CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 31 octobre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; 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   768 31.10.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN NOVEMBER   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following two hearings in November 2008 :   Wednesday 5 November 2008: 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Enea v. Italy (application no. 74912/01)   The applicant, Salvatore Enea, is an Italian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Italy. He is currently detained in Secondigliano Prison (Naples).   The applicant has been in detention since 23 December 1993. Several sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him, as a result of which he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. He is currently serving a 30-year prison sentence relating, in particular, to convictions for criminal association, drug trafficking and illegal possession of firearms.   Beginning in 1993, the applicant’s correspondence was monitored by the prison authorities. On 10 August 1994, in view of the danger posed by the applicant, the Minister of Justice issued a decree ordering that he be subject for one year to the special prison regime provided for by the second paragraph of section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act. That provision allows application of the ordinary prison regime to be suspended wholly or in part for reasons of public order and security. In particular, the decree imposed restrictions on the number of family visits (one monthly hour-long visit) and on the number of parcels to be received and prohibited meetings with third parties, use of the telephone and organisation of and participation in certain types of activities. The applicant’s correspondence was also to be monitored. Application of the special regime was extended until the end of 2005 by means of 19 decrees, each covering a limited period.   The applicant lodged several appeals with the Naples court responsible for the execution of sentences. On three occasions the court relaxed some of the restrictions, in particular those relating to the applicant’s contacts with his family. The applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law against the court’s decisions, arguing that the Court of Cassation would have dismissed any such appeal as devoid of purpose since the period of validity of the decrees concerned had expired. At the end of February 2005 the court allowed his appeal against decree no. 19 and ended application of the special regime.   On 1 March 2005 the prison authorities assigned the applicant to a high-supervision ( Elevato Indice di Vigilanza – E.I.V.) unit.   The applicant has a number of health problems which oblige him to use a wheelchair. Between June 2000 and February 2005 he served his sentence in the section of the medical wing of Naples Prison reserved for prisoners subject to the section 41 bis regime. He applied twice for a stay of execution of his sentence on health grounds, without success.   The applicant complains under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights of the imposition of the special prison regime over a long period and of his conditions of detention arising out of the E.I.V. regime. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, he complains of an infringement of his right to respect for his family life and correspondence. He also complains of the time taken by the courts to examine his appeals against the decrees of the Minister of Justice. Referring in particular to Article 13 of the Convention, he complains that he had no effective remedy against the decisions extending application of the special prison regime, and of the absence of a remedy by which to complain of his assignment to the E.I.V. unit. The applicant further complains, under Article   8, that there was no legal basis for his assignment to that unit. In addition, under Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), he complains that he was unable to manifest his religion.   On 1 July 2008 the Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.   Wednesday 19 November 2008: 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber [1]   Varnava and Others v. Turkey (nos. 16064/90 and 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90, 16073/90)   The applicants are or were 18 Cypriot nationals, nine of whom disappeared after being captured and detained during the Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974. The other applicants (three of whom have since died and been replaced by their heirs) are or were relatives of the men who disappeared.   The applicants are or were: Andreas and his wife Giorghoulla Varnava, who lived in Lymbia; Andreas and his father Loizos Loizides (now deceased), who lived in Nicosia; Philippos Constantinou and his father Demetris Peyiotis, who lived in Nicosia; Demetris Theocharides and his mother Elli Theocharidou (now deceased), who lived in Nicosia; Panicos and his mother Chrysoula Charalambous, who lived in Limassol; Eleftherios and his father Christos Thoma (now deceased), who lived in Strovolos; Savvas and his wife Androula Hadjipanteli, who lived in Nicosia; Savvas and his father Georghios Apostolides, who lived in Strovolos; and, Leontis and his wife Yianoulla Sarma, who lived in Limassol. The applicants were born, respectively, in: 1947, 1949, 1954, 1907, 1954, 1929, 1953, 1914, 1955, 1935, 1951, 1921, 1938, 1938, 1955, 1928, 1947 and 1949.   