CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 juin 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 } .s8150ABE1 { width:79.43pt; display:inline-block } .sD2C7112F { width:34.13pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s2F35E82D { width:26.8pt; display:inline-block } .sBEB699D2 { width:95.46pt; 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     305   10.6.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Cyprus, Romania and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which is final. [1]   (1)     Serghides v. Cyprus (application no. 44730/98)   Just satisfaction Loukia Serghides is a Cypriot citizen. She was born in 1934 and lives in Nicosia (Cyprus). Between 1978 and 1979 part of her land was expropriated.   In a judgment of 8 October 2002 the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that Mrs Serghides had been deprived of her property without any compensation, in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention with regard to the length of proceedings before the national courts and with regard to Mrs Serghides’s right of effective access to a court. It reserved the question of just satisfaction.   In the judgment given today in respect of just satisfaction, the Court decided unanimously to award the applicant 60,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR   12,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   20,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania (no. 33348/96)   No violation Article 10 The applicants, Constantin Cumpănă and Radu Mazăre, are Romanian journalists who were born in 1951 and 1968 respectively and live at Constanţa.   In April 1994 they published an article in the Telegraf newspaper, of which Mr Mazăre is the editor, questioning the legality of an agreement whereby the Constanţa Town Council had contracted out to a company called Vinalex the task of impounding illegally parked vehicles. The article, which appeared under the headline “Former Deputy Mayor Dan Miron and serving Judge Revi Moga commit series of offences in Vinalex scam”, was accompanied by, among other things, a cartoon showing the judge (Mrs Moga) on the former deputy mayor’s arm, carrying a bag containing banknotes.   Mrs Moga, who had signed the contract with Vinalex on behalf of the town council, sued the applicants. She submitted that the cartoon contained an innuendo that she and the deputy mayor, both of whom were married, had had intimate relations. On 17 May 1995 the applicants were convicted of proffering insults and criminal libel and sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment. An order was also made prohibiting them from working as journalists for one year after they had completed their prison sentences. Their convictions were upheld on appeal.   The public prosecutor’s office applied to have the decision of 17 May 1995 set aside. The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed thr application, holding that the article was libellous and that the publication of the cartoon, which was potentially damaging to Mrs   Moga’s honour and reputation, constituted the offence of proffering insults.   On 22 November 1996 the Romanian President granted the applicants a pardon releasing them from their custodial sentence. Mr Mazăre continued to work as the editor of the Telegraf , while Mr Cumpănă left the newspaper in 1997 when staff levels were reduced.   The applicants complained that their conviction and sentence for the publication of the article had infringed their freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10.   The Court noted, firstly, that the applicants had been convicted of criminal libel as a result of allegations that Mrs Moga did not know the law and had taken bribes. It was common ground that their conviction constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression and that such interference was prescribed by the Romanian Criminal Code.   Like the domestic courts, the Court finds that the article was damaging to Mrs Moga’s public image and did not in any way contribute to a debate on a matter of general interest. Furthermore, relevant reasons had been given for the applicants’ conviction for the publication of the cartoon, namely the need to protect Mrs Moga’s reputation and the authority of the judiciary. The cartoon was capable of interfering with Mrs Moga’s private and family life and overstepped the bounds of acceptable criticism.   Lastly, the Court noted that while the sentence was admittedly harsh, the applicants had been spared prison as a result of the pardon. It was also apparent that they had not in fact been prevented from continuing their professional activity as a result of the ban on their working as journalists.   In those circumstances, the Court considered that the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, namely the protection of the rights of others and of the authority of the judiciary. Accordingly, it held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.) Complaint under Article 6 § 1 inadmissible (3)     Paulescu v. Romania (no. 34644/97)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Ana Maria Paulescu is a Romanian national who was born in 1911 and lives in Lausanne (Switzerland). She owned a property in Bucharest comprising two flats and adjoining land which was nationalised by the State in 1950.   She complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) of the refusal by the Supreme Court of Justice to recognise that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to hear an action for recognition of title to property. She also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of a breach of her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.   In accordance with Article 29 of the Convention, the Court decided to examine the issue of admissibility at the same time as the merits of the application. It declared the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 admissible, but ruled that the Article 6 § 1 complaint was inadmissible as it had been lodged out of time.   As to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court noted that the applicant’s right to property had been established in a judgment that was final and that it could not therefore be revoked. As a result of the Supreme Court’s judgment, the applicant had been deprived of her property for more than seven years without receiving compensation reflecting its true value. In those circumstances, the Court found that the fair balance that had to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the need to protect the individual’s fundamental rights had been upset and that the applicant had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It reserved the question of Article 41 (just satisfaction), as it was not ready for decision. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (4)     Ramazanoğlu v. Turkey (no. 39810/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Osman Nuri Ramazanoğlu, a Turkish national, was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul. On 15   September 1981 he was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. On 19 February 1982 he was charged with that offence and four others. The Martial Law Court convicted him on 19 July 1994. He appealed. A law was subsequently passed abolishing the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, so his appeal was heard by the Court of Cassation. After that court had quashed his conviction, the case came before the Assize Court for a retrial. On 16 July 2002 Mr Ramazanoğlu was found guilty and sentenced to death. His sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. His appeal against the Assize Court’s judgment is currently pending before the Court of Cassation.   Mr Ramazanoğlu complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), about the length of criminal proceedings brought against him.   The Court noted that the proceedings had been continuing for over 21 years and 6 months. That was an excessively long time for which the domestic courts bore sole responsibility and which could not be justified by the complexity of the case. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   15,250 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,015 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 available 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.