CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 mars 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s5B9812EB { width:22.1pt; display:inline-block } .s1CC9F8DC { width:86.12pt; display:inline-block } .s66D057B5 { width:127.5pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6CC5DCF8 { width:112.14pt; 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   144   14.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Greece, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     De Diego Nafría v. Spain (application no. 46833/99)   No violation Article 10 Mariano de Diego Nafría is a Spanish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Madrid. He was formerly an inspector at the Bank of Spain. The application concerns his dismissal after he had written a letter to the Bank of Spain’s inspectorate accusing the Governor and other senior officials of the Bank, among other things, of irregularities.   He submitted that the content of the letter reflected the truth and that the terms held to be offensive were taken out of context and interpreted without that context being taken into account. He observed that none of the people criticised lodged criminal complaints or brought civil proceedings against him. He complained that the decisions of the Spanish courts refusing his application to set aside his dismissal from the employ of the Bank of Spain was in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that the Spanish courts had weighed the conflicting interests against each other for the purposes of domestic law before concluding that the applicant, a senior official at the Bank of Spain, had overstepped the acceptable limits of the right to criticise. It held that the judgment in which the Madrid High Court had ruled that it was insulting to make serious and totally unsubstantiated accusations against a number of directors of the Bank of Spain, including, in the first place, its Governor, could not be considered unreasonable or arbitrary. In the light of the above considerations, the Court considered that the national authorities had not exceeded their margin of appreciation in punishing the applicant.     The Court therefore held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 10. (The judgment is available only in French.)     (2)     Adamogiannis v. Greece (no. 47734/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Ioannis Adamogiannis, a Greek national, complained that the Greek authorities had refused to conform to a decision of the Auditor General’s Department granting him a supplementary pension.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time). As the applicant had not claimed damages or costs, the Court made no award under Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in French.)     SECTION 3   (3)     Puzinas v. Lithuania (no. 44800/98)   Violation Article 8 Alvydas Puzinas, a Lithuanian national, is currently in Sniego Prison (Vilnius), following his conviction for aggravated murder.   On 28 July 1998 he applied to the prison administration to be transferred to another prison. When his request was refused, he complained to various national and international organisations, including the Council of Europe and the Council of the Baltic Sea States (“the CBSS”).   On 20 October 1998 he received a letter dated 16 October 1998 from the CBSS Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights which had been opened and, on November 1998, he received a letter dated 21 October 1998 from the Secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights, which had also been subjected to initial screening by the prison administration.     On 3 December 1998 he was reprimanded in disciplinary proceedings. He lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman concerning both the reprimand and the screening of his mail.   On 22 December 1998 the Ombudsman found that the prison administration had censored a letter from the applicant to his wife in which he had accused the prison staff of theft and, as a consequence, on 30 October 1998 the prison administration had disciplined the applicant for slander. The Ombudsman held that the applicant’s letters to his wife concerned his private life, and that the disciplinary penalty was unlawful. The penalty was lifted on 29 December 1998. The Ombudsman also found, however, that the State was allowed to censor prisoners’ letters in certain cases. He therefore found no violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence.   The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) concerning the opening and censorship of his letters.   Finding that the control of the applicant’s correspondence both with international organisations and with his wife was not necessary in a democratic society, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicant 300 euros for non-pecuniary damage (The judgment is available only in English.)   (4)     Malveiro v. Portugal (no. 45725/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Elvino de Jesus Malveiro, a Portuguese national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings which lasted 11 years and one month concerning an alleged right of pre-emption.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 10,000 euros for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage (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.