CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 mai 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sC4BEE603 { width:48.79pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC6EE66FD { width:97.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7969EF10 { width:126.13pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s5B51A70A { width:58.8pt; display:inline-block } .s9D21D9DC { width:189.51pt; display:inline-block } .sF3C87C0B { width:121.47pt; display:inline-block } .sFFB11CE8 { width:69.41pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   268 27.5.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Yavuz v. Austria (no. 46549/99)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c) and d) The applicant, Yasar Yavuz, is a Turkish national, born in 1959, who was fined for illegally employing a foreigner.   He complained, under Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, about the length (four years and nine months) and the alleged unfairness of the proceedings against him. In particular, he claimed that he was not heard in person and was unable to examine witnesses, in breach of Article 6   §   3   (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) and (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), 6   §   3   (c) (right to legal assistance of own choosing) and (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,981.78 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC St. Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others v. France (nos. 42219/98 and 54563/00) The applications were lodged by the Stanislas Institute, a private-school management body and 56 Catholic-school management bodies. Each of the applicants is responsible for managing a private school under the terms of a contrat of association with the State.   In 1992 the Conseil d’Etat delivered a judgment determining the amount of social-security contributions to be reimbursed by the State to ensure equality between teachers, as there was a gap in the legislation on this point. The applicants brought proceedings in the administrative courts, as they considered that they could use that decision to obtain reimbursement of the contributions in full. While the proceedings were pending, the legislature passed an Act of Parliament in 1995, supplemented by a decree in 1996, which fixed at a lower rate and with retrospective effect the level of reimbursement that could be ordered in proceedings pending before the courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicants argued that the 1995 Act had been passed in order to alter the outcome of proceedings to which the State was a party, thus denying them equality of arms. They also alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in that the 1995 statutory reduction in the level of reimbursement had deprived them of sums due to them by the State. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Protocol No. 1, taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, they submitted that the provisions of the 1995 Act did not treat the management bodies equally, but made distinctions depending on the date on which the proceedings had been brought in the administrative courts.   The Court noted that the aim of the legislative intervention was to fill a legal vacuum that had been identified by the Conseil d’Etat in its judgment of 15 May 1992 and which the applicants had sought to exploit in their actions in the administrative courts. The applicants had thus been looking for a windfall and had reason to expect that the State would legislate on the matter. Accordingly, the Court considered that the intervention of the legislature was entirely foreseeable and was clearly and compellingly justified in the general interest. It found that the applicants could not legitimately complain of a breach of the principle of equality of arms, and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   Without deciding the issue categorically, the Court was prepared to assume for the sake of argument that the applicants’ claims constituted “possessions” in the form of acquired rights to reimbursement. It noted that the applicants’ right to reimbursement as such had remained intact, their only complaint being that the value of their claim had been fixed at less than the amount hoped for. The general interest in dispelling all doubt as to the proportion in which the contributions would be reimbursed had to be regarded as overriding and as taking precedence over the applicants’ interest in seeking to take advantage of a loophole in the regulations. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court held that no separate examination was necessary of the complaints of a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No 1, taken together with Article 14 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Boulougouras v. Greece (no. 66294/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Nikolaos Boulougouras, is a Greek national who was born in 1942 and lives on Euboea (Greece). In 1999 he was sentenced to six-months’ imprisonment by the Chalcis Criminal Court for illegally building a house in a woodland area. On 14 November 2000, his appeal to the Court of Cassation was declared inadmissible after the registrar of the Court of Cassation omitted to countersign the notice of appeal containing the grounds of appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant argued that declaring his appeal to the Court of Cassation inadmissible was tantamount to denying him access to the Court.   The Court found that the Court of Cassation’s ruling that the appeal was inadmissible penalised the applicant for a clerical error committed when his appeal was lodged for which he could not be held responsible. The Court could not accept that the procedure in the Court of Cassation should be so excessively formalistic. It found that the applicant had suffered a disproportionate restriction on his right of access to a court and that, accordingly, the very essence of his right had been infringed. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Liadis v. Greece (no. 16412/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Charilaos Liadis, is a Greek national who was born in 1942 and lives in Sparta (Greece). He brought an action against the Public Electricity Company ( DEI ) seeking compensation after his house was destroyed by a fire caused by electricity pylons.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) that the proceedings had been protracted (having taken 21 years, 10 months and 26 days, of which the Court could only take into account 14 years and 9 months [2] ) and unfair.   The Court declared the complaint regarding the length of proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and notwithstanding the overall length of the proceedings, the Court found that the “reasonable-time” requirement within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 had not been infringed and therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Metaxas v. Greece (no. 8415/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Alexandros Metaxas, is a Greek national who was born in 1929 and lives in Athens. He complained of the authorities’ refusal over a protracted period to comply with a judgment of the Audit Court awarding him an increase in his retirement pension.   