CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 octobre 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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .sD3659920 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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   667 9.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Finland, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia and   the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 19 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Repetitive cases [2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Struck out Stark and Others v. Finland (application no. 39559/02) The applicants are three Finnish nationals. They are fishermen who live in Finland and fish in the maritime area near Tornio (Finland). Alpo Antero Stark and Matti Autio were born in 1937 and 1945, respectively, and live in Kaakamo. Martti Junttari was born in 1942 and lives in Kittilä.   In 1987 the Tornio Fishing Act was passed which authorised certain restrictions on fishing in the Tornio river area in order to safeguard future fish stocks. In 1997 and 1998 decisions were made by virtue of that Act which prohibited and/or restricted salmon and trout fishing in the fishing waters of the maritime area near Tornio. The applicants held those decisions to be unlawful as, in their view, only implanted salmon could be found in their waters. They therefore continued fishing using stationary gear. Proceedings were brought against them for breaching the Tornio Fishing Act. At first instance the charges were dismissed: it was found that the applicants’ constitutional right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been violated as wild salmon could only be found accidentally in those waters. However, that decision was quashed and the applicants were found guilty as charged and ordered to pay a fine. It was upheld on appeal in June 2003. In the meantime, another decision was taken in 2002 to continue the fishing restrictions which allowed professionals to fish salmon, whitefish   and trout with stationary gear during specific periods.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights that they did not have access to a court to challenge the governmental decisions which restricted their fishing rights. The European Court of Human Rights took note of the Government’s declaration acknowledging that the applicants had not had access to a court within the meaning of Article   6   §   1 in order to challenge the fishing restriction of 2002. It was satisfied that the amount offered by the Government to each applicant, 7,000   euros   (EUR), constituted adequate redress for non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were also awarded EUR   4,150, jointly, for costs and expenses. The Court therefore considered it no longer justified to continue examination of the application and decided, unanimously, to strike it out of its list of cases. (The judgment is available only in English.) Just satisfaction Struck out Istituto Diocesano per il Sostentamento del Clero v. Italy (no. 62876/00) The applicant is an ecclesiastical institute called Istituto Diocesano per il Sostentamento del Clero. In a judgment of 17 November 2005 the Court had found that the expropriation of a plot of land belonging to the applicant had been incompatible with its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (protection of property).   In the judgment delivered today the Court decided to strike the case out of its list in the light of an agreement between the Italian Government and the applicant institute under which the institute is to receive EUR   100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Clionov v. Moldova (no. 13229/04) The applicant, Grigore Clionov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău.   In 1984 Mr Clionov had an accident at work and, being officially recognised as having a first-degree disability, was declared unfit for work. His employer, the National Institute of Vineyards and Wine, was obliged to pay him monthly invalidity benefit. From 1996 those payments were discontinued. The applicant brought proceedings against his former employer to have payments resumed and recover the benefit overdue. On 11 April 2001 the Ciocana District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him compensation. That judgment became final 15 days later but, because of a delay in its enforcement, the applicant brought further proceedings. A decision was made in June 2003 in which part of the applicant’s claims were accepted. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s appeal against that decision because he had failed to pay the court fees.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Mr Clionov complained about the authorities’ failure to enforce the final judgment of 11 April 2001 in his favour. Further relying on Article 6 § 1, he also complained that the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to examine his cassation appeal had breached his right of access to a court.   The complaint concerning the failure to enforce the final judgment of 11 April 2001 within a reasonable time raised an issue which had already been submitted to the Court. It did not see any reason to reach a different conclusion in the applicant’s case, having found, in particular, that as the invalidity benefit was his main source of subsistence, the judgment should have been enforced as a matter of urgency. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The Court noted that the Supreme Court had never examined the applicant’s case file and had no direct knowledge of his financial situation. Indeed, that court had even been prevented from verifying the applicant’s ability to pay by a blanket prohibition on waiving court fees under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article 6 § 1 because the applicant was denied access to a court.   Mr Clionov was awarded EUR   300 for pecuniary damage and EUR   2,700 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Bobryk v. Poland (no. 20005/04) Skalski v. Poland (no. 28031/06) The applicants, Piotr Bobryk and Bogdan Skalski, are Polish nationals who were born in 1974 and 1965 and live in Sztum and Brzeg (Poland) respectively.   Charged as an accomplice to abduction and extortion, Piotr Bobryk was remanded in custody in September 2001 and in June 2005 was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Bogdan Skalski was charged with a number of offences committed as part of an organised criminal group, mainly drug trafficking, illegal possession of firearms and theft. He was remanded in custody in May 2003 and released in January 2007, but remains under police supervision as the proceedings are still pending. In both cases the applicants’ detention on remand was extended several times.   The applicants complained of the length of their detention on remand. They relied, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security).   The Court noted that Piotr Bobryk’s detention on remand had lasted for about two years and seven months and that of Bogdan Skalski three years and eight months. It considered that the reasons given by the Polish courts in their decisions had not been sufficient to justify those periods of detention and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3. The Court awarded EUR   1,000   to Piotr Bobryk and EUR   1,500   to Bogdan Skalski in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Ilić v. Serbia (no. 30132/04) The applicant, Aleksandar Ilić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Belgrade.   