CM/Del/OJ/DH(2008)1020 Section 5 PUBLIC 8 April 2008
1020th meeting (DH), 4-6 March 2008
- Annotated Agenda1
Public information version
SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED
(See Addendum 5 for part or all these cases)
The Deputies are invited to supervise progress in the adoption of general measures aiming at preventing further similar violations to those found by the Court in the following cases. If necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in Addendum 5. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases in 6 months at the latest.
SUB-SECTION 5.1 – LEGISLATIVE AND/OR REGULATORY CHANGES
- 1 case against the Netherlands
50210/99 Doerga, judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 27/07/2004
The case concerns the recording by prison authorities of telephone conversations of the applicant, a prisoner at the time, after he had given the police a false tip-off about an alleged escape attempt by other detainees (violation of Article 8). The tapes were kept for the purposes of an ongoing investigation. Subsequently the applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment in a case relating to a bomb explosion in October 1995, wounding the applicant's ex-partner and her son.
The European Court stated that although it accepted that it may be necessary to monitor detainees' contacts with the outside world (including contacts by telephone), the Netherlands rules concerning such monitoring were not sufficiently clear and detailed.
Individual measures: The recordings concerned and the transcripts thereof have been destroyed and are thus no longer in the possession of the Netherlands authorities.
General measures: A law which provides a legal basis for a regulation concerning the recording of prisoners’ telephone conversations has been adopted. This regulation is currently being drafted within the Ministry of Justice.
• Information is awaited on a time frame for the adoption of the regulation. Once drafted, the text of the regulation would be appreciated.
The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their 1035th meeting (16-18 September 2008) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on general measures.
- 3 cases against Romania
28114/95 Dalban, judgment of 28/09/99 - Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)2
The case concerns the applicant's conviction for defamation in 1994, under Article 206 of the Criminal Code, for having published articles in which he exposed a series of frauds allegedly committed by a senior official and a member of parliament.
The European Court found a disproportionate interference with the applicant's freedom of expression since, whilst Article 207 of the Romanian Criminal Code admits the adduction of evidence as to the truthfulness of an utterance at issue if it has been made in order to protect a legitimate interest, the Romanian courts had not allowed the applicant to prove the truth of his allegations. On they contrary, they found it established, inter alia, that the allegations were untrue on the basis of decision by the public prosecutor's office not to indict the public official in question in respect of the same allegations (violation of Article 10).
Individual measures: The applicant died before the European Court delivered its judgment. Under Article 41, the European Court awarded to his widow just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.
General measures (see also Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)2):
• Measures taken
a) awareness-raising measures and direct effect of the Convention: The Dalban judgment was published in Romanian in the Official Journal in June 2000. Conferences, training courses and seminars for judges and public prosecutors have been organised since 2001, specifically dealing with issues related to the freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10, with a view to ensuring the direct effect of the Convention in domestic law and thus its interpretation in accordance with the case-law of the European Court.
As from 2004, the Romanian authorities have provided examples of such direct effect by submitting court decisions concerning charges of criminal libel in which courts (often making reference to the Strasbourg case-law) acquitted defendants not least in view of their intention to make public information and ideas on issues of public interest.
b) legislative measures: Law No. 160/2005, which entered into force on 05/06/2005, abolished imprisonment for defamation. Following the entry into force on 11/08/2006 of Law No. 278/2006, which abrogated Articles 205-207, both insult and defamation were decriminalised. However, in January 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the decriminalising law to be unconstitutional.
• Clarifications are expected as regards the current legislative situation and practice of domestic courts following the decision of the Constitutional Court and also its consequences to the new Criminal Code, which should enter into force in September 2008.
The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their 1035th meeting (16-18 September 2008) (DH), in the light of information to be provided concerning general measures.
46572/99 Sabou and Pîrcălab, judgment of 28/09/2004, final on 28/12/2004
The case concerns the conviction of the applicants (journalists at a local newspaper) for defamation in December 1997 (final in April 1998), under Article 206 of the Criminal Code, for having published a series of articles containing accusations concerning the president of the local court (accusations referring in particular to her using her influence and forged documents to obtain unlawful advantages for her family).
The European Court concluded that there had been a disproportionate infringement of the applicants' right to freedom of expression in that first, there had been no proof that the allegations were totally false and secondly there was no reason to suppose that the applicants had acted in bad faith.
