CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 juin 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 } .s672BE378 { width:310.89pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s796BDE8F { width:14.11pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC128A262 { width:5.89pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sBC5B6FA9 { width:127.48pt; display:inline-block } .sA8DAFCE7 { width:132.82pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; 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   327 14.6.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Poland and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .       Violations of Article 6 § 1 Houbal v. the Czech Republic (application no. 75375/01)   Violations of Article 13 The applicant, Václav Houbal, is a Czech national who was born in 1943 and lives in Brno (Czech Republic). In July 2001 he obtained a licence to open a doctor’s surgery.   The applicant complained of the length of proceedings he had brought to obtain a licence to open a doctor’s surgery and of two more sets of proceedings to obtain a sum of money. He further alleged that he had not had an effective remedy capable of affording redress for the length of the proceedings concerned and complained that as a result he had not been able to open a practice. He relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights declared the complaints relating to the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that regard admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. It noted that the first set of proceedings had lasted more than seven years at three levels of jurisdiction, the second set for seven years and eight months at three levels of jurisdiction and the third set for six years and five months at one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the above periods did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 and held that in each case there had been a violation of that provision. The Court also held that there had been violations of Article 13 in respect of each of these sets of proceedings.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant 8,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.) Mayali v. France (no. 69116/01)       Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 d) The applicant, Patrick Mayali, is a French national who was born in 1957 and is at present a prisoner in Brest Prison (France).   In January 1999 the two prisoners sharing a cell with the applicant complained of the “bad atmosphere” in the cell and one of them lodged a criminal complaint against him. This resulted in his prosecution for an indecent assault with violence, coercion, threats or surprise, it being alleged that he had interfered with his cellmate through physical contact of a sexual nature, and he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment by the Saint-Brieuc Criminal Court. The court decided that it was not necessary to take evidence from the applicant’s cellmates, and based its decision on the statements made to the police by the victim and a psychiatrist’s report on the victim and the applicant. The applicant’s conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which first summoned the complainant and the third occupant of the cell but then ruled without hearing their evidence because it had not been able to trace them.   In spite of the applicant’s requests to the trial courts, there was no confrontation with the complainant, since he maintained that he would not be able to bear it. On 28 June 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law.   The applicant complained that he had never been confronted with the civil party during the proceedings and criticised the fact that the third occupant of the cell had not been required to give evidence in court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention Article 6 § 3 (d) (right to question witnesses).   The Court noted that the applicant had been convicted on the basis of statements made by the civil party to the police and the findings of a psychiatrist who had examined the applicant and the victim separately. The Court of Appeal considered it necessary to take evidence from the applicant’s two cellmates, but convicted the applicant without hearing their testimony because it had not been possible to trace them. In the Court’s view, the fact that it was impossible to examine the prosecution witnesses in court was imputable to the authorities, as they could have sought police assistance to locate them or hear their evidence at first instance, especially as their appearance in court could have been decisive, since the whole case hinged on the question whether the complainant had consented, as the applicant maintained.   In those circumstances the Court considered that the applicant had not had a sufficient and appropriate opportunity to challenge the assertions of the victim on which his conviction had been based. In view of the particular importance of the right to due process in criminal proceedings, the Court considered that the applicant had not had a fair trial. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 300 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Menet v. France (no. 39553/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Albert Menet, is a French national who was born in 1941 and lives in Chelles (France).   The applicant was a manager employed in the personnel department of the company he worked for. He applied to the Nanterre Employment Tribunal seeking termination of his contract of employment and compensation following the downgrading imposed on him, in his submission, because he had refused to agree to move to Norway. In the meantime, he was made redundant. The Versailles Court of Appeal gave judgment against the company for failure to comply with the criteria governing the order in which redundancies were to be announced but dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed on 27 May 2003.   