CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 août 2001

.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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE1794090 { width:13.92pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB7DCE67D { width:27.93pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s94712FDA { width:33.93pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     573   2.8.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING ITALY AND SWITZERLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments [1] :   Section 2   (1)   Cooperativa La   Laurentina v. Italy (no. 23529/94) No violation Article 1 Protocol No. 1 Cooperativa La   Laurentina, a cooperative with limited liability under Italian law, alleged that that for more than thirty-five years the Rome city council had not adopted a plan implementing the general development plan and that this inertia had deprived it of the possibility of obtaining a building permit and had affected its right to use its land.   The Court found that, during an initial period lasting until 1974, the applicant company’s right to build had not been affected in substance, but it had been subject to a condition, namely, the adoption either of a detailed development plan on the initiative of the State or a development agreement on the initiative of a private entity.   The Court considered that there had been no uncertainty as to the nature of the land or its possible use because the applicant company had known since 4 March 1966 that it was subject to the general development plan and that it could not obtain a building permit unless the conditions fixed by the general development plan were satisfied.   The lack of a detailed development plan had indisputably led the authorities to reject the applications for a building permit. It was therefore incumbent on the Court to assess the impact which the council’s inertia had had on the applicant company’s position and, accordingly, whether it could have counteracted that inertia.   In that connection, the Court noted that the applicant company could have signed a development agreement and that there was no evidence that such a move would have stood absolutely no chance of success. The Court considered that this possibility was sufficient to ensure protection of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, and noted that the applicant company had not taken any action in that regard.   Consequently, even if the authorities had delayed in adopting the detailed plan, the failure of the applications for a building permit was also attributable to the conduct of the applicant company.   During a second period, after 1974, the applicant company’s land had not any longer corresponded to the cooperative’s object, since from then on it could be used only for building houses. However, the Court was of the opinion that the applicant company’s rights as an owner had for the most part been preserved because (a) it was aware that the value of the land had considerably increased; (b) it had been able to continue receiving rent for the property on the land; and (c) above all, it could have sold the land, but had not shown that it had ever attempted to do so.   In the circumstances, the Court concluded that the conduct of the national authorities had not made the applicant company’s right of property unstable and uncertain to such an extent that the fair balance which must be struck between the public interest and the private interest could be said to have been upset.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     N.F. v. Italy (no. 37119/97)                     Violation Article 11 No violation Article 8 N.F., an Italian national born in 1942 and living in Monza (near Milan), is a member of the judiciary.   In 1991 he became a member of the Adriano Lemmi Masonic Lodge in Milan, which is affiliated to the Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani . In October 1992 he asked to leave the Freemasons following reports in the national press that there were to be inquiries by a number of state prosecutors into the activities of certain lodges affiliated to the Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani . In June 1994 disciplinary proceedings were brought against him in connection with his masonic links and he was reprimanded for having undermined the prestige of the judiciary, under a 1990 directive read in conjunction with a Decree of 1946. He appealed to the Court of Cassation, but his appeal was dismissed on 10 December 1996.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the terms of the 1990 directive were not sufficiently clear to allow even a person as well-informed of the law as the applicant to realise that a magistrate joining an official masonic lodge could face disciplinary action. The sanction was therefore not “forseeable” or “prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention. The Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 11.   The Court further held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life) concerning the publication of the fact that the applicant was a Freemason and that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been violations of Article 8, concerning the granting of the disciplinary sanction, or of Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   By four votes to three, the Court awarded the applicant 20,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for damage and ITL 27,312,012 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Boultif v. Switzerland (no. 54273/00)           Violation Article 8 Abdelouahab Boultif, an Algerian national, entered Switzerland with a tourist visa in December 1992. On 19 March 1993 he married M.B., a Swiss national. On 11 May 1998 he started a two-year prison sentence for robbery and other offences and on 19 May, the Swiss authorities refused to renew his residence permit. On 3 December 1999 the Federal Aliens’ Office ordered Mr Boultif to leave Switzerland by 15 January 2000. At an unspecified date in 2000 he left the country and is currently living in Italy. He complains that the order resulted in him being separated from his wife, who did not speak Algerian and could not be expected to follow him to Algeria.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the applicant had been subjected to a serious impediment to establish family life, since it was practically impossible for him to live with his family outside Switzerland. In addition, when the Swiss authorities had decided to refuse to renew his residence permit, he only presented a comparatively limited danger to public order. The interference was, therefore, not proportionate to the aim pursued. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 and awarded the applicant 5,346.70 Swiss francs for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (4)     Vittorio and Luigi Mancini v. Italy (no. 44955/98)     Violation Article 5 § 1(c) Vittorio and Luigi Mancini, both Italian nationals, complained, about the legality of their detention on remand in prison in Rome from 7 to 13 July 1998.   The European Court of Human Rights held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (right to liberty and security). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Section 4   (5)     Grande Oriente d’Italia de Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy (no. 35972/97)                           Violation Article 11 Grande Oriente d’Italia de Palazzo Giustiniani, an Italian association grouping several Masonic lodges which has been in existence since 1805 and is affiliated to the Universal Freemasons, complained that the Marches region’s adoption of the “law of 1996”, which obliges candidates for public office to declare that they are not members of the Freemasons, is in violation of Articles 11, 14 and 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Finding that the measure in question was not necessary in a democratic society, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 11, but that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints raised under Articles 13 and 14. The Court also held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for damage suffered by the applicant assocation and awarded ITL 10,000,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only 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)   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 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 the case to the Grand Chamber.