CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 5 octobre 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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sAC3342B9 { width:281.57pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE894FEED { width:7.41pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s3D41A682 { width:155.5pt; display:inline-block } .s17D81A9 { width:112.15pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC1E922B6 { width:20.78pt; display:inline-block } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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   474 5.10.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Poland and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Hradecký v. the Czech Republic (application no. 76802/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Josef Hradecký, is a Czech national who was born in 1946 and lives in Prague. On 26 September 1995 he was arrested and criminal proceedings were brought against him for fraud. These led on his conviction in January 2002 to a prison sentence. A constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed on 16 December 2003.   He complained under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the length of the criminal proceedings against him. Relying on Article 13, he further complained that he had not had an effective remedy.   The Court noted that the proceedings complained of had lasted nearly eight years and three months at four levels of jurisdiction. Taking the view that such a period did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention. The Court also held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Blondet v. France (no. 49451/99)   Violation of Article 8 Eddy Blondet is a French national who was born in 1965. He is at present imprisoned in Mauzac Prison (France).   Being suspected of fraudulently using the bank card of R.C., a woman who had been reported missing presumed dead, the applicant was officially informed that he was under investigation for fraud, attempted fraud and receiving stolen property, and remanded in custody in April 1995. Following the discovery of R.C.’s body in June 1996, the applicant was informed that he was under investigation on the charge of murder. At his trial he was found guilty of manslaughter, theft and fraud and sentenced on 17 May 2001 to 15 years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to be brought promptly before a judge), the applicant complained of the length of his detention pending trial. He further complained under Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) that his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights had been opened on two occasions.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant had been detained pending trial for five years, one month and 13 days. The courts to which he had applied for release had repeatedly cited, as grounds for their refusal, in addition to the continued suspicion of his guilt, the need to preserve public order, the need to ensure that he would remain amenable to justice and the risk that he might abscond, and the need to prevent pressure being brought to bear on witnesses. Although those grounds had been relevant and sufficient at the beginning of the investigation, they had partly ceased to be so with the passage of time, particularly as regards the need to preserve public order. With respect to the conduct of the proceedings, the Court observed that the judicial authorities had not acted with the requisite expedition. Lastly, the Court considered that the offences with which the applicant had been charged were not of any great complexity. That being so, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.   The Court noted that two letters to the applicant had been opened by the prison authorities. The fact that two separate letters had been opened, although the stamp of the Court’s registry was easily recognisable on the envelopes, revealed a malfunction of the prison service and incontestably amounted to an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence. That interference, which was contrary to the French regulations in force, had not been in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8 § 2. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. It awarded him 500   euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Lizut-Skwarek v. Poland (no. 71625/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Maria Lizut-Skwarek, is a Polish national, born in 1948 and living in Lublin (Poland). Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), she complained of the length of proceedings concerning a problem of joint ownership and the impossibility of challenging this delay before the Polish courts, which lasted nine years and three months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   2,750 for non-pecuniary damage, EUR   500 for costs and expenses and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.   (The judgment is available only in English.)     Presidential Party of Mordovia v. Russia (no. 65659/01)   Violation of Article 11 The applicant association, the Presidential Party of Mordovia, is a political party which was based in the Republic of Mordovia, Russia.   Following the enactment of a new law on public associations in April 1995, the applicant association was obliged to apply for renewal of its registration with the Ministry of Justice in Mordovia. However, on 30   June 1999 the Minister of Justice refused to renew the party’s registration on the ground that it had failed to create branches in more than half the districts and cities of Mordovia to qualify for the title “All-Republican”. Furthermore, the party’s articles of association did not comply with the requirement to include among its objectives participation in the political life of society and in elections.   The applicant party appealed, modified its articles of association and reapplied for the renewal of its registration. Its application was rejected, however, on the ground that it had missed the deadline for the renewal of its registration.   In August   1999 the Ministry of Justice of Mordovia applied unsuccessfully to Leninsky District Court of Saransk for the dissolution of the applicant party on the ground that it had failed to re ‑ register. On 29 December 1999 the district court held that it was sufficiently clear from the applicant party’s articles of association that it intended to engage in activities amounting to “participation in the political life of society”. The court also found that the requirement to establish branches applied only to all-Russian, inter-regional and international public associations. It declared the refusal to renew the registration of the applicant party unlawful and ordered the Ministry of Justice of Mordovia to renew the registration.   The Minister of Justice of Mordovia appealed and, on 14   March   2000, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia quashed the district court judgment, finding the refusal to renew the registration of the applicant party lawful and ordering its dissolution.   On 20   August 2002, after the applicant’s case before the European Court of Human Rights was communicated to the Russian Government, the acting President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia applied for supervisory review of the decision of 14   March 2000. On 5   September 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia quashed the decision of 14   March 2000 and upheld the district court judgment.   On 29   October 2002 the Department of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in respect of the Republic of Mordovia sought a court order in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 29   December 1999. It claimed that, following legislative changes, it could not register the Presidential Party of Mordovia. On 17   May 2002, the tax authorities had been made responsible for registration and the Law on Political Parties of 11   July 2001 changed the requirements for establishing political parties, and the application for registration of the applicant party had not taken account of these requirements. In particular, under the new law no regional political parties could be created and existing regional parties were deprived of their current status. On 30   October the district court terminated the execution of the judgment of 29   December 1999.   The applicant association alleged that the authorities’ refusal to renew its registration as a political party was in violation of Article 11 (freedom of association).   The Russian Government accepted, in view of the domestic courts’ findings, that the refusal to renew the applicant party’s registration and its dissolution were unlawful. However, they maintained that there had been no violation of Article 11 since the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia had ordered the registration of the applicant party.   The applicant maintained however that, not being registered, it was not able to function for over three years, could not run for the 1999 regional elections and was also prevented from renewing its registration in 2002 due to legislative changes.     The European Court of Human Rights accepted that the measure in question must have affected the applicant party, as claimed, since it was unable to function for a substantial period of time and could not participate in regional elections. Furthermore, the damage appeared irreparable given that, under current legislation, the party could not be reconstituted in its original form.   Noting that it was not in dispute that the interference in question was not “prescribed by law”, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 11 and awarded the applicant association EUR   3,000 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.