CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 31 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 } .s5B807749 { width:87.45pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADE765 { width:193.56pt; display:inline-block } .s546EAE0 { width:58.82pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sF16E9E88 { width:52.16pt; display:inline-block } .sBD511D18 { width:68.79pt; display:inline-block } .sC72CC51B { width:161.49pt; display:inline-block } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9B49264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   166 31.3.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Greece and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   F. W. v. France (application no. 61517/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   The applicants, Mrs F.W., and Mr J-F W., are French nationals who were born in 1946 and 1945 and live in Paris. Their application was also lodged on behalf of their son who was born in 1994.   They issued court proceedings for a declaration that the birth certificate of their son, whom they had adopted in Poland, was valid in France. The Court of Cassation rejected their appeal on points of law on 18 July 2000. However, the subsequent registration in France of the Polish adoption judgment took the place of a birth certificate.   They complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that proceedings before the Civil Division of the Court of Cassation had been unfair in that the report of the judge rapporteur had not been communicated to them before the hearing and the Advocate General had attended the deliberations.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that the report of the judge rapporteur had not been communicated to them before the hearing, although that document had been provided to the Advocate General, and in that the Advocate General had attended the Court of Cassation’s deliberations. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them jointly 2,500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), (d) and (e) Mariani v. France (no. 43640/98)   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7   The applicant, Dario Mariani, is Italian national who was born in 1955. He is currently serving a 12-year sentence for terrorist offences in Turin Prison (Italy).   In 1988 the applicant was arrested at the Italian border and placed in detention in Italy, where he was sought for acts of terrorism. He was later convicted of those offences and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. Criminal proceedings were also instituted against the applicant in France, in connection with his presumed involvement in two armed robberies committed in Paris in 1987 and 1988, in the course of which several people had been injured in a firefight.   In 1995 the Paris Indictment Chamber noted that the applicant was imprisoned in Turin in connection with another case and made an order committing him for trial before the Court of Assize on charges on robbery, attempted armed robbery and attempted murder. In a judgment of 1 October 1997, that court found him guilty of the charges and sentenced him in absentia to twenty years’ imprisonment, having found that he was “on the run”.   The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been denied a fair trial and the right to appeal by the fact that he had been tried in his absence. He relied on Article 6   §§ 1 (right to a fair trial), 3 (c) (right to legal assistance), (d) (right to examine witnesses), (e) (right to the assistance of an interpreter) of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the Convention.   Having reaffirmed the paramount importance of a defendant’s presence at a criminal trial and the right of every accused person to be defended in such trials, the Court considered that the proceedings in absentia did not meet those requirements and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 et 3 (c), (d) and (e) of the Convention, taken together.   In addition, the Court pointed out that, under Articles 630 and 639 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused who was being tried in absentia had no real possibility of being defended at first instance and could not have his or her conviction examined by an appeal court, given his or her situation. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Matheus v. France (no. 62740/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicant, Victor Matheus, is a French national who was born in 1926 and lives at Gargenville (France).   He owned property in Capesterre-Belle-Eau in Guadeloupe. In 1972 he let the property concerned to a third party, M.F., who continued to occupy it some years later but ceased paying rent.   In the absence of evidence showing that the applicant had asked M.F. to leave the property, the Basse-Terre Court dismissed an application by Mr Matheus. In a judgment of 11 April 1988, however, the Court of Appeal granted his application, declared valid the notice given by the applicant to the occupant, terminated the lease between the parties and ordered that M.F. and all other occupants be evicted, if necessary with assistance from the police, with penalties to be paid in the event of failure to comply.   In spite of the steps taken, the applicant was unable to obtain M.F.’s expulsion but was granted compensation for the damage caused by the police’s refusal to provide assistance.   In 2004 the applicant informed the Registry that he had sold the disputed property to M.F. for about EUR 45,000, since he had lost any hope of regaining possession of it.   The applicant argued that his rights under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) had been violated by his inability to obtain police assistance since 1988 to evict the unlawful occupiers.   The Court noted that the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 11 April 1988 had not been executed for more than 16 years, until the applicant had sold his property. This prolonged failure to respect a judicial decision was to be seen as a restriction on the right of effective access to a court. Admittedly, the applicant had received compensation for gross negligence by the State on account of its refusal to cooperate in executing the disputed judicial decision, but that compensation did not remedy the French authorities’ shortcoming in failing to execute the relevant judgment. It remained the case that that judgment had not been enforced and the applicant had never been able to regain enjoyment of his property right.   The excessive length of the failure to execute the judicial decision, and the resultant uncertainty suffered by the applicant as to the future of his property, had impeded his right to the effective judicial protection guaranteed under Article 6 § 1. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision.   Furthermore, the Court considered that, in the absence of any public-interest justification, the refusal in this case to provide police assistance had resulted in a form of private expropriation from which the unlawful occupant had benefited. In the absence of an effective enforcement system, such a situation created the risk, evoked in the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation on the execution of judicial decisions, that a form of “private justice”, contrary to the rule of law, would emerge. In those circumstances, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3, 000 for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Viaropoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 19437/02)   Friendly settlement   The applicants, Lambros Viaropoulos, Eleni Viaropoulou, Panayotis Viaropoulos and Irini Viaropoulou, are Greek nationals who were born in 1958, 1952, 1984 and 1988 respectively and live in Athens. They brought proceedings following the expropriation of a property in an Athens suburb. The property was expropriated in 1923, but it was only in December 2001 that the applicants received compensation for the expropriation, which then amounted to EUR 1,897,486.   The applicants complained of procedural unfairness and a breach of their rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 910, 792 is to be paid to the applicants. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Bozturk v. Turkey (no. 35851/97)   Friendly settlement   The applicant, Halil Bozkurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives at Kaş (Turkey). He was in Aydin Prison at the material time. The applicant alleged that, following an escape by four prisoners from Buca Prison in July 1995, the prison administration put pressure on political prisoners and decided to inspect the wing in which they were being held. The applicant was instructed to accompany the gendarmes and warders during the inspection and claimed that he had received a beating. The applicant complained of ill-treatment at the hands of the prison warders during the inspection, of the inadequacy of the ensuing investigation by the Turkish authorities and the lack of an effective remedy. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to effective remedy).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 17,000 is to be paid to the applicant in respect of damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   Furthermore, the Turkish Government has made the following statement: “the Turkish Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in the context of protecting human rights. To this end, necessary cooperation in this process will continue to take place.” (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.