| ECHR: Communicated cases - 15.07.2008 |
 |
 |
 |
| wtorek, 05 sierpnia 2008 10:38 | |||
ECHR: Communicated cases - 15.07.2008
Application
no. 18893/05 The applicants are the relatives of Mr Yılmaz Özcan, who was killed on 24 September 2000.Yılmaz Özcan was found guilty of violating the Forest Law and he was accordingly sentenced to six months' imprisonment by the Koyulhisar Magistrates' Court. Following his conviction issued an arrest warrant against him.Later on around twenty gendarme officers in the presence of the Koyulca Public prosecutor arrived at Yılmaz Özcan's house to arrest him. According to the incident report prepared by the gendarmes, Yılmaz Özcan attempted to escape and the gendarme officers had to use force to arrest him. The report further stated that there had been a struggle between Yılmaz Özcan and a gendarme officer, named F.Y., during which a bullet had been fired from F.Y.'s gun. As a result, Yılmaz Özcan was shot in the neck and died on the spot. According to the applicants, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the incident, their relative, Yılmaz Özcan, did not show any resistance to the gendarme officers and was handcuffed before he left the house. After Yılmaz Özcan left the house, the applicants heard the public prosecutor and the sergeant order the gendarme officers to kill him and subsequently there were a couple of gunshots. When the applicants looked through the window, they saw that gendarme officers were beating Yılmaz Özcan severely with the butt ofthe ir rifles.
Application
no. 3684/07 The applicant married L., a Ukrainian national holding permanent residence permits in the Czech Republic and in Sweden. In February 2004 she obtained Swedish nationality. In August 2003 their daughter, N., was born. She is also a Swedish national. Upon their return from Prague, the applicant's relationship with L. quickly deteriorated and, in September 2005, she returned to her parents' home in Prague with N. They have remained there ever since. Later on the applicant submitted an application for divorce. He further requested sole custody of N. or, if the court decided that the parties should have joint custody, that N. should live with him. In any event, if the court were to decide that N. should live with her mother, he wanted access rights to be exercised on a regular basis according to a specific schedule. L. agreed to the divorce but opposed the applicant's requests in relation to their daughter. She wanted sole custody of N. but agreed, pending the final outcome of the proceedings, that the applicant could visit N. in Prague for a few hours every other weekend with her or her mother present.
Application
no. 4261/04 On an unspecified date the military prosecutor's office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant's father, a naval officer, on suspicion of forgery of documents. Acting prosecutor of the Pacific Fleet issued a warrant for the search of the applicant's flat. On the same evening the police came to the applicant's flat. The police broke the door and suggested that the applicant surrender the objects and documents which could be of relevance for the criminal case against her father. The applicant surrendered her father's seaman's passport and claimed that she had no other documents or objects belonging to her father. The police searched the flat and seized the applicant's seaman's passport, a printer and five floppy disks belonging to the applicant and her husband. Proceedings at two levels. No success for the applicant.
Application
no. 21503/04 On 11 September 1996 Mr Z., the applicant's business partner, was killed. Later on the applicant was arrested. He was charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Mr Z. and the attempted murder of Ms A. The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial. The applicant's numerous requests to disjoin the cases were rejected both by the prosecutor and the court. Sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment, judgement upheld by Supreme Court. Poor conditions in a cell.
Application
no. 36908/04 The applicant, Mr Alfredo Maria Bonanno, is a member of the Italian anarchist movement. In his writings the applicant spoke in hypothetical terms of "immediate and destructive attacks against the unitary structure, individuals and organisation of the State and capitalism". He stated that violence and revolution were the only means of changing the political system.. The applicant was aware of severe terrorist attacks and, as it emerges from the file, took part in a bank robbery. The Rome Assize Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of armed robbery and upheld the conviction for disseminating subversive propaganda. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment: five years for robbery and one year for disseminating subversive propaganda. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. The applicant that provisions of Criminal Code infringed his right to freedom of expression. In its ruling, the Court of Cassation recalled judgment no. 87/1966 of the Constitutional Court and held that "propaganda" within the meaning of Article 272 did not fall within the scope of freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression protected "expressions of opinions which are absolute and abstract", whilst propaganda is an expression of opinions "directed at the attainment of a specific aim". The applicant complained that his rights to freedom of thought and expression were infringed by the Criminal Code.
