CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 11 juillet 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 } .s747AF4BE { width:18.75pt; display:inline-block } .s77830AC { width:78.14pt; display:inline-block } .sF1DD9920 { width:88.17pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s5C5AF3A4 { width:24.81pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s51C4CFB0 { width:200.25pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s3C703BA6 { width:73.46pt; display:inline-block } .s5736FAD3 { width:168.16pt; display:inline-block } .s20F57C51 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:216pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s69592D61 { width:190.17pt; display:inline-block } .sD19AB22 { width:250.84pt; 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   420 11.7.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Estonia, France, Italy, Moldova, Romania and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] can be found at the end of the press release.   Harkmann v. Estonia (application no. 2192/03)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 The applicant, Allar Harkmann, was born in 1955 and lives in Tartu (Estonia).   In 1995 or 1996 the applicant requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against four people, including two police officers, who he claimed had beaten him up. A prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings.   In   October 1996 and also in 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 174 § 1 of the Criminal Code for submitting knowingly false accusations concerning the commission of a criminal offence by another person. In the following years, the applicant repeatedly failed to appear at the police prefecture when summoned. It proved impossible to compel him to appear by force, as he was not present at the address he had indicated and his whereabouts were unknown.   On 30 September 2002, as the applicant again failed to appear, the Tartu County Court declared him to be a fugitive and ordered his arrest. On 2   October   2002 he was arrested and taken into custody, where he was kept until 17   October 2002.   On 21 September 2005, the County Court found the applicant guilty as charged. However, since his state of mind had deteriorated, as evidenced by the forensic psychiatric examination’s report, and since he was unable to give statements before a court and serve any punishment, the criminal proceedings were discontinued.   The applicant complained in particular that he had not been brought before a court immediately after his arrest and that he had been unable to obtain any compensation for his unlawful detention. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the applicant had been released after a hearing of his criminal case on 17 October 2002 at which the lawfulness of his detention had been examined. Prior to that date, he had been kept in custody for 15 days. The Court found that such a period was incompatible with the requirement of “promptness” under Article 5 §   3. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court noted that the County Court ordered the applicant’s detention on the ground that he had absconded from the criminal proceedings and that that decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court found no reason to doubt the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention under Estonian law. In those circumstances it did not appear that a claim for compensation made by the applicant under any of the relevant provisions of the Unjust Deprivation of Liberty (Compensation) Act or the State Liability Act would have had any reasonable prospect of success. Nor did Estonian law provide for a distinct right to compensation for detention in violation of Article 5. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Gurov v. Moldova (no. 36455/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Maria Gurov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1956 and lives in Chisinau.   Following a dispute with the Moldovan insurance company ASITO about a contract concluded by her, the applicant brought civil proceedings seeking an order compelling ASITO to pay her a pension. On 5 October 2001 the Râşcani District Court granted her claim and ordered ASITO to perform the disputed contract. An appeal by the insurance company was dismissed.   On an appeal “in the interests of the law” lodged by the Principal Public Prosecutor, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of the insurance company. On 16 April 2002 the court of appeal, presided by V.D., overturned the decisions given by the trial courts in the applicant’s favour. The applicant subsequently learned that Judge V.D.’s term of office had expired in 2000, and that he had been removed from his functions as judge in July 2002.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that she had not had a fair hearing before a tribunal established by law, on account of the expiry of the term of office of one of the judges involved in her case.   It was not disputed by the parties that Judge V.D.’s term of office had expired when he sat in the applicant’s case. In addition, the Moldovan Government acknowledged that, at the relevant time, judges whose term of office had expired were authorised to continue to exercise their functions for an undetermined period, until such time as the President decided the question of their appointment, and that there was no legislation governing this matter.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that Judge V.D.’s participation in the hearing on the applicant’s case had not had a legal basis. In addition, that practice was contrary to the principle that the organisation of the courts in a democratic society must not depend on executive discretion.   Accordingly, the Court noted that the applicant’s case had not been heard by a “tribunal established by law” and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1. It considered this finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded Ms Gurov EUR   1,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Aliuta v. Romania (no. 73502/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Gheorghe Aliuţǎ, is a Romanian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Bucharest (Romania).   The applicant was arrested on 30 September 1997 on suspicion of theft. He was acquitted at first instance, but on 21 March 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. On 8 October 2001 the same court examined the extraordinary appeal lodged by the applicant, quashed his conviction and sent the case back to the prosecution service for further investigations. The investigation was closed in July 2002, and then reopened by the prosecutor in May 2003.   On 15 December 2005 the applicant was acquitted. An appeal lodged by the prosecution service is currently pending before the Romanian courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained, in particular, of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.     The Court noted that the proceedings in question had so far lasted more than six years and four months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Teslim Töre v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 13244/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Teslim Töre, is a Turkish national who was born in 1939. He has been on the run since November 2004.   On 5 May 1993 the applicant, presumed head of the TKEP (Communist Labour Party of Turkey), was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. Criminal proceedings were brought against him on the basis of Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to attempt to change or modify the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey in whole or in part, to attempt a coup d'état against the National Assembly or to use force to prevent the National Assembly from carrying out its functions.   