CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 13 décembre 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 } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s1BAD2699 { width:92.84pt; display:inline-block } .s58F960FF { width:56.14pt; display:inline-block } .s6C4D078C { width:138.85pt; display:inline-block } .s79893CFE { width:99.49pt; display:inline-block } .s234F6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#c0c0c0 } .sB981B81D { width:120.82pt; display:inline-block } .sB5E1FE81 { width:84.15pt; display:inline-block } .s5A02D00D { width:35.46pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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   688 13.12.2005   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 22 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment 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.     Violation of Article 10 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H. v. Austria (No. 3) (application nos 66298/01 and 15653/02) The applicant, Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften-Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H, is the owner and publisher of the weekly magazine “ Profil ”.   In its issue of 15 June 1998 the applicant company published an article about Mr R., at that time a member of Parliament, and his companion, Ms G. The article was entitled “Diary of an escape” and the subtitle “Report. Several myths are entwined around P. R.’s trip to Brazil. The reconstruction of a banal reality” and described the couple’s flight from Austria where Mr R. was suspected of having committed aggravated fraud and fraudulent conversion. After Mr R.’s arrest, Ms G. had given interviews on those events. The article referred numerous times to the couple as “Bonnie and Clyde” and was accompanied by a photo, which appeared on another page, showing Ms G. standing beside Mr R.   Ms G. brought proceedings against the applicant company claiming that the comparison with the famous criminals could have given the impression that she was also involved in Mr R.’s offences. In February 2000 Wiener Neustadt Regional Court sentenced the applicant company to pay EUR 1,453.46 in compensation for defamation and to pay Ms G.’s costs.   It also ordered the company to publish an extract of its judgment in its magazine.   A year later, the same court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the applicant company from publishing Ms G.’s picture while comparing her and Mr R. with “Bonnie and Clyde” or while connecting her with criminal activity. The applicant company appealed unsuccessfully and was ordered to pay Ms G.’s costs in the appeal proceedings.   The applicant company alleged that its conviction under the Media Act and the injunction issued against it under the Copyright Act were in violation with its right to freedom of expression. They relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression).   As to the conviction of the applicant company under the Media Act, the Court did not find that the article misled the reader as to Ms G.’s implication in the offences of Mr R. It considered that, given the article’s content and ironical style, the average reader would have understood “Bonnie and Clyde” as a synonym for a couple on the run, and accordingly found that the applicant company had not transgressed the bounds of acceptable journalism. The Court was strengthened in its view by the fact that Ms G., by fleeing with Mr R. and subsequently giving interviews on the subject, had entered into the public arena and, therefore, had to display a higher degree of tolerance. Furthermore the article expressly stated that no suspicion existed against her.   As regards the injunction issued against the applicant company under the Copyright Act, the Court noted that the photo at issue did not disclose any details of Ms G.’s private life and she had not objected to having it taken. Furthermore, no references to Bonnie and Clyde accompanied Ms G.’s photo, since the impugned article appeared on another page. The Court therefore found that it could not be held that the reader would conclude from the article that Ms G. was complicit in Mr R.’s crimes.     In conclusion, the Court found that the Austrian courts had overstepped their margin of appreciation, when they convicted the applicant company under the Media Act and issued an injunction under the Copyright Act, as those measures were not necessary in a democratic society.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Thon v. the Czech Republic (no. 14044/04)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Tomáš Thon, is a Czech national who was born in 1962 and lives in Opava (Czech Republic).   In September 1998 his wife left him, taking their three-year-old daughter with her. On 6   October 1998 she brought proceedings concerning custody of the child. Since 5 July 1999 the child has been living with the applicant against the mother’s wishes. The proceedings concerning parental authority over the child are currently pending in the Czech courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant complained, among other matters, of the length of the proceedings concerning parental authority over his daughter. He further relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court declared the application admissible as regards the length of the proceedings, the repercussions of the delay on the applicant’s family life and the lack of a remedy whereby he could have complained about the time taken, and inadmissible as regards the remainder of the complaints. It noted that the proceedings concerned had lasted to date more than seven years at one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Having regard to that finding, it considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 8.   The Court also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the fact that in Czech law there was no remedy whereby the applicant could have complained of the length of the proceedings.