CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 avril 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 } .sACFD2DAF { width:67.41pt; display:inline-block } .sEACE2B5E { width:89.46pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s33401DB6 { width:336.9pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s1E711244 { width:88.15pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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     198   10.4.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Austria, France, Greece and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following eight Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   Section 1   (1)     Bakker v. Austria (application no. 43454/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Lambert Bakker, is a Dutch national, born in 1957 and living in Bregenz (Austria). He trained as a physiotherapist in Belgium and worked for an association in Austria from 1987 to 1993.   Mr Bakker twice requested authorisation from the Vorarlberg Regional Governor to work as a self-employed physiotherapist and twice unsuccessfully appealed to the Ministry for Health and Consumer Protection when those requests were refused on the ground that he had not been in authorised professional practice for the requisite period of time. He lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court on 22 May 1997 requesting an oral hearing. The Constitutional Court refused to examine his complaint. On 22 June 1997 he lodged the same complaint and request with the Administrative Court, which dismissed them on 20 January 1998 without holding an oral hearing.   The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that he had not had a public hearing before a tribunal in the proceedings relating to his request for authorisation to practise as a self-employed physiotherapist.   The European Court of Human Rights observed that only the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court could qualify as “tribunals”. The applicant had in principle been entitled to an oral hearing and the subject of the dispute was not of such a nature that it was better dealt with in written proceedings.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant 4,500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Papastavrou and Others v. Greece (no. 46372/99) Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants are 25 Greek nationals who are involved in a long-standing dispute with the State over ownership of land in Omorphokklisia, Galatsi, which is part of a wider area called the Veïkou Estate that was expropriated between 1923 and 1941. On 10 October 1994 the prefect of Athens decided that an area of the Veïkou Estate should be reforested. The applicants challenged that decision before the Council of State, claiming that the land earmarked for reforestation included their plot of land and that reforestation would deprive them of their property rights over it. Their appeal was dismissed on the ground that the prefect’s decision had merely confirmed an earlier decision made by the Minister for Agriculture in 1934. However, in 1999 the Athens Forest Inspection concluded that only part of the area concerned had been forest in the past and could therefore be reforested.   The applicants alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) in that their property had effectively been expropriated without their being paid any compensation.   It was not for the Court to settle the issue of ownership of the disputed land, but for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court the applicants could be regarded as the owners of the land in issue or at least as having an interest in it that attracted the protection of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. In the Court’s view, the authorities were wrong to have ordered the reforestation measure without first assessing how the situation had evolved since 1934. In dismissing the applicants’ appeal on the sole ground that the prefect’s decision had merely confirmed an earlier decision, the Council of State had failed to protect the property owners’ rights adequately, especially as there was no possibility of obtaining compensation under Greek law. A reasonable balance had not therefore been struck between the public interest and the requirements of the protection of the applicants’ rights.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in English).   (3)     Konti-Arvaniti v. Greece (no. 53401/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 13 Varvara Konti-Arvaniti is a Greek national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Athens.   She complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the length of civil proceedings (over 14 years and 11 months to the date of the Court’s judgment) for the division of her father’s estate. The proceedings had commenced on 18 April 1988 in the Kavala Court of First Instance and were currently pending in the Thrace Court of Appeal. She also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that Greek law afforded her no remedy for the inordinate length of the proceedings.   The Court found that the delays in the proceedings were mainly attributable to the conduct of the relevant authorities and courts. