CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 octobre 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 } .s6ABC81E2 { width:103.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1B439A10 { width:258pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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   564 6.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   10 and 12 October 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 28 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 10 October 2006 and 23 on Thursday 12 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 10 October 2006     Pla and Puncernau v. Andorra (no. 69498/01)   Just satisfaction The applicants, Antoni Pla Puncernau and his mother Roser Puncernau Pedro, were Andorran nationals. Mr Pla Puncernau was the adopted son of Mrs Puncernau Pedro and Francesc-Xavier Pla Pujol (deceased 1996). The applicants both died in 2004. Their heirs have informed the European Court of Human Rights that they wish to pursue the proceedings before it.   The case concerned court decisions that Mr Pla Puncernau, as an adopted child, could not inherit the estate of Mr Pla Pujol’s mother. The applicants alleged that those decisions in respect of Mr Pla Puncernau amounted to discrimination in the area of inheritance rights, based on birth.   In its judgment of 13 July 2004, the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and that it was not necessary to examine the application separately under Article 8. It also held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Fryckman v. Finland (application no. 36288/97) The applicant, Peter Fryckman is a Finnish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Helsinki. He is the former owner of a limited liability company which was wound-up in May 1997.   In 1993 criminal proceedings were instigated against Mr Fryckman. In 2000 he was found guilty debtor’s dishonesty and imprisoned. He complains about the length of those proceedings relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   L.L. v. France (no. 7508/02) The applicant is a French national who was born in 1957 and lives in France.   The applicant complains about the submission to and use by the courts of documents from his medical records, in the context of divorce proceedings, without his consent and without a medical expert having been appointed in that connection. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Pessino v. France (no. 40403/02) The applicant, Dominique Pessino, is a French national who was born in 1924 and lives in Menton (France). In July 2001 he was found guilty of carrying out construction work without planning permission.   The applicant alleges that the actions with which he was charged were not classified as offences at the relevant time. He relies on Article 7 (no punishment without law).   S.U. v. France (no. 23054/03) The applicant is a national of Luxembourg, who was born in 1971 and lives in Paris. In November 2001 she was hospitalised in a psychiatric unit at the police headquarters.   The applicant alleges that the deprivation of her liberty entailed a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security).   Zasłona v. Poland (no. 25301/02) The applicant, Sławomir Zasłona, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Poreba (Poland). He was arrested in February 2001 on suspicion of armed attacks on lorry drivers.   The applicant complains about the length of his pre-trial detention and of the proceedings brought against him. He relies on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial in a reasonable time).   Paulík v. Slovakia (no. 10699/05) The applicant, Jozef Paulík, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Bratislava.   The applicant complained that he was unable to challenge a declaration of paternity made in 1970 despite the fact that a DNA report carried out in 2004 proved that he was not the father.   He relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Falakaoğlu v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 11840/02) The applicant, Bülent Falakaoğlu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. At the relevant time, he was the editor of the daily newspaper Yeni Evrensel , which has its main offices in Istanbul. In December 2000, the newspaper Yeni Evrensel published an article which resulted in the applicant’s conviction for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on racial and regional grounds and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, which was subsequently converted to a fine.     The applicant complains about his criminal conviction in his capacity as editor of the newspaper Yeni Evrensel . He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Halis Doğan v. Turkey (No. 3) (no. 4119/02) The applicant, Halis Doğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Istanbul.   In February 2000 the applicant was convicted and ordered to pay a fine for separatist propaganda through the press, on account of the publication of two articles in July 1999.   The applicant complains that his conviction entailed a violation of his right to freedom of expression and his right to a fair trial. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Kadriye Yıldız and Others v. Turkey (no. 73016/01) The eight applicants, Kadriye Yıldız, Süheyla Yıldız, Nevzat Yıldız, Seyithan Yıldız, Arslan Yıldız, Gültekin Yıldız, Aziz Yıldız and Ferhan Yıldız, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1929, 1948, 1952, 1950, 1933, 1954, 1939 and 1916 respectively and live in Mardin (Turkey). Their names appear in land registers as the owners of a plot of land situated in Alakuş, which has been mined by the public authorities since 1958.   The applicants allege that the deprivation of the property in question, without the payment of compensation, amounted to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). They also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Tunceli Kültür ve Dayanışma Derneği v. Turkey (no. 61353/00) The applicant, Tunceli Kültür ve Dayanışma Derneği (Tunceli Cultural and Mutual Assistance Association), is an association.   