CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 septembre 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 } .s92770307 { width:52.72pt; display:inline-block } .s50E127FF { width:141.45pt; display:inline-block } .sEC4781CF { width:120.12pt; display:inline-block } .s3286B780 { width:140.8pt; display:inline-block } .s331C3E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s93AF4D89 { width:156.14pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; 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     463   25.9.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Denmark, France and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   (1)     Vasileva v. Denmark (application no. 52792/99)   Violation Article 5 § 1   The applicant, Sofiika Vasileva, is a Bulgarian national, born in 1928 and living in Århus (Denmark). On 11 August 1995 on a bus in Århus she had an argument with a ticket inspector who accused her of travelling without a valid ticket. The police were called and she was arrested under section 755 of the Administration of Justice Act for failing to disclose her name, address and date of birth to the police on request. She was taken to the police station, where she was detained from 9.30 p.m. until 11 a.m. the next day, after she had identified herself.   She complained, under Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that her detention was unlawful.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that transport companies would be left powerless if they were unable to obtain efficient police assistance when confronted with passengers travelling without a valid ticket who refused to identify themselves. Before the High Court the applicant stated that she refused to reveal her identity to the police because she was angry, and that she maintained this anger and reluctance until 10.45 a.m. on 12   August 1995. In those circumstances the Court found her detention in order to establish her identity to be in accordance with the Administration of Justice Act and Article 5 § 1 (b) of the Convention.   However, finding the length of the detention (13-and-a-half hours) to be excessive, the Court considered that the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the need to ensure the applicant identify herself and her right to liberty. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 and awarded the applicant 500 euros (EUR) in damages. (The judgment is available only in English.)     (2)     Bayle v. France (no. 45840/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 (3)     Pages v. France (no. 50343/99)   No violation Article 6 § 1   Bayle v. France Fabienne Bayle is a French national who was born in 1961 and lives in Paris. She lived with a Mr B, who was separated from his wife, until his death in June 1994.   In 1995 Mr B’s widow and children brought a civil case, and subsequently criminal proceedings, against Mrs Bayle, seeking a declaration that the gifts Mr B had given her were null and void. The courts of trial and appeal annulled life insurance contracts taken out by Mr   B, of which Mrs Bayle was the beneficiary, on the ground that their object had been the unlawful one of prolonging an adulterous relationship, and ordered her to return the sum of EUR 503,591. An appeal by Mrs Bayle on points of law was struck out of the Court of Cassation’s list pursuant to Article 1009-1 of the New Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that she had only partially complied with the order made by the Court of Appeal.   Pages v. France Jean-Baptiste Pages is a French national who was born in 1935 and lives in Bougival. In 1981 he sold to a third party some shares in a forestry group which he owned. In 1990, considering himself the victim of fraudulent practices, the purchaser asked the French courts to declare the sale null and void. On appeal Mr Pages was ordered to pay the purchaser EUR 212,404; an appeal by the applicant on points of law was struck out of the Court of Cassation’s list on the ground that he had not complied with the order made by the Court of Appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), the applicants in both cases complained that they had been deprived of access to the Court of Cassation with a view to obtaining a review of the judgments against them.   Referring to its case-law on the point, the Court observed that its task was to ascertain whether the striking-out decisions constituted a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to the Court of Cassation. It noted that in both cases the applicants had been ordered to pay substantial sums.   In the Bayle v. France case the Court noted that in view of her financial situation Mrs Bayle had been unable to pay all the sums concerned but that her desire to comply with the judgment had been evidenced by the fact that she had paid a substantial sum in partial execution. Moreover, regard being had to the Court of Cassation’s case-law on the issue before it, her appeal had good prospects of success. In the light of all the above circumstances, the Court considered that the decision to strike Mrs Bayle’s appeal out of the list had been a disproportionate measure which had barred her effective access to the Court of Cassation. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,841 for costs and expenses.   In the Pages v. France case the Court noted that the applicant had not supplied any information about his financial situation to the President of the Court of Cassation. Moreover, the sums he had paid in partial execution had evidenced his capacity to pay. The size of the sum he had been ordered to pay did not absolve him from the obligation to document his financial situation, so that it could be ascertained whether the decision to strike his appeal out of the list was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the fact of his partial compliance. Consequently, the Court considered that the decision to strike the applicant’s appeal out of the list had not been disproportionate to the aim pursued and that his effective access to the Court of Cassation had not been barred to the extent of impairing the very essence of his right of access to a court. It accordingly held by 6 votes to 1 that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   (The judgments are available only in French.)   (4)     Caralan v. Turkey (no. 27529/95)   Friendly settlement   The applicant, Semra Caralan, is a Turkish national, born in 1949 and living in Istanbul. At the material time she was the major shareholder and the editor of a publishing company called Evresel Ltd.   On 24 March 1994 she was convicted by Istanbul State Security Court of disseminating separatist propaganda and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and a fine. She appealed. On 22 September 1994 the Court of Cassation dismissed her appeal. After she had served part of her sentence and paid part of the fine, new legislation came into force following which her case was re-examined and her prison sentence commuted to a fine. The sentence was suspended. The applicant appealed again and argued that the court was wrong in suspending the sentence as she had already served her sentence. While the appeal proceedings were still pending, a new law came into force. This law provided for the deferment of judgment and of execution of sentence in respect of offences committed by editors before 12 July 1997. On 12 September 1997 the State Security Court decided to defer judgment pursuant to the new law.   Ms Caralan complained that the state security court that convicted her lacked independence and impartiality contrary to Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. She also complained under Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights).   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 9,500 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, costs and expenses and in the light of the following declaration made by the Turkish Government: “ The Government note that the Court’s rulings against Turkey in cases involving prosecutions under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act relating to freedom of expression show that Turkish law and practice urgently need to be brought into line with the Convention’s requirements under Article 10 of the Convention. This is also reflected in the interference underlying the facts of the present case. The Government undertake to this end to implement all necessary reform of domestic law and practice in this area, as already outlined in the National Programme of 24 March 2001. The Government refer also to the individual measures set out in Interim Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 23   July 2001 (ResDH (2001) 106), which they will apply to the circumstances of cases such as the instant one .”   (The judgment is available only in English.)   (5)     Satık v. Turkey (no. 36961/97)   Friendly settlement   The applicant, Kadir Satık, is a Turkish national, born in 1966 and living in Istanbul. On 23   January 1997 he was arrested and taken into police custody after a search at the Komal Publishing House where he worked. He was released on 31 January 1997.   He complained, under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, that he was kept in police custody for an excessive period of time and that he could not have the lawfulness of his detention determined because he did not have legal assistance.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which EUR 4,000 is to be paid for any non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage, 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 Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site.   [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.