CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s3614D4E8 { width:311.59pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s20CA349A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:right } .s7C94A8D4 { width:50.83pt; display:inline-block } .s70F3C25 { width:40.16pt; display:inline-block } .s3C6D7979 { width:28.12pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   414 26.7.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Turkey and the Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] . (The judgments are only available in English.)   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.     Violation of Article   6 §§ 1 and 3(d) Mild and Virtanen v. Finland (application nos 39481/98 and 40227/98) The applicants, Taisto Sakari Mild and Mari Virtanen are Finnish nationals who were born in 1967 and 1970 respectively and live in Vantaa (Finland).   On June 1995 Mr Mild and Ms Virtanen were charged with aggravated theft on suspicion that they had been involved in stealing fur coats worth 327,500 Finnish marks (FIM) (55,081.55 euros (EUR)). The prosecution relied on statements made to the police by M and R, who had already been convicted of the same offence, after pleading guilty. The applicants denied the charges against them.   On 28 February 1996, M. withdrew his statement concerning the applicants on the ground that it was false. The court subsequently threw out the charges against Mr Mild and Ms Virtanen.   The public prosecutor appealed to Vaasa Court of Appeal which held an oral hearing in November 1996. M. and R. were not summoned and were not heard before the court. In December 1996 the court convicted Mr Mild of aggravated theft and sentenced him to one year and ten months’ imprisonment. Ms Virtanen was convicted of aiding and abetting. She was sentenced to a suspended term of four months’ imprisonment. In June 1997 the Supreme Court refused the applicants leave to appeal.   Mr Mild and Ms Virtanen complained that they were denied a fair trial as they had not had a right to examine witnesses against them. They relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3(d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the applicants were never given an opportunity to have questions put to M. and R., whose statements were taken into account as evidence by the Court of Appeal. In addition, national legislation at that time was inadequate, because it provided no basis for ensuring the attendance of M. and R. in the proceedings against the applicants. The Court therefore held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d) taken together and awarded Mr   Mild and Ms Virtanen EUR 3,000 and EUR   2,000 respectively for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   6,000 and EUR   1,246 respectively for costs and expenses.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland (no. 73547/01) Kniat v. Poland (no. 71731/01) Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland (no. 39199/98) The applicants, Grzegorz Jedamski, Teresa Jedamska, Bogusława Kniat and Janusz Podbielski are all Polish nationals who were born in 1954, 1960, 1956 and 1949 respectively. Mr and Ms Jedamscy live in Mikołajki Pomorskie (Poland), Ms Kniat in Poznań (Poland) and Mr Podbielski in Witoszόw Dolny (Poland) respectively.   The applicants all complained that they were effectively denied access to a court because the court fees they were required to pay were too high ( Jedamski and Jedamska 100,000   Polish zlotys (PLN), Kniat and Podbielski and PPU Polpure PLN   10,000). They relied on Article   6 § 1 (access to court).   Having assessed the facts of the three cases in their entirety and having regard to the importance of the right to a court in a democratic society, the Court considered that the judicial authorities had failed to secure a proper balance between the interest of the State in collecting court fees for dealing with claims and the interest of the applicants in vindicating their claims through the courts. It therefore concluded that the imposition of the court fees on the applicants constituted a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a court and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded: Ms Kniat EUR   6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,250 for costs and expenses; Mr Podbielski EUR   6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses; Mr and Ms   Jedamscy jointly, EUR   8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses.   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 of Article 6 § 1 Mezőtúr-Tiszazugi Vízgazdálkodási Társulat v. Hungary (no. 5503/02) Mezőtúr-Tiszazugi Vízgazdálkodási Társulat is a Hungarian water management association based in Mezőtúr (Hungary).   In December 1996 the applicant association applied unsuccessfully for a court order for payment against a limited liability company. The proceedings ended on 17 April 2003.   The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings and alleged that the proceedings were unfair, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The European Court of Human Rights held, by six votes to one, that the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings was admissible and that the remainder of the application was inadmissible. By five votes to two, the court held that the length of the proceedings (which had lasted some six years) was excessive and that there had accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant company EUR   500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Scutari v. Moldova (no. 20864/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Alexei Scutari is a Moldovan national who was born in 1930 and lives in Edineţ (Moldova).   In 1949 the Soviet authorities nationalised the property owned by his parents and deported his family to Siberia. In December   1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No.   1225-XII which enabled victims of Soviet repression to claim compensation for their nationalised property.   