CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 12 juillet 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s949E9E2C { width:144.14pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7559D9B3 { width:110.16pt; display:inline-block } .sBA3F45E1 { width:120.16pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s61CB1B2B { width:294.91pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s6640CFD3 { width:46.16pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   396 12.7.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Russia, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is 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.   Solodyuk v. Russia (application no 67099/01) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Viktor Vitalyevich Solodyuk and Yelizaveta Nikolayevna Solodyuk, are Russian nationals who were born in 1936 and 1937 respectively and live in Donetsk in the Rostov Region (Russia).   Mr and Mrs Solodyuk complained that from June to December 1998 and from January to April 1999 they received their old-age pensions several months in arrears and that inflation and devaluation of the Russian rouble during that period meant that their pensions had lost a significant part of their value by the time they were paid.   Under section 120 of the State Pensions Act of 1990, old-age pensions were payable in the month for which they were due.   On 18 July 2000 Donetsk Town Court found, among other things, that, although there had been delays in payment of the pensions, they were not the fault of the Social Security Authority because it merely made payments on receipt of funds from the Pension Fund, which had been delayed.   Mr and Mrs Solodyuk appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the delay in paying what was presumably Mr and Mrs Solodyuk’s sole or main source of income, lasted continuously for more than a year, and often involved delays lasting at least three months. The effects of very high inflation on the late pension payments at the time were such that they fell significantly in value, which imposed an individual and excessive burden on the applicants.     The Court accordingly found that that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded EUR   1,596   euros   (EUR) to Viktor Solodyuk and EUR   1,590 to Yelizaveta Solodyuk for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Jonasson v. Sweden (no. 59403/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Anders Jonasson, is a Swedish national who was born in 1964.   In February 1995 Mr Jonasson was employed by Air Inn at an airport restaurant rented from the Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket) (CAA), which is a public body responsible for airports, air-traffic control and air safety in Sweden. He was given access to parts of the airport considered to be high security.   Following the entry into force on 1 July 1996 of the Security Protection Act ( Säkerhetsskyddslagen   1996:627) and the Security Protection Ordinance ( Säkerhetsskyddsförordningen 1996:633), Air Inn requested that the CAA run a security check on Mr Jonasson.   It transpired that he had twice been convicted of assault, in 1979 and 1998.   During a meeting with Air Inn and the Director of the Airport, Mr   Jonasson explained that the first conviction concerned a youthful misdemeanour that had occurred more that 20 years earlier and that the last had stemmed from an incident within his family at a time when he had been under a great deal of stress due to his stepson's psychiatric handicap.   In its decision on 27 November 1998, the CAA found Mr Jonasson to be a security risk. Air Inn was ordered to prevent him from participating in activities requiring personnel to pass a security check and to order Mr Jonasson to hand in his airport access document to the Director of the Airport. No appeal against that decision was possible and, since the company could offer no transfer opportunities at the time, he was given notice and suspended from work as from 1   February   1999.   He brought unsuccessful proceedings for unfair dismissal.   The applicant complained about the decision of 27   November 1998, relying on Articles 6 § 1 (access to court), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following the friendly settlement in which the equivalent of EUR   30,280 is to be paid to the applicant (The judgment is available only in English.)   Contardi v. Switzerland (no. 7020/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Saverio Contardi, is a Swiss national who was born in 1963 and lives in Schwanden (Switzerland).   Having suffered an industrial accident resulting in incapacity to carry on his profession, the applicant, together with his wife and child, had been in receipt of a pension from the Swiss National Accident Insurance Fund ( CNA ) since 1991. Following the birth of two further children to the applicant, the CNA readjusted the amount of the pension.   The applicant lodged an administrative-law appeal with the Federal Insurance Court, contesting the assessment of the pension. After receiving the observations of the CNA , the Administrative Court of the Canton of Glarus and the Federal Social Insurance Office, the Federal Insurance Court declared the exchange of written pleadings closed and, in a judgment of 27 November 2001, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that the proceedings had been unfair, in particular because it had been impossible for him to reply to the other parties’ observations.   The Court observed that even though the observations in issue ran to only a few lines, they had contained a reasoned opinion on the merits of the appeal and a recommendation as to its outcome, calling for it to be dismissed. They had therefore manifestly been aimed at influencing the Federal Insurance Court’s decision. The Court reiterated in that connection that the effect which the observations had actually had on that decision was of little consequence. It was for the parties to the dispute, and thus the applicant as well, to assess such matters and to say whether or not a document called for their comments. What was at stake was litigants’ confidence in the workings of justice, which was based, among other things, on the knowledge that they had had the opportunity to express their views on every document in the file.   In those circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 3,230   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Munari v. Switzerland (no. 7957/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Pierfrancesco Munari, is a Swiss national who was born in 1936 and lives in Frankfurt (Germany).   