CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 septembre 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 } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .s4BC84916 { width:140.18pt; display:inline-block } .s5920D11B { width:91.45pt; display:inline-block } .s8CBE74DD { width:64.77pt; display:inline-block } .s19D04834 { width:100.12pt; display:inline-block } .sD683BB79 { width:264.21pt; display:inline-block } .sCA0B4806 { width:236pt; display:inline-block } .sAD93F62F { width:74.85pt; display:inline-block } .s8E46CEC0 { width:52.15pt; display:inline-block } .s1BA060BE { width:237.58pt; display:inline-block } .sE1E781D { width:141.47pt; display:inline-block } .s6B17F790 { width:47.5pt; display:inline-block } .s3AFED230 { width:36.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   530 26.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, France, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Turkey and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 13 Chamber judgments, none of which is 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.     Elo v. Finland (application no. 30742/02)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Jani Matti Kalevi Elo, is a Finnish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Rauma (Finland).   In October 1996 Mr Elo, a sheet iron worker, sustained injuries to his legs and heels as a result of an accident at work. In June 2000 the company insuring him decided to grade his compensation at level 3 on a scale 20. He appealed to the Accident Board, requesting that his compensation be graded at level 7 and submitted two medical reports in which the compensation was judged to be at level 6 or 7. He further requested an oral hearing in order to evaluate his injuries. The Board rejected the applicant’s claims. On appeal, the Insurance Court upheld the decision of the Accident Board ruling that an oral hearing was unnecessary.   The applicant complained that he was denied an oral hearing before the Insurance Court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court agreed with the finding of the Insurance Court that the applicant's entitlement to compensation could be assessed on the basis of the written medical evidence and that it was unnecessary to hold an oral hearing. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   H.K. v. Finland (no. 36065/97)   Two violations of Article 8 The applicant, H.K., is a Finnish national who was born in 1968.   On 27 January 1995 the applicant’s four-year-old daughter was removed from his care, on suspicion that she had been sexually abused, and placed in her mother’s custody. On 2 February 1995 the applicant objected to the child’s placement with her mother.   On 8 February 1995 an emergency care order was issued officially placing the child in her mother’s care. The order was considered necessary in order to conduct examinations in the light of the allegations of sexual abuse. On 27 March 1995 the Tampere Social Welfare and Health Care Board ordered that the child should continue living with her mother while seeing the applicant under supervision. Subsequently, three care plans were drawn up in October 1995 and March and April 1998 which had the effect of further restricting the applicant’s access rights, although no formal decision was made.   In April 1996 the Board reported the applicant to the police and he was subsequently charged with, among other things, having sexually abused his daughter. In August 1999 he was finally acquitted of all charges against him. The applicant’s daughter subsequently returned to live with him.   The applicant complained that the decisions to place his daughter in public care and to restrict his access rights had no legal basis. He relied on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention.   The Court observed that from 3 to 7 February 1995 the applicant was placed in emergency care in the absence of any formal decision by the social welfare authorities as required by the Child Welfare Act.   Concerning the access restrictions issued in March and October 1995, and March and April 1998, the Court considered that the applicant should have been given an opportunity to contest those access restrictions.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 in that H. was placed away from the applicant in the absence of a formal decision and in respect of restrictions on access on four occasions.   The Court further held that there had been no violation of Article 8 regarding the applicant’s other complaints and that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   13,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Gérard Bernard v. France (no. 27678/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Gérard Bernard, is a French national who was born in 1961 and lives in Lorient (France).   The applicant was arrested on 9 November 1999 on suspicion of being a member of the Breton Revolutionary Army and having assisted in harbouring members of ETA who had recently stolen explosives in Plévin. He was placed under investigation for, among other things, conspiring to commit terrorist acts and possessing explosives, and was placed in pre ‑ trial detention.   It appears that, while in detention, the applicant made 179 applications to be released; on 21 October 2002, he was released under court supervision. On 29 June 2005 Paris Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained in particular of the length of his pre-trial detention.   The Court observed that the applicant had been held in pre-trial detention for two years, 11 months and 13 days. It noted that the relevant courts cited as grounds for the applicant’s continuing detention, in addition to the continuing suspicions against him, the need to preserve the evidence, the risk of pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses and victims, the risk of collusion with his accomplices, the need to put an end to the offence and prevent a recurrence, the need to ensure that the applicant remained amenable to justice and the exceptional and continuing prejudice to public order. The Court considered that, while these grounds had been relevant initially, they had ceased to be so with the passage of time. