CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 18 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 } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sF3174AF6 { width:3.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9ED9B434 { width:347.59pt; display:inline-block } .s8C360175 { width:32.16pt; display:inline-block } .s981A3C25 { width:87.46pt; display:inline-block } .sD55E2C77 { width:70.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s11B45B56 { width:82.79pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s4B96DB1A { width:12.14pt; display:inline-block } .sC41CA428 { width:319.58pt; display:inline-block } .s3C611CF9 { width:54.17pt; display:inline-block } .sC66F3853 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:12pt } .s54595217 { width:270.84pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   222 18.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Portugal,   Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Chadimová v. the Czech Republic (application no. 50073/99)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Marta Chadimová, is a Czech national who was born in 1952 and lives in Prague.   On 30 March 1992 criminal proceedings were instituted against her for fraud and forgery of official documents. She was accused of having committed these offences in connection with an agreement she had signed with the Prague housing association regarding restitution of a building in Prague and the appurtenant land.   On 14 July 1992 the Municipal Court ordered the applicant to refrain from exercising any rights over the building in question so as not to jeopardise the right to damages of the injured party (i.e. the district office). That decision was set aside by the High Court on 27   May   1999 on the following ground: on 14 June 1994 the district office had been refused leave to join the criminal proceedings against the applicant as a civil party; since it had been unable to assert its right to damages, the measure prohibiting the applicant from exercising any rights over her property was no longer justified.   During the criminal proceedings against her, the applicant’s telephone line was tapped. On 30   November 1995 the Constitutional Court ordered the tape recordings to be destroyed. Only some of them were destroyed, however.   After initially refusing a presidential pardon, in order to establish her innocence, the applicant accepted it on 6 October 2003.   The applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against her; of the fact that she had been prohibited for a long time from exercising any rights over the building in question; and of the fact that certain tape recordings had not been destroyed. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The European Court of Human Rights found that the proceedings in question had lasted for more than 11 years and six months without any decision on the merits being given. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the length had been excessive and had failed to satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   With regard to the measure prohibiting the applicant from exercising any rights over the building in question, the Court noted, as had been acknowledged by the High Court, that the applicant had been deprived of the possibility of exercising any rights over her property between 14 June 1994 and 27   May   1999 in a manner that had no basis in Czech law. It held, accordingly, that there had been a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It did not consider it necessary to examine under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 whether the length of the criminal proceedings had affected the prohibition on exercising rights over the building.   Lastly, the Court held that the Czech Government had had a positive obligation to have the tape recordings referred to by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 30   November 1995 destroyed. The Court was not satisfied, on the basis of the information obtained by the parties and, in particular, that submitted by the Government, that the authorities had made sufficient efforts to prove that all the audio cassettes containing recordings of telephone conversations between the applicant and her lawyer had actually been destroyed. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.   The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved it in full. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article   5 §   3 Tariq v. the Czech Republic (no. 75455/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Mohamed Ali Tariq, is a Sudanese national who was born in 1966 and lives in Prague. He entered the Czech Republic in 1983.   On 17 December 1997 he was arrested and detained on remand, charged with attempted fraud. He was released from detention four years later. His trial began in October 2003 and in June 2004 Prague Regional Court sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. The criminal proceedings are now pending before the High Court.   The applicant’s detention on remand was prolonged 12 times. In their decisions the judicial authorities referred to the risk of the applicant’s absconding, given his Sudanese citizenship and valid passport, and the fact that his family lived abroad and that he had no close ties to the Czech Republic. The courts also relied on the lengthy sentence which he risked incurring if found guilty of the serious charges he was facing. Furthermore, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was justified by the danger of pressure being brought to bear on his co-accused and the witnesses .   