CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 juin 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 } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }   458 04.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   8 and 10 June 2010   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 24   Chamber judgments on Tuesday 8   June 2010 and 21 on Thursday 10 June 2010.   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 8 June 2010   Khaïndrava and Dzamashvili v. Georgia (application no. 18183/05) The applicants, Guivi Khaïndrava and his wife, Mari Dzamashvili, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1938 and 1959 respectively and live in Tbilissi. In 1997 Mr Khaïndrava was attacked in his home and kicked and hit in the head with the butt of a gun. The attack was found to have been organised by the father of two high-ranking local police officers, with whom the applicant had had a long-standing quarrel. In spite of his attempts to have an investigation opened into the attack – including organising a meeting between the public prosecutor and his attackers – the case was finally dropped altogether. Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant alleges that the authorities ignored his repeated requests for an investigation. The applicants also rely on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the prosecuting authorities’ inaction.   Medgyes and Rusz v. Hungary (no. 14308/07) The applicants, Gábor Hedgyes and János Rusz, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1949 and 1941 respectively and live in Budapest. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, they complain about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against them for fraud and forgery.   Górny v. Poland (no. 50399/07) The applicant, Kazimierz Górny, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Katowice (Poland). An advocate, Mr Górny was removed from the Bar Association in 2007 following proceedings (so-called “lustration proceedings”) brought against him which aimed at exposing persons who had worked for or collaborated with the State’s security services during the communist period. Relying on Article   6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial), he alleges that the lustration proceedings against him were unfair because, due to document confidentiality and limitations on access to his case file, he could not prove that the contacts he had had with the communist-era secret services had not amounted to “collaboration”. Gradek v. Poland (no. 39631/06) The applicant, Paweł Gradek, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Łódź (Poland). Arrested on suspicion of fraud in June 2006, Mr Gradek was ultimately released in May 2008; the proceedings against him are currently still pending. Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), he complains about the excessive length of his detention on remand and the fact that for a period of almost five months during his detention he was deprived of all personal contact with his family.   Kumenda v. Poland (no. 2369/09) The applicant, Stanisław Kumenda, is a Polish national who was born in 1939 and lives in Raciborz (Poland). Arrested in October 2007 on suspicion of domestic violence, Mr   Kumenda complains that he was held in an ordinary detention centre despite being mentally ill. He was ultimately transferred to a psychiatric hospital in June 2009. He further complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He relies in particular on Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security).   Wojciech Nowak v. Poland (no. 11118/06) The applicant, Wojciech Nowak, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Zawiercie (Poland). Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr   Nowak complains that the Polish authorities have failed to take effective steps to enforce his right of contact with his son, born in 1994, since separating with the child’s mother.   Just satisfaction Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo v. Portugal (no. 30844/05) The applicants are Francisco Gustavo de Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo, who was born in 1957 and lives in Oeiras (Portugal), and Pedro Miguel de Avellar Cordeiro Zagallo, who was born in 1949 and died in 2007. They alleged that they had been deprived of land belonging to them without receiving compensation. In a judgment of 13   January 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. This question will be decided in the judgment to be delivered by the Court on 8 June.   Andreescu v. Romania (no. 19452/02) The applicant, Gabriel Andreescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest. He is a well-known human rights activist in Romania, and a founding member of the Romanian Helsinki Committee. During the communist period he was placed under house arrest for criticising the regime and participating in peaceful protest actions. In 2001 he organised a press conference to voice his concern about the effectiveness of the remedy afforded by a 1999 law on citizens’ access to the personal files on them kept by the Securitate (the Romanian secret service). Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), he complains about his conviction for defamation in criminal and civil proceedings as a result of things he said at the press conference. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he complains that the appellate court found him guilty without hearing him, after he had been acquitted by the first-instance court.   Motion Pictures Guarantors Ltd v. Serbia (no. 28353/06) The applicant, Motion Pictures Guarantors Ltd, is a company based in Canada. In September 2005   the   civil suit which the applicant company had brought against one   of its former business partners before the Commercial Court   was terminated as allegedly neither party had   duly appeared before the court . The applicant company then sought procedural reinstatement, as their lawyer had in fact gone to the hearing but had arrived late due to his taxi having broken down. