CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 novembre 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 } .sEE7E1B21 { width:36.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBA3F45E1 { width:120.16pt; display:inline-block } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s59E9B071 { width:139.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s6E21B2E0 { width:40.82pt; 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   617 15.11.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Finland, Italy, Moldova and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, none of which is 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.     Reinprecht v. Austria (application no 67175/01)   No violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Karl Reinprecht, is an Austrian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Graz (Austria).   On 6 May 2000 Graz Regional Criminal Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on suspicion of attempted sexual coercion. The court considered that, given the applicant’s criminal record, there was a risk that he might commit another similar offence.   On 19 May 2000 the Graz Regional Court, after a hearing held in the presence of the public prosecutor, the applicant and his defence counsel, ordered that the applicant’s pre-trial detention should continue. The court dismissed the applicant’s appeals in two further hearings, only one of which was held in the presence of the parties. Graz Court of Appeal, sitting in private, dismissed his appeals against the regional court’s decisions, and the Supreme Court dismissed his fundamental-rights complaint, also, at a hearing in camera .   In October 2000 the Regional Court convicted him of attempted sexual coercion and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained that the hearings regarding the prolongation of his pre-trial detention were not public. He relied on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) and on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights found that Article 5 § 4, though requiring a hearing for the review of the lawfulness of pre-trial detention, did not as a general rule require such a hearing to be public. It did not exclude the possibility that a public hearing might be required in particular circumstances. However, no such circumstances were shown to exist in the applicant’s case. No other defects in the review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre-trial detention were established.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 4 and that no separate issue arose under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Lammi v. Finland (no. 53835/00)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Markus Lammi, is a Finnish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Vantaa (Finland). He was the sole shareholder in a   company, which was in the process of being wound up.   In 1987 the applicant refused to comply with a request made by the official receiver of the company to hand over his shares   in a housing company. The   District Court   of Vantaa subsequently ordered him to hand the shares over to the official receiver. The judgment was upheld in June 1989 by the Supreme Court. The applicant lodged a series of unsuccessful appeal proceedings. On 13 October 1989 he refused to inform the bailiff of the whereabouts of the shares. In   December 1989 and February 1990 the police   searched his apartment without finding anything. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a number   of annulment proceedings and requested several postponements. In March 1998 the Supreme Court   finally convicted the applicant of aggravated embezzlement and   sentenced him to a suspended term of imprisonment .     The applicant alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive in length in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court observed that the length of   the criminal proceedings, lasting   more than seven years and ten months, were indeed long. However, it noted that the ownership issue had been finally   settled in June 1989 and that the applicant, instead of complying with the court order to hand over the shares, impeded the criminal investigation and the bringing of charges.   He did not reside at his official address and thus made it more difficult for the authorities and the courts to contact him. In addition, he requested several postponements, lodged numerous applications for annulments and presented unfounded partiality complaints. It would appear that he did much to prolong the criminal proceedings.   The Court found that the applicant was responsible for prolonging the proceedings and held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Bzdyra v. Poland (no. 49035/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Miroslaw Bzdyra, is a Polish national aged 68, who lives in Warsaw. He was arrested in July 1989 on suspicion of selling stolen antiques. Proceedings were brought against him and he was acquitted in July 1998.   He complained in particular that the criminal proceedings against him were excessively long, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court observed that the proceedings in question had lasted some eight years and three months. However, it could only take into account the period subsequent to Poland’s recognition of the right of individual petition on 1 May 1993, that is to say a period of five years and two months.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a length of time 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.   The Court did not make any award by way of just satisfaction, as no claim had been submitted. (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:     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Dominici v. Italy (no. 64111/00) Gravina v. Italy (no. 60124/00) La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 3) (no. 58386/00) Lanteri v. Italy (no. 56578/00) In these four cases, the authorities took possession of land belonging to the applicants with a view to expropriating it and began to carry out building work on that land. Since no expropriation order was issued and no compensation paid to the applicants, they brought proceedings seeking damages for the unlawful occupancy of their land.   The applicants submitted that the occupancy of their land had breached their right to respect for their property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the loss of all ability to dispose of the land, combined with the impossibility of remedying the situation, amounted to de facto expropriation, in breach of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It accordingly held, unanimously in each of the four cases, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court found that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgments are available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Baibarac v. Moldova (no. 31530/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Victor Baibarac, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1931 and lives in Edineţ (Moldova).   On 27 September 2002 Edineţ District Court found in favour of the applicant, who had brought proceedings against the Local Treasury Department for refusal to pay him compensation for his property, which had been nationalised under the former Soviet authorities. The judgment was enforced on 20 February 2004 after the case had been communicated by the Court to the Moldovan Government.   The applicant complained that his right to have his civil rights determined by a court had been violated by the authorities’ failure to enforce the judgment of 27   September 2002 until 20   February   2004. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Concerning Article 6 § 1, the Court observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. Noting that the judgment in question was not enforced (for 17 months), a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 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. 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.