Der Kanzler des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte

22/09/06 Gerichtshof – Geplante Kammerurteile am 26. und 28. September 2006 [en]

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

525
22.9.2006

Press release issued by the Registrar

FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS
26 and 28 September 2006

The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 14 Chamber judgments on Tuesday 26 September 2006 and 14 on Thursday 28 September 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 26 September 2006

Elo v. Finland (application no. 30742/02)
The applicant, Jani Matti Kalevi Elo, is a Finnish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Rauma (Finland).

In 1996 Mr Elo sustained injuries to his legs and heels as a result of an accident at work. The applicant complains that he was denied an oral hearing before the Insurance Court in the ensuing dispute regarding his claim for compensation. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

H.K. v. Finland (no. 36065/97)
The applicant, H.K., is a Finnish national who was born in 1968.

In 1995 the applicant’s daughter was taken into care following allegations that he had sexually abused her. The applicant complains that there was no legal basis for the placement and that his access to his daughter was restricted. He relies on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.

Gérard Bernard v. France (no. 27678/02)
The applicant, Gérard Bernard, is a French national who was born in 1961 and lives in Lorient (France)

The applicant was arrested on 9 November 1999 on suspicion of being a member of the Breton Revolutionary Army and having assisted in harbouring members of the ETA who had recently stolen explosives in Plévin. He was prosecuted for, among other things, conspiring to commit terrorist acts and held in pre-trial detention until 21 October 2002. In June 2005 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.

Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains of the length of his pre-trial detention. He also complains, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial), of the length of the proceedings against him.

./..

Labergère v. France (no. 16846/02)
The applicant, Yannick Labergère, is a French national who was born in 1979. He is currently in Châteauroux Prison in France where he is serving an 18-year prison sentence for murder passed in October 2001.

Shortly after being convicted in the Assize Court, the applicant was automatically sent to Gireugne Psychotherapy Centre. His lawyer appealed against his conviction on the ground that his client, who had been placed in isolation, had not been able to lodge his appeal within the statutory time.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that he was deprived of his right of access to a court because he was physically unable to lodge his notice of appeal within the prescribed time.

Miraux v. France (no. 73529/01)
The applicant, Jean-Pierre Miraux, is a French national who was born in 1947. He is currently in Caen Prison in France serving a 12-year sentence, passed in October 1998, for rape and sexual assault with aggravating circumstances.

He submits that the fact that the Assize Court altered the charge from “attempted rape” to “rape” infringed his right to a fair trial. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).

Société de Gestion du Port de Campoloro and Société Fermière de Campoloro v. France (no. 57516/00)
The applicant companies, Société de Gestion du Port de Campoloro and Société Fermière de Campoloro v. France, are public limited companies whose registered office is in Paris.

The applicant companies brought proceedings following the termination of two agreements concerning the establishment and operation of Campoloro yachting harbour. On 10 July 1992 Bastia Administrative Court awarded them the equivalent of over 5,000,000 euros in compensation.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant companies allege that the non-enforcement of a court decision rendered in their favour infringes their right of access to a court and their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They also complain of the length of the proceedings.

Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta (no. 35349/05)
The applicants, Anna Fleri Soler and Herbert Camilleri, are Maltese nationals who were born in 1932 and 1934 respectively and live in Malta.

In 1941 a property in Valetta, owned by the applicants’ late father, was requisitioned for Government use and a forced lease of indefinite duration was imposed. The applicants receive 817 euros a year in rent for the property. They complain about the requisition of their building, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Ghigo v. Malta (no. 31122/05)
The applicant, Attilio Ghigo, is a Maltese national who was born in 1928 and lives in Tarxien (Malta).

In 1984 the applicant’s house in Paola was seized by the Government under a requisition order issued by the Director of Social Housing and given to a third party. The applicant alleges that he has never received any rent or compensation. He complains that that he has lost control of his property and has been forced to take on the responsibilities of a landlord without receiving any compensation. He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Niewiadomski v. Poland (no. 64218/01)
The applicant, Józef Niewadomski, is a Polish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Łódź (Poland).

In 1991 the applicant was charged with embezzlement of hospital funds. The charges were dropped in December 1998. He complains, in particular, about the excessive length of the proceedings. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).

Šidlová v. Slovakia (no. 50224/99)
The applicant, Tatjana Šidlová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava.

The application concerns the length of three sets of proceeding concerning a libel action against the applicant and the determination of the estates of her late parents. The applicant relies on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Blake v. the United Kingdom (no. 68890/01)
The applicant, George Blake, was born in the Netherlands in 1922. He submits that he held a British passport and was granted Soviet citizenship in 1967.

In 1961 the applicant, who was a member of the British Secret Intelligence Service, was sentenced to 42 years imprisonment for spying for the Soviet Union. He escaped from prison to Moscow in 1966 where he has lived ever since. In May 1991 the British Government took proceedings to prevent him from receiving royalty payments on a book he wrote about his life in the secret service. He complains about the excessive length of those proceedings, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).