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Zemanová v. the Czech Republic (no. 6019/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Věra Zemanová, is a Czech national who was born in 1954 and lives in Řepice (Czech Republic).   In 2000 she brought proceedings to obtain maintenance payments from her husband. The trial courts dismissed her claim on the ground that she had certainly suffered a deterioration of her situation but not “serious prejudice” within the meaning of the Family Act. On 12 December 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant on the ground that it was out of time.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained, among other matters, that she had been deprived of her right of access to a court owing to the fact that her constitutional appeal had been dismissed as being out of time.   The Czech Government acknowledged that the Constitutional Court had mistakenly believed that the applicant had been served with the judgment marking the point at which the time allowed for a constitutional appeal began to run on a date when the judgment concerned had not even been delivered.   The Court noted that the Constitutional Court had dismissed the applicant’s appeal as being out of time, whereas it had been lodged within the time allowed by law. That being so, the Court considered that the Constitutional Court’s erroneous application of a procedural requirement had prevented the merits of the applicant’s case being heard, in breach of the right to effective judicial protection. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the damage suffered by the applicant and awarded her EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ruoho v. Finland (no. 66899/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Pertti Ruoho, is a Finnish national who was born in 1952.   The applicant had acted as a financial consultant in connection with transactions between two companies. On 30 March 1993 he was interrogated on suspicion of aiding and abetting debtor’s dishonesty and was subsequently charged.   The case was heard on 26 occasions before the District Court. In June 2000 he was sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment and ordered to pay damages. On 28 June 2002 the Supreme Court refused him leave to appeal.   He alleged that the criminal proceedings against him had been excessively lengthy. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted over nine years and three months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   T. and Others v. Finland (no. 27744/95)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants are four Finnish nationals. T. and A. are the father and mother of J. and S. and were born in 1949. J. was born in 1975 and S. was born in 1985. The applicants live in Helsinki.   In June 1994 the applicants initiated proceedings against the City of Helsinki and eight of its officials who had taken part in implementing public care examinations and treatment in respect of their child, S. The applicants accused the officials as well as S.’s therapist, among others, of having abused their public office in subjecting S. to inappropriate investigations methods and in drawing false conclusions. S. had been taken into care after it was alleged that had been abused by T., who was later acquitted of incest. The proceedings before the District Court were adjourned many times pending the results of the Medico-Legal Authority’s opinion. The proceedings ended on 22   November 2002 when the Supreme Court refused the applicants leave to appeal.   The applicants complained that the length of the private prosecution proceedings for damages exceeded a reasonable time. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted approximately eight years and five months. In particular it observed that it took the Medico-Legal Authority almost three years to obtain different opinions it required to formulate its report. This fact explained a significant part of the delay in the district court proceedings.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 1,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kozlowski v. Poland (no. 31575/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Piotr Kozłowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Słupno (Poland).   On 12 February 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed five counts of armed robbery in an organised armed group. He was officially charged with the offences on 15 March 2002 before Płock Regional Court. The authorities, citing the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, prolonged his detention several times. His numerous requests for release were rejected. The applicant is still in pre-trial detention.   He complained that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).   The Court found that the grounds relied on by the authorities became less and less relevant with the passage of time. In particular it noted that, in response to his applications for release, the authorities never envisaged any other alternative measure of ensuring his appearance at the trial and that their decisions did not show that the applicant was at risk of absconding or obstructing the proceedings. The Court pointed out that the degree of risk of a detainee absconding could not be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the offence and anticipated sentence. The Court therefore found that the grounds given by the domestic courts were not sufficient and relevant enough to justify holding the applicant in pre-trial detention for over four years and ten months.   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Cruz da Silva Coelho v. Portugal (no. 9388/02)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Alzira Maria da Cruz da Silva Coelho, is a Portuguese national who was born in 1958 and lives in Caneças (Portugal).   