CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 mai 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 } .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 } .s97C4B4C1 { width:44pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   290 19.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   23 and 24 May 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 12 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 23 May 2006 and 13 on Wednesday 24 May 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 23 May 2006   Kounov v. Bulgaria (application no. 24379/02) The applicant, Alexandar Angelov Kounov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Roussé (Bulgaria). In July 1999 he was convicted on several charges of robbery and sentenced in absentia to four years’ imprisonment   The applicant alleges that he was unable to obtain the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him following his conviction in absentia . He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Riener v. Bulgaria (no. 46343/99) Ianka Riener is an Austrian national who at the relevant time also had Bulgarian nationality. She was born in 1946 and lives in Sofia.   Her Austrian passport was seized and she was prevented from leaving Bulgaria for around two years after the Bulgarian courts found she owed approximately 1 million US dollars in unpaid excise duty and tax. She complains that she was prevented from leaving Bulgaria and that her requests to renounce her Bulgarian citizenship were initially turned down. She relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   Mattila v. Finland (no. 77138/01) Varga v. Hungary (no. 3360/04) Jukka-Pekka Mattila is a Finnish national who was born in 1963 and lives in London. István Varga is a Hungarian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Komárom (Hungary).   The applicants were brought to trial on charges, among other things, of aggravated fraud (Mr Mattila) and arms trafficking (Mr Varga). They both complain about the length of the criminal proceedings against them, which lasted almost nine years in both cases, relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Hasan Ceylan v. Turkey (no. 58398/00) Hasan Ceylan is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.   He complains about the length of his detention on remand, on charges of aiding and abetting members of an illegal organisation. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge).   Kiper v. Turkey (no. 44785/98) Şuyur v. Turkey (no. 13797/02) Nihat Kiper is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and was serving his prison sentence at Adıyaman Prison (Turkey) when his application was lodged. Abdürrezzak Şuyur is a Turkish national who is currently serving life imprisonment.   Both applicants were held on remand and tried before a state security court, Mr Kiper for harbouring members of the PKK, concealing their weapons and holding meetings for them in his house, and Mr Şuyur for membership of and aiding and abetting members of an illegal organisation. Both complain about the length and fairness of the proceedings against them, relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial). Mr Şuyur also relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Cole v. United Kingdom (no. 60933/00) Leslie James Cole is a British national who was born in 1952 and lives in Plymouth (United Kingdom).   He is a widower with two children and complains that he was not entitled to various allowances available to widows. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for family life), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Grant v. United Kingdom (no. 32570/03) Linda Grant is a British national who was born in 1937 and lives in St Albans (United Kingdom).   The applicant’s birth certificate shows her as male. She had gender reassignment surgery aged 26 and has presented as a woman since 1963.   She complains about the lack of legal recognition of her change of gender and the refusal to pay her a retirement pension at 60, the age which applied to other women. She relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Fodor v. Hungary (no. 4564/03) Jávor and Others v. Hungary (no. 11440/02) Heská v. the Czech Republic (no. 43772/02)       Wednesday 24 May 2006   Liakopoulou v. Greece (no. 20627/04) Sophia Liakopoulou is a Greek national who was born in 1919 and lives in Athens. She instigated proceedings following the expropriation of a plot of land belonging to her in Thessalonica; those proceedings ended with the dismissal of her appeal on points of law.   The applicant complains of a violation of her right of access to a court and of interference in her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Georgi v. Romania (no. 58318/00) Dumitru Georgi and his wife Elena are Romanian nationals who were born in 1944 and 1948 respectively and live in Târgu-Jiu (Romania). In March 1993 the authorities granted them two plots of land. The decision was upheld by the Romanian courts.   The applicants complain about the non-enforcement of final judicial decisions ordering that they be given possession of the two plots of land and that they be given title to the property. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Mocanu v. Romania (no. 56489/00) Silviu Mocanu is a Romanian national who was born in 1976. He is currently detained in Brăila Prison (Romania), where he is serving a life sentence imposed in 1997 for aggravated murder.   The applicant complains about the treatment inflicted on him while in police custody and the failure to carry out an effective investigation. He also complains that mail sent by the European Court of Human Rights was opened and that the authorities refused to supply stamps for his correspondence. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for correspondence), 34 (right of individual application) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Weissman and Others v. Romania (no. 63945/00) The applicants, Eugene Weissman and Mariana Balan, Rosa   Brener Veisman, Liana Alberta Veisman de Neuberger and Karin   Weissman Humbert, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1931, 1930, 1913, 1947 and 1937 respectively and live in Seattle, New York, Ariel (Israel) and Beaune (France).   The applicants allege a violation of their right of access to a court and an interference in their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the dismissal of their action for reimbursement of revenue earned by the State through the use of a building which was confiscated in 1949 and restored to them in 1999. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Repetitive cases   Bertin v. France (no. 55917/00) The applicant, Albert Bertin, is a French national who was born in 1932 and lives in Lyons (France). In 1997 and 1998 he was sentenced under the criminal law to pay fines for committing road-traffic offences. He appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   The applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, which, he submitted, arose from the fact that the reporting judge’s report and the advocate-general’s submissions had not been made available to him and from the latter’s presence at the Division’s deliberations. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Bova v. Italy (no. 25513/02) Carmine Francesca v. Italy (no. 3643/02) Cosimo Francesca v. Italy (no. 3647/02) Francesco Moretti v. Italy (no. 10399/02) Marrone v. Italy (no. 3656/02) Minicozzi v. Italy (no. 7774/02) Pantuso v. Italy (no. 21120/02) Pernici v. Italy (no. 20662/02) The applicants, all Italian nationals, were declared bankrupt. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), all the applicants complain that the disqualifications imposed on them during the bankruptcy proceedings interfered with their right to respect for private life or for correspondence and claim that they had no effective remedy. In the cases of Bova and Pantuso , the applicants also complain about the limitation on their electoral rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections). In addition, in the cases of Francesco Moretti and Pantuso , the applicants allege that the bankruptcy order deprived them of their assets, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and they contest the limitation on their freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   ***   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.