CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 18 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7B217D90 { width:74.15pt; display:inline-block } .sCD34A9B8 { width:147.49pt; display:inline-block } .sD2EAAA92 { width:54.15pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s3A821BE6 { width:106.82pt; display:inline-block } .s3C703BA6 { width:73.46pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s79C0E4C { width:234.25pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .s3EDFEA27 { width:157.47pt; display:inline-block } .sE1EB40A4 { width:257.5pt; 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   436 18.7.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, Turkey and the Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 15 Chamber judgments, none of which 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.     Balšán v. Czech Republic (application no. 1993/02) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 d) The applicant, Radan Balšán, is a Czech national who was born in 1969 and lives in Havířov (Czech Republic).   On 12 June 2000 L.Š., who was being interviewed by an investigating officer, identified the applicant as an accomplice in the offence of which he was suspected. On the following day the applicant and L.Š. were both charged with fraud. L.Š. then availed himself of the right to remain silent.   On 7 November 2000 the Karviná District Court, basing its finding on the statement made by L.Š., found them both guilty of fraud and sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment. The co-defendants appealed; the applicant complained that his conviction had been based solely on L.Š.’s statement and asked to be allowed to have him examined. The appeal court dismissed his appeal without allowing his request. The Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant as being manifestly ill-founded.   The applicant complained that he had been convicted solely on the basis of a statement by a witness whom he had not been able, at any stage of the proceedings, to examine or have examined. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to examine witnesses).   The Court observed that the fact that, under Czech law, where a co-accused refused to give evidence, the statements he had made during the investigation could be read out and used by the court, could not deprive the defendant of his right under the Convention to examine or have examined under adversarial conditions any evidence against him. In the present case, the Court considered that there had been nothing to prevent the appeal court from allowing the applicant’s request that L.Š. be called to give evidence.   The Court considered that, in the situation where L.Š. had decided to remain silent, in order to satisfy the requirement of diligence the Czech authorities should have looked for other evidence corroborating the verdict on the applicant’s guilt. Given that the courts had been satisfied with a single piece of evidence against the applicant, which he had not been able to contest appropriately and sufficiently, and that the appeal court had not allowed his request that the person who had given the witness statement should be re-examined, the Court considered that the applicant had suffered such infringements of his right to due process as to deprive him of a fair trial. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d).   The Court considered that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant and awarded him EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Zich and Others v. Czech Republic (no. 48548/99) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The eight applicants, all Czech nationals, live in Prague. They are František Zich, Petr Housa, Luboš Macho, Tomáš Čuba, Miroslav Havlák, Daniela Hajzlerová, Zdeněk Diviš and Alena Nováková, and were born in 1950, 1964, 1968, 1969, 1951, 1959, 1946 and 1966 respectively.   They are members of a housing co-operative ( bytové družstvo ) which formerly owned a block of flats in Prague. In the 1960s ownership of the building concerned was transferred to the State by its original owners because they were in difficult circumstances. In 1981 the building was acquired by the predecessor of the housing cooperative through an agreement with the State, to which it paid the equivalent of EUR 53,470. The cooperative apparently carried out a large-scale reconstruction and modernisation project, made possible in part by the work done by the members of the cooperative who lived in the building.   In 1991 the successors in title of the original owners brought an action with a view to recovering ownership of the building from the cooperative. On 23 March 1994 the Prague 3 District Court ordered the cooperative to reach an agreement for the return of the building on such terms that the plaintiffs would become co-owners; it held that it had been established that the plaintiffs had been in financial difficulties at the time of the transfer, that they were accordingly entitled to apply for restitution under section 3 of the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act and that the cooperative was required to return the property. The judgment was upheld on appeal and the applicants appealed – unsuccessfully – on points of law. They also lodged a constitutional appeal which was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 19 November 1998.   The Ministry of Finance reached an agreement with the cooperative under the terms of which, in August 1999, it was reimbursed the price it had paid to purchase the property in 1981 – EUR 53,470. In July 2002 the District Court dismissed a claim by the cooperative against the State for the difference in value between the purchase price and the sum paid, partly by its members and partly by the bank, for the reconstruction and modernisation of the building.   The applicants complained of the Czech courts’ decision to order the return of the property. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the applicants had title to a possession and that the return of the property had entailed an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of it. That interference, which had been based on the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act, had been in the public interest.   