Wainwright v. United Kingdom (no. 12350/04)
The applicants, Mary Wainwright and her son, Alan, are British nationals who were born in 1953 and 1975 respectively and live in Leeds (United Kingdom). Alan has cerebral palsy.

The applicants complain about being subjected to a strip search when visiting Ms Wainwright’s son, Patrick, who was in prison on remand. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) 8 (right to respect for private and family life), and 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Repetitive cases

Bassien-Capsa v. France (no. 25456/02)
The applicant, Josiane Bassien-Capsa, is a French national who was born in 1944 and lives in Baie-Mahault (France). She used to be a nursing auxiliary at Saint-Denis Hospital.

The applicant instituted a number of administrative actions after she had been removed from the hospital’s staff list in September 1990.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complains of the length and the unfairness of the proceedings in the Conseil d’Etat.

Mürvet Fidan and Others v. Turkey (no. 48983/99)
The five applicants in the case are Turkish nationals.

In December 1998 the applicants were awarded additional compensation in proceedings started in July 1993 concerning the expropriation of their land to make way for the construction of a dam. The applicants complain that the compensation they obtained had fallen in value since the statutory rate of interest had not kept pace with the high rate of inflation in Turkey. They further complain of the difference in treatment of the State and individuals in the context of their respective debts. They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).

Thursday 28 September 2006

Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria (no. 60939/00)
The applicants, Mimi Vasileva Karcheva and her daughter, Sofia Petrova Shtarbova, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1963 and 1992 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).

Following the start of divorce proceedings in 1993, Ms Karcheva’s husband brought a case against his wife, challenging the paternity of Sofia. His case was eventually dismissed in 2000. The applicants complain of the excessive length of those proceedings which, they claim, interfered with their right to respect of their family life. They rely on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

Kayadjieva v. Bulgaria (no. 56272/00)
The applicant, Antoineta Dimitrova Kayadjieva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).

At her father’s request, she was committed to a psychiatric hospital in September 1999.

Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains, in particular, that she was unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of her liberty and did not have an effective remedy by which to request a review of the lawfulness of her detention.

Vatevi v. Bulgaria (no. 55956/00)
The applicants, Daniela Kostadinova Vateva and Nikolai Kostadinov Vatev, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1973 and 1966 respectively and live in Plovdiv (Bulgaria).

In 1992 the applicants brought proceedings regarding the partitioning of two apartments which had been left to them. In 2001 an out-of-court settlement brought the proceedings to a close. The applicants complain about the excessive length of those 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).

Hu v. Italy (no. 5941/04)
The applicant, Jiang Yang Hu, is a Chinese national who was born in 1972 and lives in the Netherlands.

He was charged by the Italian authorities with being a member of a criminal gang operating an illegal immigration ring and being an accomplice to murder. As the applicant could not be found, the authorities declared him to have “absconded”. In May 1998 he was sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment.

Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that he was tried in his absence and did not have an opportunity to defend himself. He also claims that the presumption that he had tried to abscond is incompatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence and therefore contrary to Article 6 § 2.

Reiz v. Romania (no. 37292/02)
The applicants, Iosif Reiz and his wife Elena Reiz, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1929 and 1932 respectively and live in Düsseldorf (Germany).

In a final judgment of 15 November 2000 Oradea Court of Appeal established that the applicants were the owners of a building in Satu Mare and set aside the sale agreement that the State had contracted with the tenants of the property.

Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complain of their inability to have the judgment enforced.

Andandonskiy v. Russia (no. 24015/02)
The applicant, Vladimir Lvovich Andandonskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Veshenskaya (Russia).

In 2000 the applicant was convicted of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. An eyewitness to the offence failed to appear at the trial because of her state of health and her advanced age (she was 82 years old). The court proceeded with the trial and read out her statements made during the preliminary investigation stage. The applicant complains that the court hearing his case had failed to examine the witness on whose statements his conviction was mainly based. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial).

Repetitive cases

Martellacci v. Italy (no. 33447/02)
The applicant, Benito Martellacci, is an Italian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Pomezia (Italy). He was declared bankrupt in March 1986.

The applicant alleges that, following the declaration of bankruptcy, he was deprived of his possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property); that the correspondence addressed to him was given to the trustee in bankruptcy in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence); and that he was unable to move away from his place of residence contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). Relying also on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of the lack of an effective remedy under Italian law by which to complain of the length of the disqualifications imposed on a declaration of bankruptcy.

Chernyshov and 11 Others v. Russia (no. 10415/02)
Kornev v. Russia (no. 26089/02)
Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov v. Russia (no. 24247/04)
Silchenko v. Russia (no. 32786/03)
Tarasov v. Russia (no. 13910/04)
The 17 applicants in the above cases are all Russian nationals.

They complain about the lengthy failure to enforce judgments awarding them compensation, due to lack of State funds. The applicants in Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov v. Russia also complain that the judgments in their favour were quashed in supervisory review proceedings

They rely, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Length-of-proceedings cases

In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings.

Iversen v. Denmark (no. 5989/03)
Lickov v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 38202/02)

***

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.