CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGHEARINGS;ENG — 22 février 2010

.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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD147E87F { width:215.33pt; display:inline-block } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   147 22.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARINGS IN MARCH 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding the following two hearings in March   2010 :   Wednesday 3 March 2010 at 9.15 a.m.   Grand Chamber hearing on the admissibility and the merits   McFarlane v. Ireland (application no. 31333/06)     The applicant, Brendan McFarlane, is an Irish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Belfast. The case concerns the Irish’ authorities’ delay of more than fourteen years in initiating criminal proceedings against him for an offence allegedly committed in 1983.   In the beginning of 1998 the applicant was released on parole after serving a prison sentence in Northern Ireland for his involvement in a bombing in the 1970s for which the Irish Republican Army (“IRA”) was found to be responsible. A few days after his release, he was arrested and detained by the Irish police and subsequently charged with false imprisonment and the unlawful possession of firearms, offences he was alleged to have committed in 1983 when he had escaped from prison. The applicant was later released on bail.   The applicant brought judicial review proceedings with regard to his prosecution, claiming that the delay in instituting criminal proceedings against him had prejudiced his prospect of obtaining a fair trial and that the failure of the prosecuting authorities to maintain and have available for inspection certain items of evidence had limited his ability to fully contest the nature and strength of the evidence to be introduced at his trial. His claims regarding the delay in instituting proceedings were eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2006 finding that the decision when to prosecute clearly rested with the prosecuting authorities. With regard to the loss of evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court deciding on the applicant’s case would have to assess whether there was any unfairness for which the prosecution was responsible. A further application to prohibit the prosecution on grounds of delay was dismissed in January 2008. He was finally acquitted in June 2008.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 July 2006.   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights that the Irish authorities delayed initiating and proceeding with the criminal proceedings against him and under Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) that, as a result of the delay, key real evidence on which the prosecution relied was lost. Relying on Article 8 § 2 (right to respect for private and family life) he further complains that his arrest and detention amounted to a deliberate and disproportionate interference with his private and family life. He also alleges, relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that there was no effective remedy under Irish law for his grievances, in particular that concerning the length of the proceedings.     Thursday 4 March 2010 at 9 a.m.   Chamber hearing on the merits   OAO Neftyanaya kompaniya YUKOS v. Russia (no. 14902/04)   The case concerns the applicant company's complaint that it was targeted by the Russian authorities with tax and enforcement proceedings, which eventually led to its liquidation.     The applicant company, 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 valuable 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) of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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 (protection of property) to the Convention, 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 unlawfulness 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), Mr Piers Gardner, the applicant company’s representative, submitted a claim for damages amounting to over USD   98   billion.   ***   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). [1]   Press contacts Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) 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)   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.