CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 21 février 2008

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   127 21.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Greece, Romania, Russia and   Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 27 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.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Ravon and Others v. France (application no. 18497/03) The applicants are Jean-Maurice Ravon, a French national who was born in 1947 and lives in Marseilles (France) and two companies incorporated under French law, TMR International Consultant and SCI Rue du Cherche-Midi 66, which have their headquarters in Marseilles.   The tax authorities, who suspected the applicant companies of tax fraud, carried out searches of and seizures at the companies’ premises and at the first applicant’s home. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), taken in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that they had not had access to an effective remedy in order to challenge the lawfulness of the searches of residential premises and seizures to which they had been subjected.     Having examined the various judicial appeals foreseen by domestic law in this area, the European Court of Human Rights considered that the applicants had not had access to a “tribunal” and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). It held that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 8. With regard to non-pecuniary damage, the Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the applicant companies and awarded the first applicant 5,000 euros (EUR). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis v. Greece (no. 35332/05) The applicant company, Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis, is a Greek company which has its headquarters in Agios Nikolaos (Crete).     At the beginning of the 1970s it purchased a plot of ground with a view to constructing a hotel complex. In 1984 the Ministry of Culture classified the region in question as “zone A – full protection” – that is, as an area in which any construction was completely prohibited, although, when the applicant company had purchased the plot of land, the construction of a hotel complex had not been forbidden by the relevant legislation. After various unsuccessful applications to the relevant authorities for renewal of the initial planning permission, the applicant company applied to the Ministry of Culture, requesting expropriation of its property. Its application to have the authorities’ refusal to proceed with expropriation set aside was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Council in 2005 on the ground that the plot of land was outside the urban area. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant society complained about the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Council and the complete freeze on its property.   The Court considered that the interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions pursued a legitimate aim, namely protection of natural heritage. This circumstance, however, did not dispense the State from its obligation to compensate the applicant company where the infringement of its right to property was excessive. In the case in question, the Court considered that the reason given by the Supreme Administrative Council for its decision of 2005 was marked by particular severity, since it failed to take into account the specific features of each plot of land outside the urban area. Accordingly, it considered that the domestic authorities had upset the fair balance which should be struck between the public interest and the private interest of the applicant company, and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It also found that the length of the proceedings – six years and four months – had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1. Finally, it held that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 13 Kanellopoulos v. Greece (no. 11325/06) The applicants, Panagiotis Kanellopoulos and Vassilios Kanellopoulos, are Greek nationals who live in Pyrgos (Greece).   In September 2005 the Pyrgos Administrative Court upheld the applicants’ request to have set aside the authorities’ refusal to lift expropriation measures which had been adopted in respect of a plot of land belonging to them and to release the land for use. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicants complained of the authorities’ refusal to comply with that decision.   The Court found that the national authorities had failed to comply within a reasonable time with the administrative court’s decision and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13. It awarded the applicants EUR 10,000 jointly for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Koskina and Others v. Greece (no. 2602/06) The applicants, Athina Koskina, Konstantinos Vlahos and Spyridon Metallinos, are Greek nationals who were born in 1927, 1952 and 1959 respectively and live in Corfu (Greece).   The case concerned proceedings between the applicants and their neighbours concerning the ownership of a property. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), the applicants complained of the excessive formalism shown by the Court of Cassation in declaring inadmissible one of their arguments and the subsequent infringement of their right of access to a court.   The Court considered that the limitation imposed by the Court of Cassation on the right of access to a court had not been proportionate to the aim of guaranteeing legal stability and the proper administration of justice and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It awarded the first applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Pyrgiotakis v. Greece (no. 15100/06) The applicant, Konstantinos Pyrgiotakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1947 and is currently held in a psychiatric clinic within Korydallos Prison (Greece).   In June 2003 he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for involvement in drug trafficking. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that his conviction arose from the conduct of one of the police officers involved in the case, who had acted as an “ agent provocateur ”. The latter had pretended to be a buyer in a transaction with a drug-trafficker and in which the applicant had been involved.   The Court considered that the behaviour of the police officers involved in the case had lain behind the commission of the alleged offence and the sentencing of the applicant to a heavy punishment, and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Just satisfaction Bock and Palade v. Romania (no. 21740/02) The applicants are Marian Dorel Iosef Bock, who had Romanian and German citizenship, was born in 1940 and died in 2003, and Monica Ligia Daniela Palade, a Romanian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Satu-Mare (Romania).   In a judgment of 15 February 2007 the Court had concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), in that Arad Town Council had been awarded a right in rem which had resulted in the loss for the applicants of title to 83.33% of a building and of entitlement to use the adjacent land. It had held that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   The Court concluded unanimously that Romania was to return to the applicants the share of 83.33% of the building and end its use of the adjacent land within three months from the date on which the judgment would become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It held that, failing such restitution, Romania was to pay the applicants jointly, within the same three-month period, EUR 750,000 in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation of Article 14 Driha v. Romania (no. 29556/02)) The applicant, Constantin Driha, is a Romanian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Oradea (Romania).   Formerly a fireman, the applicant had the status of a serviceman. He alleged that the allowance awarded when he retired had been unlawfully subjected to income tax and complained of discrimination, given that other service personnel in his situation had received a tax-free allowance. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court considered that the interference complained of was manifestly unlawful under domestic legislation and, consequently, incompatible with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. It also noted that, unlike the applicant, other service personnel assigned to the reserve troops had received that allowance without it having been subject to tax, and found no grounds to justify such discrimination. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and awarded the applicant a total of EUR 8,000 in damages. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) SC Marolux SRL and Jacobs v. Romania (no. 29419/02) The applicants are SC Marolux SRL, a company incorporated under Romanian law with its headquarters in Târgu-Mureş (Romania) and a Belgian national, R. Jacobs, who was born in 1943 and lives in Maastricht (the Netherlands).   The applicants complained, in particular, of infringements of their right of access to a court and their right of property on account of the cancellation of their action for compensation by the national courts on the ground of non-payment of stamp duty. They relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court pointed out that it had already been called on to examine the Romanian system in so far as it concerned stamp duty, and had found it to be in breach of Article 6 § 1. It concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 with regard to access to a court and held that it was not necessary to examine the complaints under Article 6 § 1 – concerning the length of proceedings – and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and, jointly, EUR 1,915.14 for costs and expenses.(The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 5 § 3 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Matskus v. Russia (no. 18123/04) The applicant, Igor Rishardovich Matskus, is a Russian national who was born in 1963 and lives in St   Petersburg. He was a police officer until being dismissed in May 2002 following his arrest in March the same year on suspicion of extortion and corruption. He was released in September   2004. The criminal proceedings against him are apparently still pending.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and of the proceedings against him. He relied on Article   5 §   3 (right to liberty and security) and Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court found that the Russian authorities had not given relevant and sufficient reasons for having held the applicant in pre-trial detention for more than two years and six months and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 on account of the proceedings against the applicant having lasted more than five years and nine months. Mr   Matskus was awarded EUR   8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Günsili and Yayık v. Turkey (no. 20872/02) The applicants, Şükrü Günsili and Hasan Yayık, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960 and 1957 respectively and live in Istanbul and İzmir (Turkey).   The applicants held positions of responsibility within a national union of transport workers. Following redundancies without warning or compensation, the unionised workers in a transport company took part in demonstrations and gatherings outside the premises of the company in question. These events gave rise to the opening of a number of criminal proceedings against the dismissed workers and trade-unionists. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against them, at the close of which they were acquitted.     The Court noted that the disputed proceedings had lasted six years and five months in respect of H.Yayık and six years and two months in respect of Ş.Günseli. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it considered that that duration was excessive and had failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each of the applicants EUR 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Tunç v. Turkey (no. 20400/03) The applicant, Mehmet Hüsni Tunç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Batman (Turkey).   The case concerned the dismissal of the applicant’s request for legal aid, submitted in the context of an action for damages. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court noted that the dismissal of the applicant’s request for legal aid had totally deprived him of the possibility of having his case heard by a court and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It also held that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint under Article 13 and awarded Mr Tunç EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 2 (life) Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Usta and Others v. Turkey (no. 57084/00) The applicants, Fatma Usta, Hüseyin Usta and Hacer Bakkal Usta, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1938, 1938 and 1964, respectively, and live in Istanbul. Fatma and Hüseyin Usta are the parents and Hacer Bakkal Usta the wife of Taşkın   Usta.   The case concerned the applicants’ allegation that, following a clash on 17   April 1992 between the police and THKP-C militants in a flat in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul, Taşkın   Usta was shot dead by police officers and that the subsequent investigation into the incident was inadequate. They relied on Article   2 (right to life).   The Court noted that, according to eyewitnesses, the police had repeatedly asked the militants to surrender and had only started to shoot once fired at. According to ballistic reports, the militants had fired 700 bullets whereas the police had only fired 420 bullets, all at long range. Furthermore, the fact that the operation lasted nine hours and an ambulance was called had indicated that the police had intended to arrest the militants, not kill them, and had taken the necessary measures to provide medical assistance. The use of lethal force in those circumstances, however regrettable it might have been, had therefore not exceeded what had been “absolutely necessary” for the purposes of self-defence and in carrying out a lawful arrest. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 2 as regards the killing of Taşkın   Usta. However, the Court found that the Turkish authorities could not be described as having had a prompt response to investigate the allegation of unnecessary and disproportionate use of force as there had been numerous delays in the criminal investigation and the overall length of the proceedings had lasted more than 13 years. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 2 concerning the inadequacy of the investigation. The applicants were awarded EUR   10,000, jointly, in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 10 Yalçıner v. Turkey (no. 64116/00) The applicant, Mehmet Mustafa Yalçıner, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Istanbul.   At the relevant time, he was a member of the governing body of a political party, the Labour Party (Emeğin Partisi). In 1996 he was prosecuted for propaganda against the territorial integrity of the State and the indivisible unity of the Turkish nation on account of a speech he had given in 1993. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained, in particular, about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He further alleged that his criminal conviction was in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of failure to communicate the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation and held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint about the failure to hold a hearing before that court. With regard to the breach of the applicant’s freedom of expression, the Court considered that the speech given by the applicant was likely to prejudice civil peace in the country and that the applicant’s conviction could as such be reasonably considered to respond to a “pressing social need”. It noted that the grounds put forward by the authorities to justify the applicant’s conviction were “relevant and sufficient”. Nevertheless, the Court considered that the sentence of a prison term and a fine could not be considered proportionate to the aims pursued and that, accordingly, they had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded the applicant EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained under Article 6. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Johanna Huber v. Romania (no. 37296/04) Pappszasz v. Romania (no. 25920/05) Tulea v. Romania (no. 28282/04) The Court found the above violation in these three cases concerning actions for the restoration of immovable property.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 SC Parmalat Spa and SC Parmalat Romania SA (no. 37442/03) The Court found the above violations concerning SC Parmalat Spa’s complaint about the cancellation of a final judgment in its favour following an appeal lodged by the prosecutor general. The Court declared the application inadmissible in so far as it concerned the second applicant company. Notably, it awarded SC Parmalat Spa EUR 340,000   in pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500   for costs and expenses.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Străchinaru v. Romania (no. 40263/05) Vidu and Others v. Romania (no. 9835/02) Ledovkin v. Russia (no. 43209/04) The Court found the above violations in these three cases concerning the failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour.     Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Chatzinikolaou v. Greece (no. 33997/06) Kaparos v. Greece (no. 9702/06) Konstantinos Ladas v. Greece (no. 15001/06) Mariettos and Mariettou v. Greece (no. 17755/06) Varvara Stanciu v. Romania (no. 26533/05)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Kontogeorgas v. Greece (no. 26010/06) Knez and Others v. Slovenia (no. 48782/99) ***   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) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.