CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 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 } .s2D4C650F { width:46.14pt; display:inline-block } .s67CD4EEF { width:82.8pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sE9D68DAE { width:124.16pt; display:inline-block } .s5CD2CEB5 { width:256.2pt; display:inline-block } .s2FB03046 { width:129.46pt; display:inline-block } .sA7CC59E { width:172.14pt; display:inline-block } .s1F555134 { width:84.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA7F6F1E0 { width:237.34pt; display:inline-block } .sDCFA6638 { width:58.11pt; 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   351 8.7.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia and Greece     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Wohlmeyer Bau Gmbh v. Austria (no. 20077/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Wohlmeyer Bau Gmbh, is a limited liability company based in Austria.   On 26 August 1993 the applicant company brought civil proceedings against 16 clients, claiming approximately two million Austrian schillings (about 145   000 Euros) in payment for construction work carried out by the company.   The applicant company complained about the length of the proceedings, which have already lasted ten years and eight months and are still pending, and also alleged that the judge in the case was not impartial. The company further complained about the lack of an effective remedy concerning the length of the proceedings. It relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings was admissible and the remainder of the application was inadmissible and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded the applicant company 8,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,677.85 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Pronk v. Belgium (no. 51338/99)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 c) The applicant, Heleendert Pronk, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1953 and lives in Rotterdam.   In December 1995 an investigation was opened in respect of information implicating the applicant in the laundering of large sums of money derived from drug trafficking. When, following that investigation, the investigating courts, namely the Committal Division, and on appeal the Indictment Division, were called upon to decide whether he should be committed to stand trial, the applicant failed to comply with the summonses he had been sent. As he did not appear at his trial, either at first instance or on appeal, his lawyer was not permitted to represent him.   On 6 March 1997 the Antwerp Criminal Court sentenced him in absentia for money laundering and receiving to five years’ imprisonment and a tax fine equivalent to about 2,500 euros (EUR). On 2 October 1997 the Antwerp Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s prison sentence and raised the tax fine to approximately EUR 496,000. The same Court of Appeal, in response to an objection by the applicant, again refused him the right to be represented by his lawyer and declared an appeal by him void for failure to appear at his trial. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   The applicant complained of various violations of Article 6 (right to a fair trial). Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), he complained that he had been deprived of the possibility of being represented by counsel before the Committal Division and the trial courts. He further submitted that he had not been duly informed of the charges against him and had not had access to the file until a very late stage, contrary to Article 6 §§ 3 (a) and (b).   The Court considered that by refusing to allow the applicant to be represented by a lawyer the Antwerp Criminal Court and the Antwerp Court of Appeal had deprived him of the right to be defended by a lawyer of his choice. That conclusion made it unnecessary for the Court to examine in addition the question of the refusal to allow him to be represented before the Committal Division and the question whether Article 6 was applicable to that stage of the proceedings. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 taken together with Article 6 § 3 (c).   Moreover, by refusing to allow Mr Pronk’s lawyer to represent him in his absence the Belgian courts could not in any event have guaranteed him a fair trial. Having regard to its finding of a violation, the Court considered that there was no cause to examine separately the complaints concerning the lack of information about the charges under Article 6 § 3 (a) or the lack of sufficient time to prepare a defence under Article 6 § 3 (b).   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   7,606 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Djangozov v. Bulgaria (no. 45950/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Petar Ivanov Djangozov, is a Bulgarian national, born in 1946 and living in Plovdiv.   On 9 December 1994 the newspaper Parvirnay dnes printed an article referring to the applicant, among other things, as, a “person of unsound mind” („невменяем човек“) and a “wretch” („нещастник“). The applicant complained that the excessive length (at least eight years and four months) of the civil proceedings he brought against the newspaper in relation to the article in question, prevented him from effectively protecting his reputation. He also complained that he had no effective remedy against the excessive length of the proceedings.   He relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), 8 (right to respect for his private life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 and that it was unnecessary to rule on the complaint raised under Article 8. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   2,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 §§§ 3, 4 and 5 Vachev v. Bulgaria (no. 42987/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Antim Todorov Vachev, is a Bulgarian national, born in 1941, who was living in Teteven at the time of the events in question. He was the executive director of Elprom ‑ EMT, a State ‑ owned company, against which bankruptcy proceedings were opened in 1997.   On 3 June 1997 the applicant was charged with abuse of office and making false official documents and put under house arrest.   He complained that he was placed under house arrest without being brought before a judge, that his house arrest was not subject to judicial review, that he had no enforceable right to compensation and that the criminal proceedings against him lasted an unreasonably long time (approximately five years and nine months). He relied on Articles 5 §§ 3, 4, and 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 5 §§§ 3, 4 and 5 and 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for non ‑ pecuniary damage and the applicant’s legal representative EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Bašić v. Croatia (no. 74309/01)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Ivica Bašić, is a Croatian national, born in 1960 and living in Köln, Germany.   He brought civil proceedings claiming compensation, after his business premises in Zagreb were blown up in December 1992, alleging that members of the Croatian Army were responsible. The proceedings were stayed in December 1999 under the 1999 Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act and not resumed until October 2003.   