CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 février 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } aEUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   063 6.2.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING JUDGMENTS   10 and 12 February 2004   The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six Chamber judgments on Tuesday 10 February 2004 and one on Thursday 12 February 2004.   The Court will also be holding a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on Thursday 12 February 2004 at 11 a.m. (local time) to deliver a Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Perez v. France (application no. 47287/99).   Press releases and the texts of the judgments will be available at 2.30 p.m. (local time) on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Tuesday 10 February 2004   Puhk v. Estonia (application no. 55103/00) The applicant, Rain Puhk, is an Estonian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Tartu. He was found guilty of various offences relating to the management of a company he owned and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years.   The applicant submits that he was convicted in respect of acts carried out before the entry into force of the law in which they became criminal offences. He complains under Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights of the retrospective application of the criminal law in question.   D.P. v. France (no. 53971/00) The applicant, D.P., is a French national who was born in 1951 and is currently being held at the Esses Villeneuve-sur-Lot Detention Centre.   In September 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, who was suspected of rape and aggravated sexual assault. In April 1998 the Gironde Assize Court convicted him, sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment and to temporary deprivation of his civic, civil and family rights. He lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation in June 1999.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complains of the composition of the Criminal Division and alleges that it was not impartial as certain of its members had previously examined his appeal against the order committing him for trial in the Assize Court.   Suciu v. Romania (no. 49009/99) The applicant, Elena Suciu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Târgu Mures. She complains that she was not awarded compensation for the cancellation of a contract for the sale of a building which she had signed with a State-owned company. She relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   Gennadiy Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 42023/98) The applicant, Gennadiy Vasilyevich Naumenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1964. He was sentenced to death in 1996 on two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder and one count of rape. The sentence was subsequently commuted to one of life imprisonment, which he is currently serving in Zhytomyr Prison.   The applicant submits that during his time in prison in the Kharkiv region from 1996 to 2001, he was subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment). He also maintains under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that he did not have a remedy in domestic law by which to complain of the treatment inflicted on him.   B.B. v. United Kingdom (no. 53760/00) The applicant, B.B., is a British national who was born in 1957 and lives in London. In January 1998 he contacted the police after being attacked by his male partner. He was subsequently arrested and prosecuted under the Sexual Offences Act for having had homosexual relations with a 16-year-old boy.   The applicant complains that he was discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation in that the law made it a criminal offence to engage in homosexual activities with men under 18 years of age whereas the statutory age of consent for heterosexual activities was 16. He also complains that he was discriminated against on the ground of age in that he was prosecuted whereas the 16-year-old boy was not. He relies on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private life).   Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicant complains of the excessive length of administrative proceedings. No press release will be issued in respect of this case.   Coudrier v. France (no. 51442/99)     Thursday 12 February 2004   Grand Chamber   Perez v. France (no. 47287/99) The applicant, Paule Perez, is a French national who was born in 1933 and lives in La Plaine des Cafres (Reunion, France). In June 1995 she lodged a complaint against her two children, alleging assault. An investigation was opened in respect of a person or persons unknown for assault with an offensive weapon resulting in total unfitness for work for more than eight days. During the investigation, the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.   In 1997 the investigating judge ruled that there was no case to answer on the ground that there was insufficient evidence. An appeal by the applicant against that ruling was declared inadmissible as being out of time. She lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation in April 1998.   The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation were unfair.   Chamber   Morel v. France (no. 43284/98) The applicant, Hubert Morel, is a French national who was born in 1947 and lives in Villeneuve-la-Garenne. He was found guilty of various offences relating to the setting up and running of several companies of which he was the manager and was sentenced to penalties including two years’ imprisonment, of which fourteen months were suspended. He appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation, which held that he had forfeited his right of appeal for failure to surrender to custody.   The applicant complains that his forfeiture of his right of appeal for failure to surrender to custody infringed his right to a court, namely the Court of Cassation, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention. He also submits that the obligation to surrender to custody under French legislation is contrary to Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Lastly, he alleges a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) in that he was unable to obtain the attendance of witnesses crucial to his defence.     ***   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.