CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   126 16.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Albert v. Romania (application no. 31911/03)     PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A MAYOR FOR REMOVING THE ROMANIAN FLAG FROM HIS TOWN HALL AND TRANSLATING THE TOWN’S NAME INTO HUNGARIAN WERE UNFAIR   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Almos Albert, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Sfântu Gheorghe (Romania). In 2002, while he was mayor of that town, which has a very sizeable Hungarian minority, he ordered a number of measures including removal of the Romanian national flag from the façade of the town hall. On an unspecified date he also had the municipality’s name translated into Hungarian on the letterhead of its official documents.   The prefect of the county of Covasna conducted an inspection at the town hall, after which he issued a notice dated 17 June 2002 ordering the applicant to pay a heavy minor-offence fine of 100 million old Romanian lei.   Mr Albert applied to the Sfântu Gheorghe District Court to have the notice set aside. The case was subsequently transferred to the Oneşti District Court. On the substance, the applicant submitted that the measures he had taken did not constitute offences under Romanian law. On a formal level he contended that the notice had not met the requirements laid down by law as it had not mentioned the date of the alleged offence of translating the municipality’s name into Hungarian in official documents. The court rejected his claims on the substance and did not rule on his formal complaint, simply stating that the notice had been “issued lawfully”. An appeal by the applicant was dismissed by a final judgment of the Bacău County Court of 7 April 2003. The County Court did not address Mr Albert’s ground of appeal concerning the fact that the first-instance judgment had made no mention of the lack of a date. It noted that the penalty had been “lawfully established” by the District Court. On 22 December 2003 the same County Court rejected an application to have that judgment set aside.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Albert submitted that the proceedings to have the notice of a minor offence set aside had been unfair, as the Romanian courts had not examined his submissions concerning the formal aspects of the notice.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court pointed out that, while Article 6 § 1 obliged courts to give reasons for their decisions, it did not require a detailed answer to every argument. However, the court had to have actually addressed the essential issues submitted to it, even where it gave only brief reasons for its decision.   In the case of Mr Albert, the District Court had confined itself to finding that the notice had been “issued lawfully”, without making any reference to the applicant’s submission regarding the failure to indicate the date of the alleged offence concerning the use of Hungarian. The applicant had therefore complained on appeal of the failure of the first-instance court to give reasons on this point; however, the County Court had also omitted to address this submission. Accordingly, the Romanian courts had not examined the formal issue raised by the applicant.   The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It did not consider it necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaint under Article 13, which was identical in substance to his complaint giving rise to a finding of a breach of Article 6 § 1.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention the Court awarded the applicant a sum for pecuniary damage equivalent to the amount of the fine actually paid, that is, 2,755 euros (EUR). It also awarded him EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.     *** The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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 Convention, 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.