CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 septembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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     453 28.9.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT KOPECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA     The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing in Strasbourg a Grand Chamber [1] judgment in the case of Kopecký v. Slovakia (application no. 44912/98).   The Court held, by thirteen votes to four, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The case concerned an application brought by a Slovak national, Juraj Kopecký, who was born in 1921 and lives in Brezová pod Bradlom, Slovakia.   On 12 February 1959, his father was fined and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for keeping 131   gold coins and 2,151   silver coins of numismatic value. The coins were also confiscated.   On 1 April 1992, the judgment was quashed and, on 30 September 1992, the applicant claimed the restitution of his father’s coins under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1991 (the 1991 Act).   On 19 September 1995, Senica District Court found that it was practically impossible for the applicant to fulfil the condition under the 1991 Act to show where the movable property in question had been on 1 April 1991, when the 1991 Act became operative. The court ordered the Ministry of the Interior to restore the coins to the applicant.   The Ministry of the Interior appealed, however, arguing that all relevant documents had been destroyed and that the onus of proof concerning the location of the coins was on the applicant.   On 29 January 1997, Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that the applicant had failed to fulfil the obligation under the 1991 Act to indicate the precise location of the property. The Supreme Court upheld this decision. Both courts held that the evidence submitted did not constitute sufficient proof that in 1991 the Ministry of the Interior still possessed the confiscated coins. 2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 25 August 1998 with the European Commission of Human Rights and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. By a decision of 1 February 2001 the Court declared the application partly admissible.   In its Chamber Judgment of 7 January 2003, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the evidence submitted by the applicant comprised a detailed inventory of the coins and an official record indicating when they had been deposited with the Ministry of the Interior, which had failed to provide any plausible explanation as to why the coins were no longer in its possession. The Court observed that the applicant was unable, for reasons which were imputable to public authorities, to trace the coins after they had been deposited with the Ministry of the Interior. As a result, he was deprived of any possibility of complying with the obligation to show where the coins had been at the time when the Act became operative. The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant 13,323   euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR   310 for costs and expenses, in addition to the 4,100   french francs already received for legal aid.   On 4 April 2003, the Slovakian Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber [2] and, on 21 May 2003, the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. A public hearing was held in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 7 April 2004.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian) Peer Lorenzen (Danish) , Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian) , Nina Vajić (Croatian) , Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian) , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian) , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian) , Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian) , Lech Garlicki (Polish) , Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaint   The applicant alleged, in particular, that the dismissal of his claim for restitution of the coins violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Decision of the Court   The Court observed that the principal question in the case was to decide whether there was a sufficient basis in domestic law, as interpreted by the domestic courts, for the applicant’s claim to qualify as an “asset” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   In that respect the only point in dispute was whether the applicant could be said to have satisfied the requirement that he show “where the property [was]” as laid down in the 1991 Act.   Having regard to the information before it and considering that it had only limited power to deal with alleged errors of fact or law committed by the national courts, to which it fell in the first place to interpret and apply domestic law, the Court found no appearance of arbitrariness in the way in which Bratislava Regional Court and the Supreme Court determined the applicant’s claim. There was therefore no basis on which the Court could reach a different conclusion on the applicant’s compliance with the requirement in issue.   The Court accepted that, in the light of the wording of the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act   and in the particular circumstances of the case, the applicant might not have known for certain whether or not he had fulfilled the above condition for obtaining restitution.   However, this difference was not decisive for determining the point in question. In particular, the Court noted that the applicant’s restitution claim was a conditional one from the outset and that the question whether or not he complied with the statutory requirements was to be determined in the ensuing judicial proceedings. The Slovakian courts ultimately found that that was not the case. The Court was therefore not satisfied that, when the applicant filed his restitution claim, it could be said to have been sufficiently established to qualify as an “asset” attracting the protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Although Senica District Court had found that it was practically impossible for the applicant to fulfil the condition concerning the precise location of the property and ordered the coins to be restored to him, its judgment was subsequently overturned and was therefore not sufficient to generate a proprietary interest amounting to an “asset”.   The Court therefore found that, in the context of his restitution claim, the applicant had no “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The guarantees of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 did not therefore apply to the case and, accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1.   Judge Ress, joined by Judges Steiner and Borrego Borrego, expressed a dissenting opinion and Judge Strážnická also expressed a dissenting opinion. These opinions are annexed to the judgment. ***   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] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention).   [2] 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. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.