Application
no. 25965/04 The applicant complains under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the Convention about the lack of sufficient investigation into the circumstances of the death of his daughter, the lack of sufficient protection of his daughter by the Cypriot police while she was still alive and the lack of measures taken to punish persons responsible for exposing his daughter to the danger of sexual exploitation and ill-treatment which led to her death. He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention of lack of access to a court in Cyprus.
Application
no. 32798/02 The first applicant, Mr Tomasz Musiałek, is a Polish national who was born in 1966. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Wrocław Prison. His application was lodged on 12 August 2002. The second applicant, Mr Jarosław Baczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1974. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Wołów Prison. The first applicant has been remanded in custody from 1995 in connection with a criminal case pending against him. He was subsequently convicted of murder and since then he has been serving a prison sentence.The applicant submitted that he had been held in severely overcrowded cells and that he had been persecuted by the staff and administration of the prisons in question. The applicant lodged numerous requests for early conditional release from prison but all of them were rejected by the penitentiary court on the ground of his negative criminological prognosis. He was sentenced on fifteen years' imprisonment and seven years' deprivation of his public rights, including the right to vote. The second applicant submitted that he had been detained in inadequate living and sanitary conditions. In particular, he complained about severe overcrowding.
Application no. 18812/07 In March 2003 the applicant lodged a claim for payment against her former employer. In April 2003 the applicant lodged another claim for payment against the same employer. As both claims regarded employment matters the applicant benefited ex lege from total exemption from the court fees. The Przemyśl Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The applicant appealed against this judgment and was summoned to pay 14,575 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 3,645 euros (EUR)) as a court fee. The applicant requested the court for exemption from the court fees claiming to be indigent. The Rzeszów Court of Appeal partially allowed the applicant's interlocutory appeal and exempted her from half the amount of the court fee. It found however that the applicant would be able to pay the sum of PLN 7,287 without harming her own well-being or that of her family. On 10 January 2007 the Przemyśl Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal as she had failed to pay the relevant court fee.
Application no. 7045/08 The applicant was arrested and placed in detention on 25 December 2005 on suspicion of having stolen mobile telephones. Immediately after arrest, the police started to ill-treat the applicant almost every day in order to make him confess. Chişinău Court of Appeal ordered the release of the applicant. After that the applicant was hospitalised and underwent the following medical examinations: radiography of the head and back, eco-encephalography, electroencephalography, computerised tomography, ultrasound of internal organs and functional computerised investigation.
Application no. 17891/08 The Foundation is a charitable organisation for children, which was created in 1994. It bought a piece of land from Municipal Council.Later on the General Prosecutor's Office instituted civil proceedings on behalf of the Government against the Chişinău Municipal Council and the applicant Foundation, challenging the validity of the Municipality's decision of 27 June 2000, the Municipal Council's decision to sell the land. The Supreme Court declared null and void the Municipality's decision to sell the land. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair. The applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the interference with its right of property was unlawful and disproportionate.
Application no. 31244/06 The applicant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. The Vilnius Regional Court established that the applicant had committed several crimes – murder, theft and serious assaults twice. He was relieved from serving the sentence and placed in a psychiatric hospital under conditions of strict observation. The applicant complains of ill-treatment in the psychiatric hospital. The applicant also complains about the treatment prescribed to him, in particular, the imposition of psychotropic medication.
