CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 novembre 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 } .s94C36C9A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB0BA28C7 { width:144.81pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sC87A7B6F { width:94.82pt; display:inline-block } .s255E35BB { width:143.49pt; display:inline-block } .sB50CBA87 { width:182.16pt; display:inline-block } .sFF4F13C8 { width:130.15pt; display:inline-block } .sAEB48DD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s32B93E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s1E59FF54 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:10pt } .s995BFA6B { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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     550   6.11.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]       Violation Article 10 Krone Verlag GmbH & CoKG v. Austria (no. 2) (application no. 40284/98) The applicant, Krone Verlag GmbH & CoKG, is a company with its registered office in Vienna. It is the publisher of the newspaper Neue Kronenzeitung .   In July 1996 the Neue Kronenzeitung published several articles about a couple, Mr and Mrs   K., who had abused their daughter. In the articles it was alleged that the couple had homosexual or bisexual inclinations. Mrs K. brought an action for damages in the criminal courts. Under the Media Act, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court ordered the applicant company to publish a notice concerning the institution of the proceedings. The notice was published on 4 September 1996.   Arguing that the size of notice was less than that of the articles in question, Mrs K. lodged applications for enforcement measures ( Durchsetzungsanträge ). The court dealing with the case found that the notice and the articles had the same “publication value” ( Veröffentlichungswert ) and refused her applications on 17 December 1996. On an appeal by Mrs K., the Court of Appeal ordered the applicant company to pay a fine ( Geldbuße ) of 1,304,000 Austrian schillings (ATS) to Mrs K., corresponding to ATS 4,000 for each issue of the newspaper between 11 September 1996, the date on which Mrs K. had sought the enforcement of the order to publish the notice, and 4 August 1997.   The Procurator General’s Office ( Generalprokuratur ) lodged a plea of nullity for the preservation of the law ( Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes ) with the Supreme Court, arguing that it was unreasonable to impose fines on the applicant company for the period after the first-instance court had found in its favour and that the company should accordingly be considered to have acted in good faith. The plea of nullity was dismissed by the Supreme Court.   The applicant company submitted that the imposition of fines had infringed its rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights considered that the fine imposed on the applicant company had interfered with its right to freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law (the Media Act) and had pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others.   The Court agreed with the arguments submitted by the Procurator General’s Office in its plea of nullity. The applicant company could not have been expected, when there had been a court decision in its favour, to publish another notice merely in case the decision was set aside by a higher court or for fear that the complainant might lodge an application for an enforcement measure entailing the imposition of further fines.   The Court accordingly considered that the fines imposed on the applicant company for the period encompassing the appeal proceedings had been disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 and awarded the applicant company 20,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR   9,201.31 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Violation Article 6 § 1 In the following two Italian cases the applicants complained about their prolonged inability – owing to lack of assistance from the police or a bailiff – 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) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).         Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Gamberini Mongenet v. Italy (no. 59635/00) 49,500 9,000 1,200 Indelicato v. Italy (no. 34442/97) - 3,000 2,000   In both cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6   §   1 of the Convention 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. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Striking out In the following two Italian cases the applicants complained about their prolonged inability – owing to lack of assistance from the police or a bailiff – 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) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   D.L. v. Italy (no. 34669/97) The applicant had had a life interest in the property in issue, whereas a Mrs Foti had had an interest in remainder. Following the applicant’s death in November 1999, Mrs Foti had acquired a full interest in the property and had sought leave to continue the proceedings before the Court. However, as she was not one of the applicant’s heirs, she did not have standing to continue the proceedings. The Court therefore decided by six votes to one to strike the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Istituto Nazionale Case Srl v. Italy (no. 41479/98) The Court’s Registry had sent the applicant company a number of letters requesting information. As no reply had been received even though the applicant company had been informed that there was a risk that the case might be struck out, the Court considered that the company did not intend to pursue its application. Accordingly, the Court decided unanimously to strike the case out of the list. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Pantano v. Italy (no. 60851/00)   No violation Article 5 § 3 Giuseppe Pantano is an Italian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Villarosa (Italy).   