CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s18F7D39A { width:116.83pt; display:inline-block } .s66F218CF { width:115.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s622132F { width:159.49pt; display:inline-block } .s6AC99C50 { width:219.54pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .s16991825 { width:31.5pt; display:inline-block } .sC79962AF { width:103.51pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .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   301 15.6.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Moldova, Sweden and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Houfová v. Czech Republic (no.   1) (application no.   58177/00) Houfová v. Czech Republic (no.   2) (no.   58178/00) The applicant, Jarmila Houfová, is a Czech national who was born in 1936 and lives in Prague. She brought several sets of court proceedings for the recovery of a house and building which had been nationalised by the State.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the excessive length and the unfairness of the proceedings in question. She also complained that her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions had been infringed, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the proceedings in the case of Houfová v. Czech Republic (no.   1) had lasted seven years, eight months and 21 days for four levels of jurisdiction and that the proceedings that were the subject of Houfová v. Czech Republic (no.   2) had lasted six years, four months and 13 days for three levels of jurisdiction. It found that the length of those proceedings had not complied with the “reasonable-time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and therefore held, unanimously in both cases, that there had been a breach of that provision.   In respect of the other complaints raised by the applicant, the Court reiterated that they had been declared inadmissible and that it did not therefore have power to examine them. It awarded Mrs Houfová 2,000 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damage for the first application and EUR   2,500 for the second one. It also awarded an aggregate sum of EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (These judgments are available only in French.)   Tamminen v. Finland (no. 40847/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Eero Reino Tamminen, is a Finnish national, born in 1947 and living in Helsinki.   He complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that the Court of Appeal refused to hear a witness he had nominated.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded the applicant EUR   2,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Stepinska v. France (no.1814/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Emilia Stepinska, is a French national who was born in 1945 and lives in Paris.   She appealed to the Court of Cassation against a judgment of the executions judge at the Paris tribunal de grande instance determining the amount of a debt owed by her. After holding a hearing, at which the applicant was not present, a civil division of the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible because the grounds “were not such as to allow the appeal to be admitted”. The decision referred to Article L. 131-6 of the Code of Judicial Organisation – which provides for a special procedure for examining the admissibility of appeals to the Court of Cassation – and Articles 607 and 608 of the new Code of Civil Procedure.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that the proceedings in the Court of Cassation had been unfair as a result of her decision to conduct her own defence. She submitted that she had not received a copy of the advocate-general's submissions; had therefore been unable to reply to them; and that she had not been informed of the date of the hearing.   The Court considered that account had to be taken of the special features of the procedure by which appeals were admitted. It reiterated that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention did not require detailed reasons for a decision by which an appellate court, relying on a specific statutory provision, declared an appeal inadmissible on the ground that it was unlikely to succeed. The Court also noted that in the context of the proceedings in question a reply to the advocate-general’s submissions would have had no effect on the outcome of the dispute because the legal solution was not open to discussion. Under French statute and case-law the applicant’s appeal clearly fell within the category of immediate appeals prohibited by Article 607 and 608 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was therefore inadmissible. In the Court’s opinion, the Convention did not aim to protect rights that were purely theoretical or illusory. