CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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 } .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   686 16.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Belgium, Finland, Italy, Moldova and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 22 Chamber judgments, none of which is 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.   Violation of Article 8 Wieser and Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH v. Austria (application no. 74336/01) The applicants are Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, a limited liability company based in Salzburg, and its owner and general manager, Gottfried Wieser, an Austrian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Salzburg. He is a lawyer. Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH is a holding company which is, among other things, the sole owner of the limited liability company, Novamed. Both companies are based in Mr Wieser’s law office.   On 10 October 2000 a search was carried out of Mr Wieser’s office in the context of criminal proceedings concerning illegal trade in medicine, notably with a view to finding invoices addressed to Novamed. One group of police officers, in the presence of Mr Wieser and a representative of the Salzburg Bar Association, searched for hard-copies of files regarding Bicos or Novamed. Each time Mr   Wieser objected to an immediate examination of a document, it was sealed and deposited at Salzburg Regional Court as required by Article 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All seized and sealed documents were listed in a report signed by Mr Wieser and the officers. Simultaneously, another group of officers examined Mr Wieser’s computer equipment and copied several files to disk. An IT specialist and the representative of the Salzburg Bar Association briefly attended that search. A report was drawn up but only later that day. Mr   Wieser was not informed of the results. The applicants subsequently lodged complaints about the search and seizure of electronic data, alleging a breach of Mr Wieser’s right to professional secrecy under section 9 of the Lawyers Act. Those and subsequent complaints were all dismissed by the Austrian courts.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that Mr Wieser’s office was searched and electronic data seized.   The European Court of Human Rights found that there had been interference with the applicants’ “right to correspondence” under Article 8 of the Convention concerning the search and seizure of their electronic data. It noted that the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure had specific rules on such searches and that Austrian case-law had also applied them to electronic data. Those safeguards had been complied with concerning the hard-copies of documents seized but, strikingly, had not been observed regarding the electronic data: notably, the member of the Bar Association had not been able to properly supervise that particular search because he was busy with the hard-copy search; the report had been drawn up too late; and, Mr Wieser had not been informed of the outcome. The Court therefore found that the police officers’ failure to comply with certain procedural safeguards aimed at preventing “arbitrariness” and protecting lawyers’ professional secrecy had made the search and seizure of Mr Wieser’s electronic data disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of Mr Wieser. Given that finding and the fact that Mr Wieser had represented companies whose shares were owned by Bicos Beteiligungen GmbH, the Court also held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 8 in respect of the applicant company. Mr Wieser was awarded 2,500   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 13 Capone and Centrella v. Italy (no. 45836/99) The applicants, Raffaele Capone and Saverio Centrella, are Italian nationals who were born in 1959 and 1940 respectively and live in Pietradefusi (Italy).   In July 2001 they applied to Rome Court of Appeal under the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the length of the criminal proceedings against them for, in particular, embezzlement of public funds. The application was rejected, as was the applicants’ subsequent appeal on points of law.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against them and considered that the rejection of their claims under the “Pinto” procedure was contrary to the Court’s case-law. They further alleged that the “Pinto” procedure did not constitute an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the proceedings at issue had lasted six years and six days. It considered such a period to be excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. At the same time, it reiterated its previous finding that the remedy before the Italian courts of appeal introduced by the Pinto Act was accessible and that there was no reason to question its effectiveness. It observed, that in the applicants’ case, Rome Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation had had jurisdiction to rule on the applicants’ complaint and had duly examined it. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 13. It awarded the applicants EUR   3,000 each in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and EUR   1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 de Trana v. Italy (no. 64215/01) The applicants, Pasquale and Bruno de Trana, are Italian nationals who were born in 1934 and 1924 respectively and live in Calvello (Italy).   They are the owners of agricultural land located in an “area within possible range of gunfire” from the Italian armed forces. In May 1988 the land, some buildings situated on it and a number of work tools were damaged following shooting exercises. In August 1990 the applicants filed a claim for compensation with the Ministry of Defence. On 5 September 1997 the Italian courts allowed the claim and issued an order awarding the applicants a sum of EUR   11,715.46 after adjustment for inflation and the addition of interest at the statutory rate at the date of the unlawful act. According to the latest information supplied by the applicants, the authorities had still not complied with the order. The applicants made repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain payment of the debt by means of legal proceedings.