Mr Scutari made a claim for compensation. In July   2001, he was awarded 41,705 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (the equivalent of EUR 3,700 at the time). The judgment was not enforced – on the ground of lack of State funds – until   February   2004, after the applicant’s case before the European Court of Human Rights had been communicated to the Moldovan Government.   Mr Scutari complained about the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of   July   2001 until   February   2004. He relied on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the judgment of   July   2001 remained unenforced for almost 31 months. By failing for years to take the necessary measures to comply with a final judicial decision, the Moldovan authorities deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court also noted that the impossibility for the applicant to obtain the execution of the judgment until February   2004 constituted an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and that by failing to comply with the final judgment the national authorities had prevented Mr Scutari from enjoying or using the money due to him. It considered that a lack of funds could not justify such an omission. It found, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and awarded Mr   Scutari EUR   1,250 for non-pecuniary damage.   Dost and Others v. Turkey (no. 45712/99)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 The applicants are three Turkish nationals, Adem Dost, Şeker   Dost and Osman Cinel who were born in 1956, 1954 and 1955 respectively and live in Munich (Germany).   In   September 1997, Sakarya Civil Court of First-Instance awarded the applicants additional compensation of 865,267,950 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately EUR 503) plus interest in relation to the expropriation of a plot of land which had belonged to them near the Sakarya industrial zone (in Turkey). Dissatisfied with the judgment, the applicants appealed.   In April 1998, the Sakarya Governor’s Office paid the amount of TRL 1,513,641,033 (approximately EUR 879) to the applicants. The Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ request for rectification.   The applicants complained that the additional compensation for expropriation, which they had obtained from the authorities only after two years and six months’ court proceedings, had fallen in value, since the default interest payable had not kept pace with the very high rate of inflation in Turkey. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights found that the delay in paying for the additional compensation awarded by the domestic courts was attributable to the expropriating authority and caused the owner a loss additional to that of the expropriated land. As a result of that delay and the length of the proceedings as a whole, the Court found that the applicants had had to bear an individual and excessive burden that had upset the fair balance that had to be maintained between the demands of the general interest and protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.   Consequently, it found that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1 and awarded the applicants   EUR   11,597 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Chernyayev v. Ukraine (no. 15366/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant,Vladimir Ilyich Chernyayev is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Nova Kakhovka in the Kherson region (Ukraine).   On 4 August 2000 the applicant was awarded 3,150.00   Ukrainien hryvnas (UAH) (around EUR   485) in salary arrears against his former employer   – the Southern Machinery Construction factory (the majority share of which   – 70%   – was owned by the State). There was no appeal and the judgment became final. In July 2001 Nova Kakhovka Town Court awarded the applicant UAH   1,180.00 (around EUR   180) in compensation for moral damage against the same factory.   In February 2003 the applicant was informed that enforcement proceedings against the factory had been stayed due to the opening of bankruptcy proceedings.   In   May 2004, the Nova Kakhovka Town Court awarded the applicant UAH   13,460.72 (around EUR   2,070) in compensation for the delay in payment of the salary arrears by the factory.   The judgments of August 2000 and July 2001 were never enforced.   The applicant complained about the failure to execute the court decisions of August 2000 and July 2001, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the decisions of August   2000 and   July   2001 remained unenforced for well over four and three years respectively. By delaying for so long the enforcement of the judgments in Mr   Chernyayev’s case, the authorities deprived the provisions of Article   6   §   1 of much of their useful effect. The Court found that the Government had not advanced any justification for that delay and, accordingly, held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1.   It also held that the impossibility for Mr Chernyayev to obtain execution of those judgments for so long constituted an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. By failing to comply with the judgments, the national authorities had prevented, and still prevent, Mr   Chernyayev, for a considerable period of time, from receiving in full the money to which he was entitled. The Court considered that economic difficulties could not justify such an omission.   Furthermore, having regard to the compensation proceedings instituted by Mr   Chernyayev against the factory, and even assuming that the compensation for the delay in payment awarded by the decision of May 2004 could be considered of some remedial effect, at least with respect to the delays in the recovery of judgment debt under the decision of August 2000, the Court noted that it also remained unenforced, and the prospects of its execution were as remote as those of the original judgments. It therefore found, unanimously, that there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 and awarded Mr   Chernyayev EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage.     ***   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.