Witnesses have testified to seeing eight of the missing men in Turkish prisons in 1974; they have been considered missing ever since. A number of the applicant parents also claimed that they had identified their missing sons in photographs published in Greek newspapers showing Greek-Cypriot prisoners of war. The body of the ninth missing man, Savvas Hadjipanteli, was discovered in 2007.   The applicants made the following claims:   Varnava and Sarma In July and August 1974 Andreas Varnava and Leontis Sarma’s battalions was stationed in the vicinity of Mia Milia to man the Cypriot outposts. On the morning of 14 August 1974, Turkish military forces, supported by tanks and with air cover, launched an attack on the area. Cypriot forces retreated and the surrounding area was captured by the Turkish military forces.   Loizides In July 1974 Andreas Loizides was serving in a battalion which was moved to the Lapithos area to support Greek Cypriot forces there. The soldiers were split up into various groups and the applicant was in charge of one of those. On 5 August 1974 they were over-powered by Turkish forces and ordered to retreat. Since 6 August 1974 none of the members of his group have seen Mr Loizides.   Constantinos Mr Constantinos was posted with a section of his battalion to Lapithos. Following a full-scale attack from the Turkish Army on 6 August 1974, the group split up.   Theocharides At about 04.30 hours on 26 July 1974 Mr Theocharides’ company came under attack from a Turkish paratroops battalion, with 20 tanks, who broke through Greek Cypriot lines, infiltrating the right flank of the applicant’s company. When his company was regrouped, he was missing.   Charalambous On 24 July 1974 Mr Charalambous came under fire from Turkish soldiers while searching buses in the Koutsoventis Vounos area with two or three other soldiers. He was wounded in the right hand and on the left side of his ribs. After his wounds were cleaned and his gun loaded, he went back. He has not been seen again by his unit.   Thoma On the morning of 20 July 1974 Eleftherios Thoma was involved in trying to prevent Turkish military forces landing in the area of "Pikro Nero", Kyrenia. At around 12.00 hours on 21 July the Turkish military forces which had landed, supported by tanks and with air cover, attacked Cypriot forces defending the area. The applicant’s battalion was ordered to retreat. After the battalion had been regrouped the applicant was missing.   Hadjipanteli On 18 August 1974 Mr Hadjipanteli, a bank employee, was taken for questioning by Turkish soldiers. According to the applicants, representatives of the International Red Cross in Cyprus visited Pavlides Garage in the Turkish occupied sector of Nicosia and on 28 August 1974 recorded the names of 20 Greek Cypriots held there, including the applicant.   On 27 August 1974 a group of Turkish Cypriot civilians went to a bank where they emptied two safes and ordered a third to be opened, but they were told that the keys were with the applicant. Subsequently they returned with the keys for that safe, which the applicant always carried with him.   In 2007, in the context of the activity of the United Nations Committee of Missing Persons (CMP), human remains were exhumed from a mass grave near the Turkish Cypriot village of Galatia in the Karpas area. The remains of Mr Hadjipanteli were identified and several bullets were found in the grave. Mr Hadjipanteli’s medical certificate indicated a bullet wound to his skull, a bullet wound in his right arm and a wound on his right thigh.   The Turkish Government disputes that the applicants had been taken into captivity by the Turkish army during the military action in Cyprus in 1974. They consider that all the alleged "missing persons", except for Mr Hadjipanteli, were military personnel who died in action in July-August 1974. The Government notes that the International Red Cross had visited the Pavlides Garage, where Mr Hadjipanteli had allegedly been held, but his name does not appear in the list of Greek Cypriots held.   The Government of Cyprus submits that the nine men went missing in areas under the control of the Turkish forces.   The applicants rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 4 (prohibition of forced labour), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), 12 (right to marry), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   In a Chamber judgment of 10   January 2008, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of nine of the applicants, who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances; that there had been a continuing violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the remaining nine applicants, relatives of the nine men who disappeared; that there had been a continuing violation of Article 5 concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the nine men, concerning whom there was an arguable claim that they had been deprived of their liberty at the time of their disappearance; unanimously, that no violation of Article 5 had been established concerning the alleged detention of the nine men, and that it was not necessary to examine the complaints under Articles 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention.   On 7 July 2008, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Turkish Government’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 Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.