CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 décembre 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 } .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 } .s54C2A3F6 { width:46.13pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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     645   17.12.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Romania and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following six Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Section 2     Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (1)     Golea v. Romania (application no. 29973/96) (2)     Gheorghiu v. Romania (no. 31678/96) (3)     Segal v. Romania (no. 32927/96) (4)     Boc v. Romania (no. 33353/96) (5)     Savulescu v. Romania (no. 33631/96)   In these five cases, the applicants are Romanian nationals who, in their capacity as heirs, brought actions in the national courts with a view to recovering property that had been nationalised by the State. Their title to the property was recognised in judicial decisions which became final in the absence of an appeal. However, following applications by Principal State Counsel, the Supreme Court of Justice quashed those decisions on the ground that the application of the decrees on nationalisation could not be reviewed by the courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to recognise the national courts’ jurisdiction to determine actions to establish title to property. In the Gheorghiu case, the applicants further submitted that the retroactive application of a law on civil procedure rendered the proceedings unfair. In the Segal case, the applicant also alleged that the principle of equality of arms was not observed in the Supreme Court of Justice. In the Savulescu case, the applicant also questioned the independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court. Lastly, in each of these cases the applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.   The Court reiterated that the quashing of a judgment which had become final was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. In quashing final court decisions, the Supreme Court of Justice had infringed the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. The Court reiterated further that the failure of the Supreme Court to recognise the courts’ jurisdiction to determine the actions lodged by the applicants to establish title to property was in itself contrary to the right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect.   The Court held, further, that it was not necessary to examine either the complaint raised by the applicants in the Gheorghiu case that a law had been applied retroactively or the complaint raised by Mrs Segal that the principle of the equality of arms had not been observed.   With regard to the complaint raised in the Boc case regarding the lack of independence of the Supreme Court, the Court held that the statements of the Romanian President had been addressed to the authorities and that there was nothing to suggest that they had influenced the judges of the Supreme Court who had ruled in the applicant’s case. Moreover, merely applying the case-law of an authority such as the Supreme Court did not, in the Court’s view, restrict the rights and duties of the lower courts to carry out a wholly independent examination of cases before them. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards the court’s independence and impartiality.   The Court noted that the applicants’ property rights had been established by final judgments and that those rights were therefore irrevocable. The judgments of the Supreme Court had had the effect of depriving the applicants of their possessions and the Government had failed to provide any justification for that situation. The Court also noted that certain applicants were still deprived of their possessions, had not been paid compensation commensurate with the real value of their property or were still in a position of uncertainty. In those circumstances the Court found that the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights had been upset and that the applicants had borne or continued to bear an excessive and individual burden. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   In the Golea case the Court awarded the applicant 650 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses and held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision with regard to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the Gheorghiu case the Court held that Romania had to return the property to the applicants within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, failing which the State would have to pay them EUR 200,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded them EUR 17,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. In the Segal case the Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision. In the Boc case the Court awarded the applicant, by six votes to one, EUR   15,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, in the Savulescu case the Court held that Romania had to return the property to the applicant within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, failing which the State would have to pay him EUR 215,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded him EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 62 for costs and expenses. (These judgments are available only in French.)   (6)         Mitchell and Holloway v. the United Kingdom (no. 44808/98) Violation Article 6 § 1     No separate issues arose under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or Article 13 Geoffrey Mitchell and Louis Holloway were born in 1946 and 1941 respectively and live in Kent.   On 7 February 1986 they granted to a company now known as Buckingham International Limited (Buckingham) an option to purchase 90% of the share capital in Worldwide Dryers Limited (WWD) for 2   pounds sterling (GBP) a share, with a further option to purchase the remaining 10% at a price to be fixed by an agreed formula. On 2 October 1986 the first lot of shares in WWD was purchased. Relations between Buckingham and the applicants subsequently deteriorated.   On 12 February 1988 WWD and Buckingham issued High Court proceedings against the applicants claiming, among other things, damages for breach of contract. However, they did not serve their statement of claim until 1 May 1990, having received numerous extensions of time.     Meanwhile, on 27 October 1988, Buckingham exercised its call option on the remaining 10% of the shares of WWD, alleging that no further payment was due to the applicants given its outstanding claims against them.   The first main hearing in the case began on 26 April 1994 and lasted 20 days. Since WWD had by then gone into liquidation and did not appear, the judge dismissed WWD’s action. Buckingham applied to make substantial amendments to its pleadings and its claims were adjourned. Only the applicants’ counterclaim was therefore examined. Judgment was delivered on 18 July 1994 in favour of the applicants, who were awarded GBP 3,681,143.47 plus costs. On 20   April 1995 a High Court Master made a provisional charging order over the property of Buckingham for this amount.   On 27 April 1995 creditor banks appointed administrative receivers in respect of Buckingham. Given the appointment of administrative receivers, the applicants investigated how to achieve priority for their judgment over Buckingham’s secured preferential creditors. It was considered that the judgment could be enforced against the intra-group indebtedness of certain subsidiaries of Buckingham in the United States. In early 1996 the applicants therefore had the judgment registered in Florida. In May 1996 they issued proceedings in the US to garnishee funds owed to Buckingham by its US subsidiaries. On 8 May 1996 a circuit court in Florida made an order by which over 7,000,000 US dollars of those subsidiaries’ funds were held in court as security for the judgment debt in the United Kingdom.   However, provisional liquidators for Buckingham obtained from the US courts a provisional discharge of the order, which was subject to the UK courts determining whether the   applicants would be able to have their judgment debt enforced ahead of Buckingham’s existing secured and preferential creditors.   On 5   November 1997 the High Court ruled that the judgment debt of the applicants could not be preferred over Buckingham’s secured and preferential creditors. However, the judge also referred to Buckingham’s “highly successful spoiling tactics”. The Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment, referring to Buckingham’s “delaying tactics” which “may have amounted to, or come close to, abuse of process”.   The applicants finally recovered from Buckingham’s liquidators approximately GBP 100,000 after payment of their costs.   They alleged, in particular, that civil proceedings brought against them were not determined within a reasonable time. They relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court noted that the applicants complained about the period between October 1991 to March 1994 and did not hold the Government responsible for any other specific period of delay, not even after July 1995 (as the administrative receivers had been appointed by then). However, the Court concluded there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning the period of unjustified delay complained of. The Court further considered that no separate issues arose under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 or Article 13. The Court awarded the applicants 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 15,000 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:   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.