CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 15 juillet 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 } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s1A7903FE { width:7.02pt; display:inline-block } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s672BE378 { width:310.89pt; display:inline-block } .sB860720F { width:28.8pt; display:inline-block } .s5122F0C7 { width:4.82pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     374   15.7.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Belgium and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments of which only the friendly settlement is final: [1]   Former Section 3     Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 13 (1)       Stratégies et Communication and Dumoulin v. Belgium (application no. 37370/97) The first applicant, Stratégies et Communications, a public company formed under Belgian law, is an institutional and political communications agency whose head office is in Brussels. The second applicant, Luc Dumoulin, a Belgian national born in 1954, is its managing director.   On 24 April 1996 searches were carried out at the applicant company’s head office and the second applicant’s home as part of an investigation into the second applicant’s affairs. He was suspected of offences of forgery of documents, making use of forged documents and fraud in connection with various public-works contracts that had been made with the Brussels Regional Authority. The press carried regular reports on the investigation.   Since those searches more than six years ago, the second applicant has been questioned at intervals by investigating officers. To date, he has still not been charged in connection with the case and the searches and continuing investigation have resulted in lost profits for the company, as a number of its former institutional customers have left because of the bad press it regularly receives.   The applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings instituted against the second applicant. Since the application was lodged, little progress had been made in the investigation and accounting documents had not been returned. The company had lost many of its customers to the point where its turnover had fallen dramatically since April 1996. They also complained that, although they had kept the judicial authorities fully informed of the problem, nothing had been done to speed up the investigation, with the result that they had been deprived of an effective remedy. The Court considered that, for the purposes of calculating the length of the proceedings, the starting point was 24 April 1996, when the searches were carried out at the first applicant’s head office and the second applicant’s home. The case file was still in the hands of the investigating judge and the investigation had thus far lasted six years and two months, a period that was not justified by either the complexity of the case or the applicants’ conduct. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings.   With regard to the complaint of the lack of an effective remedy, the Court noted that the Law of 12 March 1998, which had entered into force on 2 October 1998 and amended Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code, provided litigants with a remedy under domestic law enabling them to complain of the length of a criminal investigation. As to whether that remedy satisfied the requirements of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the Court noted that Article 136 raised certain issues of Belgian domestic law that had yet to be resolved. Furthermore, Belgium had not provided an example of a domestic court finding under that provision in favour of a person who had not been charged. The Court consequently found that the remedy under Article 136 did not meet the requirements of Article 13, as it was not sufficiently certain. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The applicants were awarded 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 9,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)         Violation Article 6 § 3(c) (2)     Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom (nos.   39665/98 and 40086/98)   The applicants, both United Kingdom nationals, are Okechukwiw   Ezeh, born in 1967, and Lawrence Connors, born in 1954. Both are currently in prison in the United Kingdom.   The case concerns the applicability of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights to proceedings determining charges against prisoners concerning prison disciplinary offences. Mr Ezeh was charged with using threatening language to a parole officer and Mr Connors, with assault of a prison officer. It is argued that each charge had an equivalent in domestic criminal law. Both applicants were found guilty after a hearing before the prison governor, in which neither was legally represented. The maximum potential sentence was 42 additional days’ detention: Mr Ezeh was sentenced to 40 days detention and Mr Connors to seven days detention.   The applicants complained under Article 6 § 3 (right to legal assistance) of the Convention, in that they were not allowed to have a lawyer present at the hearing before the governor and that they could not obtain free legal aid for legal representation prior to and during the hearing.   The Court found that the nature of the charges against the applicants, together with the nature and severity of the potential and actual penalties, were such as to lead to the conclusion that both applicants were subject to criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that, accordingly, Article 6 applied to their proceedings before the governor.   The Court recalled that the Convention required that a person charged with a criminal offence who did not wish to defend himself in person had to be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing. It was not disputed that both the applicants requested legal representation for the hearing before the governor, which he refused, considering it unnecessary. The single judge of the High Court had also confirmed that there was no right to legal representation and that the Governor’s refusal of legal representation was not irrational or perverse.     Accordingly, the question whether the applicants could have secured representation (either through personal funding or free of charge) was not a relevant consideration for the governor: he excluded the applicants’ legal representation, as he was entitled to under domestic law, irrespective of whether they could have obtained the services of a lawyer free of charge.   In such circumstances, the Court considered that the applicants were denied the right to be legally represented in the proceedings before the prison governor and held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c). The Court did not consider it necessary to consider the applicants’ alternative argument that the interests of justice required that they be granted free legal assistance for the adjudication proceedings.   The Court further held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. It awarded them 17,124 pounds sterling (GBP) for costs and expenses, less 2,387.50 euros paid in legal aid by the Council of Europe. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (3)     Michael Matthews v. the United Kingdom (no. 40302/98)   Friendly settlement Michael Matthews was born in 1933 and lives in London. On 10 October 1997, aged 64, he applied at his local post office for an elderly person’s travel permit, which would have entitled him to free travel on most public transport in Greater London. His application was refused because, under British law at the time, such a permit could only be provided to men who were aged 65 or over, whereas women were eligible to receive such a permit, subject to the provisions of their local scheme, at the age of 60 or over.   He complained of discrimination on grounds of sex in relation to his right to property, contrary to Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which GBP 242 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and GBP 25,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of 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:   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: (0)3 88 41 21 54)   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.