|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pressemitteilung
 Der Kanzler des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte 31/03/06 Gerichtshof – Ankündigung: Geplante Kammerurteile am 4. und 6. April 2006 [en] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 188
Press release issued by the Registrar FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS
The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 17 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 4 April 2006 and 32 on Thursday 6 April 2006. 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 4 April 2006 Maršálek v. the Czech Republic (application no. 8153/04)
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the unfairness and the length of the proceedings for the award of parental responsibility. He further complains under Article 8 of an infringement of his right to respect for his private and family life. In addition, he relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 (equality between spouses). Corsacov v. Moldova (no. 18944/02)
On 9 July 1998 the applicant, who was then 17 years old, was arrested on charges of theft and taken into detention. He claims he was subjected to severe police brutality while under arrest and in detention, following which he was registered as second-degree disabled. He complains about his treatment by the police and that no effective investigation was carried out into his allegations of ill-treatment, relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment). He also relies on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Malik v. Poland (no. 57477/00)
On 15 October 1998 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed fraud. He was detained for 17 months. The applicant complains about his detention, relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). ./.. Sarı and Çolak v. Turkey (nos. 42596/98 and 42603/98)
In 1997 they were arrested and taken into police custody in the course of an operation against the illegal organisation THKP/C Dev Yol – Devrim Hareketi (Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front – Revolutionary Way – Revolutionary Movement). Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicants complain of the unlawfulness and the length of their detention in police custody. They also complain under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that they were denied all contact with their family during their detention. Kobtsev v. Ukraine (no. 7324/02)
He was arrested on 30 October 1998 charged with the unlawful possession of ammunition. The proceedings ended on 25 December 2001. The applicant complains about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Sergey Vasilyevich Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 32478/02)
Around 5.40 a.m. on 3 October 2000 the applicant’s son – a First Lieutenant in the Ukrainian Air Force who was guarding a military airdrome – was found dead in the guardroom with two gunshot wounds to his head. Following an investigation into his death, it was concluded that he had committed suicide. The applicant complains that the investigation into his son’s death was not independent, adequate or effective, relying on Article 2 (right to life). He also relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Repetitive cases Bodur and Others v. Turkey (no. 42911/98)
Güzel v. Turkey (No. 1) (no. 54479/00)
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings against him, which ended in 1999 when he was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for inciting hatred and hostility on account of a speech he had given in 1997. Lisyanskiy v. Ukraine (no. 17899/02)
Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. Heřmanský v. the Czech Republic (no. 20551/02)
Rahbar-Pagard v. Bulgaria (nos. 45466/99 and 29903/02)
In 1990 Violeta Simeonova Rahbar-Pagard caused a road accident in which two teenage girls died and four others were seriously injured. She was prosecuted for manslaughter. Violeta Rahbar-Pagard alleged that her detention had been in breach of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence). Her daughter complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) about delays in the execution of a judgment in which her mother was awarded compensation for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings. Gavrielidou and Others v. Cyprus (no. 73802/01)
The applicants complain about the length of the proceedings, relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). Certain applicants also rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
She complains about her conviction for defamation following the publication of two articles in a weekly newspaper accusing a well-known politician of abuse of power. She relies on Article 10 (freedom of expression). Stankiewicz v. Poland (no. 46917/99)
The applicants complain about a decision refusing to reimburse their costs in respect of a civil claim that the public prosecutor unsuccessfully lodged against them. 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). Repetitive cases Mazzei v. Italy (no. 69502/01)
They complain of their prolonged inability to recover possession of their flat, owing to the lack of police assistance, and of the length 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). Chernitsyn v. Russia (no. 5964/02)
In 1993 the applicant sued his former employer for unpaid compensation for a work-related injury. He complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that the judgment given in his favour was subsequently quashed by way of supervisory review. Length-of-proceedings cases The applicants in the following cases all complain about the length of the proceedings to which they were a party and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of those proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable length of time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). Chatzibyrros and Others v. Greece (no. 20898/03) Bastič v. Slovenia (no. 75809/01)
*** Press contacts
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
