CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39C929E7 { width:100.5pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1F4F0D6D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt; text-align:left } .s9B49264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   639 30.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   31 October and 2 November 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 19 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 31 October 2006 and 28 on Thursday 2 November 2006 including the first judgment in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   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 31 October 2006   Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 41183/02) The applicant, Ruža Jeličić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1953 and lives in Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina).   The applicant alleges she is unable to withdraw money from a foreign-currency bank account which she opened in 1983 despite having obtained a judgment in November 1998 ordering her bank to release all sums on her accounts.   She complains about the non-enforcement of that judgment. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary (no. 41463/02) The applicants, Károly András Földes and Anna Földesné Hajlik, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1957 and 1958 respectively and live in Miskolc (Hungary).   The applicants, then a married couple, were charged with fraudulent bankruptcy. Criminal proceedings were instituted against Károly Földes and he was interrogated as a suspect on 17 November 1993. On 6 January 1994 the proceedings were extended to include Anna Földesné Hajlik. Shortly afterwards the Passport Office of the Ministry of the Interior withdrew Mr Földes’ passport until the termination of the criminal proceedings in order to secure his availability for justice. They were convicted on 8 June 2006.   Mr Földes complains about the withdrawal of his passport for over a decade. He relies on Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). Both applicants complain about the length of the criminal proceedings. They rely on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Stenka v. Poland (no. 3675/03) Zborowski v. Poland (no. 13532/03) The applicants are Polish nationals.   Krzysztof Stenka , who was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Potulice Prison (Poland), was arrested on 15 October 1998 on suspicion of having committed several armed robberies against banks as part of a gang; on 22   October 2003 he was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment.   Mirosław Zborowski , who was born in 1958 and lives in Szamotuły (Poland), was arrested on 18   January 2001 on suspicion of having committed 12 offences in the course of his work as a legal adviser; he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment on 23 April 2004.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain of the length of their pre-trial detention.      Klein v. Slovakia (no. 72208/01) The applicant, Martin Klein, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. He is a journalist and film critic.   In March 1997 the weekly Domino Efekt published an article written by the applicant in which he criticised Archbishop Ján Sokol for his televised proposal to have the distribution of the film “The People v. Larry Flint” withdrawn as well as the poster publicising it. He was subsequently convicted of defamation and fined.   The applicant complains that his conviction violated his right to freedom of expression. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   Aksoy (Eroğlu) v. Turkey (no. 59741/00) Güner Çorum v. Turkey (no. 59739/00 Kahraman v. Turkey (no. 60366/00) The applicants, Şenay Aksoy (Eroğlu), Gülay Güner Çorum and Nazan Kahraman, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1968, 1970 and 1974 respectively and live in Ankara.   All three began working as nurses for the army, posts that carried civil servant status. In April 1999 the Senior Disciplinary Board of the Ministry of National Defence decided to dismiss the applicants, as sympathisers of an illegal organisation, for creating disorder in their establishment by conducting ideological and political activities. The Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed their request that it set aside the decision to dismiss them.   Relying on Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants allege that the failure to communicate the documents from the case file on which the Supreme Military Administrative Court based its decision breached the principle of equality of arms. In addition, they allege that their dismissal entailed a violation of Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).   Dilek Yılmaz v. Turkey (no. 58030/00) The applicant, Dilek Yılmaz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.   The applicant, who was suspected of belonging to an illegal organisation, was arrested and placed in police custody on 7 October 1995; she remained in police custody until 12 October, when she was placed in pre-trial detention. Alleging that she had been tortured, the applicant lodged a complaint about the officers responsible for her police custody; this complaint ended in a finding that there was no case to answer. In the meantime, the applicant was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation.   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant alleges that she was subjected to ill-treatment during the period spent in police custody and that there is no effective remedy available to her to complain about that fact.   Gürsoy and Others v. Turkey (nos. 1827/02, 1842/02, 1846/02, 1850/02, 1857/02, 1859/02         and 1862/02)   The seven applicants, Cemalettin Gürsoy, Veli Çelik, Mahir Öz, Hıdır   Açıkel, Abdullah Önal, Zeki Demirçivi and Orhan Özelmalı, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1968, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1969, 1960 and 1976 respectively. At the material time they lived in Adana (Turkey).   