CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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   711 23.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Albania, Finland, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Poland and   Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 22 Chamber judgments, none of which 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.     Two violations of Article 6 § 1 (length and fairness) Violation of Article 13 Gjonbocari and Others v. Albania (application no. 10508/02) The applicants are seven brothers and sisters. They are Albanian nationals born in 1939, 1927, 1934, 1931, 1924, 1949 and 1949 and live in Tirana and Vlora (Albania).   The case concerned three sets of proceedings in which the applicants claimed restitution of land which had belonged to their parents but had been confiscated without compensation by the authorities during the communist regime. On 6 March 2003 the Supreme Court ordered the commission which dealt with requests for restitution and compensation of property to make a decision concerning the applicants’ claims.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 6 March 2003 had not been enforced and that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. They also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the failure to enforce, so far for more than four years, the final judgment of 6 March 2003 in the applicants’ favour. Given that finding, it held that there was no need to examine separately that complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1. The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the third set of proceedings, which have so far lasted more than seven years and five months. With respect to that complaint, the Court further held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1. This is the first time that the Court has found that the Albanian legal system had failed to provide an effective remedy with respect to an applicant’s right to a “hearing within a reasonable time”. Each applicant was awarded 7,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 (d) Jussi Uoti v. Finland (no. 20388/02) Kari Uoti v. Finland (no. 21422/02) The applicants are two Finnish nationals: Jussi Uoti who was born in 1964 and lives in Turku (Finland); and, Kari Uoti who was born in 1962 and lives in Helsinki. They are brothers.   In 1995 the applicants were both questioned about suspected business related offences. Ultimately, they were convicted by Helsinki Court of Appeal in March 2001: Jussi Uoti was sentenced to five years and eight months’ imprisonment and Kari Uoti to six years. In that judgment, it was found that documents drawn up by the brothers’ business partner, who worked for an off-shore bank in Guernsey, clearly indicated that there had been a deliberate conspiracy to transfer abroad and invest assets acquired from the sale of a bank group. That court also refused Kari Uoti’s requests for the business partner to be heard as a witness. It held, in particular, that the documents could be assessed without him being heard and, in any event, that he would only be summoned if he could bring new information to light.   Relying on Article 6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) and § 3 (d) (right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) of the Convention, the applicants complained that the Finnish courts had violated the rights of the defence by refusing to hear their business partner as a witness. They also alleged that that refusal had prejudged their guilt, in breach of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence).   The Court noted that the applicants had had the possibility to comment on and challenge, in writing and at a hearing, the documents used as evidence against them. Furthermore, the courts based the applicants’ convictions not only on those documents but on other evidence such as transactions and a witness account of discussions between the brothers and their business partner. It therefore concluded that the adversarial nature of the proceedings had been respected. Consequently, the limitations which had been imposed on the rights of the defence had not been such as to deprive the applicants of a fair trial and the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). Lastly, the Court found that the Court of Appeal’s decision had been within its discretionary powers concerning evidence and could not be construed as prejudging the question of the applicants’ guilt. It followed that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 2. (The judgments are available only in English.)   No violation of Article 8 No violation of Article 6 § 1 Kajari v. Finland (no. 65040/01) The applicant, Jenn Aimar Kajari, is an Estonian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Tallinn (Estonia). His daughter, born in 1992, and her mother, also an Estonian national, have been living in Finland since July 1994.   In November 1998 the mother brought custody proceedings before the Finnish courts. Ultimately, the District Court of Kokemäki granted her sole custody, having considered opinions from the social welfare authorities and the fact that no agreement could be reached between the parents concerning custody of their daughter.   In January 2000 Mr Kajari brought proceedings concerning access to his daughter. In July 2000 the District Court ordered that the applicant’s daughter could see her father every other Friday from 12 noon to 6 p.m. at her home town and under supervision. It based its decision on a report from the Harjavalta Social Welfare Board which had interviewed the mother, her partner, the daughter and applicant and on a hearing at which the parents were present. That court emphasised that, as the applicant and his daughter had not met regularly for two years, the visits should be supervised and that the access arrangements could be altered in the future, if need be.