CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 25 novembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s40726507 { width:180.8pt; display:inline-block } .sEACE2B5E { width:89.46pt; display:inline-block } .sB99BE15B { width:332.23pt; display:inline-block } .sDB00410C { width:132.14pt; display:inline-block } .sEEBF16A9 { width:325.56pt; display:inline-block } .sD2EAAA92 { width:54.15pt; display:inline-block } .s421F8459 { width:270.86pt; display:inline-block } .s94C36C9A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD37F1237 { width:133.48pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s82CB9C70 { width:122.81pt; display:inline-block } .sE0732BDB { width:112.79pt; display:inline-block } .s19486280 { width:352.24pt; display:inline-block } .s48B5D843 { width:128.18pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Note1]     597   25.11.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Spain and the United Kingdom   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]   Lutz v. France (application no. 49531/99)   Revision The applicant, Yves Lutz, was a French national, born in 1954, who used to live in Grenoble. He died on 17 February 2003.   In a judgment of 17 June 2003, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the excessive length of the civil proceedings to which Mr Lutz had been a party. It also found that there had been a violation of Article 13 because there had been no effective remedy in French law that would have allowed him to complain of the length of the proceedings.   In August 2003 the Court was informed of Mr Lutz’s death. As he had died before the judgment of 17 June was delivered, his heirs requested the revision of the judgment so that the amounts that the Court had awarded the deceased in just satisfaction could be awarded to them.   The European Court of Human Rights decided, unanimously, to award Mr Lutz’s heirs the sums that had previously been awarded to him, namely 4,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Schumacher v. Luxembourg (no. 63286/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Jean Schumacher, is a Luxembourg national, born in 1939 and living in Luxembourg. He used to work at a bank in Luxembourg.   On 24 October 1991 he was charged with laundering the proceeds from drug-trafficking in a case having ramifications in South America. On 13 November 2000 the District Court, sitting in chambers, held that the prosecution was time-barred because no investigative measure or other steps in the criminal proceedings had been taken for the past three years.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the length of the criminal investigation against him.   The Court held that the investigation phase, which had lasted almost nine years, had failed to satisfy the reasonable-time requirement. Accordingly, it concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   750 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation Article 6 § 1 Łobarzewski v. Poland (no. 77757/01)   Violation Article 13 The applicant, Roman Łobarzewski, a Polish national, complained about the length of the proceedings concerning an inheritance dispute which started on 15 March 1985 and are still pending. He also complained that he had no effective remedy concerning this complaint. He relied on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 and awarded the applicant EUR 11,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violations Article 6 § 1 Popescu v. Romania (no. 38360/97)   Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Potop v. Romania (no. 35882/97)     Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sofletea v. Romania (no. 48179/99) Tandreu v. Romania (no. 39184/98)   Domnica Popescu is a Romanian national, born in 1941 and living in Arad. The application concerned a house in Arad which used to belong to her grandparents and was nationalised by the State in 1952.   Rodica Potop is a Romanian national, born in 1920 and living in Bucharest. In 1950 the State nationalised a property that had been built by his father in Baile Govora.   Maria Sofletea is a Romanian national, born in 1932 and living in the United States. In 1981 the State confiscated the house that had been built by her parents in Bucharest.   Aristita Valeria Tandreu is a Romanian national, born in 1932 and living in Bucharest. In 1950 the State nationalised property and adjoining land in Bucharest that had belonged to her grandparents.   In the above four Romanian cases the applicants complained of the domestic courts’ refusal to return property which belonged to them and had been nationalised by the State. They complained, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), of an infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In the cases of Popescu v. Romania and Potop v. Romania the applicants also complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), of the Supreme Court of Justice’s refusal to acknowledge that the domestic courts had jurisdiction to determine actions to establish title to property.   In these four cases the Court found that the applicants’ right of property had been established by a final judgment and was therefore irrevocable. The judgments of the Supreme Court had had the effect of depriving them of their property. In the circumstances, the Court considered that the fair balance that had to be struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights had been upset and that the applicants had borne and continued to bear an individual and excessive burden. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in these four cases.   In the cases of Popescu and Potop the Court reiterated that the quashing of a final judgment was contrary to the principle of legal certainty. In quashing court judgments which had become final, the Supreme Court of Justice had infringed the applicants’ right to a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s refusal to acknowledge that the courts had jurisdiction to hear the applicants’ action to establish title to the property was in itself contrary to the right of access to a tribunal. Accordingly, the Court held that in these two cases there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in both those respects.