CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 avril 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 } .s49748C2C { width:50.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA8BECA3 { width:126.84pt; display:inline-block } .s3A03022D { width:114.81pt; display:inline-block } .s5A02D00D { width:35.46pt; display:inline-block } .s34798DAA { width:152.82pt; display:inline-block } .sAD033D0D { width:276.22pt; display:inline-block } .sFE40E937 { width:138.81pt; display:inline-block } .sC8D11E40 { width:68.8pt; display:inline-block } .s64864755 { width:126.81pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68567FB2 { width:158.15pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s20BD736E { width:132.15pt; 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   234 28.4.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany and   Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   de Staerke v. Belgium (application no 51788/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Philippe de Staerke, is a Belgian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Brussels.   He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights of the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against him on account of his suspected involvement in a fatal armed robbery, better known as the “Walloon Brabant killings”.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings had lasted more than 15 years and 4 months. In the circumstances of the case, that period had been excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dumont v. Belgium (no. 49525/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Christine Dumont, is a Belgian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Grez-Doiceau (Belgium).   She applied to be joined as a civil party in criminal proceedings instituted against the person responsible for a road accident in which she had been injured. She complained under Article   6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the proceedings in question.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted almost 12 years. In the circumstances of the case, that period had been excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 14,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Reyntiens v. Belgium (no. 52112/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Jean Reyntiens, was a Belgian national who was born in 1919. Following his death in 2000, the European Court of Human Rights gave his heirs leave to pursue the proceedings before it.   He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of proceedings he had brought with a view to obtaining compensation for damage sustained in a road accident.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted more than seven years and five months. In the circumstances of the case, that period had been excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and awarded the applicant’s heirs jointly EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Robyns de Schneidauer v. Belgium (no. 50236/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Catherine Robyns de Schneidauer, is a Belgian national who was born in 1963.   She lodged a criminal complaint, alleging breach of trust, misappropriation and fraud, against a person to whom she had entrusted a sum of money to be invested on the stock exchange, and applied to join the proceedings as a civil party.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted more than eight years. In the circumstances of the case that period had been excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 9,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,367.63 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   I.D. v. Bulgaria (no. 43578/98)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, I.D., is a Bulgarian national, born in 1948 and living in Rouse (Bulgaria).   She worked as a typist for the Cargo Railway Station in Rouse, although her formal job description stated that she was a supervisor without typing duties. In 1994 she was found to be suffering from vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper limbs, which was classified as an occupational disease. However, the medical commissions which examined the applicant’s case found that there was no link between her illness and her job, basing their findings on the applicant’s job description, allegedly without examining evidence submitted by the applicant proving her actual duties. The applicant’s subsequent claim for damages against her employer was dismissed by the Bulgarian courts which endorsed the commissions’ findings without examining the case on its merits.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), that the Bulgarian courts refused to consider her claim on its merits.   The Court noted that medical commissions in Bulgaria were under the authority of the Minister of Health, that commission members were paid by the Ministry of Health and that they did not have tenure. It also appeared that the commissions had no clear rules of procedure, did not hold public hearings, and decided solely on the basis of medical documents and a medical examination of the person concerned. The commissions could not therefore be regarded as tribunals within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.   In addition, the Court could not find it established that at the relevant time the applicant could have obtained judicial review of the commission decisions which concerned her and which were later considered as binding by the courts examining her action for damages.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Kolev v. Bulgaria (no. 50326/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Vladimir Metodiev Kolev, is a Bulgarian national, born in 1958 and living in Sofia.   The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of fraud on 11 May 1994. Overall he spent approximately four years and 11 months in pre-trial detention. As of February 2005, the criminal proceedings against him were still pending.   The applicant complained, in particular, that his detention was unlawful and excessively lengthy and about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article 5   §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court considered that the applicant’s lengthy deprivation of liberty, with the exception of the periods when he was detained for his failure to appear in court, was not based on relevant and sufficient grounds.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Concerning Article 5 § 4, the Court observed that part of the proceedings were not adversarial and also that, on a number of occasions, the applicant’s appeals against his detention were not examined “speedily”. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court further found, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law, that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant exceeded a “reasonable time” and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Urukalo and Nemet v. Croatia (no. 26886/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Stojan Urukalo and Verica Nemet, are Croatian nationals, born in 1933 and 1953, respectively, and living in Virovitica, Croatia.   The applicants’ house in Karin Gornji (Croatia) was destroyed during a military operation conducted by the Croatian Army in August 1995.   The applicants brought proceedings against the State, which were stayed on 23 March 2000, under the 1999 Amendments to the Civil Obligations Act.   The applicants complained that the entry into force of the 1999 Amendments violated their right of access to a court, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   Considering that the fact that the applicants were prevented by legislation for a prolonged period from having their civil claim determined by the domestic courts, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   A.L. v. Germany (no. 72758/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicant, A.L., is a German national, born in 1964 and living in Germany.   The applicant applied for compensation for time spent in pre-trial detention in relation to a criminal investigation into insurance fraud. On 21 March 2000 his application was refused. The presiding judge informed the applicant’s counsel by letter that the applicant would have been convicted with “predominant probability” had the criminal proceedings continued. