CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 juillet 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 } .s44376A36 { width:106.13pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s24A7C417 { width:98.83pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   347 6.7.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Moldova and San Marino   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Madonia v. Italy (application no. 55927/00)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Antonino Madonia, is an Italian national who was born in 1952 and is currently imprisoned in Parma. He is subject to the special prison regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prisons System (Organisation) Act. On four occasions the prison authorities censored letters the applicant had sent to the European Commission of Human Rights and the one he had sent to his legal representative containing the application form to be sent to the European Court of Human Rights.   The applicant submitted that the censoring of his letters had infringed his right to respect for his correspondence, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that it had previously held that the provisions on which such interception of mail was based were not a proper basis in law for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Bocancea and Others v. Moldova (nos. 18872/02, 20490/02, 18745/02, 6241/02, 6236/02, 21937/02, 18842/02, 18880/02 and 18875/02) The applicants, Ghenadie Bocancea, Angela Ciugureanu, Zoia Juravlev, Maria Melicenco, Boris Leviţchi, Maria Pronin, Nadejda Stavilov, Ana Crivceanschi and Olga Cotov, are Moldovan nationals, born in 1920, 1967, 1920, 1965, 1925, 1927, 1932, 1925 and 1924 respectively and living in the Republic of Moldova.   The applicants all complained about the non-enforcement of various judgments, due to lack of State funds. The judgments concerned the payment of compensation in relation to the failure to index-link their saving accounts.   The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights found the applicants’ complaint concerning Article 14 inadmissible and the remainder of the application admissible.   Concerning Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No 1, 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.   By failing, for periods varying between 32 and 28 months, to take the necessary measures to enforce the judgments in question, the Moldovan authorities deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   By failing to comply with the judgments, the Moldovan authorities also prevented the applicants from having their compensation paid and from enjoying the possession of their money. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   The Court awarded the following to the applicants for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage:   Applicant Pecuniary damage (EUR) Non-pecuniary damage (EUR) Ghenadie Bocancea 120 1000 Angela Ciugureanu 75 800 Zoia Juravlev 88 1000 Maria Melicenco 115 800 Boris Leviţchi 105 900 Maria Pronin 87 900 Nadejda Stavilov 111 900 Ana Crivceanschi 55 1000 Olga Cotov 77 900   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Dondarini v. San Marino (no. 50545/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Luciano Dondarini, is an Italian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Buttapietra (Italy). In January 1998 he was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment for making counterfeit public seals and altering and making unlawful use of such seals. That sentence was upheld on appeal by the Judge of Criminal Appeals ( Giudice delle Appellazioni Penali).   The applicant submitted that the lack of a public hearing during the appeal proceedings had breached Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial).   The Court observed that at first instance the concept of a fair trial implied that the defendant should have the right to attend the hearing. In appellate proceedings on the merits or on points of law the way the concept was to be applied depended on the special features of the procedure concerned. The Court further observed that an appellate court required to look into the factual and legal issues in a case and make an overall assessment of the defendant’s guilt or innocence could not rule without making a direct assessment of the evidence adduced by the accused in person. In the present case Mr Dondarini had not had an opportunity to appear in person before the Judge of Criminal Appeals, who had tried him without being able to assess his personality.   That being so, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the national judicial system had not secured to the applicant the right to a fair trial. The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Dondarini and awarded him EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only 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.