On 14 July 1998 the Adana State Security Court, composed of three professional judges, one of whom was a military judge, convicted the applicants of belonging to an illegal organisation and sentenced them to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6   § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complain about the unfairness and length of the criminal proceedings which resulted in their conviction.     Pakkan v. Turkey (no. 13017/02) The applicant, Muammer Pakkan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and is currently detained on remand in Edirne F-type Prison.   On 28 November 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate and was later charged with being a member of an illegal left-wing organisation. He was detained on remand until 27 October 2004 when he was sentenced to life imprisonment. That judgment was quashed on 13 July 2005 and the applicant is still in detention on remand pending the new proceedings.   The applicant complains about the length of his detention on remand which lasted almost 13 years.   He also complains about the length of the proceedings and the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court which initially tried him. He relies on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Şahin and Sürgeç v. Turkey (nos. 13007/02 and 13924/02) The applicants, İbrahim Şahin and Erdoğan Sürgeç, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1979 and 1973 respectively and were detained in Malatya Prison at the time of the lodging of their applications with the Court.   On 1 November 2001 the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of their involvement in the activities of the PKK. On 9 November 2001 the Tunceli Magistrates’ Court ordered that they be remanded in custody.   The applicants allege that they were not brought promptly before a judge. They rely on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Tüzel v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 71459/01) The applicant, Abdullah Levent Tüzel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul. He is president of the EMEP Labour Party.   In April 2001 the applicant was prohibited from disseminating a poster prepared by the party’s central committee, entitled “ İMF’siz Türkiye için emek programıyla 1 Mayıs’a ” (“Towards the 1st of May with the workforce’s programme, for a Turkey without the IMF”).   The applicant submits that this ban on displaying and disseminating his party’s posters in a region in which a state of emergency had been declared amounted, among other things, to a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression). He also complains of a violation of Article 6 (right to a court).   Repetitive cases   Drăguţă v. Moldova (no. 75975/01) The applicant, Valentina Drăguţă, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1951 and lives in Chişinău.   The applicant complains about the prolonged non-enforcement of two judgments given in her favour which had violated her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Karaoğlan v. Turkey (no. 60161/00) The applicant, Fikret Karaoğlan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Belgium.   In March 1998 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation.   The applicant complains, in particular, that he was denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge sitting on the bench of the İzmir State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Bencze v. Hungary (no. 4578/03) Emesz v. Hungary (no. 36343/03) Gergely v. Hungary (no. 23364/03) Ščuryová v. Slovakia (no. 72019/01)     Thursday 2 November 2006   Kobenter and Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 60899/00) Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 13071/03) Standard Verlags GmbH and Krawagna-Pfeifer v. Austria (no. 19710/02)   In all three cases one of the applicants is Standard Verlags GmbH, a limited liability company which has its head office in Vienna. It is the owner and publisher of the newspaper Der Standard .   Kobenter and Standard Verlags GmbH also concerns Jakob Kobenter, an Austrian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Vienna. Mr Kobenter is an editorial journalist at Der Standard .   In 1999 Mr Kobenter was convicted of defamation under the Criminal Code and Standard Verlags GmbH was ordered to pay compensation under Media Act to a judge whose reasoning in a judgment had been criticised in an article written by Mr   Kobenter and published in Der Standard .   In 2001 the applicant in Standard Verlags GmbH was convicted under the Media Act for having published an article discussing the question whether Ewald Stadler, a politician from the Austrian Freedom Party, knew or should have known about another politician's fraudulent machinations. Proceedings under the Civil Act and the Copyright Act instituted by   Mr Stadler against the applicant were   concluded by a friendly settlement.   Standard Verlags GmbH and Krawagna-Pfeifer also concerns Katharina Krawagna-Pfeifer, an Austrian national who at the material time was the chief editor of its internal politics section of Der Standard .   In 1999 Standard Verlags GmbH was ordered to pay compensation and Katharina Krawagna-Pfeifer was   convicted for defamation under the Media Act   for having published   a statement concerning a previous conviction of Jörg Haider, who was a leading politician from the Austrian Freedom Party at the time. They were further ordered to refrain from repeating that statement under the Civil Code.   