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,250 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Labergère v. France (no. 16846/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Yannick Labergère, is a French national who was born in 1979. He is currently in Châteauroux Prison in France where he is serving an 18-year prison sentence for murder passed in October 2001.   The applicant was convicted by the Assize Court on 9 October 2001. On 12 October he was sent to Gireugne Psychotherapy Centre, where he remained until 19 October. On 24 October 2001 his lawyer appealed against his conviction on the ground that his client, who had been placed in isolation, had not been able to lodge his appeal within the statutory time. The Court of Cassation declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible as he had failed to lodge it within the statutory time-limit of ten days following delivery of the judgment.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court as it had been physically impossible for him to lodge his appeal within the statutory time-limit.   In view particularly of what had been at stake for the applicant and of the need to take account of his medical condition, the Court considered that the manner in which the Court of Cassation had applied Articles 380-1 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the applicant’s case amounted to a particularly strict interpretation of a procedural rule, which had interfered with the applicant’s right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As the applicant had submitted no claims in respect of just satisfaction, the Court considered that there was no ground for awarding him any sum under this head. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Miraux v. France (no. 73529/01)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 The applicant, Jean-Pierre Miraux, is a French national who was born in 1947. He is currently in Caen Prison in France serving a 12-year sentence, passed in 1998, for rape and sexual assault with aggravating circumstances.   In 1997 the applicant was committed for trial before the Seine-Maritime Assize Court on charges of attempted rape and sexual assault. At the end of the hearing, the President of the Assize Court read out the questions which the court and the jury would have to answer. In particular, he read out a subsidiary question, arising out of the hearing, as to whether the accused was guilty of the crime of rape against one of his victims.   On 27 October 1998 the Assize Court, taking the view that the applicant was guilty of rape and not just attempted rape, sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment; the applicant was also deprived of his civic, civil and family rights for 10 years and prohibited from holding public office for five years.   The applicant submitted that the fact that the Assize Court had altered the charge from “attempted rape” to “rape” had infringed his right to a fair trial. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair trial).   The Court observed that there was a difference in the degree of seriousness of a charge of “rape” and one of “attempted rape”, which would undoubtedly influence a jury in assessing the facts and determining sentence. This was especially true since juries tended to be particularly sensitive to the fate of victims of sexual offences. It could therefore legitimately be argued that the alteration of the charge by the Assize Court had been liable to result in a more severe sentence for the applicant, without his being given the opportunity to prepare and present a defence against the new charge and its consequences.   In the circumstances, the Court considered that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and of his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. It therefore held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Société de Gestion du Port de Campoloro and Société Fermière de Campoloro v. France (no. 57516/00) The applicant companies, Société de Gestion du Port de Campoloro (SGPC) and Société Fermière de Campoloro (SFC), are public limited companies whose registered offices are in Paris.   In 1972 the French Government granted a concession for the establishment and operation of the yachting harbour in Campoloro to the Cervione-Valle multiple-function intermunicipal association, for a period of 50 years. The association signed subcontracting agreements with the applicant companies. In 1984 the prefect of Haute-Corse transferred the State’s powers in the matter to the municipality of Santa-Maria-Poggio. The municipality terminated all the existing agreements, including those concluded with the applicant companies.   The applicant companies instituted proceedings following termination of the agreements. On 10 July 1992 Bastia Administrative Court ordered the municipality of Santa ‑ Maria ‑ Poggio to pay compensation equivalent to EUR 1,447,963.51 to SFC and the equivalent of EUR 3,539,574.24 to SGPC. Despite the steps taken to that end, the applicant companies have to date not succeeded in having the judgments in their favour enforced. The applicant companies alleged that the failure to enforce the judgments in their favour infringed their right of access to a court and their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They also complained of the length of the proceedings. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court considered that, in failing over a period of more than 14 years to enforce the judgments in the applicant companies’ favour, the French authorities had denied them their right of access to a court. