CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s1E59FF54 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s35F1F2CB { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5D692C31 { width:66.13pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3EFFE98F { width:59.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA560202F { width:75.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6066DECA { width:252.25pt; display:inline-block } .s73EB6239 { width:126.15pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s982FE6A3 { width:76.16pt; display:inline-block } .sFF415C7 { width:37.51pt; display:inline-block } .s172596D7 { width:126.82pt; display:inline-block } .sE92F8F3 { width:296.23pt; display:inline-block } .s7C94A8D4 { width:50.83pt; display:inline-block } .s646765F9 { width:105.48pt; display:inline-block } .s9CD27748 { width:58.77pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s9743D5FD { width:49.46pt; display:inline-block } .s2FDED807 { width:28.82pt; display:inline-block } .s29E2692C { width:246.79pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s6342871B { width:48.13pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .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   448 27.7.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Romania, Russia, Slovenia and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 21 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.     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Coorplan-Jenni Gmbh and Hascic v. Austria (application no. 10523/02) Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau v. Austria (no. 62539/00)   The applicants in the first case are Coorplan-Jenni GmbH, a company based in Feldkirch (Austria), and Elvir Hascic. The applicants in the second case are Ivan Jurisic, and the Collegium Mehrerau, a monastery situated in Austria. Mr Hasic and Mr Jurisc were born in 1970 and 1968 respectively. They are both nationals of Bosnia Herzegovina who live in Austria. In April 1998 Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Mr Hascic applied to the Feldkirch Labour Market Service for an employment permit allowing the applicant company to employ Mr   Hascic as a carpenter. In February 1998 Mr Jurisic and the Collegium Mehrerau applied to the Bregenz Labour Market Service for an employment permit allowing the Collegium Mehrerau to employ Mr Jurisic as a farm labourer. Their applications were dismissed in accordance with the Employment of Foreigners Act, as the maximum quota fixed for the employment of foreigners in the region in question had been exceeded. The applicants in both cases appealed. The Vorarlberg Labour Market Service subsequently dismissed the complaints from the monastery and the applicant company on the merits and rejected the complaints from Mr Jurisic and Mr   Hascic on the ground that only prospective employers had the right to file an application for an employment permit. The applicants lodged complaints with the Administrative Court and requested that it hold an oral hearing. On 15 December 1999 and 19 December 2000 respectively, the Administrative Court, without holding a hearing, confirmed the Labour Market Services’ decisions. The applicants complained about the lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court. Mr Jurisic and Mr Hascic further claimed that they were denied access to a court as they had not been parties to the proceedings concerning the requested employment permits. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). On examining the applicability of Article 6 § 1, the Court noted in particular that under conditions of the Employment of Aliens Act, the applicant company and monastery, as potential employers, had an arguable ground to claim the right to an employment permit. It also noted that, since the validity of an employment contract was dependent on the grant of a employment permit, the outcome of the proceedings directly concerned the applicants’ civil rights. The Court therefore held unanimously that Article 6 § 1 was applicable to the proceedings concerning the company and the monastery’s request for an employment permit.   Turning then to the applicants’ complaints regarding the lack of an oral hearing, the Court found that the subject matter of the proceedings before the Administrative Court was not of such a highly technical or exclusively legal nature that it justified dispensing with an oral hearing. It therefore held in both cases, and by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   Concerning the applicability of Article 6 § 1 to the complaints made by Mr Jurisic and Mr Hascic who had no standing in the proceedings, the Court found that since, their potential employers claimed the right to the issue of an employment permit, it followed that they too had a right to adjudication on their request for an employment permit. It pointed out that the fact that domestic legislation precluded them from making the request personally did not affect the existence of that right but was only a procedural bar. The Court therefore concluded that the Mr Hascic’s and Mr Jurisic’s right to enter into a valid employment contract was arguable, and that the dispute they wished to bring before the domestic tribunals was directly decisive their civil rights. The Court held by five votes to two that Article 6 § 1 was applicable to their proceedings.   The Court noted that the Employment of Aliens Act prevented the applicants from bringing their claim for an employment permit before the domestic authorities. In view of that fact and its conclusion that Article 6 § 1 was applicable, the Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of the Mr Hascic’s and Mr Jurisic’s right of access to a court and held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine their complaints regarding the lack of an oral hearing.   The Court awarded the applicants 9,175.36 euros (EUR) in Coorplan-Jenni Gmbh and Hascic and EUR   9,441.24 in Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Gubler v. France (no. 69742/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Claude Gubler is a French national who was born in 1934 and lives in Paris. The applicant, a general practitioner, was private physician to François Mitterrand, the President of the French Republic, from 1981 to 1994.   