Secondly, the appellate court did not examine the evidence produced by the applicants but relied only on the conclusions of decision by the prosecutor's office not to indict the injured party. Furthermore, the applicants were punished severely (ten months' imprisonment for the first applicant, a suspended criminal fine for the second, accompanied by the obligation to pay the injured party compensation for non-pecuniary damage) (violation of Article 10).
The European Court also found a violation of the first applicant's right to respect for family life in view of the automatic prohibition of the exercise of his parental rights during his imprisonment under Articles 64 and 71 of the Criminal Code, as an ancillary penalty accompanying the prison sentence. The Court noted in particular that there had been no suggestion of lack of care on his part or ill-treatment of his children, and that this kind of additional sanction was imposed without judicial supervision and without any assessment of the children's interest (violation of Article 8). Moreover, the European Court concluded that the first applicant had had no effective remedy in domestic law against the interference with his right to respect for family life (violation of Article 13).
Individual measures: The Romanian authorities have indicated that the applicants have been rehabilitated and are no longer suffering any consequence of their criminal convictions. Furthermore, the European Court granted just satisfaction in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained, including the sum the applicants were ordered to pay in civil compensation to the injured party.
1) Violation of Article 10: The case presents similarities to the case of Dalban against Romania (judgment of 28/09/1999) - see above).
2) Violation of Articles 8 and 13: The Romanian authorities have indicated that domestic courts, in the light of the judgment of the European Court in this case abandoned the practice of automatically prohibiting those serving prison sentences from exercising their parental rights. Examples of the case-law of Bucharest courts, as well as from the High Courts of Cassation and of Justice in this respect have been provided.
The judgment of the European Court was furthermore published in the Official Gazette on 08/06/2005 and transmitted to the High Judicial Council to be sent out to all jurisdictions. A summary of the judgment was furthermore published in the legal journal Themis of January 2005, No. 1, published by the National Judicial Institute and freely distributed to all courts.
• Confirmation is expected that, following the decision of the Constitutional Court declaring the Law No. 278/2006, which decriminalised both insult and defamation, unconstitutional (see details under the Dalban case above), decisions prohibiting the exercise of parental rights by persons sentenced to imprisonment will take into account the nature and the gravity of the offence committed, the circumstances of the case, the personality of the convicted person and the interest of the child.
The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their 1035th meeting (16-18 September 2008) (DH), in the light of information to be provided concerning general measures.
33348/96 Cumpănă and Mazăre, judgment of 17/12/2004 - Grand Chamber
The case concerns the disproportionate character of the criminal sanctions imposed in 1995 on the applicants (a journalist and the editor of a local newspaper), convicted of insult and defamation under Articles 205 and 206 of the Criminal Code following the publication of a critical article, accompanied by a cartoon, concerning some illegalities allegedly committed by local public authorities.
The European Court found that the applicants' conviction was in conformity with the Convention, particularly in view of the fact that the applicants had failed to provide a sufficient factual basis for the serious accusations expressed. Nevertheless, the European Court stressed that the sentence of seven months' imprisonment imposed on the applicants, accompanied by a secondary penalty of disqualification from exercising certain civil rights (automatically applicable in Romanian law to anyone serving a prison sentence) and by an order prohibiting the applicants from working as journalists for one year, were manifestly disproportionate, in their nature and severity, to the legitimate aim pursued (violation of Article 10).
In this respect, the European Court pointed out that “although sentencing is in principle a matter for the national courts, the Court considers that the imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence will be compatible with journalists' freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention only in exceptional circumstances, notably where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence” (§ 115).
Individual measures: The applicants were granted a presidential pardon dispensing them from serving their prison sentence and putting an end to the secondary sentences. Moreover, it appears from the facts of the case that they continued to work as journalists. The Romanian authorities have indicated that the applicants had been rehabilitated: their criminal records no longer contain any mention of their criminal convictions.
Also, under Article 41, the European Court rejected the applicants' application for reimbursement of the sum which they had paid the injured party for non-pecuniary damage, in view of its conclusion that the applicants' conviction could have been regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” if the criminal sanctions had not been so harsh.
General measures: the case presents similarities mutatis mutandis to that of Dalban, judgment of 28/09/1999 (see above).
