CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s75F663D2 { width:107.4pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sC223BDF2 { width:266.91pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s44EE2A41 { width:24.79pt; display:inline-block } .sF8B8039F { width:94.16pt; display:inline-block } .sD576774C { width:202.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1BAA4F2F { width:96.13pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sAED139F3 { width:66.79pt; display:inline-block } .sBB98EE3D { width:131.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   503 14.10.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Denmark, Greece, Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, of which none are final. [1]   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Pedersen and Pedersen v. Denmark (application no. 68693/01)   The applicants, Karl Gustav Pedersen and Jens   Otto   Pedersen, are Danish nationals who were born in 1958 and 1938 respectively and live in Løgstør and Hobro. They both own freshwater fish farms and were both convicted of exceeding fixed feed quotas.   They were respectively fined DKK   95,000 and DKK 345,000 by the High Court of Western   Denmark and DKK   384,000 and DKK 1,398,000 were confiscated.   Both applicants were granted leave to appeal and, on 16   February   2001, the Supreme Court upheld the judgments against them, but reduced the amount to be confiscated from Karl Pedersen to DKK   240,000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against them, which lasted eight years, three months and 27 days and seven years, three months and 22 days respectively.   Making an overall assessment of the complexity of the case, the conduct of all concerned as well as the total length of the proceedings before three court instances, the European Court of Human Rights found that the length of the proceedings were not unreasonable. The Court   held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article of 6 § 1 Assymomitis v. Greece (no. 67629/01)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The application was lodged by Michail Assymomitis and his daughter Aikaterini Assymomiti, two Greek nationals who were born in 1936 and 1965 respectively and live in Athens, and by a construction company called Techniko-Ikodomiki-Viomichaniki-Emporiki Naftiliaki-Xenodochiaki-Touristiki, based in Athens. Mr Assymomitis and his daughter own approximately 900 square metres of land in the centre of the Chalandri District of Athens. In 1990 the applicant company agreed to build a four-storey building on the land. Planning permission was granted and the building work began.   The works were nevertheless suspended on 16 February 1993 on the grounds that they were being carried out in an area that had been designated a “nursery-school site” by perfectoral decree and that the planning permission was invalid. Mr   Assymomitis and the applicant company appealed unsuccessfully.   The decision of 16 February 1993 was set aside however, and, on 22 June 1993, the applicants were again authorised to proceed with the works.   In July 1993 the Town Council applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for an order quashing the decision to allow the works to continue. As a result, the building works were suspended until 16   November 1999, when the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the Town Council’s application.   Following a further application by the Town Council, the urban planning office ordered a halt to the works in May 2000. The applicants then made a number of approaches – all in vain – to various administrative authorities.   The applicants complained of the authorities’ refusal to comply with the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 November 1999. They alleged an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time), they further complained of the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court which lasted nine years, ten months and ten days.   The Court noted that the Town Council’s application caused the works to be suspended for six years and four months. Following the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment dismissing that application, the applicants were entitled to consider that the initial planning permission was valid. On the basis of that judgment, they had requested authorisation to proceed with the works. A large number of administrative authorities had been involved in that procedure. They had responded inconsistently to the applicants’ requests, thereby preventing any decision being taken that would allow the applicants to enjoy and use their property.   The length of the proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court, which ended with the judgment of 16 November 1999, the conduct of the relevant authorities after that date and their failure to provide clear and reliable answers in a straightforward procedure relating to planning permission left the applicants in a state of prolonged uncertainty as to what would become of their property. Consequently, the authorities’ acts and omissions taken as a whole had prevented the applicants from using the property in the manner to which they were entitled by various administrative decisions.   The decision of the prefect to designate the land as nursery-school land was not followed up by any concrete measure, in particular expropriation proceedings, to implement the project. In any event, the Court noted that the applicants had subsequently been authorised to proceed with the works by certain decisions. In those circumstances, the Court found that the applicants had had to bear an individual and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance that had to be struck between the requirements of the general interest and the protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property. It consequently held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court also unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings in the Supreme Administrative Court.   The Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 100,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 25,986 for cost and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Rodopoulos v. Greece (no. 11800/02)   Violation of Article of 6 § 1 The applicant, Spyridon Rodopoulos, is a Greek national who was born in 1949 and is currently held in Korydallos Prison (Greece). He was arrested and detained pending trial on 19 June 1993 on suspicion of fraud and forgery on a large scale against the Greek National Bank. He was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in 1998 and his appeal on points of law was dismissed on 22 June 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted seven years and three days for three levels of jurisdiction. Holding that that period failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement of Article 6 § 1, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), it awarded Mr Rodopoulos EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000   for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ettore Caracciolo v. Italy (no. 52081/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Ettore Caracciolo, is an Italian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Milan (Italy). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained of his prolonged inability to recover possession of his flat, owing to a lack of police assistance.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 and 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Nordica Leasing S.p.a. v. Italy (no. 51739/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant company, Nordica Leasing S.p.a., is a limited-liability company which has its headquarters in Bergamo (Italy).   In May 1997 the applicant company sought an order placing T.C.T., a company which owed the applicant company money and had entered into several leasing agreements with it, in compulsory liquidation.   On 10 March 1999 Messina court dismissed the applicant company’s request on the ground that “according to information provided by the tax inspectorate”, T.C.T. had ceased trading on 1 July 1997, by which time the annual deadline specified in section 10 of the Bankruptcy Act for making compulsory liquidation orders had already expired.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant company complained that there   had been an interference with its right of access to a court and complained of Messina Court’s inaction, which, in its opinion, had led to the expiry of the limitation period fixed by the Bankruptcy Act.   The Court held that although the applicant company had had access to Messina Court, the latter had dismissed its request because the statutory time-limit had expired owing to the tax inspectorate’s delay in obtaining the requisite information. As the applicant company had thus lost the opportunity to recover the sums it was owed through compulsory liquidation proceedings, the Court found that it had been denied access to a court. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicant company EUR 2,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ospina Vargas v. Italy (no. 40750/98)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Orlando Cediel Ospina Vargas, is a Columbian national who was born in 1953. He is currently held in Cuneo Prison (Italy), where he is serving a sentence of 30-years’ imprisonment following his conviction in 1994 for drug-trafficking and conspiracy.   By an order of the Ministry of Justice dated 20 April 1995, the applicant was placed under a special detention regime for one year. This regime, which provided for a series of restrictions on his rights, was extended for six months on six occasions. All appeals lodged by the applicant against the decisions to extend the regime were dismissed.   In addition, the judge responsible for the execution of sentences gave authorisation for the applicant’s correspondence to be censored; this authorisation was renewed several times. From November 1998 to May 2000, the judge ordered on five occasions that mail intended for the applicant should not be handed over to him, and on three occasions that letters from the applicant should not be sent to their intended recipients. In May 1998 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences in Pavia also ordered that a book intended for the applicant, describing Pablo Escobar’s escape, was not to be handed over to him for “obvious” security reasons.   The applicant complained that his correspondence had been censored. He claimed that this censorship, which required translation from Spanish into Italian, had meant that delivery of his mail had often been delayed. He also complained that certain letters had been retained by the prison administration and that a book intended for him had not been handed over. The applicant relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   The Court pointed out that it had found on several occasions that censorship of correspondence based on section 18 of the Prison Administration Act did not comply with Article 8 of the Convention because it was not “in accordance with the law”. Section 18 contained no rules as to the length of time for which prisoners’ correspondence could be censored or the grounds on which an order for censorship could be made, and did not indicate with sufficient clarity the extent of the relevant authorities’ discretion in that sphere or provide guidance on how it was to be exercised. In that regard, the Court noted the entry into force of Law No. 95/2004, amending the Prison Administration Act, which did not however permit violations which had occurred prior to the new law’s entry into force to be remedied. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence had not been “in accordance with the law” and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Furthermore, since the interception of the package containing the book and the decision not to hand it over to the applicant had also been based on section 18 of the Prison Administration Act, the Court held, unanimously, that there had also been a violation of Article 8 on that account. Having regard to that finding, it considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint submitted under Article 10 of the Convention.   The Court held that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Ospinas Vargas and awarded him EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 In the following two Turkish cases the applicants, all Turkish nationals, were accused of belonging to or aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, and sentenced by a national security court. They complained that they had not had a fair trial, contrary to Article 6 of the Convention.   Durmaz and Others v. Turkey (nos. 46506/99, 46569/99, 46570/99 and 46939/99) Kerem Durmaz, Ulaş Işık, Taci Sabri Unutmaz and Hasan Sezal were born in 1980, 1977, 1979 and 1979 respectively. In 1996 Ankara State Security Court sentenced three of the applicants to two years and six months’ imprisonment and Mr Işık to three years and nine months for aiding and abetting the TIKP (the Revolutionary Communists’ Union of Turkey).   Yanıkoğlu v. Turkey (no. 46284/99) Ufuk Yanıkoğlu was born in 1971 and lives in Ankara. In 1997 Ankara State Security Court sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment for his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the TDKP/GKB ( Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party / Young Communist Union ).   The Court held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the complaint relating to the independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court, that there was no need to examine the remaining complaint submitted under Article 6 § 3, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. The Court further held in the case of Yanıkoğlu v. Turkey that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 concerning the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings.   The Court awarded the applicants in the case of Durmaz and Others v. Turkey EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses and in the case of Yanıkoğlu v. Turkey EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses and EUR   1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. (These judgments are only available 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.