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 to Protocol No. 1 Luntre and Others v. Moldova (nos. 2916/02, 21960/02, 21951/02, 21941/02, 21933/02, 20491/02, 2676/02, 23594/02, 21956/02, 21953/02, 21943/02, 21947/02, and 21945/02) Pasteli and Others v. Moldova (nos. 9898/02, 9863/02, 6255/02 and 10425/02) Sîrbu and Others v. Moldova (nos. 73562/01, 73565/01, 73712/01, 73744/01, 73972/01 and 73973/01)   The applicants are all Moldovan national living in the Republic of Moldova. In Luntre and Others the applicants are: Gheorghe Luntre, Nina Voit, Pavel Maloman, Dumitru Tcacenco, Mihail Zverev, Lidia Abramov, Eudochia Volcov, Ianina Atnealov, Nina Ceaica, Dumitru Grişin, Tatiana Grişin, Pavel Epifanov, Nadejda Cleauşev, Ecaterina Bobîlev and Ivan Prozor, born in 1932, 1920, 1928, 1919, 1925, 1927, 1923, 1969, 1930, 1919, 1923, 1929, 1928, 1923 and 1922 respectively. The applicants in Pasteli and Others are: Sofia Pasteli, Nadejda Cernicov, Pavel Caretchi and Maria Caretchi, born in 1920, 1927, 1925 and 1928 respectively. The applicants in Sîrbu and Others are: Pavel Sîrbu, Petru Bragoi, Vitalie Cornovan, Gheorghe Bragoi, Alexandru Usatîi and Iulian Guştiuc born respectively in 1956, 1966, 1965, 1955, 1961 and 1954.   The applicants all complained about the non-enforcement of various judgments, due to lack of State funds. In Luntre and Others and Pasteli and Others the judgments concerned the payment of compensation in relation to the failure to index-link their saving accounts. In Sîrbu and Others , the judgments concerned compensation awarded to cover the back-dated increase in a special allowance.   The various judgments were ultimately enforced, in May and June 2003, after the cases before the European Court of Human Rights were communicated to the Moldovan Government.   The applicants all relied on Article   6 §   1 (access to a court) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention. In Sîrbu and Others the applicants also complained, under Article 10 (freedom of expression), about the Moldovan Government’s failure to publish in the Official Gazette its decision dealing with the increase in the special allowance.   In Sîrbu and Others European Court of Human Rights Court declared the applicants’ complaints concerning Article 10 inadmissible and the rest admissible.   Concerning Article 6 § 1 in each case, the Court observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. Admittedly, a delay in the execution of a judgment might be justified in particular circumstances. But the delay could not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article   6 §   1. The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for periods varying between five-and-a-half years and 20 months. By failing for years to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judgments in each case, the Moldovan authorities deprived the provisions of Article   6 §   1 of all useful effect.     The Court held, unanimously, therefore, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 in each case.   Concerning Article 1 or Protocol No. 1, the Court held, unanimously, that the impossibility for the applicants to obtain the compensation awarded to them through the execution of the judgments in question, for between 20 months and five-and-a-half years, was in violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   In Luntre and Others the Court awarded the applicants the following amounts: Applicant Pecuniary damage EUR Non-pecuniary damage EUR Gheorghe Luntre 101 1,000 Nina Voit 105 1,000 Pavel Maloman 25 1,000 Dumitru Tcacenco 25 1,000 Mihail Zverev 25 1,000 Lidia Abramov 63 800 Eudochia Volcov 102 800 Ianina Atnealov 35 700 Nina Ceaica 23 900 Dumitru Grişin 69 1,000 Tatiana Grişin 64 1,000 Pavel Epifanov 64 900 Nadejda Cleauşev 23 900 Ecaterina Bobîlev 25 1,000 Ivan Prozor 36 1,000   In Pasteli and Others the Court awarded the applicants the following amounts: Applicant Pecuniary damage EUR Non-pecuniary damage EUR Sofia Pasteli 76 1,000 Nadejda Cernicov 160 900 Pavel Careţchi 50 700 Maria Careţchi 100 700   In Sîrbu and Others, the Court awarded EUR   84 each to Mr Sîrbu, Mr Cornovan, Mr Bragoi, Mr Usatîi and Mr Guştiuc and EUR   67 to Mr Bragoi in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR   1000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage; and EUR   200 each in respect of costs and expenses.   (These judgments are only available in English.)   Romlin v. Sweden (no. 48630/99)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Tinna Romlin, is a Swedish national, born in 1965 and living in Sollentuna (Sweden).   The applicant complained that she was denied an oral hearing in relation to her application for a disability allowance. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 85,000   Swedish krona (equivalent to EUR 9,518) is to be paid to the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 G.W. v. United Kingdom (no. 34155/96) Le Petit v. United Kingdom (no. 35574/97)   The applicants, both British nationals, are: G.W., born in 1957 and living in Portsmouth (England) and Ian Le Petit, born in 1957 and living in Bristol. (England).   They mainly complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that their naval courts martial did not constitute independent and impartial tribunals.   In both cases the Court considered it evident - particularly in the light of its recent Grand Chamber judgment Grieves v. the United Kingdom - that the court martial system convened under the 1957 Act to try the applicants were not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 and that it was, therefore, not necessary to examine the applicants’ additional submissions under Article 6 § 1.