CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 13 avril 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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s3A03022D { width:114.81pt; display:inline-block } .s2327E2EB { width:86.14pt; display:inline-block } .s1D5DAF6E { width:83.47pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s8C1B0898 { width:140.15pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s146D2459 { width:312.91pt; display:inline-block } .s3EFFE98F { width:59.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s1EAB91D2 { width:86.84pt; display:inline-block } .s2240724A { width:16.16pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s2E9F4572 { width:22.62pt; 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   219 13.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Azerbaijan, Croatia, France, Greece, Russia, Slovenia and “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 34 Chamber judgments, including the first case concerning Azerbaijan, none of which is 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.     Kunqurova v. Azerbaijan (application no. 5117/03)   Struck out The applicant, Farida Kunqurova, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1974 and lives in Baku (Azerbaijan).   In April 2002 she was sentenced to ten day’s administrative detention by the Sabail District Court after resisting police officers who attempted to take her in for questioning regarding a criminal complaint made by her neighbour. She appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complained that her ten-day administrative detention for contempt of the police was unlawful. She relied on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   In September and November 2005 the European Court of Human Rights received correspondence from the applicant and her representative indicating that she wished to withdraw her application. In the circumstances, the Court, finding no reasons to continue to examine the case further, decided unanimously to strike the case out of its list of cases. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Vaturi v. France (no. 75699/01)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) The applicant, Clément Vaturi, is an Italian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Paris.   At the material time the applicant was chairman and chief executive of a company established with the aim of building a hotel complex on Place Iéna in Paris, whose share capital was divided between the companies Sodepe and Crédit Lyonnais and the Pinault group. After the project had been abandoned it emerged that three invoices, totalling 39,375,200 French francs (FRF), had been issued by companies belonging to Mr Vaturi.   Following a complaint by the Sodepe auditor, a preliminary investigation was opened into allegations of forgery of private documents, uttering and misappropriation of assets. On 25   September 1997 the Criminal Court found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment.   The applicant appealed against the judgment and requested leave in particular to have the witnesses against him and on his behalf examined. The Court of Appeal rejected the request and, in a judgment of 19   March 1999, upheld the applicant’s prison sentence and ordered him to pay FRF 45,000,000 in damages, equivalent to 6,860,205 euros (EUR). The applicant appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings leading to his conviction had been unfair because he had been given no opportunity to examine witnesses or have them examined.   The Court noted that the applicant had been unable, at any stage in the proceedings, to examine or have examined witnesses of any kind. It considered it unnecessary to speculate as to whether the examination of the witnesses might have proved central to the case since, in any event, it would have contributed to the equal balance that needed to be struck throughout proceedings between the prosecution and the defence.   In the present case, the applicant had not been given an adequate and proper opportunity to effectively assert his defence rights. In view of the particular importance of safeguarding the rights of the defence in criminal proceedings, the Court considered that the applicant had not been granted a fair trial. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Zentar v. France (no. 17902/02)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) The applicant, Mustapha Zentar, is an Algerian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Nice (France).   In 1996 he was deported to Algeria having been found to be residing illegally in France. On 23   November 1999 the Nice Criminal Court sentenced him in absentia to four years’ imprisonment for his involvement in the trading of stolen vehicles.   In August 2000 the applicant, against whom an arrest warrant had been issued, was arrested by the police. He lodged an objection against the judgment of the Criminal Court and requested a confrontation with two persons who had implicated him during the investigation. The court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against that judgment and once more requested a confrontation with the two witnesses who had given evidence against him. The Aix Court of Appeal dismissed the request and upheld the judgment which had been delivered on 7 February 2001. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully on points of law.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings leading to his conviction had been unfair as he had been given no opportunity to examine or have examined witnesses against him.   