CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 novembre 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 } .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   779 13.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Georgia, Italy, Moldova and Poland   The European court of human rights has today notified in writing the following 17 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.   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Oganova v. Georgia (application no. 25717/03) The applicant, Karina Oganova, is a Georgian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Tbilisi.   In May 2002, Ms Oganova brought civil proceedings in which she claimed back money she had lent to an individual in September 1998. In September 2002 the applicant’s claims were dismissed on appeal as time-barred. In November 2002 the Supreme Court of Georgia, without holding an oral hearing, upheld that judgment.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European convention on human rights, Ms Oganova complained, in particular, of the lack of an oral hearing before the Supreme Court.   The European court of human rights noted that legal arguments could be presented just as effectively with the written as spoken word and found that there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the written procedure in the applicant’s case had lacked transparency or fairness. In particular, the applicant could not claim that the absence of an oral hearing had deprived her of obtaining knowledge about or of commenting on the other party’s submissions because the individual had not replied to the applicant’s cassation claim. Furthermore, the applicant had been aware of the decision to dispense with a hearing prior to the examination of the case. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy (no. 399/02) The applicants, Gianfranco Bocellari and Wilma Rizza, are Italian nationals who were born in 1960 and live in Milan (Italy).   In 1997 proceedings were brought against Gianfranco Bocellari, a lawyer specialising in criminal law, for conspiracy in drug trafficking, usury and money laundering. He was eventually acquitted in September 2002. On account of the suspicions against Mr Bocellari, the Milan public prosecutor’s department had brought parallel proceedings in March 1999 to ensure the application of the preventative measures provided for in Law no. 575 of 1965, as amended by Law no. 646 of 13 September 1982. At the close of those proceedings, the Italian courts decided, among other things, to place the applicant under police supervision and issued an order for compulsory residence in the Milan district for four years. In addition, they ordered the confiscation of several assets belonging to the two applicants.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicants complained that the proceedings on the application of preventive measures against Gianfranco Bocellari had not been public in nature.   The Court reiterated that the public character of proceedings before the judicial bodies protected litigants against the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny and was also one of the means whereby confidence in the courts, superior and inferior, could be maintained. It considered it essential that the litigants in proceedings for the application of preventive measures were offered, at the least, the opportunity to request a public hearing before the specialised divisions of the ordinary and appeal courts. Noting that the applicants in the present case had not had such an opportunity, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and awarded them 2,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 Violation of Article 34 Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06) The applicant, Mihail Cebotari, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1947 and lives in Chişinău. In 1997 he was the Head of Moldtranselectro, a Moldovan state-owned power distribution company.   The background to the case was a series of complex contracts made in 1997 concerning importation of electricity from Ukraine to Moldova involving, in particular, Moldtranselectro and a company incorporated in Moldova, Oferta Plus.   On 25 March 1998 Moldtranselectro wrote a letter, signed by the applicant, to the Ministry of Finance asking it to issue a treasury bond of 20,000,000   Moldovan   lei   (MDL) in favour of Oferta Plus. Oferta Plus brought proceedings against the Ministry of Finance for refusing to cash in the bond and, on 27 October 1999, Chisinau Economic Court found in the company’s favour. The Supreme Court later upheld that judgment. Despite bringing enforcement proceedings, the judgment debt was never paid in its entirety.   The Government were informed of an application by Oferta Plus to the European Court of Human Rights in April 2004. Following that, the civil proceedings were reopened and a judgment of February 2005 found in favour of the Ministry of Finance.   In the meantime, in October 2004, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and Oferta Plus on charges of large-scale embezzlement of State property. They were discontinued in October 2005 but, following the Court’s communication of Oferta Plus’ case to the Government in February 2006, the criminal proceedings were reopened. On 9 August 2006 the applicant and the Head of Oferta Plus were arrested and remanded in custody.   The applicant was accused in particular of having written the letter of 25 March 1998 despite knowing that the energy supplied to Moldtranselectro was not consumed by state institutions. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended and his requests for release refused until 19 November 2006 when he was released on bail. Throughout his detention, he was held in the Centre For Fighting Corruption and Economic Crimes (“CFECC”) where the room used for meetings with his lawyer had a glass partition. He complained to the domestic authorities that it was impossible to have confidential meetings with his lawyer but his complaints were dismissed. As he did not want the authorities to know about his application to the Court, he gave power of attorney to his wife who signed the necessary forms. The applicant was acquitted of all charges brought against him on 27 June 2007.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights), Mr Cebotari complained of the unlawfulness of his detention. He also alleged that he was not able to have confidential meetings with his lawyers, in breach of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   The Court noted that the accusations against the applicant and the Head of Ofterta Plus had been the same, their detention had coincided and the proceedings against them had been dealt with by the same CFECC investigators and worded in the same way. In this judgment, the Court therefore decided to follow the same reasoning as in its judgment Oferta Plus S.R.L. v. Moldova (application no. 14385/04, press release no. 798 of 19 December 2006) in which it found, in particular, that the accusation against Oferta Plus had appeared to be inconsistent with the findings of the civil courts. Therefore, as found in Oferta Plus S.R.L., the Government had failed to satisfy the Court that there had been a reasonable suspicion that Mr Cebotari had committed an offence and there had been no justification for his arrest and detention. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1. Furthermore, the Court could only conclude that the real aim of the criminal proceedings had been to put pressure on the applicant in order to hinder Oferta Plus from pursuing its application before the Court. It therefore also held unanimously that there had also been a violation of Article 18 in conjunction with Article 5 § 1. Given that finding, the Court did not consider it necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4.   