The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at the latest at their 1035th meeting (16-18 September 2008) (DH), in the light of information to be provided concerning general, namely legislative, measures.
- 1 case against Turkey
29865/96 Ünal Tekeli, judgment of 16/11/2004, final on 16/02/2005
The case concerns the domestic courts' refusal in 1995 to allow the applicant to have only her maiden name registered after her marriage. This decision was taken on the grounds of Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code which obliged married women to bear their husband's name throughout their married life. This provision was amended in 1997 to allow married women to put their maiden name in front of their husband's surname. The new Civil Code, enacted in November 2001, maintained this rule (new Article 187).
The European Court noted, with reference to Committee of Ministers' Resolution (78) 37 on the equality of spouses in civil law and Recommendation R (85) 2 on legal protection against sex discrimination, that the advancement of the equality of the sexes was today a major goal in the member states of the Council of Europe. Given this advancement and the importance of the principle of non-discrimination, the Court noted that states may not impose on married women the tradition of reflecting family unity through the husband's name. Consequently, the Court considered that the obligation on married women, in the name of family unity, to bear their husband's surname - even if they may put their maiden name in front of it - provided no objective and reasonable justification for the gender-based difference in treatment (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8).
Individual measures: Following the judgment of the European Court, the Ministry of the Interior issued an identity card for the applicant under her maiden name.
• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (21/06/2005):
- On 11/06/1985, Turkey ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which became directly applicable in domestic law after the amendment made to Article 90 of the Constitution in May 2004 providing supremacy to Turkey's obligations in the field of human rights over domestic law.
States Parties to the Convention are under an obligation to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, in particular the same personal rights as husband and wife, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation (Article 16 (g) of the Convention).
- The Ministry of Justice is preparing a draft law which is destined to amend Article 187 of the Civil Code in order to ensure that future violations of the same kind will be avoided. At the 997th meeting (June 2007) the Turkish authorities declared that the preparatory work would be finalised for the adoption of this draft law. However, they did not provide the Committee with a time-table.
- The judgment of the European Court was published on the Bulletin of Ministry of Justice of 17/05/2005, No. 275, p. 39. At the 928th meeting (June 2005) the Turkish authorities also informed the Committee that the judgment had received wide public attention in Turkey and hoped that similar violations would be avoided in the future.
On 11/04/2006 the Turkish authorities informed the Secretariat that the issue of an identity card for the applicant with her maiden name on it constituted a good example of the direct effect given by the executive authorities to the Convention and to the case-law of the European Court notwithstanding the impugned legislation.
• Information is awaited on the progress of the draft law destined to amend Article 187.
The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1028th meeting (3-5 June 2008) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on general measures, namely the adoption of the draft law destined to amend Article 187 of the Civil Code.
SUB-SECTION 5.2 – CHANGES OF COURTS’ CASE-LAW OR OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE
- 50 cases against Turkey
- Cases of length of detention on remand and of length of criminal proceedings
39324/98 Demirel, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03
61442/00+ Acunbay, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005
77331/01 Ağdaş Çetin, judgment of 19/09/2006, final on 19/12/2006
73038/01 Altın Hiyasettin, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005, rectified on 06/09/2005
30911/04 Aydın Remzi, judgment of 20/02/2007, final on 20/05/2007
43256/04 Bağrıyanık, judgment of 05/06/2007, final on 05/09/2007
495/02 Baltacı, judgment of 18/07/2006, final on 18/10/2006
74337/01 Baştımar and others, judgment of 05/12/2006, final on 05/03/2007
8610/02 Bilgin Özden, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007
58398/00 Ceylan Hasan, judgment of 23/05/2006, final on 23/08/2006
14899/03 Çiçekler, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006
45977/99 Çobanoğlu and Budak, judgment of 30/01/2007, final on 30/04/2007
77845/01 Dereci, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005
61443/00 Dinler, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005
17765/02 Dursun, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007
57963/00 Duyum, judgment of 27/03/2007, final on 09/07/2007
49048/99 Esen Hüseyin, judgment of 08/08/2006, final on 08/11/2006
71517/01 Gezici and İpek, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006