The Court observed that at no stage in the proceedings had the applicant been able to examine or have examined the witnesses against him. It noted that, as conceded by the French Government, the applicant’s conviction had been based “in large measure” on the statements made by the witnesses in question. Even had the finding of guilt against the applicant not been based to a decisive extent on those statements, it was an inescapable fact, acknowledged by the Government, that the French authorities had taken no steps to track down the two witnesses concerned.   The applicant had therefore not been given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the witness statements on which his conviction had been based. In view of the particular importance of safeguarding the rights of the defence in criminal proceedings, the Court considered that the applicant had not been given a fair trial. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,653.35 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Fedotova v. Russia (no. 73225/01)   Violation of Article 34 The applicant, Yelena Yuryevna Fedotova, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Taganrog (Russia).   On 16 October 2000 the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region, composed of Ms C. (presiding judge), Ms S. and Ms L. (lay judges), dismissed the applicant’s claims in a civil suit to which she was a party and ordered her to bear costs and expenses.   The applicant appealed alleging, among other things, a breach of the rules on the appointment of lay judges in that they had not been drawn by lot, contrary to the requirements of the Lay Judges Act. The court rebutted the argument claiming that the judges were exempted from the requirements of the Lay Judges Act.   On 1 April 2004 the European Court of Human Rights declared Ms Fedotova’s application partly admissible and she submitted her claim for just satisfaction. Shortly afterwards, an officer of the Taganrog police department formally requested the applicant’s representative and translator in the Court proceedings to submit evidence that they had paid taxes on the amounts disbursed by the applicant.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that the court that had given the judgment of 16 October 2000 had not been composed in accordance with the domestic law. She also alleged that the police inquiry into the tax matters of her representative and translator in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights amounted to a hindrance to the exercise of her right to individual petition. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 34 (right of individual petition).   The Court noted that the parties disagreed whether at the time of the passing the judgment of 16 October 2000 the status of lay judges S. and L. had been governed by the USSR Judiciary Act of 1981 or by the more recent Russian Lay Judges Act. The Court noted that in either case essential requirements of the procedure for selection of lay judges were not respected. The Court therefore concluded that the Taganrog Town Court that issued the judgment of 16 October 2000 could not be considered as a tribunal established by law. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Concerning the police inquiry in connection with the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction, the Court saw no plausible reason as to why, in the absence of any apparent indication of a criminal offence, the questioning had been conducted by the regional police rather than by a competent tax authority. It found that the moves made by the Russian Government to investigate the applicant’s disbursements to her representatives had to be considered an interference with the exercise of the applicant’s right of individual petition. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 34.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sukhobokov v. Russia (no. 75470/01) The applicant, Alik Kersanovich Sukhobokov, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Volgodonsk, (Russia).   On 22 April 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against his local labour and social development authority arguing that his pension should be increased. A judgment was made in his favour which became final in December 1999. The judgment was not enforced initially due to lack of funds from the State budget. The judgment was finally quashed on 29 September 2000 following the discovery of a ministerial instruction which interpreted the Pensions Law in a way different to that in the judgment.   The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment. He relied on Article 6 (access to a court).   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. Furthermore, the Court found that the quashing of the judgment, which did not respect the principle of legal certainty and the applicant’s “right to a court”, could not be accepted as a reason to justify the non-enforcement of the judgment. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 150 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 9   No violation of Article 14 Kosteski v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 55170/00) The applicant, Vasko Kosteski, is a citizen of “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” who was born in 1961 and lives in Bitola, (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).   On 14 April 1998 the applicant was fined for taking a day’s holiday without permission to celebrate Bayram, a Muslim religious festival. He appealed.   In July 2000 the Constitutional Court noted that the applicant requested rights relating to freedom of religion but that he refused to give any evidence concerning his beliefs. It concluded that the applicant had not been discriminated against by the requirement to establish the objective facts and dismissed his complaint.   