CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 novembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3FA6945E { width:66.8pt; display:inline-block } .s603EC422 { width:342.24pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s6F57788 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA701324E { width:88.8pt; display:inline-block } .s482BCCB8 { width:208.86pt; display:inline-block } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .sB0389500 { width:148.13pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     553   7.11.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Italy, Croatia, Estonia and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final: [1]   Section 1     Friendly settlements The applicants in the following four Italian cases complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights, except for the case Franceschetti v. Italy which concerns only Article 6 § 1 .   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts, in euros (EUR), are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. ( Franceschetti v. Italy and Ciccone v. Italy are available only in English whereas the remaining two judgments are available only in French).   (1)     Franceschetti v. Italy (application no. 35001/97) EUR 9,000 (2)     C. Srl v. Italy (no. 36112/97) EUR 11,000 (3)     Visca v. Italy (no. 36734/97) EUR 10,500 (4)     Ciccone v. Italy (no. 38043/97) EUR 7,000   (5)     Radoš and others v. Croatia (no. 45435/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1     Violation Article 13 Zvonimir Radoš, Goran Lajnert, Dmitar Malešević, Branko Jugović, Stjepan Živković and   Gojko Mikecin are all Croatian nationals. The first five applicants were born in 1929, 1970, 1934, 1929 and 1934 respectively and live in Zagreb.   During 1992 they all lent various sums of money to a number of agencies that were supposed to pay back the loans within periods ranging from two to 12 months and at interest rates ranging from 10 to 30 % per month (so called “financial engineering”). As these agencies failed to re-pay the loans, the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the agencies and their alleged owners. The applicants alleged that several sets of proceedings (the length of which the Court could take into consideration [2] between two years and 11 months and four years 11 months and 12 days) concerning their civil claims for re-payment of loans had exceeded a reasonable time and that they had no remedy at their disposal in respect of the length of these proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   6 § 1 concerning 11 sets of proceedings but no violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the other proceedings.   The Court recalled that the Croatian Parliament had introduced a new Section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Court Act, which provided an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning length of proceedings. Consequently, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 13 in relation to the proceedings which were still pending. However, there had been a violation of Article 13 concerning the four sets of proceedings concluded before Section 63 came into effect.   The Court awarded EUR 2,500 to the first, third and fifth applicants and EUR 4,800 to the fourth applicant for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 3   (6)     Veeber v. Estonia (No. 1) (no. 37571/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Not necessary to examine complaint under Article 13 Tiit Veeber, an Estonian national, was born in 1948 and lives in Tartu, Estonia. He is the owner of AS Giga , a company based in Tartu, which had been involved in renovating the infrastructure supplying heating for the city.   On 14 November 1995 Tartu Police brought criminal proceedings against the head of the Energy Department of Tartu City Government, concerning the alleged abuse of his position in contracting a loan with the Ministry of Finance, for renovating the city’s heating infrastructure, which was for an amount higher than approved and guaranteed by the City Council. In the context of these proceedings, AS Giga’s premises were searched.   On 15 and 20 November 1995 Tartu Police seized respectively 36 and 50 files of documents, which comprised practically all the company’s bookkeeping records for 1994 and 1995. The documents seized were recorded by file and not individually. The applicant estimates that there were approximately 10,000 documents in total.   The applicant filed various complaints about the police search and seizure of the documents. They were dismissed on 13   September 1996 by the Administrative Court, on the ground that it lacked competence to deal with complaints which were part of civil or criminal proceedings. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully. He claims that at least 5000-6000 documents have still to be returned.   On 4 December 1995, following the seizure of documents, Tartu Police also brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and, on 13 October 1997, he was convicted of tax evasion, falsification of documents and fraud charges. His sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment was suspended.   On 18 October 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal, claiming that the indiscriminate seizure of documents from his company violated his defence rights, since he was deprived of the opportunity to submit necessary documents which were in the hands of the police. This and a further appeal were dismissed.   The applicant alleged that the police search and seizure of the documents in question violated his rights under Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence). He also complained that he had no access to a court concerning the search and seizure, relying on Article 6 (access to court) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held, unanimously, that, in so far as the complaint related to the initial search and seizure conducted by the police prior to the entry into force of the Convention in Estonia on 16   April   1996, it was outside its jurisdiction. The police measures were instant acts and could not be viewed as constituting a continuing situation.   The Court also noted that the applicant had not contested the retention by the police of the seized documents before any domestic body. Nor had he submitted any reasons for his omission to use the remedies suggested by the Government. It appeared that it was open to the applicant, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to file a complaint with the public prosecutor and subsequently with the higher-level prosecutor, competent to review the police measures and to take remedial action, if necessary. There was no indication that such an appeal would have had no prospect of success. Nor did the Court find any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant from exhausting this remedy. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the retention of documents. The Court did not therefore consider the complaint under Article 8 on its merits.     In view of the lack of practice demonstrating that a civil action for damages was an adequate remedy capable of effectively challenging the police measures taken in the applicant’s business premises, the Court considered that the existence of the remedy before the civil courts at the material time had not been established with sufficient certainty. Considering that the applicant lacked effective access to a court, the Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Having regard to its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1, the Court held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to rule on the Article 13 complaint.   As regards the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction, the Court held unanimously that the finding of a violation in itself provided sufficient just satisfaction and awarded the applicant EUR 1,600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)           (7)     Özel v. Turkey (no. 42739/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Yaşar Özel is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and is at present detained in Bayrampaşa Prison.   The applicant was suspected of burgling a jeweller’s shop and was arrested on 13 October 1994 by the Gayrettepe (Istanbul) security police and detained in their custody. He was taken before a judge of the National Security Court on 27 October 1994 and admitted that he had committed a number of armed robberies in order to collect funds for an illegal organisation, the “TKEP/TKP” (Party of Communist Workers of Turkey/ Communist Party of Kurdistan).   The National Security Court, one of whose members was a military judge, sentenced him to life imprisonment on 4 March 1997 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant maintained that his case had not been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the National Security Court. He further complained under Article   6   §   3   (c) (right to assistance by a lawyer), that he had not been able to see a lawyer while in police custody.   The Court observed that it had previously noted certain features of military judges’ status which cast doubt on their independence and impartiality. They continued to belong to the army, which in turn was answerable to the executive branch of government. A civilian charged with a terrorist offence who had to stand trial before a National Security Court whose members included, in particular, a military judge had legitimate grounds to fear that that court would lack independence and impartiality.   Consequently, the Court unanimously declared the application admissible and held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the National Security Court’s lack of independence and impartiality. It further held that there was no call to examine the other complaints under Article 6 and awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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. [2] From 6 November 1997, the date the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Croatia.