CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 14 mai 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s632C3690 { width:114.71pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD4EF1C66 { width:41.43pt; display:inline-block } .s132A157 { width:102.13pt; display:inline-block } .sC548D554 { width:151.48pt; display:inline-block } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB4D5CB4E { width:4.94pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     261   14.5.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Cyprus, France, the Netherlands and Turkey     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments of which only Altan v. Turkey is final [1] :     SECTION 2   (1)     Meulendijks v. the Netherlands (application no. 34549/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Two Netherlands nationals, Mathijs Hendricus Meulendijks (now deceased) and Antonius Wilhelmus Martinus Meulendijks born in 1920 and 1957 respectively, were partners in a timber-trading company based in Heeze. In 1988 they were sent demands for back-dated social security contributions for their employees, as it was considered that they had paid undeclared wages or been involved in the excessive reimbursement of expenses. On 7 July 1989 they asked the competent authority for formal confirmation of those demands, such confirmation being a prerequisite for appealing to a tribunal. The demand was formally confirmed on 3 July 1991. The applicants then appealed to the competent administrative tribunals. During most of the proceedings the applicants did not have access to all their office records, a major part of which had been seized in separate criminal proceedings which were closed in 1994, on the ground that they were time-barred. On 11 July 1996 the Central Appeals Tribunal found that the recovery of unpaid social security contributions for undeclared wages was justified on principle, but that the decision was insufficiently reasoned and invited the parties to reach a compromise. The applicants complained about the length of the proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). It awarded the second applicant and the first applicant’s heir a total of 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)       (2)     Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki v. France (nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Sylvette Gentilhomme, Jeannine Schaff-Benhadji and France Zerouki are French women married to Algerian nationals. At the material time they were living in Algiers and their children went to French state schools in Algeria pursuant to a 1962 Franco-Algerian statement of principle on cultural co-operation. Following a decision of the Algerian government, the French academic and cultural agency was no longer authorised to enrol Algerian children at these schools. The applicants lodged an application with the Conseil d’Etat on 12 June 1991 for compensation for the French authorities’ refusal to continue providing their children with an education.   The applicants complained, under Article 6 § 1, of the length of the proceedings and of an infringement of their right to a fair trial on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations. They also relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) and Article 14, arguing that their children had been penalised because of their double nationality. Lastly, they relied on Article 8 complaining of an infringement of their right to family life.   The Court declared their complaints regarding the length of the proceedings admissible, but the remainder inadmissible as the matters complained of were not attributable to France.   Finding that the proceedings had lasted seven years, one month and 17 days for a single level of jurisdiction, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant EUR 8,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   609.80 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Perhirin and 29 Others v. France (no. 44081/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicants are farmers whose property is situated wholly or partly in the Plozévet municipality of the département of Finistère. They challenged the basis used to calculate their contributions due under the welfare protection scheme for non-salaried members of the farming community and applied to the administrative courts for judicial review of prefectoral orders determining the applicable basis in two sets of proceedings.   The applicants complained of the length of the administrative proceedings to which they were a party (up to nine years and four months for the first set and up to nearly five years and 11 months for the second).   The Court considered the length of the first set of proceedings to have been unreasonable and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on that account. It awarded seven of the applicants EUR 2,500 each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 400 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Georgiadis v. Cyprus (no. 50516/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 On 9 December 1992 a criminal action was filed against Kostas Georgiadis, a Cypriot national, and two other defendants with Nicosia District Court. He was charged with forging official documents, circulating forged documents, fraudulently avoiding customs duties and corrupting a public officer. The case was adjourned several times and the trial judge changed. In its judgment of 25 June 1998 the Court concluded that there was no case to answer.   The Attorney General lodged an appeal, which he withdrew on 21 January 1999.   The applicant complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him, which lasted six years, one month and 12 days for two levels of jurisdiction.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 12,000 in respect of loss of opportunities, EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 4   (5)     Altan v. Turkey (no. 32985/96)   Friendly settlement Ahmet Hüsrev Altan, who is a writer and journalist, is a Turkish citizen. He was born in 1950 and lives in Istanbul. Following the publication in the national daily, Milliyet, in 1995 of one of his articles, entitled “Atakürt”, describing events experienced by the Kurds as though they had been experienced by the Turks, he was given a suspended sentence by the National Security Court of one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 Turkish liras for inciting the people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction based on membership of a race or a religion. He lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that he had expressed peaceful opinions in the context of an open debate on questions of public interest. His appeal was dismissed on 1 March 1996.   Relying on Article 10, the applicant complained of an infringement of his right to freedom of expression.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid EUR 4,573.47 for any pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. The Turkish Government has made the following statement.   “The Court’s findings of violations by Turkey in cases concerning prosecutions under Article   312 of the Criminal Code or the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act clearly demonstrate that Turkish law and practice must be brought into conformity with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention as a matter of urgency. The interference complained of in the present case provides a further illustration of this.   “Accordingly, the Government undertake to make all the amendments to domestic law and practice required in this sphere, as set out in the national programme of 24 March 2001.   “The Government also refer to the individual measures mentioned in the Interim Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 23 July 2001 (ResDH(2001)106), which the Government will apply in circumstances such as those in the present case.”   (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.