CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 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 } .s9A89E81B { width:6.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s11D35F46 { width:157.48pt; display:inline-block } .sBBC7D9E6 { width:108.15pt; display:inline-block } .s2214154D { width:107.48pt; display:inline-block } .s42CA052D { width:152.16pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s7E795CD9 { width:43.48pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   499 29.9.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Greece, Italy, Romania and Russia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight 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.     Ioannidou-Mouzaka v. Greece (application no. 75898/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Lydia Ioannidou-Mouzaka, is a 58-year-old Greek national who lives in Athens.   In 1986 she brought proceedings against her employer, the Social Security Fund ( IKA ), seeking to have her transfer to an ordinary gynaecologist’s post revoked, arguing that she had formerly been director of the Senology Centre.   On 22 June 1987 Athens Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the decision to transfer her on the ground that it entailed a complete change of post that had been imposed without a reasoned panel decision. The Legal Council of State upheld that judgment on 14 April 1994. It did not grant a stay of execution.   In February 1995 the applicant received notice terminating her contract of employment. The notice was set aside by the Greek courts and on 3 February 1999 she was given a temporary gynaecologist’s post at the Athens Breast Surgery Clinic, which had replaced the now defunct Senology Centre. In October 2001 the applicant was appointed director of the Mother and Child Protection Centre and June 2003 Head of the Gynaecology and Oncology Unit at the Georgios Gennimatas   Oncology Hospital in Athens.   The applicant complained of the IKA ’s refusal to comply with the judgments setting aside her transfer to a post with less responsibility. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court noted that the order setting aside the applicant’s transfer had imposed a duty on the authorities to reinstate the applicant in her former post before any new decision was taken on her transfer under the relevant statutory rules.   The Court did not need to examine whether the applicant’s appointments of October 2001 and June 2003 constituted effective reinstatement. Even assuming they did, between 22   June 1987, the date of the Administrative Court of Appeal’s judgment, and October 2001, when the applicant was put in charge of the Mother and Child Protection Centre, the authorities had failed to comply with the judgments of the Greek courts. Such conduct over an abnormally lengthy period had rendered Article 6 § 1 ineffective. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention on that account and awarded the applicant 30,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Kurti v. Greece (no. 2507/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Astrit Kurti, is an Albanian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Thessaloniki (Greece).   In April 2000 the applicant was stopped by the police on his motorbike and he and his passenger were searched. His passenger was found in possession of heroin and they were both arrested and placed in detention on remand. The passenger testified against the applicant claiming that he had given him drugs. The applicant repeatedly proclaimed his innocence but his appeals for release were rejected.   Later, the passenger told the criminal court that he had never met the applicant before and the applicant was acquitted. The court held however that the applicant’s detention was due to his own gross negligence and that the State was not liable for compensation.   The applicant complained that he had been unlawfully detained for 15 months and was refused compensation without being giving any reason. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court found that the domestic court’s decision to rule out the State’s liability for the applicant’s detention on account of his own “gross negligence” lacked sufficient reasoning, particularly since their finding was decisive for the applicant’s right to compensation. It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Strungariu v. Romania (no. 23878/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Dan Strungariu, is a 48-year-old Romanian national   who lives in Timişoara (Romania).   An engineer by profession, specialising in privatisation, the applicant was dismissed from his post at the Agency for Privatisations and Administration of State Shareholdings in April 2001. He challenged that decision in the Romanian courts. In a judgment of 31 October 2001, Timiş County Court quashed that decision and ordered his reinstatement and payment of his arrears of salary. That judgment was upheld by a final judgment of Timişoara Court of Appeal.   In January 2003 the applicant was reinstated in a post similar to the one he had held before his dismissal. The Agency also paid the final instalment of salary arrears, having made an initial payment in May 2002.   The applicant complained that the failure of a public body to comply with final judicial decisions ordering his reinstatement had infringed his right of access to a court. He also complained of the length of time the proceedings had taken. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing with a reasonable time), Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court declared the complaint under Article 6 § 1 admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it found that the applicant’s reinstatement satisfied the requirements of the judgment of 31 October 2001 and that the financial award had been complied with in May 2002 and January 2003.   The Court noted that the salary arrears had been paid to the applicant within a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. However, the obligation to reinstate him was not complied with until 15 months after the date of the judgment and 14 months after he requested its execution. By refusing to comply with the judgment for such a lengthy period, the Romanian authorities had deprived the applicant of effective access to a court. