|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pressemitteilung
 Der Kanzler des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte 02/03/06 Gerichtshof – Ankündigung: Mündliche Verhandlung im März [en] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 113
Press release issued by the Registrar FORTHCOMING HEARINGS IN MARCH The European Court of Human Rights will also be holding the following hearings in March 2006: Tuesday 7 March 2006 Chamber
The nine applicants, all Moldovan nationals living in Chişinău, are: Larisa Manole, Corina Fusu, Mircea Surdu, Dinu Rusnac, Viorica Cucereanu-Bogatu, Angela Aramă-Leahu, Ludmila Vasilache, Leonid Melnic and Diana Donică. They are or were all employed by the company Teleradio-Moldova (TRM), which runs the only national state television and radio station in Moldova. The applicants maintain that, although the programmes produced by Teleradio-Moldova had always been censored, the level of censorship reached unacceptable levels after the Communist Party won a large majority in the parliamentary elections in February 2001. Since that date the applicants claim that no opposition party has been given air-time and all reporting which does not follow the Communist Party line has been banned. Certain words and phrases and references to certain historical periods have also been prohibited. And, from 9 January to May 2002, the Christian Democratic People's Party organised daily mass anti-Government demonstrations involving tens of thousands of people, which journalists were prohibited from covering in the news. On 25 February 2002, over 300 members of staff from Teleradio-Moldova signed a declaration complaining about “Soviet-style political censorship” and calling on the Moldovan authorities to respect democratic and pro-European principles. The declaration was forwarded to all the news agencies in Moldova and on 26 February about 20,000 people gathered in protest in front of the Teleradio-Moldova building. On 27 February 2002 Teleradio-Moldova staff decided to take industrial action, they called for the abolition of censorship and started to produce uncensored news programmes. Ultimately a state of emergency was introduced, military troops were moved onto the company premises and strike leaders were dismissed. Larisa Manole alleges that she was removed from her position as a news editor and newsreader and obliged to leave the company, despite having worked there for 22 years. The other eight applicants complain of Government interference with editorial policy, including the banning of programmes and the cancelling of a live programme shortly before it was due to be aired. ./.. The applicants complain under Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) about the censorship imposed on Moldovan national television and radio. Tuesday 14 March 2006 Chamber
The applicant, Nenad Pedovič, is a Croatian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Prague. He and his wife, R.P., had a son in 1992. The couple are now involved in divorce proceedings. In January 1996 R.P. left the applicant. In May 1996 the applicant took his son to Croatia, where the child remained until October 1998, when his mother found him at the home of strangers and took him back with her to the Czech Republic. Since then, the child has been living with his mother in the Czech Republic. When his wife left him, the applicant brought proceedings to gain parental responsibility for the child. In a judgment of 27 February 2001 Prague District Court awarded custody of the child to the mother and granted the applicant access. On 23 November 2001 Prague Municipal Court confirmed on appeal that R.P. had custody of the child and allowed the applicant to see his son every other Saturday afternoon during the first three months and subsequently every other weekend, on 26 December and for two weeks during the summer holidays. That judgment became final. The court also referred the question of maintenance back to the first-instance court. The applicant attempted to see his son on many occasions but the child’s mother systematically refused. He contacted the Czech authorities, seeking to enforce his right of access. The authorities issued formal warnings to R.P. and imposed three fines on her, amounting to EUR 1,211, for preventing the applicant from seeing his son. The applicant lodged two criminal complaints against R.P. on account of her refusal to comply with the court decision granting him access. The first gave rise to a decision in September 2002 that there was no case to answer, and the second, lodged in September 2004, is currently being investigated. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention of the length of the proceedings for the assessment of maintenance. He also complains that his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 has been infringed both by the length of the proceedings and by the failure to enforce his right of access. Thursday 16 March 2006 Chamber 9 a.m. Lykourezos v. Greece (no. 33554/03) Hearing on the merits The application concerns a member of parliament’s forfeiture of his seat on the ground that carrying on a professional activity disqualified him from holding such office. The applicant, Alexandros-Leon Lykourezos, is a 72-year-old Greek national who lives in Athens. Mr Lykourezos has been a member of the Athens Bar since 1960. In April 2000 he stood in the parliamentary elections in the first constituency of Athens as a candidate on the “Nea Dimokratia” party’s list. He obtained 44,387 votes and was elected as a member of parliament for a four-year term. In 2001 an amendment to the Constitution made the duties of a member of parliament incompatible with engaging in any profession. The disqualification is provided for in the new Article 57 of the Constitution, although the relevant implementing legislation has not yet been passed. In February 2003 a constituent lodged an application with the Special Supreme Court against the applicant, arguing that pursuant to Article 57 of the Constitution, his practising as a lawyer disqualified him from holding parliamentary office. In a judgment of 3 July 2003 the Special Supreme Court allowed the application and ruled that the applicant had forfeited his seat. In particular, it dismissed the applicant’s argument that he could not be deemed to be practising a profession as he no longer received any fees. Accordingly, the applicant lost his seat in the Chamber of Deputies in July 2003. Relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections), the applicant complains that his forfeiture of his parliamentary seat infringed his right to be elected to parliament and deprived his voters of the candidate they had elected before his term of office had expired. He also alleges that the fact that he forfeited his seat in order to be able to carry on his professional activities amounted to unjustified interference with his private and professional life, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private life). *** Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int). 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