In June 1996, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, who was suspected of being a member of a Mafia-type criminal organisation operating in the province of Enna. On the basis of statements from three criminals turned informers ( pentiti ), the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial. The applicant was arrested on 12 July 1996. He appealed against the order for his detention and on several occasions during the proceedings applied for immediate release. All his applications were refused, both by the appellate court and by the Court of Cassation.   On 16 April 1997 the applicant, together with 43 other people, was committed for trial in the Caltanissetta Assize Court. During the proceedings, the court granted an application by the prosecution to extend the maximum permissible period of detention pending trial, having regard, in particular, to the complexity of the case and to the number of defendants concerned. Appeals by the applicant against that decision were dismissed. On 26 March 1999 the Assize Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. His sentence was subsequently reduced to a length he had negotiated with the prosecution.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention that the length of his detention pending trial had been excessive.   The applicant had been in pre-trial detention for two years, eight months and 14 days. During that period, the authorities had on five occasions examined whether he should remain in detention following his applications for release. They had also twice examined whether the maximum period of detention pending trial should be extended. The authorities had justified the applicant’s continued detention by the existence of serious evidence of his guilt and by the statutory requirement to take precautionary measures on account of the risk of his absconding, tampering with evidence or reoffending. They had also relied on the presumption that there was a need for precautionary measures, as laid down in Article 275 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   The Court considered that the fight against Mafia-type crime could in certain cases require the adoption of measures justifying a departure from the rule laid down in Article 5 of the Convention. In that context, the legal presumption of the existence of a danger could be justified in particular where such a presumption was not irrebuttable. The detention pending trial of persons accused of having committed offences as part of a Mafia-type organisation was designed to cut the links between them and their original criminal environment. Having regard to the nature of that kind of criminal activity and to the critical circumstances of the Italian authorities’ investigations of the Mafia, such as the one conducted in the applicant’s case, the Italian legislature had reasonably considered that the precautionary measures were necessary in order to satisfy a genuine public-interest requirement. The Court accordingly considered that the extensions of the applicant’s detention pending trial had not been unreasonable and that there had been no appearance of any arbitrariness.   As regards the conduct of the proceedings, the Court noted that the Italian authorities had caused a number of delays, although in the circumstances of the case those delays had not exceeded what might be regarded as “reasonable”. Having regard to the complexity of the case, in which 44 defendants had been charged with more than 60 offences as members of a Mafia-type organisation, the Court considered that the length of the applicant’s detention pending trial did not appear excessive. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 3. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 Violation Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 Violation Article 8 Peroni v. Italy (no. 44521/98)   Violation Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 The applicant, Edvige Peroni, is an Italian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Brescia (Italy). She was a partner in a company which was placed in compulsory liquidation by the Mantua District Court in February 1982. The court terminated the liquidation proceedings in April 1997.   The applicant alleged that the length of the liquidation proceedings had infringed the “reasonable time” principle laid down in Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time). She also complained that the decision to put the company into compulsory liquidation had deprived her of her possessions in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Lastly, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement), she complained that, as a result of that decision, correspondence addressed to her had been handed over to the liquidator and she had been prevented from leaving her place of residence.   The Court reiterated that it had found on many occasions that in Italy there was a practice incompatible with the Convention resulting from an accumulation of breaches of the “reasonable time” requirement. As the proceedings in the present case, which had lasted approximately 15 years and one month for one level of jurisdiction, had not satisfied the “reasonable time” requirement, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court observed that it had already had occasion to deal with applications raising similar issues to those raised by the applicant and that it had found a violation of the Convention in such cases. In the present case it noted that the length of the proceedings had upset the fair balance to be struck between the general interest in payment of a bankrupt’s creditors and the applicant’s individual interests, namely the right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, to respect for her correspondence and to freedom of movement. The interference with her rights and freedoms had therefore been disproportionate to the aim pursued.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1, of Article 8 and of Article 2 of Protocol no. 4. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 33,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   S.C., V.P., F.C., M.C. and E.C. v. Italy (no. 52985/99) Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The applicants, S.C. and his wife, V.P., are Italian nationals. Following S.C.’s death in 2001, the Court granted his wife and his children, F.C., M.C. and E.C., leave to pursue the proceedings before it. The applicants, who live in Biancavilla (Catania) in Italy, were born in 1949, 1970, 1974 and 1976 respectively.   