In 1981 President Mitterrand, who had undertaken to issue regular health bulletins, asked the applicant not to divulge the diagnosis of his prostrate cancer, which was only disclosed to the public in 1992.   In 1996 the applicant published a book entitled “ Le Grand Secret ” (“The Big Secret”), in which he recounted in particular the difficulties he had encountered in hiding this illness from the French public. The late President’s widow and children had the book seized and the applicant was found guilty of breaching professional confidence and given a suspended sentence of four months’ imprisonment. At the same time, the National Council of the Ordre des médecins (Medical Council) lodged a complaint about the applicant with the Ile de France Regional Council of the Ordre des médecins , alleging that he had disclosed information covered by professional confidentiality and concerning François   Mitterrand’s private life, issued spurious medical certificates and damaged the reputation of the profession.   On 6 April 1997 the Regional Council of the Ordre ordered that the applicant be struck off the register. The disciplinary section of the National Council of the Ordre dismissed an appeal submitted by the applicant. The Conseil d’Etat also dismissed an application for judicial review lodged by him.   The applicant alleged that the National Council of the Ordre des médecins was not independent and impartial. He claimed that it had been both judge and party in his case, since it had been the complainant at first instance and it had then acted as an appeal body, meaning that it had been required, as a disciplinary body, to rule on its own complaint. He relied on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court noted, firstly, that the members of the disciplinary section of the National Council of the Ordre des médecins were irremovable throughout their term of office, and therefore independent of their peers - who had elected them - and by no means in hierarchical dependence on them. Further, the disputed composition of the section had been chaired by a member of the Conseil d’Etat , a professional judge who was independent of the National Council of the Ordre , and indeed not elected by it. In particular, the Court noted in this case that the ordinary members of the disciplinary section had withdrawn from the sitting at which the National Council of the Ordre had decided to bring a complaint against the applicant before the Council had even considered the appropriateness of beginning such proceedings. This showed that the members of the disciplinary section, especially those who had been members of the composition that ruled on the complaint brought against the applicant, had not been involved in the National Council’s decision to lodge that complaint.     Accordingly, the Court concluded, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Nedzela v. France (no. 73695/01)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Daniel Nedzela, is a French national who was born in 1952 and lives in Nantes (France). At the relevant time he managed the Société nouvelle d’édition et de publication (SNEP), a publishing company.   In 1989 the association Office municipal nantais d’information et de communication (OMNIC, the Nantes Municipal Office for Information and Communication) was set up. Made up of local councillors and led by the mayor and the city’s director of communication, it relied exclusively on state and municipal resources and made use of the city’s office premises and staff. Its purpose was to develop municipal public-information campaigns and, in particular, to publish the magazine “ Nantes passion ”.   In 1994 the regional audit office informed the prosecution service that the printing and distribution of the municipal newspaper, together with its advertising service, had been awarded to SNEP alone, with no written call for tenders or written contract, except for that concerning the advertising service.   On 19 December 1997 the Nantes tribunal de grande instance found the mayor and the director of communication guilty of favouritism; the applicant was convicted of benefiting from favouritism, given a suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of 200,000 francs (about EUR 30,500). The applicant was the only one of the three to appeal against this judgment; the court of appeal found that the lower court had definitively found that the offence of favouritism had occurred and that the applicant’s arguments were thus in conflict with the earlier final decision. It then examined the applicant’s arguments concerning the offence of benefiting from favouritism and upheld the contested judgment.   The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation, alleging that the judgment against him could not have become final since he had appealed. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal.   The applicant alleged that he had not had a fair trial, given the fact that the appeal court had considered that the judgment at first instance had become final. He relied on Article 6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters).   The Court noted that the appeal court had examined the applicant’s arguments. In addition, the Court of Cassation had re-examined the case. In those circumstances, the fact that the persons convicted of favouritism at first instance had not appealed against the judgment finding them guilty had not had, in practice, had the effect of disproportionately limiting the applicant’s right of access, first to the appeal court then to the Court of Cassation, nor, even less, had it breached the very substance of that right. Accordingly, the Court concluded, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 and considered that it was unnecessary to examine separately the alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Zervudacki v. France (no. 73947/01)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 The applicant, Martine Zervudacki, is a French national who was born in 1953 and lives in Paris. She worked as a judicial administrator.   