CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 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 } .s54226A15 { width:60.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6E33423A { width:73.88pt; display:inline-block } .sEAA82B7E { width:26.77pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sE0CBB96D { width:93.48pt; display:inline-block } .s2CEFCAC7 { width:138.55pt; display:inline-block } .s977DA179 { width:183.49pt; display:inline-block } .sEE69EB82 { width:136.82pt; display:inline-block } .sEB95B278 { width:124.14pt; display:inline-block } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .s71F72318 { width:6.78pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sA7EEBE9A { width:154.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8422F4C { width:152.83pt; 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   268 19.5.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Le Duigou v. France (application no 61139/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Claude Le Diguou, is a French national who was born in 1956 and lives in Lorient (France). In 1997 he was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, suspended, among other penalties, for damaging a police vehicle during a demonstration. The sentence was upheld on appeal, and an appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation on 1 December 1999.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair on account of the failure to provide him before the hearing with a copy of the advocate-general’s submissions, to which he had consequently been unable to reply, and the fact that he had not been summoned to attend the hearing in the Court of Cassation.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to provide him before the hearing with a copy of the advocate-general’s submissions, to which he had consequently been unable to reply. Regard being had to that finding, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint about the fact that the applicant was not summoned to attend the hearing.   The Court considered that the judgment in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded him 350 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Vigroux v. France (no. 62034/00)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) The applicant, Bernard Vigroux, is a French national who was born in 1946 and lives in Alès (France).   The applicant was summoned to appear in the Alès Criminal Court. At the hearing on 6   February 1998 he did not appear in person but his counsel attended. He sent the court a medical certificate to the effect that for health reasons he could not be present at the hearing. In a judgment given on the same day the Criminal Court nevertheless decided to rule in his case in accordance with the adversarial principle but without hearing his lawyer. The applicant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for fraudulently evading payment of VAT and income tax. In view of his state of health, the court suspended enforcement of the prison sentence.   The applicant appealed and provided the Nîmes Court of Appeal with a medical certificate justifying his failure to appear. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment after noting that the applicant had not been present at the hearing and refusing to hear submissions by his lawyer. The applicant appealed on points of law. This appeal was dismissed by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, which noted that he had not given a valid excuse for failing to appear before the Court of Appeal.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings which had led to his conviction without his lawyer being permitted to address the court, though present, had been unfair.   The Court noted that the hearings had taken place in the applicant’s absence in spite of the fact that he had supplied medical certificates, and without his lawyer being permitted to address the court, though present. Having reaffirmed the vital importance for a defendant of the possibility of appearing at his trial and the right of any person facing a criminal charge to be defended by counsel, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Diamantides v. Greece (no. 2) (no. 71563/01)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 Spyros Diamantides is a Greek homeopathic doctor who was born in 1948 and lives in Athens.   After being accused by some of his fellow doctors of being the spiritual leader of a quasi-religious organisation, he was prosecuted on a number of occasions for fraud, forgery and uttering forgeries. These charges were either dropped before trial or ended with his acquittal.   In the meantime, the applicant had lodged a complaint alleging defamation and insult against a journalist and persons who had taken part in a television programme entitled “Eye Witness” broadcast three times in February 1996. In the programme the journalist said that the applicant had “recruited young scientists and turned them into blindly obedient servants, mistreated children, threatened certain persons, ordered people to be stabbed or beaten up … founded communities of women prepared to satisfy his sexual desires and organised black-magic rites in order to exterminate those whom he considered his enemies”.   On 25 January 2000 the Indictment Division of the Athens Criminal Court decided not to commit the accused for trial on the ground that their statements during the programme had not been untruthful and had not damaged the applicant’s honour and reputation. The applicant appealed against that decision without success. An appeal on points of law was likewise dismissed on 9 January 2001.   The applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings he had brought. He further submitted that the Greek courts had infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence by stating, while the criminal proceedings against him were still pending, that the accused were not to be committed for trial because their statements had not been untruthful. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   The Court noted that the proceedings in issue had lasted nearly four years and nine months at three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case it considered that such a lengthy period was excessive and failed to comply with the reasonable-time requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   As regards the presumption of innocence, it was not for the Court to say whether the Greek courts dealing with the applicant’s complaint should have adjourned the case until the criminal proceedings against him had ended. However, it was a fact that the failure to adjourn   had obliged the Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation to adopt a position on the question whether the applicant had done what he was accused of doing.   