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the obligation to reinstate the applicant in his post and awarded him EUR 400   for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Tudorache v. Romania (no. 78048/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Gheorghe Tudorache, is a 49-year-old Romanian national who lives in Ploiesti (Romania).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), he complained of the length of criminal proceedings that had been brought against him for accepting bribes and for misappropriation. The proceedings ended in March 2005, when he was found to have no case to answer.   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted almost seven years, the time it had taken to carry out the investigation at first instance. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it found that that period was excessive and did not comply with the “reasonable-time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR   2,800   for non-pecuniary damage. (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:   Leo Zappia v. Italy (no. 77744/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Leo Zappia, is a 48-year-old Italian national who is currently in Cuneo Prison (Italy).   He was arrested on 21 March 2000 in connection with an investigation into a Mafia-type organisation and offences against the drug-trafficking legislation. By an order of 1 March 2001, the Minister of Justice put the applicant under the special detention regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of that order, the Governor of Reggio Calabria Prison obtained leave from the investigating judge to monitor the applicant’s correspondence.   The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for family life and correspondence) of the monitoring of his correspondence.   The Court noted that it had previously held that section 18 of the Prison Administration Act permitting the monitoring of correspondence could not be regarded as “law” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of the provision. Since the applicant had not made a claim for just satisfaction, the Court made no award under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Mihai-Iulian Popescu v. Romania (no. 2911/02) Tacea v. Romania (no. 746/02)   Mihai-Iulian Popescu Mihai-Iulian Popescu is a 75-year-old Romanian national who lives in Predeal (Romania). In   final judgments of 25 March and 20 April 1992 Craiova Court of First Instance ordered the title to two 10-hectare parcels of land to be transferred to the applicant. The applicant made various attempts to enforce the orders.   On 28 July 1999 he was assigned title to other land on the ground that the parcels stipulated in the order were occupied by third parties. Following an appeal by the applicant, the transfer was set aside in a judgment of 25 January 2001 which subsequently became final. The applicant took further proceedings for possession of the parcels stipulated in the original order, but these were dismissed.   Tacea Ion Tacea is a 78-year-old Romanian national who lives in Nehoiu (Romania). In April 1991 and August 1996 the applicant was assigned title to 5,000 square metres of land in a locality known as “La Bătătură”   at Nehoiu. In a final judgment of 16 April 1999 the Patîrlagele Court of First Instance made a possession order in favour of the applicant requiring the Ploieşti Forestry Commission, which had occupied the land, to surrender possession to the applicant in accordance with the title he had acquired from the local commission.   The applicant took possession of the land on 29 November 2003.   In both of the above cases the applicants alleged that the failure by the authorities to comply with final judgments giving them possession of land had violated their right of access to a court and their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   In the circumstances, the Court considered that the Romanian authorities’ refusal to comply with final court decisions requiring them to give the applicants possession of their land had deprived them of effective access to a court. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court further considered that there had been interference with the applicants’ right of property as a result of the failure, for which the Romanian Government had not provided a valid explanation, to comply with the final judgments. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in both cases.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded Mr Mihai-Iulian Popescu EUR   15,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 45   for costs and expenses and Mr Tacea EUR 1,500   for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Reynbakh v. Russia (no. 23405/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Sergbey Sergeyevich Reynbakh, is a Russian national who was born in 1946 and lives in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic of the Russian Federation.   The applicant brought proceedings against the Russian Government for the non-payment of a State-issued promissory note. On 6 June 2000 he obtained a judgment in his favour against the federal treasury. He promptly served the writ of execution on the court bailiffs but they did not act on it. The judgment has not been enforced to date.   The applicant complained that the continued non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2000, among others, violated Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights found, as it had done in previous cases raising similar issues, that by failing for more than five years to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant’s favour the domestic authorities had prevented him from receiving the money he could reasonably have expected to receive.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2000 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and declared the rest of the application inadmissible. The applicant was awarded RUR   105,531 roubles (approximately EUR 3,000) for pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is 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)   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.