CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 septembre 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 } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s39E2B37B { width:102.15pt; display:inline-block } .s6E470912 { width:109.46pt; display:inline-block } .s1A901D04 { width:47.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7A710C32 { width:128.8pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   450 6.9.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Turkey and   the Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven 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.   Volf v. the Czech Republic (application no. 70847/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Petr Volf, is a Czech national who was born in 1965 and lives in Prague.   The applicant complained of the length of criminal proceedings against him which resulted in his conviction in January 2002 for a public-order offence and attempted assault. He relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the proceedings in question had lasted 11 years and almost four months for four levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances 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 Convention and awarded the applicant 5,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 990   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Siemianowski v. Poland (no. 45972/99)   No violation of Article 8 The applicant, Andrzej Siemianowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Torún (Poland).   On 28 May 1992 the applicant divorced. The court declared that both spouses should retain full parental rights concerning their daughter M., born on 3 May 1984, but it ordered that she should live with her mother.   Since Mr Siemianowski could not reach an agreement with his former wife as to the exercise of custody, he took out a total of three access and four enforcement proceedings over a period of seven years and six months, all of which proved unsuccessful. He maintained that every time he went to fetch his daughter at the appointed hour, either no one answered the door bell or he was informed that his daughter was out, busy, sleeping or not willing to see him. Despite these difficulties, Mr Siemianowski informed the court that between November 1992 and March 2002 he had managed to have some contact with his daughter.   M’s mother, however, was fined twice for non ‑ compliance with court orders to give Mr   Siemianowski access. She maintained that her daughter kept refusing to see her father. At a later stage in the proceedings the court considered that, since the daughter had turned thirteen, contacts with her were no longer dependent solely on her mother’s will. The court also appointed an officer to supervise the exercise of custody rights by the mother and a psychology expert’s report was commissioned.   On several occasions, the court stayed enforcement proceedings instituted by Mr   Simianowski in respect of a decision made in February 1994 by Toruń District Court pending the outcome of new access proceedings which the parties had instituted.   Mr Siemianowski complained, in particular, about the ineffectiveness and length of the proceedings to enforce his right of access to his daughter. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   The Court noted that the second set of access proceedings had lasted over four years and five months. In particular, the Court found that the decision to adjourn enforcement proceedings pending the renewed determination of the merits of the access case was open to criticism since the new proceedings did not have any incidence of the validity of the decision of 8   February 1994 which was still in force.   As to the third set of the access proceedings instituted in   October 1994, the Court found that the preparation of the psychology expert’s report submitted to the court in its final version in October 1996 was also lengthy.   The Court therefore concluded that the overall length of the second and third set of proceedings exceeded a “reasonable time”. It held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the first set of enforcement proceedings and that there had been a violation in respect of the second and third set of enforcement proceedings.   As regards the alleged violation of Article 8, the Court observed that, as M. matured she was able to take her own decisions in respect of her contacts with her father. The Court did not find this consideration arbitrary or inappropriate; neither did it consider that it was relied on by the authorities in such a way as to negate his access rights. Furthermore, Mr Siemianowski had not lost all access to the child and therefore emotional ties had not been destroyed. Therefore the Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 8.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the applicant was awarded EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Sacaleanu v. Romania (no. 73970/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Cecilia Sacaleanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Iaşi (Romania).   She was employed as an economist at Iaşi Old People’s Home, which is under the authority of the Iaşi State Inspectorate for People with Disabilities, a State-funded public institution. In 1993 she was transferred to a post as an accountant at the I. Holban School in Iaşi. In a final judgment of 6 December 1996 the Iaşi Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant should be reinstated in her previous post and ordered the Inspectorate to pay her outstanding wages and legal costs. The Iaşi Court of First Instance subsequently imposed a penalty of 100,000 Romanian lei (ROL) per day on the Inspectorate in the event of failure to comply with the order to reinstate her.   The applicant was reinstated on 5 August 1997 but was dismissed on 13 February 1998. In a judgment of 30 September 1998 the Court of First Instance revoked her dismissal and ordered the Inspectorate to reinstate her, again on penalty of ROL 100,000 per day in the event of failure to comply. That decision was upheld on appeal.   The applicant was reinstated on 3 August 2000. By 22 February 2002 she had received a total of ROL 176,956,668 but considered that she was still owed certain sums of money, in particular as the amounts awarded had lost value because they had been paid late or in instalments.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant submitted that the failure to execute final judicial decisions in which a public institution had been ordered to pay her the wages owed to her, penalties for failure to comply and her legal costs had infringed her right of access to a court.   The Court noted that through its own actions, the State had made it impossible for the applicant to obtain payment of the amounts she had been awarded in final judicial decisions. It observed that certain payments had been spread over periods of up to 20 months and that the total sum had been paid to the applicant in   February 2002.