CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 mars 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 } .s11A0866 { width:95.25pt; display:inline-block } .sB15BD35E { color:#b5082e } .s63BF06E0 { width:222.83pt; display:inline-block } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9285FC7D { width:73.43pt; display:inline-block } .sF5EAE91 { width:109.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sB06767C6 { width:86.79pt; display:inline-block } .s3FA6945E { width:66.8pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D082BB { width:126.8pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s370C17E4 { width:102.81pt; display:inline-block } .s792C8EB0 { width:22.8pt; 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   127 7.3.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Georgia, Poland, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following ten Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .     Bačák v. the Czech Republic (application no 3331/02) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Břetislav Bačák, is a Czech national who was born in 1951 and lives in Prague.   On 29 August 1997 the applicant was charged with a breach of obligations relating to the management of others’ assets in the banking field and later of a breach of the binding rules on commercial relations. The proceedings are at present pending in the court of first instance.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair and excessively lengthy. He also relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.   The Court declared the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   It noted that the proceedings had lasted to date nearly eight years and five months at one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Kajas v. Finland (no. 64436/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Jari Kajas, is a Finnish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Helsinki.   On 13 September 1995 the applicant was questioned by police in relation to an article he had written in a magazine distributed mainly to students and professors of Helsinki University. The article criticised the business transactions and financial affairs of the university student association. On 20 June 1996   the public prosecutor decided not to lodge charges against   the applicant. The proceedings however continued later as the county prosecutor ordered in January 1997 that the applicant be charged. On 27 June 2000 he was the Court of Appeal acquitted him of defamation charges.   The applicant complained that the proceedings against him had been unreasonably lengthy. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings began on 13 September 1995 and ended on 27 June 2000, with   a break of about seven months after the prosecutor’s decision not to lodge charges . The proceedings had therefore lasted over four years and two 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 of the Convention.     The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Berdji v. France (no. 74184/01)   Struck out The applicant, Abdelhatir Berdji, is a French national who was born in 1963 and lives in Villemonble (France).   On 4 October 1999, following a robbery in Paris, the applicant was arrested at his home and taken into police custody. He was placed under formal investigation and remanded in custody on 6 October 1999.   The applicant alleged a violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security), submitting that his detention had been unlawful and excessively lengthy and complaining that he had not been able to apply to a judicial officer for a remedy during the period between the end of his detention by the police and the time when he was taken before the investigating judge.   In November 2005 the Court’s Registry informed the applicant that it had received no reply to the most recent letters sent to his lawyer and asked him whether he intended to pursue his application. The letter expressly stated that if there was no reply the Court might infer that he did not intend to pursue his application and decide to strike the case out of its list. The Registry’s letter was returned marked “not living at this address”. Moreover, the lawyer initially instructed to represent the applicant before the Court stated that she was no longer representing him.   That being so, the Court considered that the applicant no longer wished to maintain his application. Noting that no particular reason relating to respect for human rights guaranteed by the Convention required it to continue its examination of the application, the Court decided unanimously to strike out the case. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Besseau v. France (no. 73893/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Annie Besseau, is a French national who was born in 1946 and lives in Moze sur Louet (France). On 22 January 2000 the applicant was fined for a road traffic offence (entering a junction where there was a risk that her vehicle’s further progress would be blocked, thus preventing the movement of vehicles travelling along the intersection’s other axis).   The applicant wrote two letters of complaint to police headquarters in Angers asking for the fine to be rescinded. An official at the public prosecutor’s office twice replied asking her to pay the fixed fine plus a surcharge, the whole amounting to the equivalent of EUR 381.12. On the second occasion the official noted: “the facts have been established”. Mrs Besseau paid the fine.   The applicant complained, in particular, that she did not have a fair hearing, in that the official at the public prosecutor’s office had declared her guilty when she had not been heard by a court and had not had the opportunity to present her case. She relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that in his second reply the official at the public prosecutor’s office had stated: “the facts have been established” and that he had not referred the applicant’s complaints to the police court notwithstanding the provisions of Article 530-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gave him no choice but to pass those complaints on, other than to abandon the case or declare the complaints inadmissible. But that had not been done.   In those conditions the Court considered that the applicant had suffered an excessive interference with her right of access to a court and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded her EUR 381.12 for pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   van Glabeke v. France (no. 38287/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 4 The applicant, Eliane van Glabeke, is a French national who was born in 1946 and lives in Roubaix (France).   On 21 March 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police on the public highway and taken in the course of the evening to Lommelet de Saint-André Psychiatric Hospital, where she was compulsorily admitted at the request of a third party, a police officer. She remained in hospital until 8 April 2002 without being permitted to receive visits and without being allowed to make or receive telephone calls.   