Mr Ilić inherited the legal title to a flat which had belonged to his father. He could not, however, use the flat because it was subjected to a government-controlled “protected tenancy regime” and was occupied. In 1992 a new Housing Act made it possible for owners of such flats to reclaim possession of their property. Following administrative proceedings brought by the applicant, on 17 August 1994 the Housing Department of the Palilula Municipality ordered the “protected tenant” to be evicted from the flat in question by 31 December 1995. That deadline was later extended to 31 December 2000.   Unable to repossess his flat, the applicant brought separate civil compensation proceedings against the Municipality. Ultimately, in June 2007 the First Municipal Court in Belgrade ruled partly in favour of the applicant and ordered   that he be paid   compensation for the market rent which he could have obtained   had he been in a position to rent the flat. That court also held that the Municipality of Palilula had sufficient funds and flats available to provide the protected tenant with adequate alternative accommodation and was legally obliged to enforce the eviction order. It further noted that no legal means existed for the applicant to compel the Municipality to honour its eviction order. That judgment has not yet become final.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy),   Mr Ilić complained, in particular, about the authorities’ failure to enforce the eviction order and the unfairness and length of the civil proceedings.   The Court noted that the eviction order had remained unenforced, within the period of the Court’s jurisdiction, for three years and six months. It considered that the applicant’s repossession claim was “sufficiently established” and that, from 31 December 2000, when the deadline for eviction had expired, the authorities’ “interference” had clearly been in breach of the relevant domestic legislation, as indeed had been admitted in the judgment of June 2007. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the length, within the period of the Court’s jurisdiction, of the civil proceedings which had lasted three years and six months and are apparently still pending. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 6 § 1 concerning the absence of an effective domestic remedy for the delay in those civil proceedings. Lastly, it did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 regarding the non-enforcement of the eviction order or the related complaint under Article 13 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court held that Serbia should enforce the Housing Department’s decision of 17 August 1994 and awarded Mr Ilić EUR   3,700 for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 8 Stanková v. Slovakia (no. 7205/02) The applicant, Milota Stanková, is a Slovak national who was born in 1951. She works in Poprad and lives in Kežmarok (Slovakia).   In 1992 Ms Stanková moved out of a flat which she had shared with her husband and moved with her two children into a flat leased by her father. Both flats were in Poprad. In 1994 the applicant and her husband were granted a divorce. After her father’s death in 1994 she continued to live in his flat and pay the rent. She asked to be registered as its permanent resident. In the meantime, she reached an agreement with her ex-husband that he would continue using the flat in which they had formerly lived together. That flat was exchanged for a one-room flat in Kežmarok which her son then inherited when his father died in 1995. In August 1995 the Poprad Municipal Office informed the applicant that the right to occupy her father’s flat had not passed to her. In September 1996 she was put on a housing list but, other people being above her on the list, no flat was available. In October 1996 the courts found that, under Article 706 §1 of the Civil Code, she had no right to live in her father’s flat as she had been registered as resident of another flat in which she had lived with her ex-husband at the time when her father had died. It was added that she could live in the flat in Kežmarok. On 18 June 1999 she was evicted from her father’s flat. She moved with her daughter, a minor, into the Kežmarok flat, measuring about 33 square metres. She continues to work in Poprad.   Following Ms Stanková’s application to the Constitutional Court, a judgment of 10 July 2001 held that the applicant had legally moved into the flat in question in 1992 and that it was to be considered her home. That court emphasised that the municipality had acknowledged the applicant’s difficult situation by putting her on a housing list but at the same time brought proceedings against her for eviction. It concluded that the municipality’s eviction of the applicant with her daughter, a minor at the time, without providing any alternative accommodation, was incompatible with its obligation to assist citizens of Poprad and in breach of its moral obligations under Article 3 of the Civil Code. It particularly referred to the special protection of children and juveniles under Article 41 of the Constitution. The interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her home was therefore not based on relevant and sufficient reasons and had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. At the relevant time the Constitutional Court lacked power to provide effective redress to the applicant; its finding was of a purely declaratory nature and could not grant damages or sanction the authority responsible for the violation found.   Relying, in particular, on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Ms Stanková complained about having been evicted from the flat where she had been living since 1992.   The Court found that the reasoning of the Constitutional Court was convincing and saw no ground to reach a different conclusion. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8. Given that finding, it considered that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13. Ms Stanková was awarded EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   450 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     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 Curăraru v. Moldova (no. 34322/02) Grivneac v. Moldova (no. 35994/03) 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.   Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cross v. the United Kingdom (no. 62776/00) The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that, as a widower, he was refused Widowed Bereavement Allowance or its equivalent.   Friendly settlement McWilliams v. the United Kingdom (no. 53738/00) Sinclair v. the United Kingdom (no. 68621/01) These cases concerning the applicants’ complaints under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that, because they were men, they were denied social security and tax benefits equivalent to those received by widows, have been struck out following friendly settlements.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). In the cases of Czmarkó , Hilti and Immobilia Bau Kft , the Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately whether there had also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The remainder of the application in the case of Judt v. Slovakia was declared inadmissible.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Barna v. Hungary (no. 40465/04) Czmarkó v. Hungary (no. 26242/04) Hilti v. Hungary (no. 25709/04) Immobilia Bau Kft v. Hungary (no. 13647/04) Judt v. Slovakia (no. 70985/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Mikuljanac, Mališić and Šafar v. Serbia (no. 41513/05) Stevanović v. Serbia (no. 26642/05)     ***   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.