CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 septembre 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 } .s72F008A0 { width:80.83pt; 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   517 15.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   19 and 21 September 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten Chamber judgments on Tuesday 19 September 2006, including the first judgment against Serbia , and 18 on Thursday 21 September 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 19 September 2006   Maupas and Others v. France (application no. 13844/02) The applicants are: Ginette and Fernand Maupas, two French nationals who were born in 1950 and 1946 respectively and live in Molinet (France), and the association for the protection and legal representation of those living along the route of the Centre-Europe-Atlantique trunk road.   Mr and Mrs Maupas owned a house and plots of land in Molinet, parts of which were expropriated in 1998.   The applicants complain that they did not have a real opportunity to challenge the public-interest justification of the road scheme forming the basis for the expropriation. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Matijašević v. Serbia (no. 23037/04) The applicant, Milija Matijašvić, is a citizen of the Republic of Serbia who was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence.   On 7 May 2003 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed murder and fraud.   The applicant complains that the court which reviewed his detention on remand stated that he was guilty before he had been tried. He relies on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention.   Lubina v. Slovakia (no. 77688/01) The applicant, Ľubomír Lubina, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava.   The applicant brought proceedings to gain access to his two-year-old son after his wife and son moved out of the family home.   He complains about the length of those proceedings, relying both on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article   6   § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   White v. Sweden (no. 42435/02) The applicant, Anthony White, is a British national who lives in Beira (Mozambique). The applicant complains about the publication in the two main Swedish evening newspapers, Expressen and Aftonbladet , that he was suspected, notably, of having murdered the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1986.   He complains that the Swedish courts failed to protect his name and reputation. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private life).   Çetin Ağdaş v. Turkey (no. 77331/01) The applicant, Çetin Ağdaş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Kocaeli (Turkey).   He was arrested on 23 October 1998 on suspicion of being a member of the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party – Front) and was placed in pre-trial detention, where he remained until he was released on bail on 6 May 2002. The criminal proceedings against him are still pending in the Turkish courts.   The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of both his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him.   Halit Dinç and Others v. Turkey (no. 32597/96) The four applicants, Halit Dinç, Nezihe Dinç, Sacide Dinç and Turgay Dinç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1940, 1948, 1971 and 1974 respectively and live in Edirne (Turkey). They are the parents and brothers of Rıdvan Dinç, who died in 1994.   On 15 May 1994 Rıdvan Dinç, who at the time was serving in the armed forces, was killed by another solider in the course of an operation against smugglers on the border between Turkey and Syria.   The applicants alleged that their close relative was killed by another soldier, either intentionally or through disproportionate use of lethal force. They further complain of the lack of an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. Lastly, they submit that the proceedings for damages which they brought in the Supreme Military Administrative Court were unfair. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Kabasakal and Atar v. Turkey (nos. 70084/01 and 70085/01) The applicants, Selim Kabasakal and Hasan Atar, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1977 respectively. They were serving prison sentences in Ordu Prison at the time of their applications to the Court.   The applicants were found guilty of being members of an illegal organisation.   They complain about the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court which tried them and further submit that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on them. They rely on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (b) (right to adequate time and facilities for preparation of defence).   Sultan Karabulut v. Turkey (no. 45784/99) The applicant, Sultan Karabulut, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara. Her son, Özgür Kemal Karabulut, died in 1997.   The applicant’s son was killed by gendarmes on 20 October 1997. According to the Turkish authorities, he had been accused of assisting an illegal organisation, the TKP/ML TIKKO (Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army) and had resisted the security forces while they were attempting to arrest him. The applicant maintains, however, that her son was killed intentionally by the gendarmes when they could simply have arrested him.   The applicant complains under Article 2 (right to life) of the unnecessary use of lethal force by the security forces. She also submits that no effective investigation was carried out into the circumstances surrounding her son’s death. She further complains under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) that she was denied an effective remedy.   