Application no. 5380/07 The applicant is a historian and university professor. His main subject of research is the Second World War and, in particular, the extermination of Jews and Romas. In 2004 a heated public debate took place in Hungary as to whether a statue should be raised for Pál Teleki1. In this discussion, the applicant made utterances according to which Teleki had been one of the most reproachable figures of Hungarian history, since he had been responsible for substantial anti-Semitic legislation as well as for dragging Hungary into the Second World War. The applicant published an article on this subject in a weekly paper, criticising the right-wing media, including a certain Mr B.T., for embellishing Teleki's role and for having made anti-Semitic statements in this context. The applicant was sued by B.T. and lost. Have to pay 100.000 HUF. Complaining on freedom of expression.
Application no. 184/06 The applicant company publishes a newspaper called Ilta-Sanomat which has a circulation of approximately 200,000. The first applicant was a reporter while the second applicant was the editor-in-chief for the news section of the publication. During the presidential election campaign, the third applicant published a short article, written by the first applicant and approved by the second applicant about O.T. (her private matters) who was in charge of a presidential elections. The applicant lost the case and had to pay damages for violation of her private life. The applicants complain under Article 10 of the Convention that their right to freedom of expression has been violated.
Application no. 28552/05 The applicant was charged with drugs offences, having allegedly supplied large amounts of illegal drugs to his co-defendants for distribution. The District Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. In its assessment, the court relied mainly on recordings of telephone conversations obtained through secret surveillance, lists of telecommunication between the defendants and police observations recorded in the pre-trial investigation report. The applicant also criticised the court's assessment of evidence specifying several recordings which it had allegedly interpreted to his disadvantage in breach of the presumption of innocence. He also claimed that the court had refused him the right to submit as fresh evidence recordings of telephone conversations possibly favourable to his defence but not included in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court observed that the applicant had been given an opportunity to consult lists of telecommunications in the possession of the police. The applicant asserted that the evidence included in the pre-trial investigation material, and presented by the prosecution, was neither reliable nor sufficient as the information concerning telecommunications was erroneous and some recordings had been destroyed. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to a fair trial was breached as follows. Recordings of telephone conversations relevant to the case had been destroyed by the police. The Court of Appeal assessed those recordings as irrelevant without having full knowledge of their contents. The Court of Appeal did not allow the applicant to submit as fresh evidence information concerning telecommunications, but permitted the prosecution to do so. Some of that information was clearly erroneous.
Application no. 847/05 In the evening the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of premeditated murder. He was thus placed in pre-trial detention. The applicant also fitted the description given to the police, that one of the perpetrators had long hair. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Court of Appeal's panel of 19 March 2002, whose two judges had been members of the decision body of 24 November 2000, was not impartial. He also questions the District Court's impartiality; its decision was based on reports which were allegedly false.Under Article 6 § 2 the applicant complains that he was presumed guilty on the basis of old conflicts between his family and the victim's.He also complains under: (i) Article 6 § 3 (a) that he was not informed about the charges from the prosecutor's office. Neither he nor his relatives were officially notified of the proceedings; (ii) Article 6 § 3 (b) that he did not have adequate time to defend himself; (iii) Article 6 § 3 (c) that he was not enabled to appoint counsel of his own choosing as he had not been informed of the criminal proceedings.
Application no. 6938/07 The applicant was the owner of business premises in the part of Croatia which was controlled by the occupying authorities. Later the Croatian Parliament passed the Temporary Takeover and Administration of Certain Property Act. On 30 July 1996 the Takeover Commission issued a decision authorising a certain D.R. to use the applicant's property temporarily. Until today he was not able to recover his property. The applicant complains about the length proceedings and failure to recover his property (Protocol 1).
Application
no. 17182/07 On 11 December 2002 the Daruvar State Attorney's Office filed a bill of indictment against the applicant in the Daruvar Municipal Court charging him with violation of patent rights. In the proceedings the applicant was represented by legal counsel of his own choosing. The were two hearings in the presence of both the applicant and his counsel. Before the second hearing the applicant's counsel contacted the Municipal Court by telephone and asked that the hearing be adjourned on account of his sudden illness. At the beginning of the hearing the applicant asked that the hearing be adjourned and informed the court that he did not wish to defend himself in the absence of his counsel. The presiding judge, however, decided to hold a hearing. The applicant, who had already given evidence at the previous hearings, gave additional evidence. The applicant's request that further witnesses be heard was dismissed. The applicant then gave his closing arguments. The hearing was concluded and a judgment was pronounced. The applicant was found guilty of using various items of computer software without the consent of the holder of the relevant patent rights. He was given a suspended sentence of three months' imprisonment with a one-year probation period.
