CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 mai 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   347 13.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Belgium, Luxembourg, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12   Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final [1] .   Repetitive cases [2] and one length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Beheyt v. Belgium (application no. 41881/02) The applicant, Marc Beheyt, is a Belgian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Ghent (Belgium).   In 1996 and 1997 two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him for misappropriation, forgery and uttering. 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 applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, which are still pending.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the two sets of proceedings had to date lasted more than 12   years and three months and ten years and two months. Finding such periods excessive, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article   13. It awarded the applicant 4,000   euros   (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (Second applicant) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Garsoux and Massenet v. Belgium (no. 27072/05) The applicants, Jean Garsoux and Henri Massenet, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1937 and 1935 respectively and live in Brussels and Trooz (Belgium).   In July 2000 the second applicant’s brother, who was the first applicant’s brother-in-law, died after being attacked at a cashpoint. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings relating to the death, which they had applied to join as civil parties.   The Court considered that the length (six years) of the proceedings was excessive in respect of the second applicant, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 8 N.N. and T.A. v. Belgium (no. 65097/01) The applicants, N.N. and T.A., are Belgian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1963 respectively and live in Knokke-Heist (Belgium). They are in a stable homosexual relationship.   In 1993 T.A.’s wife filed for divorce on the ground of fault. In connection with an application for interim measures for the duration of the proceedings, she referred to the applicants’ love affair and submitted love letters belonging to   T.A. which the applicants had sent each other. The applicants sought an order prohibiting the production of the letters or excluding them as evidence in the proceedings. Their applications to that end were refused by the domestic courts. Relying on Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained that their intimate correspondence had been produced and used in court proceedings without their consent.   The Court noted that the production of correspondence in divorce proceedings was subject to two conditions, which the Belgian courts had found to have been satisfied in the present case: the person producing the documents in question should not have come into possession of them unlawfully, and the documents should not be governed by professional confidentiality rules. The Court further noted that although the applicant T.A. had never disputed the existence of his relationship and the issue of fault on the part of either spouse was not material at that stage of the proceedings, it could not be inferred that the Belgian courts were under a duty to exclude the letters as evidence in the proceedings, thereby denying T.A.’s wife the opportunity to produce them in support of her claims. The Court also considered that the publicity ultimately given to the applicants’ relationship stemmed mainly from their action to prevent the production of the documents in question, and that the mere fact that the documents had been added to the case file did not make them public, in view of the restricted access to files in such cases. The Court therefore considered that the interference complained of could not be regarded as disproportionate to the aims pursued, and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   8. (The judgment is available only in French.)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 Van Ingen v. Belgium (no. 9987/03) The applicant, Antoine van Ingen, is a Belgian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Lanaken (Belgium).   Following the opening of an investigation in the United States in relation to international drug trafficking, the applicant was charged in Belgium and in June 2002 was sentenced by the Antwerp Court of Appeal to seven years’ imprisonment for trafficking in ecstasy. He complained of the refusal by the Court of Appeal to reopen the proceedings to give the prosecution the opportunity to adduce new evidence transmitted by the American authorities in May 2002. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing), he alleged that that circumstance had prevented him from presenting his case effectively.   The Court considered that the applicant had not indicated how the new evidence could have assisted in changing the verdicts against him by the Belgian courts if it had been adduced in the proceedings before them. It further noted that the prosecution did not appear to have relied on the evidence contained in the documents. In conclusion, it considered that the proceedings had observed the adversarial principle and equality of arms and had incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the accused. It held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article   6 §   1. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Violation of Article 13 Wauters and Schollaert v. Belgium (no. 13414/05) The applicants, Jean Wauters and Hélène Schollaert, are Belgian nationals who were born in 1923 and 1939 respectively and live in Temploux (Belgium).   The first applicant managed a non-profit-making association looking after adults with disabilities. The case concerned proceedings brought against the applicants for misappropriation of funds belonging to the association. Relying on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), they complained of the excessive length of the proceedings, which are currently pending.   The Court observed that the proceedings had lasted more than ten years and 11   months for the investigation stage alone. Despite the complexity of the case, it considered that such a period was excessive and did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 and Article   13 of the Convention. It awarded the applicants EUR   15,000   for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000   for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Galich v. Russia (no. 33307/02) The applicant, Boris Ivanovich Galich, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Omsk (Russia).   In April 2001 Mr Galich brought civil proceedings to recover an outstanding debt, plus statutory interest for the delay in payment of that debt. The first instance court found in favour of the applicant and awarded the statutory interest in full. However, the court of appeal considered that it was disproportionate to the real losses of the applicant and, as a result, reduced the amount of statutory interest awarded by the first instance court.   