Süleyman Erdem v. Turkey (no. 49574/99) The applicant, Süleyman Erdem, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973. At the material time he was a trader and lived in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   The applicant was arrested on 1 March 1999 in the course of an operation against an illegal armed organisation and was taken into police custody, where he remained until 9 March 1999. He was then placed in pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings were brought against him, resulting in his acquittal in September 2000.   The applicant submits under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that his deprivation of liberty was unlawful and complains of its length.     Repetitive case   Vuillemin v. France (no. 3211/05) The applicant, Claude Vuillemin, is a French national who was born in 1942 and lives in Soye (France). In 1996 he lodged a criminal complaint against his wife, alleging theft, and applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. He appealed to the Court of Cassation in the course of the criminal proceedings.   The applicant complains that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation were unfair in that he was not sent a copy of the reporting judge’s report, contrary to the advocate general, or a copy of the advocate general’s submissions. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).       Thursday 21 September 2006   Moser v. Austria (no. 12643/02) The applicants, Zlatica and Luca Moser, are both Serbian nationals. Zlatica Moser was born in 1973 and has been living in Austria since 1991. On 8 June 2000 she gave birth to Luca.   The applicants complain about the transfer of custody of Luca Moser to the Vienna Youth Welfare Office on the grounds that Zlatica Moser could not provide suitable accommodation for her son and given her inadequate financial means and unclear residence status. The applicants rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Zlatica Moser further relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     Pandy v. Belgium (no. 13583/02) The applicant, Andras Pandy, is a Belgian and Hungarian national who was born in 1927. He is currently serving a life sentence in Louvain Prison (Belgium), which he received in 2002 for the murder of his two wives and four of his children and for the rape and sexual assault of several of his daughters.   Having been accused of being involved in the disappearance of six members of his family, he was charged with murder in 1997.   The applicant alleges that the investigating judge dealing with his case infringed the presumption of his innocence by comparing him to the serial killers Landru and Dr Petiot. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Dalidis v. Greece (no. 26763/04) The applicant, Andreas Dalidis, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1956. He is currently serving a sentence in Tripoli Prison (Greece).   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in January 2001 on a complaint alleging rape and abduction of a minor.   Maszni v. Romania (no. 59892/00) The applicant, Marcel Maszni, is a Romanian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Suceava (Romania).   Having been disqualified from driving, the applicant was stopped while driving his vehicle in possession of a forged driving licence. The police officer who had issued the document in question and the applicant were both tried by the Iaşi Military Court. The applicant was found guilty of offences including incitement to forgery and making use of forged documents, and was given a suspended sentence of one year and four months’ imprisonment. His driving licence was subsequently withdrawn.   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that he did not have a fair trial. He further alleges, relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), that the withdrawal of his driving licence amounted to a second penalty for the same acts that had resulted in his criminal conviction by the military courts for a road traffic offence. Uglanova v. Russia (no. 3852/02) The applicant, Galina Ivanovna Uglanova, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Irkutsk (Russia).   The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings to which she was a party concerning, in particular, who should inherit her late husband’s flat. She also claims that, in the absence of a final judicial decision, she could not use the contested property. She relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   McHugo v. Switzerland (no. 55705/00) The applicant, Brian McHugo, is a British national who was born in 1928 and lives in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence (France).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the length of criminal proceedings instituted against him for financial offences of which he was eventually acquitted in December 1998.   Monnat v. Switzerland (no. 73604/01) The applicant, Daniel Monnat, is a Swiss national who was born in 1951 and lives in Geneva. He is a journalist with the Swiss Radio and Television Company (SRG/SSR).   In March 1997, as part of the news programme “Temps présent”, for which the applicant was responsible at the time, SRG/SSR broadcast on its TSR channel ( Télévision suisse romande ) a report criticising Switzerland’s attitude during the Second World War. In 1999 the Independent Radio and Television Appeal Board found that the programme had infringed programming law as resulting from the Federal Radio and Television Act and called on SRG/SSR to take appropriate steps to remedy the infringement.   The applicant alleges that the monitoring of programmes, in accordance with Swiss legislation, and the decision by the Appeal Board restricted the exercise of his freedom of expression under Article 10 (freedom of expression). He also maintains that he was not given a public hearing by the Swiss authorities, as required by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Güneş v. Turkey (no. 61908/00) The applicant, Mehmet Güneş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Turkey.   