CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 octobre 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 } .sBA8F0733 { width:75.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDFDDF035 { width:146.12pt; display:inline-block } .sA7CC59E { width:172.14pt; display:inline-block } .sD33D3471 { width:44.14pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s6A184BC2 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal } .sFDBD1F7E { width:11.9pt; display:inline-block } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s9F44CE9D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-after:avoid } .s4794CEEA { width:154.8pt; display:inline-block } .s18FF26CD { width:176.8pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; 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     487   9.10.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Croatia, France, Greece, Italy and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 18 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]     Aćimović v. Croatia (application no. 61237/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1   The applicant, Ljubomir Aćimović, is a Croatian national, born in 1927 and living in Zagreb.   From 1 August 1992 until 31 August 1995 the Croatian Army used Mr Aćimović’s cottage in Gospić, Croatia, for their military needs. After the army had left, the applicant found the house devastated and his possessions removed.     On 20 March 1996 he brought civil proceedings for damages against the Republic of Croatia.   On 28 November 2000 the proceedings concerning the applicant’s case were stayed, following a change to the Civil Obligations Act, which required all compensation proceedings concerning the army and police when acting in their official capacity during the Homeland War in Croatia to be stayed.   New legislation on the issue was not enacted until 14   July   2003.   Mr Aćimović complained that he was denied access to a court because the proceedings concerning his compensation claim had been stayed following a change in the law. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the applicant had a vital interest in having his claim decided by the domestic courts and that he was left in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of his proceedings. That uncertainty intensified after six months had passed, when new legislation was supposed to be adopted but was not. Once the self-imposed time-limit was not honoured by the domestic authorities, it became a matter of complete uncertainty when the obstacles preventing the applicant from having his civil claim decided by a court would be removed, if at all.   The Court could not therefore accept that the degree of access afforded under national legislation was sufficient to secure the applicant a “right to a court”. Finding that, for a long period of time, the applicant was prevented from having his civil claim determined by the domestic courts as a consequence of a legislative measure, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Gaucher v. France (no. 51406/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   François Gaucher is a French national who was born in 1964 and lives in Sencenac-Puy-de-Fourches (France).   On 24 November 1997 the Boulogne-Billancourt Police Court found him guilty of speeding after his speed had been recorded as 155 kph on a stretch of road where the limit was 90 kph. The court fined him and disqualified him from driving for fifteen days. That judgment was upheld on appeal, and an appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed by the Court of Cassation in a judgment of 1 June 1999.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not been informed of the tenor of the Advocate-General’s submissions before the Court of Cassation and had not been able to reply to them.   The Court noted that the applicant had been unable to ascertain the tenor of the Advocate-General’s submissions before the hearing in the Court of Cassation or to reply to them in writing. While it was true that he had not applied for legal aid to enable him to be represented by a specialist lawyer, that did not mean that he had waived the right to adversarial proceedings. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   Hager v. France (no. 56616/00)   Friendly settlement   Roland Hager is a French national who was born in 1948 and lives in Waldolwisheim (France).   On 19 December 1997 the Strasbourg Police Court found the applicant guilty of drunken driving and manifest failure to maintain control of a vehicle. The court fined him and disqualified him from driving for two months. That judgment was partly upheld on appeal, and an appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed by the Court of Cassation in a judgment of 17 November 1999.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not been informed of the tenor of the Advocate-General’s submissions before the Court of Cassation, had not been able to reply to them and had not been informed of the date of the hearing.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 1,500.   (The judgment is available only in French.)     Biozokat AE v. Greece (no. 61582/00)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicant, Biozokat AE, is a public company whose head office is on the main road between Athens and Katerini.   The applicant company owned property that was expropriated to make way for a road connecting the towns of Platamonas and Katerini to Pieria. In accordance with Law no.   653/1977, the authorities decided that the applicant company was not entitled to compensation for all of its property because it should be deemed to have benefited from the building of the road.   The applicant company complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention that it had not been compensated in full for the expropriation of its property.   The Court referred to previous cases in which it had criticised the irrebuttable presumption that the benefit derived from road improvements amounted to sufficient compensation for a person whose property was expropriated. It noted that the civil courts that assessed the unit amount of compensation no longer had jurisdiction to determine whether owners derived benefit from roadworks. Consequently, owners who considered themselves to have been prejudiced were required to bring a further set of civil proceedings.   