In February 2000 the chairperson and a member of the association’s board of management were convicted of having made or authorised declarations of a political nature, the tenor of which was contrary to the association’s social aim, at a congress in November 1996. The association was subsequently dissolved and its assets liquidated.   The applicant association alleges that its dissolution on account of statements made by its members infringed its rights to freedom of expression and association. It relies on Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Tutar v. Turkey (no. 11798/03) The applicant, İskender Tutar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is currently detained on remand in Diyarbakır Prison.   On 10 September 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. The proceedings are still pending.   He complains about the length of his detention and the length of the proceedings. He relies on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Yerebasmaz v. Turkey (no. 14710/03) The applicant, Gündüz Yerebasmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Zonguldak (Turkey). In 1992 the management of the state mining company sent the applicant to Japan for a three-month training period, but subsequently refused to pay him part of the travelling allowance. The Turkish courts ordered the authorities to pay compensation to the applicant.   The applicant complains about the authorities’ failure to pay the damages awarded by the courts. He relies on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).     Repetitive cases   Bonifacio v. France (no. 18113/02) The applicant, Pascal   Bonifacio, is a French national who was born in 1961 and lives in Vaux Le Penil (France). A disciplinary sanction was imposed on the applicant, who is a vet, and he was banned from working for four months. He challenged this decision before the Conseil d’Etat .   The applicant complains that the proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat were unfair. He relies on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Lozan and Others v. Moldova (no. 20567/02) The three applicants are Moldovan nationals.   They complain about the prolonged non-enforcement of a judgment given in their favour regarding legal tenancies. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court).   Çomak v. Turkey (no. 225/02) The applicant, İlhan Çomak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and is presently detained in Istanbul Prison.   In October 2000 the applicant was convicted of separatist activities and sentenced to life imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant alleges that his case was not examined by an independent and impartial tribunal.     Mehmet Emin Acar v. Turkey (no. 1901/02) Mutlu v. Turkey (no. 8006/02) The applicants are Turkish nationals.   They complain, in particular, that they were paid insufficient interest on the additional compensation received following the expropriation of their land and that the authorities delayed paying them the relevant amount. They 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.   Nebusová v. Hungary and Slovakia (no. 61/03) Białas v. Poland (no. 69129/01) Cichla v. Poland (no. 18036/03) Jeruzal v. Poland (no.65888/01) Jończyk v. Poland (no. 75870/01) Kędra v. Poland (no. 1564/02) Kuźniak v. Poland (no. 13861/02) Rybczyńska v. Poland (no. 57764/00) Szymoński v. Poland (no. 6925/02) Sali v. Sweden (no. 67070/01)     Thursday 12 October 2006   Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium (no. 13178/03) The applicants, Pulcherie Mubilanzila Mayeka and her daughter Tabitha Kaniki Mitunga, are Congolese nationals who were born in 1970 and 1997 respectively and live in Montreal (Canada).   Their application concerns the detention of Tabitha, who was only five years old at the time, for almost two months and her deportation to her country of origin.   The applicants submit that Tabitha’s detention and deportation entailed a violation of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Mladenov v. Bulgaria (no. 58775/00) The applicant, Vercho Vasilev Mladenov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia. In 1991 he was investigated and placed in custody in connection with offences concerning the sexual abuse of a ten-year-old child.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains of the unfairness and length of the proceedings against him.   Staykov v. Bulgaria (no. 49438/99) The applicant, Stiliyan Atanasov Staykov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Shumen (Bulgaria).   In December 1991 the applicant was arrested and charged with the murder of his friend’s 81-year-old adoptive mother. In May 1993 he was found guilty and sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. After a series of appeals and retrials he was finally acquitted in April 2005.   The applicant complains, in particular, about the length and conditions of his pre-trial detention and about the length and unfairness of criminal proceedings against him. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Tastanidis v. Greece (no. 18059/04) The applicant, Vassilios Tastanidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1958 and lives in Salamina, Greece. In May 2001 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for tax fraud. He appealed unsuccessfully on points of law against that decision.   The applicant complains that his appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible because he failed to surrender to custody. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ioachimescu and Ion v. Romania (no. 18013/03) The applicants, Constantin Ioachimescu and Marcela ‑ Anişoara   Ion, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1955 respectively and live in Constanta (Romania). A judgment of March 2002 ordered the competent administrative authority to grant them possession of a plot of land and to provide them with written title to it. In spite of their efforts, this judgment has not been executed.   