CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 8 juin 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 } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s9EFD5ADF { width:26.79pt; 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 } .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   333 8.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, Slovakia, Romania, Russia and   United Kingdom   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]   Four 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.     Kaya v. Austria (application no. 54698/00)    Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)   The applicant, Resul Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Turkey.   In April 1996 the applicant was convicted of unlawfully staying in Austria in contravention of a residence prohibition which had been served on him. He filed an appeal with the Independent Administrative Panel (IAP) and requested it to hold an oral hearing and hear him in person. The IAP scheduled a hearing and summoned the applicant via his counsel. In meantime, the applicant was expelled to Turkey. On the day of the hearing the applicant’s counsel informed the IAP about that fact and requested that the hearing be adjourned in order to hear the applicant in person. The applicant’s counsel did not inform him about the hearing. The IAP found that it was not necessary to hear the applicant in person and held a hearing in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of his counsel and partially dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant appealed without success.   The applicant complained that the administrative criminal proceedings against him had been unfair, in that he had been convicted in his absence. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights recalled that the right of an accused to participate in person in proceedings concerning her/him was a fundamental element of a fair trial. An accused might waive the exercise of that right, but to do so, his decision not to appear had to be established in an unequivocal manner and be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to its importance. The Court noted that the applicant’s representative, in disregard of his professional duties, did not inform his client of the hearing. Counsel, however, told the Independent Administrative Panel that the applicant was not aware of the date of the hearing and reiterated the request that he be heard in person. In those circumstances, the Independent Administrative Panel could not consider that the applicant had unequivocally waived his right to be heard in person.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. It awarded the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Bonev v. Bulgaria (no. 60018/00)    Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 (fairness) and 3 (d)   The applicant, Stefan Ganev Bonev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Bourgas (Bulgaria).   Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for having severely beaten up an acquaintance of his in September 1998, who subsequently died. The applicant was accused of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm causing accidental death. The applicant admitted to having beaten the victim with a wooden board.   Investigators took the testimonies of various people including Mr L.A. (who died shortly after being interviewed) and Mr Z.T. who were eyewitnesses to the event. On 2 February 1999 the Bourgas Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment, the maximum possible penalty being 15 years’ imprisonment. The court relied heavily on the statements of the two eyewitnesses who were not present at the trial. The applicant appealed without success. His request for Mr Z.T. to be called as a witness was turned down, as the courts held that the latter was a vagrant and did not have a fixed address.   The applicant complained that his trial had been unfair in that he had been unable to cross ‑ examine the witnesses whose statements had served as the main basis for his conviction. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 (right to a fair trial) and 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses).   The Court observed that although Mr Z.T.’s and Mr L.A.’s statements were decisive for the applicant’s conviction he was never given the opportunity to cross ‑ examine either witness at any stage in the proceedings. In particular, it noted that Mr Z.T. was never heard because the courts held that it was impossible to subpoena him as he did not have a fixed address. The Court found that finding that witness should not have constituted an insuperable obstacle, bearing in mind that the applicant stood accused of a very serious offence and risked being sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   V.M. v. Bulgaria (no. 45723/99)    No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   The applicant is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Sofia.   In 1994 the applicant entered into a service agreement, undertaking to provide legal assistance to a young woman, X., in connection with legal proceedings that she had brought with the aim of recovering a number of properties. It was agreed that he would be paid 10% of the proceeds from the recovered properties.   When X failed to make the payments to which the applicant believed he was entitled, he sought a court order for the specific performance of his agreement with X, first from Sofia City Court and then from Sofia District Court. On both occasions he applied to the court to be exempted from court fees and procedural expenses because he could not afford to pay them. His requests for exemption were denied by the Bulgarian courts and the applicant thus decided not to pursue his actions.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that there had been a violation of his right of access to a court on account of his inability to pay the high court fees charged to a claimant in civil proceedings.   