CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 20 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s53A98047 { width:194.17pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s15F0DCC9 { width:44.19pt; display:inline-block } .sA7295EDB { width:138.83pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sCAE57EA0 { width:184.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5D7F242F { width:122.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s957E9964 { width:141.48pt; display:inline-block } .sAE03FC41 { width:4.14pt; display:inline-block } .s2D4C650F { width:46.14pt; display:inline-block } .s5A454117 { width:72.14pt; 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   373 20.7.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Georgia, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]     Bäck v. Finland (application no. 37598/97) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The case concerned an application brought by a Finnish national, Tomas Bäck, who was born in 1957 and lives in Karperö (Finland).   In 1988 and 1989, Mr Bäck and another person agreed to guarantee a bank loan granted to N. As N. was unable to repay the loan, the applicant and his co-guarantor each paid the bank about 19,000 euros (EUR).   In 1995, N. applied for an adjustment of the debt under the 1993 Act on the Adjustment of the Debts of Private Individuals and proposed a repayment schedule for the court’s approval. Mr   Bäck opposed the request on the ground that it might deprive him of his claim against N. In the alternative, Mr Bäck requested that the adjustment of N.’s debts be postponed. In 1996, after N. had found employment, the District Court granted the application and adopted a repayment schedule which took into account the significant decrease in N.’s resources on account of his previous unemployment and unsuccessful business activities. The applicant’s claim against N. was reduced to about EUR   360.   In his appeal Mr Bäck contended that the almost complete extinction of his claim against N. violated his property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, but the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. Mr Bäck was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.   Mr Bäck complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, that the adjustment of N.’s debt deprived him of his property without compensation and that it did not serve a legitimate aim in the general interest.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the interference with the applicant’s property rights could be considered justified by a public or general interest in that Finnish debt adjustment legislation clearly served legitimate social and economic policies.   In addition, by entering into the guarantee agreement, the applicant had taken upon himself a risk of financial losses.   The proceedings viewed as a whole also gave the applicant a reasonable opportunity to put his case to the competent authorities with a view to establishing a fair balance between the conflicting interests at stake.   It was undoubtedly true that the reduction in the applicant’s nominal claim was striking in its amount. However, the burden imposed by N.’s debt adjustment was shared by several creditors and the “market value”, if any, of the applicant’s claim was, even before the enactment of the 1993 Act, much less than its nominal value.   The applicant’s claim had already been rendered highly precarious before the debt adjustment for reasons not attributable to the State under the Convention. In those circumstances, the burden imposed on the applicant by the 1993 Act could not be regarded as excessive.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Absandze v. Georgia (no. 57861/00)   Struck out The applicant, Guram Absandze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Tbilissi. He is currently a deputy minister in the Georgian Government.   He was charged, among other things, with treason and organising an assassination attempt on President   Edward Shevardnadze. He was arrested in Russia in 1998 and extradited to Georgia. In November 2001 he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for embezzlement of public funds. He was released after receiving a presidential pardon in April 2002.   The applicant complained that he had not received proper medical care in prison, that his detention pending trial from 20 May to 30 July 1999 and from 1 September to 15 November 1999 had been unlawful and that he had not been tried within a reasonable time or released pending trial. He also complained that he had had no effective remedy by which to have the lawfulness of his detention decided and had not been presumed innocent. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   On 5 April 2004 the Court was informed that Mr Absandze no longer wished to proceed with his application in view of the events in Georgia in November 2003 which had resulted in particular in Mr Shevardnadze’s resignation and the applicant’s appointment as a deputy minister in the Government. The Court was satisfied that there were no special circumstances pertaining to human-rights protection that warranted continuing with the examination of the application and decided unanimously to strike it out of the list. (The judgment is available only in French).     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Croitoru v. Moldova (no. 18882/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Iulia Croitoru, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1938 and lives in Chişinău.   She sought compensation in connection with her parents’ deposits in the Savings Bank on the basis of a decision by Parliament on 29 July 1994 to revalue the savings of citizens in the Savings Bank in compensation for losses caused by inflation. She complained that the failure to enforce the judgment allowing her compensation, violated her right to have her civil rights determined by a court guaranteed by Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   98.36 for pecuniary damage, EUR   800 for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   69.14 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Wróbel v. Poland (no. 46002/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Wacław Wróbel, is a Polish national who was born in 1929 and lives in Konin (Poland).   He complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of criminal proceedings (seven years and five days, of which the Court can take into consideration six years, seven months and 22 days [2] ) that had been brought against him on charges of accepting bribes and mismanagement of the state-owned bank in Kramsk.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 Nikitin v. Russia (no. 50178/99)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Aleksandr Konstantinovich Nikitin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in St.   Petersburg.   