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained of the non-enforcement of the judicial decision of 5   September 1997.   The Court considered that the Italian authorities’ failure to comply with the order for almost 20 years had infringed the applicants’ right to effective protection by the courts and had also been in breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicants EUR   5,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,400 jointly for costs and expenses.(The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Krowiak v. Poland (no. 12786/02) The applicant, Artur Krowiak, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Kraków (Poland).   On 25 February 1998 Mr Krowiak was arrested and placed in custody on charges of attempted murder. In February 2002 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. That decision was, however, not upheld on appeal: the applicant was convicted of causing bodily harm and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He was released from detention on 23 December 2002.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Krowiak complained about the length and unlawfulness of his detention on remand.   The Court was not satisfied that the reasons given to justify the applicant’s detention for more than three years and eight months were “relevant” and “sufficient”. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. Mr Krowiak was awarded EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Malikowski v. Poland (no. 15154/03) Osiński v. Poland (no. 13732/03) Szydłowski v. Poland (no. 1326/04)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Niećko v. Poland (no. 3500/04)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 8 Owsik v. Poland (no. 10381/04) The applicants are five Polish nationals.   Tomasz Malikowski was born in 1968 and lives in Rumia (Poland). Przemysław Osiński was born in 1973 and lives in Gdańsk (Poland). Jan Szydłowski was born in 1970 and lives in Gdynia (Poland). They were all arrested and later charged with armed robbery committed as part of an organised criminal gang. They were released in October 2005. Mr Malikowski was held in custody for over four years; Mr Osiński for over six years and six months; and, Mr   Szydłowski for over fours years. The proceedings against them are still pending and have already lasted over six years and four months against Mr Malikowski; over eight years against Mr Osiński; and, over seven years and six months against Mr Szydłowski.   Janusz Niećko was born in 1957 and lives in Łęczna. He was arrested in October 2000 and later charged, in particular, with leading an organised criminal gang, extortion and supplying drugs. He was later convicted of those charges and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. He was held in custody for more than four years.   Stanislaw Owsik was born in 1958 and lives in Wałcz. In March 2003 he was detained on remand on suspicion of having threatened one of his neighbours and stolen some tools. He was released in March 2004 and, ultimately, convicted and sentenced to one year and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), all five applicants complained about the excessive length of their detention on remand. Three of the applicants further complained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against them was excessive, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). The Court noted that Mr Owsik’s correspondence with its Registry had been monitored and therefore considered it appropriate to raise the issue of Poland’s compliance with Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 in all five cases on account of the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in three of the cases, Malikowski , Osiński and Szdłowski , on account of the excessive length of proceedings. Lastly, the Court noted that the censorship of Mr Owsik’s letter to the Registry of the Court had not been in accordance with domestic law and therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8. The remainder of the application in the case of Owsik was declared inadmissible.   In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   3,000 to Mr Malikowski and Mr Szydlowski, EUR   2,000 to Mr Osiński and EUR   1,000 to Mr Niećko. For costs and expenses, EUR   150 was awarded to Mr Malikowski and EUR   100 to Mr Szydlowski. Mr   Owsik did not submit any claim for just satisfaction or reimbursement of costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Zoń v. Poland (no. 14357/03) The applicant, Sławomir Zoń, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Opole (Poland).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him following his conviction for the theft of several vehicles.   The Court observed that the proceedings in question had lasted for almost eight years and eight months. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   4,200 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 3 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 La Fazia v. Italy (no. 4910/04)   Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Votto v. Italy (no. 11/04) These two cases concern the restrictions imposed on the applicants after they were declared bankrupt. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement). In the case of La Fazia , the applicants also relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of the above provisions and declared the remainder of the applications inadmissible.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Buianovschi v. Moldova (no. 27533/04) Deordiev and Deordiev v. Moldova (no. 33276/03) Marcu v. Moldova (no. 17359/04) Nadulisneac Ion v. Moldova (no. 18726/04) Tiberneac v. Moldova (no. 18893/04) Tiberneac Vasile v. Moldova (no. 26103/04)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 Vitan v. Moldova (no. 6901/03) The Court found the above violations in these cases concerning the applicants’ complaints about national judicial decisions in their favour not being enforced in good time or not at all.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The remainder of the applications in the cases of Aho and Piątkiewicz were declared inadmissible.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Nicolai de Gorhez v. Belgium (no. 11013/05) Aho v. Finland (no. 2511/02) Piątkiewicz v. Poland (no. 39958/02)     ***   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.