CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 29 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 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .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   541 29.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   3 and 5 October 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 3 October 2006 and 29 on Thursday 5 October 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 3 October 2006   Achache v. France (application no. 16043/03) The applicants, Cyril Achache and his wife Christine Achache, are French nationals who were born in 1961 and 1962 respectively and live in Paris.   They complain of the retrospective application of a law while they were involved in proceedings with their bank. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ben Naceur v. France (no. 63879/00) The applicant, Laïfa Ben Naceur, is a Tunisian national who was born in 1951. He is currently in Muret Prison in France, having been sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking.   The applicant alleges that the longer time allowed to the principal public prosecutor in order to appeal against a criminal court judgment amounts to an infringement of the principle of equality of arms for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Cour v. France (no. 44404/02) The applicant, Martine Cour, is a French national who was born in 1953 and lives in Montbéliard (France). She lodged an appeal on points of law against a judgment ordering her to pay over 43,000 euros to a bank in her capacity as guarantor.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant alleges that the removal of her appeal from the list of pending cases on the ground that she had not complied with the judgment interfered with her right of access to a court.   Courty and l’Association Liberté Information Santé v. France (no. 15114/02) The applicants are Roland Courty, a French national who was born in 1950 and lives in Buros (France) and the Association for Freedom of Information in Health Matters ( Association Liberté Information Santé ), which has its head office in Riom (France) and of which Mr   Courty is a member. They brought proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat challenging the lawfulness of a presidential order amending the Public Health Code.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complain of the presence of the Government Commissioner at the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat . The applicant association further complains that the Conseil d’Etat failed to take account of a memorandum for the deliberations submitted by it.   E.T. v. France (no. 7217/05) The applicant is a French national who was born in 1982 and lives in Douvaine (France). In April 2004 the mayor of Thonon-les-Bains ordered her committal to Thonon-les-Bains hospital.   The applicant contends that she was deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security). She also relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Gajcsi v. Hungary (no. 34503/03) The applicant, László Gajcsi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in the Lad-Gyöngyöspuszta Social Home (Hungary).   In November 1999 the applicant was committed to hospital for compulsory psychiatric treatment. A further decision confined him for an indefinite period. The applicant complains, in particular, that his treatment was unjustified and that he was not given reasons for his confinement. He relies on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Kalmár v. Hungary (no. 32783/03) The applicant, László Kalmár, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Budapest.   In January 1994 an investigation was opened against the applicant and he was subsequently convicted of making a false accusation and inducing a third party to commit perjury. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in June 2003.   In January 1996 he brought proceedings for libel. The proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complains about the length and the fairness of those proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Łuczko v. Poland (no. 73988/01) The applicant, Janusz Łuczko, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Wydminy (Poland).   Between February 2000 and May 2003 the applicant was involved in three separate sets of criminal proceedings. In two of those sets of proceedings he was convicted and sentenced to periods of imprisonment. In the third, he was detained, but the proceedings against him were discontinued.   The applicant complains about the unlawfulness of his detention and convictions.   Rybczyńscy v. Poland (no. 3501/02) The applicants, D. Rybczyńscy and her brother, T. Rybczyńscy, are Polish nationals who were born in 1969 and 1971 respectively and live in Przemyśl (Poland).   In April 1993 the applicants sued their tenants for the damage they had done to their property. Their action was partly dismissed in a judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001.   The applicants complain about the length and fairness of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Başkaya v. Turkey (no. 68234/01) The applicant, Fikret Başkaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Ankara. In June 2000 he was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for disseminating separatist propaganda following the publication in 1999 of one of his articles in the daily newspaper Özgür Bakiş .   