The applicants all complain about the courts’ decisions. They all rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression). In Standard Verlags GmbH and Standard Verlags GmbH and Krawagna-Pfeifer the applicants also rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Kalpachka v. Bulgaria (no. 49163/99) The applicant, Lyubima Kostadinova Kalpachka, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria). At the material time she worked as a journalist for Struma , a local newspaper.   In September 1994 and May 1995 the applicant was subject of criminal defamation proceedings concerning two articles she wrote which were published in Struma . She alleges that she learned only in April 2004 during the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights that the proceedings in both cases were discontinued in June 2000.   The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Radoslav Popov v. Bulgaria (no. 58971/00) The applicant, Radoslav Iliev Popov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Nedelevo (Bulgaria).   On 24 September 1998 the applicant was charged with two burglaries and was detained on remand. On 10 April 2000 he was found guilty and sentenced to four and-a-half years’ imprisonment. None of the applicant’s numerous appeals for release were examined.   The applicant complains in particular about the length and fairness of his detention. He relies on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   Serifs v. Greece (no. 27695/03) The applicant, Pavlos Serifis, is a Greek national who was born in 1956 and lives in Athens. His left hand was paralysed in a road-traffic accident in 1980 and he has suffered from multiple sclerosis since 1996.   On 24 July 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police and placed in pre-trial detention. He was suspected of belonging to the terrorist organisation “17 November” which, between its foundation in 1975 and its disbandment in early summer 2002, committed several criminal acts. The applicant was detained with other presumed members of the organisation in specially adapted cells in Korydallos Prison. In December 2003 he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The case is pending on appeal.   The applicant applied for conditional release on several occasions. He was released on 8   February 2005.   The applicant complains that, given his state of health, his continued detention amounted to inhuman treatment, in violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He also relies on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security).   Giacomelli v. Italy (no. 59909/00) The applicant, Piera Giacomelli, is an Italian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Brescia (Italy).   Since 1950 she has lived in a house located on the outskirts of Brescia, 30 metres from a factory for the storage and processing of “special waste”, classed as either dangerous or not dangerous, which began operating in 1982. The company Ecoservizi, which operates the factory, subsequently obtained permission to increase the quantity of waste that is processed and to carry out “detoxification” of dangerous waste, a process which entails the use of chemical products to treat special industrial waste.   The applicant complains that the persistent noise and harmful emissions coming from the factory represent a serious threat to her environment and a permanent risk to her health and home, in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Mihaescu v. Romania (no. 5060/02) The applicant, Vasile   Mihaescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Iaşi (Romania).   The applicant, a psychologist, worked at the Iaşi Medical and Pharmacology University (UMF) as professor of medical psychology and psychotherapy.   He brought proceedings following a decision by the UMF’s governing body to change the professor who would give the psychotherapy lectures for which the applicant had hitherto been responsible. In a judgment of 22 March 2000 which subsequently became final, the Iaşi court of first instance granted the applicant’s action and ordered the UMF to comply with his employment contract. Furthermore, on 10 June 2003 the Iaşi county court upheld a judgment ordering the UMF to pay the applicant the wages corresponding to his post as psychotherapy lecturer from 22   March 2000 until his reinstatement in post. The applicant took numerous measures in order to have those judgments enforced; in September 2006 he informed the European Court of Human Rights that he had been reinstated in post and that he had received the amounts awarded by the courts.   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time), the applicant alleges that the failure to enforce final judicial decisions in his favour had breached his right of access to a court.   Radovici and Stănescu v. Romania (nos. 68479/01, 71351/01 and 71352/01) The applicants, Ioana Cristina Radovici and Elena   Stănescu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1930 and 1933 respectively and live in Bucharest.   The applicants were owners of three buildings in Bucharest, comprising several flats, which had been nationalised. They brought actions for the recovery of possession, which the Romanian courts granted, ordering that the assets concerned be returned to them. As three of the flats in question were occupied by tenants who had signed leases with the State, the applicants invited those persons to sign a new lease with them; the tenants refused.     The applicants then brought eviction proceedings, which were initially dismissed for failure to comply with the formal steps set out in emergency government order no. 40/1999; this resulted in the extension of the previous leases. At the close of the second set of proceedings, the applicants succeeded, years later, in having the individuals who occupied their flats evicted; however, they received no rental income for several years, in spite of the fact that their flats were occupied.