CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s3DCF6A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s3D964D38 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s1F58F73B { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA7A9E2F1 { width:144.82pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sAB3CDBE7 { width:242.22pt; display:inline-block } .sA75AD15E { width:46.83pt; display:inline-block } .sD7D16014 { width:19.47pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s670798D3 { width:146.8pt; display:inline-block } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .s738D413A { width:205.58pt; display:inline-block } .sAF4F65D7 { width:100.88%; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s3260263B { height:27.4pt } .sE4AE3500 { width:52.06%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s69675CB1 { width:16.44%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s4DC8A21A { width:15.06%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s268BE78A { height:13.7pt } .s58CB074E { width:52.06%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sD55B5934 { width:16.44%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s84B650CF { width:15.06%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sE099AA7A { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:26.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s172CB0A7 { height:14.45pt } .sF832B525 { width:52.06%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s1895CE8 { width:16.44%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s86251B5C { width:15.06%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; display:inline-block } .sA1AE7BD0 { width:44.11pt; 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   539 28.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, Romania, Russia and   “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 14 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.   Kayadjieva v. Bulgaria (application no. 56272/00) Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 The applicant, Antoineta Dimitrova Kayadjieva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1964 and lives in Plovdiv (Bulgaria). The applicant was confined to a psychiatric hospital on 1   September 1999 for an assessment to determine whether she required compulsory psychiatric treatment. Her confinement was ordered by the district prosecutor on the sole basis of information provided by the applicant’s father, who claimed that his daughter was mentally ill, displayed violent tendencies and had attempted suicide. The applicant left hospital three days later. The prosecutor subsequently ordered that the applicant be re-admitted to hospital; she was accordingly admitted on 20 December 1999 and on 17 January 2000, when she gave a written undertaking to undergo treatment voluntarily. Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained in particular that she had been unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of her liberty and had not had an effective remedy by which to request a review of the lawfulness of her detention.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the applicant had been detained in breach of Article 5 § 1 (e), since Bulgarian law, as applicable at the time of the events and until the reform introduced on 1 January 2005, did not provide adequate safeguards against arbitrariness, in particular as it did not require a psychiatric assessment to be carried out before a hospital order could be issued. The Court further considered that it had not been reliably demonstrated that the applicant suffered from a psychiatric disorder sufficiently serious to justify her detention. In addition, her detention after 7 January 2000 appeared to have been illegal under Bulgarian law, as the prosecutor had ordered a stay of execution of the detention measure on that date. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e).   The Court noted further that Bulgarian law made no provision for an appeal before the courts against a hospital order. The applicant’s initial confinement had been ordered by a district prosecutor who did not satisfy the requirements of judicial control set out in Article   5   § 4, as he lacked the independence and impartiality required by that provision and the decision ‑ making process was not accompanied by any procedural safeguards. In the circumstances, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 485 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Hu v. Italy (no. 5941/04)   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 The applicant, Jiang Yang Hu, is a Chinese national who was born in 1972 and lives in the Netherlands.   He was charged by the Italian authorities with being a member of a criminal gang operating an illegal immigration ring and also with being an accomplice to murder, unlawful possession of a weapon and false imprisonment with a view to extortion. In June 1994 the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.   As the applicant could not be traced, the authorities considered that he had deliberately sought to evade justice and declared him to be a “fugitive” ( latitante ). His officially appointed lawyer took part in the hearing in the applicant’s absence. In May 1998 the applicant was sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment.   In August 2003 the applicant was arrested at Amsterdam airport and taken into custody pending extradition. He was released on 25 November 2003. In December 2003 the Netherlands Government refused the Italian authorities’ extradition request.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that he had been tried in his absence and had not had an opportunity to defend himself. He also claimed that the presumption that he had tried to evade justice was incompatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence and therefore contrary to Article 6 § 2.   The Court considered that the applicant – who had been tried in absentia and had not been shown to have sought to escape trial or to have unequivocally waived his right to appear in court – had not had the opportunity to obtain a fresh determination of the merits of the charges against him by a court which had heard him in accordance with his defence rights. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 and that it was unnecessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 2.   The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French)     No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Reiz v. Romania (no. 37292/02)   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, Iosif Reiz and his wife Elena Reiz, are Romanian nationals who were born in 1929 and 1932 respectively and live in Düsseldorf (Germany).   In a final judgment of 15 November 2000 Oradea Court of Appeal established among other things that the applicants were the owners of a building in Satu Mare and set aside the sale agreement that the State had contracted with the tenants of the property, ordering the applicants to pay compensation to the tenants in respect of the sums the latter had invested in the property.   When they did not obtain payment of the amounts awarded, the tenants instituted proceedings seeking to have the judgment enforced; the enforcement proceedings ended in October 2001 with the compulsory sale of the building belonging to the applicants.