EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
159
9.3.2007
Press release issued by the Registrar
FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS
13 and 15 March 2007
The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing four Chamber judgments on Tuesday 13 March 2007 and 11 on Thursday 15 March 2007.
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 13 March 2007
Huohvanainen v. Finland (application no. 57389/00)
The applicant, Kauko Huohvanainen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Liperi (Finland).
The application concerns Mr Huohvanainen’s brother, J., who was shot dead by the police on 2 December 1994 following a two-day siege of his house on the island of Ängeslandet.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Huohvanainen complains that the lethal force used against his brother had not been absolutely necessary.
Castravet v. Moldova (no. 23393/05)
The applicant, Andrei Castraveţ, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1946 and lives in Chişinău.
Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, Mr Castraveţ complains about his detention on remand following his arrest on charges of embezzlement in May 2005 and that he was unable to confer in private with his lawyers.
Laskowska v. Poland (no. 77765/01)
The applicant, Lucyna Laskowska, is a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Czedladź (Poland).
The application concerns Ms Laskowska’s claim for maintenance allowance in February 1999 following her divorce in 1996 from her husband who, an alcoholic, subjected her to long-term psychological harassment. She now receives psychiatric treatment and has an invalidity pension. Ultimately, in January 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed Ms Laskowska’s case on appeal for non-compliance with the applicable time-limit and an absence of legal representation which, in cassation appeal proceedings, was compulsory.
Ms Laskowska complains under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention that she was not able to effectively present her case concerning a maintenance entitlement because her application for legal aid in appeal proceedings was dismissed, the courts failing to take into consideration her particular circumstances. She also complains that the refusal to grant legal aid in cassation appeal proceedings deprived her of access to the Supreme Court.
V.A.M. v. Serbia (no. 39177/05)
The application concerns civil proceedings brought in February 1999 by Ms V.A.M. in which she sought to dissolve her marriage to her husband, D.M., to gain sole custody of her daughter, S.M., and to obtain child maintenance. The breakdown of Ms V.A.M.’s marriage and her husband denying all contact with her daughter occurred, it seemed, as a result of her having contracted HIV. Ultimately, a decision to grant Ms V.A.M. provisional custody of S.M. was quashed on appeal in November 2006. The separate civil claim against D.M. is, apparently, still ongoing.
Ms V.A.M. complains about the length and fairness of the civil proceedings and that she has been unable to see her only child for some eight years. She relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
Thursday 15 March 2007
Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria (nos 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02)
The nine applications were all brought by Bulgarian nationals.
The applications all concern nationalised property acquired by the applicants and the subsequent actions brought against them under section 7 of the Restitution Law by the
pre-nationalisation owners or their heirs resulting in the applicants being ordered to vacate their property.
They rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and, in certain cases, Articles 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) alleging that they were discriminated against in that the Restitution Law favoured pre-nationalisation owners to the detriment of post-nationalisation owners. In one case, the applicants also rely on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court).
Dobre v. Romania (no. 2239/02)
The applicant, Romaniţa Christina Dobre, is a Romanian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Bucharest.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complains that a final judgment of 1994, ordering that a plot of land be returned to her, has not been executed.
Gheorghe v. Romania (no. 19215/04)
The applicant, Ion Gheorghe, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Ploieşti (Romania).
The applicant was born with haemophilia A and was recognised as having a second-degree disability entitling him to special protection. He brought administrative proceedings after losing the benefit of legislation on the protection of disabled people.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complains that the proceedings to which he was a party were unfair and excessive in length.
Păduraru v. Romania (no. 63252/00) Just satisfaction
The applicant, Anatol Păduraru, is a Romanian national who was born in 1922 and lives in Bucharest. He brought proceedings for the recovery of property in Bucharest that had been nationalised by the State in 1950.
The applicant alleged that the sale of his flats to third parties, which had been validated by a judicial decision and for which he had not received any compensation, had entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
In a judgment of 1 December 2005 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.
Schrepler v. Romania (no. 22626/02)
The applicant, Andreas Schrepler, is a German national who was born in 1951 and lives in Stuttgart (Germany).
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complains about his inability to secure execution of a 1998 judgment in his favour, whereby a number of individuals were ordered to pay him compensation for damage to his vehicle.
Gavrikova v. Russia (no. 42180/02)
The applicant, Rozaliya Shafigulovna Gavrikova, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Zarechniy (Russia).
In the night of 3 to 4 July 2001 Ms Gavrikova’s partner, father of their two children, died in an aeroplane crash. The air carrier offered to pay compensation but Ms Gavrikova, dissatisfied with the amount, sued the air carrier in tort. On 14 June 2002 Ms Gavrikova’s claim for non-pecuniary damage was denied on the ground that she had not been bound by marital ties. In the ensuing proceedings, however, the district and regional courts granted Ms Gavrikova 200,000 Russian roubles (approximately 5,800 euros) in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the death of her partner.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Ms Gavrikova complains about the decision of 14 June 2002.
Stanislav Volkov v. Russia (no. 8564/02)
The applicant, Stanislav Yevgenyevich Volkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Cherkessk (Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic, Russia).
The application concerns an action brought by Mr Volkov in August 2000 claiming compensation for being unlawfully detained, firstly, for having disobeyed a lawful order of a police officer and, secondly, on suspicion of participation in a criminal enterprise and unlawful possession of a weapon. He was later acquitted. On 11 March 2001 the Ministry of Internal Affairs was ordered to pay the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
The applicant complains about the quashing of the final judgment of 11 March in his favour and ill-treatment by the police. He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
Kaiser v. Switzerland (no. 17073/04)
The applicant, Célestine Kaiser, is a national of the Central African Republic who was born in 1964 and lives in Zurich.
On 5 November 2003 she was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of having brought a foreign woman into Switzerland, supposedly to offer her a job as a waitress but then encouraging her to work as a prostitute. After five days the applicant was presented to a judge, who remanded her in custody.
Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant’s main complaint is that she was not brought promptly before a judge following her arrest.
Repetitive cases
Popara v. Croatia (no. 11072/03)
The applicants, Marija Popara, and her sister, Želijka Popara, are Croatian nationals who were born in 1976 and 1979 respectively and live in Karlovac (Croatia).
The application concerns civil proceedings brought against the State for damages following the business premises owned by the applicants’ late father being blown up in 1991 by unknown perpetrators. Some time later, his car was also damaged beyond repair by an explosive device. These proceedings were stayed in February 1998, and again in July 2001, pending enactment of new legislation under the 1996 Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act.
The applicants complain, in particular, that Parliament’s enactment of the 1996 Amendment violated Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court).
Petrescu v. Romania (no. 73969/01)
The applicant, Radu Petrescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1915 and lives in Bucharest.
He alleges that the sale of his flat to the tenants, validated by Romanian courts, entailed a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).
Length-of-proceedings case
In the following case, the applicant, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), complains about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.
Brøsted v. Denmark (no. 21846/04)
***
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.