CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 7 janvier 2003

.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 } .sBADC6796 { width:12.07pt; display:inline-block } .s913F377E { width:252.91pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s27B43D73 { width:134.81pt; display:inline-block } .sE66965E4 { width:345.57pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s87EB194D { width:149.48pt; display:inline-block } .s185A05C4 { width:7.89pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sB23A3376 { width:109.47pt; display:inline-block } .s135B6E37 { width:123.44pt; display:inline-block } .s466D8C6E { width:18.12pt; 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     004   7.1.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Cyprus, France, Romania and Slovakia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   Section 2   (1)     Popescu   Nasta v. Romania (application no. 33355/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicant, Calin Mircea Popescu Nasta, is a Romanian national, born in 1921 and living in Bucharest.   The applicant lodged, in his capacity as heir, an action to establish title with a view to recovering a house in Bucharest that had been nationalised first in 1950 under Decree no.   92/1950 and again in 1959 following a decision of the Cabinet. According to the information provided by the applicant, the house has been occupied by the National Museum of Art since 1973.   The lower courts found for the applicant and on 3 November 1993, in a judgment which became final, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the National Museum of Art. In a speech given in July 1994 the President of Romania requested the authorities not to enforce court decisions declaring null and void acts by which property had been nationalised under the communist regime.   The Procurator-General of Romania lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Justice to have the Court of Appeal’s judgment quashed. On 7 February 1996 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment on the ground that the courts did not have jurisdiction to review the application of the decree on nationalisation. The applicant subsequently unsuccessfully brought a further action to have the decision to nationalise declared null and void, and lodged an application for restitution with the Administrative Board to which he maintained that he had never received a reply.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to recognise the courts’ jurisdiction to determine an action to establish title to property. He also complained that the Supreme Court of Justice had not been independent or impartial. Lastly, on the basis of Article 1   of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), he complained of an infringement of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   The Court reiterated that the quashing of a final judgment was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. In quashing a court judgment which had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice had infringed the right to a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s refusal to recognise that the courts had jurisdiction to deal with the applicants’ action to establish title to the property was in itself contrary to the right of access to a tribunal. Accordingly, the Court held that there had also been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   With regard to the Romanian President’s statements, the Court held that these had been addressed to the authorities, and that there was nothing to suggest that they had influenced the judges of that court who had ruled in the applicants’ 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 examine in all independence a case submitted to them. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 6 § 1 with regard to the court’s independence and impartiality.   The Court found that the applicant’s property right had been established by a final judgment and had therefore been irrevocable. The judgment of the Supreme Court had had the effect of depriving him of his property, and he had been deprived of it for more then six years without receiving any compensation commensurate with its real value. In the circumstances, the Court considered that the fair balance that had to be struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights had been upset and that the applicant had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and held that Romania had to return the property in dispute to the applicant within three months of the date on which the judgment became final. Failing that, the State had to pay him 900,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded the applicant EUR 1,523 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Laidin v. France (no. 39282/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Violation Article 13 The applicant, Monique Laidin, is a French national, born in 1935 and living in Châteauneuf.   Between May 1966 and February 1985 four sets of proceedings were brought to have the applicant confined to a mental hospital. After those proceedings, she submitted five applications to the administrative courts and instituted proceedings in the civil courts for compensation.   The first set of administrative proceedings lasted seven years, four months and 14 days before two levels of jurisdiction; the second eight years, four months and 15 days before three levels of jurisdiction; the third four years and eight months before one level of jurisdiction; the fourth four years, six months and 15 days before three levels of jurisdiction; and the fifth four years and eight months before one level of jurisdiction.   