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of their inability to have the judgment in their favour enforced.   The Court noted that the Romanian courts had ordered the applicants to repay to the tenants the sums they had invested and had made the return of the property contingent upon repayment. True, the applicants had been unable to recover possession of the property since its compulsory sale. However, the building had been sold in the context of enforcement of the judgment of 15 November 2000; the judgment had therefore been enforced. The Court regretted the fact that the applicants had not been informed of the true nature of the sale by the purchasers, having learned of it from the Government’s observations. It held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court also observed that the applicants had been paid the difference between the sale price of the property and the amount they owed to the tenants. It noted in particular that the case concerned a pecuniary dispute between private persons which did not, in principle, engage the responsibility of the State. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Andandonskiy v. Russia (no. 24015/02)   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) The applicant, Vladimir Lvovich Andandonskiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Veshenskaya (Russia).   In January 2002 Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment for intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm. An eyewitness to the incident failed to appear at the trial because of her state of health and her advanced age (she was 82 years old). The court proceeded with the trial and read out her statements made during the preliminary investigation stage. The applicant did not object at the time.   The applicant appealed against the conviction on the ground that it had been based on statements made by an eye-witness, who had not been examined at the trial. St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment finding that the statement by the eye-witness in question corresponded with the statement made by the victim’s wife, also an eye-witness, and that both their statements were corroborated by the forensic expert’s conclusions.   The applicant complained he was unable to cross-examine a prosecution witness in the proceedings against him. He relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial).   The Court noted that it would have been preferable for evidence to have been taken from the eye-witness in person at the trial, in which case the applicant would have had an opportunity to challenge her statements and question her. However, the District Court’s judgment was not based solely or even to a decisive extent on the testimonies of that eye-witness. It strongly relied on the testimonies of the victim’s wife, given at the hearing, and also referred to circumstantial evidence, which confirmed the prosecution’s version of events. The Court therefore considered that the eye-witness’ absence at the trial did not affect significantly the overall fairness of the proceedings.   In addition, the Court observed that the applicant did not request the examination of the witness at the trial and had therefore waived his right to cross-examine the prosecution witness in the proceedings. The Court concluded that in the circumstances of the case the failure to examine the eye-witness at the trial did not amount to a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). (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 8 Martellacci v. Italy (no. 33447/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Benito Martellacci, is an Italian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Pomezia (Italy). He was declared bankrupt in March 1986.   Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained that the disqualifications to which he had been subject during the bankruptcy proceedings had infringed his right to respect for his private life. He alleged that he had not had an effective remedy by which to complain of those disqualifications.   The Court considered that, given that the names of bankrupts were entered automatically in the bankruptcy register and that the application of the disqualifications in question was not the subject of any assessment or judicial review, and in view of the length of time before rehabilitation could be obtained, the interference under the Bankruptcy Act with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life was in breach of the Convention. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8.   It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court considered that the findings of violations of the Convention constituted in themselves sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 2,000 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 Chernyshov and 11 Others v. Russia (no. 10415/02) Silchenko v. Russia (no. 32786/03) Tarasov v. Russia (no. 13910/04)     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Kornev v. Russia (no. 26089/02) Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov v. Russia (no. 24247/04) The 17 applicants, in the above five cases, are Russian nationals who all complained about the lengthy failure to enforce judgments awarding them compensation, due to lack of State funds. The applicants in Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov v. Russia also complained that the judgments in their favour were quashed in supervisory review proceedings.   The applicants relied in particular on Article   6 §   1 (access to court) and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 in the cases of Kornev v. Russia and Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov v. Russia and one violation of each article in the other three cases. (The judgments are available only in English.)   The Court held that the Government should secure the enforcement of the awards made by the domestic courts in the applicants’ favour in Chernyshov and 11 Others v. Russia , and awarded the applicants in the other cases the amounts below, in euros, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.     Pecuniary damage Non-Pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Kornev v. Russia (no. 26089/02) - 3,100 - Prisyazhnikova and Dolgopolov v. Russia (no. 24247/04) 6,464 4,800 - Silchenko v. Russia (no. 32786/03) 13,000 4,000 - Tarasov v. Russia (no. 13910/04) - 2,400 30     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (length of civil proceedings). The applicants in Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria also relied on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). In that case, the Court held that there was no need to examine the further complaint under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and in the case of Vatevi v. Bulgaria, the Court held that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Karcheva and Shtarbova v. Bulgaria (no. 60939/00)   Violation of Article 13     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Vatevi v. Bulgaria (no. 55956/00) Iversen v. Denmark (no. 5989/03) Lickov v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 38202/02)     ***   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.