In April 2001, in concurrent proceedings, the applicant lodged a complaint, with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, alleging that five persons who had intervened in the proceedings before the Employment Tribunal had committed the offences of forgery, uttering a forgery, falsifying documents and destroying evidence. An investigation was opened but the proceedings were discontinued in December 2001. On appeal by the applicant, the Versailles Court of Appeal refused to allow him to consult the investigation file because he was not a lawyer and upheld the discontinuation order. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed on 18 March 2003.   The applicant complained that the proceedings in the Social and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Cassation had been unfair since he had not received a copy of the advocate general’s submissions, had not had access to the whole of the rapporteur’s report and had not been permitted to address the court. He also complained that the domestic courts had misrepresented the facts and that it had been impossible for him to consult the investigation file. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.   The Court declared the complaint relating to the impossibility for the applicant to consult the investigation file admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   It noted that the applicant had not had any opportunity to consult the investigation file. However, under French law defendants and civil parties in criminal proceedings, as private persons, were not subject to professional confidentiality rules, as lawyers were, and the practice of making access to the investigation file open to lawyers only, or only through lawyers, was prompted precisely by the need to preserve the secrecy of the investigation.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case and in view of the interests at stake, the Court considered that the restriction on the applicant’s rights had not excessively impaired his right to a fair trial. It accordingly held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland (no. 92/03)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Andrzej Pisk-Piskowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Opole (Poland).   On 11 December 2001 the Opole District Court found the applicant guilty of making threats and sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment. Neither the applicant nor his officially assigned counsel was present at the delivery of the judgment but both the applicant and his lawyer were present at an earlier hearing held by the trial court. The applicant further failed to lodge an appeal against the judgment given on 11 December 2001 in accordance with the procedural requirements.   The first letter sent by the applicant from the Wrocław Detention Centre to the European Court of Human Rights arrived at the Registry on 6 December 2002, stamped “District Court in Legnica, censored on 22.11.02” ( Sąd Rejonowy w Legnicy, cenzurowano dnia 22.11.02 ) and “252, 14 NOV 2002, register number 2738/01” ( 252, 14 LIS 2002, numer ewid. 2738/01 ).   The applicant complained, in particular, that the proceedings resulting in his conviction had been unfair and that his right to respect for his correspondence had been infringed. He relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court raised ex officio the issues under Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 34 (right of individual petition) concerning the censorship of his correspondence. It considered that there was a reasonable likelihood that the first letter sent by the applicant had been opened by the domestic authorities, even if there was no stamp to that effect on the envelope. In reaching that conclusion, the Court took into account the fact that the Polish word ocezurowano , which had appeared on the envelope, meant that a competent authority had allowed the dispatch or delivery of the letter after monitoring its content. As long as the authorities continued the practice of marking prisoners’ letters with the ocezurowano stamp, the Court had no alternative but to presume that those letters had been opened and their contents read.   The Court noted that Article 103 § 1 of the 1997 Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences expressly prohibited censorship of, or other forms of interference with, correspondence between convicted detainees and “institutions set up by international treaties ratified by the Republic of Poland concerning the protection of human rights”. Since the authorities had disregarded that statutory prohibition, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. It further considered that it was not necessary to carry out a separate examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 34. The Court declared the applicant’s other complaints inadmissible and considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 OOO Rusatommet v. Russia (no. 61651/00) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, OOO Rusatommet, is a Russian debt-collection company.   On 10 April 2002, following an action brought by the applicant company against the Government concerning a bond, the Moscow City Commercial Court ordered the State to pay the company 100,000 United States dollars (USD). That judgment was upheld on appeal. In spite of the steps taken to that end, the applicant company was unable to secure payment of the sums awarded by the courts.   The applicant company complained that the failure to enforce the judgment of 10 April 2002 in its favour had infringed its right of access to a court and its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. It relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court reiterated that lack of funds did not excuse a State from honouring a judgment debt. It noted that the judgment in favour of the applicant company had still not been enforced and considered that the delay involved had infringed its right of access to a court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also considered that the failure to enforce the judgment had interfered with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on that account.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant USD 100,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (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.