CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 mai 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 } .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 } .sC183BDAA { width:21.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s49757089 { width:122.79pt; display:inline-block } .sB0389500 { width:148.13pt; display:inline-block } .sF3C87C0B { width:121.47pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sBB98EE3D { width:131.47pt; display:inline-block } .sDAAE05C1 { width:62.18pt; display:inline-block } .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     282   27.5.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING France, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following seven Chamber judgments, of which only Zarakolu v. Turkey is final. [1]   (1)     Motais de Narbonne v. France (application no. 48161/99)   Just satisfaction The applicants are seven French nationals resident in the département of Réunion, with the exception of Mrs Marie Thérèse Victoria Hélène Motais de Narbonne, who lives in Paris. The applicants are: Mr Marie Camille Victor André Augustin Oscar Motais de Narbonne, born in 1926, Mr Marie Joseph Edouard Camille Roland Motais de Narbonne, born in 1927, Mrs   Marie Thérèse Arlette Motais de Narbonne, born in 1929, Mr Marie Joseph Jean Claude Motais de Narbonne, born in 1931, Mrs Marie Thérèse Victoria Hélène Motais de Narbonne, born in 1932, Mr Pierre Victor Marie Dupuy, born in 1957, and Mrs Claudine Marie Hélène Dupuy, born in 1961.   The applicants are the beneficiaries of an estate that formerly included a plot of land in Saint-Denis de la Réunion which was expropriated. In a judgment of 2 July 2002 the Court held that because in the 19 years since its expropriation the land had not been developed the applicants had been unduly deprived of the increase in its value. It accordingly ruled that they had borne an excessive burden on account of the expropriation in issue and concluded that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) as regards pecuniary damage.   In the judgment given today in respect of Article 41 of the Convention the Court decided unanimously to award the applicants, jointly, 3,286,765.70 euros for pecuniary damage. (The   judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Sanglier v. France (no. 50342/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Jean-Pierre Sanglier is a French national who was born in 1946 and lives in Cheronnac ( département of Haute-Vienne).   From April 1990 until his dismissal in May 1992 he worked for company D.D. as a sales and delivery man. On 18 February 1993 the applicant applied to an industrial relations tribunal seeking payment of various sums and allowances owed to him following the termination of his contract of employment. In a judgment of 15 December 1998, which was served on the applicant on 30 December 1998, the Rouen Court of Appeal gave judgment in his favour. On 17 September 1999 the applicant received a cheque in settlement of the damages awarded, plus interest.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the length and unfairness of the proceedings. He further complained that he had obtained only partial execution of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, mainly on account of his debtor’s insolvency.   Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, the Court decided to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. It noted that the proceedings had begun with the application to the industrial relations tribunal and ended when the Court of Appeal’s judgment was served on the applicant. They had therefore lasted 5 years, 10 months and 12 days at two levels of jurisdiction. The Court took the view that the length of the proceedings had failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 and held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention in that respect. It declared the remainder of the applicant’s complaints inadmissible.   By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant 6,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)   Skałka v. Poland (no. 43425/98)   Violation Article 10 The applicant, Edward Skałka, is a Polish national, born in 1941 and currently in prison.   He was imprisoned on 16 December 1993 following a conviction for aggravated theft. He was subsequently sentenced to a further term of imprisonment (eight months) for insulting a State authority: he had written a letter to the President of the Regional Court referring to the judges of the Penitentiary Division as “irresponsible clowns” and to one unidentified judge as a “fool”, an “illiterate” and an “outstanding cretin”. Mr Skałka’s appeals were unsuccessful.   He complained that his criminal conviction had violated Article 10 (freedom of expression).   It was common ground between the parties that the applicant’s conviction had amounted to an interference with Mr Skałka’s freedom of expression and that it had pursued the legitimate aim of maintaining the authority of the judiciary. The Court considered that that interest was sufficiently important to warrant limitations on freedom of expression, but had to examine whether the punishment had been appropriate or “necessary” here within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. The Court found that the sentence of eight months’ imprisonment had been disproportionately severe: the attack on the authority of the judiciary had been made in the course of an internal exchange of letters of which the public had had no knowledge and it had been the first time that Mr Skałka had overstepped the bounds of permissible criticism.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded him 32 euros for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (4)     Crişan v. Romania (no. 42930/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Ioan Crişan is a Romanian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Bucharest.   