CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline }   815 30.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   3 and 5 November 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 21 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 3   November 2009 and nine on Thursday 5 November 2009.   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 3 November 2009   Suljagić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 27912/02) The applicant, Mustafa Suljagic, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1935 and lives in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The case concerns the shortcomings in the repayment scheme for foreign currency deposited before the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (such as: inadequate interest rates, long delays in payment, lack of compensation for non-pecuniary damage). Having attempted to withdraw his funds on several occasions to no avail, the applicant alleges that the domestic legislation on “old” foreign-currency savings failed to strike a “fair balance” between general and individual interests, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights. In December 2008 the Court decided to adjourn all similar cases (more than 1,000 such cases with more than 10,000 applicants are pending before the Court) pending the outcome of this case.   Nieminen v. Finland (no. 16385/07) Petroff v. Finland (no. 31021/06) The applicants are two Finnish nationals: Ari Nieminen who was born in 1957 and lives in Lahti (Finland); and, Pentti-Nikolai Petroff who was born in 1951 and lives in Helsinki. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, they complain of the excessive length of proceedings against them for, respectively, aggravated narcotics offences and an aggravated tax offence.   Neu v. Hungary (no. 45392/05) The applicant, Gábor Neu, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Isaszeg (Hungary). Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the excessive length of proceedings against him on the charge of trafficking in stolen goods.   Lautsi v. Italy (no. 30814/06) The applicant, Ms Soile Lautsi, is an Italian national who lives in Abano Terme (Italy). She alleges, on her own behalf and that of her children, that the display of a crucifix in the State school attended by her children (in 2001-2002) was contrary to her right to ensure their education and teaching in conformity with her religious and philosophical convictions, within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Display of the crucifix was also, she alleges, in violation of her and her children’s freedom of conviction and religion, protected by Article 9 of the Convention. Finally, she claims that they were subject to discrimination, contrary to Article 14 taken together with the above Articles.   Kachan v. Poland (no. 11300/03) The applicant, Witalij Kachan, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and is currently held in the Kherson prison (Ukraine). He was convicted for two robberies, essentially on the basis of witness statements made during the investigation period. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial), he complains of a breach of his defence rights during the criminal proceedings against him; in particular, he complains that the courts made it impossible for him to question the witnesses in question.   Piotr Osuch v. Poland (no. 30028/06) The applicant, Piotr Osuch, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Chełm (Poland). Relying in particular on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), he complains that the length of his detention on remand on suspicion of fraud as well as the bail requested from him was excessive.   Sierpiński v. Poland (no. 38016/07) The applicant, Wojciech Sierpiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Warszawa (Poland). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about an administrative decision with regard to the expropriation of his plot of land, and that he was deprived of a fair trial on account of the Supreme Court’s refusal to examine his cassation complaint.   Staszewska v. Poland (no. 10049/04) The applicant, Izabela Staszewska, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Szczecin (Poland). Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), she complains that she was ill-treated by the police when arrested on her way back from a party and on refusing to divulge her personal details.   Jenisová v. Slovakia (no. 58764/00) Salus v. Slovakia (no. 28697/03) Šefčíková v. Slovakia (no. 6284/02) The applicants are three Slovakian nationals: Jarmila Jenisová and Štefan Salus who were born in 1925 and 1952 respectively and live in Bratislava; and, Mária Šefčíková who was born in 1926 and lives in Prešov (Slovakia). Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), they complain of the compulsory letting of their land and scheduled or envisaged transfer to tenants. Ms   Jenisová also relies on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Davran v. Turkey (no. 18342/03) The applicant, Mr Ahmet Davran, was born in 1960 and lives in Ankara. On 30 May 1996 he was sentenced in absentia to imprisonment for abuse of office. Mr Davran, who was being held in Istanbul in the context of another set of proceedings, could not be traced in order to be notified of this decision. As a result, notification was served through publication in the Official Gazette and the judgment became final on 11 January 2002. Mr Davran was notified of the execution of the judgment on 16 April 2002, while he was still detained in Istanbul prison. He attempted to lodge an appeal on points of law, but was unsuccessful, since the statutory time-limit of fifteen days after publication of the judgment had expired. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Davran complains that he was not duly notified of the judgment and alleges that the dismissal of his appeal on points of law for failure to comply with the procedural time-limits infringed his right of access to a court.   Kabul and Others v. Turkey (no. 9362/04) The applicants are eight Turkish nationals who were born in 1975, 1956, 1964, 1979, 1963, 1953, 1981 and 1954 respectively. Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 et 4 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they complain about the length of time they were held in police custody and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge this, the fact that they did not have legal assistance, and searches of their homes in proceedings brought against them in the context of official operations against the PKK (“Workers’ Party of Kurdistan”, an illegal organisation).   