CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 mai 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6DE9290B { width:7.91pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s29DFADA1 { width:8.6pt; display:inline-block } .s40894AAA { width:30.57pt; display:inline-block } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sEA75FC32 { width:20.55pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBA4C4D49 { width:265.5pt; display:inline-block } .s537D85C7 { width:248.13pt; display:inline-block } .s695A3D0F { width:261.49pt; display:inline-block } .sCF05D539 { width:254.15pt; display:inline-block } .s94C24841 { width:265.49pt; display:inline-block } .s9C5861D4 { width:262.15pt; display:inline-block } .sCC060A5 { width:244.8pt; display:inline-block } .s3CCF3CB0 { width:254.81pt; display:inline-block } .s572DA0EB { width:260.82pt; display:inline-block } .sB9B7079 { width:258.15pt; display:inline-block } .s63A6BD5C { width:242.13pt; display:inline-block } .s35CE01AC { width:250.15pt; display:inline-block } .sF760E322 { width:234.8pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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     319   3.5.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Italy, Switzerland, Poland, Bulgaria and Ukraine     The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgments including the first judgment concerning Ukraine (only E.P. v. Italy, C. v Poland and Kaysin and others v. Ukraine are final [1] ):     Section 2   (1)     E.P. v. Italy (application no. 31127/96)                 Revision - no just satisfaction awarded     E.P., an Italian national of Greek origin (now deceased), complained about the length of civil proceedings to which she was a party (lasting seven years) concerning her daughter being declared available for adoption and the severance of all contact between them.   On 16 November 1999, in its principal judgment (available in English and French) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 100,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 3,000,000 for costs and expenses.   On 7 December 2000, the Court accepted a request by the Italian Government for revision of the principal judgment (under Rule 80 of the Rules of Court) concerning Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention.   In its judgment issued today, finding that it had not been informed to whom it could legitimately award the just satisfaction due, the Court decided, unanimously, to revise its judgment of 16 November 1999 so that no amount be awarded for non-pecuniary damage. The Court also decided not to award costs and expenses because the applicant’s lawyer had not provided the information requested. (The judgment is only available in French.)         (2)     J.B. v. Switzerland (no. 31827/96)             Violation Article 6 § 1 J.B., a Swiss national born in 1914, alleged that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair and contrary to Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) in that he was obliged to submit documents which could have incriminated him.   The applicant, who had had tax evasion proceedings instituted against him, was requested, on various occasions, to submit all the documents concerning the companies in which he had invested money. He failed to do so on each occasion and was fined four times.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself were international standards at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It appeared that the authorities had attempted to compel the applicant to submit documents which would have provided information as to his income in view of the assessment of his taxes. The applicant could not exclude that any additional income which transpired from these documents from untaxed sources could have constituted the offence of tax evasion.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant CHF 2,000 for pecuniary damage and CHF 10,409 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is only available in English)     Section 4   (3)     C. v Poland (no. 27918/95)               Violation Article 6 § 1 C., a Polish national, complained about the length of civil proceedings (11 years, four months and 30 days) to which she was party, concerning the determination of an estate. Taking seven years and four days into account, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 1,800 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is only available in French.)   (4)     Stefanov v. Bulgaria (no. 32438/96)                  Friendly settlement Ivailo Stefanov, a Bulgarian national and Jehovah’s Witness, complained about being convicted and sentenced in 1995 and 1996 for having refused to serve in the army, claiming, among other things, that there had been a violation of his right to freedom of religion and conscience guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 2,500 Bulgarian levs is to be paid to the applicant for costs and expenses and the Bulgarian Government has agreed that:   “All criminal proceedings and judicial sentences in Bulgaria of Bulgaria citizens since 1991 ...for refusing military service by virtue of their individual conscientious objection but who were willing at the same time to perform alternative civilian service shall be dismissed and all penalties and/or disabilities heretofore imposed in these cases shall be eliminated as if there was never a conviction for a violation of the law, thus the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Bulgaria undertakes the responsibility to introduce draft legislation before the National Assembly for a total amnesty for these cases.   “The alternative civilian service in Bulgaria is performed under a purely civilian administration and the military authority is not involved in civilian service and such service shall be similar in duration to that required for military service by the law on military service then in force.   “Conscientious objectors have the same rights as all Bulgarian citizens to manifest their beliefs whether alone or in union with others after hours and on days off during the term of performing said civilian service without prejudice, sanction or another disability or impediment.”   (The judgment is available only in English.)     (5)     Kaysin and others v. Ukraine (no. 46144/99)               Friendly settlement The 13 applicants, all Ukrainian nationals, who all worked for a partly state-owned mining company, complained about the non-execution of a Tchervonograd court ruling recognising their right to an invalidity pension and ordering their employer to pay them the sums due. Article 6 § 1.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the Ukrainian Government has agreed to pay each applicant the equivalent of their invalidity pension due plus 5,000 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in compensation (except for the first applicant who is to receive 23,000 UAH   in compensation), as indicated below. (The judgment is available only in French.)   First applicant   40,574.23 UAH Second applicant   18,604.94 UAH Third applicant   17,765.71 UAH Fourth applicant   18,563.84 UAH Fifth applicant   19,785.78 UAH Sixth applicant   26,956.48 UAH Seventh applicant   17,322.25 UAH Eighth applicant   12,275.00 UAH Ninth applicant   21,288.35 UAH Tenth applicant   25,117.88 UAH Eleventh applicant   61,310.18 UAH Twelfth applicant   82,359.09 UAH Thirteenth applicant   16,325.17 UAH   ***   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.