CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 mai 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 } .s65FB1199 { width:16.75pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sFD32BCAF { width:94.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1312BB5 { width:150.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA046B2E9 { width:11.49pt; display:inline-block } .sD55E2C77 { width:70.81pt; display:inline-block } .sAF27E36F { width:104.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .sE1EFD1C8 { width:147.55pt; display:inline-block } .sDDF6CE84 { width:231.5pt; display:inline-block } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s1899FD0F { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#0000ff } .s1F5805B3 { width:315.32pt; display:inline-block } .s7D72CB4E { width:148.83pt; 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   266 17.5.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Italy, Slovakia, and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Parchanski v. the Czech Republic (application no. 7356/02)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Vítězslav Parchanski, is a Czech national who was born in 1969 and lives in Havířov-Podlesí (Czech Republic). On 1 October 1993 he was charged and placed in pre-trial detention in connection with criminal proceedings which resulted in his conviction on 8   August 2001 for fraud. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s constitutional appeal was dismissed on 17 January 2002.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the length of the proceedings against him.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Parchanski is to receive 7,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Udovik v. the Czech Republic (no. 59219/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Igor Viktorovič Udovik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965. When the application was lodged he was detained in Ostrov nad Ohří Prison (Czech Republic). On 13 March 1996 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in connection with criminal proceedings against him, inter alia , for complicity in extortion. He was convicted of attempting to handle stolen goods, released in November 2000 and subsequently deported to Ukraine.   Relying on Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention, namely three years and more than six months, and claimed compensation for it, alleging that this duration had been excessive.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Udovik is to receive EUR 2,500. (The judgment is available only in French.) Guez v. France (no. 70034/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Georges Guez is a French national who was born in 1947 and lives in Saint-Denis (France). An employee of the Office public d’habitations à loyers modérés (public office for low-rent housing) in Saint-Denis, the applicant was made redundant in March 1994 and in July 1996, having been reinstated in post in the meantime. At the close of two sets of proceedings brought by him, the national courts ordered that he be reinstated and awarded him compensation.   The applicant complained about the failure to execute the judicial decisions in his favour and the length of the proceedings in question; he also considered that the failure to provide adequate reimbursement of his costs had affected the fairness of the proceedings. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights declared the application admissible only in respect of the complaint concerning the length of proceedings. It noted that the proceedings in question had lasted 11 years and 18 days to date. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court found that such a duration was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,588 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mason and Others v. Italy (no. 43663/98)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The six applicants, Elio Mason, Olga Manente, Mario Mason, Giuseppina Mason, Bruna Spolaor and Franco Mason, are Italian nationals who were born in 1953, 1921, 1950, 1958, 1927 and 1952 respectively and live in Spinea (Italy). They owned plots of land in Spinea; in 1980 the authorities took physical possession of those plots of land and expropriated them in 1981. The compensation proceedings brought by the applicants are still pending before the Italian courts.   The applicants complained that their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been infringed as a result of the failure to award compensation for the expropriation of their land. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court noted that 24 years had already passed without the applicants having received final compensation for the expropriation of their land. It was undeniable that this delay, which was a factor likely to reduce the amount of compensation paid, was attributable in this case to the State, and that it could not be justified. The Court also took account of the fact that the applicants continued to face uncertainty, in the absence of a procedure for assessing compensation and having regard, inter alia , to the municipality of Spinea’s financial position.     Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the applicants had already had to bear a special and excessive burden which had upset the fair balance which ought to be struck between the demands of the public interest and the protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. It therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; it considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision and accordingly reserved the said question in its entirety. (The judgment is available only in French.) Pasculli v. Italy (no. 36818/97)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Scordino v. Italy (no. 3) (no. 43662/98)   Raffaele Pasculli is an Italian national who was born in 1924 and lives in Foggia (Italy). He owned a plot of land in San Fernando di Puglia on which the municipality intended to build a market.   Giovanni, Elena, Maria and Giuliana Scordino are Italian nationals who were born in 1959, 1949, 1951 and 1953 respectively and live in Reggio Calabria (Italy). They owned a plot of land, in connection with which an expropriation permit was issued for the purpose of constructing housing.   In both these cases the authorities took physical possession of the plots of land in 1980 with a view to expropriating them. The Italian courts ruled that this possession was illegal but held that, in application of the rule of constructive expropriation, ownership of these assets had been transmitted to the authorities. Pursuant to the 1996 Finance Law (no. 662), which placed a ceiling on the amount of compensation to be granted in cases of constructive expropriation, the applicants were awarded compensation amounts which, in their opinion, failed to reflect the compensation to which they were entitled. However, the appeals lodged by them to obtain restitution of their land or to contest the amount of compensation were unsuccessful.   The applicants alleged that the circumstances in which they were deprived of their land had been incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the situations complained of had enabled the authorities to take advantage of dispossession without title, which was therefore illegal, since 1986 in the Pasculli case and from the outset in the Scordino case. In other words, the authorities had been able to appropriate the land in question in breach of the rules governing lawful expropriation and, in particular, without compensating the applicants. Furthermore, the retrospective application of Finance Law no. 662 of 1996 had had the effect of depriving the applicants of full reparation for the damage sustained.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the interferences complained of had not complied with the principle of lawfulness and that, accordingly, they had breached the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Consequently, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in both these cases. It considered that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Horváthová v. Slovakia (no. 74456/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Mária Horváthová, who died on 28 September 2004, was a Slovak national who was born in 1950 and lived in Bratislava.   She complained about the length of proceedings concerning the enforcement of a judgment giving her the right to temporarily use   the flat which she had earlier leased   with her former husband, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13. The Court awarded the applicant’s heirs EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Z.M. and K.P. v. Slovakia (no. 50232/99)   The applicants, Z.M. and her daughter K.P.,   were born in 1960 and 1981 respectively. They both have Slovakian nationality and are citizens of the country where they now live.   K.P. is the child of her mother’s marriage to Mr P.   Following their divorce, several sets of proceedings were brought in   Slovakia in connection with disputes relating to the custody of K.P., her education and Mr P.’s parental rights.   Z.M. remarried   abroad a Mr O.A.M.,   with whom she set up home and who brought proceedings   in Slovakia to adopt K.P. In January 2000 the court to which those applications had been submitted ended the proceedings, after noting that K.P. had reached the age of majority and, accordingly, that it was no longer necessary to rule on the merits of the proceedings in question.   The applicants complained   under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) taken alone and together with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) about the length   of the proceedings concerning the care and education of K.P and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. Relying on   Article 6 § 1   (access to court) and Article 8 (right to respect for family life) they also complained of the courts' failure to determine the merits of   the applications   concerning Mr P.’s parental rights and the adoption of K.P.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length of the proceedings concerning the care and education of K.P. and a violation of Article 13 given the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the length of those proceedings. The Court held unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the applicants’ further complaint under Article 6 § 1.   The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8.   The applicants and Mr O.A.M. were citizens of and lived together as a family in their country of residence. There was no appearance of a de facto interference with the applicants' family life. Mr O.A.M. applied for adoption of K.P. three times and withdrew two of his petitions.   The applicants had not shown that it was not possible for Mr O.A.M to obtain an adoption order from the authorities in their   country of residence. The Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Chizhov v. Ukraine (no. 6962/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Sergey Vasilyevich Chizhov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives in Zaporizhzhia (Ukraine).   He complained about the State authorities’ failure to enforce a judgment awarding him compensation for having been arrested unlawfully by the security forces and struck by two police officers. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is 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.