CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 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 } .sCEF62786 { width:142.12pt; display:inline-block } .s2EF749A1 { width:107.47pt; display:inline-block } .s4C62F097 { width:14.82pt; display:inline-block } .sB4F2045A { width:18.82pt; display:inline-block } .sFBCEDDCF { width:93.51pt; display:inline-block } .sF0EE6833 { width:73.47pt; display:inline-block } .s8607E4C1 { width:349.99pt; display:inline-block } .s5DC86DD8 { width:100.2pt; 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 } .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   570 16.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Čanády v. Slovakia (no. 53371/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Vladimír Čanády, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Turany (Slovakia). He is a soldier by profession.   Following a dispute with one of his neighbours, the applicant was fined by the rector of the Military Academy in Liptovský Mikuláš under the Minor Offences Act 1990. The Ministry of Defence dismissed an appeal by the applicant.   The applicant applied to the Bratislava III District Court, which dismissed his application on the ground that the ordinary courts did not have jurisdiction to review decisions taken under section 83(1) of the Minor Offences Act 1990. The Constitutional Court subsequently dismissed a complaint by the applicant and the Supreme Court refused to examine the case.   The applicant complained that he had been unable to obtain judicial review of the decisions to fine him in connection with the dispute with his neighbour. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the decisions in question had been taken by administrative authorities which did not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality set forth in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Since section 83(1) of the Minor Offences Act 1990 and Article 248 § 2(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the relevant time, had precluded the review of such decisions by the ordinary courts, and that situation had not been redressed by a decision of the Constitutional Court, the Court considered that that the applicant’s right to a fair hearing by a tribunal had not been respected.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   400 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Alberto Sanchez v. Spain (no. 72773/01)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Manuel Alberto Sánchez is a Spanish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Málaga (Spain).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of proceedings he had brought to contest the results of a competitive examination for recruitment to an administrative authority.   The Court declared the application admissible solely in respect of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. It noted that the proceedings complained of had lasted five years, four months and 13 days, a period that did not comply with the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and, under Article 41 (just satisfaction), awarded the applicant EUR 5,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Edwards and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 38260/97)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Caroline Edwards, Sandra Strickland, May Parker, Deborah Mackman, Ingrid Dann and Steven Daldry, are United Kingdom nationals.   The applicants complained, variously, about their lack of legal representation in proceedings for non-payment of poll tax and their detention by order of the magistrates’ courts. They relied on Article   5   §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of one’s own choosing) of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Ms Dann is to receive 3,000 pounds sterling (GBP) for the damage sustained, Ms Parker GBP 3,500, Ms Mackman GBP 5,000, Ms Strickland GBP 4,000, Ms Edwards GBP 3,500 and Mr Daldry GBP 4,200. The applicants are also to receive an overall sum of GBP 12,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Hooper v. the United Kingdom (no. 42317/98)   Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) The applicant, Ivan Hooper, is a United Kingdom national.   On 3 January 1997 the applicant appeared before the magistrates’ court, charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and failure to answer bail. Finding that the applicant’s conduct might give rise to a breach of the peace, the magistrate made an order binding him over to keep the peace. On the same day, the applicant was committed to custody, where he remained until 16 January 1997. The Divisional Court subsequently held that the binding-over order had been procedurally irregular.   The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 3 (c) (right to legal assistance of one’s own choosing) that neither he nor his legal representative had had the opportunity to address the magistrates’ court prior to the imposition of a binding-over order in respect of which he had later been committed to prison for failure to comply with its terms.   The Government accepted that the failure to give the applicant or his representative the opportunity to address the magistrates’ court before the order was made amounted to a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. The Court saw no reason to differ. Furthermore, even though the violation had been acknowledged by the national courts, the applicant had nevertheless spent almost two weeks in custody and had had no possibility of obtaining an order for compensation.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3   (c) of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,472 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   King v. the United Kingdom (no. 13881/02)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, James Murray King, is a United Kingdom national. Relying on Article   6   § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, he complained of the length of tax penalty proceedings against him.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted 13 years, 10 months and 12 days. In the circumstances of the case such a period did not comply with the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 17,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Massey v. the United Kingdom (no. 14399/02)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Rupert John Massey, is a United Kingdom national who was born in 1945 and lives in Richmond-upon-Thames, Surrey. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, he complained of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him for indecent assault.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted four years, nine months and 11 days. In the circumstances of the case this period did not comply with the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision. It awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation Article 8 Wood v. the United Kingdom (no. 23414/02)   Violation Article 13 The applicant, Clayton Wood, is a United Kingdom national   Together with a number of other persons, he was suspected of being involved in a series of burglaries in the Coventry area. The police had difficulty obtaining evidence in their investigation and therefore decided to carry out a covert operation by arresting the suspects and detaining them together in a police cell which had been fitted with audio equipment.   The applicant and two others were arrested on 20 May 1999. Their conversations whilst in police custody were recorded and formed the basis of the prosecution against the applicant.   The applicant complained of the covert recording of his conversations by the police while he was being held in a police cell with other suspects. He relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The British Government conceded, in the light of the Court’s case-law, that there had been no legal basis for the recordings and that there had been no effective remedy under domestic law in respect of that breach of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 550 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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.