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), that the reasoning of the domestic courts in general and in particular the content of the presiding judge’s letter reflected a finding that he was guilty of a crime without his guilt having been established according to law.   The Court noted that the impugned statement was made by the presiding judge not in a public context – as for instance in a press conference – but in a letter which was exclusively directed to the applicant’s counsel. The Court further noted that, while the terms used by the presiding judge in the impugned letter were ambiguous and unsatisfactory, both the Frankfurt Court of Appeal and the Federal Constitutional Court, in their respective decisions, made it sufficiently clear that it would be contrary to the presumption of innocence to allocate guilt to the applicant.   Moreover, the refusal to award the applicant compensation for his detention on remand did not amount to a penalty or a measure that could be equated with a penalty.   Under those circumstances, taking into account the limited external effects of the impugned statement and the fact that the higher domestic courts duly considered the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 2, the Court concluded that the content of the letter of 18   May   2000 did not breach the principle of the presumption of innocence. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 2. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Buck v. Germany (no. 41604/98)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Jürgen Buck, is a German national, born in 1938 and living in Dettingen.   On 13 March 1997 the applicant’s business premises and home were searched and documents seized in order to identify the driver of a car belonging to the applicant’s company, after the car was identified by a radar trap as having exceeded the speed limit by 28 kph in August 1996. The applicant’s son, V.B., had been fined following the incident and had appealed stating that at least 15 other people could have been driving the car at the relevant time. The court finally identified V.B. as the driver, comparing V.B.’s passport photo to the radar photo.   The applicant complained about the search of his business premises and home and the seizure of documents, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for home), and that the warrant ordering the search and seizure had not been properly reasoned, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the search and seizure concerned the applicant’s home and the business premises of the limited liability company owned and managed by him. The Court concluded that in respect of both premises, there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home. The interference was in accordance with the law and the search and seizure order was issued to prevent disorder or crime and to protect the rights of others, i.e. other road users. Although there had been some procedural shortcomings, the safeguards provided by German legislation and jurisprudence against abuse in the sphere of searches and seizures in general could be considered adequate and effective.   As to the proportionality of the search and seizure order, the Court observed that the offence concerned the contravention of a road traffic rule, a petty offence of minor importance which was no longer a criminal offence under German law. In addition, the person accused had no previous record of contravening road traffic rules and the proceedings in question had not been directed against the applicant himself, but against his son, a third party.   With respect to the manner and circumstances in which the order had been issued, the Court observed that the search and seizure was ordered to verify V.B’s defence, that employees of the applicant’s company could have driven the car. The competent judge had ordered the police to question the applicant about his company’s employees before the search and seizure warrant was carried out. Contrary to his submissions, the applicant did, therefore, have an opportunity to present the relevant information voluntarily and to avoid the search. However, the Court equally noted that the competent district court judge, before issuing the order, had also asked for a passport photograph of the applicant. It appeared that the district court, in its judgment given only six days after the search and seizure had been ordered and executed, relied solely on this photographical evidence. There was no clear indication that the material seized had been taken into account when assessing the evidence. Consequently, the search and seizure of the documents had not been the only way to establish liability for the speeding offence.   Considering the content and scope of the search and seizure order, the Court noted that the order did not give any reasons why documents concerning business matters should be found on the applicant’s private premises. The order was therefore not limited to what was indispensable in the circumstances of the case.   Finally, the Court observed that the search of the applicant’s business and residential premises in a town of some 10,000   inhabitants was susceptible of adversely affecting his reputation as well as that of the company owned and managed by him.   Having regard to the special circumstances of the applicant’s case, in particular the facts that the search and seizure in question had been ordered in connection with a minor contravention of a regulation purportedly committed by a third person and included the private residential premises of the applicant, the Court concluded that the interference could not be regarded as proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.   The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 8, and held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. Having already taken into consideration, in the context of Article   8, the content and scope of the search and seizure order, including the reasons given for the order, the Court found that no separate issue arose under Article   6 §   1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Albina v. Romania (no. 57808/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Mircea Alexandru Albina, is a Romanian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Bucharest.   He brought an action in his capacity as heir for recovery of possession of property which had belonged to his parents and had been nationalised, consisting in particular of a plot of land and commercial premises. An order in his favour at first instance was overturned by Brăla County Court on appeal. In a judgment of 8 September 1999, which subsequently became final, Galaţi Court of Appeal declared an appeal by the applicant manifestly ill-founded without addressing his grounds of appeal.   After bringing a new action, the applicant obtained an order in July 2002 for the return of the land with the exception of a building and adjacent land that was in the possession of a commercial company. An action against that company for the return of that property is still pending in the Romanian courts.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the unfairness of the proceedings which had ended with the judgment of the Galaţi Court of Appeal. He also alleged a breach of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that Galaţi Court of Appeal had dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the County Court’s decision without stating any reasons in a judgment that was a final and unappealable. Not only had it failed to address the arguments raised in the applicant’s appeal, it had also failed to say whether it endorsed the reasons given by the lower courts and there was nothing to indicate that it had in fact done so.   In the circumstances, the Court found that the applicant had not had a fair hearing and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In the light of that conclusion, it decided that it was unnecessary to rule on the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court awarded Mr Albina EUR   5,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 477.65 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in French only.)   ***   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.