In 1990 and 1993 he asked the Commission for the Application of Legislative Decree no.   118/90 to confirm that he had the status of a person persecuted for political reasons during the time of the Communist regime. His first application, in which he asserted that he had been the subject of a police investigation and had been dismissed from his employment for political reasons, was refused by the Commission. It allowed his second application, accepting that for political reasons he had been detained in psychiatric institutions for 2   months and 25 days between 1973 and 1981, and awarding him compensation payable in monthly instalments.   The applicant appealed against the Commission’s decisions to the Bucharest County Court, complaining about, among other things, the length of his detention as relied on by the Commission and the rejection of his first application. The County Court decided to join his appeals in September 1995. His claims were rejected by the County Court, and then by the Court of Appeal, on the ground that, since the entry into force in 1997 of Emergency Order no. 41/1997 amending Legislative Decree no. 118/90, the courts no longer had jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the Commission’s decisions.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing), the applicant complained of the courts’ refusal to review the lawfulness of the Commission’s decisions. He further contended that he had not had an effective remedy, contrary to Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The Court noted that by reason of its composition and the membership of its review body the Commission did not satisfy the requirement of independence vis-à-vis the executive power and the parties and therefore could not constitute a tribunal within the meaning of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. Consequently, in order for the requirements of that provision to be satisfied, the applicant had to be able to submit the Commission’s decisions to a judicial body having full jurisdiction. But the courts to which he applied had ruled that they were not empowered to review the lawfulness of the Commission’s decisions because the legislation delimiting the jurisdiction of the courts had been amended during the proceedings. Admittedly, it had not been the purpose of the amendment to give an advantage to one of the parties in the case, but its result had been to deprive the applicant of the possibility of submitting the decisions in issue to the scrutiny of a judicial body having full jurisdiction.   The Court further observed that it had found in its decision on admissibility that the effectiveness of the ordinary remedy available to the applicant, according to the Government’s submissions, had not been established with a sufficient degree of certainty.   In the light of the above considerations, the Court held unanimously that the right of access to a court had been infringed, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It further held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13. By way of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant 4,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   600 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation Article 6 § 1 (5)     Piskura v. Slovakia (no. 65567/01) No examination necessary under Article 13 The applicant, František Piskura, is a Slovakian national, born in 1953 and living in Fintice. He complained, under Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that the courts had failed to deal with his claim for outstanding salary within a reasonable time.   The Court found that the proceedings had lasted eight years and over four months to date. That period exceeded a reasonable time and there had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. As a new remedy for the excessive length of proceedings had been available in Slovakia under the Constitution since 1 January 2002, the Court found that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 13. It awarded him 3,700 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (6)     Zarakolu v. Turkey (no. 32455/96)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Ayşenur Zarakolu, was a Turkish national, living in Istanbul. Her application to the Court was taken over by her widower after her death on 28 January 2002.   She complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, that she had been denied a fair trial on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court that had convicted her for disseminating propaganda for the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). She made further complaints under Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 9,500 euros is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (7)     Hewitson v. the United Kingdom (no. 50015/99)   Violation Article 8 The applicant, James Robert Hewitson, is a British national, born in 1948. He owned a garage in Dorset and had business connections in Spain. He is currently serving a prison sentence.   From 1994 the police suspected him of being involved in drug trafficking and handling stolen goods. They arrested him on 22 February 1995. While he was in custody, a listening device was installed at his garage premises. It remained active until 26 July 1995 when it was discovered. During Mr Hewitson’s trial on charges of conspiracy to import and supply cannabis, tape recordings made from the listening device were admitted in evidence against him. He then pleaded guilty. On 5 September 1997 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed on 24 September1997.   He complained, under Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention, of the installation and use by the police of a covert device to record conversations at his garage.   The Court reiterated that at the relevant time there was no statutory system to regulate the use of covert recording devices by the police. The interference had therefore not been “in accordance with the law” as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It awarded him 4,800 euros for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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.