CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 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 } .s37CE65C6 { width:57.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6B7D3C75 { width:9.91pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sD7BD576E { width:24.57pt; display:inline-block } .sE24A6CD2 { width:20.11pt; display:inline-block } .s672BE378 { width:310.89pt; display:inline-block } .s46008A90 { width:130.84pt; display:inline-block } .s7E828C92 { width:210.83pt; display:inline-block } .sF4359DFE { width:118.13pt; display:inline-block } .s51460EAB { width:60.83pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sC4D9D191 { width:200.81pt; 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   089 24.2.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Birnleitner v. Austria (application no. 45203/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Elisabeth Birnleitner, is an Austrian national, living in Aistersheim (Austria).   She owns land which is an approved hunting ground. Every six years, when the district authority establishes hunting ground boundaries, requests may be filed by landowners to have adjacent land attached to their hunting grounds. On 30 September 1992 the applicant made such a request and was only partly successful.   She complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that she did not have an oral hearing before the Administrative Court.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kern v. Austria (no.   14206/02)           Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Franz Kern, is an Austrian national who was born in 1960. He is a farmer living in Eichfeld, Austria.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained, among other things, of the length and unfairness of farmland consolidation proceedings concerning his property.   The Court unanimously declared the application admissible only as regards the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. It noted that these had lasted more than 12 years. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a lengthy period failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,175.70 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Nowicky v. Austria (no. 34983/02)           Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Wassyl Nowicky, is an Austrian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Vienna.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of proceedings he had brought following the refusal of the Austrian authorities to grant him authorisation to market a pharmaceutical product that he had developed.   The Court unanimously declared the application admissible only as regards the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. These were still pending before the Austrian courts and had lasted to date more than 9 years and 10 months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a lengthy period failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Zuckerstätter and Reschenhofer v. Austria (no. 76718/01)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Wilhelm Zuckerstätter and Christian Reschenhofer, are Austrian nationals, born in 1970 and 1974 and living in Austria in Feldkirchen and Neukirchen respectively.   They complained about the length of criminal proceedings against them concerning traffic offences. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which they are to be paid EUR 6,000 and EUR 4,000 respectively for non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violations of Article 6 § 1 Stift v. Belgium (no. 46848/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) The applicant, Michel Stift, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1947 and lives in Amsterdam.   He was suspected of involvement in cocaine trafficking and arrested at Zaventem Airport in Belgium on 6 September 1996. He was detained on remand until 18 June 1997, when he was released on bail of approximately EUR   2,500.   At first instance the applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR   250,000. He appealed against the judgment but did not appear at the hearing in the Brussels Court of Appeal. That court refused his lawyer leave to represent him and, in a judgment of 29 June 1998, declared him guilty of the offence charged and increased the prison sentence to seven years. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on the ground that he had not surrendered to custody.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the unfairness of the proceedings resulting in his conviction. The unfairness had arisen, he argued, as a result of the refusal to allow his lawyer to represent him before the Court of Appeal, the decision to declare his appeal to the Court of Cassation inadmissible and the refusal to hear evidence from witnesses in the Criminal Court.   The Court reiterated that the right to be effectively defended by a lawyer is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial and that an accused cannot be deprived of that right merely on account of his or her failure to appear. The legitimate requirement that defendants must attend court hearings could be satisfied by means other than deprivation of the right to be defended. The Court consequently held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention on account of the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant the applicant’s lawyer leave to represent him.   The Court also reiterated that the inadmissibility of the appeal to the Court of Cassation, which had been based exclusively on the fact that the appellant had not surrendered to custody, compelled the appellant to subject himself in advance to the deprivation of liberty resulting from the decision complained of, although that decision could not be considered final. The very essence of the right of access to a court had thus been impaired. The Court accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   By refusing the applicant’s lawyer leave to represent him in his absence and declaring his appeal to the Court of Cassation inadmissible on the ground that he had not surrendered to custody, the Belgian courts had in any event been unable to guarantee him a fair trial. In those circumstances the Court found that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint concerning the calling of witnesses.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,650 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ohlen v. Denmark (no. 63214/00)   Struck out The applicant, Hanno Ohlen, is a German national, born in 1939 and living in Germany.   On 30 August 1995 he was arrested in Denmark and charged with aggravated tax fraud. He was convicted, but his fine was reduced by 40,000 Danish kroner (DKK) in view of the length of the proceedings. On 22   May   2003 the High Court found that DKK   40,000 constituted adequate redress for the length of the proceedings, which at that time had lasted almost seven years and nine months.   The applicant complained that a criminal charge against him was not determined within a reasonable time, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   Comparing the compensation granted for non-pecuniary damage in the applicant’s case with the sums awarded for comparable delays in its case-law, the European Court of Human Rights considered that the sum awarded could not be considered as unreasonable. Finding that no particular reason relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention required it to continue the examination of the application, the Court therefore decided to strike out the case. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Jankauskas v. Lithuania (no. 59304/00)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Ramūnas Jankaukas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Šiauliai. He is a former police officer. When still serving in the police he was arrested on 12 March 1999 and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of abuse of office and corruption. On 3 October 2000 the Šiauliai Regional Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld on appeal and the Supreme Court later dismissed an appeal on points of law.   Having served his sentence, which had been considerably reduced under an amnesty, the applicant was released on 18 August 2003. He submitted that the prison authorities had opened and read his correspondence with the Lithuanian authorities, non-governmental organisations and private persons such as his family, relatives and his lawyer.   Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant submitted that the prison authorities’ conduct in opening and reading more than 360 of his letters had infringed his right to respect for his correspondence.   The Lithuanian Government had not denied that the applicant’s letters had been subjected to censorship by the prison authorities. The reasons put forward by the authorities, namely the risk that the applicant might attempt to evade justice or influence his trial, could not give the prison service discretion to intercept the applicant’s mail systematically.   The Court considered that the Government had not given a sufficient explanation as to why the interception of the applicant’s correspondence had been “necessary in a democratic society”. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Budmet Sp. z.o.o. v. Poland (no. 31445/96)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Budmet Sp. zo.o., is a building company based in Jelenia Góra, Poland. It acquired the Sofal company in 1992.   In November 1988 Sofal leased a plot of land from Wojewodzkie Przedsiebiorstwo Produkcij Pomocniczej (WPPP), a state-owned land-administration company, and built new premises on it and modernised the existing buildings. In October 1992 WPPP was put into liquidation. The Prefecture decided to give WPPP a right of perpetual use – retroactively from 5   December 1990 – of the land on which Sofal had constructed its buildings.   The modernised buildings were sold to WPPP and the newly-constructed buildings assigned to WPPP free of charge. WPPP was subsequently sold to a third party.   The applicant company appealed against the Prefect’s decision in its capacity as Sofal’s successor, but its appeal was declared inadmissible by the Minister for Regional Planning and Construction. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant company against the Minister’s decision on the ground that it was not a party to the dispute, since the proceedings concerned only the State and WPPP.   The applicant company complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, that the decisions given by the administrative bodies had deprived it of any reimbursement of the amounts invested in modernising the leased property. Relying, further, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), it complained that it had been deprived of its right of access to a tribunal.   The Court unanimously declared inadmissible the complaint lodged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and admissible the one lodged under Article 6 § 1.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had not directly concerned the applicant company’s rights and had not concerned its claim. They had dealt solely with the State’s relationship to the WPPP. The claim had related to the performance of the lease agreement, which had continued during the proceedings, and had not disappeared as a result of them. It had not become enforceable until the end of the lease agreement. Accordingly, the Supreme Administrative Court’s refusal to acknowledge a right by the applicant to take part in the administrative proceedings could not be regarded as depriving it of its right of access to a court, especially as it could have brought civil proceedings. Consequently, the Court held, unanimously, that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   With regard to the complaint that the applicant had been deprived of a remedy by which to recover its property, the Court reiterated its finding that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been declared inadmissible on account of the applicant company’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In the light of that conclusion, it considered that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Gasan v. Russia (no. 43402/02) Koltsov v. Russia (no. 41304/02) Petrushko v. Russia (no. 36494/02) Lyudmila Gennadievna Gasan was born in 1965, Mikhail Yurievich Koltsov was born in 1970 and Valentina Vasilyevna Petrushko was born in 1965.   In the above three cases the applicants, who are all Russian nationals living in Rostov Region, brought actions for damages in the Russian courts. Mrs Gasan and Mrs Petrushko claimed in respect of their husbands’ deaths during their military service in Chechnya. The proceedings brought by Mr Koltsov concerned a wound he had sustained during his military service in Chechnya.   Relying on Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that the failure to enforce the judgments in their favour had infringed their right of access to a court and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   In each of these cases the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   6   § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) it awarded EUR 3,000 each to Mrs Gasan and Mrs Petrushko and EUR 2,500 to Mr Koltsov. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Makarova and Others v. Russia (no. 7023/03)   Plotnikovy v. Russia (no. 43883/02) Poznakhirina v. Russia (no. 25964/02) Raisa Grigoryevna Makarova, Georgiy Mikhailovich Zabolotskiy and Anna Nikitichna Zabolotskaya were born in 1930, 1931 and 1935 respectively. Lyubov Aleksandrovna Plotnikova and Petr Vasilyevich Plotnikov were born in 1948 and 1944. Svetlana Anatolyevna Poznakhirina was born in 1951.   In these three cases the applicants, who are all Russian nationals living in Voronezh Region, applied to the Russian courts seeking social welfare benefits or an increase in the amount of pension paid to them by the social welfare office.   Relying on Article 6   §   1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that the failure to enforce the judgments in their favour had infringed their right of access to a court and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   In each of these cases the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article   6   § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) it awarded the applicants in the case of Makarova and Others v. Russia the overall sum of EUR 2,952 for pecuniary damage and EUR 4,200 for non-pecuniary damage. It awarded EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage to the applicants in the case of Plotnikovy v. Russia . In the case of Poznakhirina v. Russia the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant and warded her EUR 3,132 for pecuniary damage. (The judgments are 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.