The Court considered that the particularly categorical and vague nature of the terms employed by the Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal left no doubt that the applicant had committed acts of which he had already been acquitted or for which he was facing charges in the criminal courts. That being so, the Court considered that the principle of the presumption of innocence had been infringed and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant EUR   15,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Makedonopoulos v. Greece (no. 16106/03)   Violation of Article 13 Moïsidis v. Greece (no. 16109/03) Stamos and Others v. Greece (no. 14127/03) In these three Greek cases the applicants complained of the length of administrative proceedings brought either against the Social Security Department with a view to obtaining compensation for an error of calculation affecting the amount of their pension contributions or against the Greek Railways welfare fund with a view to obtaining interest on an allowance they had been granted. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and further complained, under Article 13, that they had not had an effective remedy whereby they could have complained of the length of the proceedings.   In each case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. In the Makedonopoulos v. Greece and Moïsidis v. Greece cases the Court awarded the applicants EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. In the case of Stamos and Others v. Greece the Court awarded the applicants jointly EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Manolis v. Greece (no. 2216/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Georgios Manolis and his brother Emmanouïl Manolis, are Greek nationals who were born in 1942 and 1939 respectively and live in Munich, Germany.   The applicants, who are the owners of land in Neo Heraklion, Athens, obtained planning permission to build on it in 1987. In 1989 the City Council modified the alignment plan of the district concerned so that the land could be used for the construction of a theatre. The applicants then brought proceedings to have the charge on their land removed. In a judgment of 27 June 2000 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal gave judgment in their favour, but the administrative authorities did not lift the charge until September 2001.   Ignoring the applicants’ requests, the City Council refused to give them planning permission on the ground that their land had to be kept in reserve for the construction of a municipal theatre, and eventually altered the district alignment plan with a view to that end. On 3   September 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court again gave judgment in the applicants’ favour, after a fresh appeal on their part. They were given planning permission in April 2004 and brought an action seeking compensation for the period when they had been unable to dispose of their property as they wished.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), the applicants complained of the authorities’ failure to comply with the judgment given in their favour. They further complained of the infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court declared admissible the complaint under Article 6 § 1. It noted that the administrative authorities had not effectively complied with the judgment on which the applicants relied to validate their rights until a considerable time had elapsed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that the Greek authorities had failed to comply effectively and in a reasonable time with the judgment given by the Administrative Court of Appeal on 27 June 2000, thus depriving Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of all useful effect. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   With regard to the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considered that it was premature and declared it inadmissible.   As the applicants had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court decided that they should not be awarded any sum under that provision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Acciardi and Campagna v. Italy (no. 41040/98) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Giorgio Acciardi and Emanuella Campagna, are Italian nationals who were both born in 1924 and live in Amendolara Marina (Italy).   They own land in Amendolara Marina part of which was occupied by the administrative authorities in 1977 with a view to the construction of a trunk road. In the absence of any formal expropriation and not having received compensation, the applicants brought proceedings seeking damages for the occupation of their land. Those proceedings are still pending in the Italian courts.   The applicants alleged that the occupation of their land had infringed their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property). They further alleged that the fact that they could not claim compensation for the loss of enjoyment of their property had infringed their right of access to a court, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing).   The Court considered that the loss of every possibility of disposing of the land, together with the impossibility of remedying the situation, amounted to a de facto expropriation incompatible with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Having regard to that finding, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and therefore reserved it. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Calì and Others v. Italy (no. 52332/99)   Struck out The applicants, Clara Calí, Angelo Goffredo and Claudio Goffredo, are Italian nationals who were born in 1912, 1939 and 1946. They live in Bari (Italy).   They were formerly the owners of land in Bari which was occupied by the administrative authorities with a view to its expropriation. The Italian courts held that by virtue of the case-law derived rule of constructive expropriation ownership of the property had passed to the authorities.   