The applicant complained that the enactment of the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act violated his right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and his right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 13. The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR   6,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and for any costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Karagiannis and Others v. Greece (no. 51354/99)   Just satisfaction The applicants are 42 Greek nationals living in Athens and the Attica region. The application concerns a dispute relating to an estate 1,165,000 square metres in area situated near the seaside resort of Aghia Marina at Marathon in Attica, which the State transferred to the Navy Fund on 20 August 1967, a few months after the installation of the dictatorship. The inhabitants of the village of Kapandriti, including the applicants, had been owners of 165,000 square metres of this estate.   In a judgment of 16 January 2003 the Court held that the applicants’ loss of any possibility of disposing of their land since 1967 on account of its occupation by the Navy Fund and the lack of any indemnification for the loss they had suffered on account of the deprivation of their possessions without compensation since that date had upset the fair balance to be struck between the protection of property and the requirements of the general interest. The Court also found that the applicants’ case had not been heard within a reasonable time (more than 35 years in total and more than 17 years after the date of Greece’s recognition of the right of individual petition). It accordingly held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision.   The Court decided unanimously to award the applicants EUR 200,000 jointly for pecuniary damage, EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 Katsoulis and Others v. Greece (no. 66742/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants are 39 Greek nationals. They are all involved in a long-standing dispute with the State concerning the ownership of a plot of land known as “Omorphokklisia” in Galatsi, a suburb of Athens.   In 1934 the Ministry of Agriculture decided to reforest a region in Attica – which included the land in question – having classified the region as a former pine forest.     However, a document produced by the Forest Inspection of Athens on 14 November 1968 found that the area had never been a forest and could not be reforested.   On 6 September 1994 the Prefect of Athens declared that the land should be reforested. On 10 November 1994 the applicants challenged the prefect’s decision before the Supreme Administrative Court.   On 5 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court accepted that the applicants “were considered owners”, but declared their appeal inadmissible on the ground that the prefect’s decision was not an operative act since it simply confirmed the decision issued by the Minister of Agriculture in 1934. In particular, the court held that the decision of 1934 remained in force because no other act, of an equivalent force, had reversed it.   In various judgments, delivered between 1977 and 1997, the Greek courts recognised that the area including the applicants’ properties was never a forest.   The applicants alleged that their property rights, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), had been violated. They also complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), about the length of the proceedings (five years, six months and 25 days) that they instituted before the Supreme Administrative Court.   For the purposes of the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, the Court found that applicants could be regarded as the owners of the land in issue or at least as having an interest that would normally be protected by Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   The Court observed that there was a large amount of conflicting evidence as to the nature of the land in issue, but that it was not for the Court to decide such a technical matter.   The Court noted that the prefect’s decision of 6 September 1994 was based on the Minister of Agriculture’s decision of 1934. In the Court’s opinion, the authorities were at fault for ordering such a serious measure without a fresh reassessment of the situation. Such a manner of proceeding in such a complex situation in which any administrative decision could weigh heavily on the property rights of a large number of people could not be considered consistent with the right enshrined in Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and did not provide adequate protection to people such as the applicants who possessed or owned property, in particular, when it was borne in mind that there was no possibility of obtaining compensation under Greek law.     Considering that no reasonable balance had been struck between the public interest and the requirement to protect the applicants’ rights, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court further held that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kliafas and Others v. Greece (no. 66810/01) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The seven applicants, Stephanos Kliafas, Anagnos Lymberis, Ioannis Anastassopoulos, Stylianos Papanikolaou, Venetia Triantopoulou, Panayotis Ventouras and Theodoros Psaros, are Greek nationals. Mr Papanikolaou died in 2002, but the Court authorised his widow and three daughters to continue the present proceedings.   The applicants are accountants. They were formerly civil servants belonging to the college of auditors (Σώμα Ορκωτών Λογιστών), which was replaced in 1991 by that of chartered accountants, with the aim of liberalising the profession. Pending the introduction of the new system the college of auditors continued to function and Law no. 2166/93 authorised accountants to continue work in progress and treat their receipts as personal income. In February 1994 the Greek Parliament enacted Law no. 2187/1994 repealing Law   no.   2166/1993 and ordering the return to the college of auditors of sums received during the transitional period.   The applicants received notices requiring them to return the sums they had received during that period (ranging from approximately EUR 108,000 to EUR 32,000). They unsuccessfully asked the Supreme Administrative Court to set aside the decisions in the case and declare Law no. 2187/1994 unconstitutional.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants submitted that they had been unduly deprived of their possessions on account of being placed under the obligation to reimburse receipts collected perfectly legally.   The Court noted that there had been an interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and that this interference had been provided for by Law   no.   2187/1994, which was intended to serve “the public interest”. However, the applicants had been required to reimburse, under the threat of seizure of their possessions, sums which were the proceeds of their work, obtained in accordance with statute law and forming part of their property.   In the Court’s view such a radical interference with the applicants’ rights had upset, to their detriment, the fair balance to be struck between protection of property and the requirements of the general interest. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In respect of pecuniary damage, the Court awarded the applicants the following sums: EUR 67,778   to Mr Kliafas, EUR 74,119   to Mr   Lymberis, EUR 69,491 to Mr Anastassopoulos, EUR 93,637 to the heirs of Mr   Papanikolaou, EUR 66,400 to Mrs Triantopoulou, EUR 32,247 to Mr Ventouras and EUR   37,866 to Mr Psaros. The Court also awarded them EUR 7,000 jointly 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.