The Court noted at the outset that the amount of the fees due in the applicant’s case had not been particularly excessive. It moreover noted that the applicant had had access to a procedure by which he could seek exemption from court fees and that, in denying his requests for exemption, the Bulgarian courts had taken into account his personal situation, noting especially his potential financial capacity and the fact that he was the owner of his house. It had particularly been apparent from the very nature of the applicant’s intended action, seeking payment under a professional agreement for the provision of legal services, that he had been in a position to receive income from his activities.   In the circumstances of the case, the Court did not consider that the obligation for the applicant to pay court fees in order to bring his action for payment had constituted a disproportionate restriction impairing the essence of his right of access to a court. It accordingly held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Lehtinen v. Finland (No. 2) (no. 41585/98)    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)    Violation of Article 13   The applicant, Kenneth Lehtinen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Järvenpää (Finland).   On 2 April 1996 the applicant was questioned by the police in relation into an investigation into debtor’s dishonesty, for which he was later charged. In December 1998, Tuusula District Court sentenced him to 11 months’ imprisonment for the offence. On 3 September 2002 the Supreme Court refused him leave to appeal.   He complained about the excessive length of the proceedings against him, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted almost six years and five days of which the proceedings before the Court of Appeal took about three 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 and Article 13 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Vlasia Grigore Vasilescu v. Romania (no. 60868/00)    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   The applicant, Vlasia Grigore Vasilescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Bucharest.   In 1940 the applicant’s parents purchased property consisting of a building and 15,000 sq.m of land in the administrative district of Voluntari. The building was occupied by the Soviet army in 1945 and was taken over by the local authorities in 1958 after the Soviet forces had left.   In 1989 the applicant took steps to recover possession of his property. In that connection he was informed by Voluntari town council that between 1958 and 1965 the building had been in the possession of the Defence Ministry and then of the municipal school, and that, under Decrees nos. 218/1960 and 712/1966, it had passed into the ownership of the municipality. In any event, the town council considered that it had become the owner of the property by adverse possession after more than 40 years.   The applicant and his mother brought proceedings for recovery of possession against Voluntari town council, arguing that the decrees of 1960 and 1966 were unconstitutional. After initially allowing their claims, the Romanian lower courts dismissed the action without examining the argument that the decrees had been unconstitutional, and held that the town council was the rightful owner of the property. The claimants then brought a fresh action for recovery of possession under Law no. 10/2001 and as a result, in May 2004, the town council returned part of the property to the applicant, namely 5,425 sq.m of land and the buildings thereon.   In March 2005 the applicant sold the recovered property to the town council for a total price of EUR 488,913. Administrative proceedings for the recovery of the remaining property are pending in Romania.   The applicant alleged that his right of access to a court had been violated on account of the dismissal of his action to recover possession of the property without any analysis by the courts of the validity of the State’s alleged property title. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). He further complained that his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) had been infringed.   The Court observed that its task was not to examine the merits of the argument that the decrees in question had been unconstitutional, as that was for the domestic courts to decide. However, given the crucial impact of that argument, the Court considered that it required a specific and explicit response from the County Court and the Court of Appeal. It was impossible to establish whether those courts had simply omitted to address that argument or whether they had intended to dismiss it, in which case the reasons remained unstated. Accordingly, the Court considered that the applicant’s case had not been given a fair hearing. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was unnecessary to rule separately on the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court considered that no award should be made to him under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Korchuganova v. Russia (no. 75039/01)    Two violations of Article 5 § 1    Violation of Article 5 § 3   The applicant, Svetlana Gennadyevna Korchuganova, is a Russian national who was born in 1964 and is currently serving her sentence in Irkutsk (Russia).   In March 1998 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having arranged the murder of two people. Her detention was extended several times “pending the investigation” and she remained in detention until she was convicted of murder on 30 April 2003.   The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 (right to liberty and security) about the length and unlawfulness of her detention in custody.   