Application no. 17322/04 The applicants are father and son. On 8 August 1999 the applicants and friends of theirs were vacationing at a lake near Sofia. Unexpectedly, two cars without licence plates arrived. Seven men wearing camouflage uniforms came out of the cars, some of them wearing vests with "Police" written on the back. The men were armed with submachine guns. They started insulting the group. At the same time the men repeatedly shot at the jetboat of the applicants. There was a criminal proceeding against few policemen but later was termnated due to formal mistakes by prosecution. The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention that they were beaten by police officers without any cause.
Applications
nos. 1218/07, 1240/07, 1242/07, 1335/07, 1368/07, 1369/07, 3424/07,
3428/07, 3430/07, 3935/07, 3940/07, 7194/07, 7204/07, 7206/07 and
7211/07 The applicants sustained damage (pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary) during the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Banja Luka Court of First Instance ordered the Republika Srpska (an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) to compensate the applicants for that damage. Although the judgments are final and enforceable, the Republika Srpska has not yet fully enforced them (only the legal costs have so far been paid). It would appear that there are more than 8,000 similar judgments, final and enforceable, against the Republika Srpska in the amount of nearly 140,000,000 convertible marks4 (BAM) plus default interest. It would further appear that there are almost 200 such judgments against the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) in the amount of nearly BAM 13,000,000 plus default interest.
Application no. 28571/06 In 1994, the applicant had acquired real estate consisting of land, parts of which are designated as agricultural land and a house in Tyrol. The land was sold to the company "de Vos Hotelbetriebs GmbH", a limited liability company under Austria law, active in the hotel business. The contract was signed by both parties on 4 and 20 September 1996, respectively.On 23 September 1996 the transaction was notified to the Real Property Transactions Authority. According to Tyrolean Real Property Transaction Act the sale of agricultural property is subject to approval by the said authority. On 6 May 1997, the applicant filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Tyrolean Real Property Transactions Commission as the Real Property Transactions Authority had failed to decide on the case within the six-months' period provided for by law. In its decision of 16 October 1997, the Real Property Transactions Commission refused to authorise the transaction. The case is still pending.
Application
no. 13201/05 On 26 February 2003 at 3.03 p.m. the car of which the applicant is the registered keeper was recorded by a radar speed detector as exceeding the speed limit by 45 k.p.h. On 26 March 2003 the Graz-Umgebung District Authority ordered the applicant to disclose within two weeks the full name and address of the person who had been driving his car at the material time. The order referred to its legal basis. The applicant did not reply. The Graz-Umgebung District Authority issued a provisional penal order, it sentenced the applicant to pay a fine of 181 euros (EUR) with three days' imprisonment in default for speeding. Moreover, relying on sections 103(2) and 134(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it sentenced the applicant to pay a fine of EUR 181 with three days' imprisonment in default for failure to comply with the order of 26 March 2003 to disclose the driver. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that he was convicted of speeding on the sole ground that he had refused to disclose the identity of the driver.
Application no. 29975/06 The applicant entered into a loan contract with a private company, UCMK, through one of its representatives, G.M., on 7 September 1995. He agreed to lend the amount of 250,000 US dollars from 7 September 1995 to 7 December 1995, with an interest rate of six per cent per month. Following the company's default, the applicant lodged an action with the Vlora District Court to recover the debt under the loan contract. By a decision of 17 April 1998, The Vlora District Court declared the company bankrupt and recognised the creditors as the owners of its assets. The applicant has a final and enforceable judgement of Vlora Court in his favour, but was not able to get his amount back.
|