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain that it was impossible for a prolonged period for them to make use of a building which had been returned to them and to receive rental income, an impossibility which resulted from the application of the emergency measures adopted by the Government concerning residential leases.   Komarova v. Russia (no. 19126/02) The applicant, Nadezhada Nikolayevna, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Yaroslavl (Russia). Between 1991 and 1998 the applicant worked as a senior accountant in a private company, Gatchina.   On 24 July 1998 the applicant was charged with misappropriation of the company’s assets. He case is still pending.   The applicant complains, in particular, about the length of those criminal proceedings which have lasted over eight years. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Nelyubin v. Russia (no. 14502/04) The applicant, Vladimir Konstantinovich Nelyubin, is a Russian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Lipetsk (Russia). In 1994 he retired from military service.   On 27 January 2003 the applicant was awarded damages for retirement pension payments which he had not received. The judgment was subsequently quashed in supervisory-review proceedings initiated by the Military Service Commission of the Lipetsk Region.   The applicant complains about the quashing of that judgment. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Matko v. Slovenia (no. 43393/98) The applicant, Aleksander Matko, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Slovenj Gradec (Slovenia).   On 5 April 1995 at about 8.30 pm the applicant was stopped in his car by police who were investigating the activities of a criminal group who were suspected to be operating in the area. He was then arrested and taken to the police station for questioning. He was released shortly after midnight. The police alleged that he had resisted arrest and a criminal investigation was opened in January 1997. In February 2001 he was convicted of “attempting to obstruct an official in the course of his duties” and was given a suspended prison sentence.   The applicant alleges that he was unlawfully arrested and severely ill-treated by the police. He also claims that his allegations of ill-treatment were not properly investigated. He also complains that the criminal proceedings were unfair and excessively long. He relies on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment and lack of effective investigation), Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Dacosta Silva v. Spain (no. 69966/01) The applicant, Carlos Dacosta Silva, is a Spanish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Valencia (Spain).   A member of the civil guard, he was assigned to the Gijón command. He was on sick leave from 5 January 1998.   Having informed a friend that he was seriously ill, the applicant informed the guard on duty that he was going to his parents’ home, where he remained from 16 to 24   February 1998.   On 20 March 1998 the applicant’s hierarchical superior imposed a disciplinary sanction of six days’ confinement for going absent from the barracks without prior leave. All of the appeals lodged by the applicant against this decision were dismissed.   The applicant complains, in particular, that he was deprived of his liberty on the basis of a decision taken by his hierarchical superiors as part of disciplinary proceedings. He alleges a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 (right to a fair hearing).   Volokhy v. Ukraine (no. 23543/02) The applicants, Olga Volokh and Mykhaylo Volokh, are Ukrainian nationals who were born in 1933 and 1961 respectively and live in Poltava (Ukraine).   On 6 August 1997 an order for interception and seizure of the postal and telegraphic correspondence of the applicants was issued when Olga Volokh’s son (Mykhaylo Volokh’s brother), who was under investigation for tax evasion, failed to appear for interrogation at the police station. No time-limit was fixed in the order.   The applicants claim about the interception of their correspondence. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).     Repetitive cases   di Pietro v. Italy (no. 73575/01) Perrella   v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 15348/03) Matthias and Others v. Italy (no. 35174/03) Milazzo v. Italy (no. 77156/01) In these four cases, the applicants were all owners of land that was occupied by the authorities with a view to expropriation and on which construction work was begun. In the absence of an expropriation order or any compensation, the applicants brought proceedings claiming damages for unlawful occupation of their land. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain about the occupation of their land. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants in the cases di Pietro and Milazzo also complain about the length of the proceedings in question, and in the case Matthias and Others , they complain about the unfairness of the proceedings.     Kazartsev v. Russia (no. 26410/02) Tytar v. Russia (no. 21779/04) The applicants, Aleksey Dmitriyevich Kazartsev and Vladimir Dmitriyevich Tytar, are Russian nationals who were born in 1940 and 1954 respectively. Mr Kazartsev lives in Voronezh and Mr Tytar lives in Omsk (Russia).   They complain about the prolonged non-enforcement of judgments given in their favour. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of civil proceedings. Relying on Article 13, the applicants in Olenik v. Slovenia and Zorc v. Slovenia also claim that they had had no effective remedy concerning those proceedings.   Kozlica v. Croatia (no. 29182/03) Sukobljević v. Croatia (no. 5129/03) Matica v. Romania (no. 19567/02) Kudinova v. Russia (no. 44374/04) Vladimir Nikitin v. Russia (no. 15969/02) Olenik v. Slovenia (no. 4225/02) Zorc v. Slovenia (no. 2792/02) Markoski v. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 22928/03)   ***   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.