CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 février 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sACFD2DAF { width:67.41pt; display:inline-block } .sEAA82B7E { width:26.77pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s99D31A05 { width:115.49pt; display:inline-block } .sA1C7DD77 { width:71.46pt; display:inline-block } .sC1E922B6 { width:20.78pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sC70B85C6 { width:24.78pt; display:inline-block } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS       083   14.2.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Denmark, the Netherlands and Portugal     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments of which only Visser v. the Netherlands and the friendly settlements are final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Jensen v. Denmark (application no. 48470/99)   Friendly settlement Leif Graaskov Jensen is a Danish national born in 1947 living in Frederikssund. He complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, about the length of criminal proceedings against him, which lasted over four years.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 30,000 Danish kroner is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 3   (2)     Visser v. the Netherlands (no. 26668/95)   Violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 d) The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against Frederik Visser, a Dutch national, in relation to the kidnapping and assault on Mr A. by two unknown men. On 18 April 1991 the Court of Appeal convicted Mr Visser, among other things, of having deprived Mr A. of his liberty and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The court used as evidence a police record of a statement from an anonymous witness. On 14 September 1992 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment on the ground that a statement from an anonymous witness must be taken by a judge aware of the witness’s identity. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal of The Hague, which ordered the witness in question to be interviewed by an investigating judge. The applicant’s lawyer heard the interview from a different room and was able to submit questions in writing in advance and during the interview. On 29 September the applicant was convicted of having deprived Mr A. of his liberty and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. The Court based its decision on, among other evidence, the anonymous witness’s statement before the investigating judge. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complained that the use of the anonymous witness’s statement was in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial).   In examining whether the use of anonymous testimony could reasonably be considered justified in the circumstances, the Court observed that the witness had told the investigating judge that s/he did not know the applicant but was afraid of reprisals because one of the applicant’s co-accused had a reputation for being violent and because the offence in itself concerned an act of revenge. The investigating judge had apparently taken into account the reputation of the co-accused in general, but his report had not shown how he assessed the reasonableness of the personal fear of the witness. Neither did the Court of Appeal carry out such an examination into the seriousness and well-foundedness of the reasons for the anonymity of the witness when it decided to use the statement made before the investigating judge in evidence against the applicant. The Court was therefore not satisfied that the interest of the witness in remaining anonymous could justify limiting the rights of the defence to the extent that they were limited.   Noting, moreover, that the applicant’s conviction was to a decisive extent based on the anonymous testimony, the Court did not find it necessary to examine further whether the procedures put in place by the judicial authorities could have sufficiently counterbalanced the difficulties faced by the defence as a result of the anonymity of the witness.   The Court therefore concluded unanimously that the proceedings as a whole were not fair and that there had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. It awarded the applicant 6,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Tourtier v. Portugal (no. 44298/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Joseph Pierre Tourtier, a French national, and his wife Maria Emília Mendes Alves Tourtier, a Portuguese national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a determination of civil rights within a reasonable time), about the length of civil proceedings concerning the eviction of a tenant which lasted approximately 10 years and one month.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 awarded the applicants EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Amaral de Sousa v. Portugal (no. 45566/99)   Friendly settlement Laurindo Trindade Amaral de Sousa, a Portuguese national born in 1966 and living in Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal) complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings (started on 28 November 1986 and finished, according to the applicant, in July 2001) concerning damages resulting from a traffic accident in which he was involved.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 7,500 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)       (5)     Caldeira and Gomes Faria v. Portugal (no. 45648/99)   Friendly settlement Horácio Caldeira and Maria José Gomes Faria are both Portuguese nationals born in 1931 and 1939 respectively living in Caldas da Rainha (Portugal). They complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings which lasted almost seven years concerning an application for recognition of their lawful title to a plot of land.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 6,980 is to be paid to both applicants for any non-pecuniary damage and EUR 997 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6)     Sociedade Panificadora Bombarralense, Lda v. Portugal (no. 46143/99)         Friendly settlement The applicant, a limited liability company, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings which lasted over 11 years and eight months concerning an application for payment of goods supplied to the defendants for their commercial use.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 3,740 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,167 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.