CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 30 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 } .s6D12BCD4 { width:62.75pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s19D74ED { width:219.58pt; display:inline-block } .sD62A0CC7 { width:15.9pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s769A8E30 { width:21.49pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     470   30.9.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] 1 . (All the judgments are available only in French.)     (1)     Beladina v. France (application no. 49627/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   André Beladina is a French lawyer who was born in 1946 and lives in Kortrijk (Belgium). His knowledge of aeronautics brought him into professional contact with the SAGA bank, of which the AOM airline was the subsidiary.   In the course of a judicial investigation into offences committed against the SAGA bank involving misappropriation, fraud, handling misappropriated assets and aiding and abetting crime, a number of searches were carried out at the applicant’s office on 3 February 1993. The case was divided into two separate proceedings by the investigating judge. Mr Beladina was sentenced on appeal to four years’ imprisonment, two of which were suspended, and a fine of 380,000 (EUR) for misappropriating company assets. His appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 26 September 2001. In a judgment of 7 November 1991, the Paris Court of Appeal held that the proceedings against the applicant on the fraud charge had lapsed.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Beladina complained of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the proceedings for misappropriation of company assets had lasted nine years, four months and four days for three levels of jurisdiction and that the fraud proceedings had lasted eight years, seven months and 23 days for two levels of jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the complexity of the case, the Court held that the total length of the proceedings was unreasonable and concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Beladina EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage. Violation Article 14   combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (2)     Koua Poirrez v. France (no. 40892/98)         No violation Article 6 § 1   Ettien Laurent Koua Poirrez is an Ivory Coast national, born in 1966 and living in the Paris area. He was adopted by a French national in 1987.   Mr Koua Poirrez has suffered from a severe physical disability since the age of seven. The French authorities issued him with a card certifying that he was 80% disabled. In 1990 the Family Allowances Office refused to award him a disabled adult’s allowance (D.A.A.) on the ground that he was not a French national and there was no reciprocal agreement between France and the Ivory Coast in respect of this benefit. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision in the French courts.   After the Law of 11 May 1998 was passed lifting the nationality condition for the award of non-contributory benefits, the applicant re-applied for a disabled adult’s allowance, which was granted as of June 1998.   The applicant complained of a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) on account of the French authorities’ refusal to grant him a disabled adult’s allowance. He complained further, under Article 6 § 1 (right to trial within a reasonable time), of the length of the subsequent proceedings.   The Court held that a non-contributory benefit such as the D.A.A. could give rise to a pecuniary right for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The fact that the applicant’s country of origin had not signed a reciprocal agreement – whereas the applicant had been issued a card certifying disability, lived in France, was the adopted son of a French citizen living and working in France and, lastly, had previously been receiving the minimum welfare benefit – could not in itself justify refusing to pay him the benefit in question. Furthermore, the criterion of nationality for the award of that benefit had been removed by the 1l   May 1998 Act and the applicant was awarded the D.A.A. immediately after that Act had been passed. The Court therefore considered that the applicant had had a pecuniary right for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that Article 14 of the Convention was also applicable.   There was no objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment between French nationals or nationals of countries that had signed a reciprocal agreement and other foreigners. Even though – at the material time – France was not bound by a reciprocal agreement with the Ivory Coast, it had undertaken, in ratifying the Convention, to secure to everyone within its jurisdiction – which the applicant unquestionably was – the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court concluded, by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   With regard to the complaint relating to the excessive length of the domestic proceedings, the Court noted that they had lasted seven years, seven months and nine days for three levels of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it held that the proceedings had not exceeded the reasonable-time requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 and concluded unanimously that there had not been a violation of that provision.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Koua Poirrez EUR   20,000 for the damage sustained and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses.     Violations Article 6 § 1 (3)     Todorescu v. Romania (no. 40670/98)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     The application was lodged by Ioan Todorescu, who is a Romanian national, and Letitia Todorescu, who is an Austrian national. They were born in 1930 and 1934 respectively and live in Vienna (Austria). Mr Todorescu had been working for the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna since 1972.     The applicants’ flat in Bucharest was confiscated by the State in 1988 on the ground that in 1987, after a period abroad, they had not returned to Romania despite the fact that their exit visa had expired. They applied to the domestic courts for the return of their property and this right was recognised by a final court decision. However, on an appeal by the Procurator-General of Romania, the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment on the ground that the application of nationalisation decrees could not be reviewed by the courts.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the courts to try actions to recover property. They maintained that the situation resulting from the confiscation of their property infringed Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   The Court noted that the decision to confiscate the property had been made before the Convention was ratified by Romania. Accordingly, it considered that the complaint based on a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 8 was manifestly ill-founded.   The Court reiterated that the quashing of a final judgment was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. Thus, in quashing a court decision that had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice had infringed the applicants’ right to a fair trial in breach of Article 6 § 1. The Court further reiterated that the Supreme Court’s failure to recognise the courts’ jurisdiction to determine the applicants’ action to establish title to property was in itself contrary to the right of access to a court. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on both counts.   The Court went on to note that the applicants’ right of property had been established by a final judgment and was therefore irrevocable. The effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment had been to deprive them of their property. In these circumstances the Court considered that the applicants had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and that the State should return the applicants’ property to them within three months from the date on which the present judgment became final. Failing that, Romania was to pay them EUR   50,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded the applicants EUR   5,000 jointly for non-pecuniary damage.     *** 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.