In July 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation and of possessing a false identity card.   The applicant complains about the length of his detention on remand, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Söylemez v. Turkey (no. 46661/99) The applicants, Mehmet Faysal Söylemez, Mehmet Sena Söylemez and Mustafa Söylemez, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1964, 1961 and 1966 respectively and live in Muş (Turkey).   All three applicants were arrested and taken into police custody in June 1996 on suspicion of murder, wounding and false imprisonment.   The applicants allege that they were ill-treated while in police custody and had no effective remedy in respect of their complaints on that account. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Mehmet Faysal Söylemez further complains under Article   6 (right to a fair hearing) that he did not have a fair trial.   Grabchuk v. Ukraine (no. 8599/02) The applicant, Mariya Mykhaylivna Grabchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Liski (Ukraine).   Criminal proceedings were brought against her on a charge of stealing State property. Although the proceedings were discontinued, the courts stated that she had committed the offence in question.   The applicant complains that she was declared guilty without being tried according to law and that she could not complain about the courts’ failure to examine the criminal charges against her. She relies on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   GECO, a.s. v. the Czech Republic (no. 4401/03) The applicant, GECO a.s., is a Czech public limited company.   It applied to the Czech courts to order another company to pay it a sum of money. In the course of the proceedings it lodged a constitutional complaint, which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court.   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company alleges that the dismissal of its constitutional complaint as being out of time infringed its right of access to a court.   Croci and Others v. Italy (no. 14828/02) Dedda and Fragassi v. Italy (no. 19403/03) Maria Andreina Croci, Giovanna Croci, Mauro Croci, Roberto Croci and Giorgio Croci are Italian nationals who were born in 1917, 1938, 1941, 1949 and 1936 respectively and live in Rome. Maria Dedda and Leonardo Fragassi are also Italian nationals and live in L’Aquila (Italy).   In both case the applicants owned land which was occupied by the authorities with a view to its expropriation and on which building work was begun. In the absence of formal expropriation and compensation, the applicants brought proceedings in order to obtain damages for the unlawful occupation of their land.   The applicants allege that the circumstances in which they were deprived of their l                                                                                                                                       and were incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The applicants in Dedda and Fragassi v. Italy also rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Gasser v. Italy (no. 10481/02) The applicant, Waltraud Gasser, is an Italian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bolzano (Italy). She was declared bankrupt in May 1982.   The applicant alleges that, as a result of the bankruptcy order, she was deprived of her possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that correspondence sent to her was given to the trustee in bankruptcy in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and that she was unable to leave her place of residence in breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). In addition, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complains of the length of the bankruptcy proceedings and of the lack of an effective remedy under Italian law in respect of the length of the period during which she was subject to certain disabilities as a result of being made bankrupt. Lastly, she submits that the loss of her right to vote following her bankruptcy infringed Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).   Borshchevskiy v. Russia (no. 14853/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Pavlovich Borshchevskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives near Moscow Region.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complains of the quashing of the judgments in his favour and the lengthy non-enforcement of various judicial decisions.   Eroğlu v. Turkey (no. 59769/00) The applicant, Mesut Eroğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul.   In August 1998 the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for being a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).   He alleges that he was not given a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Önel v. Turkey (no. 9292/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, İhsan Önel and Satun Önel, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949 and 1948 respectively.   The General Directorate of the National Water Board expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicants, for the construction of a dam.   The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that the rate of interest for delays, payable on the additional compensation for expropriation, was too low and that the expropriating authority had further delayed in settling the relevant amounts.   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complains of the excessive length of administrative proceedings.   Araç v. Turkey (no. 69037/01)   ***   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.