CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 novembre 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 } .s54C20955 { width:64.79pt; display:inline-block } .s77830AC { width:78.14pt; display:inline-block } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sC32AA082 { width:307.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA44AD07E { width:42.18pt; display:inline-block } .s75633300 { width:118.8pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s4880F7A4 { width:138.79pt; display:inline-block } .s421A095E { font-family:Arial; color:#3366ff } .s672BE378 { width:310.89pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; 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   553 9.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain Turkey and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Maglódi v. Hungary (application no 30103/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Csaba Maglódi, is a Hungarian national, born in 1970 and living in Budapest.   Mr Maglódi was held in pre-trial detention from 12 June 1999 until 11 June 2003 – when he was convicted of murder – and again from 5 May 2004 – when his sentence was quashed by Budapest Court of Appeal and remitted to the court of first instance – to date.   The applicant submitted that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive, in breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning the period spent in pre-trial detention, which had already lasted four years and five months, and awarded the applicant 3,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Del Latte v. the Netherlands (no. 44760/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicants, Vincenzo Del Latte and Angelo Del Latte, are Netherlands nationals, born in 1966 and 1967 respectively and living in Volendam (the Netherlands).   The applicants were held in detention on remand, charged with attempted murder or manslaughter. On 5 December 1997 they were acquitted. Both applied for monetary compensation for the time they had spent in pre-trial detention. This was refused by the Court of Appeal on the ground that their acquittal was merely technical and that, had they been charged with the lesser crime of threatening to commit a crime directed against life, they would have been convicted.   The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights found that the Court of Appeal’s approach to the applicants’ compensation claim amounted to a determination of their guilt of a specific offence without their having been “proved guilty according to law”.     The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 and awarded one of the applicants EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violations of Article 6 § 1 Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands (no. 46300/99) The applicants, Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V., are limited liability companies based in Kwadendamme (the Netherlands).   The applicant companies and their director were investigated on suspicion of forgery and fraud. On 3 February 1994 the companies were fined 600,000 Netherlands guilders (NLG) (equivalent to EUR 272,000) and NLG 1,000,000 (EUR   454,000) respectively. The companies and their director appealed but withdrew their appeal on 4 December 1995, following a meeting with the Advocate-General, on an understanding that their request for the remission of their sentences would be granted. However, the Netherlands courts did not recommend any reduction in the sentences imposed on the applicant companies and, by the time that this decision had been reached, no further appeal was possible.   The applicant companies complained of a lack of fairness in the criminal proceedings against them, as well as of the duration of those proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the applicant companies had been persuaded by the Advocate-General to withdraw the appeals, and it was their understanding that they would be granted remission of sentence. When such remission failed to materialise and the proceedings on their appeals had come to an end, the applicant companies were left with no possibility to appeal. The Court considered that, in those circumstances, the applicant companies were denied effective access to court and were unable to employ their right of appeal in a meaningful manner. Consequently, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, concerning the fairness of the proceedings.   The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings, which had lasted six years, nine months and 14 days. The applicant companies were awarded EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Croitoru v. Romania (no. 54400/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Viorel Croitoru, is a Romanian national, born in 1929 and living in Bucharest.   He complained about the Romanian authorities’ failure to enforce two final judgments in his favour concerning the restitution of land. He relied on Article 6   §   1 (access to court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Saez Maeso v. Spain (no. 77837/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Ricardo Saez Maeso, is a Spanish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Valencia (Spain).   In 1989 he asked the University of Valencia to issue him with a primary-school teacher’s certificate, but his request was rejected on the ground that he had failed one of the tests set by the Teacher Training College. The applicant lodged an administrative appeal with the Valencia High Court, but this was also rejected.   The applicant then appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court. His appeal was declared admissible on 10 June 1993, but in a judgement of 26 June 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed it on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the formal requirements. He then made an unsuccessful constitutional appeal ( recurso de amparo ) to the Constitutional Court.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), the applicant submitted that the interpretation of the provisions governing appeals on points of law given by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court had deprived him of the right of access to a court.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant could not be accused of negligence, or of committing an error by lodging the application which was declared admissible by the Supreme Court and then dismissed more than seven years later by the same court for failure to comply with the formal requirements. It held that the particularly strict interpretation by the courts of a procedural rule had deprived the applicant of the right of access to a court with a view to obtaining a hearing for his appeal on points of law. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mr   Saez Maeso EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 10 Maraşlı v. Turkey (no. 40077/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Recep Maraşlı, is a Turkish national, born in 1956 and living in Germany.   On 13 December 1996 Istanbul State Security Court convicted Mr Maraşlı of disseminating propaganda against the unity of the Turkish nation, on the ground that he had written an article in Newroz , a weekly newspaper published in Istanbul, which amounted to separatist propaganda. He was sentenced to one year, eight months and 10 days imprisonment and a fine of 111,111,111 Turkish liras (TRL) (equivalent to EUR 847).   The applicant complained that his criminal conviction infringed his rights to freedom of thought and expression. He relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 9 (freedom of thought). He also submitted that his case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), on account, among other things, of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court which convicted him.   The European Court of Human Rights decided to consider the applicant’s complaints concerning his rights to freedom of thought and expression from the standpoint of Article 10 alone. It noted that the newspaper article consisted of a critical assessment of how political developments on the question of the integration of Turkey into the European Union might have a bearing on the solution of the Kurdish problem. Although certain particularly acerbic passages of the article painted an extremely negative picture of the Turkish State and thus give the narrative a hostile tone, they did not encourage violence, armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech. Concluding that the applicant’s conviction was disproportionate to the aims pursued and was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Finding that the state security court which tried the applicant was not an independent and impartial tribunal the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court further held that it was unnecessary to consider the applicant’s additional complaint under Article 6 § 1 or his complaint under Article 14.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,370 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 13 Bakay, Leschova, Yemets, Voloshyna, Semak and Lytvynenko v. Ukraine (no. 67647/01) The applicants are: Olga Sergiyivna Bakay, Svitlana Pavlivna Leschova, Lyubov Mykolayivna Yemets, Yaroslava Ivanivna Voloshyna, Tamara Semenivna Semak and Nataliya Leonidivna Lytvynenko. They are all Ukrainian nationals living in Beryslav, the Kherson Region of Ukraine. They were born, respectively, in 1960, 1959, 1969, 1945, 1965 and 1960. They complained about the Ukrainian authorities’ failure to enforce a judgment of 13 May 1998 awarding them a salary increase. They alleged that the length of the enforcement proceedings – which lasted until 31 July 2003 – was unreasonable and that the sums due to them were never paid in full. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article   13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention and awarded each of the applicants EUR 2,800 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 50 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violations of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Svetlana Naumenko v. Ukraine (no. 41984/98) The applicant, Svetlana Borisovna Naumenko, is a Ukranian national, born in 1956 and living in Odessa.   On 5 May 1991 Ms Naumenko was recognised as having participated in the relief work following the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Plant disaster. On 3   March 1994 Illichevsk District Court of Odessa accepted that she had been in the Chernobyl alienation zone on 27 and 29 May 1986, which entitled her to a particular level of invalidity benefits.   In August 2000 the Deputy President of Odessa Regional Court lodged a protest with the Presidium of the Odessa Regional Court, requesting that the case be re-examined and the judgment of 3   March 1994 reversed.   On 6 September 2000 the Presidium of the Odessa Regional Court allowed the protest and quashed the decision of 3   March 1994, remitting the case to the district court for re-consideration.   On 6 March 2003 a district court again found that the applicant had been a relief worker at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986 and that she had stayed in the “alienation zone”. There was no appeal against that decision, which became final on 8   April 2003.   24 May 2004 the applicant was awarded 13,253.01 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in unpaid pension for the period from 1   September 1996 to 1   November 2003 and an income of UAH   307,65 a month.   The applicant complained about the length and fairness of the proceedings concerning her rights to receive social benefits and a pension as a Chernobyl relief worker. She relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the proceedings, which had lasted nine years, one month and five days (of which the Court could take into considertion five years, eight months and one day [2] ). In view of the applicant’s financial situation and her state of health the proceedings were of undeniable importance for her. Accordingly, what was at stake for the applicant called for an expeditious decision concerning her claims.   The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 in respect of the quashing of the final and binding judgment of March 1994.   The Court noted that the protest of the Deputy President of the Odessa Regional Court was lodged with the Presidium of that same court. The Deputy President examined the protest that he lodged with the Presidium, of which he was a member and Deputy President, along with his colleagues sitting in the Presidium. Finding that practice incompatible with the requirement for a judge hearing a particular case to be impartial, since no one could be both plaintiff and judge in his own case, the Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the lack of impartiality of the Deputy President of Odessa Regional Court in the supervisory review proceedings. The Court found that no separate issue arose concerning the other alleged defects in the supervisory review proceedings.   The Court finally held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for 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 11 September 1997 when the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Ukraine.