CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 10 février 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB88298DC { width:86.11pt; display:inline-block } .sFE40E937 { width:138.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF913710D { width:162.15pt; 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   067 10.02.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Estonia, France, Romania and the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final. [1]     Puhk v. Estonia (application no. 55103/00)   Violation of Article 7 § 1 The applicant, Rain Puhk, is an Estonian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Tartu.   He alleged that his conviction for various bookkeeping and tax offences, under the criminal laws which had entered into force on 13 January 1995 and 20 July 1993 for acts committed prior to those dates, amounted to the retrospective application of criminal law. He relied on Article 7 § 1 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention of Human Rights.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 7 § 1 on account of the retrospective application of the two laws and awarded the applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,508.31 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   D.P. v. France (no. 53971/00)   No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, P.D., is a French national who was born in 1951 and is currently serving a prison sentence at the Esses Villeneuve-sur-Lot Detention Centre.   The applicant, who was suspected of having sexually assaulted his stepdaughters, was placed under formal investigation in September 1994 for rape and aggravated sexual assault. He applied to be released during the judicial investigation but without success, and at the end of the investigation was committed by the Indictment Division to stand trial in the Gironde Assize Court. He appealed to the Court of Cassation against his committal for trial but his appeal was dismissed.   In a judgment of 3 April 1998 the Assize Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment and to temporary deprivation of his civic, civil and family rights. He lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed on 9 June 1999 by the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, whose members included two of the judges who had examined his appeal against his committal for trial.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complained that the Criminal Division had not been impartial as two of its members had previously examined appeals he had lodged at various stages of the proceedings.   The Court noted, firstly, that the public hearing it held in the case had been the first occasion on which the applicant had complained that the judges in question had also been sitting when the Criminal Division had heard his application for release. It considered that this new argument had been submitted out of time and could not be taken into consideration.   The Court noted that the applicant was not disputing the personal impartiality of the judges in question. However, it considered that the fact that two of the members of the Criminal Division had ruled on two previous appeals by the applicant could give rise to misgivings on his part as to that court’s impartiality.   In assessing whether his misgivings were justified, the Court took into account the specific function and nature of the review undertaken by the Court of Cassation. The judges of that court who had already intervened twice in the proceedings had on both occasions ruled on the lawfulness and the reasoning of decisions by the courts below. However, the points in issue in the first appeal had concerned the lawfulness of the investigation, whereas those in the second appeal had concerned the lawfulness of the judgment. Accordingly, the judges had never had to assess the merits of the charge against the applicant and had been required to examine different points of law in each appeal, so that the issues before them had been different in the two appeals.   Although the applicant might have had doubts as to the impartiality of the Court of Cassation, the Court considered that because of the difference between the issues before the Criminal Division in the two appeals, he had not had any objective grounds for fearing that the court might be biased or prejudiced in ruling on his appeal against his conviction. The Court accordingly held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Suciu v. Romania (no. 49009/99)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Elena Suciu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1928 and lives in Târgu Mures. In 1991 she signed a contract with a State-owned company for the purchase of a property that had been built with State funding. The contract was cancelled by the courts in 1992 on the ground that the statutory requirements of contracts of that kind had not been satisfied when it was signed.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant complained that she had not received compensation for the cancellation of the contract.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive EUR 5,830 for any damage sustained and for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     B.B v. United Kingdom (no. 53760/00) Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 The applicant, B.B., is a British national, born in 1957 and living in London.   The case concerned events which took place between January 1998 and February 1999.   BB. contacted the police after being attacked by a young man with whom he had had homosexual relations. He was arrested for allegedly engaging in buggery with a young man aged 16 years of age contrary to section 12(1) and schedule 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The applicant underwent a medical examination with his consent during which samples were taken and his residence was searched by police. He was released on police bail the following day and was subsequently formally charged. He appeared before both the Magistrates’ Court and the Central Criminal Court, before which he was later acquitted.   The applicant complained that he was discriminated against on the grounds of his sexual orientation by the existence of, and by his prosecution under, legislation that made it a criminal offence to engage in homosexual activities with men under 18 years of age whereas the age of consent for hetereosexual activities was fixed at 16. He also complained that he was discriminated against on the grounds of age by the decision to prosecute him but not the 16-year-old. He complained of a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private life, alleging discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and age.   The Court noted that, since 2001, the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity had been equalised in the United Kingdom. However, B.B. was prosecuted under the legislation then in place which made it a criminal offence to engage in homosexual activities with men under 18 years of age while the age of consent for heterosexual relations was fixed at 16. The Court held, unanimously, that the existence of, and the applicant’s prosecution under, the legislation applicable at the relevant time constituted a violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8. B.B. was awarded EUR   7,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   600 for 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.