The applicant contends that his criminal conviction amounted to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Karahanoğlu v. Turkey (no. 74341/01) The applicant, Mehmet Karahanoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul. In November 2000 he was ordered to pay a fine following a fire in his restaurant caused by negligence.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant alleges that his case was not heard in public.   Keklik and Others v. Turkey (no. 77388/01) The four applicants, Bülent Keklik, Zülfikar Özalp, Salih Özalp and Dilaver Özalp, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1975, 1970, 1942 and 1962 respectively and live in Muş (Turkey). They were arrested in May and June 2001 following a tip-off from a member of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).   The applicants complain that they were unlawfully deprived of their liberty. They rely on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).     Repetitive case   Mehmet Kaplan v. Turkey (no. 6366/03) The applicant, Mehmet Kaplan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1930 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey). He was the owner of land that was expropriated for the construction of the Birecik dam.   The applicant 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).   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain in particular of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Börcsök Bodor v. Hungary (no. 14962/03) Kuril v. Slovakia (no. 63959/00)     Thursday 5 October 2006   Müller v. Austria (no. 12555/03) The applicant, Pierre Müller, is an Austrian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Vienna. He is the managing director of a company.   In August 1995 the applicant was convicted for illegally employing a foreigner and was fined. The applicant made a series of complaints but the conviction was nevertheless confirmed in a decision served on the applicant’s counsel in October 2002.   The applicant complains of the length of the criminal proceedings concerning the charge against him. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Sodadjiev v. Bulgaria (no. 58733/00) The applicant, Mitko Simeonov Sodadjiev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   The applicant complains in particular about the length and fairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him in 1993 for theft. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Klasen v. Germany (no. 75204/01) The applicant, Theodor Klasen, is a German national who was born in 1933 and lived in Mülheim (Germany). He died on 21   April 2005. The applicant’s second wife expressed her wish to continue with the case.   Having contracted a mesothelioma, an asbestos-related illness, Mrs Gisel Klasen, Mr Klasen’s first wife, applied without success for compensation payments, claiming that her illness was the consequence of the daily cleaning of her husband’s work clothes. Mrs Klasen died in September 1992 and her husband continued the proceedings and after his wife’s death. The proceedings came to an end in March 2001 when the Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant’s complaint.   The applicant complains of the length and fairness of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Marcello Viola v. Italy (no. 45106/04) The applicant, Marcello Viola, is an Italian national who was born in 1959. He is currently in Aquila Prison in Italy, where he is serving a 12-year sentence for conspiracy passed in 1999.   The applicant, who was subjected to a special prison regime, which among other things restricted his contacts with the outside world, followed the hearing before the Assize Court of Appeal by videoconference.   The applicant submits that his participation in the hearing by videoconference amounted to a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial). Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), he further complains that he was tried twice for the same offence.   Bolat v. Russia (no. 14139/03) The applicant, Hacı Bayram Bolat, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Kapaklı (Turkey).   From 1998 to 2003 the applicant lived in Russia on the basis of a long-term residence permit. In 2002 he was found guilty of non-compliance with residence registration regulations and was fined on the spot. The administrative sanction was later invoked as a ground for the annulment of his residence permit. The applicant was deported from Russia by force while the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the sanction were still pending and the enforcement of the decision to annul his permit was explicitly suspended by a domestic court.   The applicant complains in particular, about a violation of his right to liberty of movement and that the domestic authorities had failed to respect the statutory procedural safeguards during his deportation. He relies on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens).   Mokrushina v. Russia (no. 23377/02) The applicant, Valentina Sergeyevna Mokrushina, is a Russian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow.   In June 1999 the applicant unsuccessfully took out proceedings against the vendor of a property she had bought. He appealed against the judgment and a number of hearings were held to which she was either not summonsed or summonsed too late.   The applicant complains in particular that she was denied the opportunity to attend the examination of the appeal. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Moscow branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia (no. 72881/01) The applicant organisation, the Moscow branch of the Salvation Army, officially worked in Russia from 1913 to 1923 when it was dissolved as an “anti-Soviet organisation”.   In August 1999 the applicant which had been registered as a religious organisation with legal-entity status since 1992, was denied re-registration following the introduction of new legislation. It subsequently lost its legal status because of its allegedly foreign origin and paramilitary nature.   The applicant branch complains that the loss of its legal status severely curtailed its ability to manifest its religion in worship and practice. It relied on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association).       Zakharov v. Russia (no. 14881/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Vasilyevich Zakharov, is a Russian national who was born in 1947 and lives in the Moscow Region.   In July 2002 he complained in a private letter about the irregular conduct of a civil servant to the deputy Governor of the Moscow Region. The civil servant concerned retaliated with a defamation claim. The court found for the civil servant and the applicant was bound to make a rectification by way of a letter to the Governor and to pay damages.   The applicant complains that his right to impart information was violated relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Repetitive cases   De Blasi v. Italy (no. 1595/02) The applicant, Antonino De Blasi, is an Italian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Opera (Italy). He was declared bankrupt in 1996.     The applicant alleges that, following the declaration of bankruptcy, he was deprived of his possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), that correspondence sent to him was given to the receiver in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and that he was unable to leave his place of residence contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). In addition, relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the length and fairness of the bankruptcy proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy under Italian law by which to complain of the ineligibilities incurred as a result of being made bankrupt. Lastly, he submits that the loss of his right to vote following his bankruptcy was in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections).   Capoccia v. Italy (no. 30227/03) De Nigris v. Italy (no. 1) (no. 41248/04) Fendi and Speroni v. Italy (no. 37338/03) Gianazza v. Italy (no. 69878/01) Labbruzzo v. Italy (no. 10022/02) Medici and Others v. Italy (no. 70508/01) Messeni Nemagna and Others v. Italy (no. 9512/04) Notarnicola v. Italy (no. 64264/01) Preziosi v. Italy (no. 67125/01) Spampinato v. Italy (no. 69872/01) In these ten cases, the applicants maintain that they were deprived of their land in circumstances incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In Capoccia, Fendi and Speroni, Gianazza, Notarnicola, Preziosi and Spampinato , they also allege a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Penescu v. Romania (no. 13075/03 The applicant, Maria Penescu, is a Romanian and United States national who was born in 1917 and lives in Sherman Oaks (United States). She brought an action seeking to recover possession of a building comprising six flats in Bucharest which had been nationalised in 1950.   The applicant alleges that the sale of the building to third parties by the State, endorsed by the Romanian courts, amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Popea v. Romania (no. 6248/03) The applicants, Ionel Lucian Popea, Elena Mihaela Adriana and Lidia Popea, are Romanian nationals; Mr Popea and Ms Adriana also have French nationality. The applicants were born in 1921, 1952 and 1927 respectively and live in Arvert and Fréjus (France) and in Bucharest. In 1996 they brought an action to recover possession of a building which had been nationalised in 1950 and seeking to have the contract of sale between the State and the building’s tenants set aside.   The applicants maintain that the overturning of the final judgment in their favour was in breach of the principle of legal certainty and infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They allege a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Lazarev v. Russia (no. 9800/02) Shapovalova v. Russia (no. 2047/03) Stetsenko and Stetsenko v. Russia (no. 878/03) Velskaya v. Russia (no. 21769/03) The applicants are five Russian nationals.   Nikolay Viktorovich Lazarev and Liubov Gennadyevna Shapovalova complain about the lengthy failure to enforce judgments given in their favour awarding them compensation, due to lack of State funds.   Yelena Leonidovna   Velskaya, Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Stetsenko and Nina Ivanovna Stetsenko complain that final judgments in their favour were quashed in supervisory review proceedings. In the latter case, the applicants also complain that they were deprived of their right to effectively participate at the supervisory-review hearing.   The applicants rely on Article 6 § 1 (access to court). With the exception of the applicants in Stetsenko and Stetsenko v. Russia the applicants also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain in particular of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Grässer v. Germany (no. 66491/01) Marchenko v. Russia (no. 29510/04) Shelomkov v. Russia (no. 36219/02) Volovich v. Russia (no. 10374/02)   ***   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.