The applicant complained that his fine for absence from work when he was celebrating a Muslim holiday was in breach Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court recalled that Article 9 of the Convention listed a number of forms which manifestation of one’s religion or belief may take but that it did not, however, protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief. The Court was not persuaded that attendance at a Muslim festival was a manifestation of the applicant’s beliefs in the sense protected by that article or that the penalty imposed on him for breach of contract in absenting himself without permission was an interference with those rights. Furthermore the Court did not find it unreasonable that an employer might regard absence without permission or apparent justification as a disciplinary matter. It stated that where an employee sought to rely on a particular exemption, it was not oppressive or in fundamental conflict with freedom of conscience to require some level of substantiation. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Articles 9 and 14. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same conclusions as in similar cases raising analogous issues under the Convention.   Mouzoukis v. Greece (no. 39295/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Taxiarchis Mouzoukis, is a Greek national who was born in 1967 and lives in Athens.     In July 2001 the applicant was given an eight-month suspended prison sentence for perjury. Under Article 489 § 1 and Article 190 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he could not appeal against the judgment because the sentence imposed was less than two years’ imprisonment, that option being open only to the prosecution service. An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed as being out of time on 22 March 2002, on the ground that the period for submitting an appeal on points of law had begun to run from the date of delivery of the judgment and not on the day on which the latter was registered at the court.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant maintained that the dismissal of his appeal on points of law as out of time had entailed a breach of his right of access to a court. He also submitted that he had not been allowed the necessary time and facilities to prepare his defence.   The Court pointed out that it had already held that it was incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to dismiss an appeal on points of law on the ground that it had been lodged within a period that began to run from the date of delivery of the judgment rather than the date on which it had been entered in the special register. In the light of that case-law, and of the position which the Greek Court of Cassation now appeared to be adopting in this respect, the Court considered that the applicant in this case had been disproportionately hindered in his right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   In view of that finding, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine the complaint under Article 6 § 3 (b). It awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Agibalova and Others v. Russia (no. 26724/03) Alekhina and Others v. Russia (no. 22519/02) The applicants are 104 Russian nationals who brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority claiming arrears in welfare payments for their children.   All the applicants complained about the lengthy failure to enforce final judgments in their favour. They relied on Articles   6 §   1 (access to court), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property).   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.   The Court decided unanimously to strike the application out of its list in so far as the complaints of six applicants in the case of Agibalova and Others and 13 in the case of Alekhina and Others were concerned.   The Court held unanimously that in the remainder of the cases there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that there was no need to examine the complaints under Article 13.   The Court awarded approximately EUR 3,700 in the case of Agibalova and Others and approximately EUR 3,200 in Alekhina and Others for pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained of the excessive length of the civil proceedings to which they were a party. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). The applicants in the cases concerning Slovenia also complained of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints. They relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Šundov v. Croatia (no. 13876/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Lukenda v. Slovenia (no. 2) (no. 16492/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Avdič v. Slovenia (no. 26881/02) Bedi v. Slovenia (no. 24901/02) Blatešič v. Slovenia (no. 23571/02) Goričan v. Slovenia (no. 4507/02) Hriberšek v. Slovenia (no. 10296/02) Jurkošek v. Slovenia (no. 20610/02) Kotnik v. Slovenia (no. 17330/02) Lorbek v. Slovenia (no. 17321/02) Marinović v. Slovenia (no. 1461/02) Muratovič v. Slovenia (no. 6799/02) Ožtek v. Slovenia (no. 1423/02) Pavlović v. Slovenia (no. 20543/02) Pfeiffer v. Slovenia (no. 25055/02) Požin v. Slovenia (no. 22266/02) Rober v. Slovenia (no. 7210/02) Rozman v. Slovenia (no. 20254/02) Rupnik v. Slovenia (no. 24897/02) Škrablin v. Slovenia (no. 25053/02) Soleša v. Slovenia (no. 21464/02) Stradovnik v. Slovenia (no. 24784/02) Witmajer v. Slovenia (no. 22235/02) Zakonjšek v. Slovenia (no. 24896/02) Zemljič v. Slovenia (no. 9301/02)   ***   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 ).   Press contacts   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)   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.   [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.