51839/99 Gökçe and Demirel, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006
61908/00 Güneş Mehmet, judgment of 21/09/2006, final on 21/12/2006
32420/03 Kaçar Murat, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007
16779/02 Kalay, judgment of 22/09/2005, final on 22/12/2005
7328/03 Kapar, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007, rectified on 30/08/2007
5701/02 Karagöz Gönül, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006
76991/01 Karakaş, judgment of 13/06/2006, final on 13/09/2006
11468/02 Karatay and others, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007
40994/98 Katar and others, judgment of 18/04/2006, final on 18/07/2006, rectified on 21/08/2006
61440/00 Kimran, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 05/07/2005
74321/01 Koşti and others, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007
35065/97 N.M., judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006
20648/02 Öcalan Kamil, judgment of 12/12/2006, final on 12/03/2007
61441/00 Özdemir Sadegül, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 02/11/2005
13017/02 Pakkan, judgment of 31/10/2006, final on 31/01/2007
61446/00 Polat Ali Hıdır, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 05/07/2005
46262/99 Sevgin and Ince, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005
34623/03 Solmaz Cahit, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007
27561/02 Solmaz, judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 16/04/2007
25324/02 Taciroğlu, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006
28150/03 Tamcan, judgment of 12/06/2007, final on 12/09/2007
235/02 Tamer and others, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 11/12/2006
21179/02 Taş Sabri, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005, revised on 25/04/2006, final on 25/07/2006
42554/98+ Tekin and Baltaş, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006
40159/98 Temel and Taşkın, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/09/2005
13244/02 Töre No. 2, judgment of 11/07/2006, final on 11/10/2006
62312/00 Tosun Veli, judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 16/04/2007
11798/03 Tutar İskender, judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007
18078/02 Vayiç, judgment of 20/06/2006, final on 20/09/2006
11339/03 Yakışan, judgment of 06/03/2007, final on 06/06/2007
46412/99 Yaşar Mahmut, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006
12439/03 Yurt, judgment of 20/02/2007, final on 20/05/2007
These cases primarily concern the excessive length of the applicants' detention on remand, the impossibility for the applicants to have the lawfulness of their detention decided speedily by a court, and the absence of a right to compensation for their unlawful detention on remand (violations of Articles 5§3, 5§4 an 5§5).
In this respect, the European Court found that the relevant judicial decisions, in only using general wording, such as “taking into account the nature of the crime and the state of evidence” did not provide sufficient information as to the reasons justifying the applicants' being kept in detention.
Many of these cases further concern the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular before state security courts (violations of Article 6§1).
The following cases also concern other violations, namely:
- The cases of Tekin and Baltaş and Esen Hüseyin concern failure to communicate to them the prosecutor’s opinion (violations of Article 6§1);
- The cases of Demirel, Sevgin and İnce and Temel and Taşkın concern the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security courts which convicted them (violations of Article 6§1);
- Ill-treatment and lack of an effective remedy in the case of Tosun Veli (violations of Articles 3 and 13).
1) Acceleration of the pending proceedings in the following cases:
• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (19/06/2007):
- Dereci: The Istanbul Assize Court gave a judgment on 27/12/2006 and convicted the applicant. The applicant appealed the judgment and the proceedings are currently pending
- Kalay: The proceedings are still pending and the next hearing had been scheduled for 10/09/2007;
- Ağdaş Çetin: The Istanbul Assize Court gave a judgment on 07/03/2007 and convicted the applicant. The applicant appealed the judgment and the proceedings are currently pending;
- Esen Hüseyin and Vayiç: The joint proceedings against these applicants are still pending and a hearing had been scheduled for 12/09/2007;
- Gökçe and Demirel: The joint proceedings against these applicants are still pending and a hearing had been scheduled for 13/07/2007;
- Töre No. 2: Proceedings are still pending;
- Karagöz: On 09/02/2006, the Istanbul Assize Court gave a judgment and acquitted the applicant. The judgment has become final.
• Information is needed on the status of the cases that are still pending.
2) Taciroğlu case: The applicant's conviction was quashed by a decision of the Court of Cassation of April 2005. The applicant is thus once again detained on remand
• Are awaited: copies of the decisions of domestic courts ordering the applicant's detention on remand.
3) Cases of Baltacı, Aydın Remzi and Tosun Veli: The applicants are currently detained on remand. In particular, Mr Baltacı’s conviction was quashed for the second time by the Court of Cassation
• Information is urgently awaited concerning the outcome of the proceedings pending against the applicants.