The Court found unanimously that the applicant’s detention from 13   November 2000 to 12 March 2001 (when she was held in custody without a valid detention order but solely on the basis of the fact that her case had been submitted for trial) and from 12   March 2001 to 8   July 2002 (for which period the Government were unable to furnish any information about the basis of the applicant’s detention) did not have sufficient basis in domestic law and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 in respect of the detention orders issued between 8 July 2002 and 30 April 2003.   The inordinate length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention – over five years – was a matter of grave concern for the Court. It observed that at no point in the proceedings did the domestic authorities consider whether the length of her detention had exceeded a “reasonable time”. Such an analysis should have been particularly prominent in the domestic decisions after she had spent more than two years in custody and the maximum detention period “pending the investigation” permitted by the domestic law had expired. The Court considered that, in those circumstances, the Russian authorities were required to put forward very weighty reasons for keeping the applicant in pre-trial detention for such a long time.   The Court found that by failing to address concrete relevant facts and by relying solely on the gravity of the charges, the authorities failed to justify the applicant’s detention pending trial which had exceeded a “reasonable time”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Singh and Others v. United Kingdom (no. 60148/00)    Friendly settlement Pavittar Singh, a British citizen born in India in 1955, and Paramjit Kaur, an Indian national born in 1955, are married and living in the United Kingdom. Pawandeep Singh, an Indian national born in 1996, now lives with them.   The first and second applicants had proved unable to have a second child and so adopted Pawandeep, the baby of a cousin living in India. The immigration authorities refused permission for Pawandeep to join the family in the United Kingdom as he fell outside the rules for entry, as he was not adopted due to the inability of his parents to care for him. They appealed successfully.   The applicants complained of the refusal to permit Pawandeep’s entry into the United Kingdom. They relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 12 (right to marry), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which approximately EUR   63,377 (42,475 pounds sterling (GBP)) is to be paid for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 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:     Collarile v. Italy (no. 10644/02) Ziccardi v. Italy (no. 27394/02)    Violation of Article 8      Violation of Article 13   Matteoni v. Italy (no. 42053/02)    Violation of Article 8    Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 In these three cases the applicants are Italian nationals who were declared bankrupt. Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), they contended that the disqualifications imposed on them during the bankruptcy proceedings had infringed their right to respect for their private life and correspondence, and complained of the restrictions placed on their freedom of movement. The applicants in Collarile and Ziccardi also alleged that the bankruptcy order had deprived them of their possessions, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In addition, they complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had had no remedy by which to complain of the disqualifications arising out of their bankruptcy. Lastly, in Collarile , the applicant also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   In the cases of Collarile and Ziccardi the Court declared the applications admissible only in respect of the complaints under Articles 8 and 13, and in the case of Matteoni only in respect of the complaints under Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   The Court found that because the entry of the bankrupt’s name in the bankruptcy register was automatic and there had been no judicial assessment or review of the disqualification measures in question, and in view of the length of time before rehabilitation could be obtained, the interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life, as provided for by the bankruptcy law, had been in breach of the Convention. It accordingly held, unanimously in the cases of Collarile and Ziccardi , that there had been a violation of Article   8. It further held in those two cases, unanimously, that there had also been a violation of Article 13.   In the Matteoni case the Court noted that, as the proceedings had lasted for some 14 years and five months, a fair balance had not been struck between the general interest of ensuring that the bankrupt’s creditors were repaid and the applicant’s interest in enjoying respect for his correspondence and freedom of movement. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR 6,000 to Mr Ziccardi and EUR   25,000 to Mr Matteoni. For costs and expenses it awarded EUR 3,000 to Mr Collarile, EUR 2,000 to Mr Ziccardi and EUR 4,000 to Mr Matteoni (The judgments are available only in French.)   Pyrikov v. Russia (no. 2703/02)    Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Petr Nikolayevich Pyrikov, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the Tula Region (Russia).   The applicant complained, in particular, about the prolonged non-enforcement of a judgment given in his favour and that his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) had been violated.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,100 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They further relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in respect of their complaints about the excessive length of proceedings.   Hadjibakalov v. Bulgaria (no. 58497/00)    Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)    Violation of Article 13   Hrobová v. Slovakia (no. 2010/02)    Violation of Article 6 § 1(length)    Article 13 (Struck out)     ***   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.