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It awarded G.W. EUR 2,900   and Le Petit EUR 2,100   for costs and expenses.   (These judgments are only available in English.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 Thompson v. United Kingdom (no. 36256/97)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1, 3 c) The applicant, Albert Thompson, is a British national, born in 1965 and living in Durham (England).   He was detained from 27 January to 7 March 1997, charged with aggravated burglary and taking absence without leave, and was tried before a Magistrate’s Court.   He complained that his commanding officer, who ordered his detention, did not constitute a “judge or other officer” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3. He also complained about a delay in bringing him before that officer after his arrest.   He further complained, under Article 5 § 5, that he did not have an enforceable right to compensation, under Article 6 § 1, that his summary trial did not constitute a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and, under Article 6 § 3 (c), that legal representation was not available for such trials.     The Court concluded that the applicant’s commanding officer could not be regarded as independent of the parties and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It was, therefore, unnecessary to address the applicant’s additional complaint under Article 5 § 3 about a delay in being brought before his commanding officer. Given the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 3, and since the United Kingdom Government accepted that the applicant did not have an enforceable right to compensation in relation to such a contravention, the Court also concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   The Court considered it clear that the summary proceedings conducted by the commanding officer presented very clear structural independence and impartiality problems and that the proceedings were not compatible with Article 6 § 1; he was central to the prosecution and, at the same time, sole judge in the case. The proceedings before him were, consequently, unfair.   Such defects could not be corrected by a subsequent review other than a first instance hearing which met the requirements of Article 6 § 1. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of the independence, impartiality and, consequently, fairness requirements of Article 6 § 1.   The Court also held, unanimously, that the exclusion of legal representation from the applicant’s summary trial was in violation of Article 6 § 3(c).   The Court further held, unanimously, that the findings of violations of Articles 5 and 6 constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   S.C. v. United Kingdom (no. 60958/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, S.C., is a British national, born in 1988 and living in Merseyside (England).   In June 1999, S.C., then aged 11, attempted with another boy to take the bag of an 87-year-old woman, causing her to fall and fracture her arm. He was tried in an adult court and sentenced to two-and-a-half years’ detention.   The applicant alleged that, because of his youth and low intellectual ability, he was unable to participate effectively in his trial, contrary to Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights considered it noteworthy that the two experts who assessed the applicant before his court hearing formed the view that he had a very low intellectual level for his age. The applicant seemed to have had little comprehension of the role of the jury in the proceedings or of the importance of making a good impression on them. Even more strikingly, he did not seem to have grasped the fact that he risked a custodial sentence and, even once sentence had been passed and he had been taken down to the holding cells, he appeared confused and expected to be able to go home with his foster father. In the light of that evidence, the Court could not conclude that the applicant was capable of participating effectively in his trial.   The Court considered that, when a decision was taken to deal with a child, such as the applicant, who risked not being able to participate effectively because of his young age and limited intellectual capacity, by way of criminal proceedings rather than through proceedings   directed primarily at determining the child’s best interests and those of the community, it was essential that he be tried in a specialist tribunal which was able to give full consideration to and make proper allowance for his particular difficulties and adapt its procedure accordingly.   While noting that an expert had found that “on balance” that S.C did have sufficient intelligence to understand that what he had done was wrong and that he was fit to plead, the Court was not convinced, in the circumstances of the case, that it followed that he was capable of participating effectively in his trial to the extent required by Article 6 § 1.   The Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded the applicant EUR   5,315 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and in French.)   *** 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.