The applicants allege that the non-enforcement of the judgment in question infringed their right of access to a court as provided for in Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing). Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they also complained of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   Kaya v. Romania (no. 33970/05) The applicant, Saban Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and currently lives in Turkey.   In April 2005 the applicant was declared persona non grata and prohibited from residing in Romania for 15 years, on the ground that “sufficient and reliable information indicates that he was conducting activities such as to endanger national security”. A few days later he was extradited to Turkey.   The applicant complains about the extradition order issued against him. He relies in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).   Orha v. Romania (n o 1486/02) The applicants, Ioan ‑ Alexandru Orha and Ligia-Mariana Orha, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1966 respectively and live in Toronto (Canada).   In October 1999 a final judgment established the amount of damages due to the applicants following the expropriation of several properties belonging to them. In spite of their efforts, the applicants have so far failed to obtain payment of the amounts awarded.   The applicants submit that the non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour breached their right of access to a tribunal which would determine their case in a reasonable time, and complain of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They rely on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Aldoshkina v. Russia (no. 66041/01) Stanislav Zhukov v. Russia (no. 54632/00) The applicant, Irina Igorevna Aldoshkina, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Samara (Russia).   The applicant, Stanislav Yevgenyevich Zhukov, is a Russian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow.   Both of the applicants were convicted for offences which were subsequently re-characterised in supervisory review proceedings – attempted fraud in the case of Ms Aldoshkina and accomplice to kidnapping in Mr Zhukov’s case. Neither applicant was summonsed to appear at those proceedings.   They complain that the proceedings against them were unfair as they were denied the right to defend themselves in person before the supervisory review instance. They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Estamirov and Others v. Russia (no. 60272/00) The seven applicants are Russian nationals. They are: Ruslan Khasmagomedovich Estamirov, Leyla Khasmagomedovna Yandarova, Sovdat Khasmagomedovna Dakayeva, Yakha Estamirova, Khuseyn Khozhakhmedovich Estamirov, Khabirat Khasmagomedovna Zaurbekova, and Khabira Khasmagomedovna Tatasheva. They were born in 1965, 1961, 1970, 1934, 1996, 1960 and 1958 respectively and are all related to each other.   Until 1999 they were residents of Grozny, Chechnya. Ruslan Estamirov, Yakha Estamirova, and Khuseyn Estamirov, now live in the US, where they were granted political asylum. The other applicants live in Ingushetia (Russia) and in Moscow.   The applicants claim that in February 2000 five members of their family were killed by agents of the State in Grozny and that no effective investigation into their deaths was carried out. They rely on Articles   2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Dvoynykh v. Ukraine (no. 72277/01) The applicant, Nikolay Aleksandrovich Dvoynykh, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine). He was the director of a company.   The applicant was arrested in June 1999 and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for abuse of power in December 2000. He complains about the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention in the Simferopol SIZO. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   Barbu v. Romania (no. 70639/01) Barcanescu v. Romania (no. 75261/01) Danulescu v. Romania (no. 70890/01) Patrichi v. Romania (no. 1597/02) Ruxanda Ionescu v. Romania (no. 2608/02) Sebastian Taub v. Romania (no. 58612/00) Tovaru v. Romania (no. 77048/01) In these seven cases, the applicants were owners of properties which were expropriated or confiscated by the State.   They allege that the sale of their property by the State to third parties, for which no compensation was paid and which was endorsed by the Romanian courts, violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In addition, on the basis of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants in the cases of Barcanescu and Danulescu and Tovaru complain about the unfairness of the proceedings to which they were parties. In the case of Tovaru , the applicant also alleges that there has been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)   Konnerth v. Romania (no. 21118/02) The applicant, Sofia   Konnerth, is a Romanian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Făgăraş (Romania). In April 2001 the Romanian courts granted an action, brought by the applicant, for amendment of the land register. However, this final judgment was overturned on an appeal by the Principal Public Prosecutor.   The applicant submits that the challenging of the final judgment in her favour infringed the principle of legal certainty. She alleges that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Pivnenko v. Ukraine (no. 36369/04) Tarnavskiy v. Ukraine (no. 6693/03) The applicants are two Ukrainian nationals.   The applicants complain about the prolonged non-enforcement of judgments given in their favour and that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been violated. They rely on Article 6 §   1 (access to a court) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property). The applicant in the case of Pivnenko v. Ukraine also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They also complain under Article 13 that they had no effective remedy regarding their length-of-proceedings complaint.   Debelić v. Croatia (no. 9235/04) Glazkov v. Russia (no. 10929/03)   ***   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.