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Mr Kajari complained that his right to see his daughter had been restricted to such an extent that it was effectively impossible for him to develop or maintain a relationship with her. He referred especially to the long journey between Estonia and his daughter’s home which made it difficult for him to arrive at noon and stay until six in the evening. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) about the unfairness of the proceedings.   The Court acknowledged that the arrangements fixed by the Finnish courts required great effort on the part of the applicant. However, it recalled that such decisions were a balancing act and that the best interests of the child generally overrode those of the parent. It considered that the decision to grant only supervised visits had been supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that the decision-making process did not fail to protect the applicant’s interests. It also observed that the applicant could at any time have requested to have the access order amended. The Court concluded therefore that there was no indication of a failure to respect the applicant’s right to respect for family life and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8. It also held that no separate issue arose under Article 8 taken together with Article 14. The Court found no evidence of partiality by the Finnish courts or that their decisions were insufficiently reasoned and further held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Cazacu v. Moldova (no. 40117/02) The applicant is Vasile Cazacu, a Moldovan national who was born in 1950 and lives in Cimişlia (Moldova). The Court dismissed the application concerning members of Mr   Cazacu’s family.   From 1986 he worked in an architect’s office in Cimişlia. Following a merger, he was made redundant in December 1999. He brought proceedings in which he claimed, in particular, redundancy payments, two months salary following his dismissal and compensation for untaken leave. Ultimately, his claims were rejected on appeal in April 2002 on the ground that his former employer, which was self-financed, had not set aside the finances necessary for compensation and that its legal successor could not be held liable for any outstanding debts.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant complained about the Moldovan courts’ failure to award him redundancy payments. He also alleged that the proceedings had been unfair, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court noted that, under Articles 45 and 80 of the Moldovan Labour Code, all employers were obliged to provide redundancy payments. The domestic courts had not referred to any other legislation or circumstance which would have allowed an exception to that rule in the applicant’s case. The Court therefore found that the courts’ dismissal of the applicant’s claims had been unlawful and had violated his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded Mr Cazacu EUR   805 for pecuniary damage, EUR   2,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 Stici v. Moldova (no. 35324/04) The applicant, Petru Stici, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Chişinău.   On 14 June 2004, Mr Stici was arrested on suspicion of murder and placed in pre-trial detention. Despite making requests to be released, the Moldovan courts ordered his detention to be continued on the grounds that he was accused of a serious crime and there was a risk that he would abscond or obstruct the criminal investigation. The last court order was made on 13 July 2004 and expired 30 days later; after that, the prosecution made no further requests to extend the applicant’s detention. On 3 July 2006 Mr Stici was found guilty by Rîşcani District Court. That judgment was upheld on appeal. The case is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Justice.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Mr Stici complained about the unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention, notably from 14 August 2004 after the expiry of the last court order.   The Court found that Mr Stici’s detention pending trial after 14 August 2004 had been unlawful and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1. The Court noted that the Moldovan courts had paraphrased the reasons for Mr Stici’s detention without explaining how they had applied in the applicant’s case and that he had been held for more than two years even though no new reasons had been given for continuing his detention. It therefore held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 5 § 3 concerning the period between 14 June and 16 August 2004. Given that finding, the Court held unanimously that there was no need to examine separately the complaint under Article 5 § 4. Mr   Stici was awarded EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Two violations of Article 5 § 4 Ţurcan and Ţurcan v. Moldova (no. 39835/05) The applicants, Victor Ţurcan and Dorel Ţurcan, are nationals of Moldova and Romania. They were born in 1948 and 1952, respectively, and live in Chişinău. They are not related. They both work for a commercial bank: Victor Ţurcan as its director and Dorel Ţurcan as a lawyer.   On 12 October 2005 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of conspiring to take a bribe. On 22 October 2005 charges were brought against them. Victor Ţurcan was released on the same day. Dorel Ţurcan remained in detention on remand: despite appeals, his detention has so far been extended five times on the grounds that he was accused of a serious crime and there was a risk that he would abscond or obstruct the criminal investigation. In the decision to continue his detention of 8 November, a further reason was given, namely that he had refused to disclose the names of witnesses who could prove his innocence. On 22 November 2002, Victor Ţurcan was placed under house arrest for 10 days for allegedly having put pressure on a witness. He requested that witness to be heard, but the courts did not react.   