CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 30 mai 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s5F1C7C86 { width:6.15pt; display:inline-block } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .s9B2C2C0D { width:18.61pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB6004602 { width:25.92pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s814ABC14 { width:14.35pt; display:inline-block } .s9AFF8173 { width:17.68pt; display:inline-block } .sE70023BC { width:20.6pt; display:inline-block } .sB7DCE67D { width:27.93pt; display:inline-block } .sB83D920 { width:15.23pt; display:inline-block } .s10C707DC { width:13.25pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s6BFAA052 { width:21.28pt; display:inline-block } .s97038F6C { width:19.5pt; display:inline-block } .sDE095A02 { width:32.94pt; display:inline-block } .s1C79B3AB { width:10.33pt; display:inline-block } .sE3CBA86F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s7A5A2521 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS       392     30.5.2000   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing eight Chamber judgments concerning France, Iceland and Italy. All but Belvedere Alberghiera Srl v. Italy , A.O. v. Italy , Favre-Clément v. France , and Bernard v. France are final [1] 1 .   1)   Siglfirðingur ehf v. Iceland (no. 34142/96 )                     Friendly settlement   Siglfirðingur ehf, an Icelandic company, operated Icelandic fishing boats registered in Siglufjörður. It generally paid wages in accordance with the collective agreements concluded between the Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners (FIFVO) and the Icelandic Sailors’ Federation (ISF). However the crew on one boat, the Siglir, were employed on special contracts as the boat was exclusively used for fishing outside Icelandic territorial fishing limits; the FIFVO and ISF agreements did not apply .   On 3 May 1995 the ISF notified the FIFVO of its decision to strike in order to press for the conclusion of a new collective agreement. On 2 June 1995, during the strike, Siglfirðingur ehf decided to send the Siglir to sea and ordered the crew to report on board. Four crew members refused to go out with the vessel as they considered themselves to be on strike. Their employment was terminated and other crew members were engaged in their place.   The IFL took legal action against Siglfirðingur ehf before the Icelandic Labour Court. On 10 June 1996 the Labour Court found that the applicant company had violated Sections 4 and 18 of the Labour Relations Act and ordered it to pay ISK 500,000 as a fine to the State Treasury and ISK 100,000 in legal costs to the IFL.   Siglfirðingur ehf complained, among other things, that it had not been able to appeal to the Supreme Court against a fine imposed by the Labour Court in violation of its right under Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No.7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which Siglfirðingur ehf is to be paid, on an ex gratia basis, 1,600,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK) for legal costs and “loss of opportunity”. The settlement does not involve any admission of liability under the Convention.   The settlement also states: “Amendments of the contested provisions of the Labour Relations Act No.   80/1938 have been prepared. A new Bill amending the Act, which provides for the possibility to have decisions of the Labour Court concerning fines reviewed by the Supreme Court has already been approved by the Government and has been presented to the Althing [Parliament]. The Bill is expected to be adopted by the Althing next autumn.”   The judgment exists only in English.   2)   Vilborg Yrsa Sigurðardóttir   v. Iceland (no. 32451/96 )     Friendly settlement   Vilborg Yrsa Sigurðardóttir is an Icelandic national.   At the end of April 1989 the police in Reykjavík began an investigation relating to the importation and distribution of cocaine. On 11 May 1989 the applicant and her co-habitant, P, were arrested. P, one of the principal suspects, was kept in custody but the applicant was released the following night. On 17   May 1989 she was interrogated as a suspect and denied having any knowledge of the alleged drug offences. On 2 June 1989 she was again interrogated, following which she was arrested and detained on remand until 5 July 1989.   On 26 March 1991 the Reykjavík District Court ( Héraðsdòmur Reykjavíkur ) found P. guilty of drug-related offences and sentenced him to 4 years’ imprisonment. On 30 October 1989 Ms Vilborg Yrsa Sigurðardóttir was charged with having delivered to P. 666 United States dollars to buy cocaine and with having used cocaine from December 1988 to early 1989. On 18   January 1993 she was acquitted by the District Court. Its judgment was final.   On 29 June 1993 she instituted civil proceedings against the Icelandic Government, requesting compensation for unlawful and unnecessary arrest and detention on remand.   On 30 June 1994 the District Court rejected her claim and, on 30 November 1995, the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s judgment.   Ms Yrsa Sigurðardóttir alleged that her right under Article 6 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, had been violated in that the Supreme Court had rejected her compensation claim on the grounds that “she was not deemed more likely to be innocent than guilty of the conduct with which she was charged”, in accordance with Icelandic law.   The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which she is to paid ISK   1.500.000 on an ex gratia basis and ISK 1.800.000 for legal costs. The settlement does not involve any admission of liability under the Convention.   The settlement states: “After the introduction of the application the contested Icelandic legal provision in this case, Section 150(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Act No. 74/1974, was repealed by Act No. 36/1999, amending the Code of Criminal Procedure”.   It also states: “The Icelandic Government regrets the suffering caused to the applicant by the application of the contested legislation, in particular that it left open a doubt as to the applicant’s innocence and the correctness of the acquittal by the District Court.”   (Judgment in English)   3)   Belvedere Alberghiera Srl v. Italy (application no.31524/96) Violation Art.1 Prot. No. 1 4)   Carbonara and Ventura v. Italy (no.24638/96)                         Violation Art.1 Prot. No. 1   The applicants in these two cases were each unlawfully deprived of land by local authorities because of a judge-made rule, the “constructive-expropriation rule”, which precluded restitution if works commenced in the public interest had been completed.   In the first case, the applicant company was Belvedere Alberghiera Srl. It was formed in 1983 and owned the Belvedere Hotel in Monte Argentario and a strip of land giving patrons of the hotel direct access to the sea.   In May 1987 the Monte Argentario Municipality had passed a resolution approving a proposal to build a road over that strip of land and the Mayor had used an expedited procedure to issue an order for possession. The Municipality had taken possession and the works were largely completed by 7 August 1987. On 24 May 1988, on an appeal by the applicant company, the Tuscany Administrative Court had ruled that the Municipality’s action was illegal and quashed both the resolution and the possession order. The Municipality refused to comply with that decision. However, the applicant company’s application for restitution and reinstatement of the land was later dismissed by the Administrative Court, which on 26 June 1991 held that as the work had been completed there had been a constructive expropriation, the company had ceased to own the land and its only claim was to damages . A further appeal by the company to the full court of the Consiglio di Stato for restitution of the land was also dismissed on 7   February 1996.   In the second case the first three applicants, Elena Carbonara, Pasquale Carbonara, Augusto Carbonara and the late mother of the fourth applicant, Costantino Ventura, had owned agricultural land in Noicattaro.   By a decree issued on 27 May 1970, the Prefecture of Bari had authorised the Noicattaro Town Council to take possession, under an expedited procedure, of part of the land with a view to its expropriation for the purposes of building a school. Physical possession was taken on 30 June 1970 but the school was not completed until 28 October 1972, after the authorised period of possession had expired. The applicants alleged that they had waited in vain for several years for their land to be formally expropriated and for compensation. On 3 May 1980 they brought an action in damages against the Noicattaro Town Council before the Bari District Court   submitting that the authorities were in possession of their land illegally as the authorised period had expired without any formal expropriation or the payment of compensation. Although the District Court had found in their favour, on 14 November 1990, the Bari Court of Appeal allowed the Noicattaro Town Council’s appeal and declared that the applicants’ right to damages was time-barred. Their appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 1 April 1993.   In both cases, the applicants complained of a violation of their right to property guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of that Article as, in practice in the two cases, the rule on constructive expropriations contravenes the Rule of Law. This rule devised by the Italian courts had been applied inconsistently, which could result in unforeseeable or arbitrary outcomes and deprive litigants of effective protection of their rights. Consequently, the rule did not satisfy the requirement of lawfulness. The Court also expressed reservations as to the compatibility with that requirement of a mechanism that enabled the authorities to benefit from an unlawful taking of possession of land. In the second case (Carbonara and Ventura), it also noted that the Court of Cassation had unforeseeably applied the (five-year) limitation period from the date of completion of the works with the result that the applicants were denied the possibility of obtaining damages.   The question of just satisfaction will be decided at a later date. (Judgments in English and French)   5)   A.O.v. Italy (22534/93)                                                    Violation Art. 1 Prot. No. 1   Mr A. O, an Italian national, complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about being unable to recover possession of his apartment in Rome through lack of police assistance. On 10 October 1986 he served notice to quit ( disdetta ) on the tenant, but she refused to leave. The applicant subsequently suspended the proceedings given the improbability of gaining police assistance in evicting the tenant. He resumed the proceedings on an unspecified date and on 15 November 1995 the bailiff evicted the tenant with help from the police.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant 50,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for pecuniary damage, ITL 6,000,00 for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 6,789,823 for legal costs. (Judgment in English)   6)   Bruny v. France (41792/98)               Friendly settlement   Colette Bruny, a French national, complained under Article 6 § 1 about the length of proceedings before an industrial tribunal to which she was a party, which lasted over eight years.   The Court has agreed to strike out the case following a friendly settlement in which she is to be paid 30,000 French francs for any damage. (Judgment in French)   7)   Favre-Clément v. France (35055/97)     Non-exhaustion domestic remedies   Claude Favre-Clément, a French national, complained about the length of his detention on remand, which lasted more than five years. He invoked Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge). The Court held unanimously that he had not exhausted domestic remedies. (Judgment in French)   8)   Bernard v. France (38164/97)                          Non-exhaustion domestic remedies   Laurent Bernard, a French national, complained under Article   5   § 3 about the length of his detention on remand, which lasted more than six years and four months. The Court held unanimously that he had not exhausted domestic remedies. (Judgment in French)   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: (0)3 88 41 24 92) Or:     Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax:     (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 in Strasbourg 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.