CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 septembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     [No.]   21.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING JUDGMENTS   28 and 30 October 2003     The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 13 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 28 October 2003 and nine on 30 October 2003.   Press releases and the texts of the judgments will be available at 2.30 p.m. [Note2] (local time) on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Tuesday 28 October   Baars v. the Netherlands (application no. 44320/98) The applicant, Jacobus Johannes Marie Baars, is a Netherlands national, born in 1928 and living in Maaseik, Belgium.   On 15 February Mr Baars was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of forgery and being an accessory to bribery of a public official, Mr B. The applicant was released from police custody on 19 February 1993 and, on 7 June 1995, informed that the case against him had been closed. He appeared as a witness in the trial of Mr B.   Mr Baars claimed a total of 205,000 Netherlands guilders (NLG) for reimbursement of costs and expenses he incurred during the criminal proceedings against him and for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage for time spent in pre-trial detention. He was awarded NLG 114.60 for travel expenses and the remainder of his claim was rejected. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was rejected on the ground that he had been involved in forging a receipt which was, almong other things, the basis for the conviction of Mr B for participating in forgery.   He complains that the Court of Appeal’s decision contained a clear statement, based on findings resulting from the conviction of another person, that he was guilty. He relies on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Steur v. the Netherlands (no. 39657/98) The applicant, Peter Steur, is a Netherlands national, born in 1951 and living in Oegstgeest (the Netherlands). He is a lawyer. He alleged that a statement he made in his professional capacity, in the course of judicial proceedings, had led to a disciplinary complaint against him being upheld.   Mr Steur complains that the decision of the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal implied that, during trial proceedings, a lawyer was not allowed to conclude from facts known to him that unacceptable pressure had been exerted on his client. He relies on Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).   Rakevich v. Russia (no. 58973/00) The applicant, Tamara Nikolayevna Rakevich, is a Russian national, born in 1961 and living in Yekaterinburg (Russia). Following her unusual behaviour, the applicant was taken to a psychiatric hospital. The doctor on duty considered that she was suffering from a serious mental disorder. The next day the hospital applied to a court for approval of the applicant’s confinement. Two days later a medical commission diagnosed the applicant as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and confirmed that she should be kept in hospital.   The applicant alleged that her detention in the psychiatric hospital was in breach of Article   5   § 1 (e) (right to liberty and security).   González Doria Durán de Quiroga v. Spain (no. 59072/00) The applicant Fernando Gonzáles Doria Durán de Quiroga, is a Spanish national, born in 1938 and living in Almendralejo (Badajoz).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the length of criminal proceedings.   Lopez Sole y Martin de Vargas v. Spain (no. 61133/00) The applicant, Francisco Lopez Sole y Martin de Vargas, is a Spanish national, born in 1948 and living in Madrid. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complains of the length of criminal proceedings.   Stone Court Shipping Company, S.A. v. Spain (no. 55524/00) The applicant, Stone Court Shipping Company, S.A., is a company based in Madrid, which complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Minjat v. Switzerland (no. 38223/97) The applicant, Pol Laurent Minjat, is a Swiss national. He complains under Article 5 § 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) that his detention from 4 to 29 July 1997 was not lawful.   Kalın, Gezer and Ötebay v. Turkey (nos. 24849/94, 24850/94 and 24941/94) The applicants, Talip Kalın, Ali Gezer and Ekrem Ötebay, are Turkish nationals, born in 1967, 1973 and 1973 and living in Ağrı, Kahramanmaraş and Muş respectively. In February 1994 they were taken into police custody on suspicion of being members of the PKK. They were interrogated by police officers and made confessions, allegedly under duress.   They complain under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) that they were subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. The also complain under Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the excessive length of their detention.   Karatay v. Turkey (no. 36596/97) The applicant, Mehmet Emin Karatay, is a Turkish national, born in 1963 and living in Izmir at the time of the events. On 9 July 1996 he was arrested and held in custody. On 2 August he was accused of belonging to the PKK.   The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the excessive length of his detention. Köroğlu v. Turkey (no. 39446/98) Kovankaya v. Turkey (no. 39447/98) The applicants, Dilek Köroğlu and Nuran Kovankaya, are both Turkish nationals, born in 1976, who were living in Istanbul at the time of the events. They were arrested and held in custody on suspicion of being involved with illegal organisations. They claim the statements they made were signed under pressure, while they were blindfolded.   