CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 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 } .s72E7D054 { width:263.57pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCAE57EA0 { width:184.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s146D2459 { width:312.91pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s983822A5 { width:122.8pt; display:inline-block } .sD576774C { width:202.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sD3A0B818 { width:62.3%; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s9F09F181 { width:19.68%; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s33BB3BD2 { width:18.02%; vertical-align:top } .sE099AA7A { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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   419 28.7.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Italy and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] . (These 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.     No violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   No violation of Article 14 Alatulkkila and Others v. Finland (application no. 33538/96) The ten applicants, Paavo Alatulkkila, Toivo Honkaniemi, Aatos Korpi, Lauri Rousu, Matti Kanninen, Kaarlo Lampinen, Pekka Mäkinen, Timo Kanniainen, Ville Alakuijala and Antti Stark, are all Finnish nationals who were born in 1935, 1954, 1957, 1945, 1934, 1934, 1954, 1949, 1941 and 1944 respectively. They all live in Finland: Mr Alatulkkila and Mr   Honkaniemi in Ylitornio; Mr Korpi in Kainuunkylä; Mr Rousu in Karunki; Mr Kanninen in Kukkola; Mr Lampinen, Mr Mäkinen, Mr Kanniainen and Mr Alakuijala in Tornio; Mr   Stark in Lautiosaari.   The case was lodged on 17   October 1996 by Mr Paavo Alatulkkila and other Finnish applicants and associations.   The applicants are owners of water areas, or are fishermen, in the Gulf of Bothnia and are also elected representatives of their respective local fishing co-operative ( kalastuskunta, fiskelag ) or association for joint ownership ( jakokunta, osakaskunta; samfällighet, delägarlag ).   In 1996, the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission ( suomalais-ruotsalainen rajajokikomissio, finsk-svenska gränsälvskommissionen ) prohibited, among other things, all fishing of salmon and sea trout in specified water areas during the 1996 and 1997 seasons. Some of the applicants (professional fishermen fishing in a specific area) received compensation to cover economic losses which they suffered during the 1996 fishing season due to the restrictions.   In 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court ( korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) dismissed a request lodged by, among others, the associations represented by applicants, to have the decision of 26 April 1996 annulled.   In its decision the Supreme Administrative Court considered that all the applicants for annulment had been made aware of the plans to restrict the fishing in question and had had the opportunity to make known their opinions on the matter before the Frontier Rivers Commission had issued the restriction. The restriction had sought to strengthen fish stocks and thus ensure fishing opportunities in the future. The decision of the Frontier Rivers Commission could not be held to be contrary either to Article 6 of the European Convention or of the Constitution. In sum, the decision had not been based on a manifestly incorrect application of the law, nor had a procedural error occurred that might have fundamentally affected the decision.   The applicants complained that the fishing restrictions violated their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and discriminated against them in comparison with fishermen in adjacent waters. They also complained of having had no access to a tribunal, or any other effective remedy, in order to challenge the restrictions. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court), Article 1 Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the Supreme Administrative Court had considered the lawfulness of the fishing prohibition and its conformity with the Constitution as well as Article 6 of the Convention. While not expressly referring to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the reasoning had given attention to the fairness of the procedure, finding that the applicants had been given an adequate opportunity to put their objections to the Frontiers River Commission. The Supreme Administrative Court had also considered the necessity and proportionality of the prohibition in reaching the conclusion that it had been necessary for safeguarding fish stocks. It had not at any point declined jurisdiction in answering the applicants’ points. The proceedings available before the Supreme Administrative Court had provided the applicants with effective access to a court to review their claims.   The Court also observed that there was no indication that the applicants had made any request for an oral hearing, as was open to them. They chose not to do so and had thereby unequivocally waived their right to an oral hearing in those proceedings. It did not appear that the proceedings involved any questions of public interest which would have made it incumbent on the Supreme Administrative Court to choose to hold an oral hearing.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention either as regards the scope of review by the Supreme Administrative Court or the lack of an oral hearing.   The Court found that the interference with the applicants’ property rights was justified, being lawful and designed to protect fish stocks. It found no reason to doubt that the state of fish stocks required conservation measures and that the timing and application of the measures were geared to local conditions. Moreover, the interference did not completely extinguish the applicants’ right to fish in the relevant waters. Professional fishermen, whose livelihood was affected by the ban, were provided with the possibility of applying for compensation for economic losses and some applicants had made use of that. Accordingly, the Court found that the control of use was compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   As to the allegation of discrimination, the Court found no reason to doubt that there was sufficient justification for the different timing of restrictions applied in the various water areas as well as for differing prohibitions of fishing gear in particular locations, namely to take into account the spawning routes of the salmon and the more confined nature of coastal, estuary and river waters. It had therefore been justified to treat the applicants differently from those with fishing rights in other areas. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 read in conjunction with Article 14.   Czarnecki v. Poland (no. 75112/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Marek Czarnecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Lublin (Poland).   On 5   January 1996 Mr Czarnecki was charged with homicide and larceny and remanded in custody to prevent him pressurising witnesses and because the charges laid him carried a significant danger to society at large. His detention was later prolonged, given the strong suspicion that he had committed the crime and the gravity of charges. His various appeals for release were dismissed. Overall, the applicant was held in detention for five years and one month.   On 10 September 2001 Mr Czarnecki was acquitted of homicide and convicted of larceny. He was sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment and released from detention the same day.   The applicant complained that the length of his detention on remand was unreasonable. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The European Court of Human Rights accepted that the suspicion against the applicant of having committed the offences and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings might initially have justified his detention. However, with the passage of time, those grounds became less relevant and – even taking into consideration the argument about the severity of the anticipated sentence – could not suffice to justify the entire period in question.   The Court further noted that there was no express indication that during the entire period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention the authorities envisaged the possibility of imposing on him other preventive measures, such as bail or police supervision. It therefore concluded that the grounds given by the domestic authorities were not “sufficient” and “relevant” in terms of justifying the length of the applicant’s detention.   Furthermore, it had taken the trial court almost a year to hold the first hearing and the Government had failed to provide any explanation for that inactivity. Finding that the authorities had not displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded Mr Czarnecki EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd. v. Poland (no. 51728/99) The applicant, Bronisław Rosenzweig, is a German national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Berlin. The other applicant is “Bonded Warehouses Ltd”, a public company owned by Mr   Rosenzweig.   In February 1994 the Main Customs Office granted the applicant company a licence to run a bonded warehouse in Słubice and in June 1995 a further permit was issued for exporting merchandise via the border crossing in Słubice.   In November 1995, the export permit was revoked and the customs officers ordered that the headquarters of the applicant company be closed and sealed the door, preventing it from conducting further business.   Subsequently the validity of that permit was re ‑ examined several times.   Mr Rosenzweig submitted that, as a result of the withdrawal of the permit and the business licence, it was impossible for him to run his business. The applicants relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the withdrawal of valid permits to run a business was an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further noted that the withdrawal of the June 1995 licence and the ensuing proceedings in which the validity of that permit was re ‑ examined several times made it impossible for the business to operate.   The Court found that the authorities had not shown that there had been any suspicions that the operation of Bonded Warehouses Ltd was in any way unlawful or dishonest, or that the applicants had been involved in any attempt to evade customs tax. Such arguments would have been capable of lending credibility to the Government’s view that the revoking of licences served the public interest.   The Court concluded that it had not been shown that the authorities followed any genuine and consistent policy considerations when revoking and changing their decisions concerning the operation of Bonded Warehouses Ltd. Accordingly, it held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. The Court reserved the question of just satisfaction to a later date.   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 1 of Protocol No. 1   Violation of Article 6 § 1 In the following five Italian cases, the applicants complained that they had been unable to recover possession of their apartments over an extended period, owing to a lack of police assistance. They also complained of the length of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and also on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) with the exception of the applicants in the Molteni and Ghisi case.   The Court held unanimously in all five cases that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1, with the exception of the Molteni and Ghisi case. It awarded the applicants the following amounts, in euros, for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.     Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Cima v. Italy (no. 55161/00) 3,000 3,000 Gamberini Mongenet v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 68707/01) 9,000 600 Molteni and Ghisi v. Italy (no. 67911/01) 8,000 3,500 Sciortino v. Italy (no. 69834/01) 6,000 2,800 Stornelli and Others v. Italy (no. 68706/01) 5,000 4,000     ***   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.