|
Council of Europe
292a(2002)
31.05.2002
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Press release issued by the Registrar
FORTHCOMING CHAMBER JUDGMENTS - 4 and 6 June 2002
The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing six
Chamber judgments on Tuesday 4 June 2002 and four on Thursday 6 June
2002. Press releases (except in the length-of-proceedings case) and
the texts of the judgments will be available on the Court's Internet
site: www.echr.coe.int from 2.30 p.m. (local time).
Tuesday 4 June 2002
Chamber (Former Section 1)
(1) Olivieira v. the Netherlands (application no. 33129/96)
(2) Landvreugd v. the Netherland (no. 37331/97)
The applicants, Hans Walter Olivieira and Franklin Edgar Landvreugd,
are both Netherlands nationals. On 6 November 1992 and 2 December 1994
respectively the Burgomaster (Burgemeester) of Amsterdam imposed a
prohibition order (verwijderingsbevel) on the applicants, banning them
from a designated emergency area in the city centre for 14 days, after
they had been found either in possession of hard drugs or related
equipment or openly using the drugs. Neither applicant lived or worked
in the area concerned. Both were convicted and sentenced for failing
to comply with their prohibition orders.
They rely on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(right to respect for private life) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to
the Convention (liberty of movement).
Chamber (Section 2)
(3) Yagmurdereli v. Turkey (no. 29590/96)
Esber Yagmurdereli, a Turkish national born in 1945, is a lawyer,
writer and doctor of philosophy and is partially sighted. He was
sentenced to life imprisonment on 8 March 1985 after being found
guilty of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and was
released on parole in August 1991. A speech he gave at a meeting in
September 1991 led to his being charged with disseminating separatist
propaganda aimed at undermining the territorial integrity of the State
and national unity, and on 23 June 1994 the Istanbul National Security
Court sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment. The
court was composed of three judges, one of whom was a member of the
Military Legal Service.
Following the amendment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on 27
October 1995, the National Security Court, including a military judge,
re-examined the applicant's case. Noting that the applicant had
referred to part of the national territory as "Kurdistan" and to the
terrorist acts carried out by the PKK as a "struggle for democracy and
freedom", it convicted him and sentenced him to ten months'
imprisonment.
Concerning this latest conviction, On 11 July 1997, the Samsun Assize
Court revoked the decision to grant him parole. He was released,
however, on 18 January 2001, in accordance with new legislation
concerning the execution of sentences.
He complains under Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 §
1 (right to a fair trial) on account of the presence of a military
judge on the bench of the National Security Court.
(4) Wessels-Bergervoet v. the Netherlands (no. 34462/97)
The applicant and her husband have always lived in the Netherlands.
Her husband was granted a married person's old age pension under the
General Old Age Pension Act (Algemene Ouderdomswet; "AOW") as from 1
August 1984. However, his pension was reduced by 38% as neither he nor
the applicant had been insured under the Act during a period totalling
19 years, when he had worked in Germany and had been insured under
German social security legislation. No appeal was filed against this
decision.
The applicant was granted an old age pension under the AOW as from 1
March 1989 on the same basis as her husband's pension; reduced by 38%.
She appealed unsuccessfully.
She complains that the only reason for the reduction in her pension
was that she was married to a man who was not insured under the AOW on
the grounds of his employment abroad and that a married man in the
same situation would not have had his pension reduced for this reason.
She maintains, in particular, that the reduction in her pension is the
result of discriminatory treatment, contrary to Article 14
(prohibition of discrimination), read in conjunction with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).
(5) Faulkner v. the United Kingdom (no. 37471/97)
William Faulkner, an Irish national born in 1947, was released from
detention in February 1999. Prior to that he was detained at HMP
Magilligan, County Derry, Northern Ireland, on temporary transfer from
a Scottish prison while serving a seven-year sentence for a drug
offence.
