CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sB347D098 { width:96.79pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sADCBB328 { width:29.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D4036AF { width:12.58pt; display:inline-block } .s7E795CD9 { width:43.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB0157C3E { width:108.16pt; display:inline-block } .s1D04044A { width:166.17pt; display:inline-block } .s98C2822C { width:109.89pt; display:inline-block } .s100ACDBF { width:212.14pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { 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 } .s24AC208E { 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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { 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 } .sB30C44B0 { 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 } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .s546C9D04 { 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 } .s40B7A780 { 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 } .s4F2EDFF { 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 } .s14B4053C { width:145.53pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   236 25.4.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, France, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 Chamber judgments of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are 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.     Bruncrona v. Finland (application no 41673/98)   Just satisfaction The applicants are   Marcus   Bruncrona and   Petter Bruncrona, Finnish nationals who were born in 1964 and 1967 and live in Helsinki, and the   estate of   Olof Bruncrona.   The case concerned a number of islands within the city limits of Tammisaari. The applicants claimed to have been deprived of their ownership of the islands or at least of a right of usufruct.   In its judgment of 16 November 2004 the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights   on account of the procedure   adopted in   terminating the applicants' proprietary interest in the islands. The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In its Chamber judgment on Article 41 (just satisfaction) delivered today the Court decided, unanimously, to award Olof Bruncrona’s estate EUR   11,000 for pecuniary   damage and EUR 38,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)       No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)               Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Machard v. France (no. 42928/02)   Léopold and Paulette Machard are French nationals who were born in 1919 and 1925 respectively and live in Farges (France). In April 1970 they brought proceedings to contest a consolidation plan involving plots of land belonging to them in the municipalities of Farges and Collonges. The proceedings terminated on 14   June 2002 when the Conseil d’Etat dismissed an appeal by the applicants.   The applicants complained of the failure to execute court decisions in which certain plots of land were reassigned to them. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court observed that a certain amount of confusion had surrounded the proceedings, as the planning committees had given a series of irregular decisions. However, it was clear that any difficulties of execution had been overcome. Hence, while it was understandable that the applicants could have been left with the impression that the decisions given in their favour had not been executed, this was not borne out by the facts. As no issue arose concerning execution, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   6 § 1 on that account.   However, the Court noted that the dispute concerning the inclusion in the consolidation scheme of certain plots belonging to the applicants had lasted for approximately thirty years, through no fault of the applicants. Having regard to the particularly lengthy duration of the consolidation proceedings and the consequent interference with the exercise of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, the Court considered that the applicants had had to bear an individual and excessive burden. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that no separate issue arose in respect of the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants EUR 10,000 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Roux v. France (no. 16022/02)               Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants are two French nationals, Roger Roux and his wife Gisèle, who were both born in 1921 and live in Simandres (France), and a property holding company managed by Mr Roux.   The applicants owned a housing development on 2,300 square metres of land in Vénissieux, which was expropriated in 1998 to make way for a multimedia library and a car park. They appealed unsuccessfully against a judgment which set the expropriation compensation at EUR 211,440. An appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 3   October 2001.   The applicants contended that they had not had a fair hearing in the proceedings for the assessment of compensation for the expropriation. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court declared the application admissible with regard to Article 6 § 1 and inadmissible with regard to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court considered that the fact that the role of Government Commissioner was assumed by the Director of the Revenue Department did not give rise to any issue with regard to the independence of the judiciary from the executive. However, it found that the position and role of the Government Commissioner in the compensation proceedings had resulted in a breach of the principle of equality of arms in the present case. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them EUR 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   László Kocsis v. Hungary (no. 32763/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, László Kocsis, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Ács (Hungary).   In April 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and on 22 May 2003 he was convicted of explosives offences and given an eight months’ suspended prison sentence.   The applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted more than ten years for two levels of jurisdiction. 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 and awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Macovei and Others v. Moldova (nos. 19253/03, 17667/03, 31960/03, 19263/03, 17695/03 and 31761/03) The applicants are six Moldovan nationals who live in Moldova.   On different dates in 2001 and 2002 the applicants obtained final and enforceable judgments by which the domestic courts ordered ASITO (an insurance company incorporated in Moldova) to pay the applicants pension arrears and to resume the execution of their contracts.   In March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice, at the request of the Prosecutor General, issued a judgment in favour of ASITO. In particular, it ruled that the economic crisis, inflation and the change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova could be relied upon by ASITO in order unilaterally to avoid the annuity contracts. It also ruled that its judgment was binding on all the courts.   