The applicant complained in particular that his detention was illegal and unreasonably long. He also complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court declared the complaints concerning the length of the applicant’s detention and the criminal proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The Court found that given the absence of any attempt on the part of the applicant to obstruct the proceedings, it was difficult to accept that the sole fact that he was an alien with family abroad could justify the conclusion that the risk of his escaping persisted during the entire four years on remand. Neither could it accept that the severity of the anticipated sentence was a sufficient ground for holding the applicant in detention for the whole period. Furthermore, the Court found that, given the considerable delays in submitting the official indictments against the applicant, it could not be said that the authorities displayed special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   3.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question lasted over eight years and three 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 awarded the applicant EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Vezon v. France (no. 66018/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants, Jean-François Vezon and his wife, are French nationals who were born in 1948 and 1950 respectively and live in Caluire (France).   In 1992 the Crédit Agricole brought proceedings against the applicants for defaulting on the monthly repayments of a property loan granted them by the bank. They lodged a counter-claim against the bank for reimbursement of the interest payments on the ground that the bank had not sent them the depreciation schedule with the loan offer, which had been a statutory requirement at the time.   While the case was pending, Law no. 96-314 of 12 April 1996 “making various economic and financial provisions” came into force, section 87(1) of which amended, with retrospective effect, the provisions of the Consumer Code relating to loan offers. Applying that Law, the Lyons Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ claim. They unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Cassation.   The applicants claimed that the retrospective application of the 12 April 1996 Law had infringed their right to a fair hearing. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   The Court noted that the enactment of the 12 April 1996 Law had in reality determined the substance of the dispute and made any continuation of the proceedings futile. There had not therefore been equality of arms between the two private parties, since the State had found for one of them by having the Law in question enacted.   With regard to whether the interference had been in the public interest, the Court reiterated that in theory a financial ground alone could not justify this sort of legislative measure. In the present case there was nothing to support the French Govenment’s argument that, without the enactment of the Law in question, the impact would have been so great that it would have endangered the stability of the banking sector and economic activity in general.   In the Court’s view, the legislative measure had not been justified by compelling grounds of the general interest. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6   §   1 and awarded the applicants EUR   8,000   euros in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mora do Vale and Others v. Portugal (no. 53468/99)   Just satisfaction The applicants, 27 Portuguese nationals, are the former owners or heirs of the former owners of a tract of land known as Herdade de S. Bento , with a total area of some 2,405 hectares. They alleged that the determination of compensation for the nationalisation of their land, and its late payment, had infringed their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   In a judgment of 29 July 2004 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 owing to the delay in payment of the final compensation for expropriation of the applicants’ land under the programme of land reform in Portugal. At the time, it considered that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   In its judgment on Article 41 (just satisfaction) delivered today the Court decided, unanimously, to award the applicants EUR   130,000 jointly for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Katar and Others v. Turkey (no. 40994/98)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicants, Halil Katar, Abdullah Özcan and Sevkan Aytu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1973, 1963 and 1958 respectively. At the material time they lived in Istanbul, Şırnak and Muğla.   In the course of a police operation conducted in Şırnak the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on 22 April, 5 May and 15 May 1992 respectively. They were suspected of having links with the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law, and of having been involved in armed attacks. They were detained pending trial and criminal proceedings were instituted against them and 46 others.   The applicants were released during the proceedings: Mr Özcan and Mr Aytu on 17 February 1993 and Mr Katar on 12 June 1998. On 3 July 1998 Mr Özcan and Mr Aytu were acquitted while Mr Katar was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation upheld Mr Özcan’s and Mr Aytu’s acquittal, but set aside the judgment against Mr   Katar and remitted the case to the state security court. In June 2004 the proceedings were still pending before the Turkish courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the length of the proceedings against them. Mr Katar also complained, under Article 5 § 3 (right to freedom and security), of the length of his detention pending trial.   The Court pointed out that Mr Katar had been kept in detention for six years and one month. The State security court had regularly ordered his continued detention, at the end of each hearing, giving almost always identical reasons each time relating to the nature of the crime with which he had been charged, the state of the evidence, the content of the file and the length of the detention. The Court acknowledged that the number of defendants and the seriousness of the offences concerned had made the case especially complex. However, it considered that the reasons given by the State security court had been insufficient to justify keeping the applicant in detention during that period. Consequently, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 3 with regard to Mr Katar.   