As to whether the interference had been proportionate, the Court noted, among other things, that the cooperative had acquired the property in good faith, without knowing that it had been given to the State by its former owners under pressure, and for the price fixed in accordance with the law. It further observed that under the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act the cooperative had been entitled to reimbursement of the price it had paid to purchase the property in 1981.   In those conditions, the Court considered that the applicants had had to bear an “individual and excessive burden” and that the Czech authorities, in applying the Extrajudicial Rehabilitation Act, had not taken into consideration the conditions in which the return of the property had been effected, particularly the terms of the compensation intended to lighten the burden they had to bear. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants jointly EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. It considered that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) as regards pecuniary damage was not yet ready for decision and accordingly reserved it. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Jakumas v. Lithuania (no. 6924/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Ričardas Jakumas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Vilnius. He was a police officer at the time of the events in question.   On 14 November 1995 the applicant was arrested as he was suspected of mishandling official resources. In January 1998 he was officially charged with misusing an official title, exceeding his official duties and smuggling. In August 2000 Vilnius Regional Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to three years and three months imprisonment and barred him from working for any law-enforcement bodies for five years. His cassation appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court on 26 June 2001.   The applicant complained in particular about 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 for five years and seven 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. It held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. He was awarded EUR   1,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Kozik v. Poland (no. 25501/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Roman Kozik, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Goleniów (Poland).   On 19 June 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of killing his fiancée. The next day Świnoujście District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on the grounds of the strong evidence against him, the gravity of the charges he faced and the fact that he had attempted to abscond. Subsequent decisions to prolong his detention were based on the same reasons.   On 30 January 2002 he was convicted as charged. However, that judgment was quashed on 14 May 2002 and the case was remitted. The applicant remained in custody. On 7 October 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court convicted him of murder and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive. He relied on Article 5   § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court considered that the grounds relied on by the domestic authorities were not sufficient to justify his being kept in detention for over four years. In particular, it noted that the courts had not considered alternative measures of ensuring the applicant’s appearance at trial available under Polish law.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It also found that the finding in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden (no. 53507/99)   Struck out The applicant union had a collective labour agreement with the Swedish Association of Newspaper Publishers which stipulated that any company hiring a contractor had to draw up a separate contract with the union.   In 1995 a company belonging to the Association, hired a contractor to distribute newspapers in a district previously distributed by a union member. The union successfully sued the Association and the company before the Labour Court.   The company complained to the Swedish Competition Authority. In a decision of 19 February 1999, the Competition Authority found that the decision had impaired free and fair competition and violated section 6 of the Competition Act. As a consequence, the Association and its member companies were ordered to discontinue applying the decision in question. Thus, in effect, the clause became invalid.   Under section 60 of the Competition Act, only a company affected by the Competition Authority’s decision could lodge an appeal. No appeal was lodged.   The applicant union complained about its lack of access to a court to challenge the Competition Authority’s decision. It relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to court).   The Government submitted that a legislative review of the limitations on access to a court implied by section 60 of the Competition Act was currently being carried out and was due to be concluded by 1 November 2006. The review was made with specific reference to the decision given in the applicant’s case and the Government’s acknowledgment that it had given rise to a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court noted those facts along with the Government’s preparedness to pay the applicant union compensation for the violation. In the light of those circumstances, the Court considered it no longer justified to continue the examination application and decided unanimously to strike the application out of its list of cases. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Baltacı v. Turkey (no. 495/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Resul Baltacı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Gaziantep (Turkey).   On 16 October 1992 he was arrested on suspicion of lending aid and assistance to the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and placed in pre-trial detention. He was charged with undermining the territorial integrity of the State and belonging to an armed gang.   