CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 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 } .s4DB1B6B6 { width:124.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC2AF34B9 { width:331.77pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8DBAB102 { width:116.85pt; 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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   084 19.02.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Greece, Portugal 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]   Schluga v. Austria (application nos. 65665/01, 71879/01 and 72861/01) Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Eveline Schluga, is an Austrian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Bregenz (Austria).   The case concerns various penal orders issued against her for prostitution and for breaching the Aids Act.   She complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention of the excessive length of the various sets of proceedings against her which lasted between four years and five months and seven years and one month.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   Yiarenios v. Greece (no. 64413/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1   The applicant, Christos Yiarenios, is a Greek national born in 1958 and living in Athens.   He was prosecuted on suspicion of having been involved in an armed bank robbery at Pagrati.   He was remanded in custody from 1 March 1999 to 31 January 2000, when he was released under court supervision. The Athens Assize Court acquitted him by a judgment of 15 June 2000, but considered that he was not entitled to compensation for the time he had spent on remand.   The applicant complained of not having been allowed to make representations about compensation for the time he had spent in custody, because the Assize Court had decided the issue of its own motion, and allegedly without giving reasons. He complained of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial).   Referring to its case law, the Court observed that no decision about compensation should be taken unless the person concerned had been able to make representations to a court. The Assize Court appeared to have decided of its own motion whether the applicant was entitled to compensation, which prevented him from making his own application to that effect.   Moreover the Court considered that by merely referring to the relevant article of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving any reasons for its decision, the Assize Court had breached its duty to give reasons.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, and awarded the applicant 12,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 Jorge Nina Jorge and Others v. Portugal (no. 52662/99) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   The applicants are 12 Portuguese nationals living in Lisbon, with the exception of Ricardo Manuel Freitas Jorge, Maria Helena de Freitas Jorge Marcos and Nuno Miguel Serra Jorge who live in Amadora. The applicants are: Maria Manuela Jorge Nina Jorge, born in 1939, Maria Lucília Jorge Rato Pinto, born in 1935, Maria Teresa Luz de Carvalho, born in 1947, Maria Clotilde Jorge Nina, born in 1915, Clotilde dos Santos Jorge Rodrigues, born in 1928, Maria Marta Jorge Dias Pestana Bastos, born in 1939, Ricardo Manuel Freitas Jorge, born in 1937, Maria Helena de Freitas Jorge Marcos, born in 1946, Maria Eduarda Silva Jorge Ferreira, born in 1933, Maria Isabel da Silva Jorge dos Santos, born in 1935, Eduardo António Serra Jorge, born in 1963 and Nuno Miguel Serra Jorge, born in 1967.     They are all former shareholders, or the heirs of former shareholders, in the Empresa de Viação Eduardo Jorge Lda company, which itself held some shares in the Empresa de Viação Gaspar Lda company . The two companies, which traded under the group name Eduardo Jorge, provided public transport mainly in the Lisbon area. They were nationalised in 1975 by a legislative decree which provided for the payment of compensation to shareholders, the amount and terms of which were to be determined at a later date.   In 1984, a ministerial order provisionally set the amount of shareholder compensation at 17,414 Portuguese escudos (PTE) per percentage of the share capital. The applicants challenged that amount in a document dated 1 August 1984 addressed to the Secretary of State for Finance.   In 1987, the final compensation was set at 28,178 PTE per percentage of capital.   At the request of the applicants, an arbitration commission increased that amount to 692,518 PTE in 1988. However, the Secretary of State for the Treasury only partially endorsed that decision and set the compensation at 43,404 PTE. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal by a judgment of 11 May 1999.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time), the applicants complained of the excessive length of the proceedings for challenging the amount of compensation. They also submitted that the compensation which they had eventually been awarded was not "fair".   In particular, they considered that the length of time it took to determine and pay the compensation was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). They further complained that they had been the victims of discrimination contrary to Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No.1.   The proceedings in question began on 1 August 1984 when the applicants first challenged the amount of the compensation, and ended 14 years, nine months and 10 days later with the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of 11 May 1999.   In the light of the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a length of time was not compatible with the requirement of "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention.   Referring to the admissibility decision it had taken in the case, the Court observed that the complaint related to the late determination and payment of the final compensation. It therefore examined the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 from that standpoint.   The failure to determine and pay the final compensation constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Court noted that the interference plainly pursued a legitimate aim. It was not unreasonable for a State to take its own economic and budgetary resources into account, particularly, as the Portuguese Government observed, in the context of a difficult economic and financial recovery for the country.   Nonetheless, the public debt instruments representing the amount of the final compensation were handed over to the applicants only in December 1991, that is to say more than 16 years after the nationalisation. Moreover, they had had to wait almost eight more years for the Supreme Court's decision whereby the amount became final. The Portuguese Government must be held responsible for such an inordinate delay. Although the applicants had received interest, it was significantly exceeded by currency depreciation. Lastly, the provisional compensation which they had received several years after nationalisation did not lift the uncertainty which they had lived with until the amount of the compensation became final, namely until the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment.   That uncertainty, combined with the absence of any effective domestic remedy, led the Court to consider that the applicants had had to bear an individual and excessive burden which destroyed the right balance which must be maintained between requirements in the general interest and the protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In the light of that finding, it did not consider it necessary to conduct a separate examination of the complaint under Article 14.   The Court awarded the applicants jointly an amount of 100,000 EUR for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 8,000 EUR for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French).   Martin v. United Kingdom (no. 63608/00)   Friendly settlement The applicant, Janette Martin, is a British national, born in 1959 and living in Nottingham, England.   She complained under Articles 8 (right to respect for family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention about the decision of her local council to place her home under surveillance, using a hidden video camera, following complaints from her neighbours about her behaviour and that of her children.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which the applicant is to receive 4,000 pounds sterling (GBP) in damages and GBP 7,050 for costs. (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. [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.