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   The Court also noted that the Government had not pointed to a specific legal remedy that would have allowed the applicant to complain of the length of the proceedings, but had relied instead on remedies that did not any afford direct redress for the situation complained of. Consequently, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention and awarded the applicant just satisfaction in the sum of EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Friendly settlements The applicants in the following four Italian cases complained about their prolonged inability - through lack of police assistance - to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which the following amounts are to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage, pecuniary damage, costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   (4)     Tamma v. Italy (no. 43616/98) EUR 6,500 (5)     Zito and Corsi v. Italy (no. 54612/00) EUR 6,085 (EUR 3,042.50 to each applicant) (6)     Matta v. Italy (no. 55674/00) EUR 2,250 (7)     Francesco Gianni v. Italy (no. 64450/01) EUR 4,000   Section 3   (8)     Mehemi v. France (no. 2) (no. 53470/99)   No violation Article 8 Unnecessary to examine complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 Ali Mehemi is an Algerian national, who was born in Lyons in 1962 and lives at Villeurbanne. In 1986 he married an Italian national who, he claims, has French nationality; he and his wife had three children who have French nationality. The entire family, including the applicant, lived in France until he was deported in 1995.   In 1991 the applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for drug-trafficking offences and an order was made permanently excluding him from French territory. The order was executed on 28 February 1995. The case was referred to the European Court of Human Rights, which gave judgment on 26 September 1997 holding that there had been a violation of Article 8 by France as the applicant’s deportation to a country with which he had no ties constituted an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private and family life.   On 21 October 1997 the applicant sought to have the exclusion order set aside. In a judgment of 24 March 1998 the Lyons Court of Appeal reduced the exclusion period to 10 years. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Cassation. In October 1997 the applicant also applied for a pardon, but that was refused in 1999. His lawyer contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which, following consultation with the Ministries of Justice and the Interior, informed him in a letter of 17 November 1997 that the Government were prepared to allow the applicant to return to France immediately, subject to a compulsory residence order. The applicant was granted a special visa on 20 February 1998 and returned to France a few days later. A ministerial decree was issued the same day requiring him to reside in the département of Rhône. In April 1998 he obtained leave to remain with a right to take up employment. The leave was renewed for successive six-month periods until September 2001; the compulsory-residence measure ended in October 2001. In October 2002 the Algerian authorities had still not renewed the applicant’s passport, which prevented him from obtaining a residence permit from the French authorities. His leave to remain was extended until 31 December 2002.   The applicant complained of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention, arguing that the French authorities had failed to bring to an end the interference with his right to respect for his private and family life which the European Court of Human Rights had found to be disproportionate in its judgment of 26 September 1997. He complained that the exclusion order remained in effect and complained of the conditions imposed on his residence in France after his return. In its admissibility decision, the Court had ruled that the applicant’s complaint would also be examined under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   The Court reiterated that while it had no jurisdiction to supervise the execution of its judgments, there was nothing to prevent it from examining a subsequent complaint raising, as in the case before it, a new issue that had not been decided in the judgment.   The Court considered that in the interval between its judgment and the applicant’s return to France, the authorities had had an obligation to facilitate the applicant’s return to his family. In that connection, it noted that the French Government had agreed in principle on 17 November 1997 to the applicant’s return. While the Court understood that processing residence permits took time, the relevant authorities had been responsible for delays when they should have acted expeditiously in view of the interests at stake, in particular, the fact that the applicant had been separated from his family for three years. However, it considered that the delay of three and a half months could not be regarded as excessive. The authorities had taken reasonable steps to facilitate the applicant’s early return and his right to respect for his private and family life had, therefore, not been infringed. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.   As regards the applicant’s situation since his return to France, the Court noted that he had managed to re-establish ties with his family. The authorities had granted him residence permits incorporating a right to work, but subject to his residing in a specified area for so long as the exclusion order remained in effect. The Court considered that those circumstances, and in particular the residence requirements, meant that the exclusion order had no legal effect, so that the applicant was under no imminent or short-term risk of deportation. The Court reiterated that the Contracting States had exclusive power to regulate the entry and residence of aliens, provided that they complied with the provisions of the Convention. Consequently, the applicant had no entitlement to any special immigration status in France. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention after the applicant’s return to France.   As regards the complaint concerning freedom of movement, the Court noted that the applicant had not challenged the compulsory residence order, which had been revoked on the Minister’s own motion. In any event, two remedies had been available to the applicant had the Minister refused to revoke the order. In those circumstances, the Court held that it was unnecessary to examine this complaint. (The judgment is available only in French.)   ***   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)   Joanna Reynell (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.