant was not ready for decision.   Gołek v. Poland (no. 31330/02) The applicant, Antoni Gołek, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Bielsko-Biała (Poland).   On 16 March 2000 Żywiec District Court ordered that Mr Gołek be detained on remand and, on 12 June 2003, he was convicted of, among other things, murder and attempted murder.   He complains about the length of his pre-trial detention, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge).   Puig Panella v. Spain (no. 1483/02) Jordi Puig Panella is a Spanish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Mataró (Spain).   In 1984 the applicant received penalties including a four-year prison sentence for theft and unlawful possession of vehicles after attempting to storm the military headquarters in Berga (Barcelona) in 1980. The decisions in which he was convicted were quashed in 1992.   The applicant complains that although he had been declared innocent, his claim for compensation was dismissed on account of a doubt as to his innocence, in breach of Article 6   §   2 (presumption of innocence).   Dammann v. Switzerland (no. 77551/01) Viktor Dammann, a Swiss national who was born in 1950 and lives in Zurich, is a court reporter.   In 1999 he was found guilty of incitement to disclose official secrets and was fined. He was accused of having requested and obtained information from an employee of the Zurich public prosecutor’s office about the previous convictions, if any, of persons whom he suspected of having been involved in a robbery.   The applicant submits that his conviction infringed Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Stoll v. Switzerland (no. 69698/01) Martin Stoll, a Swiss national who lives in Zurich (Switzerland), is a journalist.   In 1999 he was fined for writing two articles, published in the Sonntags-Zeitung newspaper in January 1997, in which he had divulged confidential information about the debate concerning Holocaust victims’ assets deposited with Swiss banks.   The applicant submits that his conviction infringed Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Ahmet Mete v. Turkey (no. 77649/01) The applicant, Ahmet Mete, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Aydın (Turkey).   The applicant was arrested and detained on 8 July 2001 on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK. The İzmir Public Prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention in police custody until 13 July 2001.   The applicant complains, in particular, that the length of his detention in police custody was excessive. He relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect to private and family life).     Erdoğan and others v. Turkey (no. 19807/92) The applicants, all Turkish nationals, are the relatives of İbrahim Erdoğan, Yücel Şimşek, İbrahim Ilcı, Cavit Özkaya and Hasan Eliuygun, suspected members of an extreme left-wing armed movement - classified as a terrorist organisation by the Turkish judicial authorities - who were killed by the security forces in İstanbul on 12 July 1991.   The applicants complain under Article 2 (right to life) that their relatives were killed in circumstances in which resort to lethal force was not justified. They further allege that the investigation and criminal proceedings against certain members of the security forces were fundamentally flawed and ineffective. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complain that there was no effective investigation and that they were denied access to a court. They also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Sabri Taş v. Turkey (no. 21179/02)   Revision The applicant, Sabri Taş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Batman (Turkey).   He was taken into custody on 7   February 1993. On 5 March 1993 Batman Criminal Court ordered his remand in custody. On 31   January 2002 he was convicted and sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. He was released the same day.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand and the criminal proceedings against him, relying on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   In a judgment of 20 September 2005, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and Article 5 § 3. The Court also decided to dismiss the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction as he had not submitted them within the specified time-limit.   After the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the applicant had never actually been requested to submit his just satisfaction claims, the Court decided to grant his request for revision.   Repetitive cases   Bekir Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 23321/02) Çerkez Kaçar v. Turkey (no. 23323/02) Halil Kendirci v. Turkey (no. 23324/02) İbrahim Halil Yiğit v. Turkey (no. 23322/02) Özdemir and Others v. Turkey (no. 23325/02)   In these five Turkish cases the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, complain of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriation. They all rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Oliver and Britten v. the United Kingdom (nos. 61604/00 and 68452/01) Ian Oliver was born in 1951 and lives in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (United Kingdom). His wife died on 22 April 1994. He has one child. Colin Britten was born in 1957 and lives in Pensilva (United Kingdom). His wife died on 7 April 1993. He has four children for whom he receives child benefit.   