The applicant alleged that the authorities had infringed his rights to effective judicial protection and to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that the conduct of the national authorities had rendered Article 6 § 1 nugatory and held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision. It further found that by delaying paying of the sums due to the applicant, after enforcement proceedings had been brought, the authorities had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, without any justification. It therefore unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 12,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Monti v. Italy (no. 63833/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Steno Monti, is an Italian national, born in 1922 and living in Sansepolcro (Arezzo, Italy).   He complained about his prolonged inability – through lack of police assistance – to recover possession of his apartment and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR   14,853.50 is to be paid to the applicant for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Gadliauskas v. Lithuania (no. 62741/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Ramunas Gadliauskas, is a Lithuanian national, born in 1965 and living in Šiauliai.   He complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him for blackmail which have been pending since 1996. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 15,000   Lithuanian litai (LTL) is to be paid to the applicant for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and LTL   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Baransel and Others v. Turkey (no. 41578/98) H.B. and Others v. Turkey (no. 38883/97) İ.I. v. Turkey (no. 38420/97) Kaya and Others v. Turkey (no. 36564/97) The applicants in Baransel and Others are: F. Melek Baransel, Selma Öztok, Saliha Parlaöz, Z. Semra Gülüser, Z.   Neriman Gülüser, Turgut Baransel, K. Süha Gülüser and Soner Gülüser. They are all Turkish nationals living in Istanbul and former owners of land in Bursa, which were expropriated by the State in 1995. The applicants in the other three cases are Turkish nationals who live in Şanlıurfa. They were former owners of land in Birecik which were expropriated by the State in 1996.   In all four cases the applicants complained of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as a result of the delay by the authorities in paying them the additional compensation which had been awarded them by the courts. All the applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and – except in the case Baransel and Others – on 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the delay in paying additional compensation was in both cases attributable to the authorities and had caused the applicants to sustain a separate loss in addition to the loss deriving from the expropriation of their possessions. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that in these four cases, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints raised under Article 6 § 1. In payment for pecuniary damage, the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR   87,000 in the case of Baransel and Others , EUR   45,951 in the case of H.B. and Others , EUR   2,400 to Mr I.I. and EUR   45,000 to Mr Kaya. The Court held that in each of these cases, the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. It awarded EUR   100 to Mr Kaya for costs and expenses. (The judgments are only available in French.)   No violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 5 § 3 No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) Yurttas v. Turkey (nos. 25143/94 and 27098/95)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Sedat Yurttas, is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Ankara.   At the material time, he was a member of the Grand National Assembly and of a political party, the DEP ( Democracy Party ). In June 1994 the DEP was dissolved by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that it was carrying on activities that were harmful to the territorial integrity of the State.   Mr Yurttas was taken into the custody of the security forces on 1 July 1994, after surrendering to the public prosecutor’s office with another former member of Parliament from the DEP . He spent his first five days in custody in a cell without being questioned. On 12 July 1994 he was brought before a judge of the Ankara State Security Court who ordered his detention pending trial. The State Security Court sentenced him to fourteen-months’ imprisonment for separatist propaganda owing to the tenor of statements he had made both individually and jointly with other members of the DEP .   The applicant maintained that the length and conditions of his detention by the security forces contravened Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 5 § 3 (right solidity and security) of the Convention. He complained under Article 6 that he had not had a fair trial in that he had been denied access to a lawyer while in custody and had not been able to have the prosecution witnesses examined. Lastly, he alleged that his conviction had infringed his right to freedom of thought and expression, in breach of Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.   The Court noted that the applicant had not been held in sensory isolation coupled with social isolation while in the custody of the security forces. Although he had not had any contact with the outside world, he did have contact with members of staff working on the premises and other detainees. Furthermore, in the absence of any questioning, his detention amounted to a prolonged wait that was not so excessively long as to affect him pyschologically. Consequently, the Court found that the applicant’s detention by the security forces did not, in itself, reach the minimum level of severity necessary to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 and held unanimously that there had been no violation of that provision.   The Court noted that the applicant had spent 11 days in custody before being brought before a judge. Even supposing that he was suspected of activities linked to a terrorist threat, the Court could not accept that it had been necessary for him to be detained for 11 days without judicial intervention. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   On the facts of the case, the Court could not find that the applicant’s rights of defence were irreparably harmed while he was in the custody of the security forces or that his inability to communicate with a lawyer during that period had deprived him of a fair trial. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c). The Court further found that the witness statements referred to by the applicant had not served as a basis for his conviction but related to charges that were not proved. Accordingly, it held that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).   The Court decided to examine the allegation of a violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression under Article 10. It noted that Mr Yurttas had been speaking as a politician and as an actor on the Turkish political stage. He had not incited violence or armed resistance or even an uprising and had not used hate speech. His sentence to fourteen months’ imprisonment was disproportionate to the aims pursued and, therefore, not “necessary in a democratic society”. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Yurttas EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses.     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] The starting point being 20 November 1985, when Greece recognised the right of individual application.