In June 1989 the applicant simultaneously instituted judicial proceedings, which comprised five applications for compensation after having been dismissed in September 1987 as permanently unfit for work. She complained of having been unlawfully and wrongfully confined to a mental hospital, of having been given inappropriate and harmful treatment and of having been subjected to moral pressure by her employer. Those proceedings ended in November 2002 without the State or the département or the City of Paris or the doctors or any other persons involved being held liable.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the excessive length of the proceedings to which she was a party. She complained further, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that she had not had a remedy by which to expedite the proceedings.   In respect of the length of the administrative proceedings, the Court noted first of all that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the length of the fourth set of proceedings was reasonable. However, it considered that the length of the four other sets of proceedings was mainly attributable to the judicial authorities and held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in that respect. With regard to the length of the civil proceedings, the Court found that the many summonses taken out by the applicant and the number of pleadings exchanged by the parties had clearly been a source of substantial delay. However, it held that the length of those proceedings could be partly explained by certain shortcomings on the part of the judicial authorities, which had not fully played their role as arbiter. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   On the subject of whether the applicant had been deprived of an effective remedy, the Court found that at the date on which the applicant had lodged her application there had been no remedy under French law by which to complain of the excessive length of administrative or judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 and awarded the applicant EUR 13,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     C.D. v. France (no. 42405/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, C.D., is a French national, born in 1942 and living in Chamonix.   On 4 and 25 October 1984 she brought proceedings against her mother and brother in the Bonneville tribunal de grande instance seeking partition of her father’s estate. In a judgment of 14 January 1987 the court ordered an expert assessment of the value of the assets, which was filed by the expert on 18 July 1988. After serving several notices on the parties’ respective lawyers to file submissions, the court determined the basis for partition of the estate in a judgment of 15 January 1992. The applicant’s brother and mother appealed against that judgment.   During the proceedings the applicant applied twice to the judge in charge of preparing the case for hearing in the Chambéry Court of Appeal for discovery by her brother of certain documents. Her brother lodged a counter-application and also requested an adjournment of the hearing. A further expert report, ordered on 27 June 1996, to assess the value of land which had since become building land was filed on 18 December 1997. Moreover, the hearing was adjourned because submissions had not been filed by the applicant’s brother, who sought and obtained an adjournment of an order he had received requesting him to file submissions.   In a judgment of 24 January 2001 Chambéry Court of Appeal appointed an expert to deal with the determination and partition of the estate. The court held that the length of the proceedings was attributable to the parties alone, and ordered the applicant’s brother to pay the applicant 10,000 French francs (FRF) in damages for his occasionally deliberate failure to co-operate and his delaying tactics.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), of the excessive length of the proceedings to which she had been a party (over 16 years and three months before two levels of jurisdiction). She also relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), complaining of an infringement of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.   The Court noted that there was a certain degree of complexity to the case on account of the size of the estate, and that the conduct of the parties had resulted in numerous delays. It also found that there had been substantial periods of inactivity on the part of the judicial authorities, and reiterated that the State had a duty to take the necessary steps to avoid long periods of inactivity. In the Court’s view, the court and the judge in charge of preparing the case for hearing had power to issue injunctions to the parties to avoid such delays in the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. It considered further that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and held that France had to pay the applicant EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Mac Gee v. France (no. 46802/99)              Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, George Mac Gee, is a British national, born in 1928 and living in Schiltigheim (France).   Following an investigation into the accounts of the region of Alsace, the Strasbourg Criminal Court sentenced the applicant on 31 May 1996 to one year’s imprisonment, suspended, and to a fine of FRF 100,000 for fabricating and tendering a false or inaccurate certificate. On 11   September 1997 the Colmar Court of Appeal found him guilty of fabricating a certificate asserting materially erroneous facts, but reduced his prison sentence to six months, suspended. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. Before the hearing in the Court of Cassation the reporting judge’s report was communicated to the Advocate-General, but not to the applicant or his lawyer. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 9 September 1998.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that he had not received the reporting judge’s report, whereas it had been communicated to the Advocate-General.   