CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sE6788BEB { width:8.79pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s7833A3B7 { width:296.23pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sE5B530C3 { width:155.47pt; display:inline-block } .s5184E241 { width:149.46pt; display:inline-block } .sFA3838FF { width:144.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3C6D7979 { width:28.12pt; display:inline-block } .s44075453 { width:61.5pt; display:inline-block } .s43719078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s198FFF33 { width:306.34pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s9D064793 { width:51.98pt; display:inline-block } .sE4356B4C { width:168.7pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   343 21.6.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovakia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Repetitive cases (in which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights) can be found at the end of this press release.   Kubizňáková v. the Czech Republic (application no 28661/03) Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Hana Kubizňáková, is a Czech national who lives in Roudnice nad Labem (Czech Republic).   She complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of civil proceedings she had brought for maintenance payments. She also alleged that the delays in the proceedings had adversely affected her private and family life, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court found that the proceedings had lasted six years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the case, that period was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It further held that there was no need for a separate examination of the complaint under Article 8, as it was based on the same facts as the complaint under Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 61811/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Dana Milatová, Lubomír Milata, Dušan Milata and Danuše Nováková, are Czech nationals who were born in 1929, 1952, 1950 and 1949 respectively, and live in the Nový Jičín region (Czech Republic).   On 18 December 1991 the first applicant and her husband made a claim for the restitution of a   house and land, alleging that they had been forced in May 1985 to sell it to the State under conditions that had been imposed on them. They were unsuccessful. The case ended on 10 May 2000 when the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal.   They complained that they were denied an opportunity to comment on written statements used by the Constitutional Court in reaching its decision. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The European Court of Human Rights held that the Constitutional Court should have given the applicants an opportunity to comment on the written observations in question prior to its decision. Accordingly, the procedure followed did not enable the applicants to participate properly in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR   1,116 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 Páleník v. the Czech Republic (no. 64737/01) Turek v. the Czech Republic (no. 73403/01) Zdeněk Páleník is a Czech national who was born in 1925 and lives in Olomouc (Czech Republic). Jaromír Turek is a Czech national who was born in 1923 and lives in Ventura (United States). Both applicants issued proceedings in the Czech courts: Mr Páleník for financial compensation for property that had been confiscated from his uncle following a criminal conviction in 1960 that was quashed in 1990 after his judicial rehabilitation; and Mr   Turek for an order rescinding an agreement for the sale of a plot of land near Prague.   In both sets of proceedings, the tribunals of fact dismissed the applicants’ claims. The Supreme Court declared their appeals on points of law inadmissible on the grounds that they did not concern a decision of crucial legal importance. Their appeals to the Constitutional Court were dismissed as being out of time. Citing its own case-law, the Constitutional Court held that, as the Supreme Court had rejected the appeals on points of law, time for lodging the constitutional appeals had not started to run on the date of the Supreme Court’s judgments, but, in the case of Páleník v. Czech Republic , on the date the appellate court adopted its decision, and, in the case of Turek v. Czech Republic , on the date the district court delivered its judgment.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that they had been denied access to a court by the Constitutional Court’s decision to dismiss their appeals as being out of time.   The Court noted that, in appealing to the Supreme Court, the applicants had made use of a legal remedy and should not have been penalised as a result. Further, under the provisions of the Constitutional Court Act, the applicants were under an obligation to appeal to the Supreme Court in order to exhaust the statutory remedies. In those circumstances, the Court considered that for the purposes of the time-limit for appealing to the Constitutional Court, time should have started to run from the date of the Supreme Court’s decision, or at least have ceased to run on the date the appeals to the Supreme Court were lodged.   In that connection, the Court was pleased to note that following its findings of a violation in similar cases, the Czech Constitutional Court had announced a change in its practice concerning the conditions of admissibility of constitutional appeals. However, that did not affect the applicants’ situation.   The Court found that the Constitutional Court’s particularly strict interpretation of the relevant procedural rule had deprived the applicants of the right of access to a court and held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Despite receiving reminders from the Registry, Mr Páleník had lodged his claim for just satisfaction out of time and Mr Turek had not made a claim. The Court therefore decided to make no award. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Pihlak v. Estonia (no. 73270/01)   Violation Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Vitali Pihlak, was born in 1972 and lives in Harjumaa (Estonia). He is a stateless person.   From 12 September 1998 until 4 October 2000 (two years and 22 days), he was held in pre-trial detention.   On 22 December 2003 the applicant was convicted of burglary, unlawful possession of a firearm and falsification of a document. He was sentenced to two years, two months and 27 days’ imprisonment. His sentence was considered as having been served, however, given the time he had already spent in pre-trial detention.