I don't know if they stated those predictions in public.
If it's not stated in public, then it is not worth the 30-m high letters in which it wasn't painted on the side of a building in down town Geneva.
Actually, there is a fair point there : there is no recognised forum for posting such predictions. And there are a lot of internet kooks out there who all think that they've got the perfect solution, but not one of them is willing to stand by a "prediction".
Some ground rules have been proposed about what constitutes a prediction. And then the kooks get involved and turn it into a kitten-in-a-washing-machine-with-a-broken-bottle experience for anyone who is in the least bit serious. Little things like : the prediction should be specific with respect to period to which it applies, magnitude of the earthquake predicted, and region that the prediction covers ; secondly, the prediction should be sufficiently precise that the pre-existing records for the area concerned would not predict that event just on statistics. "A magnitude 4.0 in southern California in the next 6 months" isn't a prediction, it's a racing certainty. "A magnitude 5.0 + on the eastern English Channel within the next 6 weeks" is a prediction (there was such an even in the late 17th century, IIRC, and hasn't been one since. So the occurrence of a predicted earthquake there would be pretty remarkable.) And finally, ALL your predictions need to be made public, and your method will be judged on the results of ALL of your predictions. (Some of the kooks use the "predict everything, everywhere, all the time" approach, and think that is effective.Your failed predictions will be counted along with your successes.)
Even getting agreement on these basic points - it's the kitten and the bottle into the washing machine again.
While all geological services are interested in such questions (including the BGS, in whose balliwick the Channel quake mentioned above falls), none of them see any reason for any general system to work. Why? Because they're geologists. As am I. So I can explain why they don't expect a generic system to work:
An earthquake occurs in a natural material which is inhomogeneous - in fact it has a structure that varies on scales ranging from the sub-millimetre to the multiple kilometre (I work at the sub-millimetre to sub-centimetre scale - people pay me to describe that inhomogeneity). The strength of such materials can be predicted in compression reasonably well - to within 20 to 50% ; but not so well in tension ; shear, combining tension, compression and structural homogeneity (absent - see above) is rather more difficult still. Earthquakes can occur because of either tension, compression or shear ; most often shear since it combines the others. Moving from the materials in which the failure occurs, consider the forces involved. They are, oddly enough, variable, because the distribution of forces depends on the action of large scale forces (weight, plate movements, tides, weather (including the last few centuries of rainfall and the last few minutes of barometric pressure)) which are delivered to the rock units that fail by a cascade of intermediate units, each one of which varies in stiffness (Young's modulus, for starters), in it's time variance of behaviour (some rocks "creep", others don't ; look up pictures of "chocolate boudinage", if you want to get a handle on how much rocks can vary) .. oh, and did I mention that the properties vary on scales form sub-millimetre to multiple kilometre?
So, how are we going to attack the problem. Clearly we need to map the rocks and the forces. But there is a problem. You see, rocks are generally opaque. Opaque to visible light ; opaque to anything with a shorter wavelength (and therefore able to measure the small scale variations), unless you can get the rock into a synchrotron beam or industrial X-ray machine. And them do the same for the next couple of millimetres, and then the next ... and finally put it back together again without leaving cracks in it (which will change the rock's response to forces, and it's transmission of forces).
What about longer wavelengths? Well, here we do have some hopes : acoustic energy. It'll pick up variations in mechanical properties on a scale of half the wavelength of the sound used. It's called "seismic". I use it a lot at work. Of course, some countries ban it because it fucks whales ears (we employ a dedicated Marine Mammal Observer when we have guns in the water). And the really interesting high-frequency waves ... err, they interact with the rock and are absorbed. So the further you get from the sound source, the coarser the information that you get back. In practice, at the geologically interesting depths of a handful of kilometres, we simply cannot see a fracture of less than about 10 metres in height.
People are trying to get around the problem of seeing through rock. Oil companies in particular (which you won't be surprised to learn, is my trade). It is a multiple billion dollar industry. And it is far, far, far below the resolution that is necessary.
Just as a matter of interest, what are your proposals for measuring the state of forces in the rocks under your feet? That is, measuring the forces, not speculating about them.
The above are the main reasons why national geological services do not waste their tax-payer-provided funds on earthquake prediction research. The payback from the same money on building protection and emergency response has a far, far better return.
On the other hand, feel free to develop your own proposed methodology. Then you too can get involved with the kooks (I'm not calling you a kook ; everyone else is a kook. They all agree on that!) and post your predictions on an appropriate forum. And IF your predictions work better than chance (your statistics had better be good ; remember Feynman's dictum about fooling yourself ; he meant it to apply to himself, and I'm reasonably sure that you're not much better a scientist than Feynman) then there will be people beating your door down to buy into your method.
Don't expect me to invest.