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and considered that it was not necessary to make a separate examination of the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.   The Court also considered that the applicant companies had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden on account of the failure to pay them the sums awarded to them under the judgments in question. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court awarded the applicants or their successors the sums owing to them under the judgments of 10 July 1992, including the interest payable until the day of delivery of the present judgment. It also awarded EUR 20,000 to SGPC for costs and expenses and EUR   8,600 to the successors of SFC. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Fleri Soler and Camilleri v. Malta (no. 35349/05) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Anna Fleri Soler and Herbert Camilleri, are Maltese nationals who were born in 1932 and 1934 respectively and live in Malta.   In September 1941 a property owned by the applicants’ father in Valetta was requisitioned for Government use and a forced lease of indefinite duration was imposed. The applicants receive approximately EUR 817 per year in rent.   In March 1997 the applicants applied to the Civil Court. They argued that the continuous requisition of their building amounted to a de facto expropriation. The court rejected their claim and the applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court   The Constitutional Court rejected the applicants' appeal and confirmed the Civil Court's judgment. It reiterated that since the applicants retained their right of ownership and were still receiving rent, the measure complained of could not be considered a de facto expropriation, but was aimed at controlling the use of property in accordance with the general interest.   The applicants complained about the requisition of their building, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Having regard to the low amount of the rent paid to the applicants, to the minimal profit that the applicants could obtain from their building, to the fact that their premises had been requisitioned for almost 65 years, as well as to the restrictions on their rights as landlords, the Court held that a disproportionate and excessive burden has been imposed on them. Furthermore, the applicants had been required to bear most of the financial costs of providing a working environment for government departments and/or for public offices which were performing their duties for the benefit of the community as a whole. It followed that the Maltese State had failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicants’ fundamental rights.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants EUR   5,625 for costs and expenses and reserved the question of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages in its entirety. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Ghigo v. Malta (no. 31122/05)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Attilio Ghigo, is a Maltese national who was born in 1928 and lives in Tarxien (Malta).   In March 1984 the applicant’s house in Paola was seized by the Government under a requisition order issued by the Director of Social Housing and given to a third party. The applicant alleged that he has never received any rent or compensation.   In September 1984 he introduced a judicial protest against the relevant Government department. He alleged that the issuing of the requisition order and the allocation of his property to a third party was causing him hardship. He brought a series of unsuccessful proceedings culminating in a case before the Constitutional Court. The Court held that the applicant had proved neither the hardship he alleged nor a breach of his right to the enjoyment of his property.   The applicant complained that he had lost control of his property and had been forced to take on the responsibilities of a landlord without receiving any compensation. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Having regard to the extremely low amount of the rental value fixed by the Land Valuation Officer, to the fact that the applicant's premises had been requisitioned for more than 22 years, as well as to the restrictions on the landlord's rights, the Court found that a disproportionate and excessive burden had been imposed on the applicant. He had been requested to bear most of the social and financial costs of supplying housing accommodation to a third party and his family. It followed that the Maltese State had failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicant's right of property.      The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,088 for costs and expenses. The Court considered that the question of compensation for pecuniary damage and/or non-pecuniary damage was not yet ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Niewiadomski v. Poland (no. 64218/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Józef Niewadomski, is a Polish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Łódź (Poland).   On 16 February 1991 the applicant was charged with embezzlement of hospital funds. On 30 December 1998 Łódź   Regional Court discontinued the proceedings against him.   The applicant complained in particular about the excessive length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court recalled that the period to be taken into account began on 1 May 1993, when the recognition by Poland of the right of individual petition took effect. The proceedings in question had therefore lasted five years and eight months.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a length of time was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length) Šidlová v. Slovakia (no. 50224/99)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Tatjana Šidlová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava.   