The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that in the appeal proceedings the Russian courts reduced the amount of statutory interest awarded to him without hearing his submissions. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing).   The Court was prepared to assume that the Court of Appeal had been entitled to exercise its discretion to reduce the amount of statutory interest awarded to the applicant but found that that court had deprived the applicant of an opportunity to be heard and had therefore failed to exercise its discretion in a manner consistent with the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1 and awarded Mr Galich EUR   1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Z. v. Slovakia (no. 5868/02) The applicant, Z., is a Slovak national who was born in 1972 and is serving a seven year prison sentence in Košice-Šaca Prison (Slovakia) for murdering his father in July 1996.   Z. alleged that he had acted in self-defence as his father, who had attacked the applicant’s sister with a knife, had also attacked him. In June 2001 the Supreme Court, finding that the applicant had initially acted in legitimate self-defence but had then inflicted more than 50   injuries on his father and had provided him with no assistance, ultimately upheld the applicant’s conviction. The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. He relied on Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time).   The Court noted that the applicant’s case had been relatively complex but that there had been unjustified delays resulting in the proceedings having lasted four years, six months and 22   days. The Court therefore found that the length of the proceedings against the applicant had been excessive and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1. Z. was awarded EUR   2,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   No violation of Article 3 Violation of Article 8 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Juhnke v. Turkey (no. 52515/99) The applicant, Eva Tatjana Ursula Juhnke, is a German national who was born in 1965 and lives in Germany.   In October 1997 Ms   Juhnke was arrested by Turkish soldiers on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and handed over to gendarmes stationed in Hakkari (Turkey). In September 1998 she was convicted as charged and sentenced to 15   years’ imprisonment. She was released in December 2004 and deported to Germany.   The case concerned, in particular, the applicant’s complaint that her detention was unlawful and that during that detention she was subjected to ill-treatment and a gynaecological examination against her will. She relied on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and   8 (right to respect for private and family life). She also complained under 6 §   1 (right to a fair trial) that, in particular, she was denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted her. Further relying on Article   13 (right to an effective remedy), she claimed that the Turkish authorities’ inadequate response to her complaints hindered her right to bring compensation proceedings. Lastly, she alleged that the treatment to which she was subjected by the authorities had been motivated by her sex and political opinions, in breach of Article   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The Court, finding that there was no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s allegation that she had been subjected to ill-treatment, declared that part of her complaint inadmissible. The Court further found the applicant’s allegation that she had been forced to have a gynaecological examination to be unsubstantiated. It therefore held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article   3.   However, the Court did find that the applicant had resisted a gynaecological examination until persuaded to agree to it and that, given the vulnerability of a detainee in such circumstances, the applicant could not have been expected to indefinitely resist having such an examination. The Court decided to examine that issue from the point of view of Article   8. The Court found that there had been an interference with the applicant’s private life in that the examination had been imposed on her without her free and informed consent. Indeed, it even considered that she might have been misled into believing that the examination had been compulsory. Nor had it been shown that that interference was “in accordance with the law”. Moreover, the examination appeared to have been a discretionary measure taken by the authorities to safeguard those members of the security forces who had arrested and detained the applicant against a false accusation of sexual assault. That safeguard did not justify seeking to persuade a detainee to agree to such an intrusive and serious interference with her physical integrity, especially given that she had not complained of having been sexually assaulted. The interference had not therefore been “necessary in a democratic society” either. Accordingly, the Court held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article   8.   The Court further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1, reiterating that it had already frequently found a violation of that article in a large number of cases raising a similar issue.   Lastly, the Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s other complaints under Articles   6, 13 and   14 and declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaint under Article   5.   Ms Juhnke was awarded EUR   4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Repetitive cases   The following cases raise issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Just satisfaction Friendly settlement Moldovahidromas v. Moldova (no. 30475/03) In its Chamber judgment of 27   February 2007, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   6 §   1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) concerning the quashing of a final judgment given in the applicant company’s favour and that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision.   In its judgment today, the Court took note of a friendly settlement agreement reached between the parties and, accordingly, decided to strike the case out of its list.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Luca v. Romania (no. 1204/03) In this case the Court found the above violations on account of the failure to enforce a final judgment in the applicant’s favour.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 SC Editura Orizonturi SRL v. Romania (no. 15872/03) The Court found the above violations in the present case, which concerned the quashing of a final judgment in the applicant company's favour on an application by the Procurator-General.     Length-of-proceedings case   In the following case, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings.   Friendly settlement Lemmer and Neiertz v. Luxembourg (no. 302/04)     ***   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) 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.