CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 mai 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 } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7C94A8D4 { width:50.83pt; display:inline-block } .s2474A0F5 { width:149.49pt; display:inline-block } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9B49264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .sE6788080 { width:88.13pt; display:inline-block } .sC10173EF { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s1F58F73B { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s8A1C83F9 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:left } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .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 } .s97C4B4C1 { width:44pt; 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   302 24.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Greece, Italy and   Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]   Nine repetitive cases [2]   can be found at the end of this press release.     Liakopoulou v. Greece (application no 20627/04) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Sophia Liakopoulou, is a Greek national who was born in 1919 and lives in Athens.   In 1984 a plot of land belonging to the applicant was expropriated, most of it in favour of the municipality of Thessalonica. The applicant, who contested the amount of compensation awarded by the lower courts, appealed on points of law. On 3   December 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed her appeal on the ground that she “had not clearly specified the facts of the case on which the court of appeal had based its judgment”.   The applicant complained that there had been a violation of her right of access to a court and an interference in her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights declared the application admissible with respect to the complaint concerning the right of access to a court and inadmissible as to the remainder.   The Court noted that the rule on which the Court of Cassation had based its decision to dismiss the applicant’s appeal on points of law was a principle enshrined in its case-law and arose from the specific nature of the Court of Cassation’s role, namely supervision of whether the law had been observed. In the Court’s opinion, the applicant’s appeal had not obliged the Court of Cassation to re-establish the facts of the case. Whilst it was true that the applicant had failed to include relevant facts as those had been established by the court of appeal, she had nonetheless summarised in the introduction to her appeal the principal facts of the case, the proceedings to date and her complaints with regard to the contested decision; this summary had been followed by a review of the case. Furthermore, she had attached the impugned decision. In those circumstances, the Court considered that the facts of the case, as they had been established by the court of appeal, had been brought to the attention of the senior judges. In declaring inadmissible the submissions in question on the ground that the applicant “had not clearly specified the facts of the case on which the court of appeal had based its judgment”, the Court of Cassation had taken an excessively formalistic approach, which had prevented the applicant from having the merits of her allegations examined by the Court of Cassation.   As that limitation on the applicant’s right of access to a court had not been proportionate to the aim sought, namely to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded Mrs Liakopoulou 5   000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Georgi v. Romania (no. 58318/00)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicants, Dumitru Georgi and his wife Elena, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1944 and 1948 respectively and live in Târgu-Jiu (Romania).   On 1 March 1993 the authorities awarded the applicants shares, representing the exchange value of two plots of land which had belonged to Mrs Georgi’s father, and assigned them two plots of land situated in “la Jiu” and Târgu-Jiu; that decision was upheld in February 1995 by a final judgment of Gorj County Court. The authorities subsequently brought several unsuccessful actions seeking to have the decision of 1 March 1993 cancelled. Meanwhile the applicants lodged several appeals seeking to obtain the title deeds to the plots of land in question. They obtained possession of their plots in May and November 2004.   The applicants complained about the non-enforcement of final judicial decisions ordering that they be given possession of the two plots of land and be issued title to the property. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to a court) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that, although the authorities had given the applicants possession of their land in the course of 2004, they had failed to take the necessary measures to this effect for about eight years. In addition, during this period the applicants had never been informed by a formal administrative decision of the reasons submitted by the authorities to justify the objective impossibility of enforcement. Noting that the Romanian authorities had not made every necessary effort to have the judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour speedily enforced, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Further, whilst it was true that the applicants had now obtained possession of the land to which they were entitled, they had suffered damage on account of the failure to enjoy their possessions for a period of several years on account of the delay in enforcement, which was    attributable to the authorities. Accordingly, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicants EUR 2,000 jointly in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     Mocanu v. Romania (no. 56489/00)   Friendly settlement   Silviu Mocanu is a Romanian national who was born in 1976. He is currently detained in Brăila Prison (Romania), where he is serving a life sentence imposed in 1997 for aggravated murder.      During the night of 25 to 26 May 1997 the applicant and his brother were arrested at their home by police officers on account of their presumed involvement, a few hours earlier, in a murder committed in a service station. At the moment of arrest, they were washing their blood-stained clothes.   The applicant, who was taken to Brăila Police Station and placed in police custody, alleged that the police officers beat him until 9 a.m. in order to extract a confession. He was then brought before a prosecutor; he complained to him about the treatment inflicted by the police and asked to be examined by a doctor, at which the prosecutor threatened and struck him. The case file indicates that the applicant was not examined by a doctor.   The applicant’s complaint against the officers responsible for his police detention ended with a ruling that there was no case to answer, as did his complaint against the prosecutor. In the meantime, the applicant was convicted of aggravated murder. The applicant complained about the treatment inflicted on him while in police custody and the failure to carry out an effective investigation. He also complained that mail sent by the European Court of Human Rights had been opened and that the authorities had refused to supply stamps for his correspondence. He relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for correspondence), 34 (right of individual application) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement under which the applicant is to receive EUR 17,000 for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.     (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Weissman and Others v. Romania (no. 63945/00) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Eugene Weissman and Mariana Balan, Rosa   Brener Veisman, Liana Alberta Veisman de Neuberger and Karin   Weissman Humbert, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1931, 1930, 1913, 1947 and 1937 respectively and live in Seattle, New York, Ariel (Israel) and Beaune (France).   In their capacity as heirs to the former owners, the applicants brought an action against the State in 1998 for recovery of possession, with a view to the restitution of real property, consisting in a building and the adjacent land situated in Bucharest, which had been occupied by an embassy. Noting that the State had taken possession of the building in 1949 without legal authority and that it continued to enjoy possession of it without title, the Romanian courts allowed the applicants’ claim. The latter were given possession of the building in October 1999.   The applicants also brought proceedings seeking reimbursement of the equivalent of EUR   30,609,289 in respect of loss of earnings, based on the rental income received by the State for the building since its confiscation. Their claim was cancelled by the Romanian courts on the ground that they had failed to pay the EUR 323,264   due as stamp duty for bringing the proceedings. The applicants alleged that there had been a violation of their right of access to a court and an interference in their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the dismissal of their action for reimbursement of the revenue earned by the State through the use of the building in question. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court noted that the amount payable by the applicants in respect of stamp duty, which was undoubtedly very high for any ordinary litigant, had not been justified either by the particular circumstances of the case or by the applicants’ financial position; it had been calculated on the basis of a set percentage, laid down by law, of the sum at stake in the proceedings.     The Court considered that the amount claimed from the applicants in order to lodge their action had been excessive. As a result, they had been implicitly obliged to abandon the action, which had deprived them of the right to have their case heard by a court. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, and particularly to the fact that this restriction was imposed at an initial stage of the proceedings, the Court considered that it had been disproportionate and had thus impaired the very essence of the right of access to a court. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Further, in the absence of any convincing explanation by the Romanian Government as to why the applicants had received no compensation in return for the State’s use of the building, the Court held that the fair balance which should be struck between the protection of the right of property and the requirements of the general interest had been upset. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court considered that the finding of violations in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them jointly EUR 40,000 for pecuniary damage.     (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Bertin v. France (no. 55917/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Albert Bertin, is a French national who was born in 1932 and lives in Lyons (France). In 1997 and 1998 he was sentenced under the criminal law to pay fines for committing road-traffic offences. He appealed unsuccessfully on points of law. The applicant complained about the unfairness of the proceedings before the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, which, he submitted, arose from the fact that the reporting judge’s report and the advocate-general’s submissions had not been made available to him and from the latter’s presence at the Division’s deliberations. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 because: the reporting judge’s report had not been communicated to the applicant prior to the hearing, whereas it had been sent to the advocate-general; the tenor of the advocate-general's submissions had not been communicated, with the result that the applicant had been unable to reply; and, the advocate-general had been present at the deliberations of the Court of Cassation. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 13 Carmine Francesca v. Italy (no. 3643/02) Cosimo Francesca v. Italy (no. 3647/02) Francesco Moretti v. Italy (no. 10399/02) Marrone v. Italy (no. 3656/02) Minicozzi v. Italy (no. 7774/02) Pernici v. Italy (no. 20662/02)     Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 13   Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Bova v. Italy (no. 25513/02) Pantuso v. Italy (no. 21120/02) The applicants, all Italian nationals, were declared bankrupt. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), all the applicants complained that the disqualifications imposed on them during the bankruptcy proceedings had interfered with their right to respect for private life or for correspondence and claimed that they had had no effective remedy. In the cases of Bova and Pantuso , the applicants also complained about the limitation on their electoral rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections). In addition, in the cases of Francesco Moretti and Pantuso , the applicants alleged that the bankruptcy order had deprived them of their assets, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), and they contested the limitation on their freedom of movement under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). In the case of Francesco Moretti , the Court declared the application admissible solely with regard to the complaints under Articles 8 and 13, and, in the Pantuso case, solely with regard to the complaints under Article 8, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.   The Court considered that, given that the names of bankrupts were entered automatically in the bankruptcy register and that the application of the disqualifications in question was not the subject of any assessment or judicial review, and in view of the length of time before rehabilitation could be obtained, the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life provided for by section 50 of the Bankruptcy Act was contrary to the Convention. The Court therefore held unanimously in each of the cases that there had been a violation of Article 8.   In addition, the Court held unanimously in all the cases that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Finally, as to the interference with the applicants’ voting rights, the Court considered that the measure, which was provided for by Article 2 of Presidential Decree no. 223 of 20 March 1967, served no purpose other than to belittle those who had been made bankrupt, reprimanding them simply for having been declared insolvent irrespective of whether they had committed an offence. The interference did not therefore pursue a legitimate aim. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that, far from being a privilege, voting was a right protected by the Convention. It therefore held, unanimously in the Bova and Pantuso cases, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court considered that the findings of violations constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, with the exception of the Bova and Pantuso cases, in which it awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,500 EUR. The Court also awarded the applicants in these eight cases EUR 2,000 each for costs and expenses.       (The judgments are available only in French.)   ***     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.