The Court reiterated that given the importance of the reporting judge’s report, of the role of the Advocate-General and of the outcome of the proceedings for the applicant, the failure to communicate the report to the applicant’s lawyer as well as the Advocate-General created an imbalance, and infringed the principles of an adversarial trial and of the equality of arms. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction, and awarded the applicant EUR 3,712.44 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (5)     Korellis v. Cyprus (no. 54528/00)   No violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Achilleas Korellis, is a Cypriot national, born in 1953 and living in Nicosia.   He was charged with rape and committed for trial before an assize court. At the beginning of the trial he requested discovery of a number of documents in the prosecution’s possession and a forensic examination of the victim’s underwear and of samples taken from her vagina. The Assize Court granted the request in an order of 19 March 1998. However, on an appeal by the prosecution, that order was quashed for excess of jurisdiction by Justice Artemides, a member of the Supreme Court.   An appeal lodged by the applicant was heard by the plenary of the Supreme Court consisting of nine judges, including Judge Gavrielides who had been involved, as prosecutor, in the investigation that had preceded the filing of the indictment against the applicant. The defence had been unaware of this fact and had therefore made no objection to his participation in the proceedings. On 24   September 1998 the appeal was dismissed by a majority of seven votes to two. Justice Gavrielides voted with the majority. The prosecution provided the applicant with some of the documents. However, the forensic test requested by the applicant was not ordered, despite his claim that it was of the utmost importance for his defence.   On 10 March 1999 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He appealed against his conviction to the Supreme Court, submitting in support of his appeal that Judge Gavrielides’s participation in the proceedings had deprived him of his right to an independent and impartial tribunal. He then filed a petition with the plenary of the Supreme Court to set aside its judgment of 24 September 1998 dismissing his request for a forensic test; in that petition he also objected to Judge Artemides’s participation in the plenary of the Supreme Court on the ground that he had already been involved in the proceedings at an earlier stage. Furthermore, in a judgment of 18 January 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant against his conviction.   The applicant submitted that his case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal.   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial). (The judgment is available only in English.)   Section 4   (6)     Žiačik v. Slovakia (no. 43377/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Juraj Žiačik, is a Slovakian national, born in 1956 and living in Martin.   On 20 December 1996 he was accused of the offence of attempting to sell explosives. After being arrested on 28 January 1997, he was released on 30 January 1997. He was acquitted on 10 May 2001 by the Žilina Regional Court. An appeal by the public prosecutor was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30 January 2002.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him (five years, one month and ten days before two levels of jurisdiction). The applicant complained further, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that he had no remedy by which to expedite the proceedings.   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, but that it was not necessary to examine the complaint made under Article 13. It awarded the applicant EUR 3,500 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (7)     Kopecký v. Slovakia (no. 44912/98)       Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Juraj Kopecký is a Slovak national.     On 12 February 1959 his father was fined and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for keeping 131   gold coins and 2,151 silver coins of numismatic value. The coins were also confiscated.   On 1 April 1992 the judgment was quashed and, on 30 September 1992, the applicant claimed the restitution of his father’s coins under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1991 (the Act).   On 19 September 1995 Senica District Court ordered the Ministry of the Interior to restore the coins to the applicant. The Ministry of the Interior appealed, however, arguing that all relevant documents had been destroyed and that the onus of proof concerning the location   of the coins was on the applicant. On 29 January 1997 Bratislava Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that the applicant had failed to show where the coins had been deposited when the Act had become operative on 1 April 1991. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was also dismissed.   The applicant alleged, in particular, that the dismissal of his claim for restitution of the coins violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court attached particular importance to the fact that the evidence submitted by the applicant comprised a detailed inventory of the coins and an official record indicating when they had been deposited with the Ministry of the Interior, which had failed to provide any plausible explanation as to why the coins were no longer in its possession.   The applicant was unable, for reasons which were imputable to public authorities, to trace the coins after they had been deposited with the Ministry of the Interior. As a result, he was deprived of any possibility of complying with the obligation to show where the coins had been at the time when the Act became operative. Finding that this requirement imposed an excessive burden on the applicant, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 13,323 for pecuniary damage and EUR 310 for costs and expenses, in addition to the FRF 4,100 already received for legal aid. (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.