CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 26 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 } .s621B159 { width:167.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s1C365A1A { width:155.49pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9A32A52D { width:153.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA7A9E2F1 { width:144.82pt; display:inline-block } .s5F6275BC { width:131.49pt; 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   281 26.5.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Croatia and   Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 Wolfmeyer v. Austria (application no 5263/03) The applicant, Thomas Wolfmeyer, is an Austrian national, born in 1968 and living in Bludenz (Austria).   On 23 November 2000 Feldkirch Regional Court ( Landesgericht ) convicted the applicant of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment suspended on probation. It found that, in 1997, he had performed homosexual acts with two adolescents.   The applicant appealed. On 21 June 2002 the Constitutional Court held that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional and, on 17 July 2002, the applicant was acquitted.   He requested the reimbursement of his defence costs.   On 12 November 2002 Innsbruck Court of Appeal partly granted the applicant’s appeal, finding that the law provided that only a maximum amount of EUR 1,091 could be reimbursed as a contribution to the defence costs. In addition EUR 748.38 was awarded for cash expenses.   The applicant complained that Article 209 was discriminatory, as heterosexual or lesbian relations between adults and adolescents in the same age bracket were not punishable. He also complained about the conduct of the criminal proceedings against him under that provision. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant had had to stand trial and was convicted. In such circumstances, it was inconceivable that an acquittal without any compensation for damages and accompanied by the reimbursement of a minor part of the necessary defence costs could have provided adequate redress. The Court emphasised that it had itself awarded substantial amounts of compensation for non-pecuniary damage in comparable cases, having particular regard to the fact that such a trial, during which the most intimate details about the applicant’s private life were laid open to the public, had to be considered profoundly destabilising for the applicant.   In conclusion, the Court found that the applicant’s acquittal, which did not acknowledge the alleged breach of the Convention and was not accompanied by adequate redress, did not remove the applicant’s status as a victim and that his application was therefore admissible.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 14, taken in conjunction with Article   8, given the maintenance in force of Article 209 and the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the basis of that provision. The Court did not consider it necessary to rule on the question whether there had also been a violation of Article 8 taken alone. The Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 18,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Debelić v. Croatia (no. 2448/03)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Ivan Debelić, is a Croatian national, born in 1939 and living in Rab (Croatia).   On 10 June 1996 a company brought civil proceedings against the applicant seeking the restitution of business premises in the applicant’s possession and payment of rent. On 7 August 1996 the applicant filed a counterclaim against the company seeking reimbursement for his investments in the business premises.   On 2 October 1996 Rijeka Commercial Court decided in the company’s favour and dismissed the applicant’s claim.   The applicant appealed and, on 11 December 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed his request. That decision was not served on the applicant until 6   May 2002.     On 22 March 2002 a new section 59 (a), which subsequently became section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act entered into force, introducing a domestic remedy for lengthy proceedings in the form of a constitutional complaint. On 11 April 2002 the applicant filed such a constitutional complaint. It was dismissed on 2 October 2002, however, on the ground that the Supreme Court had meanwhile decided his case.   The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings and that [Note1] the possibility of making a constitutional complaint under section 63 was not an effective remedy, because the Constitutional Court had failed to decide on the merits of his case. He relied 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 noted that the proceedings in question had lasted almost six years, of which some four years and six months occurred after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Croatia on 5   November 1997. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, and in view of the long period of inactivity before the Supreme Court, the Court held, unanimously, that the proceedings failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Concerning Article 13, the Court considered that, although the applicant could have expected the Constitutional Court to deal with the substance of his constitutional complaint, it did not do so. Even though the applicant lodged his complaint while his proceedings had still been pending, after they had ended, the Constitutional Court dismissed his complaint as inadmissible, without examining their length until that time.   The Court concluded that the practice of the Constitutional Court in the circumstances of the applicant’s case rendered an otherwise effective remedy ineffective. That conclusion did not, however, call into question the effectiveness of the remedy as such or the obligation to lodge a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act in order to exhaust domestic remedies concerning complaints about the length of pending proceedings. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13. The Court awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Peić v. Croatia (no. 16787/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Ivan Peić, is a Croatian national, born in 1921 and living in Novska, (Croatia).   On 24 January 1994 he brought proceedings for compensation for the seizure of his vehicle by the Croatian Army during the Homeland War in Croatia.   On 17   December 1999 Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings, pursuant to the 6   November 1999 amendments to the Civil Obligations Act, which stayed all actions for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War.   The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   On 11 November 2003 the applicant’s proceedings were resumed in the light of new legislation concerning the army and police.   The proceedings are still pending.   The applicant complained that he was denied access to a court because his proceedings had been stayed under the 1999 Amendments. He relied on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing).     In accordance with its case-law and given that the applicant was prevented by legislation for a prolonged period from having his 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 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Zadro v. Croatia (no. 25410/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Nevenka Zadro, is a Croatian national, born in 1942 and living in Zagreb.   On 12 July 1993 the applicant filed a civil action seeking damages of 847,671 Croatian kunas (HRK) for the destruction of her house in Vinkovci, which had been blown up by unknown perpetrators on 14 April 1992.   On 25 July 1996 the applicant’s husband applied to the administrative authorities for financial assistance to rebuild the couple’s house. His request was granted and the reconstruction work was completed on 26 May 1997, with the help of HRK 234,040 from the State. On 27 March 2002 the applicant’s civil proceedings were stayed, pursuant to the 1996 Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (which entered into force on 3 February 1996), which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending new legislation on the subject.   On 19 February 2004, following the introduction of the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (which entered into force on 31 July 2003), the applicant’s action was dismissed.   The applicant complained that the enactment of the 1996 Amendment was in violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court).   The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant was entitled to obtain a decision on the merits of her tort claim in the civil proceedings in question. The Court observed that the proceedings were stayed from 3 February 1996 until at least 31 July 2003, i.e. for a period of seven-and-a-half years, of which some five years and six months occurred after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Croatia. In accordance with its case-law and considering the long period for which the applicant was prevented from having her civil claim determined by the Croatian courts as a consequence of a legislative measure, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 750 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Costin v. Romania (no. 57810/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Maria Costin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Bucharest.   In a final judgment of 19 August 1993 the Craiova Court of First Instance ordered Craiova City Council and the Dolj Public Property and Housing Corporation to return the applicant’s former flat to her. The flat had been confiscated by the State in 1948. The court also awarded the applicant 32,540 Romanian lei for costs.   The applicant complained that the failure to execute the final judgment of 19   August 1993 had infringed her right to a fair hearing, and in particular her right of access to a court as enshrined in Article 6 § 1.   The Court observed that the period during which the judgment of 19   August   1993 had not been executed – more than ten years, including a period of nine years and ten   months after 20 June 1994, when Romania ratified the Convention – was not reasonable. Throughout that time the applicant had taken all the necessary steps to secure the execution of the judgment in question.   The Court further noted that the authorities had not found a solution allowing the applicant to recover possession of her flat until after the case had been communicated to the Government, once the Government’s Agent had taken the matter up directly with the relevant authorities.   The Court concluded that in the present case the system available to the applicant for securing the execution of the judgment of 19 August 1993 had not been effective. By refusing for at least nine years and ten months to execute the final judgment in which the applicant had been awarded possession of the flat, the national authorities had deprived her of effective access to a court.   The Court 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 100 for costs and expenses. (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. [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. [Note1] If this is the final complaint, delete “further” and add “Lastly,” at the beginning of the sentence.