CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 30 octobre 2007

.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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 729 30.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN NOVEMBER   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following three hearings in November 2007 :   Wednesday 14 November : 9 a.m .   Grand Chamber [1]   Kovačič and Others v. Slovenia (application nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99)   The applicants are three Croatian nationals: Ivo Kovačić (now deceased) was born in 1922 and lived in Zagreb; Marjan Mrkonjić was born in 1941 and lives in Zurich; and, Dolores Golubović (now deceased) was born in 1922 and lived in Karlovac (Croatia). Mr Kovačić’s and Ms Golubović’s applications have been taken up by their heirs.   The cases concern the freezing of the applicants’ savings, which they had deposited with the Zagreb office of a Slovenian bank, the Ljubljana Bank (Ljubljanska banka), prior to the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) in 1991.   Before 1991, the applicants or their relatives all deposited hard foreign currencies in savings accounts with the Ljubljana Bank’s Zagreb office (in Croatia), which was financially and economically independent of the Ljubljana Bank (a Slovenian bank). Funds in hard foreign currencies deposited with commercial banks in the SFRY were in general transferred to the National Bank of Yugoslavia in Belgrade. Accounts in hard foreign currency were guaranteed by the SFRY with account holders receiving interest at rates of up to 12%.   However, as an emergency response to the hyper-inflation suffered by the SFRY in the 1980s, withdrawal of hard foreign currency from so-called “old savings accounts” was progressively restricted by legislation and, in 1988, the Ljubljana Bank froze all its foreign-currency accounts. As a result the applicants or their relatives were generally unable to gain access to the money in their accounts.   Since Slovenia and Croatia became independent in 1991, Croatia has taken the view that either the Ljubljana Bank or the Slovenian State should meet the liabilities owed to customers of the Croatian branch. However, Slovenia considers that those liabilities should be divided under the succession arrangements among the five States formed from the dissolved SFRY. The total amount of savings in strong foreign currencies deposited with the Croatian branch of the Slovenian bank has been estimated at approximately 150,000,000 euros (EUR) with accrued interest, and 140,000 investors appear to be involved.   In 2003, after a change of legislation in Croatia, 42 individuals, including Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić, lodged requests for the seizure and sale of real estate owned by the Ljubljana Bank in Croatia. In the course of those proceedings, the Zagreb main branch’s assets were liquidated. As a result, Mr Kovačić was awarded 49,794.30 German marks (DEM) (equivalent to EUR   25,459.42) plus interest and Mr Mrkonjić was awarded 180,515.72   Croatian kunas (HRK) (equivalent to EUR   24,728). Both were awarded costs for the enforcement proceedings.   On 20 July 2005 Mr Kovačić and Mr Mrkonjić received payment of their foreign-currency deposits in full.   Ms Golubović did not bring proceedings in Croatia to recoup her foreign currency savings; she claimed that she had been advised by a bank official that, although the Croatian courts had jurisdiction, judgments were not being enforced due to lack of funds. On 29 May 2001 her savings amounted to: DEM   39,085.45 plus   14,092.89 US Dollars, 5,627.59 Swiss francs, 10,077.41 Austrian schillings and 193,495 Italian lire.   The applicants or their heirs complain that they were not able to withdraw their foreign currency savings from the Zagreb   main branch of the Ljubljana Bank. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (right to property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. They claim that the Ljubljana Bank or Slovenia, as a successor State which had assumed the SFRY’s guarantee obligations for foreign-currency savings on the break-up of Yugoslavia, should repay them the money deposited with accrued interest.   Mr Kovačić also complained that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of nationality, in that Slovenian account holders of the Zagreb branch were allowed to withdraw their savings. He relied on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   Wednesday 21 November: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber [2]   Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey (no. 10226/03)   Mehmet Yumak and Resul Sadak are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962 and 1959 respectively and live in Şırnak (Turkey). Mr Yumak is self-employed and Mr Sadak is Mayor of Idil.   The application concerns Turkish electoral law, according to which a party must obtain at least 10   % of the national vote in parliamentary elections in order to win seats in the National Assembly.   In the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002 the applicants stood as candidates for the political party DEHAP (Democratic People’s Party) in the province of Şırnak.   