CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 28 septembre 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 } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA813D16 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt }   700 28.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments [1] concerning Finland, Italy, Malta, Moldova and   Spain   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk   (*).   One length-of-proceedings case, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     A.S. v. Finland (application no. 40156/07) The applicant, A.S., is a Finnish national who was charged with sexual abuse of a four-year-old boy. He was acquitted of the charges by the first-instance court, but later sentenced on appeal to a one year’s suspended term of imprisonment. Relying on Article   6   §§   1 and   3   (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him, in particular that he had been convicted on the basis of a video-taped interview with the child, the only direct evidence against him. The applicant, who was not given the opportunity to have questions put to the child at any stage of the proceedings, complained that he had not waived that right by consenting to the viewing of the video recording in the trial courts. Violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article   6 § 3 (d) (fairness) Just satisfaction: 3,500 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 6,338.77 (costs and expenses)   Just satisfaction Schembri and Others v. Malta (no. 42583/06) The applicants are 11 Maltese nationals; all but one live in Ghaxaq (Malta). Their complaint concerned the expropriation of two plots of land in Ghaxaq that belonged to them. In a judgment of 10   November 2009, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property) to the Convention on account of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded, which reflected values applicable decades earlier, and the delay in the payment of such compensation. It further held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In its judgment today, the Court awarded the applicants EUR   93,000, jointly, in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   2,500, each, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   6,000, jointly, for costs and expenses.   Just satisfaction Gusan v. Moldova (no. 22539/05) The applicant, Vera Gusan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1955 and lives in Chişinău. In a judgment of 28   July 2009, 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) on account of the authorities’ failure to comply with a final judicial decision of July 1998 in Ms   Gusan’s favour ordering the municipal authority to provide her with social housing. It further held that the question of the application of Article   41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. In its judgment today, the Court awarded Ms.   Gusan EUR   3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   585 for costs and expenses.   San Argimiro Isasa v. Spain (no. 2507/07)* The applicant, Mikel San Argimiro Isasa, is a Spanish national who was born in 1962 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Badajoz (Spain). He was arrested in May 2002 on suspicion of belonging to an armed group, terrorism, storing arms and ammunition, and several counts of attempted murder. Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest and while in detention, including blows to the head, suffocation with a plastic bag over his head, sexual harassment and humiliation and threats of death and rape. Violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) Just satisfaction: EUR 20,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,000 (costs and expenses)     Length-of-proceedings case   Reina and Others v. Italy (nos. 26311/03, 26312/03, 26320/03, 26323/03 and 40766/04)* In this case, the applicants complained in particular under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1     ***   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 [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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 Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the day the request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.