Following a search carried out at her office on the morning of 10 June 1997, the applicant was placed in police custody; she was suspected of aggravated fraud. The police custody ended at 10 a.m. on 12 June 1997 and the applicant was transferred to the Nanterre prosecution service, where she waited to be questioned by the investigating judge. That evening, at 11.30 p.m., the judge questioned the applicant, placed her under investigation for aggravated fraud and aiding and abetting crime, and ordered that she be placed in pre-trial detention. On arrival at the prison, she was hospitalised on account of her extremely weak state.   The applicant was released under judicial supervision on 27 June 1997; a ruling that there was no case to answer was issued on 11 July 2005.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained, in particular, that she had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty from 10 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. on 12 June 1997 and had not had access to a remedy enabling her to ask a court to rule “speedily” on the lawfulness of her detention between the end of the period in police custody and the time she was brought before the investigating judge.   The Court could only note that, in the present case, the deprivation of liberty experienced by the applicant between 10 a.m. and 11.30 p.m. on 12 June 1997 had had no legal basis in French law. It noted that during this period the applicant had been unable to wash, eat or rest, although she had just undergone 48 hours in police custody in comparable conditions, and that at the end of this period she was hospitalised on medical grounds. The Court therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c).   Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant, who had not yet been charged, had had no means of obtaining a speedy ruling on the lawfulness of her detention. It therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   4.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded Mrs Zervudacki EUR 4,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No-violation of Article 3 (inhuman treatment)   Violation of Article 3 (investigation) Davtian v. Georgia (no. 73241/01)   No violation of Article 34 The applicant, Karen Davtian, is a Georgian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Pyatigorsk (Russia).   The applicant was arrested on 14 June 1999 on suspicion of having stolen from and assaulted two tradesmen. At the request of the investigator responsible for the case, a psychiatric report was prepared; this found, among other things, a tendency towards self-harm and emotional problems, but the applicant was declared to have been psychologically responsible for his actions when the crime had been committed and at the time of his examination.   In November 1999 the applicant complained to the district prosecutor that he had been subjected to ECT treatment during the night of 17 to 18 June 1999 at the Varketili police station (Issani-Samgori district). The investigator dealing with the case met the applicant and questioned the police officers who had been on duty on the night in question, as well as the warden responsible for the custody cell and the head of the prison in which the applicant was placed after 18 June. To date no decision has been taken with regard to this complaint.   On 12 July 2000 the applicant was convicted of the charges against him and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. His conviction was upheld on ordinary appeal and on an appeal on points of law.   In February and March 2003 the applicant and his mother lodged two new complaints about the persecution allegedly suffered by the applicant in Prison no. 1, Tbilisi, between July and November 2002. An investigation unit in the Ministry of Justice questioned the applicant, asking him to provide explanations, but he refused to explain his complaints; he then took refuge behind vague and claims and hypotheses, alleging, for example, that he believed he had been the victim of attempted blackmail by the prison governor. In April 2003 it was decided to take no further action on these complaints.   In March 2004 the applicant submitted to the Minister of Justice that he had been subjected to ridicule, beatings, humiliation and plots of all sorts within Prison no. 1. Once again, the applicant failed to assist the authorities who were investigating his complaint, and subsequently withdrew it.   Mr Davtian was released on parole on 9 September 2005.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment following his placement in pre-trial detention on 17 June 1999 and subsequently, when he was serving his sentence. In addition, relying on Article 34 (right of individual petition), he alleged that pressure had been exerted on him to withdraw his application to the European Court of Human Rights.   As to the allegations of ill-treatment The Court considered that, in the absence of tangible and sufficient evidence due to failings on the part of the authorities and the applicant’s inconsistency and refusal to cooperate with them, it was impossible to establish whether the treatment complained of had been inflicted by agents of the State, as the applicant alleged. As the material in the case file did not contain information that would substantiate such a conclusion “beyond all reasonable doubt”, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 in this respect.   As to the investigations carried out into the allegations of ill-treatment With regard to the complaint made in November 1999, the Court considered that the mere fact that an investigation was opened, only to be closed at an early stage without ever reaching a decision, could not be regarded as thorough and effective for the purposes of Article 3. The lack of an effective reaction on the part of the authorities was all the more significant in that the applicant suffered from serious mental disorders and was an introverted and vulnerable individual. It therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 with regard to these allegations.   With regard to the complaints made in February and March 2003, the Court noted that the applicant, who suffered from a psychopathic disorder, was clearly in the habit of cutting his body with a knife, and it could not therefore rule out that the “cuts to the body” had been self-inflicted. When the authorities attempted to shed light on these events, the applicant refused to cooperate, was inconsistent with regard to the events and dates, and showed fickleness. In those circumstances, the Georgian authorities could not validly be criticised for failing to pursue the investigation into his allegations and the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 in this respect.   