Der Kanzler des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte

02/06/06 Gerichtshof –Geplante Kammerurteile am 6. und 8. Juni 2006 [en]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

323
2.6.2006

Press release issued by the Registrar

FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS
6 and 8 June 2006

The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing three Chamber judgments on Tuesday 6 June 2006 and 15 on Thursday 8 June 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 6 June 2006

Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden (application no. 62332/00)
The applicants, all Swedish nationals, are: Ingrid Segerstedt-Wiberg (born in 1911), Per Nygren (1948), Staffan Ehnebom (1952), Bengt Frejd (1948) and Herman Schmid (1939). The first four applicants live in Sweden in, respectively, Gothenburg, Kungsbacka and Västra Frölunda (Mr Ehnebom and Mr Frejd). Mr Schmid lives in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Ms Segerstedt-Wiberg was a Liberal Member of Parliament and is a prominent public figure in Sweden. Mr Nygren is an established journalist at Göteborgs-Posten, one of the largest daily newspapers in Sweden. Mr Ehnebom and Mr Frejd are members of the KPML(r) - Marxist-Leninist (revolutionaries) Party and Mr Schmid is a former member of the European Parliament.

The applicants complain about the storage of certain information about them in Swedish Security Police files and the refusal to reveal the extent of the information stored. They rely on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Length-of-proceedings cases

In the following cases, the applicants complain in particular of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.

Beaucaire v. France (no. 22945/02)
Clément v. France (no. 37876/02)

Thursday 8 June 2006

Kaya v. Austria (no. 54698/00)
The applicant, Resul Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Turkey.

./..

He was fined for staying illegally in Austria. He complains under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) that the administrative criminal proceedings against him were unfair, as he was convicted in absentia, having been expelled to Turkey.

Bonev v. Bulgaria (no. 60018/00)
The applicant, Stefan Ganev Bonev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Bourgas (Bulgaria).

The applicant was found to have severely beaten up an acquaintance in September 1998, who subsequently died. The applicant was sentenced to ten year’s imprisonment.

He complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial) his trial was unfair because he was unable to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements had served as the main basis for his conviction.

V.M. v. Bulgaria (no. 45723/99)
The applicant is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Sofia.

He alleges a violation of his right of access to a court on account of his inability to pay the high court fees due in connection with the bringing of a civil action. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

Lehtinen v. Finland (No. 2) (no. 41585/98)
The applicant, Kenneth Lehtinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Järvenpää (Finland).

He was convicted of debtor’s dishonesty in December 1998 and fined.

He complains about the excessive length of the proceedings against him (lasting more than six years and five days), relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Woś v. Poland (no. 22860/02)
The applicant, Bronislaw Woś, is a Polish national who was born in1928 and lives in Cielcza (Poland).

As a child and young adolescent during the Second World War the applicant was subjected to forced labour on the territory of occupied Poland. He first worked on a German farm, then as a forest labourer and was finally relocated to an area where he was required to reinforce German defences. His applications for compensation were only partially successful.

He complains under Article 6 § 1 (access to court) that he did not have access to a court in respect of certain compensation claims he raised before the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation.

Lupsa v. Romania (no. 10337/04)
The applicant, Dorjel Lupsa, is a national of Serbia and Montenegro who was born in 1965 and lives in Belgrade.

In 1989 he arrived and settled in Romania, where he set up a commercial company and started a family with a Romanian national. In August 2003 he was deported from Romania pursuant to an order by the public prosecutor declaring him an undesirable alien and excluding him from Romanian territory for a period of ten years on the ground that the Romanian intelligence service had “sufficient and reliable information that he was engaged in activities liable to endanger national security”.

The applicant alleges that his deportation and the exclusion order against him violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens).

Vlasia Grigore Vasilescu v. Romania (no. 60868/00)
The applicant, Vlasia Grigore Vasilescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Bucharest. He brought an action to recover possession of a building and 15,000 m² of land in Voluntari, bought by his parents, which had been occupied by the Soviet armed forces in 1945 and was subsequently taken over by the local authorities in 1958.

The applicant alleges under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that his right of access to a court was violated on account of the dismissal of his action to recover possession of the property. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he further complains that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was infringed.

Korchuganova v. Russia (no. 75039/01)
The applicant, Svetlana Gennadyevna Korchuganova, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and is currently serving her sentence in Irkutsk (Russia).

In March 1998 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having arranged the murder of two people. She was still in detention on 30 April 2003 when convicted of murder.

The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) about the length and unlawfulness of her detention in custody after 5 January 2000.

Singh and Others v. United Kingdom (no. 60184/00)
Pavittar Singh, a British citizen born in India in 1955, and Paramjit Kaur, an Indian national born in 1955, are married and living in the United Kingdom. Pawandeep Singh, an Indian national born in 1996, now lives with them.

The first and second applicants had proved unable to have a second child and so adopted Pawandeep, the baby of a cousin living in India. The immigration authorities refused permission for Pawandeep to join the family in the United Kingdom as he fell outside the rules for entry, as he was not adopted due to the inability of his parents to care for him.

The applicants complain of the refusal to permit Pawandeep’s entry into the United Kingdom. They rely on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 12 (right to marry), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

Repetitive cases

Collarile v. Italy (no. 10644/02)
Matteoni v. Italy (no. 42053/02)
Ziccardi v. Italy (no. 27394/02)
The applicants, all Italian nationals, were declared bankrupt. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), they all contend that the disqualifications imposed on them during the bankruptcy proceedings infringed their right to respect for their private life and correspondence. They further complain under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement) of the restrictions placed on their freedom of movement. The applicants in Collarile and Ziccardi also allege that the bankruptcy order deprived them of their possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In addition, they complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that no remedy was available to them enabling them to complain of the disqualifications arising out of their bankruptcy. Finally, in Collarile, the applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

Pyrikov v. Russia (no. 2703/02)
The applicant, Petr Nikolayevich Pyrikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the Tula Region (Russia).

The applicant complains of the prolonged non-enforcement of a judgment given in his favour. He relies in particular on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).

Length-of-proceedings cases

In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). They further rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of their complaints about the excessive length of proceedings.

Hadjibakalov v. Bulgaria (no. 58497/00)
Hrobová v. Slovakia (no. 2010/02)

***

Press Contacts 
Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)

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.