CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 août 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 } .s11085879 { width:63.85pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB392D6A { width:129.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDC1FFC60 { width:324.67pt; display:inline-block } .s444CFE53 { width:338.01pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   427 4.8.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy and Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] . (These judgments are available only in French.)   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.   Agatianos v. Greece (application no. 16945/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Christophoros Agatianos, is a Greek national who was born in 1936 and lives in Salonika (Greece).   In February 2000 the Salonika Criminal Court convicted the applicant of defamation and imposed a suspended sentence of two months’ imprisonment. Under Article 489 § 1 and Article 190 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant could not appeal against the judgment because the sentence imposed was less than three months’ imprisonment, that option being open only to the prosecution service. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed as being out of time on 2 November 2001, on the ground that the period for submitting an appeal on points of law had begun to run from the date of delivery of the judgment and not on the day on which the latter was registered at the court.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant maintained that the dismissal of his appeal on points of law as out of time had entailed a breach of his right of access to a court.   The European Court of Human Rights pointed out that it had already held that it was incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to dismiss an appeal on points of law on the ground that it had been lodged within a period that began to run from the date of delivery of the judgment rather than the date on which it had been finalised. In the light of that case-law, and of the position which the Greek Court of Cassation now appeared to be adopting in this respect, the Court considered that the applicant in this case had been disproportionately hindered in his right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 5,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.   Zeciri v. Italy (no. 55764/00)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 The applicant, Ljuljzim Zečiri, is a national of Serbia and Montenegro who was born in 1974 and lives in Kosovo, which is where he was born. Prior to his arrest, the applicant was living in Milan.   The applicant was arrested in Italy on 25 December 1998 and charged with attempted armed robbery. He was convicted on 9 March 1999 at the close of a shortened form of procedure ( patteggiamento ) and sentenced to one year and two months’ imprisonment, together with a fine, which were replaced by a judicial deportation order. The deportation measure was not enforced since the applicant did not have valid documents for returning to his own country.   Ruling on the case after an appeal court judgment had been quashed, the judge of preliminary hearings sentenced the applicant, in a judgment of 16 December 1999 at the close of a shortened form of procedure. to one year and two months’ imprisonment and imposed a fine. These sentences were not replaced by a deportation order.   On 25 February 2000 the applicant was released after serving his sentence in Catanzaro prison. On the same date the Catanzaro police authorities served on him an order stating that he was to be detained in a temporary residence and assistance centre in Lamezia Terme; the applicant was placed in detention. The order, justified by a statement that “the Busto Arsizio judge of preliminary hearings had ordered deportation as a substitute punishment” was initially upheld by a court before being set aside on 21 March 2000.   After his release the applicant left Italy and returned to Kosovo.   The Italian Government acknowledged that the police commissioner and the judicial authorities had erred in ordering and validating the applicant’s deportation and detention without taking account of the fact that the judgment of 9 March 1999 had been quashed. Taking the view that such an error could not be described as “excusable”, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   Furthermore, noting that the applicant had had no means of obtaining, with a sufficient degree of certainty, redress for the violation of Article 5 § 1, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation of the Convention constituted in this case sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 500 for costs and expenses.   Stoianova and Nedelcu v. Romania (nos. 77517/01 and 77722/01) Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Dorel Stoianova and Claudiu Nedelcu, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1974 and 1975 respectively and live in Bucharest.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them for theft with violence and incitement of third parties to give false evidence.   The Court noted that the proceedings against the applicants comprised two distinct phases: the first had begun on 14   April 1993 with the applicants’ arrest and detention and ended on 11   November 1997 with an order finding that there was no case to answer; the second had begun on 12 May 1999, the date on which the prosecution service ordered that the proceedings be reopened, and had ended on 21   April 2005 when the prosecution service had ordered that the criminal proceedings be closed. Thus, the period extended from 20   June 1994, the date on which Romania recognised the right of individual petition, to 11   November 1997, and from 12 May 1999 to 21   April 2005. It had thus lasted for nine years and four months in total.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a period of time was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded each of the applicants EUR 3,500   for non-pecuniary damage.   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   Violation of Article 13 Gavalas v. Greece (no. 5077/03) Ioannidis v. Greece (no. 5072/03) Spyropoulos v. Greece (no. 5081/03) Tsaras v. Greece (no. 5085/03) Vozinos v. Greece (no. 5076/03)   The applicants in the above five cases, all Greek nationals, complained of the length of administrative proceedings they had brought concerning the award of benefits or the calculation of the amount of their retirement pensions. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing with a reasonable time) and also complained under Article 13 of the lack of an effective remedy for the delays.   The Court concluded unanimously in each of these cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, it awarded EUR   6,000 jointly to the applicants in the case of Gavalas v. Greece , EUR   2,000 to the applicant in the case of Spyropoulos v. Greece and EUR   1,500 to each applicant in the cases of Ioannidis v. Greece, Tsaras v. Greece and Vozinos v. Greece. In addition, in each of the cases the Court awarded the applicants EUR   500 for costs and expenses.   ***   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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.