In the meantime, on 23 March 2002, Mrs van Glabeke’s mother lodged an application for her daughter’s immediate release with the president of the Lille tribunal de grande instance . She was informed on 8 April 2002 that her daughter should make such an application directly to the public prosecutor’s office. On 28 March 2002 another application for immediate release had been submitted to the president of the tribunal de grande instance by a citizens’ advice association, but filed without further action by the public prosecutor’s office.   The applicant complained that her deprivation of liberty had been contrary to Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention).   The Court noted that no court had ever ruled on the two applications for immediate release lodged with the president of the tribunal de grande instance on the applicant’s behalf. That finding was sufficient to enable the Court to hold unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. It awarded Mrs van Glabeke EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Vesque v. France (no. 3774/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Christian Vesque, is a French national who was born in 1946 and lives in Saint Didier au Mont d’Or (France).   On 30 November 1998 about 50 supporters of the Confédération de Défense des Commerçants et Artisans (Confederation for the Defence of Merchants and Craftsmen) invaded a court bailiff’s practice to support one of the organisation’s members who was being pressed for recovery of a debt. The group broke two windows, smashed furniture and office equipment, scattered files all over the floor and threw confetti everywhere, among other damage. Two women employed by the practice were insulted, threatened and molested.   The applicant was prosecuted for his part in the above events and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment by Lyons Court of Appeal on 22 March 2001. The Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law on 23 October 2001.   The applicant complained that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair in that he had had not been supplied before the hearing with copies of the reporting judge’s report or the submissions of the advocate-general, and because the latter had been present at the court’s deliberations. He further submitted that he had suffered an unjustified difference in treatment in relation to an appellant represented by a lawyer with the right of audience in the higher courts. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) taken together with Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   In the first place, the Court considered that the time the applicant had been allowed for lodging his statement of the grounds of appeal had not infringed his rights under Article 6 § 1. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   As the applicant had been informed of the general tenor of the advocate-general’s submissions and had therefore been able to reply to them in writing, he had had a fair hearing in the Court of Cassation. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   Referring to its case-law, the Court reiterated that the failure to provide the applicant or his lawyer, before the hearing, with a copy of the reporting judge’s report, whereas that document had been supplied to the advocate-general, had established an imbalance incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Lastly, the French Government had indicated that, as a result of new practices introduced at the Court of Cassation, since 1 October 2001 advocates-general no longer took part in the judges’ meeting to prepare the hearing and no longer attended their deliberations. The Court noted that the public hearing of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation had taken place after the entry into force of the new practices mentioned above. It took formal note of the changes made by State Counsel’s Office at the Court of Cassation and accepted that the advocate-general had not been present at the deliberations of the Criminal Division. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Donadze v. Georgia (no. 74644/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Guivi Donadze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1923 and lives in Tbilisi.   The applicant, who is a distinguished engineer, has worked since 1962 at the Cybernetic Institute of the Georgian Academy of Sciences. On account of difficult relations with the director of his department he requested a transfer to the robotics department. His transfer was agreed in 1991 but no decision was taken to provide the applicant with an office and a laboratory, and it was only in 1998 that premises were found for him.   In October 1999 the applicant brought an action for damages against the director of the Institute. He complained that between 1991 and 1998 he had not been able to occupy an office in the institute’s new building; that after obtaining an office he had not been able to install his laboratory in it for two years; that in 1999, in flagrant breach of section 19 of the War Veterans Act, his employer had placed him on the list of staff to lose their jobs in forthcoming redundancies; and that after being placed on the redundancy list he had lost the salary supplement he had been receiving since 1997. The applicant further complained that on numerous occasions the salary supplements to which he was entitled had not been paid to him.   The trial courts dismissed the applicant’s claim. He appealed on points of law, arguing in particular that the Court of Appeal had reported him as asserting what he had in fact denied in his appeal, and that his statement of the grounds of appeal had been mislaid. On 26 July 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial.   The Court noted that none of the courts dealing with the applicant’s case had taken into account the applicant’s arguments and that their main reasons for dismissing his claim had been based on facts which he had neither complained of nor contested in his appeal, and therefore had nothing to do with the subject-matter of the dispute.   It did not appear that the Georgian courts had conducted a thorough, serious examination of the applicant’s arguments, that they had based their reasoning on the evidence he had adduced or that they had given valid reasons for dismissing his claim. Even though courts were not required to explain the reasons for dismissing each and every argument a party might raise, they were not absolved from the obligation to give due consideration to and reply to a party’s main submissions. The shortcomings noted, and the failure of the Court of Appeal to examine the applicant’s statement of the grounds of appeal, had placed the applicant at a clear disadvantage in relation to the respondent.   The Court therefore concluded that Mr Donadze had not had an effective hearing by the Georgian courts, which had not protected his right to a fair trial. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Moreover, the Court did not deny that the judges’ negligent observations and the disturbing casualness of the judges of fact could well have undermined the applicant’s confidence in the proper administration of justice. However, in view of the finding of a violation which it had just reached, it considered that it was not necessary to determine whether there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mr Donadze EUR 3,500 for damage and EUR   300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Leszczak v. Poland (no. 36576/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Andrzej Leszczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Siecie (Poland).   