With regard to the complaint of March 2004, the Court considered that, here too, the applicant did not have grounds to criticise the authorities for not carrying out a thorough and effective investigation into his allegations, which he had subsequently withdrawn without giving any reasons. It therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had also been no violation of Article 3 in this respect.   As to the pressure exerted on the applicant to withdraw his application, the Court noted that all the letters and facts received on behalf of the applicant had been sent to the Court by his representative. As the applicant did not provide a shred of evidence that the prison authorities had been informed of his application before being contacted by the Agent of the Government in connection with the complaint under Article 34, or that the attempted dissuasion had indeed taken place, the Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 34.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000   in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in French.)   Efstathiou and Others v. Greece (no. 36998/02) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicants are five Greek nationals, former employees of the Athens water authority (EYDAP).   In 1996 EYDAP terminated their contracts on the ground that they had reached retirement age and had worked for 35 years. Taking the view that their retirement age should be 65 and not 58, the applicants brought proceedings seeking to have the decision set aside and to be reinstated.   On 9 April 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law, on the ground that they had not specified clearly the facts of the case on which the court of appeal had based its decision.   Relying in particular on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants alleged a breach of their right of access to a court.   The Court observed that the rule on which the Court of Cassation had based its decision to dismiss the applicants’ appeal on points of law was a principle enshrined in its case-law and arose out of the specific nature of the Court of Cassation’s role, which was limited to reviewing whether the law had been correctly applied. In the Court’s view, the applicants’ appeal had not obliged the Court of Cassation to redetermine the facts of the case. The first five grounds of appeal had related solely to the court of appeal’s interpretation of the provisions applied in the case, which meant that presentation of the facts had not been essential in order for the Court of Cassation to conduct its review. In addition, the central facts of the case had not been particularly complicated and the impugned judgment had in any event been attached to the appeal.   In the circumstances the Court considered that the facts of the case as established by the court of appeal had been brought to the attention of the Court of Cassation. In declaring the grounds of appeal inadmissible on the ground that the applicants “had not specified clearly the facts of the case on which the court of appeal had based its decision”, the Court of Cassation had taken an excessively formalistic approach, which had prevented the applicants from having the merits of their allegations examined by that court.   As the limitation on the applicants’ right of access to a court had been disproportionate to the aim of ensuring legal certainty and proper administration of justice, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13 separately, and awarded the applicants EUR 5,000 each for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Klement v. Hungary (no. 31701/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicants, Tibor Klement, his father Tibor Klement and his brother Attila Klement, are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1955, 1934 and 1968, respectively and live in Miskolc (Hungary).   In 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants and other suspects. After having held 30 hearings on 8 July 1998 the Miskolc District Court convicted the applicants of several counts of fraud, tax fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, forgery of documents as well as accounting crimes and the applicants were given prison sentences. On appeal the Heves County Regional Court re-characterised part of the offences, acquitted the applicants of some charges, and reduced their prison terms. The second and third applicants then filed a petition for review and on 6 March 2002 the Supreme Court acquitted them of the charge of tax fraud.   The applicants complained, in particular, about the length of criminal proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court declared the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings conducted in respect of the second and third applicants admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had lasted nine years. 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.   It awarded the second and third applicants, each, EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Von Hoffen v. Liechtenstein (no. 5010/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Eugen von Hoffen, is a Liechtenstein national who was born in 1952 and lives in Schaanwald (Liechtenstein).   On 4 May 1994 and 1 July 1994 two sets of proceedings concerning charges of investment fraud were opened against the applicant. In June 1997 his premises were searched and a number of documents seized. The following month he was questioned as a suspect. In February 2000 a warrant was issued for his arrest and in May 2000 he was arrested in Switzerland and extradited to Liechtenstein. He was subsequently detained on suspicion of aggravated fraud. The Public Prosecutor filed an indictment on him in January 2001.   In June 2001 the Vaduz Regional Court convicted the applicant of two counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On appeal the sentence was increased to 9 years imprisonment and then later reduced to eight years by the Supreme Court. The applicant made a constitutional complaint regarding, among other things, the length of the proceedings. His complaint was dismissed and the judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 5 March 2004.