CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDA523204 { width:236.15pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sB115214E { width:4.35pt; display:inline-block } .s232A408F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:46.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-28.5pt } .sDD1F2AA8 { width:6.35pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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   28 19.1.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria and   Cyprus   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   A repetitive case [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 11 The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 59491/00) The applicants are the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (“Ilinden”) and nine members of its management committee.   Ilinden is an association founded in 1990 and based in south ‑ west Bulgaria, in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia. Its stated aims are to “unite all Macedonians in Bulgaria on a regional and cultural basis” and to achieve “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. In 1990-91, 1998-1999 and 2002-04 it applied unsuccessfully for registration. Every year from 1990 Ilinden tried to organise commemorative meetings, which were banned by the authorities. (See the judgments in Stankov and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (2.10.2001) and The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria , (20.10.2005)).   In March 1998 the applicants lodged an application for the registration of Ilinden with the Blagoevgrad Regional Court. In November 1998 the court rejected the application as the documents submitted were, in its view, not in conformity with the technical and substantive requirements of the law. It also claimed that by proposing to defend a Macedonian minority and by harbouring separatist views, Ilinden would, if registered, be dangerous for the territorial integrity of the country, for the public order and for the rights and freedoms of others. The applicants appealed.   Sofia Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. In addition, it found membership of Ilinden was limited to Macedonians and therefore discriminatory. It also held that it was envisaging religious activities and accordingly had to register with the Council of Ministers prior to seeking court registration. Furthermore it held that the holding of “peaceful assemblies, meetings, marches and demonstrations” and the “nomination of independent candidates” in elections were political activities allowed only to political parties. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court of Cassation, which endorsed the lower court’s reasoning.   The applicants complained about the refusal of the courts to register Ilinden in 1998-99 which they alleged had been unjustified and due to the fact that its founders belonged to a minority. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association).   The Court found that the domestic courts’ refusal to register the association amounted to interference to the applicants’ right to freedom of association. The Court examined the three basic arguments relied on by those courts to assess whether such an interference had been necessary in a democratic society.   Firstly, regarding the alleged formal deficiencies in Ilinden’s registration documents, the Court did not accept that those constituted a sufficient reason to deny registration. Secondly, the Court was not persuaded that the supposed substantive divergences of Ilinden’s articles with the Constitution and laws of the country justified the interference to the applicants’ rights. Thirdly, as regards the alleged dangers stemming from Ilinden’s goals and declarations, the Court was not persuaded that the interference was necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of the majority of the population in the Pirin region. Their declarations and alleged intentions were not a sufficient ground to refuse registration.     In conclusion, the Court recalled that the applicant association had only about three thousand supporters, not all of whom were active and its public influence was negligible. Despite this fact, the authorities sought to pre-emptively deprive it from any chance to engage in practical action. The Court therefore found that the refusal to register Ilinden was disproportionate to the objectives pursued.   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 11 and held unanimously that it was not necessary to rule on the allegations of violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 14. It awarded the applicants EUR 1,900 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Repetitive case   In the following case the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention: Violation of Article 14 R.H. v. Austria (application no 7336/03)   The applicant, R.H., is an Austrian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Vienna.   In November 2001 the applicant was convicted on several counts of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to a six months’ suspended sentence. At the hearing the statements of three witnesses made at the pre-trial stage were read out. No witnesses were heard.   In April 2002 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal but granted an appeal made by the Public Prosecutor, and increased the sentence to nine months imprisonment, out of which six months were suspended on probation.   The applicant complained about the maintenance in force of Article   209 of the Criminal Code, which criminalised homosexual acts of adult men with consenting adolescents between the ages of 14 and 18, and of his convictions under that provision. He alleged that his right to respect for his private life had been violated and that the contested provision was discriminatory, as heterosexual or lesbian relations between adults and adolescents in the same age bracket were not punishable. He further complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair in that the Regional Court which convicted him had only relied on written statements of witnesses which had been read out at the trial. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the legal situation in Austria remained unchanged since 9 January 2003, when it gave its judgment in the case of L. and V. v. Austria (nos. 39392/98 and 39829/98). In that judgment the Court found a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 on the ground that the Government had not offered convincing and weighty reasons justifying the maintenance in force of Article 209 of the Criminal Code, and consequently, the applicants’ convictions. The Court found that there was nothing to distinguish the present case from the previous one and found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8.   In view of that finding the Court considered that it was unnecessary to decide on whether or not the criminal proceedings had respected the guarantees of Article 6 since it had already found that those proceedings should not have taken place. The Court therefore found unanimously that no separate issue needed to be examined under that article.   The applicant was awarded 8,851.10 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil proceedings. In the cases of Clerides and Kynigos v. Cyprus and Paroutis v. Cyprus the applicants also complained that they had had no effective remedy in respect of their complaint.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Cichowicz v. Cyprus (no. 6470/02) The Court awarded:       -   for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,000 Josephides v. Cyprus (no. 2647/02) The Court awarded: -     for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 12,000 -   for costs and expenses: EUR 500 Kyriakidis and Kyriakidou v. Cyprus (no. 2669/02) The Court awarded: -    for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,000 (each) -    for costs and expenses: EUR 1,500 (jointly). Papakokkinou v. Cyprus (no. 20429/02) The Court awarded: -    for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 13,870 -    for costs and expenses: EUR 500 Tsaggaris v. Cyprus (no. 21322/02) The Court awarded: -    for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000 -    for costs and expenses: EUR 1,500 Waldner v. Cyprus (no. 38775/02) -    for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 12,000 -    for costs and expenses: EUR 1,039     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Clerides and Kynigos v. Cyprus (no. 35128/02) The Court awarded: -     for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 17,337 (jointly) -     for costs and expenses: EUR 1,500 (jointly) Paroutis v. Cyprus (no. 20435/02) The Cour awarded: -    for non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,000 -    for costs and expenses: EUR 1,500   (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. [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.