The applicants submitted that they had been deprived of their land in circumstances incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement reached between the applicants and the authorities in Bari. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Kaufmann v. Italy (no. 14021/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Hans Kaufman, is an Italian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Nova Levante (Italy). In the course of proceedings concerning ownership of a plot of land he appealed to the Court of Cassation. His appeal on points of law was dismissed on the ground that it was out of time, since the applicant had not complied with the time-limits for serving the notice to appeal on the parties to the proceedings in the lower courts.   The applicant alleged that the dismissal of his appeal on points of law amounted to a denial of justice. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention (right of access to a court).   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for cost and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Rapacciuolo v. Italy (no. 76024/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Catello Rapacciuolo, is an Italian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Torre Annunziata (Italy). The applicant, who was suspected of conspiracy to rape and commit lewd acts against juveniles, was arrested and placed in custody in September 1997. He was acquitted in June 1999 and an order was issued for his immediate release.   Relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to liberty and security), the applicant submitted that the Italian courts failed to decide “speedily” on the lawfulness of his detention.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the delays in question – for which the authorities were wholly responsible – lasted two months and 27 days, seven months and 23 days and four months and ten days. Finding these delays to be excessive, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for cost and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (no. 63151/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The five applicants, Maria Karolina Steck-Risch, Anton Risch, Walter Risch, Paul Arnold Risch and Mamertus Risch, are nationals of Liechtenstein. They are brothers and sisters, were born in 1926, 1927, 1930, 1937 and 1939 respectively and live in Vaduz, Schaan or Triesen.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained of the unfairness of the proceedings brought by them in connection with a refusal to permit construction on land belonging to them. They alleged that one of the constitutional court judges who ruled on their appeal was not impartial and submitted that they had had no opportunity to reply to submissions made by the other party before the administrative court.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that there had been a breach of the principle of equality of arms and no violation as regards the alleged lack of impartiality of the constitutional court judge. The Court awarded the applicants EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 10 Töre v. Turkey (no. 50744/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Teslim Töre, is a Turkish national who was born in 1939. When the application was lodged he was detained in Bayrampaşa Prison (Turkey). In November 1996,   Istanbul State Security Court found him guilty of disseminating separatist propaganda and sentenced him to one year, one month and ten days’ imprisonment and fined him 111   111   110 Turkish liras for having written an article entitled “Kurdistan’s socialists must seize the moment” (“ Kürdistan sosyalistleri momenti yakalamalı” ), which was published in July 1994 in the magazine Medya Güneşi (The Sun of Medya).   The applicant submitted that his conviction infringed his right to freedom of expression, in violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression). Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), he also complained that the proceedings which resulted in his conviction were unfair.   Finding that the severity of the applicant’s sentence was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Given that the state security court which had tried the applicant could not be considered an independent and impartial tribunal, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 310 for pecuniary damage, EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for cost and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Turhan v. Turkey (no. 48176/99)   Violation of Article 10 The applicant, Talat Turhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1924 and lives in Istanbul. He is the author of a book entitled “Extraordinary War, Terror and Counter-terrorism” (“ Özel Savaş Terör ve Kontragerilla ”). The applicant was ordered to pay damages to the Secretary of State Orhan Sefa Kilercioğlu, since certain passages of his book were held to have been defamatory towards him.   The applicant complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) that the conviction infringed his right to freedom of expression.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the impugned remarks were the applicant’s opinion about statements made by Mr Kilercioğlu in an interview, which had   already been published in a magazine. They were value judgments on an issue of public interest. The Court reiterated that the truthfulness of a value judgment was not susceptible of proof and that the value judgment made by the applicant was based on information which was already known to the general public.   The domestic courts did not convincingly establish any pressing social need for putting the protection of the personality rights of a public figure above the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the general interest in promoting this freedom where issues of public interest were concerned. In particular, it did not appear from the domestic courts’ decisions that the applicant’s statement affected Mr Kilercioğlu’s political career or his professional and private life.   In conclusion, the Court found that the Turkish authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the relevant interests and the interference complained of was not “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR 600 for pecuniary damage, EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 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.