CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 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 } .s7FF55C1E { width:20.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8AD579A3 { width:195.48pt; display:inline-block } .s660DD4FA { width:21.3pt; display:inline-block } .s670798D3 { width:146.8pt; display:inline-block } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sE39816CC { width:17.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sBC78BB81 { width:90.13pt; display:inline-block } .s9710F48E { width:249.58pt; display:inline-block } .sEA21EF24 { width:326.24pt; display:inline-block } .s25E6C592 { width:126.18pt; display:inline-block } .s212FB534 { width:136.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7A9D6F2C { width:142.15pt; display:inline-block } .sC1E922B6 { width:20.78pt; display:inline-block } .s50353A2B { width:53.45pt; display:inline-block } .sB4D37324 { width:42.1pt; 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 } .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     159   21.3.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Austria, France, Greece, Lithuania and Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 10 Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     APBP v. France (application no. 38436/97) (2)     Immeubles Groupe Kosser v. France (no. 38748/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   APBP v. France – The applicant is a publishing company called Artistes Peignant de la Bouche et du Pied (Artists Painting with Mouth or Feet). In April 1985 tax inspectors began to audit the company’s accounts to review its corporation-tax liability for the financial years 1980 to 1985. On receiving a revised tax assessment the company appealed to the Conseil d’État . At the hearing, the final speech was made by the Government Commissioner, who proposed a novel application of the law applicable in the case. The judges then retired and it was only after judgment had been delivered that the applicant company received a copy of the Government Commissioner’s submissions from the Conseil d’État information office.   Immeubles Groupe Kosser c. France – The applicant is a public company which purchased a building in Paris over which the Paris City Council exercised pre-emption rights with a view to using the building as public facilities. The applicant challenged the right of pre-emption in the Conseil d’État . At the hearing, on 14 January 1997, the final speech was made by the Government Commissioner, who called for the appeal to be dismissed. The applicant company’s counsel was unable to reply to those submissions orally but lodged a note to the court in deliberations the following day.   In both these cases the applicant companies complained under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing) that the proceedings before the Conseil d’État had been unfair. They argued that they had not had a fair hearing complying with the principles of equality of arms and of adversarial process, since the Government Commissioner’s submissions had not been communicated to them beforehand, they had had no opportunity of replying to those submissions and the Government Commissioner had been present during the Conseil d’État ’s deliberations. The Court held unanimously, in both cases, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the applicant companies’ complaint that they had not received a copy of the Government Commissioner’s submissions before the hearing and had been unable to reply   to them at the end of the hearing. On the other hand, it held unanimously, in both cases, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 on account of the fact that the Government Commissioner had participated in the Conseil d’Etat ’s deliberations and awarded each of the applicant companies 3,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Etcheveste v. France and Bidart v. France     (nos. 44797/98 and 44798/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Joseph Etcheveste and Filipe Bidart are French nationals, born in 1962 and 1953 respectively. After a shootout in a camp site in the département of Landes on 7 August 1983 during which one gendarme was killed and another injured, a warrant was issued on 1 September 1983 for the arrest of Mr Etcheveste, a further warrant being issued on 26 October 1984 for the arrest of Mr Bidart. However, these warrants were never enforced, as the applicants could not be traced. Responsibility for the incident was claimed by the Basque separatist group IPARRETARRAK, of which the applicants were allegedly members. On 19 August 1987 the Indictment Division of the Pau Court of Appeal charged the applicants and committed them to stand trial in the Landes Assize Court. The applicants were both arrested and committed to prison on 20   February 1988 in connection with other proceedings. Notice of the order committing them for trial in the Landes Assize Court was served on them on 19 May 1988. On 31   March 2000 Mr   Etcheveste was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment and Mr. Bidart to twenty years.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against them.   The Court held that the applicants had first been officially informed of the inquiry in progress and been affected by it when they were served with notice of the order committing them for trial in the Assize Court. Noting, in consequence, that the proceedings had lasted 11 years, 10 months and 12 days, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded each applicant EUR 10,700 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,838.54 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Entreprises Meton et Etep v. Greece (no. 47730/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant companies signed contracts with Libya for which the National Bank of Greece acted as their guarantor. As security for this guarantee the applicants deposited a sum of money with the British branch of the National Bank of Greece. The applicant companies did not default on their contracts with Libya but when they claimed the return of their security, the National Bank of Greece failed to honour payment. The applicants instigated proceedings for the return of their security. The applicants complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of the proceedings, which have lasted more than nine years and are still pending.