CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 3 août 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 } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sD479557A { width:330.91pt; display:inline-block } .s3A77AC14 { width:94.15pt; 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   456 3.8.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Italy, Romania and   Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven 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.       Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Stîngaciu and Tudor v. Romania (application no. 21351/03) The applicants, Ioan Stingaciu and Marian Tudor, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1955 and 1959 respectively and live in Alba Iulia (Romania).   As a result of the restructuring of the Romanian army, begun in 1995, legislative measures were adopted to encourage servicemen to take early retirement. These involved, in particular, the granting of a “compensatory allowance” and an “assistance allowance”, which were exempt from income tax and were calculated on the basis of the gross monthly salary.     At their request, the applicants were assigned to the reserve forces and granted early retirement in May 2000 and March 2000; they were awarded a retirement pension and the above-mentioned allowances. However, when the payments were made, the Ministry of Defence deducted income tax from these sums, thus depriving Mr Stingaciu of the equivalent of 3,900 euros (EUR) and Mr Tudor of EUR 3,800. The applicants, who considered that those sums had been wrongly deducted, brought an action against the Ministry of Defence.   On 26 March 2001 the Alba   Iulia Court of First Instance found in favour of the applicants and instructed the Ministry to reimburse the sums deducted in respect of income tax. That judgment became final and the applicants received the amounts in question. However, in a judgment of 5   March 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld an appeal, lodged by the Chief Public Prosecutor, to have that judgment set aside and ordered that the disputed sums be returned to the Ministry of Defence.   Relying on Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice had been unfair. In addition, under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), they complained of a violation of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.     The European Court of Human Rights declared the application admissible with regard to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and inadmissible as to Article 6 § 1 because the dispute was fiscal in nature. It noted that the applicants had been ordered to reimburse sums - owed to them as debts and received lawfully under a final court decision – because the effect of the Public Prosecutor’s intervention, after the close of the proceedings, had been to cancel out those debts entirely. In the Court’s opinion, such a fundamental interference with the applicants’ rights had upset the balance that must be struck between the protection of their right of property and the requirements of the general interest. Despite the wide discretion accorded to the State in tax matters, in the circumstances of the applicants’ case, its actions had infringed the principles of legal certainty and the rule of law.   The Court therefore concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It held that within three months from the date on which the judgment became final Romania was to return the sums concerned to the applicants. It awarded each of the applicants EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:       Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Capozzi v. Italy (no. 3528/03) Janes Carratù v. Italy (no. 68585/01) The applicants are both Italian nationals: Davide Capozzi was born in 1927 and lives in Rome, and Francesco Janes Carratù was born in 1944 and lives in Naples (Italy). Mr   Capozzi and his two sisters owned a plot of ground, measuring 6,260 square metres, located in Sant’Angelo a Cupolo; Mr Janes Carratù owned building land located in Montoro Inferiore.   Those plots of land were occupied by the authorities with a view to their expropriation and construction work was begun. In the absence of a formal expropriation procedure and compensation, the applicants brought proceedings 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, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). In the case of Janes Carratù v. Italy, the applicant also relied on 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, amounted to a de facto expropriation that was incompatible with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. It therefore concluded, unanimously in each case, that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 and considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1 in the case of Janes Carratù v. Italy . The Court considered that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision and accordingly reserved it. (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. With the exception of Vidic v. Slovenia , the applicants also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   Violation of Article 13 Imširovič v. Slovenia (no. 16484/02) Prljanović v. Slovenia (no. 22172/02) Schützenhofer v. Slovenia (no. 1419/02)   Vidic v. Slovenia (no. 54836/00)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   ***   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.