The Court considered that where an individual’s property had been expropriated, the ensuing proceedings should include an overall assessment of the consequences. It noted that although the presumption in question was no longer irrebuttable, there had been no significant improvement in the system for compensating people whose property had been expropriated. The presumption still existed and the courts that assessed awards of compensation did not take into account the nature of the work carried out or whether the owners benefited from it. Instead, the new system required owners who considered themselves to have been prejudiced by such work to make a fresh application to the civil courts in order to prove that their property had been adversely affected. Those proceedings might be lengthy and would take place in addition to the proceedings for the assessment of compensation, which themselves comprised three stages.   Consequently, in maintaining a presumption that amounted to “self-compensation” and requiring affected owners to bring several sets of proceedings in order to have the possibility of being awarded compensation commensurate with the value of the expropriated property, the authorities had upset the fair balance which had to be struck between the protection of individual rights and the requirements of the general interest. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation Article 6 § 1   In the six Italian cases below, the applicants complained about their prolonged inability – through lack of police assistance – to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied 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).     Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses A.G. v. Italy (no. 66441/01) - 7,000 1,786.83 Federici v. Italy (no. 63523/00)   29,200 6,000 3,000 Ghelardini and Brunori v. Italy (no. 53233/99) 20,833.88 18,000 3,541.06 Lari v. Italy (no. 63336/00) - 3,000 3,500 Robba v. Italy (no. 50293/99) - 6,000 1,000 Serni v. Italy (no. 47703/99) - 3,000 to the heirs -   In each case the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It awarded the applicants the amounts indicated above, in euros, for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses.   Friendly settlement   In the six Italian cases below, the applicants complained about their prolonged inability – through lack of police assistance – to recover possession of their apartments and about the duration of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1.   G.A. v. Italy (no. 40453/93) Notargiacomo v. Italy (no. 63600/00) Sartorelli v. Italy (no. 42357/98)   The cases have been struck out following friendly settlements in which EUR 7,085 is to be paid to the applicant in G.A. , EUR 7,100 to Mr   Notargiacomo and EUR 8,600 to Mrs Sartorelli .   (The judgments against Italy are available only in English).   Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 37048/97)   Friendly settlement   Nurettin Demirtaş is a Turkish national born in 1972.     At the time of his application he was in Diyarbakır Prison.   The applicant was prosecuted following the publication in the daily newspaper Özgür Ülke of an article entitled “Buca protests against the National Security Courts”, in which it was alleged that Turkey had been responsible for genocide and massacres. On 3 February 1995 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty of insulting the Republic of Turkey and sentenced him to eleven months’ imprisonment. The Court of Cassation upheld his conviction on 28 January 1997.   The applicant complained under Article 10 of the Convention that his conviction had infringed his right to freedom of expression.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 7,000 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses.   The Turkish Government have also made the following declaration: “The Court’s rulings against Turkey in cases involving prosecutions under the provisions of the Criminal Code clearly show that Turkish law and practice urgently need to be brought into line with the 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. The Government refer also to the individual measures set out in the 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 French.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 Ertan Özkan v. Turkey (no. 47311/99) Fadime Özkan v. Turkey (no. 47165/99) Gönülsen v. Turkey (no. 59649/00) Saçık v. Turkey (no. 60847/00)   Ertan Özkan was born in 1978. At the time of the events in question he was a student living in Tokat (Turkey). Fadime Özkan was born in 1975 and was living in Tokat at the material time. Barış Gönülşen was born in 1974 and was in prison in Burdur (Turkey) when he lodged his application with the Court. Aydın Saçık was born in 1975 and currently lives in Switzerland.   The applicants are Turkish nationals who were brought before a national security court on suspicion of belonging to an illegal armed organisation. Ertan Özkan and Fadime Özkan were found guilty of aiding and abetting the TKP/ML-TIKKO (Marxist-Leninist-Communist Party of Turkey/Turkish Workers’ and Peasants’ Liberation Army) and were both sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. Mr Gönülsen was found guilty of belonging to the TIKB (Turkish Union of Revolutionary Communists) and of having been involved in throwing Molotov   cocktails, offences for which he was given prison sentences of twelve years and six months and five years, six months and twenty days respectively. Mr Saçık was found guilty of assisting an illegal organisation, the PKK-YCK, and was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.   The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (d) (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention that they had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the fact that one of the judges of the National Security Court was a military judge. In the cases of Ertan Özkan , Fadime Özkan and Gönülşen the applicants also complained that the proceedings had been unfair.   The Court, which had already examined a large number of applications raising the same legal issue as the present one, had always found a violation of Article 6 § 1 in such cases. It considered that civilians standing trial for offences under the Criminal Code had legitimate reason to fear that a national security court which included a military judge among its members might not be independent and impartial. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court further reiterated that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not under any circumstances guarantee a fair trial to persons subject to its jurisdiction. It therefore held that it was not necessary to examine the complaints concerning the fairness of the proceedings.   The Court considered that the judgments themselves constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. It awarded Mr Özkan and Ms Özkan EUR 2,000 each and Mr Saçık EUR 1,524 for costs and expenses.   (The judgments are available only in French.)     ***   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.