CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 juin 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1CCBA354 { width:78.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA86BF673 { width:60.81pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   285 8.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and Iceland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, which are not final. [1]     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Mutimura v. France (application no. 46621/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Yvonne Mutimura, is a French national who was born in 1964 and lives in Castres.   In June and July 1995 a number of criminal complaints lodged in France alleged that a Rwandan clergyman who at the time was residing in France and serving as a curate had taken part in acts of genocide in his former parish in Kigali. A judicial investigation was opened into offences of genocide and torture in particular. On 1 August 1995 the applicant applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. The judicial investigation is still pending.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant submitted that the complaint and her civil-party application had not been examined within a reasonable time and that she had not had a remedy in respect of that grievance, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the proceedings, which were still pending before the investigating judge, had to date lasted eight years and more than eight months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that length did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision. The Court also noted that on the date of her application to the Court, the applicant had not had a remedy in French law whose effectiveness “in practice” and “in law” had been demonstrated in respect of the length of the proceedings. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 10,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland (no. 40905/98)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 The applicant, Hilda Hafsteindóttir, is an Icelandic national, born in 1949 and living in Reykjavík.   She alleged that her detention in police custody for drunkenness and disorderly conduct on six occasions on various dates between 31 January 1988 and 24 June 1997 had not been justified for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights was satisfied on the evidence before it that the arrests and detention in question conformed to the national substantive and procedural rules. It appeared that on each occasion the police had contemplated less serious measures and could reasonably have considered that it was necessary to arrest and detain the applicant.   The Court noted, however, at the relevant time, the lack of a regulatory framework governing both the police’s discretion over the duration of the relevant type of detention in all six instances and the decision to place the applicant in detention in January   1988.   Certain rules, which entered into force on 1   July 1988, applied to the last five instances of detention. Under those rules, conduct resulting from the use of alcohol and causing disorder or significant disturbance or inconvenience could warrant detention, provided it was highly likely that the situation would continue if the person were to remain at liberty. However, the Court noted, the rules did not specify when detention ceased to be justified and the detainee had a right to be released. Moreover the Court was not convinced that the more detailed provisions in the rules had been made accessible to the public.   The Court was therefore not satisfied that the law, as applicable at the time, was sufficiently precise and accessible to avoid all risk of arbitrariness. Finding that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty was not “lawful”, the court held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1. The Court held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. EUR   6,500 was awarded for cost and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)       ***   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.