Regarding the length of the proceedings, the Court noted that they had lasted more than seven years and six months in respect of Mr Özcan and Mr Aytu and already more than 12 years in respect of Mr Katar. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such periods were excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable-time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   Under the head of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded Mr Katar EUR 8,000 and Mr   Özcan and Mr Aytu EUR 6,000 each. It also awarded the applicants 1,000 EUR jointly for costs and expenses, less the EUR 701 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tanrıkulu and Others v. Turkey (no. 60011/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicants, Tamer Tanrıkulu and Mehmet Zeki Deniz, are Turkish nationals born in 1972 and 1965 respectively.   They applicants were arrested on 10 February 1994, on suspicion of having links with an illegal armed organisation, and taken into police custody. On 24 March 1999 the Izmir State Security Court sentenced them both to life imprisonment for belonging to an armed group. The Court of Cassation upheld their conviction on 26 January 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants submitted that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security courts. They also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings leading to their conviction and raised other complaints under Articles 6, 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 34 (right of individual petition).   The Court declared the application admissible with regard to the complaints under Article 6 and the remainder of the application inadmissible. It held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 §   1 regarding the complaint based on a lack of independence and impartiality of the State security court. With regard to the other complaint based on the unfairness of the proceedings, the Court reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction. Accordingly, it held that there was no need to examine the complaint.   The Court noted further that the proceedings in question had lasted five years and 11 months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the period was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1.   As the applicants had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court held that there was no reason to award them an amount under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 8 Dickson v. the United Kingdom (no. 44362/04)   No violation of Article 12 The applicants, Kirk and Lorraine Dickson, are British nationals who were born in 1972 and 1958, respectively. Mr Dickson is in Dovergate Prison, Uttoxeter (United Kingdom) and Mrs Dickson lives in Hull (United Kingdom).   In 1994 Mr Dickson was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff (the minimum period to be served) of 15 years. He has no children.   In 1999 he met Lorraine, via a prison pen pal network while she was also imprisoned. In 2001 they married. Mrs Dickson already had three children from other relationships.   The couple requested artificial insemination facilities to enable them to have a child together, arguing that it would not otherwise be possible, given Mr Dickson’s earliest release date and Mrs Dickson’s age. The Secretary of State refused their application. They appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicants complained about the refusal of access to artificial insemination facilities, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 12 (right to marry and found a family).   The Court noted that the Secretary of State had given careful consideration to the applicants’ circumstances, including the unlikely event of the couple being able to conceive after Mr Dickson’s release from prison, before concluding that those factors were outweighed by the other factors. Particular reference was given to the nature and gravity of Mr Dickson’s crime and the welfare of any child who might be conceived, in the light of the prolonged absence of the father for an important part of its childhood years and the apparent lack of sufficient material provision and immediate support network in place for the mother and child. The Court further noted that the decision of the Secretary of State was examined by the High Court and the Court of Appeal which found the decision to refuse the facilities was neither unreasonable nor disproportionate.   In view of those circumstances, the Court found that it had not been shown that the decision to refuse facilities for artificial insemination was arbitrary or unreasonable or that it failed to strike a fair balance between general interest of the community and the interests of the individual. There had accordingly been no failure to respect the applicants’ rights to private and family life and the Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 8 or 12. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular of the excessive length of civil proceedings. In the cases of Kozák v. the Czech Republic and Metzová v. the Czech Republic the applicants also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), in that there was no effective remedy in domestic law which would have permitted them to complain about the length of the procedure.   Patta v. the Czech Republic (no. 12605/02) Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Zbořilová and Zbořil v. the Czech Republic (no. 32455/02) Karácsonyi v. Hungary (no. 37494/02) Kovač v. Hungary (no. 37492/02)       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)                 Violation of Article 13 Kozák v. the Czech Republic (no. 30940/02) Metzová v. the Czech Republic (no. 38194/02)         ***   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.