CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 16 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sAAA0B4EC { width:314.23pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6BFFF153 { width:147.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE66965E4 { width:345.57pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB90FF49 { width:134.79pt; display:inline-block } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7A9D6F2C { width:142.15pt; display:inline-block } .sE6A6D9D3 { width:67.44pt; display:inline-block } .sD2219C4E { width:86.83pt; 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     265   16.5.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France, Greece, Italy and Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments of which only the friendly settlements are final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Karatas and Sari v. France (application no. 38396/97) No violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 6 § 3 (c) Dursun Karatas and Zerrin Sari are Turkish nationals. Mr Karatas was sentenced in Turkey to more than ten years’ imprisonment for his activities at the head of a movement known as Devrimci Sol (“Dev Sol”) or the revolutionary left. The Turkish Intelligence Service drew up reports on this movement, which carried out acts of violence both in Turkey and abroad, with special emphasis on its illegal method of funding. Mr Karatas escaped from Istanbul Prison in 1989. Ms Sari, known for her political activities, is a member of the Istanbul Bar.   They were arrested in France in 1994 in possession of forged passports and in the company of a terrorist wanted by the Turkish authorities. After being charged with conspiring to prepare an act of terrorism, handling the proceeds of theft, forging an official document and illegally entering France, they were placed in pre-trial detention and subsequently released on bail. They both absconded shortly after being released and an international arrest warrant was issued against them by the investigating judge. The Paris Criminal Court took note of their absence and tried them in absentia . The applicants’ counsel, who had appeared at the hearing on behalf of other defendants in the same case, stated that their request to make submissions in their capacity as counsel for the applicants was turned down. The Criminal Court sentenced the applicants to four years’ and two years’ imprisonment respectively and issued arrest warrants against them on the ground that they had not provided any guarantees that they would appear for trial.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (access to court), the applicants complained of their inability to appeal against their conviction without first surrendering to custody. Under Article 6 § 3(c) (right to legal assistance), they also complained of an infringement of their right to a fair trial on the ground that their counsel had been unable to make submissions on their behalf. The Court noted that the applicants had been released on bail subject to a number of conditions with which they had failed to comply, with the result that warrants were issued for their arrest. It consequently found that they had deprived themselves of the opportunity to appear before the trial court without first surrendering to custody and that even before their committal for trial they had been under an obligation to surrender to custody under arrest warrants that had been issued by the investigating judge. It followed that the obligation to surrender to custody in order to gain access to a court which the applicants complained of resulted from a pre-existing obligation with which they had failed to comply, namely to remain at the disposal of the courts in order to gain access to a court.   The Court also noted that if an application was made to set aside the verdict, it would necessarily be quashed. Having regard to the special circumstances of the case and the conduct of the domestic proceedings, the obligation imposed on the applicants did not constitute a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a court. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   As to the right to assistance from a lawyer relied on by the applicants, the Court considered that a defendant’s failure to appear could not justify his or her being deprived of the right to legal assistance. It noted that by absconding the applicants had clearly revealed their intention not to attend the hearing or, accordingly, to defend themselves in person. Consequently, the Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) and, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. It awarded the applicants EUR 4,600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Nuvoli v. Italy (no. 41424/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 13 Giovanni Nuvoli is an Italian national who was born in 1956 and lives at Pozzomaggiore (Sassari). In February 1994 the Fraud Squad seized a banking instrument for 5,000,000 US dollars which the applicant had attempted to cash in a bank. He was arrested and held in police custody from December 1994 and January 1995 on suspicion of criminal conspiracy with some 30 other people. He was ultimately acquitted by the Sassari Court, whose judgment was deposited with the registry in January 2000.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the length of the criminal proceedings (five years, ten months and 24 days). Under Article 13 he also complained of the lack of an effective remedy under Italian law to obtain reparation for judicial proceedings that were inordinately long.   The Court considered that the length of the proceedings could not be regarded as reasonable and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As to the complaint that no effective remedy was available in domestic law the Court noted that Law no. 89 of 2001 (“the Pinto Law”), which introduced a remedy into the Italian legal system for anyone who sustaining damage as a result of the excessive length of proceedings, was not applicable, as the application in the case before the Court had been declared admissible before it came into force. The Court consequently held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 and awarded the applicant EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     (3)     Livanos v. Greece (no. 53051/99)   Friendly settlement Hariklia, Georges and Evangelos Livanos are Greek nationals born in 1942, 1964 and 1966 respectively and living in Athens. In June 1995 they lodged a criminal complaint and applied to be joined as civil parties to the proceedings after the first applicant’s husband, who was also the second and third applicants’ father, was killed in a road-traffic accident. The Indictment Division of the Athens Court of Appeal dismissed their case in May 1999. They complained under 6 § 1 of the inordinate length of time it had taken to investigate their complaint (almost four years).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to be paid EUR 2,700 each for any damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Goth v. France (no. 53613/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Christian Goth is a French national who was born in 1945. He was found guilty of a trades-descriptions offence by the Versailles Court of Appeal and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, one of which was suspended. He appealed to the Court of Cassation and sought an order from the Versailles Court of Appeal exempting him from the requirement to surrender to custody. In support of his application he submitted that his poor health meant that he would be at risk in prison. The Court of Appeal dismissed his application on the ground that he had not furnished sufficient guarantees that he would not abscond, as he had failed to comply with any judicial decision and had several convictions. The Court of Cassation struck out the applicant’s appeal in February 1999 on the ground that he had not surrendered to custody and had not obtained an exemption from the requirement to do so. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of a breach of his right of access to a court.   The Court considered that making the admissibility of an appeal to the Court of Cassation conditional on the appellant’s surrendering to custody obliged the appellant to deprive himself of his liberty pursuant to the impugned decision even though it was not yet final. That obligation undermined the very essence of the right to appeal by placing a disproportionate burden on the appellant that upset the fair balance that had to be maintained between the need to enforce judicial decisions and the need to ensure access to the Court of Cassation and that the defence was able to exercise its rights.   In addition, the Court noted that the obligation for a defendant at liberty to surrender to custody was not consistent with the presumption of innocence and the suspensive effect of appeals to the Court of Cassation taken together. It noted, lastly, that the possibility of applying for an exemption from the obligation to surrender to custody did not prevent the loss of the right to appeal being a disproportionate penalty.   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. (The judgment is available only in French.)                 SECTION 3   (5)     Câmara Pestana v. Portugal (no. 47460/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Vasco Novais da Camara Pestana is a Portuguese national who was born in 1932 and lives at Palmela. He lodged an application for judicial review with the Lisbon Administrative Court against a decision of the contingency fund at the Ministry of Finance to include property of his deceased father in his second wife’s estate. He complained of the length of the proceedings, which are still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court and have so far lasted nine years and ten months.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 5,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 750 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6)     F. Santos, Lda v. Portugal (no. 49020/99)     Friendly settlement The applicant is a Portuguese private company whose registered office is at Odemira. It complained under Article 6 § 1 of the length of an action in damages it had brought against one of its shareholders in April 1990 and which are still pending, having thus far lasted almost twelve years.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid EUR 5,985 for any pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (7)     SIB-Sociedade Imobiliária da Benedita, Lda v. Portugal (no. 49118/99) Friendly settlement The applicant is a Portuguese private company whose registered office is at Benedita. It complained under Article 6 § 1 of the length of two sets of proceedings it had issued to recover debt that had been assigned to it. The proceedings to date have lasted five years and one month and more than eight years.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to be paid EUR 5,500 for any non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 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.