Between December 2002 and June 2003 ASITO, relying on their previous arguments, brought proceedings and successfully terminated all the applicants’ contracts concluded in 1994.   The applicants complained in particular about the re-examination of a dispute which previously had ended in a final judgment favourable to them. They relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that by upholding ASITO’s civil actions for the termination of the annuity contracts, in circumstances in which the same question had previously been resolved by final and binding judgments, the domestic courts infringed the principle of legal certainty and the applicants’ “right to a court”. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. In view of that finding, the Court considered that it was not necessary to rule on the applicants complaints under Article 13.   The Court recalled that the sums awarded to the applicants could be considered a possession. Rendering such judgments ineffective after they had become final therefore constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.     There being no public interest defence justifying that interference, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.   The Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and sums ranging from EUR 716 to EUR 2,000 for pecuniary damage. For costs and expenses it awarded EUR 1,200 each to Ms Macovei and Ms Socolov and EUR 63 to Mr Cliuchin. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Prodan v. Moldova (no. 49806/99)   Just satisfaction/Struck out The applicant, Tatiana Prodan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1924 and lives in Chişinău.   On 14 March 1997 Centru District Court ordered the restitution to the applicant of her parent’s home, nationalised in 1946, which had been split up into six flats. The court declared null and void the sale agreements concerning five of the apartments and ordered the eviction of the tenants in all six flats. On 3 October 2000 the court decided to execute the 14 March judgment differently, by ordering that the applicant receive 488,274 Moldovan lei in compensation, the market value of the five flats which had been sold. However, the judgment of 14 March 1997 concerning the eviction of the tenants in the remaining flat, apartment no. 8, was not enforced.   In a judgment of 18 May 2004 the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and awarded Mrs Prodan a total of 13,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Court held that the application of Article 41 concerning the failure to restore one of the apartments in the case to the applicant was not ready for decision.   In the meantime, on 6   May   2004, the applicant concluded a friendly settlement agreement with the Chişinău Municipal Council concerning the restitution of apartment no. 8. The parties agreed that in lieu of the apartment, the applicant was to be paid its market value of 510,000   Moldovan lei (the equivalent of EUR 36,470 at the time). The money was paid to the applicant on 24 May 2004.   The Court was satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that respect for human rights did not require the continued examination of the application. Accordingly, it struck the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in English.)       Gołek v. Poland (no. 31330/02)   Violation of Article 5   §   3 The applicant, Antoni Gołek, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Bielsko-Biała (Poland).   On 15 March 2000 he was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed murder. The following day, Żywiec District Court ordered his detention on remand. They based their decision on the following grounds: the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, the serious nature of that offence, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, in particular the process of obtaining evidence. Despite his appeals for release, the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions on the same grounds.   In March 2001 the applicant was indicted on charges of murder, attempted murder, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, uttering threats, theft, burglary, fraud and illegally possessing explosives and dangerous substances. In all, 24 charges were brought against him. On 12 June 2003 he was convicted as charged.   The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   While acknowledging that that there may have been good reasons to impose and continue the applicant’s detention at the beginning of the proceedings, the Court found it difficult to accept that the grounds relied on by the authorities were sufficient and relevant to justify his detention for over three years. It noted, in particular, that during the entire period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the authorities did not envisage the possibility of imposing on the applicant other preventive measures – such as bail or police supervision – expressly foreseen by Polish law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings.   Accordingly the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses, less EUR 701 already received from the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Puig Panella v. Spain (no. 1483/02)                                                    Violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Jordi Puig Panella, is a Spanish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Mataró (Spain).   On 15 November 1980 several people tried to storm the military headquarters in Berga (Barcelona). On 27 November 1980 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having taken part in the attack and was taken into police custody before being placed in pre-trial detention.   On 11 May 1984 a military court convicted the applicant of theft and illegal use of vehicles, theft and unlawful possession. It sentenced him, among other things, to terms of imprisonment of two years; four years, two months and a day; and two years respectively. He was also sentenced to a number of fines and temporarily disqualified from holding public office throughout the duration of the sentence. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed by the Supreme Council of Military Justice.   On 18 June 1985 Mr   Puig Panella was released on licence.   On 28 May 1992 the Constitutional Court allowed an amparo appeal by the applicant. It found that Mr   Puig Panella had been convicted merely on the basis of documents obtained at the investigation stage, which had neither been produced nor submitted for adversarial argument at trial. It set aside the military court’s decision of 11 May 1984 on the ground that it had infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence.   The applicant sought compensation from the Ministry of Justice for the 1,663 days spent in detention. The Minister rejected his claim on the ground that there had not been an acquittal or a discontinuation of the charges, but a setting aside of a conviction for want of evidence. An application by Mr Puig Panella for judicial review was also dismissed.   