She brought several sets of proceedings aimed at the determination, division and distribution of the estates of her late father and mother. The proceedings concerning a part of the estate of her father have been completed. They are however still pending as for the remainder of the estate. The applicant unsuccessfully complained of their length in the Constitutional Court. The proceedings concerning the estate of the mother ended in 1999. In addition, the applicant was sued in defamation by one of her neighbours. This action is still pending on appeal on points of law. On her complaint, the Constitutional Court found that the length of the proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law had been excessive and granted the applicant financial compensation in respect of her non-pecuniary damage.   The applicant complained about the excessive length of all of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. She also complained that the proceedings concerning the estates of her late parents deprived her of the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. She relied on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time),   13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court found that the amount of financial compensation awarded to the applicant by the Constitutional Court in connection with the excessive length of the proceedings on the appeal on points of law was not sufficient. The Court noted that the appeal proceedings concerning the defamation proceedings had been pending for six years and four months and that the proceedings regarding the estate of the applicant's late mother had lasted almost five years and eight months. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases, 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 violations of Article 6 § 1. In the proceedings concerning the estate of the applicant’s mother the Court also found a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their length.   The Court found that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the proceedings concerning the estate of her mother and declared inadmissible her other complaints.   The applicant was awarded EUR 5,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Blake v. United Kingdom (no. 68890/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, George Blake, was born in the Netherlands in 1922. He submits that he held a British passport and that he was granted Soviet citizenship in 1967 and remains a citizen of the Russian Federation where he has lived since around 1966.   In 1961 the applicant, who was a member of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), was sentenced to 42 years imprisonment for spying for the Soviet Union. He escaped from prison to Moscow in 1966 where he has lived ever since.   On 24 May 1991 the Attorney General took proceedings in the High Court to prevent him from receiving royalty payments on a book he wrote about his life in the secret service. He maintained that the applicant had acted in breach of the duty of confidence he owed to the Crown as a former member of the SIS. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords which delivered a judgment on 27 July 2000 in favour of the Government.   The applicant complained about the excessive length of those proceedings, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted nine years and two months. Taking into account the circumstance of the case, the Court did not consider that the proceedings against the applicant were pursued with the diligence required and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The applicant was awarded EUR   5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   In the following cases, the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:   Bassien-Capsa v. France (no. 25456/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Josiane Bassien-Capsa, is a French national who was born in 1944 and lives in Baie-Mahault (France). She used to be a nursing auxiliary at Saint-Denis Hospital.   The applicant brought a number of administrative actions after she had been removed from the hospital’s staff list in September 1990.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), she complained, among other things, that the proceedings in the Conseil d’Etat had been unfair, on account in particular of the participation of the Government Commissioner in the deliberations leading to the judgment.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the participation of the Government Commissioner in the deliberations of the Conseil d’Etat . It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and awarded her EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Mürvet Fidan and Others v. Turkey (no. 48983/99) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The five applicants in the case are Turkish nationals.   In December 1998 the applicants were awarded additional compensation in proceedings started in July 1993 concerning the expropriation of their land to make way for the construction of a dam. The applicants complained that the compensation they obtained had fallen in value since the statutory rate of interest had not kept pace with the high rate of inflation in Turkey. They further complained of the difference in treatment of the State and individuals in the context of their respective debts. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Articles 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and that it was unnecessary to examine the merits of the complaint under Article 6 § 1. The complaint under Article 14 was declared inadmissible. The Court awarded the applicants a total of EUR 1,762 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     ***   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.