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complains that their request for procedural reinstatement was rejected without   having a public, adversarial   hearing before the competent court. Dolhamre v. Sweden (no. 67/04) The applicants are Endre Dolhamre, a Swedish national, his wife, Alma Dolhamre, who is of Lebanese origin, and their three children. They were born in 1952, 1954, 1988, 1991 and 1994 respectively and live in Götene (Sweden). In October 2001 the Swedish authorities’ took the three children into public care and restricted access to them, following the eldest daughter’s allegations that her father sexually abused and beat her and her sisters. The care orders were terminated in October 2003, the children having retracted their accusations and the situation at home no longer being considered deficient. The applicants rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life). They also allege that the social authorities prohibited the children from speaking their mother tongue, Assyrian, and refused contact with relatives and priests from the Assyrian church, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Alkes v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 16047/04) The applicant, Ali Ümit Alkes, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Switzerland. Relying in particular on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Mr Alkes complains about the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against him for membership of an illegal organisation and armed robbery, for which he was ultimately convicted in January 2003 to 16   years and eight months’ imprisonment. He notably alleges that, had he not appealed, he would have benefitted from an amnesty law under which he would have been conditionally released in June 2004.   Gül and Others v. Turkey (no. 4870/02) The applicants, Ercan Gül, Deniz Kahraman, Zehra Delikurt and Erkan Arslanbenzer, are four Turkish nationals who were born in 1966, 1977, 1979 and 1965 respectively. Relying on Article   10 (freedom of expression) and Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association), the applicants complain about the criminal proceedings brought against them for having shouted slogans in support of an armed illegal organisation during demonstrations held in 1997 and 1998. They also complain about being deprived of legal assistance during their police custody, in breach of Article   6   §   3   (c) (right to a fair trial).   Just satisfaction Karaman v. Turkey (no. 6489/03) The applicants, Mustafa Karaman and Nimet Karaman, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1939 and 1949 respectively and live in Istanbul. They complained that, after they had ceded a plot of their land to the authorities for public-interest purposes, only a part of their property had been put to such use. In a judgment of 15   January 2008, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. This question will be decided in the judgment to be delivered by the Court on 8 June.   Sapan v. Turkey (no. 44102/04) The applicant, Özcan Sapan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul. He is the owner of a publishing company which published a book in 2001 entitled “Tarkan – Anatomy of a Star”, partially reproducing a doctoral thesis. The first part analysed the appearance of the star phenomenon in Turkey and the second focused on Tarkan, a well-known pop singer. 31 portraits of the star, published in the press, and 3 magazine covers were included in the thesis. Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains about the seizure of the book and the decision ordering it, for which he alleges insufficient reasons were given. He also relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), complaining of a financial loss as a result of the seizure.   Wolf-Sorg v. Turkey (no. 6458/03) The applicant, Lieselotte Wolf-Sorg, is a Turkish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Escuintla (Guatemala). The case concerns the death of her daughter, Andrea Wolf, a German national, allegedly in 1998 during an armed clash between the army and members of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). Relying on Articles   2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant complains about the conditions in which her daughter died and the inadequate investigation carried out by the authorities, submitting, for example, that her daughter’s grave has not been identified. Under Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   5 (right to liberty and security), she complains of the physical and psychological suffering she has endured as a result of her daughter’s death, as well as the suffering inflicted on her daughter by the army before she was killed.     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Lopes Fernandes   v. Portugal (no. 29378/06) Lopes Fernandes v. Portugal (no. 29378/06) This case concerns the delay in calculating and paying the compensation awarded to the applicant. He relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Maties v. Romania (no. 13202/03) This case concerns the applicant’s inability to obtain effective compensation for land belonging to him that was illegally nationalised. He relies on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Büyükdere and Others v. Turkey (nos. 6162/04, 6297/04, 6304/04, 6305/04, 6149/04, 9724/04 and 9733/04) This case concerns the failure to provide the applicants with a copy of the opinion of State Counsel at the Supreme Administrative Court. They rely on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   Ato v. Turkey (no. 29873/02) Bildirici v. Turkey (no. 43227/04) Karacan v. Turkey (no. 14886/05) These cases concern the failure by the domestic authorities to enforce final judgments in favour of the applicants with regard to compensation. The applicants rely on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   Biçer v. Turkey (no. 21316/05) In this case the applicant complains that he was not given a copy of the written opinion submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court by the Principal Public Prosecutor. He relies on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain/ed in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Kozłowski v. Poland (no. 47611/07) Revision Wypukoł-Piętka v. Poland (no. 3441/02) Following the death of the applicant, the applicant’s daughter requests revision of the judgment of 20 October 2007.       Thursday 10 June 2010   Garayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 53688/08) The applicant, Shaig Garayev, is an Uzbek national who was born in 1981. He has been detained since April 2008 in a remand facility in Baku pending extradition to Uzbekistan on charges of the murder of six persons and the mutilation of their corpses. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he alleges that, if extradited, he would be at risk of being tortured by the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities. He notably submits that the Uzbek authorities have persecuted him and his family and subjected them to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment in the past. He also complains that his detention pending extradition is unlawful and that there has been no judicial review of his detention, in breach of Article   5   §§   1   (f) and   4 (right to liberty and security).   Filipov v. Bulgaria (no. 40495/04) The applicant, Dimitar Petrov Filipov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). Relying on Article   5   §   3 (right to liberty and security), Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention as well as of the criminal proceedings against him on charges of extortion. He was ultimately convicted as charged in January 2006 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.   Marinova v. Bulgaria (no. 29972/02) The applicant, Nedka Tzankova Marinova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Lovech (Bulgaria). Relying on Article 2 (right to life), she alleges that the authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the death of her daughter, whose body was found in a river in 2001. Mrs Marinova blames the death on her daughter’s former partner. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life), she submits that the man harassed and maltreated her and caused damage in her flat.   Sabeva v. Bulgaria (no. 44290/07) The applicant, Evgeniya Ivanova Sabeva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Stara Zagora (Bulgaria). The case concerns Ms Sabeva’s complaint about the unlawfulness of her confinement and the conditions of her detention in a psychiatric hospital. She relies in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article   5   §§   1, 4 and   5 (right to liberty and security).   Vasil Sashov Petrov v. Bulgaria (no. 63106/00) The applicant, Vasil Sashov Petrov, is a Bulgarian national of Roma/Gypsy origin who was born in 1980 and lives in Velingrad (Bulgaria). The case concerns an incident in which two police officers, believing that Mr Petrov was trying to steal some hens, gave chase when he tried to escape and fired shots at him to stop him. As a result of the shooting, Mr Petrov’s kidney and part of his liver had to be removed. Relying on Articles   2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), he complains that the life-threatening force used against him was unwarranted and that the ensuing investigation into the incident was ineffective. He also alleges that racist motives were behind the excessive force used against him and that the authorities failed to investigate that allegation, in breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article   2.   Peca v. Greece (No. 2) (no. 33067/08) The applicant, Kastriot Peca, is an Albanian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Arren (Albania). Criminal proceedings were brought against him in 2004, leading to his conviction for drug trafficking, criminal association and illegal possession of weapons. Relying in substance on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), he complains about the dismissal of his appeal to the Court of Cassation. He had lodged his appeal without the assistance of counsel, as he was entitled to do under Greek law, and had subsequently asked the President of the Court of Cassation to have counsel appointed to represent him before that court. His request for legal assistance was rejected, however, on the grounds that his appeal mentioned none of the grounds listed exhaustively in the Code of Criminal Procedure, although the applicant maintains that he did mention one such ground, namely the lack of reasoning for the impugned judgment. He was not notified that his request had been rejected until the very morning of the hearing before the Court of Cassation, making it inevitable that his appeal would be declared inadmissible for failure to appear, given that under Greek law the parties must be represented by counsel in hearings before that court.   Tritsis v. Greece (no. 3127/08) The applicant, Fotios Tritsis, is a Greek national who lives in Athens. He owns some land on the island of Kefalonia, where he built a holiday home. In 2000 changes were made to the land-use plan and planning conditions for an area that included his land. He challenged the changes before the administrative courts, together with two other people. Relying on Article   6 § 1 (right of access to a court), he complains about the rejection of his appeal on the grounds that his interests were not the same as those of the other complainants. Under the same Article (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), he also complains about the length of the proceedings.   Ilyasova v. Russia (no. 26966/06) Vakayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 2220/05) The applicants in the first case are the mother of Magomed-Salekh and Magomed-Ali Ilyasov, born in 1979 and 1981, from the village of Katyr-Yurt (Chechnya); and, in the second case the relatives of six men from the village of Duba-Yurt (Chechnya), Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev, Shamkhan Vakayev and Shamsudi Vakayev, born in 1976, 1969, 1979, 1976, 1975 and 1949, respectively. Both cases concern the applicants’ allegations that their close relatives were abducted and killed by Russian servicemen following unacknowledged security operations in their respective villages. In both cases, the applicants further complain that the domestic authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation into their allegations. They rely in particular on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia (no. 302/02) The applicants are the religious community of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and four Russian nationals who are members of the community and live in Moscow. The case concerns the dissolution and banning of the applicant community as well as the refusal of its re-registration; the applicants notably allege that they were discriminated against on account of their position as a religious minority in Russia. They rely on Articles   9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination). Further relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant community also complains about the excessive length of the dissolution proceedings.   