CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 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 } .s3A4522 { width:135.46pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAA60C5 { width:119.47pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3A03022D { width:114.81pt; display:inline-block } .s3D3BD02 { width:132.17pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4C70163C { width:213.52pt; display:inline-block } .s4FFB5796 { width:198.18pt; display:inline-block } .s6235B563 { width:87.23pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   074 17.2.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy and   Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Kokkini v. Greece (no. 33194/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Panagiota Kokkini, is a Greek national who was born in 1925 and lives in Athens. She instituted civil proceedings seeking recognition of her ownership of a plot of land claimed by the State.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights of the excessive length of proceedings to which she had been a party. She also submitted that the length of the proceedings had infringed her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings in question had lasted 27 years, seven months and one day for three levels of jurisdiction, although it could only take into consideration a period of 16 years, one month and one day [2] . Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that that period did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In view of that finding, it did not consider it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Oikonomidis v. Greece (no. 42589/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Christoforos Oikonomidis, is a Greek national who was born in 1932 and lives in Athens. He complained about the length of administrative proceedings he had brought against the Greek Railways Welfare Fund to obtain an increase in the amount of an allowance awarded to him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and also complained under Article 13 that he had not had an effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings. The Court noted that the proceedings complained of, which were still pending in the Greek courts, had lasted more than 15 years for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that that period did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Sardinas Albo v. Italy (no. 56271/00)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Horacio Sardinas Albo, claims to be a Cuban national born in 1948. He is currently being held in Voghera Prison (Italy).   On 6 August 1996 the applicant was arrested in Milan on suspicion of involvement in international drug trafficking. The Milan investigating judge remanded him in custody, in particular because of the evidence against him and of the risk of his absconding. In addition, in May 1998 and June 1999 the courts ordered his continued detention with a view to his extradition to the United States on account of his involvement in offences relating to drug trafficking and to false statements he had allegedly made.   The applicant lodged two appeals against the decisions ordering and prolonging his detention, but both were dismissed. On 7 October 1999 the Como District Court sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment, subsequently reduced to 11 years on appeal.   The applicant complained under Article 5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) of the length of his detention on remand.   The applicant’s detention on remand had lasted three years, two months and one day.   The Court noted that, in deciding to continue the applicant’s detention, the authorities had relied simultaneously on the existence of strong evidence of his guilt and on the risk of his re-offending and absconding or tampering with evidence.   As regards the suspicions against the applicant, the Court noted that the Italian authorities had emphasised that he was in possession of documents showing that he was in contact with persons involved in drug trafficking. Moreover, the investigation had revealed that the applicant had played an active role in renting a deposit box where cocaine had been found and in sending the container in which it was concealed. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the Italian authorities could reasonably have suspected him of involvement in drug trafficking.   The Court further considered that the other grounds for the applicant’s continued detention had been reasonable. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it found that the risk of his absconding had constituted a relevant and sufficient ground for refusing his applications for release.   As to whether the Italian authorities had acted with “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings, the Court accepted that the case had been of some complexity. It accordingly considered that the length of the preliminary investigations was not, as such, open to criticism. However, the Court noted that during a period of more than one year and four months, the proceedings had either been stayed or the examination of the merits of the case had been adjourned pending a ruling on a matter of jurisdiction. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the Italian authorities had not displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Constantin v. Romania (no. 49145/99)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Viorel Constantin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Tăndărei (Romania).   On 2 April 1995 at about 11.30 p.m. he was involved in an argument in a discotheque with a security guard ( gardian public ), who was on patrol with police officers. They hit him and took him outside, where they repeatedly beat him before dragging him by the feet and hands to the police station. The commanding officer on duty ordered his immediate release.   On 3 April the applicant was examined by a doctor, who observed multiple bruises and abrasions in the thoracic and lumbar regions and on the head. He considered that the blows which the applicant had received would require between 22 and 25 days of treatment and that his hearing would remain impaired as a result of the perforation of his left eardrum. The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the three police officers concerned and the security guard, who were subsequently acquitted.   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained of his treatment by the police officers and submitted that he had not had an effective remedy to secure compensation for the damage sustained.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 23,000 for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Liuba v. Romania (no. 31166/96)   Struck out The applicants, Marius Dionisie and Antonaeta Sabine Liuba, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1930 respectively and live in Timişoara (Romania).   As they had failed to secure from the Romanian authorities the restitution of a property which had been nationalised by the State, the applicants lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights complaining that they were victims of a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). A fresh action by the applicants for recovery of possession was pending at the time in the Romanian courts.   In a judgment of 29 July 2003 the Court decided to strike the application out of the list on the ground that the applicants, who had not replied to requests from the Registry for information about the pending proceedings, did not intend to pursue their application. However, at the applicants’ request, the Court agreed to restore the application to its list in September 2003.   Although they had been warned that their application might be struck out, the applicants had not responded to further information requests from the Registry. Concluding that the applicants did not intend to pursue their application and that it was no longer justified within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 to continue examining it, the Court decided unanimously to strike the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Popovăţ v. Romania (no. 32265/96)   Struck out The applicant, Marina Nicola Popovăt, is a Romanian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Bucharest.   As she had failed to secure from the Romanian authorities the restitution of a property in Bucharest which had been nationalised by the State, the applicant lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights complaining that she was the victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In a judgment of 25 February 2003 the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   Since delivering its judgment on the merits, the Court had been informed that the applicant had sold the property in question and accordingly no longer had any claims against the Romanian State for just satisfaction. Concluding that the applicant did not intend to pursue her application and that it was no longer justified within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 to continue examining it, the Court decided unanimously to strike the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Roman and Hogea v. Romania (no. 62959/00)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Maria Roman and Ioana Hogea, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1950 and 1955 respectively and live in Bistrita (Romania). They complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that they had been unable to secure the enforcement of final judicial decisions ordering their employer to reinstate them.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive EUR 8,500 each for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 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. [2] From 20 November 1985, when Greece recognised the right of individual petition.