On 2 August 1992 her 19-year-old son Paulo drowned at a beach on the banks of the Tagus, at Salvaterra de Magos. The applicant’s son, who could not swim, was walking in the river parallel to the bank at a place where the water did not come above his knees, when he fell into a hole in the river bed from which sand had been extracted. Another young man died at the same time while trying to save him.   The applicant brought compensation proceedings, but the Supreme Court held that the State was not liable. However, when sitting, in a different composition, to hear a case brought by the parents of the young man who drowned in the same circumstances and at the same time as the applicant’s son, the Supreme Court ruled that the State was indeed liable   Relying on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant submitted that her son had died because the State had taken no steps to prevent illegal sand extraction. She further alleged violations of Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The case was struck out of the Court’s list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicant is to receive EUR 75,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Gartukayev v. Russia (no. 71933/01)   Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 The applicant, Vakha Gartukayev, is a Russian national. He is an ethnic Chechen who was born in 1941. Since 1996 the applicant has been living in Nalchik in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic of the Russian Federation.   In January 2000, on returning to Nalchik, he was refused entry to Kabardino-Balkaria at the check-point “Kurp-2”. The applicant took out proceedings alleging that his constitutional right to liberty of movement had been violated. The Nalchik Town Court found that since the applicant had failed to prove that he had shown his migrant’s card, the police officers could not be found to have acted unlawfully. The applicant appealed submitting, in particular, that the regulation requiring the special registration of Chechens on the basis of migrants’ cards had not been valid and enforceable because it had never been officially published.   The applicant alleged that a restriction on his right to liberty of movement had not been lawful or justified. He relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   The Court noted that the Government accepted that the requirement for former Chechen residents to produce a migrant’s card at the administrative border with Karbardino-Balkaria had been introduced by a regulation which had not had the quality of law in the domestic legal system.   The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in that the restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement was not imposed in accordance with the law. It awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     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 6 § 1 Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 Article 13 Anatskiy v. Ukraine (no. 10558/03) Antonovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 22597/02) Garkusha v. Ukraine (no. 4629/03) Khanenko v. Ukraine (no. 10174/02) Kosareva v. Ukraine (no. 17304/03) Kotlyarov v. Ukraine (no. 43593/02) Miroshnichenko and Grabovskaya v. Ukraine (nos. 32551/03 and 33687/03) Piskunov v. Ukraine (no. 5497/02) Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev v. Ukraine (nos. 1805/03 and 6717/03) Semenov v. Ukraine (no. 25463/03) Solovyeva v. Ukraine (no. 32547/03) Ushachov v. Ukraine (no. 44221/04) Verkeyenko v. Ukraine (no. 22766/02) Zolotukhin v. Ukraine (no. 11421/03) The applicants all complained about the lengthy failure to enforce various judgments awarding them compensation, due to lack of State funds, in breach of Article   6 §   1 (access to court). With the exception of Antonovskiy , Khanenko , Kotlyarov , Miroshnichenko and Grabovskaya , Piskunov and Verkeyenko , the applicants also relied on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), and Antonovskiy , Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev , Solovyeva and Zolotukhin relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   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. The Court noted that the judgments in question were not enforced for years, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 in all the cases and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in all of the cases with the exception of Antonovskiy , Khanenko , Kotlyarov , Miroshnichenko and Grabovskaya , Piskunov and Verkeyenko .   In the cases of Antonovskiy , Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev , Solovyeva and Zolotukhin the Court also found that there was no effective remedy available to redress the damage created by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in question which was caused by the authorities’ failure to take the necessary legislative or budgetary measures. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.     The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of the article or articles cited in each case. The Court also held that the judgment debts should be paid to the applicants in the case of Anatskiy , Garkusha , Miroshnichenko and Grabovskaya , Semenov , Ushachov and Zolotukhin . The Court awarded the following sums in euros to the applicants.     Pecuniary &/or Non-Pecuniary Damage, &/or costs and expenses Anatskiy v. Ukraine (no. 10558/03) 1,480 Antonovskiy v. Ukraine (no. 22597/02) 2,040 Garkusha v. Ukraine (no. 4629/03) 1,840 Khanenko v. Ukraine (no. 10174/02 ) 1,560 Kosareva v. Ukraine (no. 17304/03 ) 2,600 Kotlyarov v. Ukraine (no. 43593/02 ) 1,500 Miroshnichenko and Grabovskaya v. Ukraine (nos. 32551/03 and 33687/03) 2,720 Piskunov v. Ukraine (no. 5497/02) 1,600 Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev v. Ukraine (nos. 1805/03 and 6717/03) 3,840 Semenov v. Ukraine (no. 25463/03) 1,400 Solovyeva v. Ukraine (no. 32547/03 ) 1,000 Ushachov v. Ukraine (no. 44221/04) 1,720 Verkeyenko v. Ukraine (no. 22766/02) 2,026 Zolotukhin v. Ukraine (no. 11421/03) 2,400   (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)   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.