CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 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 } .s969675A0 { width:12.13pt; display:inline-block } .s486A7C84 { width:262.88pt; display:inline-block } .s348FC025 { width:76.81pt; display:inline-block } .s6066DECA { width:252.25pt; display:inline-block } .sE5D5FFDA { width:53.8pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s2007D3CB { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s743FC17A { width:50.24%; 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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s8AEABCCF { width:27.62%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-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 } .s2565C731 { width:22.14%; 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 } .sCE852B9E { width:50.24%; 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 } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sE76D0B9B { width:27.62%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD03E7E9F { width:22.14%; 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 } .sEF699FC3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:19pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sC38E166D { width:50.24%; 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 } .sD9BF4DDE { width:27.62%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s885AB8C6 { width:22.14%; 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 } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   133 9.3.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, Greece, Latvia and   Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Eko-Elda AVEE v. Greece (no. 10162/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant company, Eko-Elda AVEE, is a joint stock company specialising in the field of petroleum products.   In June 1988 the applicant company asked the inland revenue service to repay 123,387,306 drachmas (approximately EUR 362,105) wrongly paid in income tax. When the tax authorities refused, the applicant company brought proceedings in Athens Administrative Court to obtain that sum plus interest.   In November 1993, while the proceedings were pending, the State paid the applicant the equivalent of EUR 362,105. In its observations to the Administrative Court the applicant company limited its claim to the statutory interest for being kept out of its money. The Administrative Court dismissed that claim as inadmissible and the Court of Appeal ruled that a subsequent appeal by the company was ill-founded because at the material time the Tax Code made no provision for the payment of interest by the State in such a situation. On 8   November 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal on points of law.   The applicant company complained of the tax authorities’ refusal to pay it interest to compensate it for the delay in payment of a tax credit to which it was entitled. It relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the tax wrongly paid had been reimbursed approximately five years and five months after the date on which the applicant company requested its repayment. It considered that the authorities’ refusal to pay default interest for such a long period had upset the fair balance to be maintained between the general interest and individual interests. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant company EUR 120,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 Svipsta v. Latvia (no. 66820/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Astrīda Svipsta is a Latvian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Riga.   On 1 June 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being the instigator of the murder of a head of division at the National Privatisation Agency, who had been killed in February of that year. While in police custody the applicant admitted that she had had personal links with the victim. She was formally placed under investigation for murder and remanded in custody on 2 June 2000. In the course of the following days the applicant admitted that she had had financial links with the victim, who, she alleged, had extorted money from her in exchange for a promise to appoint her as administrator of the public undertakings whose liquidation the deceased had been in charge of as an Agency official.   Kurzeme District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention six times. She appealed against the relevant decisions, but unsuccessfully in each case. The reasons given by the Latvian courts for extending the applicant’s detention were the gravity of the offence and, in some of the relevant orders, the risk that she might re-offend or seek to evade justice.   On 18 May 2001 the last order authorising the applicant’s detention expired. However, by virtue of the fifth paragraph of Article 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant was kept in prison. On 11 October 2001 Riga Regional Court committed the applicant for trial and ordered that she remain in prison pending trial.   On 13 September 2002 the applicant was found guilty of organising the crime. She was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to ten years. On 6 February 2004 a Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law.   The applicant alleged that her pre-trial detention had been incompatible with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), that its duration had exceeded a reasonable time and that she had been denied effective judicial review of her detention. Lastly, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), she complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against her.   The Court considered that the applicant’s detention had been justified between 1 June 2000, when she was arrested, and 18 May 2001, when the order authorising her detention expired, and also between 11 October 2001, when a judge ordered that she remain in pre-trial detention, and 13 September 2002, when she was found guilty. It found that the grounds for suspecting the applicant had been at the required level of plausibility. It therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 as regards the applicant’s detention during those two periods.   As regards the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 18 May and 11 October 2001, the Court noted that during that period the applicant had been kept in prison without authorisation by any judicial decision but by virtue of Article 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which did not satisfy the requirements of “lawfulness” laid down by Article 5 § 1. In reality the automatic prolongation of pre-trial detention had been the result of a generalised practice of the Latvian authorities which had no precise legislative foundation and had clearly been intended to make up for the lack of appropriate provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such a practice was contrary to the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrary treatment, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   The applicant’s detention pending trial had lasted two years, three months and 13 days. The Court found the reasons given in the orders prolonging the applicant’s detention too brief and abstract, since they went no further than mentioning certain statutory criteria, had been drafted using a stereotypical pro forma model and repeated from one order to the next the same grounds in the same form of words. As the grounds given had been insufficient to justify the applicant’s continued detention, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   Moreover, by extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention through orders giving no satisfactory reasons, the Latvian courts had breached Article 5 § 4. The same finding applied to the fact that it had been impossible for the applicant’s lawyer to consult the investigation file, so that the equality of arms had been broken, and to the fact that the applicant had been deprived of an appropriate remedy whereby the lawfulness of her detention could be reviewed. In short, the Court held that at the various stages of the proceedings the applicant had not had a judicial remedy satisfying the requirements of Article 5 § 4. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision.   Lastly, the Court noted that the proceedings had lasted more than three years and eight months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that this period had not been excessive and had satisfied the “reasonable time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court considered that its judgment constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded her EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings.     No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Baltić v. Slovenia (no. 76512/01)   Žagar v. Slovenia (no. 75684/01)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   The Court awarded the following amounts, in euros, in each case.     Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Bauer v. Slovenia (no. 75402/01) 3,000 150 Klinar v. Slovenia (no. 66458/01) 4,800 145 Kveder v. Slovenia (no. 55062/00) no claim made Novak v. Slovenia (no. 49016/99) 1,500 1,015     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13     Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Poje v. Croatia (no. 29159/03) 9,000   Cmok v. Slovenia (no. 76430/01) 2,400 1,000 Dreu v. Slovenia (no. 76212/01) 1,200 1,000 Eucone d.o.o. v. Slovenia (no. 49019/99) 8,000   Kramer v. Slovenia (no. 75705/01) 6,400 1,000 Krašovec v. Slovenia (no. 77541/01) 3,200 1,000 Kukavica v. Slovenia (no. 76524/01) 6,400 1,000 Kumer v. Slovenia (no. 77542/01) 3,200 1,000 Meh v. Slovenia (no. 75815/01) 2,400 955 Mulej-Zupanec and Others v. Slovenia (no. 77545/01) 7,200 1,000 Podkrižnik v. Slovenia (no. 76515/01) 1,200 1,000 Vidovič v. Slovenia (no. 77512/01) 2,000 1,000 Žindar v. Slovenia (no. 76434/01) 2,000 1,000       ***   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. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.