|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pressemitteilung
 Der Kanzler des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte 06/01/06 Gerichtshof – Geplante Urteile am 10. und 12. Januar 2006 [en] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 3
Press release issued by the Registrar FORTHCOMING JUDGMENTS
The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 25 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 10 January 2006 and seven on Thursday 12 January 2006. Press releases and 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 January 2006 Gruais and Bousquet v. France (application no. 67881/01)
The applicants complain under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights of, among other things, procedural unfairness after their appeals to the Court of Cassation were dismissed for being out of time. Harazin v. Poland (no. 38227/02)
The applicants all rely on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, complaining either about the length of their pre-trial detention or that they were not brought promptly before a judge. Mr Jasiński also relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).
On 15 April 1997 the applicant company filed a claim concerning an unpaid invoice. It was ordered to pay a court fee for lodging its claim, which the company claimed was approximately twice the amount of its profits so far for the year in question. As the company did not pay the court fee, its claim was returned to it and had no legal effect. The applicant company complains that the excessive court fees required for lodging its claim resulted in the claim not being examined by the court, in violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court). ./.. Bişkin v. Turkey (no. 45403/99)
They allege that the first applicant’s son, who is also the second applicant’s brother, was the victim of an extrajudicial execution in January 1996 following his arrest by the police. They rely on Article 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 3 (right to liberty and had security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Bora and Others v. Turkey (no. 39081/97)
The applicants complain under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that they were unlawfully taken into police custody. Dürdane Aslan and Selvihan Aslan v. Turkey (no. 57908/00)
The applicants complain, under Article 2 (right to life), that the authorities should have revoked the police officer’s licence to carry a weapon as he was suffering from a mental illness. They further complain, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), of the length of the proceedings they had brought for compensation. Güler v. Turkey (no. 49391/99)
He alleges that he was ill-treated on his arrest and had no effective remedy in the Turkish courts. He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Halis Doğan and Others v. Turkey (no. 50693/99)
At the material time they worked for the Turkish daily newspaper Özgür Bakış. They complain that a ban imposed by the governor on the distribution of the newspaper constituted unjustified interference with their right to impart information or ideas. They rely in particular on Articles 10 (freedom of expression), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 7 (no punishment without law). İmret v. Turkey (no. 42572/98)
The applicant complains, under Article 5 (right to liberty and security), that his detention was unlawful. He also complains, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), of the length and unfairness of the criminal proceedings that were brought against him.
He complains – under Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) –that his parents were the victims of an extrajudicial execution in November 1995 after their arrest by police. Refik Karakoç v. Turkey (no. 53919/00)
The applicant submits that his criminal conviction infringed his right to freedom of thought, expression and association. He relies on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Selçuk v. Turkey (no. 21768/02)
The applicant, a minor (aged 16) at the relevant time, was arrested on 27 December 2001 and charged with robbery. He was held in pre-trial detention for almost four months before being released. His trial is still pending. The applicant complains about the length of his detention on remand, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 67137/01)
On 17 May 1997 she and her husband were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of being members of an illegal organisation, the Turkish Communist Party/Marxist-Leninist. She claims that she was beaten by police officers, who molested and sexually harassed her and threatened her with rape and murder if she failed to co-operate. She complains about the treatment to which she was subjected while in police custody, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment) and also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Repetitive cases Acar and Others v. Turkey (no. 53796/00)
In these three cases, the applicants complain, in particular under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), of delays in the payment of compensation that was awarded to them for expropriated property. In the case of Kaba and Güven v. Turkey, the applicants also complain of the length of the proceedings, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Budak and Others v. Turkey (no. 57345/00)
They were arrested between February and April 1998 and remanded in custody, accused of membership of or aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. All four were convicted as charged by İzmir State Security Court and sentenced to between five years imprisonment and, in the case of Mr Budak, life imprisonment. The applicants complain that they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the court which tried and convicted them. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). Dunda v. Ukraine (no. 23778/03)
Length-of-proceedings case In the following case the applicant complains of the excessive length of civil proceedings. Ezel Tosun v. Turkey (no. 33379/02) Thursday 12 January 2006 Kehaya and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 47797/99 and 68698/01)
On 29 June 1995 the applicants were given title to part of the plots of land claimed. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court and, in 1997, the applicants took possession of that land. Following proceedings brought by the local forestry authority, however, the Bulgarian courts found that the applicants were not legally entitled to the land and ordered them to vacate it. Certain applicants were also fined for unlawful use of the land. On 24 May 2000 they reported to the police that their village had been set on fire. The applicants complain that final legal decisions in their favour were disregarded by the Bulgarian courts and that they were consequently deprived of their property. They also complain that a campaign was launched against them and that they were fined for using their own property. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Mihailova v. Bulgaria (no. 35978/02)
She married in June 1994 and gave birth to a girl in November 1995. The couple separated in July 2000 and the applicant moved into her sister’s apartment and her husband returned to his parents’ house with their daughter. The applicant spent short periods of time with her daughter. The couple divorced on 18 April 2001 and custody was given to the applicant. That judgment was not enforced, however; the child continued living with her father, refusing to go with her mother. On 16 January 2004 custody was given to the applicant’s former husband, with the applicant having the right to spend every second weekend with her daughter and to see her for five weeks during holiday periods. The applicant complains that the domestic authorities did not enforce the 2001 judicial order granting her the custody of her daughter and eventually transferred custody to the father. She also complains that her daughter suffered anguish and psychological trauma as a result of the interventions of the authorities and the protracted judicial proceedings. She relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). Mizzi v. Malta (no. 26111/02)
The applicant is a well-known businessman in Malta. In 1966, his wife X became pregnant. In March 1967 the applicant and X separated and stopped living together and, on 4 July 1967, X gave birth to a daughter, Y. The applicant was automatically considered to be Y’s father under Maltese law and was registered as her natural father. Following a DNA test which established that he was not Y’s father, the applicant tried unsuccessfully to bring civil proceedings to repudiate his paternity of Y. The applicant complains that he was denied access to a court and that the irrefutable presumption of paternity applied in his case amounted to a disproportionate interference with his right for respect of private and family life. He also complains that he suffered discrimination, because other parties with an interest in establishing paternity in the case were not subject to the same strict conditions and time limits. He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 6 § 1 (access to court) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Bayrak and Others v. Turkey (no. 42771/98)
The applicants allege that their relatives were the victims of an extrajudicial execution and that the authorities have not carried out an effective investigation into the circumstances of their deaths. They rely on Articles 2 (right to life), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Nazif Yavuz v. Turkey (no. 69912/01)
The applicant complains under Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that his allegations were not investigated thoroughly. Repetitive case Sciarrotta and Others v. Italy (no. 14793/02)
They allege that they were deprived of their property in a manner that was incompatible with the Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Length-of-proceedings case In the following case the applicant complains of the excessive length of civil proceedings. Nicolau v. Romania (no. 1295/02) *** Registry of the European Court of Human Rights 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