As a result of the ballot, DEHAP obtained approximately 45.95   % of the vote (47,449 votes) in Şırnak province, but did not secure 10   % of the vote nationally. The applicants were not elected, in accordance with section 33 of the Election of Members of Parliament Act (Law No.   2939), which states that “parties may not win seats unless they obtain, nationally, more than 10% of the votes validly cast”. Consequently, of the three parliamentary seats allotted to Şırnak province, two were filled by the AKP (Justice and Development Party), which obtained 14.05   % of the vote (14,460   votes), and the third by an independent candidate, Mr   Tatar, who obtained 9.69   % of the vote (9,914   votes).   Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), the applicants submit that setting a threshold of 10% of the vote in parliamentary elections interfered with the free expression of the opinion of the people in their choice of the legislature.   Tuesday 27 November: 9 a.m.   Chamber   Patriarcat Oecumenique (Fener Rum Patrikliği) v. Turkey (no. 14340/05)   The applicant, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, is a church based in Istanbul. It represents the Orthodox minority in Turkey today.   The case concerns a disputed property in respect of which the Turkish authorities annulled the applicant church’s ownership rights.   In January 1902 the Ecumenical Patriarchate acquired a property for approximately the equivalent of EUR   353,000; a 23,255   m² piece of land on the top of the main hill on the island of Büyükada (Istanbul), on which stood a main five-storey building and a secondary two-storey building. In 1903 a foundation of the Orthodox minority, the “Foundation of the Büyükada Greek Orphanage for Boys”, was given the use of the property. When the Foundations Act entered into force on 13 June 1935 the legal personality of the orphanage was officially recognised and the property concerned was mentioned in the declaration registered by it in 1936. In 1964, for safety reasons, the Turkish authorities ordered the orphanage to vacate the premises. The Ecumenical Patriarchate maintains that it took over the ownership and management of the property that same year.   On 22 January 1997 the Directorate General for Foundations issued a decision excluding the orphanage from the category of State-run foundations. The decision stated that, as the orphanage had ceased its charitable activities, its governing body had been dismissed and the Directorate General for Foundations had taken over its management. The orphanage appealed in April 1997 to have that decision set aside, but the administrative courts dismissed the appeal. Another appeal is still pending.   On 16 March 1999 the Directorate General for Foundations took proceedings to have the applicant church’s title annulled and the property reregistered in the name of the orphanage, which it has run since the decision of 22 January 1997. In December 2002 the relevant district court ordered the disputed property to be registered in the name of the orphanage, noting, among other things, that the applicant church had carried out no maintenance work on the property, which was a historical monument of international importance. The applicant church appealed against that judgment, which was set aside by the Court of Cassation in September 2003 for procedural irregularity. In February 2004, however, the district court again annulled the applicant church’s title to the property and ordered it to be registered in the name of the orphanage.   On 21 October 2004 the Court of Cassation finally upheld the impugned judgment and rejected the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s request for a hearing on the ground that the requisite fees had not been paid. It held that since the declaration registered by the orphanage in 1936, the property had belonged to the orphanage and no longer to the applicant. In a judgment of 7 February 2005 the Court of Cassation rejected the application to have the judgment rectified.   Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant alleges that, in ordering its property to be registered in the name of the orphanage, the Turkish courts violated its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. Also, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant alleges that it was not given a fair trial by the Turkish courts as they committed mistakes of domestic law.     ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [3]   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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. [1] A Chamber hearing was held on the admissibility and merits of the case on 9 October 2003. In its Chamber judgment of 6 November 2006, the Court unanimously decided to strike out the case on the grounds that two of the applicants had received payment in full of their foreign currency deposits and that it was still open to the third applicant to bring proceedings in Croatia. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request. [2] A Chamber hearing was held on the merits of the case on 5 September 2006. In its Chamber judgment of 30 January 2007, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention (right to free elections). The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request. [3] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.