CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 janvier 2006

.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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s24B4985E { width:80.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1A49D00F { width:134.84pt; display:inline-block } .sC6EE66FD { width:97.47pt; display:inline-block } .s2F29C844 { width:60.16pt; display:inline-block } .sD409A79A { width:162.79pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s471A04A2 { width:71.5pt; display:inline-block } .s9DB147AE { width:20.14pt; display:inline-block } .s16B5A357 { width:79.45pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; 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 } .sF1DD9920 { width:88.17pt; display:inline-block } .sCA28B373 { width:22.18pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   24 17.1.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Moldova, Sweden, Turkey and   Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.   Barbier v. France (no. 76093/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Marcel Barbier, is a French national who was born in 1924. He is currently detained in Rheims Prison (France).   On 26 January 2001 he received an eight-year prison sentence for the aggravated rape of minors under 15, committed as a member of a gang. On 5 February 2001, the day before the time-limit for appeal, he expressed his wish, on two occasions, to lodge an appeal against his conviction. He claimed to have submitted his second request in writing to a prison officer on his landing, at around 4.45 p.m., as that officer had advised.   On 5 April 2001 the Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible as being out of time, on the ground that it had been lodged on 6 February 2001, more than ten days after the conviction was pronounced.   The applicant complained that, owing to certain failures on the part of the prison service at Rheims Prison, the appeal he had lodged against his conviction had been declared inadmissible. He also complained that he had been unable to submit arguments to the Court of Cassation as no prior information or adversarial proceedings had been available to him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the applicant’s complaint should be examined in terms of his effective right of access to a tribunal under Article 6 § 1. It noted from the evidence before it that the applicant had twice expressed his wish to lodge an appeal and had submitted his request in writing to the prison officer at 4.45 p.m., that is to say before the prison registry’s closing time.   The French Government had failed to provide sufficient justification for the fact that the notice of appeal, clearly identified as such by the prison officer, had not been promptly transmitted by him to the registry, or at the very least to the duty officer of the registry that evening. Moreover, the applicant could not have been expected to make up for the failures of the prison service by pointing out the urgency of his request, as the Government argued he should have done.   As to the complaint that there had been no adversarial proceedings at the hearing in the Court of Cassation when his appeal had been declared inadmissible, it appeared that the applicant, in his capacity as appellant against a conviction handed down by an assize court, had only been able to submit observations on the choice of assize court of appeal and not on the admissibility of the appeal. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and to the matters in issue, the Court considered that the applicant should nevertheless have been allowed to submit oral argument on the admissibility of his appeal.   Under those circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant had been deprived of his right of access to a court. It accordingly held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Popov v. Moldova (No. 1) (no. 74153/01)   Just satisfaction The applicant, Serghei Popov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1925 and lives in Chişinău (Moldova).   The applicant complained that a court judgment of 5 November 1997 ordering the restitution of his parent’s home to him was not enforced. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   In a judgment of 18 January 2005, the Court observed that the judgment of 5 November 1997 was not enforced for almost seven years and held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, but that it was not necessary to rule on the complaint under Article   13. By failing to comply with the judgment in question, the national authorities prevented the applicant from having the occupants evicted and from taking possession of his house. It considered that lack of funds and of available alternative accommodation could not justify such an omission and held, by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicant was awarded EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.   The application of Article 41 in respect of pecuniary damage was not ready for decision.   In the judgment delivered today, the Court held by a majority to award the applicant EUR   14,840 for pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Danell and Others v. Sweden (no. 54695/00)   Friendly settlement The applicants are 15 Swedish nationals. Eight of them were professional fishermen. They live in the North of Sweden close to the border with Finland. The applicants, who held private fishing rights in the Torne River Fishing Area, requested the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission to grant them an exemption for the 1999 season from certain fishing restrictions. The eight professional fishermen in the group were granted authorisation to catch fish, other than trout and salmon, using stationary equipment, but the remainder of their request was rejected. No appeal was permitted against the decision.   The applicants complained that the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission could not be considered to be an independent and impartial tribunal, and that, since no appeal against its decision was possible, they had been refused access to court. They had therefore been denied the right to an effective remedy. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The case was struck out following a friendly settlement in which 750,000 Swedish kronor (approximately EUR   79,736) was to be paid to the applicants. In July 2005, the Swedish Government informed the Court that a new agreement revising the 1971 Frontier Rivers Agreement would enter into force when approved by the respective Parliaments of Sweden and Finland. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Elli Poluhas Dödsbo v. Sweden (no. 61564/00)   No violation of Article 8 The applicant, Elli Poluha, is a Swedish national who was born in 1913. She died on 21   February 2003 and her five children decided to pursue the application.   In May 1963 the applicant’s husband died and his ashes were buried in a family grave at a cemetery in Fagersta, the town where he and his wife and their family had been living. In August 1996 the applicant asked the cemetery authorities to allow the transfer of her husband’s urn to her family burial plot in Stockholm (where she was later buried). Her request was refused out of respect for the notion of “a peaceful rest” under the Funeral Act (1990:1144). Her appeals against the decision were unsuccessful.   