CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 26 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 } .s51F13EC { width:56.74pt; display:inline-block } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4AA42269 { width:137.45pt; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s2474A0F5 { width:149.49pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s58BCEB62 { width:122.16pt; 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     352   26.6.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Greece, Portugal and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1] (The judgments are available only in French.)     (1)     Pascolini v. France (application no. 45019/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Failure to send applicant a copy of reporting judge’s report to the Court of Cassation   René Pascolini is a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Aussonne (in the département of Midi-Pyrénées).   On 29 April 1997 the Bordeaux Court of Appeal found him guilty of misleading advertising and ordered him to pay a fine of approximately 1,500 euros (EUR). The applicant appealed on points of law to the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, which dismissed his appeal on 6 May 1998.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained that he had not been sent a copy of the reporting judge’s report to the Court of Cassation.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that, according to current practice, parties’ lawyers were informed of the recommendation made by the reporting judge in his opinion on the merits of an appeal by means of a note in the list of cases distributed a week before the hearing to lawyers practising in the Conseil d’Etat and Court of Cassation. The applicant had not shown that his lawyer had not had the benefit of such a practice. Even so, his lawyer could at best have learnt merely of the recommendation in the reporting judge’s report, whereas the entire report had been communicated to the advocate-general. In the Court’s opinion, while the second part of the report, which was intended for the deliberations, could – like the draft judgment – remain confidential vis-à-vis the parties and the advocate-general, the first part, which was not covered by the principle of the secrecy of deliberations, should, where appropriate, be communicated to the parties and the advocate-general on equal terms. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded him EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses.   (2)     Halatas v. Greece (no. 64825/01)   Friendly settlement   Illegal demolition of property and failure to pay compensation to its owner   Maria Halatas is a Greek national who was born in 1958 and lives in Athens.   She owns a plot of land in Porto Rafti, a holiday resort outside Athens, on which she had built a house measuring approximately 40 m 2 . In 1986 the region’s town-planning department mistakenly demolished the house.   The applicant brought proceedings in the administrative courts seeking compensation from the State for the illegal demolition of her property. In a judgment of 13 October 1999 the Administrative Court of Appeal awarded her compensation of EUR 2,347, which the State has not yet paid.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant submitted that the failure to enforce the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal had infringed her right to effective judicial protection and her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions. She further complained of the excessive length of the proceedings.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 14,500 for the damage sustained and for costs and expenses.   (3)     Maire v. Portugal (no. 48206/99)   Violation Article 8   Failure to enforce court decision awarding custody of child   The applicant, Paul Maire, is a French national who was born in 1967 and lives in Larnod (France).   He married S.C., a Portuguese national with whom he had a son, Julien, born in 1995. On 3   June 1997, after the applicant had obtained a court order provisionally giving him custody of Julien, the boy’s mother abducted him and took him with her to Portugal. In 1998 the Besançon tribunal de grande instance granted the couple a divorce and made a residence order awarding custody of Julien to his father and an access order granting visiting rights to his mother. In addition, S.C. was found guilty of abducting a minor and was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. A warrant was issued for her arrest.   On 5 June 1997 the applicant applied to the French Ministry of Justice to have the child returned to him. France’s central authority duly contacted its Portuguese counterpart, and on 17 July 1997 State Counsel at the Oeiras District Court applied for a court order for the return of the child. The Portuguese authorities consequently took a number of steps to ascertain the child’s whereabouts, but were unable to trace him. On 14 December 2001 Julien and his mother were found by the criminal investigation department. Later that day, the child was placed in a foster home.   Submitting that the child had settled into his new surroundings, State Counsel requested the Cascais Family Affairs Court to vary the order of the Besançon tribunal de grande instance and to award parental responsibility to the child’s mother. On 21 December 2001 the court returned Julien to his mother and provisionally awarded her custody. Subsequently, in May 2002, the court granted the applicant access. The proceedings concerning the award of parental responsibility are still pending before the Cascais Family Affairs Court.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the Portuguese authorities’ inactivity and negligence in failing to enforce the judicial decisions awarding him custody of his child.   The Court reiterated that Article 8 of the Convention included a parent’s right to have measures taken with a view to being reunited with his or her child, and an obligation on the national authorities to take such measures. The positive obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 8 of the Convention with regard to reuniting a parent with his or her children had to be interpreted in the light of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.   In the present case, the Court had to determine whether the Portuguese authorities had taken all the steps that could reasonably be expected of them to enforce the decisions of the French courts. In that connection, the Court reiterated that in cases of this kind the adequacy of a measure was to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation. Custody proceedings required urgent handling as the passage of time could have irremediable consequences for relations between the child and the parent from whom he or she was separated. Here, although no substantial periods of inactivity were attributable to the authorities dealing with the case during the initial stage of the proceedings, the Court found it hard to understand how those authorities had not managed to summon S.C. to appear.   The Court accepted that the difficulties in ascertaining the child’s whereabouts had been chiefly due to the conduct of the child’s mother, but considered that the authorities should have taken appropriate measures to punish her lack of cooperation. The lengthy period that had elapsed before the child had been found had created a factual situation that was unfavourable to the applicant, particularly in view of the child’s tender age. In such circumstances, the Court considered that the Portuguese authorities had not made adequate and effective efforts to enforce the applicant’s right to the return of his child. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 20,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,100 for costs and expenses.   (4)     Hattatoğlu v. Turkey (no. 37094/97)   Friendly settlement   Delay in payment of additional compensation for expropriation   The applicants, Zeynep Dilek Hattatoğlu and Murat Bülent Hattatoğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1962 and 1965 respectively and live in İzmir.   They owned six plots of land in Ordu, which were expropriated in 1990 for the purpose of building an industrial estate. The applicants were not satisfied with the sums they had been awarded in compensation and took the matter to the national courts. Their claims were allowed and they were each awarded additional compensation amounting to the equivalent of EUR 1,371, which the authorities paid them in 1998.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Convention, the applicants complained of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the delays in the payment of additional compensation for the expropriation and the inadequacy of the default interest applied to State debts in view of the very high rate of inflation in Turkey.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicants are to receive EUR 92,500 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses.   ***   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.