CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 28 mars 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   222 28.3.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN APRIL   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following four hearings in April 2008 :   Wednesday 2 April 2008: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber [1]   Šilih v. Slovenia (application no. 71463/01)   The applicants, Franja and Ivan Šilih, are Slovenian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1940 respectively and live in Slovenj Gradec (Slovenia).   On 3   May   1993, the applicants’ son, Gregor Šilih, aged 20, went to Slovenj Gradec General Hospital complaining of nausea and itching skin.   On the basis of a diagnosis of urticaria (a type of allergic reaction), M.E. ordered the administration of intravenous injections of a drug containing glucocorticosteroid (Dexamethason) and an antihistaminic (Synopen). Following the injections, Gregor Šilih's condition significantly deteriorated, probably indicating that he was allergic to one or both of the drugs. A diagnosis of anaphylactic shock was made.   He was transferred to intensive care, where he stopped breathing. He was given cardiopulmonary resuscitation and then connected to a respirator. His blood pressure and pulse returned to normal, but he remained in a coma with severe brain damage. He was transferred to Ljubljana Clinical Centre, where he died on 19   May   1993.   On 13 May 1993 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against M.E. for medical negligence, which was dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. On 1 August 1994 they lodged a request for the opening of a criminal investigation against M.E, which was ultimately unsuccessful.   In July 1995 the applicants also brought civil proceedings against Slovenj Gradec General Hospital and M.E..   The applicants obtained a medical opinion that myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), considered to be a contributory factor in Gregor Šilih’s death, could have occurred when he was in anaphylactic shock or even later. As a result, on 30 November 1995, they lodged a request to reopen the criminal investigation. Their request was granted and, in the course of the investigation, a forensic expert stated that the administration of antihistaminic had led to Gregor Šilih’s allergic reaction. He expressed doubts as to the pre-existence of myocarditis.   On 28 February 1997 the applicants lodged an indictment against M.E. for the criminal offence of “causing death by negligence” but were directed to request additional investigative measures. Several witnesses were examined and a forensic expert concluded that the reason for Gregor Šilih’s death was uncertain. The investigation was closed on 3 May 2000.   In August 2000 the applicants complained to the Judicial Council about the length of the criminal proceedings and requested that certain judges involved in the case stand down. Their request was rejected.   The criminal proceedings were discontinued on 18   October   2000 on the ground of insufficient evidence. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully. The applicants also lodged an unsuccessful constitutional appeal and a criminal complaint.   On 25   August   2006 the applicants’ civil claim was rejected, more than 11 years after the proceedings were instituted. The case is currently pending on appeal.   The applicants maintain that their son died as a result of medical negligence and complain about the inefficiency of the Slovenian judicial system in establishing liability for his death. They further allege that the legal proceedings were excessively lengthy and that the criminal proceedings were unfair. They rely, in particular, on Articles 2 (right to life), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In its Chamber judgment of 28 June 2007 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 concerning the lack of effective legal proceedings to establish the cause of and responsibility for the death of the applicants’ son in hospital.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request.   Tuesday 22 April 2008: 9 a.m.   Chamber hearing on the merits and admissibility   Turgut and Others v. Turkey (no. 1411/03) and Köktepe v. Turkey (no. 35785/03)   Turgut and Others v. Turkey The applicants, Nihal Ayser Turgut, Tevfik Güneş, Turgay Güneş, Saffet Güneş, Nermin Solmaz Güneş, Ayşe Ayata and Hurşit Güneş, are Turkish nationals who live in Istanbul and Ankara.   The case concerns a piece of land of over 100,000 square metres in the village of Kefken, in Kandıra (Turkey), to which the applicants claim to have had title for at least three generations.   In January 1962 the Ministry of Forestry and the Treasury brought proceedings before the Kandıra Cadastral Court to have the title to the property in question annulled. In a judgment of 29 June 1972 the court found that the land was part of the State forest and that there could be no property title to it.   In July 1974, following an amendment of Turkish legislation on the delimitation of forests, the case was referred back to the court for new expert opinions concerning the disputed land. In November 1977, based on expert reports it had commissioned, the court ordered the land to be registered in the land register under the applicants’ names.   On 28 March 1978 the Court of Cassation, considering the expert reports insufficient, remitted the case to the court. New expert reports concluded that the land was located within the perimeter of the State forest.   In a judgment of 8 May 2001 the court ruled that the land was part of the State forest and ordered its registration in the land register as property belonging to the Treasury. That judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 18 November 2001. In April 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed a revision request lodged by the applicants.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants complain that the Turkish courts’ decision to register the Treasury as the owner of a piece of land which was rightfully theirs, without any compensation being paid to them, constitutes a disproportionate interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They argue, among other things, that 50-odd private housing units and a military holiday camp for officers in the armed forces were built on the disputed land from the 1970s to 1995.   Köktepe v. Turkey The applicant, Halil İbrahim Köktepe, is a Turkish national who lives in Çanakkale (Turkey).   In 1953 the Treasury sold a plot of land in Çanakkale to a private individual. In 1990 the Forestry Commission set about officially delimiting the State forests, as a result of which part of the plot of land concerned was found to be located within State forest limits. On 26 July 1993 the applicant acquired the land concerned and was issued with an ownership title by the General Directorate of Land Registration.   