In February 1995, the applicant, a former navy officer, joined the environmental project of a Norwegian non-governmental organisation, “Bellona”, to work on a report entitled “The Russian Northern Fleet. Sources of Radioactive Contamination”. On 5   October 1995 the Murmansk office of Bellona was searched by the Federal Security Service ( ФСБ РФ, “the FSB”). The FSB seized the draft report, interrogated the applicant and instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of treason, as the draft report allegedly contained information about accidents on Russian nuclear submarines classified as officially secret.   The applicant was tried for treason through espionage and aggravated disclosure of an official secret. On 29   December 1999 he was acquitted. On 17 April 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the acquittal, which became final.   On 30   May 2000 the Prosecutor General lodged a request with the Presidium of the Supreme Court to review the case in supervisory proceedings ( протест на приговор, вступивший в законную силу ). He called for a reassessment of the applicable law, of the facts and evidence on the case file, and for its remittal for fresh investigation.   On 13   September 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s request and upheld the acquittal.   The applicant alleged that supervisory review proceedings conducted after his final acquittal constituted a violation of his right not to be tried again in criminal proceedings for an offence of which he had been finally acquitted, relying on Articles   4 of Protocol   No.   7 (right not to be tried or punished twice). He alleged that he was at least liable to be tried again on the same counts. He also complained that the supervisory review proceedings were in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the applicant was not “tried again” and was not liable to be “tried” twice; the supervisory review could be considered a re-opening of a finally decided criminal case – on the grounds of new or newly-discovered evidence or a fundamental defect – which was in accordance with Article   4   §   1 of Protocol No.   7.   Concerning the applicant’s complaint under Article 6, the Court reiterated that Article 6 did not apply to proceedings concerning a failed request to re-open a case. Only the new proceedings, after the re-opening has been granted, could be regarded as concerning the determination of a criminal charge. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Manasson v. Sweden (no. 41265/98)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Mishel Manasson, is a Swedish national, born in 1947 and lives in Älvsjö (Sweden).   In the autumn of 1994, as part of a large-scale investigation into taxicab operators, the Tax Authority ( skattemyndigheten ) of the County of Stockholm carried out a tax audit of the applicant’s taxi firm. The applicant complained that he had been a victim of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that he did not have a fair hearing within a reasonable time and was not presumed innocent. He complained further under Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR   44,000 is to be paid to the applicant for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage and for any costs and expenses incurred. (The judgment is available only in English.)   I.R.S. and Others v. Turkey (no. 26338/95)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants are five Turkish nationals who live in Ankara. They were registered as co-owners of land in Ergazi that had been used for many years as a military airport.   In 1988 the Ministry of Defence made an application to Ankara High Court for an order under section 38 of the Expropriation Act (Law no. 2942 of 1983) for the land to be registered in the name of the Treasury on the grounds of uninterrupted adverse possession by the air force since 1955, the applicants having forfeited all their rights by failing to bring proceedings. In a judgment of 25 May 1993, Ankara High Court cancelled the registration of the applicants as owners of the land and transferred the property to the authorities on the grounds that it had been occupied by them in the general interest for more than 20 years without interruption. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment in 1994.   The applicants alleged that they had been deprived of their land without compensation in breach of the principles set out in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that, since the application had been lodged, section 38 of Law no. 2942 had been struck down by the Turkish Constitutional Court as being unconstitutional. It further noted that under section 38, applications for compensation for the deprivation of property had to be made within 20 years from the date the property was occupied. In the case before it, the Turkish courts had applied section 38 and found that the land had been occupied since 1955. Consequently, the time allowed for seeking compensation had already expired by the time section 38 came into force.   By applying section 38, the Turkish courts had deprived the applicants of any possibility of obtaining compensation for the loss of their title to the property. Although such an interference was founded on legislation that was valid at the material time, it could only be described as arbitrary, as there was no procedure by which the applicants could claim the compensation that would have enabled the fair balance that had to be maintained between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s rights. The Court consequently held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Shmalko v. Ukraine (no. 60750/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Anatoliy Afanasiyovych Shmalko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1930 and currently lives in Dnepropetrovsk (Ukraine). He is a disabled pensioner and a Second World War veteran. He suffers from myasthenia.   In March 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against Dnepropetrovsk City Health Protection Department and Dnepropetrovsk City Hospital No. 1 seeking compensation for moral and material damage caused by their refusal between 1996 and 1998 to provide him free of charge with the prescription drug Kalimin-60, contrary to Resolution No. 1303 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 17 August 1998. He was obliged to buy the drug in Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom.   The applicant complained about the failure to execute in due time the judgment allowing him his claims in part, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), and that there had been an unjustified interference with his property rights, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Eastaway v. United Kingdom (no. 74976/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Nigel Eastaway, is a British national, born in 1943 and living in Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire (United Kingdom).   The applicant complained about the length (eight years and 11 months) of various sets of proceedings brought against him after the Blackspur group of companies went into receivership, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   25,000 in respect of costs 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. [2] From 1 May 1993, the date when Poland recognised the right of individual petition.