CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 septembre 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 } .s2E2FCFA { width:33.23pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s22616DFB { width:17.89pt; display:inline-block } .s8C7CC2F4 { width:109.41pt; display:inline-block } .sFA3838FF { width:144.78pt; 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   455 28.9.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Hungary and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Loiseau v. France (no. 46809/99)           No violation Article 6 § 1 Paul Loiseau is a French national who was born in 1932 and lives in La Bachellerie (France). In 1979 and 1980 he worked as a supply teacher in an upper-secondary school in Périgueux. The Ministry of Education had allegedly refused to grant him non-certified teacher status and, among other things, had failed to make certain administrative declarations concerning his employment.   In 1990 the applicant asked Bordeaux education authority to provide him with a number of documents that would allow him to establish his pension rights. He was informed, however, that the authority did not have the documents in question. In a judgment of 19 November 1992 Bordeaux Administrative Court set aside the education authority’s refusal to comply with the request, on the ground that the fact that the authority did not have the documents in question did not dispense it from the obligation to obtain them from the school where the applicant had been employed. An application for enforcement of this judgment, on pain of payment of a fine, was dismissed by the Conseil d’Etat after noting that the education authority had since asked the school for the documents in question but that the school did not have them either.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the failure to enforce the Bordeaux Administrative Court’s judgment.   The Court noted that following the Administrative Court’s judgment the education authority had asked the head of the school in question for the documents but that the request had been unsuccessful. The State could not therefore be deemed not to have drawn all the necessary consequences from the judgment concerned. The Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Marschner v. France (no. 51360/99)              Violations Article 6 § 1 Martin Marschner is a German national who was born in 1957 and lives in Hamburg (Germany). Criminal and disciplinary proceedings were brought against him following an inquiry by the Stock-Exchange Regulatory Authority ( Commision des opérations de Bourse ) into management conditions and transactions undertaken by organisations with a finance company with which the applicant had entered into a brokerage agreement.   The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) on account of the length of the three sets of criminal proceedings, of the disciplinary proceedings and of the proceedings he had brought against the State for compensation following the quashing of the disciplinary penalty that had been imposed on him.   The Court found that the disciplinary proceedings had lasted two years, six months and 11 days and that the application for compensation had lasted five years and four months to date. It held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 regarding the disciplinary proceedings but that there had been a violation of the Convention regarding the length of the administrative proceedings.   With regard to the criminal proceedings, the Court noted that the first set had lasted eight and a half years to date, the second seven years, two months and 18 days and the third seven and a half years to date. As the overall length of these proceedings did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1, the Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of the Convention in respect of each set of proceedings. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Tamás Kovács v. Hungary (no. 67660/01)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Tamás Kovács is a Hungarian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest. He worked as an inspector of vehicles. In 1993 and 1994 disciplinary proceedings and two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him for his alleged role in an illegal vehicle registration network. He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of those proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention concerning the length of the first set of criminal proceedings; he had already received adequate redress for the alleged violation because the domestic courts had reduced his sentence as a direct result of the unreasonable length of the proceedings. The Court declared the complaints concerning both this and the second set of criminal proceedings inadmissible.   The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the disciplinary proceedings and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Koblański v. Poland (no. 59445/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Stanisław Koblański is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Wrocław (Poland). He was detained on remand on 30 May 1994, on suspicion of having committed fraud, and was held in detention until 25 April 1996, when his conviction for fraud was finally quashed by the Supreme Court. On 7 April 1997, he brought compensation proceedings for wrongful conviction and detention, which are still pending.   He complained, under Article 6 § 1, of the length of the proceedings, which have so far lasted seven years and three months.   Considering that what was at stake for the applicant was of significant importance to him – since the proceedings related to compensation for his wrongful conviction and unjustified detention – the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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.