On 17 July 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Çanakkale Regional Court against the decision delimiting the State forests.   An expert report dated April 1998 found that the disputed land did not fall within the State forests. In June 2000, however, a new report prepared by another group of experts found, like the delimitation committee, that part of the disputed land fell within State forest boundaries.   In a judgment of 16 November 2000 the Regional Court, in the light of the findings of the second report, dismissed the applicant’s request. A subsequent appeal on points of law and a request for revision of the judgment lodged by the applicant were dismissed.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Köktepe complains of the unfairness, the partiality and the inadequacy of the Turkish courts, which he alleged delivered their judgments based on incomplete evidence. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he also complains that his property was expropriated without any compensation.   Thursday 24 April 2008: 9 a.m.   Chamber hearing on the merits   TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti v. Norway (no. 21132/05)   The applicants are TV Vest AS Ltd. – a television company in Stavanger, Rogaland, on the west coast of Norway – and the regional branch of a Norwegian political party, the Rogaland Pensioners Party ( Rogaland Pensjonistparti ).   The case concerns a fine imposed on TV Vest for showing adverts for the Pensioners Party without authorisation prior to the local and regional elections of 2003.   On 12 August 2003 TV Vest notified the State Media Administration ( Statens medieforvaltning ) of its intention to air three, 15-second adverts seven times a day over an eight-day period for the Pensioners Party.   The broadcasts were shown between 14 August and 13   September 2003 at a cost of 30,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK) (approximately 3,730 euros (EUR)) to the party.   On 27 August 2003 the Media Administration warned TV Vest that they could be fined for breaching the prohibition on political advertising on television, imposed under section 10-3 of the Broadcasting Act 1992 and section 10-2 of the Broadcasting Regulation. TV Vest nevertheless continued with the broadcasts, arguing that it was a question of freedom of expression and that the Pensioners Party would otherwise be denied fair media exposure.   On 10 September 2003 the Media Administration fined TV Vest NOK 35,000 (approximately EUR 4,351) for breaching the prohibition on political advertising. TV Vest appealed against the decision to Oslo City Court, submitting that the relevant provisions were incompatible with the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Its appeal was rejected.   TV Vest then appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court ( Høyesterett ) which found, among other things, that allowing political parties and interest groups to advertise on television would give richer parties and groups more scope for marketing their opinions than their poorer counterparts. The court also maintained that the Pensioners Party had many other means available to put across its message to the public.   The applicants complain about the fine imposed on TV Vest, relying on Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).   Wednesday 30 April 2008: 9 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Léger v. France (no. 19324/02)   Lucien Léger is a 71-year-old French national who lives in Laon (France).   In July 1964 he was arrested and charged with the abduction and murder of Luc Taron, an 11-year-old boy. He made a confession while in police custody but retracted it several months later. He has protested his innocence ever since.   In a judgment of 7 May 1966, Seine-et-Oise Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He made unsuccessful applications in 1971 and 1974 for a retrial.   He became eligible for parole on 5 July 1979 after 15 years in prison. Between 1985 and 1998 Mr Léger made numerous applications for release, all of which were refused. In addition, he made several unsuccessful applications for a presidential pardon.   In 1999 he again requested his release on licence. Despite a favourable opinion by the Sentence Enforcement Board, his request was turned down by the Minister of Justice.   In January 2001 the applicant made a further application for release. He submitted that friends had offered to accommodate him on his release in an outbuilding at their home and to give him work in their bakery. The Sentence Enforcement Board issued a unanimous opinion in favour of his release on licence and the applicant’s probation and rehabilitation officer also strongly recommended that he be released.   Despite that, Douai Regional Parole Court rejected the request on 6 July 2001 on the grounds that the applicant continued to deny that he had committed the offence of which he had been convicted, that the experts could not exclude the possibility that he was still dangerous and might re-offend and would not be able to do so unless he underwent a course of psychiatric treatment, and that, as the applicant had no intention of following such a programme, it was not clear that he was making “serious efforts to ensure his social rehabilitation”. That decision was upheld on appeal on 23 November 2001 by the National Parole Court on the grounds that the applicant’s planned rehabilitation had been put in doubt by the intervening bankruptcy of the person who had offered to put him up and give him work and that he was unwilling to seek counselling even though he presented paranoid tendencies.   In January 2005 the applicant again submitted a request for his release on licence, which the prison authorities supported but which was opposed by the public prosecutor, who pleaded in particular the risk that he might re-offend. The court responsible for the execution of sentence ruled that his conduct no longer stood in the way of his release and that the risk of his re-offending had dwindled almost to nothing. It accordingly granted him release on licence.   Consequently, Mr Léger was released on licence on 3 October 2005, after spending more than 41 years in prison.   The applicant complains that his continued detention had become arbitrary, particularly after the refusal of his 2001 application for release on licence. He also submits that in practice it was tantamount to a whole-life sentence and therefore constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. He relies on Article 5 § 1 (a) (right to liberty and security) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).   In its Chamber judgment of 11 April 2006, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (a) and no violation of Article 3.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.     ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [2]   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.