The Court further noted that the problem of alleged lack of confidentiality of lawyer-client communications in the CFECC had been a matter of serious concern for lawyers in Moldova for some time and that the applicant and his lawyer could reasonably have had grounds to fear that their conversations had not been confidential. Indeed, effective representation of the applicant before the Court had appeared to have been hampered: he had been unable to sign the application forms. The Court therefore found that the glass partition in the CFECC meeting rooms had affected the applicant’s right of petition and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 34.   Mr Cebotari was awarded EUR   10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Dolneanu v. Moldova (no. 17211/03) The applicant, Pavel Dolneanu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1930 and lives in Puhoi (Moldova). He is recognised as having a second-degree disability and has a monthly State pension of MDL   89 (approximately EUR   6).   During Soviet times Mr Dolneanu deposited money in three different accounts he had in the state-owned Savings Bank of Moldova. In 1994 a decision was adopted on the indexing of citizens’ savings in that bank. People aged 60 or more on 1 January 1994, and, who had savings on 2   January 1992, were entitled to recover a part of their deposits. Mr Dolneanu was entitled to MDL   3,000. He received MDL   570 of that sum in June 2000. On 8   November   2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the Bank of Moldova and the Ministry of Finance to recover the remaining amount and seek compensation for the depreciation in value, due to inflation, of his savings. Both the bank and the ministry acknowledged the applicant’s right to compensation but stated that there was delay in payment due to the State’s failure to allocate funds for that purpose in its budget. On 4 March 2002 Centru District Court, finding that the delay in payment of compensation was the ministry’s responsibility, partly accepted the applicant’s claim and ordered the bank to pay MDL   2,429 (EUR   210 at the time). The court rejected the claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage because there was no law dealing with such claims. That decision was ultimately upheld on appeal. The outstanding amount was transferred to the applicant’s account on 29 July 2004.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) alone and in conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Dolneanu complained of the late payment of the compensation to which he was entitled under the 1994 decision concerning savings. The case was also examined under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).   The Court noted that the ministry, the bank and the domestic courts had never raised any doubt regarding the applicant’s right to obtain compensation or the amount to which he had been entitled. The failure to pay any compensation for approximately six years after his request and then the remaining amount for another four years had amounted to interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The domestic courts had acknowledged that that interference had not been lawful but had not awarded him any compensation. In the Court’s view, that meant that those courts had not offered sufficient redress to the applicant, who had continued to suffer the consequences of not having been awarded compensation. Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. With respect to Mr Dolneanu’s complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court pointed out that, although the courts had found the ministry to be in breach of its obligations, they had admitted that there had been no law which could allow them to award damages to the applicant. It followed that he had not had any effective remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and there had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 13. Given those findings, the Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 6 § 1.   Mr Dolneanu was awarded EUR   513 in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,588 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Lyp v. Poland (no. 25135/04) The applicant, Piotre Lyp, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Rybnik (Poland).   On 24 October 2002 Mr Lyp was arrested and charged with armed robbery. His detention on remand was extended on numerous occasions due to the likelihood of the applicant being given a heavy sentence (15 years) and the risk that he would interfere with the proceedings. He was released on bail on 2 August 2005. He was ultimately convicted of robbery and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment. He started to serve that sentence some time in 2006.   Relying on Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the excessive length of his detention on remand.   The Court found that the likelihood of the applicant being given a heavy sentence should have been reassessed with the passage of time. Indeed, in the event, the sentence had been considerably lighter than originally estimated. The Court further noted that the authorities had not given any concrete proof that the applicant had tampered with evidence or attempted to interfere with witnesses. Consequently, the Court concluded that the domestic authorities had not justified the overall period of Mr   Lyp’s detention which had lasted for over two years and two months. There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 3. Mr Lyp was awarded EUR   2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Zwoźniak v. Poland (no. 25728/05) The applicant, Krzysztof Zwoźniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1945 and lives in Jelenia Góra (Poland).   In June 1991 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, who was suspected of exceeding his duties by selling a company’s assets, to the detriment of the Polish State. The Polish courts eventually found in January 2005 that there was no case to answer. They noted the excessive length of the proceedings but failed to pay any compensation to the applicant, holding that he had not proved that he had sustained pecuniary damage as a result of the excessive length of proceedings, and that the mere finding of a violation of his right to be judged in a reasonable time was sufficient compensation for the non-pecuniary damage.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing in a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the excessive length of the proceedings.   The Court noted that the disputed proceedings had lasted 11 years, eight months and 13 days. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that this duration was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Noting in particular that no compensation had been awarded to the applicant for this violation, it also concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13. It awarded Mr Zwoźniak EUR   9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   650 for costs and expenses. (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 8 Violation of Article 13 Cresci v. Italy (no. 35783/03) Di Crosta v. Italy (no. 38823/04) Grasso v. Italy (28222/03)   Violation of Article 8 Federici v. Italy (no. 13404/04)   Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 13 Melegari v. Italy (no. 17712/03) The Court found the above violations in these five cases concerning the restrictions imposed on the applicants after they were declared bankrupt.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Becciu v. Moldova (no. 32347/04) The Court found the above violations in this case concerning the failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour in good time.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. With the exception of Urbańska v. Poland , the applicants also complained that they had no effective remedy concerning their length-of-proceedings complaints. The Court declared inadmissible the remainder of the application in the case of Gusovschi v. Moldova .   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) No violation of Article 13 de Riggi and Telese v. Italy (no. 15000/03) Giovanna and Guiseppe Rinaldi v. Italy (no. 15011/03) Sangermano and De Falco v. Italy (no. 14983/03)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Gusovschi v. Moldova (no. 35967/03) Urbańska v. Poland (no. 12134/02)     ***   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.