CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 janvier 2007

.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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   60 25.01.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SISSANIS v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sissanis v. Romania (application no. 23468/02).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of movement).   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 5   000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 7   000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Nikolaos Sissanis, is a Greek national who was born in 1952 and lives in Roznov (Romania).   In 1998 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for tax evasion, forgery and uttering forgeries. A few days later, as a preventive measure, the police ordered him not to leave Romanian territory and in pursuance of that measure stamped his passport with the letter “C”. In August 1998, allowing an application by the applicant, the Romanian courts ordered this mark to be removed. The applicant was acquitted in June 2005.   In August 1998 the prosecuting authorities brought new criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of deception, falsifying official documents and uttering forgeries. He was accused of faking the break-up and subsequent salvage of a Romanian ship in the port of Dakar. Soon afterwards, on 2 September 1998, the police asked the Constanţa Aliens, Migration and Passports Office, an authority responsible to the Ministry of the Interior, to stamp the applicant’s passport with the letter “C”. The applicant was remanded in custody on 20 November 1998 and his detention continued until his release on 19 July 2000.   Mr Sissanis was sentenced to two years and ten months’ imprisonment, unsuspended, but was acquitted on appeal in March 2006.   He took various steps to have the letter “C” removed from his passport. He made two unsuccessful applications to the Ministry of the Interior and lodged two criminal complaints, triggering proceedings which in each case ended with the refusal of his requests. He brought two cases in the administrative courts, losing the first but winning the second. Accordingly, on 29 March 2004 the Neamţ Provincial Court ordered the letter “C” to be removed from the applicant’s passport but refused to make an award for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The stamp was removed from the applicant’s passport on 10 June 2004.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 4 June 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged in particular that the stamping of the letter “C” in his passport with a view to enforcing the preventive measure whereby he had been forbidden to leave the country had infringed his right to freedom of movement and breached Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Relying on Article 6 § 2, he further complained of the fact that the authorities had failed to discharge their obligation to scrutinise of their own motion the legality of and public interest in the preventive measure imposed on him.   Decision of the Court   Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention   The Court noted that although the applicant’s passport had not been confiscated he had not been able to make use of it and had thus suffered a restriction on the exercise of his right to freedom of movement. That restriction had been based on section 27 of Law no. 25/1969, a provision which the Court found to be vague. It noted, firstly, that it did not identify the authority empowered to impose such a measure, and secondly that although section 27 empowered the relevant authorities to authorise interference with aliens’ freedom of movement, the grounds for doing so were not defined with sufficient precision.   The Court also considered that the procedure for applying the preventive measure consisting in an order not to leave the country did not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse on the part of the authorities, since Law no. 25/1969 did not lay down any review procedure, whether at the time a measure was imposed or afterwards.   Lastly, the Court noted that section 27 of Law no. 25/1969 had been declared unconstitutional on 11 April 2001 and that from that date on every preventive order of this kind had to be made by a member of the State legal service. Consequently, after that date the order forbidding the applicant to leave the country, which had been imposed by the police, had been in breach of Romanian law.   That being so, the Court considered that between 2 September 1998 and 10 June 2004 the infringement of the applicant’s freedom of movement had not been “in accordance with the law” and accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4.   Article 6 § 2 of the Convention   The Court held that it was not necessary to examine the merits of the complaint under Article   6 § 2.   ***   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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.