The applicant complained that although he had been declared innocent, his claim for compensation had been dismissed on account of a doubt as to his innocence, in breach of Article 6   §   2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention.   The Court noted that the Ministry of Justice’s refusal to compensate the applicant had clearly been based on his supposed guilt or lack of “total certainty as to his innocence”. Although the refusal was based on section 294(1) of the Judicature Act, which provided that the only persons entitled to compensation were those who had been acquitted or against whom the charges had been dropped on the ground that the facts as charged did not exist, such a requirement – applied without qualification and unreservedly – in the circumstances of the case left a lingering doubt as to the applicant’s innocence.   Moreover, the Constitutional Court had wrongly asserted that the applicant’s claim had been made under section 294 of the Judicature Act, namely, compensation for pre-trial detention. The application of that provision, instead of section 292 which covered more general situations (judicial error or miscarriage of justice), appeared excessively harsh given that the applicant had not complained of his pre-trial detention and that it had led to a rejection of his claims.   The reasoning followed by the Ministry of Justice, and subsequently confirmed by the courts, had cast doubt on the applicant’s innocence, despite the judgment of the Constitutional Court.   The Court also attached weight to the fact that, as the Spanish Government acknowledged, Mr   Puig Panella’s conviction had remained on his criminal record for more than 13   years despite having been definitively set aside by the Constitutional Court.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 and awarded the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,299 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Ahmet Mete v. Turkey (no. 77649/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Ahmet Mete, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Aydın (Turkey).   The applicant was arrested and detained on 8 July 2001 on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK. On 11 July 2001, the İzmir Public Prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention in police custody until 13 July 2001. On 19 September 2002, the court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant complained, in particular, that the length of his detention in police custody was excessive. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect to private and family life).     The Court recalled that detention in police custody lasting four days and six hours without judicial control fell outside the strict time constraints of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, even though its purpose was to protect the community as a whole against terrorism. Even though the investigation of terrorist offences, as supposed in this case, presented the authorities with special problems, the Court could not accept that it was necessary to detain the applicant for five days without judicial intervention.   It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible   The Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Sabri Taş v. Turkey (no. 21179/02)   Revision The applicant, Sabri Taş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Batman (Turkey).   He was taken into custody on 7   February 1993. On 5 March 1993 Batman Criminal Court ordered his remand in custody.   On 6 April 1993 and on 10 October 1994 the Public Prosecutor at Diyarbakır State Security Court filed two different bills of indictment accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal terrorist organization and undermining the integrity of the State. Ultimately, on 31   January 2002, the state security court convicted the applicant under Article 168/2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment. He was released the same day.   The applicant complained about his detention on remand and the criminal proceedings. He relied on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   In a judgment of 20 September 2005, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 and Article 5 § 3. The Court also decided to dismiss the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction as he had not submitted them within the specified time-limit.   On 22 September 2005 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the applicant had never actually been requested to submit his just satisfaction claims and requested that the judgment be revised. His request was accepted.   The Court decided unanimously to revise its judgment of 20 September 2005 as regards the non-allocation of sums and, having regard to the parties’ submissions, awarded the applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)         Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.   Bekir Özdemir v. Turkey (no. 23321/02) Çerkez Kaçar v. Turkey (no. 23323/02) Halil Kendirci v. Turkey (no. 23324/02) İbrahim Halil Yiğit v. Turkey (no. 23322/02) Özdemir and Others v. Turkey (no. 23325/02)   In these five cases the applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained of delays in the payment of additional expropriation compensation. They all relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   In each case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it was not necessary to rule on the complaint under Article   6 § 1. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non ‑ pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them in respect of pecuniary damage and costs and expenses the overall sums set out below, expressed in euros. (The judgments are available only in French.)       Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Bekir Özdemir v. Turkey   500 500 Çerkez Kaçar v. Turkey 2,500 500 Halil Kendirci v. Turkey 1,500 500 İbrahim Halil Yiğit v. Turkey 2,500 500 Özdemir and Others v. Turkey   500 500       Struck Out Oliver and Britten v. the United Kingdom (nos. 61604/00 and 68452/01)              Ian Oliver was born in 1951 and lives in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (United Kingdom). His wife died on 22 April 1994. He has one child. Colin Britten was born in 1957 and lives in Pensilva (United Kingdom). His wife died on 7 April 1993. He has four children for whom he receives child benefit.   Both applicants were refused the payment of widow’s benefits by the Benefits Agency because the benefit was only paid to women.     The applicants complained that British social security legislation discriminates against them on grounds of sex. They relied on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken in conjunction with both Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which Mr Oliver received approximately EUR 39,989 and Mr Britten approximately EUR 12,939. (The judgment is available only in English.) Length of proceedings   In the following cases the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of civil proceedings.   Lönnholtz v. Finland (no. 60790/00)   Friendly settlement     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Keszthelyi v. Hungary (no. 14966/03) Zaveczky v. Hungary (no. 11213/03)   ***   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.