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that Romania, through its specialist bodies, had not done everything it could to ensure the prompt execution of the judicial decisions in the applicant’s favour. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 1,100   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 37   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gurepka v. Ukraine (no. 61406/00)   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 The applicant, Nikolay Vasilyevich Gurepka, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine).   Mr Gurepka was involved in two defamation cases, one of which was brought by a Member of Parliament.   On a number of occasions Mr Gurepka was summonsed but failed to appear before the court. On 1 December 1998 he was sentenced to seven days’ administrative detention for contempt of court and arrested. This decision was final and not subject to any ordinary administrative appeal.   The next day, his employer, the Prosecutors’ Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (POARC), lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Highest Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (HCARC) and he was released after spending 16 hours in detention. According to his employer Mr   Gurepka had to be sanctioned under the Disciplinary Statute of the Prosecutor’s Office rather than under administrative proceedings. All further appeals proved unsuccessful and he served remainder of the administrative detention. He later contracted Hepatitis C which he attributed to the poor prison conditions.   In June 2000 the court found against Mr Gurepka in a second set of defamation proceedings and he was ordered to pay compensation. In February   2001, after his request to the President of the HCARC was granted, an extraordinary appeal was lodged; the District Court’s decision was quashed in part, and the amount of the fine to be paid was reduced. In December   2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal under the new cassation procedure.   Mr Gurepka complained that his detention was unlawful and had damaged his health and reputation. He alleged that judicial decisions imposed on him were arbitrary and that he was denied a fair hearing.   He complained in particular that he was denied an effective remedy against the decision ordering his administrative arrest and detention. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 14 (prohibition of discrimination), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right to have a conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal).   The Court noted that, by virtue of the severity of the sanction, the present case was criminal in nature and, as such, attracted the full guarantees of Article 6 and consequently those of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 regarding the right to appeal. The Court unanimously declared the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   It found that the extraordinary review procedure prescribed by the Code of Administrative Offences could only be initiated by a prosecutor or the president of the higher court and was not directly accessible to a party to the proceedings. It was therefore not a sufficiently effective remedy for Convention purposes.   Therefore the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Guzovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 41125/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Yuriy Lyudvigovich Guzovskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Zhytomyr (Ukraine).   In November 2001 the Korolyovsky District Court ordered the applicant’s former employer, the Zhytomyr regional branch of the Ministry of the Interior, to pay him backdated allowances and an exceptional grant. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 12 March 2002. It was not fully enforced until August 2004.   The applicant complained of the Ukrainian authorities’ failure to execute the judgment in his favour. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The Court reiterated that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt. Accordingly, by failing for almost two years to take the necessary measures to comply with the final judicial decision in the present case, the Ukrainian authorities had partly deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of their useful effect. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Furthermore, observing that the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy for making good the damage caused as a result of the delay in the proceedings, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,320   for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 30   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:   Bekir Yıldız v. Turkey (no. 49156/99) Kepeneklioğlu and Canpolat v. Turkey (no. 35363/02)     Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following two Turkish cases, the applicants were tried by a national security court    and accused of being members of, or having aided and abetted, illegal armed organisations. Mr Yildiz was sentenced to four years and seven months imprisonment and Mr   Kepeneklioğlu and Mr Canpolat , who were also convicted of, among other things, organised murder and armed burglary, were sentenced to death.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), they complained that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal, as a military judge had sat as a member of the national security court. Mr   Kepeneklioğlu and Mr   Canpolat also complained of other violations of the Convention.   The Court reiterated that civilians standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code had legitimate reason to fear that a national security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial. Accordingly, it held unanimously in both cases that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   Moreover, in the case of Kepeneklioğlu and Canpolat , it also found a violation on account of the length of criminal proceedings which lasted more than nine years and seven months and found that it was not necessary to consider the other complaints concerning the inequity of the trial.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held unanimously in both of these cases that the judgments constituted sufficient just satisfaction in themselves for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicants.   It noted in the case of Kepeneklioğlu and Canpolat that where it finds that applicants were convicted by a court which was not independent or impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress would in principle be a re-trial by an independent and impartial court. Mr Yildiz was awarded EUR 1,000 for costs 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. 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.