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (5)     Vasilopoulou v. Greece (no. 47541/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   No Violation Article 14   Unnecessary to rule on the complaint based on Article 13 Margarita Vasilopoulou, a Greek national complained, relying on Articles 6 § 1, 13 (right to an effective remedy), 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), about the refusal by the Greek administration to comply with a decision of the Court of Audit granting her a supplementary widow’s pension.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and no violation of Article 14. It also held unanimously that it was unnecessary to rule on the complaint based on Article 13 and that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (6)     Sajtos v. Greece (no. 53478/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, Agota Sajtos, a Hungarian national, and two other Hungarian nationals for fraud. She was summoned to appear before the investigating judge on 16 April 1997, but did not appear and was subsequently arrested shortly after her arrival in Greece in August 1998 and detained on remand. She appealed against the decision to arrest her and also applied for release. The appeal court decided not to bring her to trial and discontinued the proceedings against her. She was released on 21 December 1998. The court held that no compensation should be granted concerning her pre-trial detention because she had refused to appear before the investigating judge. She complains, relying on Article 6 § 1, that she did not have a fair hearing regarding her compensation claim.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 3   (7)     A.T . v. Austria (no. 32636/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The case concerns two sets of proceedings in which A.T., an Austrian national, sought compensation concerning statements published in the weekly News , relating to a series of letter bombs which had been sent to politicians and other public figures in Austria. On 20 June 1995 and then on 21 August 1995 St. Pölten Regional Court ( Landesgericht ) discontinued both sets of proceedings on the ground that the applicant had no right of action and dismissed his claims accordingly. The court did not hold a hearing prior to either decision. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully both times.   He complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, that he did not have a public oral hearing in either set of compensation proceedings.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (8)     Rego Chaves Fernandes v. Portugal (no. 46462/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Maria Teresa Rego Chaves Fernandes a Portuguese national born in 1947 and living in Estoril (Portugal) complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings, which lasted nine years and 11 months and are still pending, concerning the application for an expulsion order against a tenant who had failed to pay the rent.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 750 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (9)     Vaz da Silva Girao v. Portugal (no. 46464/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Leonor Alda Vaz da Silva Girao a Portuguese national born in 1963 and living in Queluz (Portugal) complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings which lasted seven years and 11 months concerning her application for recognition of her right of pre-emption over a flat.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 4,200 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (10)     Stašaitis v. Lithuania (no. 47679/99)   Violation Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 Arvydas Stašaitis, a Lithuanian national, was the owner and director of several holding companies which defaulted on their financial obligations. On 8 January 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against him on suspicion that he had concealed his income and on 30 July 1993, he was charged with evasion. On 2 August 1993 the case was transferred to   Vilnius First City District Court. On 25 July 1994 the applicant failed to attend a court hearing, and the court ordered his detention on remand. He was first remanded in custody on 1 November 1994.   His conviction was quashed on 30 September 1999 and he was released on 8 February 2000.   The applicant complained that, from 21 September 1996 to 3 January 1997 and 23 September 1997 to 15 October 1998, there was no court order authorising his remand in custody. He also complained that the Supreme Court did not order his release immediately on 30 September 1999, after quashing his conviction.     He further maintained that the length of his detention on remand was excessive and that he was unable to take court proceedings to contest the lawfulness of the detention. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 as regards the applicant’s detention on remand from 21 September 1996 to 3 January 1997, from 23 September 1997 to 15 October 1998, and from 30 September 1999 to 8 February 2000. It also held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 as regards the length of the applicant’s detention and finally that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4. It awarded the applicant EUR 21,700 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,700 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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.