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the length of the 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 nine years and ten 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. It awarded the applicant EUR   2,500 in respect of costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Iosub Caras v. Romania (no. 7198/04)   Violation of Article 8 The applicants, Andrei Dorian Iosub Caras and his daughter Iris Iosub Caras, are Israeli and Romanian nationals. Mr Iosub Caras was born in 1972 and lives in Petah Tikva (Israel). His daughter was born in 2001 and currently lives in Romania. Mr Iosub Caras and his wife, both Romanian and Israeli citizens, have had their permanent residence in Israel since 1997. Their child Iris was born there, in 2001, and acquired Israeli citizenship from birth.   At the end of their visit to Romania in September 2001, Mr Iosub Caras returned to Israel while his wife and daughter remained in Romania. Mr Iosub Caras later filed a request for the return of the child, under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 (“the Hague Convention”), on the civil aspects of international child abduction, while his wife filed for divorce and custody of the child with the Romanian courts.   Mr Iosub Caras filed his request through the Israeli Ministry of Justice to the Romanian Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) which received it on 26 November 2001. Mr Iosub Caras claimed that his wife was wrongfully retaining their daughter in Romania, without his consent. He asked the Ministry to apply for a stay in the divorce proceedings which his wife had instituted, for as long as the Hague proceedings were pending.   In January 2002, the Ministry, acting as the Central Authority for the purpose of the Hague Convention, instituted proceedings on behalf of Mr Iosub Caras for the return of the child. In a final decision of 5 June 2003 the Bucharest Court of appeal rejected the request on the ground that, since the date of the commencement of the Hague proceedings, another Romanian court had ruled on the divorce of the parents and had granted sole custody of the child to the mother, in a final decision of 18 September 2002.   The applicants complained that their right to respect for their family life had been violated by the courts that had dealt with both the Hague Convention and the divorce proceedings and that the authorities had not acted expeditiously in the Hague proceedings. They relied in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that under the Hague Convention, the authorities were obliged to take all necessary measures to prevent harm to the child or prejudice to the interested parties. However, although the authorities had knowledge of the existence of the divorce proceedings before the Romanian courts, they did nothing to defer the judgment until the Hague proceedings were finalised. The Court found that by failing to inform the divorce courts of the existence of the Hague proceedings, the authorities, in particular the Ministry, deprived the Hague Convention of its very purpose, that is to prevent a decision on the merits of the right to custody being taken in the State of refuge.   In matters pertaining to the reunification of children with their parents, the adequacy of a measure is also to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation. Despite this recognised urgency, a period of more than eighteen months elapsed from the date on which Mr Iosub Caras lodged his request for the return of the child to the date of the final decision. No satisfactory explanation was put forward by the Government for this delay. It followed that the time it took for the courts to adopt the final decision in the present case failed to meet the urgency of the situation.   The Court concluded that the Romanian authorities failed to fulfil their positive obligations and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. It further held unanimously that there was no need to examine the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. Mr Iosub Caras was awarded EUR   20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 6 § 1 Fadin v. Russia (no. 58079/00)   No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 The applicant, Aleksandr Nikolayevich Fadin, is a Russian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Tula (Russia).   On 7 May 1996 the applicant was arrested and later convicted of attempted rape and murder. His conviction was quashed on appeal and a psychiatric examination showed that the applicant suffered from schizophrenia. On 24 March 1998 the Tula Regional Court reclassified the charges, adding the words “with aggravating circumstances”. It also ordered his compulsory treatment in a psychiatric hospital.   On 7 December 1999, following a request by the applicant for a full review of his case, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the regional court’s decision in supervisory review procedure and remitted the case for fresh examination. The regional court reclassified the charges to disorderly behaviour and acquitted him of the murder charges. On 2 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment.   The applicant alleged in particular that the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably long and that he had been tried twice for the same offence.   He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice).   The Court found that the applicant’s complaint raised no issues under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 and fell to be examined solely under Article 6.   The Court firstly noted that only the resumed proceedings fell with its competence, the Convention having entered into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998.   The Court observed that it was the applicant himself who was the initiator of the supervisory review of the Tula Regional Court’s decision and that as such he could not claim to be a victim of a breach of the principle of legal certainty. Furthermore, it found that the domestic courts reached reasoned conclusions concerning the charges against the applicant who had ample opportunity to state his case and contest any evidence he considered false. There was no evidence of any unfairness within the meaning of Article 6 in that respect. Therefore the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 as regards the supervisory review of the Tula Regional Court’s decision and the outcome of the criminal proceedings,   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted two years and nine months and 26 days. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that that period did not exceed a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 and did not find that the conduct of the domestic authorities led to any significant delays in the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the length of the criminal proceedings. (The judgment is available only in English.)     No violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Mamič v. Slovenia (No. 2) (no. 75778/01)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Ms Zofija Mamič is a Slovenian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Ravne na Koroskem (Slovenia).   On 17 May 1996 a bill of indictment was lodged against the applicant for causing a traffic accident by negligence with the Slovenj Gradec Local Court. In November 1996 she was summonsed to appear in court. The applicant was initially found guilty and given a warning. The judgment was subsequently annulled and remitted for new fact finding. The case was remitted several times.   On 24 May 2001 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the bill of indictment because it was time-barred and the criminal proceedings were discontinued. The applicant appealed against the court’s decision on costs and expenses and the Slovenj Gradec District Court partially upheld her appeal in a decision that was served on her on 9 October 2001.   The applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of those proceedings. She relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 13 (effective remedy).   The Government claimed that the proceedings began on 17 May 1996, when the bill of indictment was lodged against the applicant and ended on 24 May 2001 when it was rejected.   The Court, however, found that the period to be taken into consideration began in November 1996 when the summons for the first hearing was served on her and ended on 9 October 2001 when the applicant received the district court’s decision regarding the reimbursement of cost and expenses, a period of four years and 11 months. Concerning the latter date, the Court found that the proceedings concerning the costs and expenses were a natural extension of the substantive criminal proceedings and therefore could not be divorced from them.   Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the Court found that the proceedings did not disclose such periods of inactivity which would bring them into conflict with Article 6 § 1 and that the overall length of the proceedings did not infringe the reasonableness requirement of that provision. It therefore found unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   Notwithstanding that finding, the Court found that the applicant did have the right under Article 13 to have a remedy provided by the national authorities to determine whether or not the criminal proceedings brought against her were excessively long. The Court rejected the arguments put forward by the Government as to the existence of effective legal remedy and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of a remedy in respect to her complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings.   The applicant was awarded EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment only exists in English).   Ferhat Berk v. Turkey (no. 77366/01)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 3, 4 and 5 The applicant, Ferhat Berk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1983 and lives in Diyarbakır (Turkey). During an operation against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on 2 July 2001. On 11 July 2001 he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention pending trial. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for assisting the PKK. The case is still pending before the Turkish courts.   The applicant complained of the length of time he had been held in police custody and of the lack of a remedy by which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. Finally, he submitted that he had received no compensation for his detention. He relied on Article 5 (right to liberty and security).   The Court observed that the applicant had been in police custody for nine days. It could not accept that it had been necessary to detain him for such a long period before bringing him before a judge. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3.   As regards the lack of a remedy by which to challenge the duration of detention by the police, the Court observed that it had repeatedly held that the remedy provided in Article 128 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the Turkish Government had relied on, did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Lastly, the Court noted that victims of detention that did not comply with the Convention did not have sufficiently certain rights to reparation under Turkish law. It consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Gök and Others v. Turkey (nos 71867/01, 71869/01, 73319/01 and 74858/01)   The applicants are four Turkish nationals who live in Şanlıurfa (Turkey). They were joint owners of land situated in Karaköprü (Şanlıurfa) which was occupied by the Ministry of Defence.   In 1996 the applicants brought an action seeking compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land. The Şanlıurfa District Court granted the application: it dismissed the authorities’ objection that the action was time-barred, noting that the land in question had been occupied in 1991 and not in 1977, and awarded the applicants more than EUR 375,000 in compensation. The judgments were upheld by the Court of Cassation.   In 1999 the applicants brought an action seeking additional compensation for expropriation. In line with the courts’ earlier findings, the District Court considered that the applicants’ action was not time-barred, and allowed their claims. However, the Court of Cassation set aside these decisions on the ground that the action for compensation was time ‑ barred because the land had been occupied in 1977, not in 1991 as previously held. The District Court, to which the case was referred back after the decisions had been set aside, dismissed the applicants’ claims definitively.   