The applicant complained about the refusal of the authorities and the County Administrative Court to permit her to move her husband’s urn. She relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The Court found that the Swedish authorities had acted within the wide margin of appreciation afforded to them in balancing the interest of the individual against society’s role in ensuring the sanctity of graves and held accordingly that there had been no violation of Article 8.   The Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 8. (The judgment is available in English and in French.)   Çalişlar v. Turkey (no. 60261/00)   Friendly settlement Oral Çalişlar is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Istanbul. He works as a journalist and writer.   In September 1993 the applicant compiled his interviews with two Kurdish leaders for a book entitled “ Öcalan ve Burkay’la Kürt Sorunu ” (“The Kurdish Problem according to Öcalan and Burkay”). The interviews had been published in the daily newspaper Cumhuriyet in June and August 1993.   Criminal proceedings for separatist propaganda were brought against the applicant and the seizure of copies of the book was ordered on 5 November 1993. On 23 May 1996 Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant to pay a fine for having published the statements of a terrorist organisation. While the criminal proceedings were still pending in the Turkish courts, a new Law (no. 4454) was enacted, providing that proceedings and the execution of sentences would be stayed in respect of offences committed through the medium of the press before 23 April 1999. On 28 February 2000 the state security court stayed the proceedings, and in addition, pursuant to Law no. 4454, decided on 5 March 2003 to lift the order for the seizure of the book.   The applicant alleged a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case has been struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive EUR 4,000. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Kuzu v. Turkey (no. 13062/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Emine Kuzu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey).   She complained that the authorities had failed to pay the redundancy compensation that her late husband had been awarded by a judicial decision which had become final on 22 November 1999 but which had still not been executed. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   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 and that there could be no justification for a substantial delay in paying compensation to an applicant. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court considered that no award should be made to her, but that Turkey was to pay its debt to the applicant promptly. (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:   Šroub v. the Czech Republic (no. 5424/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Václav Šroub, is a Czech and Canadian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Powell River (Canada).   In 1998 he brought proceedings to either claim ownership of a building that had been erected on the site of his family home or seek its demolition. The lower courts dismissed his claim and the Supreme Court declared an appeal on points of law inadmissible. A constitutional appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the Constitutional Court as being out of time, on the ground that the time allowed for lodging such an appeal had run from the date on which judgment had been delivered by the Appeal Court and not from the date of the Supreme Court judgment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant contended in particular that the dismissal of his constitutional appeal as being out of time had interfered with his right of access to a court.   The Court noted that by lodging an appeal on points of law the applicant had exercised his statutory right and should not have suffered as a result. Moreover, pursuant to the law on the Constitutional Court, the applicant had been obliged to submit such an appeal in order to exhaust all statutory remedies. In those circumstances, the Court was of the opinion that the time allowed for lodging a constitutional appeal should have run from the date of the Supreme Court judgment, or should at least have been suspended by the lodging of an appeal on points of law.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage alleged by the applicant and awarded him EUR 300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Akbaba v. Turkey (no. 52656/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Yusuf Akbaba, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and is currently detained in Bursa Prison (Turkey). On 23 June 1998 he was sentenced to the death penalty, later commuted to a life sentence, for engaging in separatist armed activities.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained in particular of the unfairness of the proceedings leading to his conviction, owing to the presence of a military judge on the bench of İzmir State Security Court.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the complaint that the state security court had lacked independence and impartiality. Reiterating that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not in any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction, the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the other complaint concerning the unfairness of the proceedings.   The Court reiterated that when it found an applicant to have been convicted by a court that was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, the most appropriate form of redress was normally to ensure a retrial by an independent and impartial tribunal in due course. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gordeyevy and Gurbik v. Ukraine (nos 27370/03 and 30049/04) Tribunskiy v. Ukraine (no. 30177/02) Volkov v. Ukraine (no. 8794/04) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 13 Konyukhov v. Ukraine (no. 1858/03) Ratnikov v. Ukraine (no. 25664/02)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Savenko v. Ukraine (no. 6237/04) Vodopyanovy v. Ukraine (no. 22214/02) Voykina v. Ukraine (no. 17686/04)   The applicants all complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the lengthy failure to enforce various judgments given in their favour. Savenko , Vodopyanovy and Voykina further rely on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and Konyukhov and Ratnikov rely 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.   In the cases of Konyukhov and Ratnikov 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.   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 Gordeyevy and Gurbik, Konyukhov and Voykina . The Court awarded the following sums in euros to the applicants.     Pecuniary &/or Non-Pecuniary Damage, &/or costs and expenses Gordeyevy and Gurbik v. Ukraine (nos 27370/03 and 30049/04) 5,160 Konyukhov v. Ukraine (no. 1858/03) 1,640 Ratnikov v. Ukraine (no. 25664/02) 1,720 Savenko v. Ukraine (no. 6237/04) 1,000 Tribunskiy v. Ukraine (no. 30177/02) 1,800 Vodopyanovy v. Ukraine (no. 22214/02) 3,250 Volkov v. Ukraine (no. 8794/04) 170 Voykina v. Ukraine (no. 17686/04) 2,751     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Hagert v. Finland (no. 14724/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The Court awarded EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage.   Monteiro da Cruz v. Portugal (no. 14886/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The Court awarded EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.   ***   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. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the European Convention on Human Rights.