CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sCDC84782 { width:50.15pt; display:inline-block } .s87E99523 { width:129.48pt; display:inline-block } .s73EB6239 { width:126.15pt; display:inline-block } .s874C7360 { width:149.5pt; display:inline-block } .sDE1F8FF9 { width:337.58pt; display:inline-block } .s6959D6CE { width:145.48pt; display:inline-block } .s3EE1CC8 { width:126.16pt; display:inline-block } .sC84A01E0 { width:48.78pt; display:inline-block } .s31098F32 { width:98.82pt; display:inline-block } .sE50574B1 { width:212.81pt; display:inline-block } .s43975FE5 { width:65.46pt; display:inline-block } .s976DCF7A { width:146.83pt; display:inline-block } .s4993FC0B { width:74.83pt; display:inline-block } .s7E3A9D2 { width:121.51pt; display:inline-block } .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   798 19.12.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 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.   Mattei v. France (application no. 34043/02) Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) The applicant, Marie-Hélène Mattei, is a French national who was born in 1956 and lives in Bastia (France). At the material time she was cohabiting with François Santoni, the former leader of the Corsican nationalist movement “ A Cuncolta naziunalista ”, a legal cover-organisation for the FLNC-Canal Historique (Corsican National Liberation Front).   In December 1996 the applicant was formally notified that she was under investigation, on suspicion of “conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism, reconstituting a dissolved organisation and attempted extortion, all being offences related directly or indirectly to a terrorist undertaking”.   In March 2000 the applicant and Mr Santoni were sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism and attempted extortion in relation with a terrorist undertaking. On appeal, Ms Mattei was convicted of aiding and abetting attempted extortion and conspiring to commit acts of terrorism and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, one year of which was suspended. She appealed on points of law, contending among other arguments that because on appeal the attempted offence charges had been reclassified as aiding and abetting attempted extortion she had not been able to submit a defence. The appeal was dismissed on 6 March 2002.   The applicant asserted that she had not been able to submit her defence regarding the new charge as classified by the Court of Appeal. She relied on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial).   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b). It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded her 1,800 euros (EUR) 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 Oferta Plus S.R.L. v. Moldova (no. 14385/04)   Two violations of Article 34 The applicant, Oferta Plus S.R.L., is a company incorporated in Moldova.   The background to this case lies in a series of complex contractual arrangements made in 1997 concerning importation of electrical energy from Ukraine to Moldova.   The applicant company instigated proceedings against the Ministry of Finance when it refused to pay on a treasury bond which had been issued in its favour. On 27 October 1999 the Chisinau Economic Court found in favour of the applicant company and confirmed its right to be paid MDL 20 million by the Ministry of Finance. Despite the enforcement proceedings initiated by the applicant company on 14 February 2000 the judgment debt was never paid in its entirety. The applicant company only received MDL 5 million in the beginning of 2004.   In April 2004 the applicant informed the Government Agent about its application with the Court. In June 2004 the Ministry of Finance initiated revision proceedings against the final judgment of 27 October 1999. On 12 July 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the Ministry’s revision request, quashed the judgment of 27 October 1999 and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings. The re-opened proceedings ended with a judgment in favour of the Government.   On 19 October 2004 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant company on charges of alleged embezzlement, however, they were discontinued one year later.   On 15 February 2006 the European Court of Human Rights communicated the applicant company’s case to the Moldovan Government.   On 26 April 2006 the criminal proceedings were re-opened and later the company’s CEO was formally indicted for alleged misappropriation of MDL 5 million and for alleged attempted misappropriation of MDL 15 million. He was arrested and placed in custody on 9 August 2006. The CEO appealed against the detention claiming that the criminal proceedings against him were invented and that they had been a form of pressure to persuade Oferta Plus to abandon its application before the Court. His appeal was dismissed. In the meantime, the applicant company’s lawyer before the Court applied to the Centre for Fighting Economic Crimes and Corruption (“CFECC”) to visit the CEO. He asked that the meeting between them take place without a glass partition separating them and submitted that both he and the CEO had reasons to believe that conversations through the glass partition in the CFECC meeting room were intercepted. The request was refused. Since they were obliged to communicate through a glass partition the CEO refused to discuss any matters relating to pecuniary damage and asked his lawyer to do likewise because the conversation would have related to the whereabouts of the company’s accounting documents which he refused to disclose to the investigators and wanted to disclose only to courts during his criminal proceedings.   The applicant company complained about the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 27 October 1999 and the abusive quashing of that judgment by the Supreme Court of Justice on 12 July 2004. It further complained that the criminal proceedings against its CEO were invented and brought in order to discourage it from pursuing its application before the Court. It also complained that the authorities’ refusal to allow its lawyer to see the CEO in conditions of confidentiality had also hindered the preparation of their observations. It relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 34 (right of individual petition).   The Court found that the non-enforcement together with the subsequent abusive quashing of the judgment of 27 October 1999 meant that the applicant company was deprived of most of the benefits of a judgment which was enforceable for a period of almost four years. The Court concluded that the proceedings failed to meet the requirement of a fair trial and held, unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   It also found that the impossibility for the applicant company to obtain the execution of the judgment and the subsequent abusive quashing of that judgment constituted an interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court noted, in particular that, the criminal charges against the applicant were inconsistent with previous factual findings of civil courts, that the applicant company’s CEO was criminally charged for the first time after the Government had been informed about the application to the Court and for the second time after the applicant’s case was communicated to the Government. The Court considered that, based on the materials before it, there was sufficiently strong grounds to infer that those criminal proceedings were aimed at discouraging the company from pursuing its case before the Court. It therefore held unanimously that there has been a breach of Article 34.     