CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 novembre 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   723 24.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   28 and 30 November 2006   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing nine Chamber judgments on Tuesday 28 November 2006 and 25 on Thursday 30 November 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 28 November 2006   Desserprit v. France (no. 76977/01) The applicant, Gilbert Desserprit, is a French national who was born in 1936 and lives in Autun (France). In 1988 he brought administrative proceedings seeking a review of the disability pension to which he is entitled.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains about the length (more than 15 years) and unfairness of the administrative proceedings to which he was a party.   Flandin v. France (application no. 77773/01) The applicant, Gérard Flandin, is a French national who was born in 1938 and lives in Manama (Bahrain). He is a management consultant.   In the context of criminal proceedings brought against him for illegally practising as a lawyer, fraud and using a title likely to lead to confusion with the title and profession of lawyer, the applicant lodged a legal-aid application. He was informed of the decision granting him legal aid, and of the name of the court-appointed lawyer, more than three weeks after a hearing had been held at the court of appeal. That court upheld the applicant’s conviction and increased the fine imposed on him. The Court of Cassation dismissed on 15 May 2001 an appeal on points of law submitted by the applicant.   The applicant complains that he was unable to avail himself of the services of the lawyer appointed by the court under the legal-aid scheme in order to defend himself before the court of appeal. He relies on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Poulain de Saint Père v. France (no. 38718/02) The applicant, Philippe Poulain de Saint Père, is a French national who was born in 1930 and lives in Chambray Les Tours (France).   In December 1985 the Prefect of the Hauts-de-Seine Region authorised the cultural association Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X to accept a gift, with an obligation attached, made by the applicant’s aunt. Following his aunt’s death, the applicant applied to have the Prefect’s order set aside and brought administrative proceedings against the implied dismissal of his request.     The lower courts granted the applicant’s request and set aside the Prefect’s order. In a judgment of 29 April 2002, however, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed his request.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains that the proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat were unfair.   Apostol v. Georgia (no. 40765/02) The applicant, Leonid Tikhonovitch Apostol, is a Georgian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Batumi (Georgia).   The applicant was asked to pay preliminary expenses associated with enforcement measures with regard to a judgment he obtained in civil proceedings on 21 November 2001. The applicant could not pay and as a result, the judgment was never enforced.   The applicant complains about the authorities’ refusal to enforce that judgment. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Buta v. Poland (no. 18368/02) The applicant, Dariusz Buta, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Poznań (Poland).   On 14 April 1999 the applicant was detained on suspicion of robbery and kidnapping. He was released on 12 October 2001. His numerous appeals for release were dismissed.   The applicant complains about the length of his pre-trial detention. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Golik v. Poland (no. 13893/02) The applicant, Zenon Golik, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Będzin (Poland). He was a police officer in Zawiercie.   On 24 December 1992 he was charged with abuse of power while conducting an investigation into a car theft. On 13 November 1996 he was convicted as charged and given a suspended prison sentence and barred from working as a police officer for four years. That judgment was later upheld on appeal on 7 September 2001.   The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Oleksy v. Poland (no. 64284/01) The applicant, Nestor Oleksy, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Wrocław (Poland).   He was arrested on 30 November 1999 and on 11 April 2002 Wrocław Regional Court sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking. Despite his numerous requests for release, he was detained on remand for over two years, four months.   While he was in prison his letters to and from the Court were censored by the authorities.   The applicant complains about the length of that detention. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right liberty and security). The Court raised the issue of Poland’s compliance with Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) on account of the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence.   Trzciałkowski v. Poland (no. 26918/02) The applicant, Grzegorz Trzciałkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Warsaw.   He was arrested on suspicion of having committed fraud and was detained from 7 January 2000 to 13 February 2003. He was re-arrested on 6 June 2003 and released on 20 October 2003. Despite the applicant’s appeals, his pre-trial detention was extended several times.   The applicant complains about the length of his detention. He relies on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following case the applicant complains, in particular, of the excessive length of civil proceedings. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   Wróblewska v. Poland (no. 22346/02)   Thursday 30 November 2006   Totchev v. Bulgaria (no. 58925/00) The applicant, Viktor Vasilev Totchev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).   On 24 October 1997 the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having committed fraud. He was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on 13 March 2001.   