Mehmet Ali Ayhan v. Turkey (no. 20406/05) The applicant, Mehmet Ali Ayhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and is currently held in Edirne Prison (Turkey). He was arrested and placed in police custody and then pre-trial detention in 1993, and in 2004 he was convicted of murder and armed robbery. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, alleges that the criminal courts took account of confessions extracted by violence while he was in police custody, when he had no legal assistance, and also of the lack of convincing reasons given to justify his conviction, and alleges that there was a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence.     Repetitive case   The following case raises an issue which has already been submitted to the Court.   Adam v. Romania (no. 45890/05) This case concerns the annulment by the domestic courts of an appeal lodged by the applicant because he had not paid stamp duty. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Lappalainen v. Finland (no. 22175/06) Schwartz v. Hungary (no. 25073/05) Schwartz and Others v. Hungary (no. 5766/05) Wolfgéher and Turula v. Hungary (no. 36739/05) Chrapková v. Slovakia (no. 21806/05)     Thursday 5 November 2009   Kolevi v. Bulgaria (no. 1108/02) The applicant, Nikolai Georgiev Kolev, now deceased, was a Bulgarian national who was born in 1949. A high-ranking prosecutor, Mr Kolev was in conflict with Mr F., the Chief Public Prosecutor of Bulgaria, and alleged that the latter had launched a campaign of repression against him. Mr Kolev was dismissed in January 2001 and in June 2001 was arrested and detained on drugs charges. In 2001 and 2002 Mr Kolev also publicly stated that he feared for his life, claiming that the Chief Public Prosecutor was planning to have him killed. Mr Kolev was shot dead in December 2002; his assassin has never been identified. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Kolev complained that his detention in June 2001 was unlawful and unjustified, claiming that the drugs had been planted on him and the criminal proceedings against him fabricated in order to silence him. Mr Kolev’s widow, daughter and son, who maintained the application after his death, further complain that the investigation into their husband and father’s murder was neither independent nor effective, in breach of Article 2 (right to life), as it was under the control of Mr F., the Chief Public Prosecutor.   Spas Todorov v. Bulgaria (no. 38299/05) The applicant, Spas Dimitrov Todorov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Belozem (Bulgaria). Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Todorov complains about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him for gang rape.   Just satisfaction Sampsonidis and Others v. Greece (no. 2834/05) The 354 applicants are all Greek nationals or trading companies with registered offices in Greece, who were owners of land that was partially expropriated to allow for widening of a road. By a judgment of 6 December 2007, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of an infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court and on the ground that the domestic courts had refused to award them special compensation for the non-expropriated parts of their land. As the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it.   Société anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece (no. 44769/07) The applicant, "Thaleia Karydi AXTE”, is a public company with its registered office on the island of Zakynthos (Greece). In 1996 a plot of land belonging to it, on part of which buildings had been constructed, was subject to compulsory sale by auction for the purposes of recovering a debt owed to a bank. The applicant company complains of the conditions in which the notice announcing the auction was served on its legal representative and of the fact that its application to have the auction set aside was dismissed as out of time. It claims that there was a violation of its right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), its right to an effective domestic remedy, protected by Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), and of its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Triantaris v. Greece (no. 44536/07) The applicant, Evdokimos Triantaris, is a Greek national who was born in 1963 and lives in Salonika (Greece). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains, in particular, about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him in 2001 for fraud and using fraudulent documents, which ended only in 2007.   Nunes Guerreiro v. Luxembourg (no. 33094/07) The applicant, Fernando Nunes Guerreiro, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1960 and lives in Grevenmacher (Luxembourg). His appeals against a refusal to grant him a disability pension were dismissed, most recently by a Court of Cassation judgment of 2007. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), he alleges that the Court of Cassation failed to respond to the arguments raised in his written pleadings before it, and claims that this was unfair and amounted to lack of access to a court.   Shabani v. Switzerland (no. 29044/06) The applicant, Ragip Shabani, is a national of Kosovo who was born in 1966 and is currently held in Bois-Mermet Prison in Lausanne (Switzerland). In October 2003 he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of taking part, with family members and third persons, in an international trafficking operation involving several hundred kilos of heroin and cocaine, with ramifications in Switzerland; he applied unsuccessfully for release on several occasions. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 (right to liberty and security), he complains about the length of his detention pending trial.   Stoleski and Siljanoska v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no.   17547/04) The applicants, Živko Stoleski and Cveta Siljanoska, are two Macedonian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1934, respectively, and live in Makedonski Brod (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complain about the unfairness and excessive length of proceedings concerning payment of an annual leave allowance.   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following case, the applicants complain in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Nachev v. Bulgaria (no. 15099/04)   ***   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.