Both applicants were refused the payment of widow’s benefits by the Benefits Agency because the benefit was only paid to women.   The applicants complain that British social security legislation discriminates against them on grounds of sex. They rely on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with both Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Length-of-proceedings cases   The applicants in the following cases all complain about the length of the proceedings to which they were a party. They rely on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Lönnholtz v. Finland (no. 60790/00) Keszthelyi v. Hungary (no. 14966/03) Zaveczky v. Hungary (no. 11213/03)     Wednesday 26 April 2006   Repetitive cases   Nosovets v. Ukraine (no. 32021/03 Zubko and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 3955/04, 5622/04, 8538/04 and 11418/04) The applicants are five Ukrainian nationals who complain of the failure of the State authorities to execute a judgment or decisions in their favour. They all rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Four of the applicants also rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).     Thursday 27 April 2006   Basoukos v. Greece (no. 7544/04) Ioannis Basoukos is a Greek national who was born in 1958 and is currently in Chalkida Prison (Greece). In 2005 he was given prison sentences of five years and one year respectively for a drug offence and for assaulting police officers.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Horomidis v. Greece (no. 9874/04) Constantinos Horomidis is a Greek lawyer who was born in 1926 and lives in Salonika (Greece).   He was a member of the board of a public limited company established to set up a national land register in Greece under a project funded by the European Union (EU). In view of the delays in implementing the project, the EU considered that Greece had failed in its obligations and sought partial reimbursement of the sums it had paid. The members of the board were subsequently prosecuted for breach of loyalty.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains that the proceedings against him were excessively long and unfair.   Koleci v. Greece (no. 14309/04) Alket Koleci is an Albanian national who is currently in Korydallos Prison (Greece).   In May 2002 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for drug trafficking. The proceedings are pending before Athens Court of Appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complains, in particular, of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Mohd v. Greece (no. 11919/03) The applicant, Raza Ali Mohd, is a Bangladeshi national who was born in 1971 and lives in Athens.   He was prosecuted for selling counterfeit CDs and was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment. An order was also made for his deportation. He was acquitted on appeal and the Supreme Administrative Court subsequently set aside the deportation order.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty.   Sannino v. Italy (no. 30961/03) The applicant, Giuseppe Sannino, is an Italian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Casoria (Italy). In April 2000 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for fraudulent bankruptcy.   The applicant complains under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) that the proceedings in which he was convicted were unfair. He also submits that he was not granted an appeal, in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).   Casse v. Luxembourg (no. 40327/02) Jean-Marie Casse is a French national who was born in 1944 and lives in Thionville (France).   In 1996 the bank for which he worked seized his accounts and lodged a criminal complaint against him, alleging embezzlement, forgery and uttering of private, commercial or banking documents, workplace theft and ordinary theft.   The applicant complains under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the length and the unfairness of the civil and criminal proceedings against him. He further complains that he did not have a remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Lastly, he alleges a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Ataman v. Turkey (no. 46252/99) Abuzer Ataman is a Turkish national who was born in 1931 and lives in Adıyaman (Turkey).   The applicant’s son, Mikail Ataman, a 21-year-old conscript, was found dead on 16   January 1998. According to the official report, Mikail Ataman had committed suicide while on duty. The applicant maintains that his son was killed.   The applicant complains under Article 2 (right to life) about the circumstances in which his son died while performing his military service, and about the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation into the death. He also relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Fazilet Partisi and Kutan v. Turkey (no. 1444/02) The applicants are a political party, Fazilet Partisi (Virtue Party), and its former chairman, Mehmet Recai Kutan, a Turkish national who was born in 1930 and lives in Ankara.   