CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s86AC02D9 { width:333.56pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9C305DD4 { width:142.82pt; display:inline-block } .sE6BC5077 { width:32.8pt; display:inline-block } .sC72CC51B { width:161.49pt; display:inline-block } .sD886FBD1 { width:77.46pt; display:inline-block } .s29462583 { width:81.44pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     607   28.11.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Austria, Italy and Poland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final: [1]   Section 1   (1)     Radaj and others v. Poland (application nos.   29537/95 and 35453/97) Violation Article 8 § 1 Zbigniew Radaj, a Polish national, was born in 1953 and lives in Warsaw.   Two letters to Mr Radaj from the European Commission of Human Rights, posted on 20 March 1996 and on 14 May 1996, were intercepted, opened and read by the Warszawa-Służewiec prison authorities, where the applicant was detained on remand. They were subsequently forwarded to Warsaw District Court, before which criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending, and read by the court.   The applicant twice asked the President of the court to explain the legal basis on which the correspondence had been opened and read. On 15 October 1996 the President replied, among other things, that Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights did not prohibit censorship of detainees’ correspondence, which was   permitted under Section 33 § 2 of the Rules of Detention on Remand.   The applicant complained, in particular, that his correspondence was intercepted, opened and read by the prison authorities and by the court before which criminal proceedings against him were pending. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court observed that Polish law at the time of the events in question allowed for the automatic opening and reading of prisoners’ correspondence by prison authorities and by authorities conducting criminal proceedings. No distinction was drawn between the different categories of people with whom prisoners could correspond. Neither were the authorities obliged to specify the grounds for the decision. Moreover, no principles had been laid down governing how correspondence should be controlled or within which time-frame, nor could a detainee contest the manner or scope of the application of that measure. The Court concluded that Polish law, as it stood at the material time, did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of discretion conferred on the public authorities in respect of control of prisoners’ correspondence. The Court, therefore, held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 § 1 and awarded the applicant 500 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Friendly settlements The applicants in the following two 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 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) except the case A.M.M.   v. Italy which only relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 .   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts, in euros, are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (Both judgments are available only in English).   (2)     A.M.M.   v. Italy (no. 34742/97) EUR 14,700 (3)     Virgulti v. Italy (no. 57206/00) EUR 8,000   (4)     Walter v. Austria (no. 34994/97)   Friendly settlement Ernst Walter, an Austrian national, was born in 1947 and lives in Vienna.   On 7 July 1997 the weekly magazine Profil published an article about him - as the former manager of a company working in the field of financial consulting - and about criminal proceedings against him relating to charges of aggravated fraud.   The applicant introduced proceedings to have a reply published in the magazine, under the Media Act. His application was initially rejected on formal grounds. While in prison, he made a further request, which he gave to the prison authorities for delivery on 4 September 1997, indicating that the matter in question was subject to a time-limit. His request was rejected, however, on the ground that it did not reach the publisher within the statutory two-months from the date of publication of the article, ie. by 7 September 1997. He appealed unsuccessfully.   The applicant complained, among other things, under Article 6 (access to court), that the delay by the prison authorities prevented him from gaining access to a court under the Austrian Media Act.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 7,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (5)     Informationsverein Lentia v. Austria (no. 37093/97)   Friendly settlement Informationsverein Lentia, the applicant association, is based in Linz (Austria). Its members are co-proprietors and inhabitants of a large housing project in Linz, which aims to improve communication between the inhabitants through, among other things, setting up an internal cable network. In proceedings brought in 1978 and terminated in 1986, it unsuccessfully applied for an operating licence.   On 24 November 1993, in the case of Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) concerning, among other things, the applicant association’s complaint that it had been unable to set up a television station due to the broadcasting monopoly of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation.   On 18 August 1994 the applicant association, referring to the Court’s judgment, filed a new request for an operating licence with the Telecommunications Office for Upper Austria and Salzburg, which dismissed the request, noting that no legislation allowing it to grant such a licence had been passed concerning cable broadcasting. On 9 November 1995 the Federal Ministry of Public Economy and Transport dismissed the applicant association’s appeal.   On 1 August 1996 private broadcasters became free to create and transmit their own programmes via cable-net without any conditions being attached. On 1 July 1997 the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Act entered into force, laying down the conditions under which private cable broadcasting is allowed.   The applicant association complained that, despite the Court’s Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria judgment, it was still unable to obtain an operating licence for cable broadcasting. It relied on Article 10.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 12,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (6)     F.M. v. Italy (no. 43621/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant is an Italian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Ferrara. On 26 July 1991 an order committing him for trial on a charge of usury was served on him. The proceedings were discontinued on 22 April 1998 because the charge had become time-barred. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the criminal proceedings against him (six years, eight months and 27 days for one level of jurisdiction).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (7)     Marziano v. Italy (no. 45313/99)   No violation Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 Ilario Marziano is an Italian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Turin. He was married to Ms S. and the couple had a daughter in 1989. His wife applied for judicial separation in 1993 and obtained custody of their daughter, while the applicant was granted access.   In 1994 Ms S. lodged a criminal complaint against him alleging sexual abuse of a minor ( atti di libidine violenta su minore ). After the investigation had been completed, the Turin public prosecutor asked the investigating judge to discontinue the proceedings on the ground that the evidence against the applicant was insufficient. The judge refused that request and proceeded, among other things, to question the girl, who for the most part confirmed that she had been indecently assaulted by her father.   In an order of 17 April 1998 the judge discontinued the proceedings against the applicant, holding that the child’s statements were true in substance but that, as they contained contradictions, the accused could not be convicted. Following that order, the applicant brought a number of civil actions with a view to obtaining increased contact.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2, the applicant submitted that he had not had a fair hearing on account of certain statements made in the investigating judge’s order. He argued that he had been declared guilty without having had the benefit of a trial or of the presumption of innocence. He further maintained that the order had had a negative effect on his applications for increased contact.   The Court noted that the impugned statements had been made in the course of criminal proceedings and had formed part of the reasoning for a decision on whether to discontinue the proceedings or commit the applicant for trial. Accordingly, although he had not agreed with the public prosecutor’s legal analysis, the judge had explained why he had endorsed the prosecutor’s submissions and decided to terminate the proceedings. Since the disagreement had related to the facts and their assessment, it was quite normal that the judge should have mentioned those facts in his decision. The Court considered that the order in issue had described a state of “suspicion” and had not contained any finding of guilt. It accordingly held that the presumption of innocence had not been breached in the applicant’s case.   Furthermore, noting that the applicant had had the benefit of adversarial proceedings and the opportunity to submit argument in support of his applications, the Court held that he could not be said to have been unable to exercise the rights of the defence.   As to the applicant’s complaint that the order in issue had had repercussions on his applications for increased contact, the Court pointed out that the present case concerned only the criminal proceedings that had ended with the order of 17 April 1998.   The Court accordingly held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (8)     Massimo Pugliese v. Italy (no. 45789/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant was an Italian national who was born in 1927 and lived in Rome. He was prosecuted for tax evasion and was questioned by the public prosecutor on 15 March 1987. In a judgment that became final on 30 March 1999, the Rome District Court discontinued the proceedings because the charges had become time-barred. Under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) the applicant complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him (slightly more than 12 years for one level of jurisdiction).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the heirs of the applicant – who had died in the course of the proceedings – EUR 8,000   for non-pecuniary damage. (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.