CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 février 2005

.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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s69508F2E { width:94.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5184E241 { width:149.46pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF0A293BD { width:123.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9BCB610A { width:156.13pt; 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   045 1.2.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Moldova and Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Frangy v. France (application no 42270/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Didier Frangy, is a French national who was born in 1958 and lives in Aspremont (France).   On 10 May 1993 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against a person or persons unknown for having breached the confidentiality of judicial investigations, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party; he complained that he had been described in the press as being involved in drug trafficking. In January 1999 the investigating judge responsible for the case issued an order finding that there was no case to answer, on the ground that it had not been possible to establish the identity of the informer. That decision was upheld on appeal and the applicant’s appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 23 November 1999.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that a civil party who acted alone and was not represented by a lawyer could not have access to the case file. He also criticised the excessive length of the proceedings in his case.   The Court noted that, until August 1997, the applicant had been represented by a lawyer and could therefore have access to material from the case file through him. By that date, the majority of investigative measures had been carried out. In addition, the Court noted that the applicant did not appeal against the indictment division’s judgment dismissing his application to consult the file on the investigation. In those circumstances, the Court considered that, taken as a whole, the proceedings had not been rendered unfair on account of the failure to disclose the case file personally to the applicant, and it therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   As to the length of the proceedings, the Court noted that they had lasted six years and more than six months for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period did not comply with the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect, and it awarded Mr Frangy 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Quemar v. France (no. 69258/01)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Georges and Nicole Quemar, are French nationals who were born in 1940 and 1946 respectively and live in Paris.   On 8 September 1993 Mrs Quemar re-submitted a complaint which her late father had lodged after his telephone had been tapped illegally, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party. Mr Quemar, whose phone had also been tapped, lodged a complaint on 10 November 1993. The case was discontinued and the proceedings were ended on 23 January 2004 by an order from the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the excessive length of the proceedings at issue.   The Court noted that the investigation had lasted more than ten years and four months in respect of Mrs Quemar, and more than ten years and two months in the case of Mr Quemar. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a period did not comply with the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 and it therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the Convention in this respect. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded each applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment exists only in French.)   SCP Huglo, Lepage & Associés, Conseil v. France (no. 59477/00) Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant company, SCP Huglo, Lepage & Associés, Conseil, is a law firm which has its head office in Paris.   It defended the interests of several public and private entities affected by the sinking of the “Amoco Cadiz” oil tanker in 1978, off the north-west coast of Finistère. Following a dispute between the applicant company and an association of public entities (“Syndicat mixte”) “for the protection and conservation of the north-west coast of Brittany”, which brought together the département of Côtes ‑ du ‑ Nord and 76 municipalities located within that département and the département of Finistère, the applicant company instigated proceedings in order to obtain payment of its fees. At the end of the proceedings, the Court of Cassation dismissed its appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant company complained that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair, as a result, in its opinion, of the failure to communicate the reporting judge’s report.   The Court pointed out that the first party of the reporting judge’s report, which contained a statement of the facts, the procedure and the grounds of appeal, was not privileged from disclosure as forming part of the deliberations. It was to be communicated where necessary to the parties and to the advocate-general, under the same conditions. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6   § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant company and awarded it EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Ziliberberg v. Moldova (no. 61821/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Christian Ziliberberg, is a Moldovan national, born in 1980 and living in Chişinău, Moldova.   He was fined 36 Moldovan lei (the equivalent of 3.17 euros at the time) for taking part in a student demonstration on 18 April 2000 against a local council decision to abolish urban transport privileges for students and which had taken place without the council’s authorisation. On 4 May 2000 the regional court heard and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against his fine in his absence.   The applicant complained that he was not summoned for the hearing of his appeal, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court found that the applicant was charged with a criminal offence and that the Regional Court had heard the applicant’s appeal in his absence, having only sent out the summons the day before the hearing.   The Court recalled that Article 6 guaranteed an accused the right to participate effectively in her or his criminal trial, which included a right not only to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings. The applicant was simply unable to do so because he had had no prior notice of the hearing. The European Court of Human Rights therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Indra v. Slovakia (no. 46845/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Zdeněk Indra, is a Slovakian national, born in 1931 and living in Bratislava.   In June 1982 he was dismissed from his job for being absent from work for several days without an excuse. He appealed unsuccessfully. In February 1993 he brought civil proceedings seeking his rehabilitation under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act (Law no. 87/1991) by obtaining a formal confirmation that his dismissal of 1982 had been for political reasons and in violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms. His case was dismissed. He appealed and his appeal on points of law was finally rejected by the Supreme Court on 28 November 1996.   The applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair and that the court which heard his appeal on points of law was not impartial, as one of the judges who rejected his appeal on points of law was also on the panel of judges who rejected his appeal against dismissal. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that both the original proceedings and the rehabilitation proceedings referred to the same set of facts. Furthermore, the examination of the dismissal of 1982 according to the criteria of the Extra Judicial Rehabilitations Act could entail in some way reconsideration of the judicial decisions taken in the original proceedings, particularly given the political context. The situation could therefore, have raised legitimate fears in the applicant that the judge in question would not have approached his case with the requisite impartiality.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the lack of an impartial tribunal. However, the Court found that it was not necessary for it to consider separately the applicant’s other complaints under Article 6 § 1 or 13. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 100 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.