They rely on Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) and Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court).   Oğras and Others v. Turkey (no. 39978/98) The applicants, Sabri Oğras, Necat Oğras, Nihat Oğras and Sultan Oğras, are Turkish nationals. They are the parents and brothers of Serdar Oğras.   The applicants complain about the circumstances of Serdar Oğras’ death and the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations into his death, relying on Article 2 (right to life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). They also complain about injuries inflicted on Serdar Oğras and Sabri Oğras and the treatment of other members of the family while in police detention and their distress in relation to Serdar Oğras’s extra-judicial execution, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment) and Articles 13 and 14.   They also rely on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial) and Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case the applicant complains of the excessive length of civil proceedings. No press release will be issued in respect of this case.   Krzysztof Pieniążek v. Poland (no. 57465/00)     Thursday 30 October   Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l. v. Italy (no. 31524/96)                      Article 41 (just satisfaction) The applicant, Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l., is a limited company. It was formed in 1983 and owned the Belvedere Hotel in Monte Argentario and a strip of land giving patrons of the hotel direct access to the sea.   The company was unlawfully deprived of land by local authorities because of a judge-made rule, the “constructive-expropriation rule”, which precluded restitution if works commenced in the public interest had been completed. The company alleged a violation of its right to property, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   On 30 May 2000, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. and reserved the question of just satisfaction. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the applicant seeks the return, in its original state, of the property in question as well as at least 80   000   000 Italian lire for pecuniary damage and ITL 30,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage, as well as cost and expenses   Ganci v. Italy (no. 41576/98) The applicant, Domenico Ganci, is an Italian national, born in 1958 and detained at Spolète Prison. He was placed in temporary detention for having, among other things, taken part in the murder of Judge Falcone and his escort. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Assize Court of Caltanissetta. He was later sentenced to life imprisonment for other charges, by the Assize Court of Palerme.   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in relation to the special detention regime imposed on him and delays in the criminal proceedings against him.   Cavicchi and Reggeri v. Italy (no. 56717/00) Cianfanelli Banci v. Italy (no. 60663/00) Cucinotta v. Italy (no. 63938/00) Piovano v. Italy (no. 65652/01) Rispoli v. Italy (no. 55388/00)   The applicants in the above five Italian cases complain about their prolonged inability – through lack of police assistance or that of a bailiff – to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Goral v. Poland (no. 38654/97) The applicant, Jerzy Goral, is a Polish national, born in1944 and living in Lublin, Poland. He was taken into custody in 1996 and charged with hiding a stolen car and possession of a counterfeit banknote. Concerning his detention, the District Prosecutor considered that there was a danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses and that the acts allegedly committed by the applicant posed a significant danger to society.   The applicant complains that his detention after November 1996 was unlawful under Article   5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security), and of the length of the criminal proceedings (Article 6 § 1). He also complains under Article 8 in that his correspondence was monitored (right to respect for correspondence).   Alfatlı and Others v. Turkey (no. 32984/96) The applicants, Ali Alfatlı,   Haşim   Aydıncak, Nusrat Safa Akyürek, Ahmet Asena, Mahmut   Memduh Uyan, İbrahim   Levent Saçılanateş, Mehmet Kaplandur, Nevzat Cömert, Özgür Şahin, Bülent Forta, Hüseyin Cihan, Hasan Yorulmaz, Ahmet Kirami Kılınç, Mehmet   Engin Höke, Mustafa   Aslan and Sedat Göçmen, are Turkish nationals. Between 1980 and 1985 the applicants were arrested and placed in police custody. They were accused of membership of an illegal organisation. The Ankara Martial Law Court ordered the applicants’ detention on remand.   The applicants complain that the criminal proceedings brought against them were not determined within a reasonable time as required by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).     ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.     [Note1]   Press release for announcing judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: [case name +] [day +] month[s] + year + language [+ case names] (e.g. January 2003E (Bloggs, Durand + Dupont) or 12-14 February 2003E (Frugal + Fromm) or Reina 31012003E ), (2) Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4) Subject: AJ . When you have completed your document, run “CleanUpMyDocumentToBePublished” macro to remove all comments. [Note2]   Confirm with Emma Hellyer.