CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 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 } .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 } .s95B4A19C { width:84.1pt; display:inline-block } .sAEC40622 { width:188.21pt; display:inline-block } .s43975FE5 { width:65.46pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   065 10.02.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Germany, Greece, Italy and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Uhl v. Germany (application no 64387/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Reinhold Uhl, is a German national who was born in 1934 and lives in Königstein, Germany.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained that the length of proceedings against him for tax evasion had been excessive.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings had lasted nearly nine years and five months at four levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention in that respect.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant and awarded him 2,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Charalambos Katsaros v. Greece (no. 32279/02) Karobeïs v. Greece (no. 37420/02) Selianitis v. Greece (no. 37428/02) Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece (no. 27806/02) Theodoros Anagnostopoulos v. Greece (no. 37429/02) Vlasopoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 27802/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 13   In the above six Greek cases the applicants complained of the length of administrative proceedings brought either against the Social Security Agency to obtain compensation on account of an error in the calculation of their retirement pension contributions or against the Greek Railways Welfare Fund to obtain interest on an allowance awarded to them. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and further complained under Article 13 that they had not had an effective remedy whereby they could have complained about the length of the proceedings.   In each of these cases the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. In the case of Vlasopoulos and Others v. Greece the Court awarded the six applicants jointly EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. In the other five cases it awarded each applicant EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Graviano v. Italy (no. 10075/02)   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) The applicant, Giuseppe Graviano, is an Italian national who was born in 1963. He is at present imprisoned in Novara (Italy) where he is serving a life sentence for murder and membership of a Mafia-type organisation.   Having been identified in evidence given by a former Mafia-member turned informer ( pentito ) as a person who had procured a murder, he was prosecuted and committed to stand trial in the Palermo Assize Court with 12 other defendants. During the trial, at which the court heard evidence from two pentiti, A. and B., one of the Assize Court judges was transferred to other duties and replaced by another judge. The applicant unsuccessfully objected to the decision of the prosecuting authority to include in the judges’ files the record of all the examinations and other steps taken in the trial before the change of judge; a further request for the examination of the witnesses to be repeated was also rejected.   On 3 April 1999 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the basis of evidence including, notably, the statements made by A. and B. Requests by the applicant for the witnesses to give evidence again were refused by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial), the applicant submitted that the proceedings against him had not been fair, particularly on account of the replacement of one of the eight judges on the bench of the Assize Court and the refusal of his requests for the witnesses to be summoned again.   The Court observed that a change in the composition of a court after the examination of a decisive witness normally led to the witness being called to give evidence again. However, it considered in the present case that particular circumstances justified an exception to the principles of oral argument and direct knowledge of the case by judges not subject to replacement.   The Court noted that the change of judge had not deprived the applicant of his right to question the witnesses concerned, who had given evidence at public hearings in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer, who had had the opportunity to ask them the questions they considered most helpful to the defence case. Moreover, the applicant had not indicated how the examinations he had called for might have provided new, relevant evidence. In addition, even though one of the judges was replaced, the other seven judges had been present when all the evidence was produced. Consequently, the fact that the substitute judge had been able to read the reports on the hearings at which the witnesses had been examined made up for his absence from the hearings at which the examinations had taken place.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that neither the refusal of the requests for the witnesses to be examined again nor the use of the reports on their statements had infringed the applicant’s right to due process. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Sukhorubchenko v. Russia (no. 69315/01) No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Aleksey Petrovich Sukhorubchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Shakhty in the Rostov-on-Don Region (Russia).   In 1994 the applicant deposited his savings with a Russian investment company. In 1995, when the applicant came to Moscow to recover his deposit, he found the company’s offices closed. He lodged a civil action against the company with the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow. The proceedings were stayed on 24   December 1998 after the court had decided to leave the applicant’s claim “without examination” because the parties failed to appear on two occasions.   The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of his right to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention because of the excessively long examination of his claim. He also complained about the lack of effective remedies in respect of such delays, in breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. He further relied on Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, claiming that the length of the proceedings had made any enforcement impossible.   The Court found that the district court had correctly decided to leave the applicant’s claim “without examination” because, even in case of belated summoning, the applicant could have called the court registry on the phone to ascertain the hearing dates. However, the decision of 24 December 1998 had not been sent to the applicant within three days of its delivery as required by domestic law. Instead, it took the district court almost two months to despatch it. Moreover, the applicant’s further attempts to obtain any information on the status of his claim proved to be futile. As a consequence, he did not become aware of the existence of the decision of 24   December 1998 until more than four and a half years later, when the Government first mentioned it in their memorandum. The Court found therefore that the long period during which the applicant was prevented from having his civil claim determined by the domestic court as a consequence of the defective notification of the decision of 24 December 1998 entailed a violation of his right to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Having regard to this finding, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately the issue of the length of the proceedings and the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.   Concerning the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court observed that the company offices had closed long before the applicant lodged his claim and therefore the length of the proceedings did not appear to have had a decisive impact on the company’s realisable assets. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the Court found that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. (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.