Both applicants complained that the Moldovan courts had not given “relevant and sufficient” reasons for their detention, in breach of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security). Also relying on Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court), Victor Ţurcan complained about the unlawfulness of his house arrest and Dorel Ţurcan of his detention pending trial without having access to his case file.   The Court noted that the Moldovan courts had paraphrased the reasons for remanding the applicants in custody and for extending Dorel Ţurcan’s detention pending trial, without explaining how those reasons had applied in the applicants’ case. Concerning Victor Ţurcan, it was unclear why the courts had ordered his detention partly on the ground that he had risked influencing witnesses but only a few days later released him, before those witnesses had been heard. Concerning Dorel Ţurcan, the Court was struck by the reasons for his continued detention from 8 November: not disclosing names of witnesses was not a valid reason for detention and, requiring him to do so, was in breach of his right to remain silent. Sufficient reasons for Dorel Ţurcan’s detention had therefore not been given initially or subsequently and no alternative such as house arrest had been envisaged. The Court therefore held unanimously, in respect of both applicants, that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3.   The administrative practice of withholding material from criminal files had prevented Dorel Ţurcan from challenging the reasons for his continued detention and, together with the above failure to give sufficient reasons for his detention, had reinforced his impression of the arbitrariness of the courts’ decisions. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   The only reason given for Victor Ţurcan’s house arrest had been the alleged pressure he had put on a witness. It had therefore been important for the defence to have the opportunity for that witness to be questioned. That request having been refused without any explanation, the Court held unanimously that there had been a further violation of Article 5 § 4.   Dorel Ţurcan was awarded EUR   4,000 and Victor Ţurcan EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,000, jointly, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Banasiak v. Poland (no. 3158/06) Górecka v. Poland (no. 41230/04) Wedekind v. Poland 26110/04) The applicants are three Polish nationals who live in Poland. Paweł Banasiak was born in 1975 and lives in Gorzów Wielkopolski; Barbara Górecka was born in 1952 and lives in Częstochowa; and, Krzysztof Wedekind was born in 1971 and lives in Tychy.   Paweł Banasiak was remanded in custody in March 2001 on suspicion of murder. Ultimately, in October 2005 he was partially convicted of theft and drug-trafficking and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The proceedings concerning the murder charge are currently pending.   Barbara Górecka was remanded in custody in April 2001 and later charged with 33 offences, notably being the leader of an organised criminal gang, aggravated assault, making threats and forgery. In October 2005 she was convicted of 31 of those charges and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, later reduced to three and a half years. A second set of criminal proceedings against her were, ultimately, discontinued.   Krzysztof Wedekind was remanded in custody in January 2001 on suspicion of drug trafficking and being a member of an organised criminal gang. He was convicted in December 2004 and sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment, later reduced to five years.   Relying, in particular, on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), all the applicants complained about the excessive length of their detention on remand.   The Court noted that Mr Banasiak’s detention on remand had lasted for about four years and 11 months, Ms Górecka’s for four years and six months and Mr Wedekind’s for three years and nine 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 therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   3. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded EUR   2,000   to Krzysztof Wedekind, and EUR   3,000, each, to Paweł Banasiak and Barabara Górecka. Paweł Banasiak was also awarded EUR   1,290 for costs and expenses. (The Banasiak judgment is available only in French and the Górecka and Wedekind judgments are available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raised issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 13 Renato Votto v. Italy (no. 4733/04) This case concerns the restrictions imposed on the applicant after he was declared bankrupt. He 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). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Deliuchin v. Moldova (no. 14925/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Lipatnikova and Rudic v. Moldova (no. 40541/04) 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.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The applicant’s complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in the case of Bohucký was declared inadmissible. The Court considered it unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of Tardi .   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Barna v. Hungary (no. 40431/04) Tardi and Others v. Hungary (no. 19478/03) Tóth v. Hungary (no. 22657/04) Várnai v. Hungary (no. 14282/04) Bohucký v. Slovakia (no. 16988/02) Sika v. Slovakia (No. 3) (no. 26840/02) Štefániková v. Slovakia (no. 23846/02)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Kovács v. Hungary (no. 23435/03) Tur v. Poland (no. 21695/05)     ***   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.