In December 1997 the State Security Court ordered that the applicant be released on bail. However, he could not be released because of the existence of another decision, dating from 1993, ordering that he be placed in pre-trial detention. Further proceedings were brought against the applicant in his capacity as leader and secretary general of the TKEP, for acts of vandalism and murders committed by members of the TKEP between 1974 and 1981.   The applicant was released on 11 September 2001. The case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court, which in 2005 made a further order that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the length of time he had spent in pre-trial detention and of the length of the proceedings brought against him.   The Court noted that the applicant had been held in pre-trial detention for about eight years and four months. At the end of each hearing, the State Security Court had consistently ordered the applicant’s continued detention, nearly always using an identical, not to say stereotyped, form of words to justify its decision, referring to the nature of the offence with which the applicant was accused and the “state of the evidence”. In the Court’s view, if “the state of the evidence” could be understood to mean the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, and although in general these could be relevant factors, they could not in themselves suffice to justify the continuation of the detention complained of for such a lengthy period. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   3.   At the same time, the Court noted that the proceedings in question had so far lasted more than 13 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 did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (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:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sarl du Parc d’Activités de Blotzheim v. France (no. 72377/01) The applicant company, Sarl du Parc d’Activités de Blotzheim, is a limited company based in Blotzheim (France).   On 6 March 1990 the applicant company intervened in the proceedings between the Basle-Mulhouse airport and the municipality of Blotzheim. These proceedings were linked to a project for the development of industrial, business and service-sector activities on a site adjoining Basle-Mulhouse Airport, activities, for which the applicant company had obtained a favourable opinion from the municipality. The proceedings ended on 31 January 2001 with a judgment of the Conseil d’Etat .   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), the applicant company complained of the length of the administrative proceedings to which it had been a party. It also complained about the unfairness of the proceedings, particularly as a result of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations at the Conseil d’Etat .   The Court noted that the disputed proceedings had lasted almost ten years and 11 months for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court noted that the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat , whether “active” or “passive”, had entailed a breach of Article 6 § 1. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of the Convention on that ground too.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant society EUR 10,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     No violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment)   Violation of Article 8 Campisi v. Italy (no. 24359/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Bastone v. Italy (no. 59638/00)   Violation of Article 8 Giovanni Bastone and Giuseppe Campisi are Italian nationals who were born in 1943 and 1960 respectively. They are both currently detained at Sulmona Prison (Italy).   In 1994 Mr Campisi was placed in pre-trial detention; Mr Bastone was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1995 for, among other things, aiding and abetting homicide. On orders of the Minister of Justice, the applicants were both placed under the special prison regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act, which derogates from the conditions for ordinary detention laid down in the Act. The application of this regime to the applicants was extended on several occasions.     Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants both complained about the supervision of their correspondence. In addition, Mr Campisi alleged that the extended application of the regime provided for in section 41 bis constituted treatment contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) for him; in addition, he relied, inter alia , on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) on account of the breach of his right to a court.   The Court pointed out that it had already ruled that section 18 of the Prison Administration Act, allowing for the supervision of prisoners’ correspondence, could not be considered as a law within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court therefore held, unanimously in both cases, that there had been a violation of this provision.   In the Campisi case, the Court noted that the arguments put forward as justifying the extension of the limitation on rights had not been disproportionate in relation to the offences with which Mr   Campisi, who had received heavy sentences for very serious offences, had been charged. On that account, the suffering or humiliation which he may have experienced had not gone beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment - extended in this case - or punishment. In addition, the applicant had not submitted evidence to the Court which would have enabled it to conclude that the extension of the restrictions was not clearly justified in this case. Equally, there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the applicant had been refused the care he required. The Court therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Finally, again in the Campisi case, the Court noted that there had been neither a lack of a decision on the merits of the appeals lodged by the applicant nor systematic delays by the courts. Consequently, there had been no violation of Article 6 on account of delays in examining the applicant’s appeals against the ministerial orders imposing the special prison regime.   In both these cases, the Court considered that the finding of a violation of the Convention in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.   (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 5) (no. 63239/00)   Maselli v. Italy (No. 2) (no. 61211/00)   In both these cases, the applicants were all owners of plots of land which were occupied by the authorities with a view to their expropriation and on which they began construction work. In the absence of a formal expropriation procedure and compensation, the applicants brought legal proceedings in order to obtain damages for the unlawful occupation of their land.   The applicants alleged that the occupation of their land had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In addition, in the case of La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 5) , the applicants also alleged that they had not had a fair hearing, in violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court considered that the loss of all ability to dispose of the land in issue, taken together with the impossibility of remedying the situation complained of, amounted to a de facto expropriation which was incompatible with the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It therefore concluded, unanimously in each of these cases, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. It also held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 in the case of La Rosa and Alba v. Italy (No. 5) . The Court ruled that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and accordingly reserved it in both these cases.   (The judgment is 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.