CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 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 } .sD2EAAA92 { width:54.15pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3BA21AFC { width:117.47pt; 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   495 27.9.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Finland, Georgia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .     Pillmann v. the Czech Republic (application no 15333/02) Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, František Pillmann, is a Czech national who was born in 1956 and lives in Plzeň (Czech Republic).   In 1996 the applicant stood as a candidate in the Plzeň constituency in elections to the Senate. He considered that he had been defamed by remarks made by the mayor of Plzeň and sued the District Council for damages in proceedings for protection of his personality rights. His action was dismissed by the ordinary courts and his subsequent constitutional complaint declared inadmissible on the ground that he had failed to lodge an appeal on points of law.   The applicant submitted that the dismissal of his constitutional complaint for non-exhaustion of remedies had infringed his right of access to a court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that in Czech law an appeal on points of law was an extraordinary remedy that was not available as of right and whose admissibility was within the discretion of the Supreme Court. It could not be regarded as an effective remedy which the applicant was under an obligation to exercise.   The particularly strict interpretation of the relevant procedural rule by the Constitutional Court had deprived the applicant of access to a court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As he had not made a claim for just satisfaction, the Court made no award. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Petri Sallinen and Others v. Finland (no. 50882/99)   Violation of Article 8 The applicants are 18 Finnish nationals. Mr Sallinen is a member of the Finnish Bar and the other 17 applicants were his clients at the relevant time.   In January 1999 the police searched and seized certain materials from Mr Sallinen’s premises in the course of a police investigation in which they considered him to be a witness. A second search warrant was issued on the basis that he was suspected of having aided and abetted the offence of aggravated debtor’s fraud, allegedly committed by two of his clients. The two clients were subsequently charged with aggravated debtor’s dishonesty but no charges were brought against the first applicant. Mr Sallinen unsuccessfully requested the domestic courts to revoke the seizure.   The police kept back a copy of one of Mr Sallinen’s hard disks which contained, among other things, private details of three of the applicants (2, 3 and 8). They brought proceedings before the domestic courts and asked for the seizure to be revoked. The Supreme Court, as a final instance, ruled that the computer files should have been returned immediately or destroyed and the applicants were awarded compensation for their costs and expenses.   All of the applicants complained that the search and seizure of privileged material had breached their rights.   They relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for home and correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court found that Finnish law had not provided proper legal safeguards in that it was unclear about the circumstances in which privileged material could be subject to search and seizure. The applicants were therefore deprived of the protection to which they were entitled.   Consequently, the Court found that the interference in question had not been in accordance with the law and it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. In view of this finding it decided that there was no need to examine separately the additional complaints under Article 6 or Article 13.   The Court awarded Mr Sallinen EUR 2,500 for non-pecuniary damage. It awarded EUR   870 to applicant nos. 2, 3 and 8 for costs and expenses incurred before the national proceedings and EUR   6,000 jointly for costs and expenses incurred in Strasbourg. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 “Amat-G” Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia (no. 2507/03) “Iza” Ltd and Makrakhidze v. Georgia (no. 28537/02) In the first case, the applicants are “Amat-G”, a limited liability company, and Vazha Mebaghishvili, a Georgian national born in 1960 and living in Tbilisi (Georgia). He is General Director of Amat G.   In the second case, the applicants are “Iza”, a limited liability company, and Nodar Makrakhidze, a Georgian national born in 1956 and living in Tbilisi (Georgia). He is the founder and Director of the construction company Iza.   Amat-G - From 1998 to 1999 Amat-G supplied the Georgian Ministry of Defence with various types of fish products. In October 1999 the applicants brought proceedings against the Ministry for breach of contract and damages as they had not been paid in full for their services. On 6 December 1999 the Ministry was ordered to pay compensation. Enforcement proceedings were brought but the debt was never paid.   Iza - In July 1998, the director signed a building repair contract with a State school. The Ministry of Education was to transfer money into the applicant company’s account in payment. The applicants subsequently received a tax bill based on the total income from the contract but had only received part payment from the Ministry. The applicant company complained that it had difficulty carrying on their business activities while this debt remained unpaid.   