The applicants complained that the proceedings leading to the dismissal of their claims had been unfair. They relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that in re-examining the date on which the period of time had started to run, the Court of Cassation had confined itself to reviewing the existing evidence without obtaining fresh information. By returning without any valid reason to an issue which had already been the subject of a final decision, the Turkish courts had infringed the principle of legal certainty.   The Court therefore held, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered it unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicants a total of EUR 15,100 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 10 Güzel v. Turkey (No. 2) (no. 65849/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Hasan Celal Güzel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Ankara. A former minister and member of Parliament, he was Chairman of the Renaissance Party at the material time.   On 13 June 1998 the applicant gave a speech in his capacity as chairman of a political party at a meeting on human rights organised by the municipal authorities of Kayseri. In speaking on social issues, the applicant criticised Government actions and policy.   The applicant was prosecuted for incitement to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction founded on religion and was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment by the Ankara National Security Court. The Court of Cassation upheld his conviction on 3 July 2000.   On 12 January 2001, before the applicant had started to serve his prison sentence, the national security court deferred execution of his sentence for five years.   The applicant alleged that his criminal conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression. He complained, further, that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair as he had been given no opportunity to respond to the written opinion of Principal State Counsel. He relied on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court considered that the grounds advanced by the Turkish courts could not be regarded in themselves as sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The applicant had been speaking in his capacity as a politician, in the context of his role as a player on the Turkish political scene, and had not been encouraging the use of violence, armed resistance or revolt. Nor was this an instance of hate speech, which, in the Court’s opinion, was the essential factor to be taken into consideration. The effect of deferring execution of sentence had been to censor part of the applicant’s activities as the chairman of a political party during the relevant period and to severely restrict his ability to voice criticism in public, when such criticism had a role to play in a public debate whose existence could not be denied. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10.   The Court referred to its finding in previous cases that the non-communication of Principal State Counsel’s opinion, in view of the nature of his submissions and of the defendant’s inability to make written observations in reply, entailed a breach of Article 6 § 1. Seeing no reason to depart from that conclusion in the present case, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 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 (fairness) CED Viandes and Another v. France (no. 77240/01) The applicant companies, CED Viandes and SOCINTER-SOCOPA International, are two French companies based in France.   The applicant companies instituted administrative proceedings in the context of a dispute concerning the export to Iraq in 1989 of beef which qualified for a refund under the Community legislation in force governing the Common Agricultural Policy.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained in particular of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the administrative courts.   The Court reiterated that the presence of the Government Commissioner in the deliberations of the administrative courts, whether it was “active” or “passive”, was in breach of the Convention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1, and awarded the applicants EUR 3,000 each for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Rabinovici v. Romania (no. 38467/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Antonia Rabinovici, is a Romanian and Israeli national who was born in 1914 and lives in Bnei Brac (Israel).   After the applicant and her parents had left Romania to settle in Israel, the State nationalised the building they owned in Galaţi. The Romanian courts allowed the applicant’s action to establish title to the property. However, when the applicant attempted to have the court decision in her favour enforced, she discovered that the State had sold the building in question to the tenants. She then brought an action to have the contracts of sale set aside, which was dismissed by the Romanian courts on the ground that the purchasers had acted in good faith.   The applicant alleged that the sale of her property to third parties by the State, which was validated by the Romanian courts, had been in breach in particular of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court considered that the deprivation of the applicant’s rights of ownership of the building in question, taken together with the complete absence of compensation, had imposed a disproportionate burden on her. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held that Romania had to return the property to Mrs Rabinovici within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, failing which the State would have to pay her EUR 160,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Belyatskaya v. Russia (no. 40250/02)   Kanayev v. Russia (no. 43726/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicants, Anna Petrovna Belyatskaya and Igor Valentinovich Kanayev are Russian nationals who were born in 1958 and 1963, respectively. The first applicant lives in Arkhangelsk (Russia) and the second in Kronshtadt (Russia).   The applicants complained about the lengthy failure to enforce judgments in their favour, due to lack of State funds. They relied on Article   6 §   1 (access to court)