The Court noted that the problem of alleged lack of confidentiality of lawyer-client communications in the CFECC detention centre had been a matter of serious concern for the entire community of lawyers in Moldova for a long time and that the company’s CEO and its representative could reasonably have had grounds to fear that the conversation in the CFECC lawyer-client meeting room was not confidential. The Court also noted that there was no aperture in the glass partition separating the CEO from the lawyer and that therefore they had not been able to exchange documents in confidence. Moreover, it found that communication was hampered to such an extent that the applicant company was unable to communicate its claims for just satisfaction.   The Court therefore concluded that the impossibility for the CEO to discuss with the lawyer issues concerning his application before the Court, without being separated by a glass partition, affected the applicant’s right to petition and it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 34. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Adamiak v. Poland (no. 20758/03)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Krzysztof Adamiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Kraśnik (Poland).   The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody in January 1998 on suspicion of involvement in drug smuggling and trafficking. He was found guilty in April 2000 and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. His conviction was at first overturned on appeal but upheld in September 2003. In December 2003 he was released and placed under police surveillance.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) among other provisions, the applicant complained of the length of his pre-trial detention (approximately five years).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Dolasiński v. Poland (no. 6334/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Sebastian Dolasiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Zielona Góra (Poland).   On 29 March 2000 he was arrested by the police and charged with fraud. He was remanded on detention until 22 May 2002 when the Wroclaw District Court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand which lasted almost two years and two months. 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 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Duda v. Poland (no. 67016/01)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Jerzy Duda, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Olsztyn (Poland).   On 12 February 1998 he was arrested by the police on suspicion of murder and detained on remand until 6 July 2000 when Olsztyn Regional Court sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the length of his detention on remand which lasted over two years and four months. He relied on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the unreasonable length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and awarded him EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,150 for costs and expenses. The Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 8 Maksym v. Poland (no. 14450/02)   Violation of Article 34 The applicant, Maciej Maksym, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Gliwice (Poland).   At the time of lodging his application with the Court the applicant had been detained on remand in the course of criminal proceedings against him. At the same time, as of 21 May 1999 he was serving a prison sentence imposed in the course of another set of criminal proceedings against him.   The letter sent three letters to the Court on 12 April 2000, 29 December 2000 and 24 July 2000 which bore stamps indicating that his correspondence had been censored by a judge.   A fourth letter dated 24 July 2000 was posted with almost one year's delay. In addition, the envelope had been opened and sealed with adhesive tape.   The applicant submitted in general terms that the circumstances of his case disclosed a breach of the Convention. The Court decided to raise ex officio the issue of the possible monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with the Court under Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and 34 (right of individual petition).   The Court found that the censorship of the applicant's letters to the Court was contrary to the domestic law and it therefore held, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8.   The Court recalled that it was of utmost importance for the effective operation of the system of individual application instituted by Article 34 that applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court without being subjected to any form of pressure from the authorities to withdraw or modify their complaints.   In the absence of any explanation from the Government as to the one year delay in posting the applicant's letter dated 24 July 2000, the Court found that there had also been a violation of Article 34.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 34 and awarded the applicant EUR 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Piotr Kuc v. Poland (no. 37766/02)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 The applicant, Piotr Kuc, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Myslowice (Poland).   On 25 September 2000 he was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed burglary and of having handled stolen goods. Several orders were made to extend his detention, the last expiring on 27 September 2002. However, he was not released as he was required to remain in detention concerning a charge of armed robbery in a second set of proceeding.   The order for his detention in those proceedings was made on 13 August 2001 and on 24 May 2004 he was convicted of burglary and arson by the Katowice District Court and sentenced to three years imprisonment. He was later convicted by the Katowice Regional Court of armed robbery and sentenced to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.   The applicant complained, in particular, about the length of his detention (two years for the first set of proceedings and two years and nine months for the second set). He relied on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the unreasonable length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and awarded him EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Court declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Companhia Agrícola de Penha Garcia, S.A. and 16 other cases “Réforme Agraire” v. Portugal (nos. 21240/02, 15843/03, 15504/03, 15508/03, 15326/03, 15490/03, 15512/03, 23256/03, 23659/03, 36438/03, 36445/03, 36434/03, 37729/03, 1999/04, 27609/04, 41904/04 and 44323/04) The 17 applications were lodged by a number of Portuguese companies and Portuguese nationals.   The applicants were all owners, or heirs of owners, of agricultural land expropriated or nationalised in 1975 as part of the agrarian reform policy.   