CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 septembre 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 } .s8A024B48 { width:70.77pt; display:inline-block } .s35711490 { width:72.8pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9B5E04D2 { width:260.22pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .s14BEA802 { width:33.49pt; display:inline-block } .sA7D581B6 { width:451.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA4F030BC { width:58.17pt; display:inline-block } .s4993FC0B { width:74.83pt; 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   614 25.9.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Moldova and   the United Kingdom   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 one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) de Clerck v. Belgium (application no. 34316/02)   Violation of Article 13 The applicants, Roger de Clerck and Dominiek de Clerck, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1924 and 1960 respectively and live in Wielsbeke (Belgium). They are the founder and director respectively of Groupe   Beaulieu Wielsbeke.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), they complained of the length of criminal proceedings which had been pending against them since November 1990 on charges which included conspiracy, money laundering and fraud. They also relied on Article 13, submitting that they had not had an effective remedy whereby they could obtain a ruling that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court noted that the proceedings complained of were still pending. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 and awarded the applicants 30,749.67 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Loncke v. Belgium (no. 20656/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) The applicant, Jules   Loncke, is a Belgian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Bruges (Belgium).   At the relevant time he ran a garage where he sold second-hand cars, among other activities. When the VAT authorities conducted a check covering the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 they discovered that he had deducted VAT (value-added tax) when purchasing numerous second-hand cars, but did not have invoices providing certain compulsory categories of information. In April 1993 he was ordered to pay, in addition to a sum equivalent to the amount of VAT he was deemed to have retained unduly – EUR 908,716.93 – a fine of EUR 1,817,433.46, that is, double his tax liability. The Court of Appeal declared an appeal by the applicant inadmissible as he had not paid in a sum to cover his liability and the respondent’s costs, amounting to EUR 3,774,811.09.   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicant alleged in particular that the Court of Appeal’s inadmissibility decision had deprived him of a fair trial.   The Court noted that the sum the applicant had been expected to pay in to secure costs had been very large and disproportionate to his financial situation. It therefore considered that his effective access to the Court of Appeal had been hindered on that account. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that it was not necessary to examine the complaints under Articles 13 and 14. It awarded the applicant EUR   15,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which have already been submitted to the Court.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Biţa and Others v. Moldova (nos. 25238/02, 25239/02 and 30211/02) Violation of Article 13     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Mizernaia v. Moldova (no. 31790/03)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The Court found the above violations in these cases concerning national judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour which had not been enforced in good time or not at all.   Arkwell v. the United Kingdom (no. 47289/99)   No violation of Article 14 The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that, because he was a man, he was denied social security benefits equivalent to those received by widows. The Court found no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning non-entitlement to Widow’s Pension and, as a result of an agreement reached between the parties, struck out the complaint concerning non   entitlement to Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   de Turck v. Belgium (no. 43542/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   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.