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court unanimously awarded EUR   5,000 to Mrs Popescu for non-pecuniary damage. It unanimously awarded Mrs Potop EUR   25,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage. In the case of Sofletea the Court held unanimously that Romania had to return the property to the applicant within three months of this judgment becoming final. Failing that, the State had to pay her EUR   30,000 for pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded the applicant EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   440 for costs and expenses. In the case of Tandreu the Court held unanimously that Romania had to return the two remaining flats to the applicant within three months of this judgment becoming final. Failing that, the State had to pay her EUR 29,108 for one of them and EUR   17,446 for the other. The Court also awarded her EUR   2,500 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgments are available only in French.)   Ercolani v. San Marino (no. 35430/97)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Ermanno Ercolani, is a San Marinese national, born in 1951 and living in Falciano (San Marino).   On 19 June 1996 the first-instance judge ( Giudice Penale di Primo Grado ) convicted him of offences related to the illegal sale of milk for zootechnical use and sentenced him to two years and ten months’ imprisonment. His conviction was upheld by a criminal appeal court judge ( Giudice delle Appellazioni penali) , who reduced the principal sentence to two years and five months’ imprisonment. The applicant requested a retrial in May 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the lack of public hearings during his trial.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the State undertakes, among other things, to waive the recovery of credits in one set of domestic proceedings and grants the applicant special terms of repayment in respect of another set of proceedings. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Soto Sanchez v. Spain (no. 66990/01)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Diego Soto Sanchez, is a Spanish national, born in 1943 and living in Barcelona.   In June 1993 the Audiencia nacional convicted the applicant of, among other things, concealing drug-trafficking proceeds and sentenced him in particular to four years and two months’ imprisonment. This sentence was increased to nine years by the Supreme Court, which found that there had been the aggravating circumstance of belonging to a gang.   On 28 November 1994 the applicant lodged an application for the protection of fundamental human rights ( amparo appeal) with the Constitutional Court, which was allowed in part on 16   May 2000 on the ground that the Supreme Court had not stated its reasons for giving the applicant a higher sentence than that sought by the public prosecutor.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention, the applicant complained of the excessive length of the amparo proceedings.   The Court held that the length of the proceedings – five years, five months and 18 days – did not satisfy the reasonable-time requirement. Accordingly, it held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant EUR   6,000 for the damage sustained and EUR   1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Kara and Others v. Turkey (no. 37446/97)   Friendly settlement The applicants, Hüsna Kara, Leyla Kara, Gülbahar Kara, Meryem Kara, Hamit Kara, Mehmet Salih Kara, Ahmet Kara, Duman Kara, Zehra Güvercin, Felek Kara, Emine Ürün, Sabri Ürün, Edibe Ürün, Sabriye Ürün, Selim Ürün, Perişan Babat, Hüsnü Babat, Züheyla Babat, Halime Benek, Serbest Benek, Servet Benek and Bahriye Benek are 22 Turkish nationals. They are the relatives of Yakup Kara, Mehmet Ürün, Ali Benek, Hamit Kara and Hüseyin Babat, who were shot dead in June 1991.   On 28 June 1991 the taxi being driven by Mehmet Ürün and carrying Yakup Kara, the mayor of Hilal (Sırnak), Ali Benek, Mehmet Kara, Hamit Kara and Hüseyin Babat was stopped on the Uludere road by some people in commando outfits. They ordered everyone out of the vehicle and shot them, except for Mehmet Kara who was released.   The Sırnak public prosecutor’s office considered that the murders had been perpetrated by a terrorist organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), and remitted the case to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office at the National Security Court of that town. The criminal investigation into the killings is still before the national authorities.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, the applicants complained of the inadequacy of the investigation into their relatives’ murder.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the parties are to be paid EUR   88,000 jointly for the damage sustained and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses.   The Turkish Government have also made the following declaration: “The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application, such as the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicants’ close relatives notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions.   It is accepted that the inadequacy of investigations into complaints relating to a person’s death constitute a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures with a view to ensuring that the right to life – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – is respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of deaths in circumstances similar to those of the instant application as well as more effective investigations …   The Government consider that the 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 be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation Article 8 Lewis v. United Kingdom (no. 1303/02)   Violation Article 13 The applicant, Peter Lewis, is a United Kingdom national, born in 1944, who is currently serving a life sentence in Maidstone Prison for conspiracy to import and possession of controlled drugs. He complained about covert recording by the police of conversations in his cottage, transcripts of which formed the basis of the case against him. He relied on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. (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. [Note1]   Press release for grouped judgments . To be saved in PowerDocs as follows: (1) Document Name: [case name +] [day +] month[s] + year + language [+ case names] (e.g. January 2003E (Bloggs, Durand + Dupont) or 12-14 February 2003E (Finland + France) or Reina 31012003E ), (2)   Document type: PR, (3) Group: PRESS, (4) Subject: JCH or JGC .