CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 février 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1B17124B { width:42.78pt; display:inline-block } .s793A9C4A { width:243.52pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   101 23.2.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Italy, Poland and Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] .   A repetitive case (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.     Latry v. France (application no. 50609/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Guy Latry, is a French national who was born in 1960 and lives in Marseilles (France). In 1995 he lodged a complaint against his former fiancée alleging misappropriation and applying to join the proceedings as a civil party. The proceedings ended in 2002 with a discontinuation order.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings following the lodging of his complaint and application to join the proceedings as a civil party.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings complained of had lasted six years and ten months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period had been excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Hulewicz v. Poland (no 39598/98)   Two violations of Article 5 § 1 The applicant, Grzegorz Hulewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Lębork (Poland).   On 12 November 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of two separate counts of attempted extortion. Lębork District Court subsequently detained him on remand until 12 February 1997. In January 1997 the applicant was indicted on both offences. One of the cases was later transmitted to Słupsk Regional Court. On 23 April 1997 and 17 June 1997 the regional and district courts, respectively, dismissed the applicant’s requests for release.   The applicant complained that his detention had been unlawful. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that there were no judicial decisions authorising the applicant’s detention between 13 February 1997, when the detention order of Lębork District Court expired, and 23 April 1997 and 17 June 1997, when his applications for release in the two sets of proceedings were dismissed. The applicant’s detention was based solely on the fact that a bill of indictment had in the meantime been lodged with the court.   As it had previously found in cases concerning the keeping of a person in detention under a bill of indictment the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   1 for both sets of criminal proceedings and awarded the applicant 1,500   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Stere and Others v. Romania (no. 25632/02) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Mihail Stere, Romeo Stoica and Emil Marin Enache, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1960, 1956 and 1948 respectively and live in Alba Iulia (Romania).   On account of a restructuring of the army, which started in 1995, legislative measures were enacted to encourage members of the armed forces to take early retirement. Those included in particular the award of an “income replacement allowance” and a “maintenance allowance”, both tax-free and calculated in relation to gross monthly pay.   At their request, the applicants were assigned to the army reserve and given early retirement in March 2000 and May 2000, and they were granted the pension rights and allowances they had been expecting. But when the time came for the money to be paid the Ministry of Defence deducted income tax. The applicants brought an action against the Ministry of Defence arguing that the sums held back had been wrongfully deducted.   On 11 January 2001 Alba Iulia Court of First Instance allowed the application and ordered the Ministry to pay back the sums withheld in tax. That judgment became final and the applicants received the sums concerned. However, by a judgment of 30 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed an application to set aside by the Procurator-General and ordered the reimbursement of the sums in issue to the Ministry of Defence.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants complained that the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice had not been fair. In addition, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court declared the application admissible as regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and inadmissible as regards Article 6 § 1 on account of the fact that the proceedings concerned taxation. It noted that the applicants had been ordered to reimburse amounts which had been lawfully paid to them by virtue of a final decision that had become res judicata , the intervention of the Procurator-General after the end of the proceedings having led to the total annulment of their entitlement thereto. The Court considered that such serious interference with the rights of the applicants upset, to their detriment, the fair balance that must be struck between the protection of property and general interest requirements. Notwithstanding the wide powers of the State in the field of taxation, the exercise of those powers, in the circumstances of the case, had infringed the principles of legal certainty and the rule of law. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available in both French and English.)     Repetitive case   In the following case the Court reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.   Immobiliare Cerro s.a.s. v. Italy (no. 35638/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant company is a legal entity whose registered office is in Milan (Italy).   It formerly owned a piece of land measuring more than 24,000 square metres in area in Cerro Maggiore. That land was occupied by the administrative authorities with a view to its expropriation and construction work was begun on it. In the absence of formal expropriation and compensation, the applicant company brought an action seeking damages for the illegal occupation of its land.   It alleged that the occupation of its land had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the loss of any power to dispose of the land in question, together with the impossibility of securing redress, amounted to a de facto expropriation incompatible with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not yet ready for decision and therefore reserved it. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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.