1) Violations of Article 5§§3, 4 and 5 on account of excessive length of detention on remand:
• Information provided by the Turkish authorities: The Code of Criminal Procedure, which came into force on 01/06/2005, provides for the following safeguards to avoid future violations of the same kind:
a) Decisions to detain on remand or to extend such detention, as well as those denying requests for release, must be duly reasoned on both legal and factual grounds. The contents of such decisions must be communicated orally to the accused or suspects. A written copy of the decision must also be forwarded to the accused or suspect.
b) A maximum time-limit for the length of detention on remand is set (two years in the case of offences within the jurisdiction of the Assize Courts, which may be extended for a maximum of three years; one year in the case of other offences, with the possibility of extension for six months).
c) A judge or a court shall decide whether or not the conditions for the detention on remand still exist at every hearing or between two consecutive hearings, if necessary, or in any event every 30 days.
d) Anyone who claims that he or she has been unlawfully detained on remand or whose detention on remand has been unlawfully extended may claim damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages incurred.
On 21/08/2007, Turkish authorities provided 18 examples of decisions given by assize courts and other criminal courts in the last two years since the legislative amendments. In most of these decisions, the courts released the detained accused on a number of grounds such as the fact that most of the evidence has already been gathered; that the accused has already been on remand for a period of time; that the evidence in the record might indicate a crime less severe than the charges; that mitigating factors might apply in the event of conviction, or deteriorating health of the accused. In some cases, the accused were also released on bail.
In one case dealing with organised crime, the court denied release requests on the ground that the alleged crimes were of a serious and organised nature, that the evidence was not fully gathered, hence potential evidence suppression attempts and the likelihood of absconding. In another case involving a terrorist organisation, an assize court ordered the defendants’ continued detention on the ground of the nature of the charges being organised crime, the risk of absconding, the evidence yet to be gathered, and the fact that the defendants had been in detention for a relatively short period of time.
• Although these examples demonstrate a positive change in court practice, further examples are expected for a more conclusive evaluation.
2) Violations of Article 6§1:
- Excessive length of criminal proceedings: The Committee is examining the measures taken in the Ormancı group (see 100 meeting June 2007). For this group, the Committee is expecting information on the adoption of draft laws which are intended to prevent lengthy proceedings as well as on the introduction of effective domestic remedies in this respect.
It should further be noted that state security courts were abolished by the constitutional amendments of May 2004.
- Independence and impartiality of state security courts: See, Çıraklar against Turkey (judgment of 28/10/1998) which was closed by final resolution DH(99)555 following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.
- Non-communication of the Public Prosecutor's written observation: a new provision was added by Law No. 4778 of January 2003 to Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring notification of written opinions of the Principal Public Prosecutor to parties by the competent chamber of the Court of Cassation. This provision was subsequently included in Article 297 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure adopted on 17/12/2004, which entered into force on 01/06/2005.
3) Violations of Articles 3 and 13 (Ill-treatment and lack of an effective remedy): Measures are being examined in the context of the actions of security forces group against Turkey (see Aksoy group, 1007th meeting, October 2007, Section 4.3).
4) Dissemination of the judgments of the European Court: the Demirel judgment has been translated into Turkish and circulated to the relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior.
The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items:
1. at their 1028th meeting (3-5 June 2008) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on the payment of the just satisfaction, if necessary,
2. at the latest at their 1035th meeting (16-18 September 2008) (DH), to supervise the progress made in the adoption of general measures as well as urgent individual measures in certain cases.
SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION
The Deputies decided to resume consideration of these items at their 1028th meeting (3-5 June 2008) (DH), in the light of information to be provided on the payment of the just satisfaction, if necessary, and on general measures, namely publication and dissemination of the European court's judgments.