On 11 January 1993 the applicant, a financial consultant for the Jahra foundation, was accused of fraud, offences relating to the foundation’s assets and dishonest management. The criminal proceedings against him were terminated on 23 December 2002, when the Ticino public prosecutor ruled that there was no case to answer.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained, among other things, of the excessive length of the proceedings against him.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted nine years, 11 months and 12 days for one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstance of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the and awarded the applicant EUR 7,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,230   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 11 Güneri and Others v. Turkey (nos. 42853/98, 43609/98 and 44291/98) Violation of Article 13 The applicants are three Turkish nationals, İlhan Güneri, Refik Karakoç and Nevzat Eski, and the Party of Democracy and Peace ( Demokrasi ve Barış Partis – DBP). Mr   Güneri was born in 1959 and lives in Van (Turkey). Mr Karakoç was born in 1953 and Mr Eski in 1959. Both live in Ankara. Mr Karakoç is the Chairman of the DBP. At the material time, Mr Güneri was the Chairman of the Van branch of the DBP and Mr Eski a member of the party’s executive committee.   On 1 June 1998 the executive committee of the DBP decided to visit the towns of Kırşehir, Malatya, Elazığ, Bingöl, Van, Muş, Bitlis, Diyarbakır, Mardin, Şanlıurfa, Adana and Konya. The party chairman and members of the executive committee were to take part in the visit with the aim of meeting the local population and civil organisations in south-east Turkey.   On 10 June 1998, on the basis of section 11, subparagraphs (k) and (m), of Law no. 2935, the governor of the state of emergency region issued a decree prohibiting an outdoor meeting that had been scheduled in Van, on the grounds that the situation there was tense and that, because of its size, the meeting was likely to lead to unruly incidents with placards, rallying cries and slogans being used to stir up the people and criticise governmental measures.   In accordance with the decree, the applicants and other members of the group were refused access to the towns of Mardin, Diyarbakır and Van and informed that they would not be able to hold a meeting in Van.   The applicants alleged that the decree issued by the governor had violated their right to freedom of assembly, contrary to Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). They further complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the absence of any remedy enabling them to challenge the governor’s decision. Lastly, they complained under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of discrimination against the DBP on the ground that a large number of its leaders and members were of Kurdish origin.   The question the Court had to decide was whether the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of association could be considered to have been necessary in a democratic society. In that connection, the Court accepted that the political situation could weigh in the balance because of the climate of insecurity caused by terrorist acts in south-east Turkey at the material time. Nevertheless, the governor had been informed in advance of the scheduled campaign visits. In addition, the DBP, its members and local party leaders had advised the governors in the towns concerned of the programme of visits and the wording of the speeches, placards and slogans.   The Court observed that a State could require permission to be sought to hold meetings and regulate the freedom of movement of persons attending peaceful meetings on public order and national security grounds. However, in the case before it, the governor had given no reasons for his decision, which, on the face of it, did not appear to be an adequate or necessary measure taken to ensure that the visits would take place without incident. Furthermore, there was nothing to suggest that the planned visits by the DBP and its members were liable to serve as a platform to advocate violence and the rejection of democracy or to have any potentially harmful consequences that would justify their prohibition.   In the circumstances, the Court found that the measures could not reasonably be considered as meeting a “pressing social need” and had not therefore been necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 11. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there have been a violation of Article 11.   The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 owing to the lack of a remedy in Turkish law to enable the measures to be challenged and that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 14.   As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded the DBP 2,000 euros (EUR) and each of the applicants EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. It made a joint award of EUR 1,090 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive Cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Müslüm Gündüz v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 59997/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Müslüm Gündüz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1941. When the application was lodged, he was detained in Elaziğ Prison (Turkey).   The applicant was the founding member of a religious community Aczmendi , which describes itself as a Muslim sect. An order was made for its dissolution in 1995. In 1996 the applicant was arrested and charged with founding and leading an organisation that sought to destroy the secular republican regime.   In a judgment of 8 June 1999, Malatya State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years and two months’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine. The prison sentence was upheld by the Court of Cassation.   The applicant alleged under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) that the State Security Court that had tried and convicted him was not an “independent and impartial tribunal”, owing to the presence of a military judge on the bench.   As in a number of similar cases, the Court found that the applicant’s concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the State Security Court could be regarded as objectively justified. It consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of procedural unfairness. The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the applicant’s alleged non-pecuniary damage and awarded him EUR 1,500 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.