CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 21 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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     029   21.1.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING Estonia   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber   judgment, which is not final. [1] (It is available only in English.)   Section 4   Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2) (application no. 45771/99)                              Violation Article 7 § 1 Tiit Veeber was born in 1948 and lives in Tartu. He is the owner of the company AS Giga and chairman of its board. He is also the chairman of the board of the company AS Tartu Jõujaam .   On 7 October 1996 he was charged, as chairman of the board of AS Giga and AS Tartu Jõujaam and as the owner of the former company, under Article 148-1 § 7 of the Criminal Code, with: forgery and fabrication of documents on five occasions from 1993-1994 to show commercial interaction with a fictitious company; the use at the end of 1994 and in 1995 of fictitious documents in relation to salary payments; and, on 12 May 1995, concluding a sham contract to circumvent tax laws.   On 13 October 1997 the applicant was found guilty as charged and given a suspended prison sentence of three years and six months. In convicting the applicant of tax evasion under Article 148-1 § 7 of the Criminal Code, the court observed that the criminal acts started in the third quarter of 1993 and that the last act began on 12 May 1995. It considered that the acts constituted an ongoing crime. The applicant was ordered to pay the city tax authorities 853,550 Estonian kroons.   The applicant appealed, arguing that Article 148-1 § 7 had been applied retroactively, as it only entered into force on 13   January   1995. Prior to that date, conviction under Article 148-1 could follow only if the person concerned had been subjected to an administrative sanction for the same action or had a previous criminal conviction for the same offence. His appeals were rejected.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that his conviction amounted to retrospective application of criminal law in breach of Article 7 § 1 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that a considerable number of the acts of which the applicant was convicted fell exclusively within the period prior to January 1995 and that the sentence imposed took into account the acts committed both before and after January 1995.   The Court noted the Estonian Government’s argument that the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on the application and interpretation of the 1995 version of Article 148-1 of the Criminal Code made the risk of criminal punishment foreseeable to the applicant. However,   the Supreme Court decisions in question were handed down only in April 1997 and January 1998. The applicant’s complaint concerned acts committed between 1993 and 1994, when he could not have expected that, at the first discovery of his activity, he would risk criminal conviction, considering the terms of the criminal law in force during that period.   Finding that the Estonian courts applied retrospectively the 1995 law to behaviour which previously did not constitute a criminal offence, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 7 § 1 and awarded the applicant 2,000 euro (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 840.90 for costs and expenses.   ***   This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. The full text of the Court’s judgment is 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.