Relying on Articles 5 (right to freedom and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains, in particular, about the unlawfulness and length of his pre-trial detention, and about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Igors Dmitrijevs v. Latvia (no. 61638/00) The applicant, Igors Dmitrijevs, is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia who was born in 1971 and lives in Riga.   The applicant, who was suspected of attempted aggravated sexual assault, was arrested and placed in police custody on 19 June 1999, then placed in pre-trial detention on 22 June 1999. He lodged two complaints concerning alleged ill-treatment during police custody, but neither was successful.     In February 2001 he was convicted and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment.   The applicant alleges that he was subjected to ill-treatment during the period spent in police custody and complains about the conditions of his detention in the police station’s temporary isolation wing. He considers that his detention was unlawful and complains about the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him. In addition, he complains about a violation of his right to respect for correspondence and that he was unable to attend religious services in the prison chapel. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 1 (right to freedom and security), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for correspondence), 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 34 (individual applications).   Veraart v. the Netherlands (no. 10807/04) The applicant, Christiaan Joseph Willibrord Veraart, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1944. He is an advocate practising in Alkmaar (Netherlands).   The applicant was legal advisor to the family of a woman who claimed to have been the victim of incest committed by the male members of her family. Her statements, the truth of which the applicant's clients deny, were said to be based on memories which she had repressed but which she had been able to recover with the aid of alternative psychotherapy.   In October 2003 the applicant was sanctioned by the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal for having criticised the alternative psychotherapist in question in a radio program.   The applicant complains about the disciplinary sanction. He relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression).     Grecu v. Romania (no. 75101/01) Neculai Grecu is a Romanian national who was born in 1926 and lives in Bucharest.   From 1980 to 1983 the applicant was employed as the deputy director of a Franco-Romanian company based in Paris; he had been appointed to this post by the Romanian Ministry for Industry. He carried out his duties in France and received his salary in French francs, which were paid into a French bank account. In 1983 the applicant was accused of failing to declare the foreign currency held in his French bank account within the legal time-limit following its transfer to Romania.   In July 1985 the prosecution service ordered that the foreign currency in question be confiscated, terminated the proceedings and ordered the applicant to pay an administrative fine.   The applicant submitted several complaints and lodged appeals in order to have the confiscated amounts returned to him; all were dismissed.   The applicant complains about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings to which he was a party. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).     Repetitive cases   Rotaru and Cristian v. Romania (no. 29683/02) Vladut v. Romania (no. 6350/02) In these two cases, all three of the applicants are Romanian nationals who live in Bucharest: Aristita Rotaru and Valeria Cristian were born in 1945 and 1943 respectively, and Olimpia Eugenia Vladut was born in 1914. Mrs Vladut died in 2004.   The applicants applied to the Romanian courts for the return of properties belonging to them which had been nationalised by the State. The Romanian courts found in their favour. As the State had in the meantime sold the properties to third parties, the applicants brought proceedings to have the relevant contracts of sale declared void. Their applications were dismissed. Mrs Vladut brought a second action to have the contracts overturned, which was successful; her heir took possession of the flat in question in 2004.   The applicants allege that the sale of their properties to third parties by the State, upheld by the Romanian courts, had, among other things, entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Kolyada v. Russia (no. 31276/02) Shitikov v. Russia (no. 10833/03) Ananyev v. Ukraine (no. 32374/02) Duma v. Ukraine (no. 39422/04) Goncharov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 43090/04, 43096/04, 43101/04 and 43106/04) Len v. Ukraine (no. 43065/04) Prokhorov v. Ukraine (no. 43138/04) V.S. v. Ukraine (no. 13400/02) The applicants in the first two cases are Russian nationals; the other applicants are Ukrainian nationals.   They complain, in particular, about the lengthy non-enforcement of judgments in their favour. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Seregina v. Russia (no. 12793/02) The applicant, Maya Timofeyevna Seregina, is a Russian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Kholmsk (Russia).   The applicant complains that a final and binding judgment declaring her to be the rightful owner in a property dispute was set aside by a higher court in supervisory review proceedings, following an application by a public prosecutor. She further complains about the length of the proceedings. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. With the exception of MZT Learnica A.D. Skopje v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” the applicants also complain that they had no effective remedy concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints.   Diakoumakos v. Greece (no. 28749/04) Sillaidis v. Greece (no. 28743/04) Gaischeg v. Slovenia (no. 32958/02) Korda v. Slovenia (no. 25195/02) Kračun v. Slovenia (no. 18831/02) Lesar v. Slovenia (no. 66824/01) Štavbe v. Slovenia (no. 20526/02) MZT Learnica A.D. Skopje v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no.   26124/02) Karnaushenko v. Ukraine (no. 23853/02) Krasnoshapka v. Ukraine (no. 23786/02)   ***   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.