CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 23 décembre 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s59126B67 { width:7.84pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   990 23.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN JANUARY 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following three hearings in January 2010 :     Wednesday 6 January 2010 at 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber [1]   Sanoma Uitgevers B.V.   v. the Netherlands (application no. 38224/03)     The applicant, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V., is a limited liability company incorporated under Netherlands law which specialises in the publication and marketing of magazines and has its registered office in Hoofddorp (Netherlands). Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complained that it had been ordered to surrender a CD-ROM which was liable to reveal the identity of journalistic sources who, having been promised anonymity, had provided information about an illegal street car race organised in January 2002, at which photographs were taken by the applicant company.   In its judgment of 31 March 2009 the Chamber examining the application, noting that in principle the compulsory handover of journalistic material could have a chilling effect on the exercise of journalistic freedom of expression, found that there had been nothing to prevent the domestic authorities from balancing the competing interests. The Chamber held in particular that, while the information contained on the CD-ROM which the applicant company had been ordered to hand over to the authorities was such as to enable its journalistic sources to be identified, the information had been relevant to, and capable of identifying the perpetrators of, other crimes which were of a serious nature and were unrelated to the illegal street race; furthermore, the authorities had made use of the information only for that purpose. The Chamber held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 10.   On 14 September 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the applicant company.     Thursday 14 January 2010 at 9 a.m.   Chamber   OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS v. Russia (no. 14902/04)   The applicant, OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS, was a publicly-traded private open joint-stock company incorporated under the laws of Russia and registered in Nefteyugansk. It was established by the Russian Government in 1993 as a holding company to acquire and control a number of stand-alone entities specialised in oil production. The company was fully State-owned until the mid-1990s when, through a series of tenders and auctions, it was privatised.   Starting in late 2002, the company was the subject of a series of tax audits and tax proceedings as a result of which it was found guilty of repeated tax fraud, in particular for having used an illegal tax evasion scheme in 2000-2003. It was then ordered to pay additional taxes, default interest and penalties, which were later increased by the imposition of enforcement fees. The tax and enforcement proceedings resulted in the forced auction of OAO Yuganskneftegaz, the company’s most profitable subsidiary. The applicant company was declared insolvent on 4 August 2006 and liquidated on 12 November 2007.   The application was lodged with the Court on 23 April 2004 and was declared partly admissible on 29 January 2009.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complains of irregularities in the proceedings concerning its tax liability for the 2000 tax year. Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property), taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 1 (obligation to respect human rights), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights), it complains about the lawfulness and proportionality of the 2000-2003 tax assessments and their subsequent enforcement, including the forced sale of OAO Yuganskneftegaz. Lastly, relying on Article 7 (no punishment without law), it alleges that the proceedings for payment of the taxes due for the years 2000-2003 lacked a proper legal basis and resulted in selective and arbitrary prosecutions and in imposition of a double punishment. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the applicant company claims over USD 98   billion in damages.     Wednesday 20 January 2010 at 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber   Sakhnovskiy v. Russia (no. 21272/03)   The applicant, Sergey Sakhnovskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lived in Novosibirsk. In December 2001 he was found guilty of murdering his father and his uncle and was sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial), he alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, in particular because he had not been provided with adequate legal assistance at the hearing before the court of appeal and had been unable to conduct his defence effectively as he could only communicate with the courtroom by video link.   After communication of the application to the Russian Government, the Presidium of the Supreme Court, in a decision given on 4 July 2007 following supervisory review proceedings, quashed the appeal judgment on the ground that the applicant’s right to legal assistance had been breached. In the course of the new appeal proceedings the Supreme Court refused the applicant’s request to attend in person on the ground that his participation by video link was sufficient. A new defence lawyer was appointed by the court but was not introduced to his client until just before the hearing began. They were allowed fifteen minutes of confidential talks. The applicant objected to the appointment of the new lawyer, without success. The verdict and the sentence were upheld in substance by the Supreme Court.   Regarding the Russian Government’s argument that the applicant had lost his victim status, the Chamber, in its judgment of 5 February 2009, accepted that the quashing of the appeal judgment by the Presidium amounted to an acknowledgment that there had been a breach of Article 6. However, in the new appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court the applicant had not had effective representation either. Accordingly, he had not been afforded appropriate redress and could still claim to be the victim of a violation.   On 14 September 2009 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the 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 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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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.