In July 1991 the Catania District Court placed the de facto partnership between S.C. and V.P. into compulsory liquidation and declared both applicants bankrupt. The bankruptcy proceedings are still pending in the domestic courts.   The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that the bankruptcy order had deprived them of their possessions.   The Court observed that it had already had occasion to deal with applications raising similar issues to those raised by the applicant and that it had found a violation of the Convention in such cases. In the present case it noted that the bankruptcy proceedings had lasted approximately twelve years for one level of jurisdiction and that their length had therefore upset the fair balance to be struck between the general interest in payment of a bankrupt’s creditors and the applicants’ individual interests, namely the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The interference with their rights and freedoms had therefore been disproportionate to the aim pursued.   Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded EUR 21,000 to V.P. and EUR 5,000 to each of the other applicants for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 to each of the applicants for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Meilus v. Lithuania (no. 53161/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Raimundas Meilus, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Vilnius.   In November 1994 the applicant was suspected of fraud in a criminal case and his home was searched. He was charged with offences including fraud and embezzlement in August 1996 and was released on bail. The trial and appeal courts found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On an appeal on points of law by the applicant, the Supreme Court quashed his conviction and remitted the case to the first-instance court, before which it is currently pending.   The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of the criminal proceedings against him.   Although the applicant had been suspected of a criminal offence in November 1994, the period to be taken into consideration had started on 20 June 1995, when the Convention had entered into force in respect of Lithuania. Consequently, the proceedings in issue had so far lasted more than eight years and three months. The Court considered that their length had failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), it awarded the applicant EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   P.K. v. Poland (no. 37774/97)   Friendly settlement The applicant, P.K., is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Szydłowiec (Poland).   Being suspected of theft, he was arrested by the police and placed in detention pending trial in January 1995. He was a prisoner at the Radom Detention Centre where, from September 1995 onwards, he was held with five other prisoners in a 12.49 sq. m. cell which had no running water or toilet. On 16 April 1997 the Warsaw Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), the applicant complained of the conditions of detention in the Radom Detention Centre. He further complained, under Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), of the length of his pre-trial detention (nearly one year and six months). He also alleged that, in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence), the authorities had opened and read the letter he had sent to the European Commission of Human Rights.   The case has been struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicant is to receive PLN 25,000 for damage and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Hanım Tosun v. Turkey (no. 31731/96)   Friendly settlement Hanım Tosun is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Avcılar (Istanbul).   On 19 October 1995 the applicant’s husband was kidnapped by two persons in civilian clothing. Mrs Tosun informed the Avcılar police of her husband’s abduction and asked the public prosecutor to keep her informed of his fate. The public prosecutor began a preliminary investigation but, not obtaining any reply from the Avcılar police to his requests for information about the kidnapping, brought criminal proceedings for dereliction of his judicial duties against the police officer responsible for the investigation, which is still pending before the judicial authorities. The applicant asserted that she had had no news of her husband since he was abducted by agents of the State.   She alleged violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and 5 (right to liberty and security) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). She further alleged a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The case has been struck out of the Court’s list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicant is to receive EUR 40,000 for damage and for costs and expenses.   In addition, the Turkish Government made the following declaration: “The Turkish Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application, and the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Fehmi Tosun, notwithstanding the existing Turkish legislation and the Government’s determination to prevent such incidents. They accept that insufficient investigations into complaints about disappearances constitute violations of Article 2 of the Convention, and undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to guarantee that the right to life – which implies the obligation to conduct an effective inquiry – is respected in future. They note in that connection that the legal and administrative measures recently adopted have made it possible to reduce the number of unrecorded deprivations of liberty and disappearances in circumstances similar to those of the present case and to increase the effectiveness of the inquiries conducted… The Government consider that supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in the field of human rights protection. They undertake to continue their cooperation in the matter, which is necessary if that objective is to be achieved.” (The judgment is 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.