The company successfully sued the Ministry of Education in May 2001 but orders to pay the debt were never enforced. When the company requested the initiation of criminal proceedings, the Prosecutor ruled that nobody could be held criminally liable since the delays were due to lack of finances in the State budget.   The applicant companies complained that the State authorities failed to execute judgments in their favour and that they had had no effective remedy. The also submitted that the non-payment of the judgment debt had deprived them of their property. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and in the case of Amat-G , Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights).   The Court considered that only the applicant companies were directly affected by the events at issue and therefore that only their complaints were admissible. It rejected Amat-G’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 in respect of the judicial proceedings of 2002 and its complaints under Article 17.   The Court noted that there was a persistent problem of non-enforcement of final judgments delivered against State institutions which was recognised by the authorities. The Court found that the Georgian authorities, by failing for five years and eight months in the case of Amat-G and for over four years in the case of Iza , to execute judgments, had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of all useful effect.   The Court noted that the remedy open to the applicants of taking out criminal proceedings against the Enforcement Agent was of little value since the enforcement of judgments was dependent on budgetary considerations rather than the agent’s conduct. It therefore concluded that the applicant company did not have an effective remedy.   Furthermore, the Court found the fact that the applicant companies were unable to have final judgments in their favour enforced constituted an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court held therefore that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, Article 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   It awarded: Amat-G - EUR   200,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   2000 for costs and expenses; Iza - EUR   10,000 for pecuniary damage, EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,050 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 10 Aslı Güneş v. Turkey (no. 53916/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Aslı Günes is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Istanbul.   At the material time she was the editor of the political journal Hedef (“The Target”). In that capacity, she coauthored an article in 1992 entitled Yeni Dersimler ve Halepçeler istemiyoruz, Bahar saldirisina hayir (“We don’t want another Dersim or Halepçe, No to any springtime offensive”) which was published in March 1992 in the bimonthly periodical Emeğin Bayrağı (“The Flag of Work”). In substance, the article expressed the view that for so long as the Kurdish people did not liberate themselves, the Turkish people would not be able to liberate themselves either. The applicant sought to draw people’s attention to the fact that military operations could affect “trade union and social rights and freedoms” and she launched this appeal: “As representatives of the future, let us refuse to fight with the Turkish troops who are going to fill the Kurds’ future with gloom”.   The applicant was prosecuted for disseminating separatist propaganda. On 8 December 1995 Istanbul State Security Court found her guilty as charged and sentenced her to one year and four months’ imprisonment. After legislation (Law no. 4454) was introduced providing for proceedings and sentences in respect of press and publishing related offences to be deferred, the state security court deferred execution of the sentence for a period of three years. Since the applicant did not commit any further offences during that period, it declared the sentence void in 2003.   The applicant alleged that her criminal conviction had infringed her right to freedom of expression and complained of the excessive length of the proceedings. She relied on Articles   10 (freedom of expression) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court found that the reasons given by the domestic courts could not in themselves be considered sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. Although the article for which the applicant had been prosecuted contained references to the “struggle” and the “fight for the national liberation of Kurdistan”, it did not encourage the use of violence, armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech, which, in the Court’s view, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. In addition, the effect of deferring execution of sentence had been to censor part of Ms Güneş’s activities as a journalist during the relevant period and to severely restrict her ability to voice criticism in public, when such criticism had a role to play in public debate. In those circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   As regards the length of the proceedings, the Court noted that they had lasted for approximately six years and seven months. In the light of the circumstances of the case, it found that that period was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded Ms Güneş EUR 6,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500   for costs and expenses, less EUR 701   she had already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (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)   Beverley Jacobs (telephone : +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21) 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.