Cases in which supervision of measures concerning publications and disseminations has been taking place for less than six months
- 2 cases against Austria
37040/02 Riepl, judgment of 03/02/2005, final on 03/05/2005
45983/99 Kaplan, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007
- 1 case against Bulgaria
68079/01 Nikolov Nikola, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007
- 4 cases against Finland
18358/02 Muttilainen, judgment of 22/05/2007, final on 22/08/2007
70216/01 Laaksonnen, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007
45830/99 Nuutinen Juha, judgment of 24/04/2007, final on 24/07/2007
36065/97 H.K., judgment of 26/09/2006, final on 26/12/2006
- 6 cases against France
57752/00 Matheron, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005
77773/01 Flandin, judgment of 28/11/2006, final on 28/02/2007
37876/02 Clément, judgment of 06/06/2006, final on 06/09/2006
57516/00 Société de Gestion du Port de Campoloro et société fermière de Campoloro, judgment of 26/09/2006, final on 06/12/2006
17070/05 Farhi, judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 23/05/2007
73316/01 Siliadin, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005
- 2 cases against Italy
10427/02 Roda and Bonfatti, judgment of 21/11/2006, final on 26/03/2007
10180/04 Patrono, Cascini and Stefanelli, judgment of 20/04/2006, final on 20/07/2006
- 2 cases against Latvia
61005/00 Kornakovs, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 15/09/2006
66820/01 Svipsta, judgment of 09/03/2006; final on 09/06/2006
- 10 cases against Poland
45972/99 Siemianowski, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 15/02/2006
63131/00 Gębura, judgment of 06/03/2007, final on 06/06/2007
14348/02 Garycki, judgment of 06/02/2007, final on 06/05/2007
6925/02 Szymoński, judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007
46917/99 Stankiewicz, judgment of 06/04/2006, final on 06/07/2006
41187/02 Szwagrun-Baurycza, judgment of 24/10/2006, final on 24/01/2007
38797/03 Ambruszkiewicz, judgment of 04/05/2006, final on 23/10/2006
43797/98 Malisiewicz-Gąsior, judgment of 06/04/2006, final on 06/07/2006
18235/02 Dąbrowski, judgment of 19/12/2006, final on 19/03/2007
51744/99 Kwiecień, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007
- 2 cases against Romania
57808/00 Albina, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005
77193/01+ Dragotoniu and Militaru-Pidhorni, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 24/08/2007
- 1 case against Sweden
47473/99 Hellborg, judgment of 28/02/2006, final on 28/05/2006
- 1 case against Switzerland
17073/04 Kaiser, judgment of 15/03/2007, final on 15/06/2007
- 4 cases against Turkey
1855/02 Kök, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 19/01/2007
34494/97 H.M., judgment of 08/08/2006, final on 08/11/2006
70845/01 Kılıç Taner, judgment of 24/10/2006, final on 12/02/2007
34478/97 Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfi, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007, rectified on 22/05/2007
Cases in which supervision of measures concerning publications and disseminations has been taking place for more than six months
- 1 case against Andorra
69498/01 Pla and Puncernau, judgment of 13/07/2004, final on 15/12/2004 and of 10/10/2004 (Article 41) - Friendly settlement
- 8 cases against Bulgaria
56272/00 Kayadjieva, judgment of 28/09/2006, final on 28/12/2006
31365/96 Varbanov, judgment of 05/10/00
39269/98 Kepenerov, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 03/12/03
40061/98 M.S., judgment of 04/07/02 - Friendly settlement
44624/98 Prikyan and Angelova, judgment of 16/02/2006, final on 16/05/2006
39271/98 Kuibishev, judgment of 30/09/2004, final on 30/12/2004
68177/01 Yambolov, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007
40476/98 Yanakiev, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 10/11/2006
- 5 cases against France
75699/01 Vaturi, judgment of 13/04/2006, final on 13/07/2006
17902/02 Zentar, judgment of 13/04/2006, final on 13/07/2006
50278/99 Aoulmi, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006
49580/99 Santoni, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 29/10/2003, revised on 01/06/2004, final on 01/09/2004
44568/98 R.L. and M.-J.D., judgment of 19/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004
- 2 cases against Greece
28340/02 Examiliotis No. 2, judgment of 04/05/2006, final on 23/10/2006
10162/02 Eko-Elda Avee, judgment of 09/03/2006; final on 09/06/2006
- 3 cases against Poland
43425/98 Skałka, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03, rectified on 16/09/03
49913/99 Zielonka, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006
51728/99 Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd., judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005
- 1 case against Romania
53037/99 Ionescu Virgil, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005
No new case.
Note 1 Those items marked with an asterisk * were added after approval of the draft Agenda (Preliminary list of items for consideration at the 1020th meeting) in accordance with the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights.