CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 mars 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 } .sE546A0A1 { width:140.79pt; display:inline-block } .s6A80C6A6 { width:89.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7620EF23 { width:166.16pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sDC3C6607 { width:205.55pt; display:inline-block } .s60133391 { width:64pt; display:inline-block } .sB4B2FCDA { width:49.33pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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   099 1.3.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Moldova, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Meriakri v. Moldova (application no 53487/99)   Struck out The applicant, Victor Meriakri, is a Moldovan national, born in 1952 and living in Chişinău (Moldova).   On 22 July 1997 he was convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery and, as a dangerous recidivist, sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment, to be served in a labour camp with a severe regime. The applicant appealed. He was released on 11 November 2004 following a general amnesty brought in by Parliament.   He complained that, while he was in prison, the prison authorities opened his correspondence with, among others, the European Court of Human Rights. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In a letter dated 28 October 2003 the Moldovan Government informed the Court that, in order to settle the case, they would pay the applicant the equivalent (at the exchange rate then applying) of 890 euros (EUR) (14,000 Moldovan Lei (MDL)), as compensation for any non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the interference with his correspondence with the Court and with his lawyer. (The Government mentioned that the minimum monthly salary in Moldova was MDL   100.) They also offered the applicant an official apology concerning the interference with his correspondence by the prison authorities and submitted that they had already amended the relevant legislation to give a higher level of protection to the rights of prisoners.   The applicant asked the Court to reject the offer.   Having regard to the scope and extent of the various undertakings in the Government’s declaration, together with the amount of compensation proposed, the European Court of Human Rights considered that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols did not require it to continue to do so. The Court therefore decided, unanimously, to strike out the case and awarded the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Linnekogel v. Switzerland (no. 43874/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Raphael Linnekogel, is a Swiss national who was born in 1979 and lives in Wädenswil (Switzerland).   On 23 September 1997 the Swiss federal police informed him that they had seized a number of records found in a parcel from Germany addressed to him on the grounds that they were recordings of “extreme-right propaganda”. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Department of Justice and Police and a further complaint on learning that the Federal Prosecutor’s Office had informed the customs authorities and the Zurich Canton police of the confiscation. The latter complaint was dismissed in December 1999.   The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a copy of the Federal Council’s decision of 26 June 1999 ordering final confiscation of the records.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that he had not had access to a court before which he could have complained of the confiscation.   The Court noted that the applicant’s complaint had been examined only by administrative authorities, namely the Federal Department of Justice and Police and, at last instance, the Federal Council, the governing authority and supreme executive of the Confederation. Finding that the applicant had been denied access to a court, 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 sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Birol v. Turkey (no. 44104/98)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Ilknur Birol, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul. At the material time she was a school teacher and a member of the Education and Science Workers’ Union.   On 26 June 1997 she was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for insulting and vilifying the Minister and Ministry of Justice in a speech at a demonstration in favour of “democracy and trade-union rights”.   The applicant submitted that her criminal conviction had infringed her right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken together with Article 10, she further alleged that she was the victim of discrimination on the ground of her political opinions.   The Court considered that the reasons stated by the domestic courts were insufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Although certain particularly acerbic passages from her speech had portrayed the Minister of Justice of the day in a most negative light, so that it carried hostile undertones, they had not encouraged the use of violence or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech. That, in the Court’s view, was an essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court also took into account the fact that the comments had been made at an outdoor demonstration so that the applicant had had no opportunity to reformulate, perfect or retract them before they became public.   The Court found that the applicant’s conviction was disproportionate to the aims pursued and, accordingly, had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10. In the light of that conclusion, it considered that no separate examination of the complaint under Article 14 was necessary.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)       Violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5     Violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) Beet and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 47676/99, 58923/00, 58927/00, 61373/00 and     61377/00) Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 29798/96, 30395/96, 34327/96, 34341/96, 35445/97 36267/97, 36367/97, 37551/97, 37706/97, 38261/97, 39378/98, 41590/98, 41593/98, 42040/98, 42097/98, 45420/99, 45844/99, 46326/99, 47144/99, 53062/99, 53111/99, 54969/00, 54973/00, 54997/00, 55046/00, 55068/00, 55071/00, 56109/00, 56231/00, 56232/00, 56233/00, 56429/00, 56441/00, 2460/03, 2482/03, 2483/03, 2484/03 and 2490/03)   The applicants are Julie Beet, Raymond Lloyd and 41 other United Kingdom nationals.   Each applicant failed to pay sums due in respect of either local taxes (community charge, council tax or non-domestic rates) or court-imposed fines. Concerning the failure to pay local taxes, the magistrates’ court had in each case found the applicant liable to pay; in fines cases, the magistrates’ court had imposed the fine as the sentence following a criminal conviction. Each applicant fell into arrears with their payments. These cases involved the enforcement proceedings in the magistrates’ court.   Each applicant appeared before the magistrates’ court, which found that the non-payment was due to the applicant’s wilful refusal or culpable neglect. Each applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment, which was either imposed immediately or suspended on terms that the applicant make periodic payments towards the outstanding sum. When the applicant failed to comply with the terms imposed, a further hearing was held in the magistrates’ court at which the suspended term of imprisonment was activated. Each applicant spent a period of time in prison.   Legal aid (free legal representation where the applicant did not have sufficient means to pay for it) was not available for enforcement proceedings prior to 1   June 1997 and none of the applicants was legally represented at the hearings before the magistrates.   The magistrates’ orders were all ultimately quashed, either by the High Court or following the High Court’s approval of a consent order agreed between the applicants and the magistrates who had sentenced them.   Ms Beet and 27 applicants in the cases Lloyd and Others complained under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention that their detention was unlawful. Ms Beet and all the applicants in Lloyd and Others further complained, under Article 5 § 5, that they were not entitled to compensation under domestic law.   The other four applicants in Beet and Others and 34 of the applicants in Lloyd and Others complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) that they were not offered legal representation and were not represented at the hearing at which they were sentenced to a term of imprisonment.   Beet and Others - The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 concerning Ms Beet, and awarded her EUR   5,000 concerning the breach of Article 5 § 1. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) in respect of the other four applicants, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by them. The Court awarded the five applicants between EUR 979 and EUR 4,147 for costs.   Lloyd and Others - The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 concerning 26 of the applicants (but no violation of Article 5 § 1 and 5 in the case Ellis ) , and awarded them between EUR 3,000 and EUR 9,000 concerning the breach of Article 5 § 1. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and   3 (c) concerning all the applicants and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage concerning the breach of Article 6 § 3 (c). The Court awarded each applicant between EUR 1,681 and EUR 3,102 for costs and expenses.   (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. 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.