CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 29 mai 2009

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   426 29.05.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN JUNE   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following three hearings in June 2009 :     Wednesday 3 June 2009: 9.15 a.m .   Grand Chamber   Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06) The applicants, Dervo Sejdić and Jakob Finci, are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were born in 1956 and 1943 respectively and live in Sarajevo. The former is of Roma origin and the latter is a Jew. They are both prominent public figures.   The applicants complain because, despite possessing experience comparable to the highest elected officials, they are prevented by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the corresponding provisions of the Election Act 2001, from being candidates for the Presidency and the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly solely on the ground of their ethnic origins. They invoke Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (right to free elections) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention (general prohibition of discrimination).   On 10 February 2009, the Chamber before which the case was pending decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber pursuant to Article 30 of the Convention. The Venice Commission, the AIRE Centre and the Open Society Justice Initiative have been authorized to intervene as third parties pursuant to Article 36 of the Convention.     Tuesday 9 June 2009: 9 a.m .   Chamber hearing on the merits and the admissibility   Caldare and 42 Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 8252/05) Catan and 27 Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 43370/04) Cervaschi and 98 Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 18454/06) The applicants,   all   Moldovan nationals, live in the Transnistrian region. Each application concerns a separate Moldovan-language school and is brought by a group of parents, children and teachers.   The applicants complain that they have been subjected to harassment because of their desire for the schools to continue providing an education in the Moldovan language, using the Latin script, and in accordance with the Moldovan curriculum. They rely on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the Convention.     Wednesday 17 June 2009: 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Guiso-Gallisay v. Italy (no. 58858/00) The applicants are three Italian nationals, Stefano Guiso-Gallisay, Gian Francesco Guiso-Gallisay and Antonella Guiso-Gallisay.   They were formerly the owners of land which was occupied by the administrative authorities with a view to its expropriation and on which those authorities commenced construction work. In the absence of any formal expropriation accompanied by compensation, the applicants brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupation of their land.   The applicants alleged that the occupation of their land had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   In a judgment of 8   December 2005, the Court held that the interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions through the indirect expropriation of their land was incompatible with the principle of legality and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. It also held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision.   In the judgment of 21 October 2008, the Court varied its case-law on application of Article   41 in the case of indirect expropriation. The method used hitherto was to compensate for losses that would not be covered by payment of a sum obtained by adding the market value of the property to the cost of not deriving earnings from the property, by automatically assessing those losses as the gross value of the works carried out by the State plus the value of the land in today’s prices. However, the Court considered that this method of compensation was not justified and could lead to unequal treatment between applicants, depending on the nature of the public works carried out by the public authorities, which was not necessarily linked to the potential of the land in its original state. In order to assess the loss sustained by the applicants, it therefore decided that the date on which they had established with legal certainty that they had lost the right of ownership over the property concerned should be taken into consideration. The total market value of the property fixed on that date by the national courts was then to be adjusted for inflation and increased by the amount of interest due on the date of the judgment’s adoption by the Court. The sum paid to applicants by the authorities of the country concerned was to be deducted from the resulting amount. In the present case, the sum awarded for pecuniary damage amounted to   1,803,374   euros   (EUR) for the three applicants jointly. The Court also awarded them EUR   45,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   30,000   for costs and expenses.   On 26 January the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicants’ request.     ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [1]   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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] These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court.