The applicants alleged that the amount of compensation they had received was not “fair compensation” and complained of the delay in fixing the amount and making the eventual payment. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicants, taking all cases together, a total of EUR 1,325,602 for pecuniary damage, EUR 354,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 34,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Adem Arslan v. Turkey (no. 75836/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Adem Arslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Ordu (Turkey).   In February 2000 he was fined for discharging a firearm at his home. He lodged an objection to the fine, applying to the Turkish criminal courts and asking for a hearing. His objection was dismissed without any hearing being held.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to fair trial), the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial because there had been no hearing in the case.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Osman v. Turkey (no. 4415/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Yavuz and Osman v. Turkey (no. 39863/02)   The applicant is Abdülmenaf Osman, a Syrian national who was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Gaziantep Prison, and Hasan Yavuz, a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Batman.   On 13 March 1993 they were taken into custody by policemen from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Batman Security Directorate as they were suspected of being members of the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (the PKK), an illegal organisation in Turkey. They were both formally charged with being members of that organisation and Mr Osman was further charged with carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State’s control.   On 12 March 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three civilian judges (the military judge having been replaced after a constitutional amendment), found Mr Osman guilty as charged and sentenced him to the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The death penalty was commuted to a life sentence. Mr Yavuz was acquitted. The decisions were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 1 October 2002.   The applicants complained that they had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court which tried them. They also complained about the length of the proceedings which lasted nine years and six months. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   In the case of Osman the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. Mr Osman was awarded EUR 4,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.     In the case of Yavuz and Osman the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation in respect of Mr   Yavuz concerning the excessive length of the proceedings and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considered that there was no call to award him any sum on that account. (The judgments are 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:   Mourgues v. France (no. 18592/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Francis Mourgues, is a French national who was born in 1958 and lives in Montpellier (France).   In 1998 he applied to an employment tribunal seeking the annulment of two disciplinary measures taken against him by his employer and payment of the sums he considered himself entitled to. He eventually took his case to the Court of Cassation, which dismissed his appeal on points of law.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had been unfair.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the failure to notify the applicant, before the hearing, of the tenor of the advocate general’s submissions, with the result that he was unable to reply to them, and the matching failure to provide the applicant and the advocate-general with a copy of the reporting judge’s report. It considered that there was no cause to examine separately the applicant’s complaint that he had not been summoned to attend the hearing and held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The Court awarded Mr Mourgues EUR 400 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 Moisei v. Moldova (no. 14914/03)   Violation of Article 13 The applicant, Pelaghia Moisei, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1921 and lives in Recea (Moldova).   The applicant complained about the prolonged non-enforcement of a judgment awarding her compensation. The applicant relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court observed that it was not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment. It noted that the judgment in question was not enforced for 22 months, a situation for which the Government had not provided any plausible justification. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court further found that there was no effective remedy available to redress the damage created by the delay in the enforcement of the judgement in question which was caused by the authorities’ failure to take the necessary budgetary measures. It therefore held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 13.   The applicant was awarded EUR 192 for pecuniary damage, EUR 500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Güvenç and Others v. Turkey (nos. 61736/00, 61738/00, 61741/00 to 61744/00, 61748/00, 61751/00, 61752/00, 61758/00, 61763/00, 72375/01, 72383/01, 72396/01, 72406/01, 72411/01, 72418/01, 72422/01, 72425/01, 72430/01, 72437/01 and 72442/01) The applicants, all Turkish nationals, complained of the time taken by the State to pay them additional compensation for expropriation. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It awarded the applicants, taking all cases together, a total of EUR 62,650 for pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).   Pamuk v. Turkey (no. 131/02)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Nazlı Pamuk, is a Turkish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   The applicant complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), of delays in the payment of additional compensation due to her following the expropriation of her property.   The Court held that as a result of the delay in paying the compensation, the low interest rates and the length of the proceedings as a whole, the applicant had to bear an individual and excessive burden. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   It also held that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant. The Court awarded Mrs Pamuk EUR   36,273 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. The applicant in Bitton v. France (No.1) also complained that he had no “effective remedy” concerning his complaint.   The Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the length-of-proceedings complaint in the case of Bitton v. France (No.1) . In the case of Klemeco Nord AB v. Sweden , the Court declared inadmissible the complaint concerning the fairness of the proceedings.   Bitton v. France (No.1) (no. 22992/02)   Violation of Article 13     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Le Calvez v. France (No. 2) (no. 18836/02) Šedý v. Slovakia (no. 72237/01) Klemeco Nord AB v. Sweden (no. 73841/01)   ***   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.