Mukhutdinov v. Russia (no. 13173/02) The applicant, Albert Mukhutdinov, is a Russian national who was born in 1969 and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence in the Republic of Mordoviya (Russia) for, among other offences, murder and illegal use of firearms. Relying on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complains about the deplorable conditions of his pre-trial detention in various facilities from September 1998 to January 2002. He further complains under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about his inability to take part in the supervisory-review hearing in his criminal case as well as the courts’ refusal to secure his participation in the civil case brought by the victims of the murder charge against him.   Petr Ponomarev v. Russia (no. 35411/05) The applicant, Petr Ponomarev, is a Russian national who was born in 1980 and lives in St   Petersburg (Russia). Relying in particular on Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security), Mr   Ponomarev complains about having been detained unlawfully in 2004 during the criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of financial wrongdoings.   Sharkunov and Mezentsev v. Russia (no. 75330/01) The applicants, Vyacheslav Sharkunov and Aleksey Mezentsev, are Russian nationals who were born in 1969 and 1971 respectively and are currently serving prison sentences for murder in the Kurgan Region (Russia). Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   6 (right to a fair trial), both applicants complain of having been ill-treated while in police custody, in May and December 1999 respectively, in order to extract their confessions to murdering two persons, and about the criminal proceedings against them having been unfair.   Shenoyev v. Russia (no. 2563/06) The applicant, Anton Shenoyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region (Russia). Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), Mr Shenoyev complains about the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention before and during trial in criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of unlawful possession of firearms and two robberies of local post offices, and about those criminal proceedings having lasted for too long.   Sherstobitov v. Russia (no. 16266/03) The applicant, Valeriy Sherstobitov, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Krasnoyarsk (Russia). Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Sherstobitov complains about having been tortured in police custody in January 2002 on suspicion of sexually assaulting a nine-year old boy. He also complains about having been detained unlawfully and for too long pending trial as well as about the criminal proceedings against him having lasted for too long, in breach of Article   5   §§   1 and   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   Zakharkin v. Russia (no. 1555/04) The applicant, Valeriy Zakharkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Perm Region (Russia). Mr   Zakharkin complains, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), about the appalling conditions during his police custody and at two remand centres where he was detained from October 1999 on suspicion of robbery and about the inadequate medical assistance given to him there; and, under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. Relying further on Article   34 (right to individual petition), he complains that the authorities prevented him from meeting with his lawyer so that he could not prepare his application to the Court.   Borer v. Switzerland (no. 22493/06) The applicant, Marcel Borer, is a Swiss national who was born in 1970. In 1997 he was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment for murder and theft, and required to undergo psychotherapy. Upon completion of his sentence, on 6 January 2006, he was kept in detention on account of the high risk of his reoffending. Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), the applicant submits that there was no legal basis for keeping him in detention once he had served his sentence.   Schwizgebel v. Switzerland (no. 25762/07) The applicant, Ariane Schwizgebel, is a Swiss national who was born in 1957 and lives in Geneva. Relying in substance on Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mrs Schwizgebel, an unmarried woman who was 47 and a half years old at the time she applied to foster a child with a view to adopting it, complains that the Swiss authorities prevented her from adopting because of her age. She claims that she was discriminated against in comparison with other women of her age, who can have children of their own nowadays.   Demerdžieva and Others v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no.   19315/06) The application was lodged with the Court by three Macedonian nationals, Nataša Demerdžieva, Aleksandar Šuklev and Živko Demerdžiev (now deceased), who were born in 1979, 1986 and 1941 respectively and live/d in Skopje. The applicants were sentenced in November 2004 to different terms of imprisonment for drug trafficking. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), they complain that the criminal proceedings against them were unfair since the courts convicted them solely on the basis of evidence obtained by someone whom the police had used to set them up, the courts having examined neither that person nor the police officers present at the scene. They also complain that the courts’ decisions were not reasoned and that the Supreme Court wrongly rejected their appeal.   Spasovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 45150/05) The applicant, Tomislav Spasovski, is a Macedonian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Skopje. He was seriously injured in an explosion caused by a bomb placed in a house after the 2001 armed conflict in the country. Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that the proceedings he brought against the municipality of Aracinovo and the State for compensation for that incident were unfair and, in particular, that contradictory rulings issued by the domestic courts denied him access to a court.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. She also relies on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   Kotseva-Dencheva v. Bulgaria (no. 12499/05)     ***   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   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.