CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 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 } .s417C4371 { width:31.42pt; display:inline-block } .s59389FFA { width:94.79pt; display:inline-block } .s2392424E { width:29.91pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s5135D418 { width:80.79pt; display:inline-block } .s9C6BA74C { width:33.88pt; display:inline-block } .sAF31FCB7 { width:48.73pt; display:inline-block } .s71E8A580 { width:21.88pt; display:inline-block } .s42871B05 { width:56.56pt; 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   071 15.2.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Estonia, France, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]     Sulaoja v. Estonia (application no 55939/00)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 The applicant, Kristjan Sulaoja, is an Estonian national, born in 1964 and living in Hüüru village, Harju County.   The applicant was remanded in custody on several counts of burglary in February 1998. His detention was extended on different occasions over the following year despite his requests to be released. On 31 March 1999 he was convicted and sentenced by the Pärnu City Court. On appeal, his conviction was quashed on procedural grounds and the case was remitted to the City Court. His appeal to the Supreme Court concerning the lawfulness of his detention was dismissed. In the second set of proceedings the applicant was again convicted by the City Court on 5 October 1999 and this verdict was confirmed (with a reduced sentence) by the Tallinn Court of Appeal in November 1999. He was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.   The applicant complained that his protracted detention was unfounded and in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (right to be tried within a reasonable time or released pending trial) and that his applications for release had not been examined speedily as was required under Article 5 § 4.   The total period the applicant’s detention on remand amounted to 1 year, 6 months and 22 days.   The European Court of Human Rights accepted that the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged may initially have warranted his detention. However, the judicial orders authorising the applicant’s detention on remand had been based on a brief standard formula that the detention was justified, namely that the applicant had been previously convicted, did not have a place of residence, a job nor a family and that he could commit new offences, and abscond. The mere absence of a fixed residence did not give rise to a danger of flight. Nor could it be concluded from the lack of a job or a family that a person was inclined to commit new offences. The Court had doubts as to whether the grounds for the applicant’s detention, as reflected in the perfunctorily reasoned court orders, retained their sufficiency for the whole period of the pre-trial detention.   Moreover, under Article 5 § 3 the authorities, when deciding on the continuing detention of a person, were obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial. In the present case the authorities had not envisaged any other guarantees that the applicant would appear for trial, although he had repeatedly objected to his continued detention, requesting that it be replaced by another preventive measure – a prohibition on leaving a place of residence where he asserted that he could live with his brother.   Furthermore, in any case, that the authorities could not be said to have displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings. The charges against the applicant were not so complex and voluminous as to justify the length of the pre-trial investigation. The judgment of 31 March 1999 of the Pärnu City Court, by which the applicant was initially convicted, extended to two pages.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court found that 15 March 1999, when the applicant challenged the legality of his detention with the City Court, was to be considered the date of the applicant’s request for the review of the lawfulness of his detention. The matter was decided by the Supreme Court on 8 June 1999, i.e. in 2 months and 24 days. The length of that period could not be reconciled with the requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the lawfulness of one’s detention shall be decided speedily. There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that respect.   As regards the second set of proceedings, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case and taking into account, in particular, the short interval between the review of the lawfulness of the detention by the City Court and the applicants new request to be released, the Court was satisfied that the requirements of Article 5 § 4 were met in this set of proceedings.     The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Philippe Pause v. France (no. 58742/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Philippe Pause, is a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Saint Marie in the Island of Réunion. He lodged a criminal complaint, with an application to be joined as a civil party, against persons unknown for breach of professional confidentiality following the communication of certain documents to his opponent in litigation before the labour courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) the applicant complained about the unfairness of the proceedings in the Court of Cassation as a result of the failure to communicate to him the opinion of the Advocate-General, to which he had consequently been unable to respond. He further complained that he had not been summoned to the hearing.   The Court reiterated that the failure to communicate the reporting judge’s report to the applicant or his lawyer prior to the hearing despite its having been sent to the Advocate-General was incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In the light of that conclusion, it considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint about the failure to summon the applicant to the hearing and held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Zieliński v. Poland (no. 38497/02)            No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Zbigniew Zieliński, is a Polish national who was born in 1927 and lives in Warsaw.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the length of proceedings (five years and 24 days for three levels of jurisdiction) concerning a dispute with his bank. He further maintained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that he had not had a remedy in domestic law to complain about the length of the proceedings.   The Court declared the application admissible only regarding the complaint about the length of the proceedings. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the length of the proceedings in question satisfied the reasonable-time requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 and held that there had therefore not been a violation of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Carvalho Magalhães v. Portugal (no. 18065/02)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Fernando Carvalho Magalhães, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1973 and lives at Matosinhos (Portugal).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings which he had joined as a civil party after a traffic accident.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 2,500 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Švolik v. Slovakia (no. 51545/99)           Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Jozef Švolik, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Bratislava. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the length of proceedings which he had brought in connection with a lease. In addition, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) he maintained that he had not had any remedy in domestic law to complain about the length of the proceedings.   The Court noted that in judgments of 16 June 1998 and 12 November 2003 the Constitutional Court had held that the applicant’s case had not been heard within a reasonable time. The Court accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Having regard to that finding, it considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint based on Article 13. Despite being invited to do so by the Court, the applicant did not make a claim under Article 41. Consequently, the Court held that it was not necessary to award him just satisfaction.   Valová, Slezák and Slezák v. Slovakia (no. 44925/98)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Nadina Valová, Vít Slezák and Askold Slezák are Slovakian nationals, born respectively in 1939, 1940 and 1948 and living respectively in Modra Harmónia and Cifer (Slovakia). They had lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights claiming that their right to a public hearing before a court and their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been infringed in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In a judgment of 1 June 2004 the Court had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, but no violation of Article 6 § 1. It had taken the view that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 20,000 is to be paid to the applicants jointly. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Vargová v. Slovakia (no. 52555/99)           Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Elfrida Vargová, was a Slovakian national. On her death the European Court of Human Rights gave her son leave to continue the proceedings before the Court.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), she had complained about the length of the proceedings which she had brought with a view to securing restitution of a house. In addition, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), she had maintained that she had not any remedy in domestic law to complain about the length of proceedings.   The Court found that the proceedings, which are still pending before the Slovakian courts, had lasted more than 12 years and nine months to date. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that this period did not meet the reasonable-time requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 and held, accordingly, that there had been a violation of the Convention. In view of that finding, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint based on Article 13.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant EUR   4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English).   Mancar v. Turkey (no. 57372/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Nuri Mancar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1928 and lives in Antalya (Turkey). He complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention of delays in the payment of compensation awarded him following the expropriation of his property.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded the applicant EUR   429,390 for pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     ***   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.