CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 mars 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 } .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 } .s520A8AEA { width:16.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC3726361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000080 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2F210075 { width:50.77pt; display:inline-block } .sBF339177 { width:227.55pt; display:inline-block } .sAE03FC41 { width:4.14pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   141 1.3.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Russia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, the Netherlands and   Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six 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.     Geerings v. the Netherlands (application no. 30810/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 2 The applicant, Gerardus Antonius Marinus Geerings, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1977 and lives in Eindhoven (Netherlands).   On 20 May 1998 Mr Geerings was convicted of numerous counts of theft, burglary and attempted burglary, deliberately handling stolen goods and membership of a criminal gang and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment less the time spent in pre-trial detention.   The judgment was quashed on appeal on 29 January 1999. Mr Geerings was acquitted of all the charges against him except for the theft of a lorry and a trailer and handling certain stolen goods , for which he was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment of which 12 months were suspended on a probationary period of two years.   On 30 March 2001 the Court of Appeal issued a confiscation order amounting to 147,493 Netherlands Guilders (approximately 66,930 euros (EUR)) to be replaced, if the sum was not paid, by 490 days’ detention. This sum covered all the crimes concerning the applicant’s conviction by the Regional Court, the Court of Appeal finding that, despite its own acquittal judgment of 29 January 1999, there were strong indications that he had committed them.   Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected Mr Geering’s appeal in cassation. In 2004, Mr G. reached an agreement with the authorities allowing him to pay EUR 10,000 straight away and the remainder in monthly instalments of EUR   150.   Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Geerings alleged that the confiscation order had been based on a judicial finding that he had derived advantage from offences of which he had been acquitted in the substantive criminal proceedings brought against him.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that it had, in a number of earlier cases, been prepared to consider confiscation proceedings following a conviction to be part of the sentencing process and therefore beyond the scope of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The aspects these cases had in common were that the applicant concerned had been convicted of drugs offences; continued to be suspected of additional drugs offences; could be shown to hold assets whose origin could not be established and that these assets were reasonably presumed to have been obtained through illegal activity; and had failed to provide a satisfactory alternative explanation.   The present case was different. Firstly, Mr Geerings had never been shown to hold assets of whose origin he could not give an adequate explanation. The Court of Appeal reached its conclusion to the contrary by accepting a police report based on a mixture of fact and conjecture.   The Court considered that “confiscation” following on from a conviction was an inappropriate measure for assets which were not known to have been in the possession of the person concerned. Where the person concerned had not actually been found guilty of the crimes in question, confiscation of such assets was a particularly inappropriate measure. If it was not found beyond a reasonable doubt that the person concerned had actually committed the crime, and if it could not be established as fact that any advantage, illegal or otherwise, had been gained, such a measure could only be based on a presumption of guilt.   Secondly, the confiscation order related to the very crimes of which the applicant had in fact been acquitted.   Accordingly, emphasising that Article 6 § 2 embodied a general rule which did not allow even the voicing of a suspicion as to an accused’s innocence once an acquittal was final, and, noting that the Court of Appeal's finding went even further than the   voicing of mere suspicion, the Court held that the applicant's guilt had been determined without his having been “found guilty according to law”.   Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   2. The question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision, it being unclear how many instalments the applicant had been forced to pay until now. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Erkan Orhan v. Turkey (no. 19497/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Erkan Orhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Izmir (Turkey).   In July 2001 pornographic and counterfeit CDs were found in the applicant’s shop. As a result he was fined by the Izmir police court. He appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complained, among other matters, that there had been no hearing in his case. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, as the applicant had not had a hearing before the Turkish courts at any stage of the proceedings. As he had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, the Court made no award under Article 41. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Repetitive cases   In the following cases the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention:     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Sypchenko v. Russia (no. 38368/04)   Two violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Vladimir Vitalyevich Sypchenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Bataysk (Russia).   Relying, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of a final judgment in his favour concerning the provision of housing and its subsequent amendment by way of supervisory review.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the non-enforcement of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour, and a further violation of the same articles on account of the amendment of the same judgment by way of supervisory review. The Court further held that the respondent State should secure enforcement of the final judgment in the applicant’s favour and awarded him EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol n° 1 Aldemir and Others v. Turkey (n os 72632/01, 72633/01, 72640/0 et 72641/01) The four applicants are Turkish nationals. They complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), of delays in the payment of additional compensation for expropriated property.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants’ non-pecuniary damage. It awarded them the overall sum of EUR 5,900 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses.   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Salamatina v. Russia (no. 38015/03) Docevski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (no. 66907/01)   ***   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 Convention.