In April 2000, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and attempted burglary and remanded in custody. Two judgments of Słupsk Regional Court convicting him of the offences were quashed. He was subsequently acquitted and released on 27 February 2004.   During the proceedings the authorities prolonged his detention several times basing their decisions, in particular, on the likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the witnesses in view of the severity of the anticipated sentence.   The applicant complained that the length of his detention on remand had been unreasonable. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial).   The Court found that the severity of the anticipated penalty alone or in conjunction with the other grounds relied on by the authorities could not constitute a “relevant and sufficient” ground for holding the applicant in detention for over two years and ten months.   The Court was also not persuaded that the risk of his pressurising witnesses or otherwise obstructing the proceeding were valid grounds for the entire length of his pre-trial detention The Court also observed that during the entire period the applicant was kept in detention, and despite his applications for release, the authorities did not give consideration to the possibility of ensuring his presence at trial by imposing on him other “preventive measures” as provided for in Polish law.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Hocaoğulları v. Turkey (no. 77109/01)   No violation of Article 10 The applicant, Sevinç Hocaoğulları, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul. She was formerly the publisher and owner of a monthly publication entitled “Revolutionary youth in the struggle for socialism and freedom”.   In October 1999 the applicant was charged with disseminating separatist propaganda in favour of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an organisation proscribed by Turkish law, and the DHKP (the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party) on account of the publication of two articles entitled “What peace?” and “Youth means rebellion”. The first article criticised the current political regime in Turkey, describing it as “fascism”, and went on to explain the origins and development of the PKK; the second article praised the heroic courage of youth, citing examples of young people in both Turkey and Vietnam who had lost their lives in historic rebellions and wars.   By a judgment of 6 July 2000 Istanbul National Security Court fined the applicant the equivalent of EUR 5,209 and prohibited publication of the magazine for 30 days. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.   Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained that the proceedings against her had been unfair because she had not been provided with a copy of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion and argued that her conviction had infringed her right to freedom of expression.   The Court observed that it had previously held that the failure to provide a copy of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s opinion, given the nature of the observations therein and the impossibility for a defendant to reply in writing, breached Article 6 § 1. Not seeing any reason to depart from that finding in the present case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The other question the Court was required to answer was whether the interference with the applicant’s right to the freedom of expression could be regarded as proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. Although the first article could be considered to be within the limits of permissible criticism for the purposes of Article 10 § 2, the second could not. The language of the author, who was targeting young people and explaining to them that no revolution was possible without loss of life, could not be regarded as calling for peace or the peaceful settlement of political problems. On the whole, the tenor of the article could be construed as incitement to violence, armed resistance or an uprising. This article in particular was capable of stirring up violence in Turkey; it could not be regarded as compatible with the spirit of tolerance and went against the fundamental values of justice and peace expressed in the Preamble to the Convention.   The Court accordingly considered that the reasons given for the applicant’s conviction had been both relevant and sufficient to justify interference with her right to the freedom of expression. It reiterated that the mere fact that “information” or “ideas” shocked or disturbed was not sufficient to justify such interference. However, in the present case the article incited and condoned violence.   Although the applicant had not personally associated herself with the opinions expressed in the article, she had provided its author with a medium through which to stir up violence and hatred. The Court further considered that the fine imposed on the applicant, as editor of the magazine, could reasonably be considered to meet a “pressing social need”. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded her EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Yassar Hussain v. the United Kingdom (no. 8866/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Yassar Hussain, is a United Kingdom national who was born in 1981 and lives in Stoke on Trent (United Kingdom).   The applicant was arrested in May 2002 on suspicion of having intimidated witnesses and was subsequently charged with perverting the course of justice. He pleaded not guilty. The applicant was acquitted when the trial was cancelled since the witness for the prosecution failed to attend court and was not compelled to appear.   The applicant’s counsel applied for a defendant’s costs order. The judge refused to make the order, stating “There is clear evidence on the court papers. The Crown have taken the view that they are not going to compel this witness although there is compelling evidence in respect of those matters”.   The applicant complained in particular about the judge’s comments in refusing his costs order. He relied on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   The Court found that the only natural interpretation which could be given to the judge’s comments was that he was refusing the order because he thought that, although the key witness had not given evidence and the applicant had been acquitted, the applicant was, in fact, guilty of the offence. The Court found that the judge had therefore relied on suspicions as to the applicant’s innocence after he had been acquitted and that that was incompatible with the presumption of innocence.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 and awarded the applicant EUR 7,500 for costs and expenses. (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. [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.