On 22 June 2001 the Constitutional Court dissolved Fazilet on the ground that it had become a “centre of activities contrary to the principle of secularism”. At the time it had 111 members of parliament.   The applicants submit that Fazilet’s dissolution breached Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) and that they are victims of a violation of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). They also allege a violation of Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and submit that the Constitutional Court exceeded its powers for the purposes of Articles 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions of rights).   Soner and Others v. Turkey (no. 40986/98) The applicants, Özgür Soner, Hakan Yılmaz and İlkay Özçelik, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975, 1976 and 1974 respectively and lived in Ankara at the material time.   Between 1993 and 1994 the applicants were arrested and prosecuted for being members of an illegal organisation and for various other offences. They were given prison sentences of between ten and 15 years.   Mr Soner and Mr Yılmaz complain under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatments) about their treatment while in police custody and maintain that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of those complaints, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Lastly, relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the three applicants complain that the proceedings in which they were convicted were unfair.   Varlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 57299/00) The nine applicants, Abdullah Mehmet Varlı, Kazım Yakmaz, Mehmet Reşit Irgat, Mehmet Yağmur, Kerem Soylu, Ali Şola, Reşit Koçeroğlu, İsmet Kılıçarslan and Mehmet Gürkey, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1939, 1938, 1948, 1935, 1945, 1955, 1947, 1932 and 1935 respectively and live in İzmir, Bursa, Istanbul, Adana and Mersin. At the material time they were members or supporters of HADEP (the People’s Democracy Party).   In 1998 they were each sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for disseminating separatist propaganda after writing and publishing a declaration in HADEP’s newsletter with the intention of drawing public attention to the Kurdish problem.   The applicants submit that their conviction breached Article 10 (freedom of expression). They also complain under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that the proceedings in which they were convicted were unfair.   Yıltaş Yıldız Turistik Tesisleri A.Ş. v. Turkey (no. 30502/96)      Just satisfaction Yıltaş Yıldız Turistik Tesisleri A.Ş. is a Turkish public limited company in the construction sector based in Istanbul. It owned an area of “private woodland” measuring almost 4,000,000 square metres, which was expropriated.   In a judgment of 24 April 2003 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic courts for the expropriation had been unreasonable in relation to the value of the property.   Repetitive cases   Zasurtsev v. Russia (no. 67051/01) The applicant, Nikolay Aleksandrovich Zasurtsev, is a Russian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Ruzayevka, Republic of Mordovia (Russia).   In 1987 the applicant took part in emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions and was awarded special disability benefits.   The applicant complains that the quashing under supervisory review procedure of judgments declaring reductions in his monthly benefits to be unlawful. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property).   Length-of-proceedings cases   The applicants in the following cases all complain about the length of the proceedings to which they were a party, relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). In Inexo v. Greece and the Slovenian cases the applicants also complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of those proceedings, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Inexo v. Greece (no. 11720/03) Kefalas and others v. Greece (no. 40051/02)   Antolič v. Slovenia (no. 27946/02) Benedejčič and Tratnik v. Slovenia (no. 39178/02) Đaković v. Slovenia (no. 32964/02) Draganovič v. Slovenia (no. 38310/02) Dragovan v. Slovenia (no. 37289/02) Fonda v. Slovenia (no. 39137/02) Gashi v. Slovenia (no. 37057/02) Grušovnik v. Slovenia (no. 38333/02) Hribar v. Slovenia (no. 33541/02) Ješič v. Slovenia (no. 38341/02) Kočevar v. Slovenia (no. 40128/02) Krajnc v. Slovenia (no. 27694/02) Kunstič v. Slovenia (no. 28922/02) Mandir v. Slovenia (no. 40125/02) Marjan Hriberšek v. Slovenia (no. 36054/02) Ovniček v. Slovenia (no. 33561/02) Radanović v. Slovenia (no. 37296/02) Radivojević v. Slovenia (no. 41511/02) Rodič v. Slovenia (no. 38528/02) Šimek Hudomalj v. Slovenia (no. 38933/02) Šolinc v. Slovenia (no. 33538/02) Stropnik v. Slovenia (no. 39160/02) Višnjar v. Slovenia (no. 36550/02) Zgonjanin v. Slovenia (no. 35063/02)   ***   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.