On 17 June 1999 the National Security Court sentenced the applicant to capital punishment, commuted to life imprisonment. The Court of Cassation quashed the conviction and referred the case to the Diyarbakır National Security Court, where it is currently pending.   The applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Articles 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the applicant had been held in pre-trial detention for more than six years and eight months. The National Security Court had regularly extended the applicant’s detention, at the end of each hearing, using a standard form of words which was almost always identical, not to say stereotypical, referring to the nature of the charges, the state of the evidence and the content of the file. On two occasions it gave no reasons for its decision.   In the Court’s view, although the “state of the evidence” can be taken to mean the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, and although in general such circumstances could constitute relevant factors, they could not be sufficient alone to justify prolonging the detention for such a lengthy period. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   The Court further noted that the proceedings complained of had lasted for more than 13 years and nine months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a lengthy period was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   With regard to just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Pronina v. Ukraine (no. 63566/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Svetlana Vladimirovna Pronina, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Yalta (Ukraine).   In March 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Yalta City Court against the local social welfare department, challenging the refusal of the latter to award her a higher pension. In her claim, the applicant maintained, among other things, that under Article 46 of the Constitution, her pension should not be lower than the minimum living standard.   Her complaint was rejected by the Yalta City Court and later, on appeal, by the Supreme Court. Neither court considered her arguments under Article 46 of the Constitution.   The applicant complained, in particular, that the domestic courts had failed to give sufficient reasons for their decisions in her civil case. She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court noted that the domestic courts made no attempt to analyse the applicant’s claim under Article 46 of the Convention, despite explicit references she made before every judicial instance. The Court therefore found that, by ignoring the point altogether, even though it was specific, pertinent and important, the courts fell short of their obligations under Article 6 § 1.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (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:     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Cosson v. France (no. 38498/03) Hostein v. France (no. 76450/01)   Patrick Cosson is a French national who was born in 1952 and lives in Toulon (France).   The applicant, who is a doctor specialising in electrotherapy, was accused of having two of his assistants who had no medical training carry out certain medical acts, and as a result, in December 2002, after disciplinary proceedings, the Medical Association debarred him from practising medicine for two months, one of which was suspended. On 2 June 2003 the Conseil d’Etat declared an appeal by the applicant on points of law inadmissible.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained in particular of the participation by the Government Commissioner in the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat .   The Court reiterated that participation by the Government Commissioner in the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat, whether “active” or “passive”, and irrespective of whether the proceedings led to a judgment or a decision not to admit an appeal, was contrary to Article 6 § 1. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention on that point. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant and awarded him EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses.   Jacques Hostein is a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Mauguio (France).   In December 1998 the Nancy Court of Appeal granted the applicant and his wife a divorce, on the basis of fault on both sides, gave custody of the children who were still minors to their mother, with an access and residence order in favour of the applicant, and fixed the amount of the maintenance payments he was required to make for the upkeep and education of his five children. On 25 January 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment only in so far as it concerned the maintenance payments.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained in particular that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair in that he had not been provided with a copy of the reporting judge’s report before the hearing, whereas that document had been transmitted to the advocate-general.   The Court reiterated that the failure to communicate the reporting judge’s report to the applicant, before the hearing, whereas a copy of it had been supplied to the advocate-general, and the fact that it had been impossible for the applicant to reply to the advocate-general’s submissions, were at variance with the requirements of a fair trial. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant and awarded him EUR   700 for costs and expenses.   (The judgments are available only in French.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They all relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). In the case of Tamar v. Turkey and Efimenko v. Ukraine the applicants also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).       Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Šimonová v. Czech Republic (no. 73516/01) Bíró v. Hungary (no. 15652/04) Jaczkó v. Hungary (no. 40109/03) Ratajczyk v. Poland (no. 11215/02)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Tamar v. Turkey (no. 15614/02)   Violation of Article 13 Efimenko v. Ukraine (no. 55870/00)       ***   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.