CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 novembre 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s931E3192 { width:0.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5A454117 { width:72.14pt; display:inline-block } .s5149219F { width:134.83pt; display:inline-block } .s81819114 { width:102.17pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s5F631BDC { width:160.15pt; display:inline-block } .s8186A7B8 { width:101.46pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s955AA009 { width:270.25pt; 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   729 28.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Georgia and   Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following nine Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Two length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.     Flandin v. France (application no. 77773/01) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) The applicant, Gérard Flandin, is a French national who was born in 1938 and lives in Manama (Bahrain). He is a management consultant.   The applicant, who was accused of illegally practising as a lawyer, fraud and using a title likely to lead to confusion with the title and profession of lawyer, was convicted at the close of proceedings in which he had not been assisted by a lawyer, and ordered to pay a fine of 1,220 euros (EUR), half of which was suspended. He appealed and requested legal aid.     He was granted legal assistance by a decision of 21 March 2000, which was served on him, together with the name of the lawyer appointed, more than three weeks after a hearing had been held at the appeal court. That court upheld the previous judgment and increased the fine to EUR 4,574. The Court of Cassation subsequently dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law on 15 May 2001 on the ground that he had waived his right to be represented by a lawyer.   The applicant complained that he had not benefited from the assistance of the court-appointed lawyer in his defence before the court of appeal. He relied in particular on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c). As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court held that it was unnecessary to make an award in that connection.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     Poulain de Saint Père v. France (no. 38718/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   The applicant, Philippe Poulain de Saint Père, is a French national who was born in 1930 and lives in Chambray Les Tours (France).   In December 1985 the Prefect of the Hauts-de-Seine Region authorised the cultural association Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint Pie X to accept a gift with an obligation attached, made by the applicant’s aunt, and estimated at EUR 285,243; the association was to pay her a monthly life annuity of EUR 2,256. Following his aunt’s death, the applicant applied to have the Prefect’s order set aside and brought administrative proceedings against the implied dismissal of his request.     The lower courts granted the applicant’s request and set aside the Prefect’s order. In a judgment of 29 April 2002, however, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed his request.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained that the proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat had been unfair.   The Court concluded, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of Government Commissioner’s presence at the Conseil d’Etat’s deliberations. It also concluded, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the complaints alleging that it was impossible to reply to the Government Commissioner’s submissions and the lack of a public hearing.   The Court held that the finding of a violation in itself provided sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.     (The judgment is available only in French.)   Apostol v. Georgia (no. 40765/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Leonid Tikhonovitch Apostol, is a Georgian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Batumi (Georgia).   The applicant brought a civil action against a private person. On 21 November 2001 Batumi City Court allowed his claim and ordered the debtor to pay him arrears for the costs and expenses associated with the court proceedings.   Since the debtor refused to abide by the judgment, the applicant requested the initiation of enforcement proceedings. The Ministry replied that, pursuant to Article 26 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act, he was to bear “preliminary expenses associated with enforcement measures”. Being in receipt of a small pension at the time, the applicant was unable to pay. He later applied to the Ajarian Council of Ministers explaining his financial situation and offered to pay the enforcement fee after having received the judgment debt. The Ministry replied, restating its previous position.   As a result of the non-payment of the preliminary expenses, the judgment of 21 November 2001 still remains unenforced.   The applicant complained about the authorities’ refusal to enforce the judgment in his favour. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive restriction of the applicant’s right of access to enforcement proceedings. It further held that Georgia should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 21   November   2001. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Buta v. Poland (no. 18368/02)   No violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Dariusz Buta, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Poznań (Poland).   On 14 April 1999 the applicant was detained on suspicion of robbery and kidnapping. He was subsequently detained at the request of the Wałcz District Prosecutor. The Prosecutor based his request on the fact that the crimes with which the applicant was charged had been committed with exceptional cruelty and that there was a risk that he would influence the witnesses and his co-accused if released. His detention was further prolonged on several occasions and his appeals for release dismissed. In their decisions the courts also cited his attempts to influence the testimonies of a witness in another case and his aggressive behaviour during one of the hearings and his previous criminal record. He was eventually released on 12 October 2001.   In September 2005 Wałcz District Court found the applicant guilty robbery and kidnapping and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention which lasted almost two-and-a-half years. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Golik v. Poland (no. 13893/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) The applicant, Zenon Golik, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Będzin (Poland). He was a police officer in Zawiercie.   On 24 December 1992 he was charged with abuse of power while conducting an investigation into a car theft. On 13 November 1996 Mysłowice District Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to an 18 months’ suspended prison sentence. He was also fined and prohibited from working as a police officer for four years. That judgment was later upheld on appeal on 7 September 2001.   The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court recalled that it could only take into consideration the period beginning 1 May 1993, when the recognition by Poland of the right of individual petition took effect.   The Court found that the length of the proceedings which had lasted over eight years and four months was excessive and it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 5 § 3 Oleksy v. Poland (no. 64284/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Nestor Oleksy, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Wrocław (Poland).   He was arrested on 30 November 1999 and on 11 April 2002 Wrocław Regional Court sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking. Despite his numerous requests for release, he was detained on remand for two years, four months and 11 days.   While he was in prison his letters to and from the Court were censored by the authorities.   The applicant complained about the length of that detention. He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right liberty and security). The Court raised the issue of Poland’s compliance with Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) on account of the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and Article 8. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Trzciałkowski v. Poland (no. 26918/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Grzegorz Trzciałkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Warsaw.   On 7 January 2000 he was arrested on suspicion of having committed fraud. He was released on 13 February 2003. On 6 June 2003 Warsaw District Court again ordered that he be remanded in custody and he was released on 20 October 2003. Despite the applicant’s appeals, his pre-trial detention was extended several times. The courts relied essentially on the same grounds each time.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention. He relied on Article 5 §   3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in view of the length of his detention amounting to three years and five months, and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained, in particular, about the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. The Court declared inadmissible Mr Desserprit’s complaint alleging that the proceedings in question had been unfair.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Desserprit v. France (no. 76977/01) Wróblewska v. Poland (no. 22346/02) ***   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.