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand, relying on Article 5   §   3 (right to liberty and security).   Finding that the Estonian authorities had not displayed “special diligence” in their handling of the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage (The judgment is available only in English.) Violation Article 6 § 1 Bzdúšek v. Slovakia (no. 48817/99)   Violation Article 13 The applicants, Ján Bzdúšek, Tomáš Bzdúšek and Svetozár Bzdúšek, are Slovakian nationals who were born in 1952, 1926 and 1957 respectively and live in Nitra, Brezová pod Bradlom and Myjava (Slovakia) respectively.   They complained about the length of the proceedings (five years and 13 days) which they brought on 30 April 1993 for the restitution of their relative’s property (gold and silver coins, money and savings books). They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considered that the length of the proceedings in the applicants’ case was excessive and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court reiterated that at the relevant time no effective remedy existed in Slovakia capable of effectively redressing alleged violations of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time and further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Noting that the applicants had failed to submit a claim for just satisfaction, the Court made no award under Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation Article 10 Perinçek v. Turkey (no. 46669/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Doğu Perinçek, is the chairman of the Workers’ Party and the former chairman of the Socialist Party, which was dissolved by the Constitutional Court in 1992. He is a Turkish national who was born in 1942 and was in Haymana Prison (Turkey) when the application was lodged.   In 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for allegedly disseminating propaganda aimed at undermining the territorial integrity of the State in speeches he had made as the leader of the Socialist Party. The same speeches had also served as a basis for the party’s dissolution by the Constitutional Court. As a result of the dissolution, a complaint was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights and ended with the Court finding a violation of Article 11 of the Convention by Turkey in its Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey judgment of 25 May 1998. The Court found in that case that the speeches put forward a political programme with the essential aim being the establishment, in accordance with democratic rules, of a federal system in which Turks and Kurds would be represented on an equal footing and on a voluntary basis.   In a judgment of 6 January 1995, the Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty of the offences as charged and sentenced him to two years and four months’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 8 July 1998. The applicant remained in prison until 28 September 1998.   He argued that his criminal conviction entailed a violation of Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), and of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court decided that the applicant’s complaints should be examined solely under Article   10 of the Convention. The reasons relied on by the Turkish courts could not be regarded as sufficient by themselves to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The applicant had made his speeches in his capacity as a politician, a player on the Turkish political scene; the speeches did not encourage the use of violence or armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech, which, in the Court’s view, was an essential factor. The Court further noted that, although the text of the Court judgment in the Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey case had been before the Court of Cassation when it upheld the applicant’s conviction, it had not considered it necessary to take it into account. In the absence of any criminal-review procedure at the material time, the applicant had remained in prison until September 1998. In addition, the Court found that the applicant’s conviction and sentence were disproportionate to the aims pursued and, accordingly, not “necessary in a democratic society”. There had therefore been a violation of Article 10.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court.   As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 290 for pecuniary damage, EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Blackstock v. the United Kingdom (no. 59512/00)   Violation Article 5 §§ 4 & 5 The applicant, Stuart Blackstock, is a British national who was born in 1954 and lives in Bedford (United Kingdom).   On 5 June 1981 the applicant was convicted of wounding (the deliberate shooting of a police officer) with intent to resist arrest, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years for attempted robbery and firearms offences. His tariff (the compulsory part of his sentence) was set at 17 years.   On 8 June 1998, when his tariff expired, the applicant’s detention was reviewed by a “Discretionary Lifer Panel” (DLP) of the Parole Board. At the time of his review, the applicant was a “category B” prisoner (prisoners being given a security classification ranging from category A (most serious) to category D). Life prisoners are normally expected to pass through each of the categories prior to release. While he would therefore ordinarily have been expected to progress to a category C prison before being considered suitable for transfer to a category D (“open”) prison, the applicant applied to be transferred directly to an open prison. His legal representative at the review hearing made it clear that he was seeking a transfer only, not release on licence.   At his subsequent review, which took place on 25 April 2000, the DLP recommended that the applicant be transferred to open conditions (category D). That recommendation was accepted by the Secretary of State on 24 July 2000.   The applicant complained about the lapse of time (22 months) between the reviews concerning his continued detention as a discretionary life prisoner. He relied on Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security).   Given the acknowledged importance of the move to C conditions as part of the applicant’s progress towards open conditions and planned release and the absence of any indication of any specific programme of work over that period, the European Court of Human Rights found that the United Kingdom authorities did not pay due regard to the need for expedition. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5 as there was no possibility of obtaining compensation at the relevant time in domestic law in respect of the violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,460 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,756 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation Article 5 § 1 Kolanis v. the United Kingdom (no. 517/02)   Violation Article 5 §§ 4 & 5 The applicant, Maria Kolanis, is a British national who was born in 1972 and lives in London.   On 2 February 1998 she was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. She was found to be suffering from a mental illness and was detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. She applied to a Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) for her discharge from detention in hospital.   Following a hearing on 16 August 1999, the MHRT held that the applicant should be conditionally discharged, that she should live at home with her parents, be supervised by a social worker and a forensic consultant psychiatrist and comply with her prescribed treatment.   However, her psychiatrist considered that he could not safely supervise the applicant in her parent’s home and that she should be cared for in supported accommodation. Subsequently the health authority was unable to find a psychiatrist in the region who was willing or able to supervise the applicant’s care in the community.   On 3 December 1999 the applicant issued proceedings for judicial review of the health authority’s decision not to provide her with psychiatric supervision in the community as required by the MHRT, which was preventing her discharge from hospital.   The judge rejected her application on the grounds that the health authority was not under an absolute duty to implement the conditions of the MHRT, but only a duty to take all reasonable steps to attempt to satisfy those conditions and that the doctors concerned were both entitled and obliged to exercise their own professional judgment.   On 23 December 2000 the applicant was conditionally discharged from hospital to a resettlement project hostel in London.   The applicant alleged that her continued detention after the Mental Health Review Tribunal directed her release subject to conditions was no longer justified and without appropriate procedural safeguards. She relied on Articles 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the discharge of the applicant was only regarded as appropriate if there was continued treatment or supervision necessary to protect her own health and the safety of the community. In the absence of that treatment, her detention continued to be necessary in line with the purpose of Article 5 § 1(e).   As events in the case showed, the treatment considered necessary for such conditional discharge might not prove available, in which circumstances there could be no question of interpreting Article 5 § 1(e) as requiring the applicant’s discharge without the conditions necessary for protecting herself and the public or as imposing an absolute obligation on the authorities to ensure that the conditions were fulfilled.   Nor was it necessary in the applicant’s case to attempt to anticipate what level of obligation could arise by way of provision of treatment in the community to ensure the due effectiveness of MHRT decisions concerning release. In the situation under consideration a failure by the local authority to use "best efforts" or any breach of duty by a psychiatrist in refusing care in the community would be amenable to judicial review. The Court was therefore not persuaded that local authorities or doctors could wilfully or arbitrarily block the discharge of patients into the community without proper grounds or excuse, or that that was what occurred in the applicant’s case.   The Court concluded that, after the MHRT decision of 16 August 1999, the applicant continued to suffer from an illness which justified compulsory detention and that her detention fell within the exception of Article 5 § 1(e). The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1. However, the Court found that, for over a year, the applicant was unable to have the issues arising from supervening events as they affected her continued detention examined by a court and that the lapse of 12 months before it was reviewed on the Secretary of State’s referral could not be regarded as sufficiently prompt to remedy that defect. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   In light of its finding of a breach of Article 5 § 4 and noting that the United Kingdom Government had accepted that there was no enforceable right to compensation before the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Court further held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5. The Court also held, unanimously, that no separate issues arose under Article 13.   The Court awarded EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,656 for cost and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Repetitive Cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Violation Article 6 § 1 Alexandr Bulynko v. Ukraine (no. 9693/02)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Bulynko v. Ukraine (no. 74432/01)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant in the first case, Alexandr Ivanovich Bulynko, was a Ukrainian national who was born in 1931. He died in June 2003. The applicant in the second case, Raisa Petrovna Bulynko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Torez, in the Donetsk Region (Ukraine).   The applicants complained that the Ukrainian authorities failed to execute a judgment in their favour awarding them compensation respectively for delayed payment of disability benefits and salary arrears and of the substantial delay (over two years in both cases) in the payment of the amounts awarded. Both applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). Mr Bulynko also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Considering that the Ukrainian Government had provided no satisfactory explanation for the delays in question, the Court held, unanimously in both cases, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court also considered that the alleged lack of funds of a State-owned enterprise could not justify the substantial delay in paying Mr Bulynko and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court declared the applicants’ remaining complaints inadmissible and awarded each applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and expenses. (The judgments are 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.