On 1 July 1996 a sealed letter sent by him to the Scottish Minister of
State was returned to him by the prison authorities. The Court has
been informed that the Prison Service is unable to explain why the
letter had not been sent, since there was nothing untoward in its
content.
The applicant alleges, in particular, that the prison authorities
interfered with a letter from him to the Scottish Minister of State.
He relies on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).
Chamber (Section 4)
(6) Komanický v. Slovakia (no. 32106/96)
Ioan Kornelij Komanický, a Slovakian national, was dismissed from his
job working for the District National Committee (Okresný národný
výbor) in Bardejov in 1988 for breach of discipline.
He complains that he had no fair and public hearing in the dismissal
proceedings, alleging that the courts did not apply the law correctly
and that they decided arbitrarily without having heard him. He also
complains that he was not allowed to study the case file prior to a
hearing on 10 January 1995 and that he had no possibility of
commenting on statements made by the witnesses at the hearing on 4
November 1994. Finally, he submits that the Regional Court's judgment
of 6 March 1996 was based on additional evidence of which he had not
been aware.
He relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to fair hearing) and Article 13
(right to an effective remedy).
Thursday 6 June 2002
Chamber (Section 1)
(7) Sailor v. Austria (no. 38237/97)
Gerhard Sailor is a German national, born in 1970 and living in St
Peter am Hart. On 9 July 1995 he was involved in a road traffic
accident in which his passenger was slightly injured. On 25 September
1995 Braunau District Administrative Authority
(Bezirkshauptmannschaft) fined him 10,000 Austrian schillings (ATS),
or nine days' imprisonment in default, for driving under the influence
of alcohol. He did not appeal. On 7 January 1997, Grieskirchen
District Court (Bezirksgericht) also convicted him of causing injury
by negligence and fined him ATS 8,000 with 20 days' imprisonment in
default. He relies on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be
tried or punished twice).
(8) Katsaros v. Greece (no. 51473/99)
Epameinondas Katsaros, a Greek national born in 1929, lives in
Thessaloniki.
In August 1979 the development plan for a district of Thessaloniki was
altered so that an area of land could be set aside for the building of
a school. The applicant owned a plot of land in the area affected; in
September 1984 an expropriation order was made in respect of his land.
However, in judgment no. 535/1993 the Thessaloniki Court of Appeal
declared that the expropriation order had been revoked because no
compensation had been paid to the applicant within 18 months of the
publication of the decision fixing the amount due. In a judgment of 11
January 1999, the Supreme Administrative Court requested the
administrative authorities to lift the restrictions on the applicant's
property rights. After a considerable delay, the administration
conformed with the judgment although it continued, nonetheless, to
treat the land in question as having been set aside for the building
of the school. In December 2001 a further expropriation order was
made.
Relying on Article 6 § 1, the applicant complains of the refusal by
the relevant authorities to comply with the Court of Appeal and
Supreme Administrative Court judgments. He also complains under
Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that he was unable to
challenge the unlawful measures taken by the authorities against him.
Lastly, he relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of
property).
(9) Majstorovic v. Croatia (no. 53227/99)
Vinko Majstorovic is a Croatian national, born in 1940 and living in
Zagreb. On 10 December 1992 he lent 20,000 German Marks to V.M.M., a
company in Zagreb. As the company failed to comply with its
obligations under the contract, on 15 October 1993 the applicant
instituted civil proceedings before Zagreb Municipal Court seeking
re-payment of the loan. It is alleged that the court did not proceed
with the case due to a dispute over whether the applicant should pay
court fees. Two hearings were scheduled in July 2001 but both were
adjourned because either the applicant or his counsel failed to
appear. The proceedings are still pending. He relies on Article 6 § 1
and Article 13.
Length of proceedings (Section 3)
(10) Marques Francisco v. Portugal (no. 47833/99)
(The judgment is available only in French.)
***
Registry of the European Court of Human Rights
F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)
Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to
deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human
Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established,
replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and
Court.
|
|
 |
