CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 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 } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s9269B87C { width:9.86pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s9BD97DD4 { width:2.55pt; display:inline-block } .sCD4648C2 { width:29.24pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .sEFE8CB1C { width:3.87pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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   061 5.2.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, France, Greece and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final [1] .     Dirnberger v. Austria (application no. 39205/98)            Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Franz Dirnberger, is an Austrian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Vienna.   He was the owner of several meat import and export businesses.   On 25 June 1981, a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant on suspicion of customs fraud.   The proceedings were concluded on 16 April 1997 by the Regional Court which found that there was no case to answer.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him, which had lasted for almost 16 years.   In the light of the particular circumstances of the case, the European Court of Human Rights found that the length of the proceedings had exceeded a "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of that Article.   It awarded the applicant non-pecuniary damage of 10,000 euros (EUR) and 2,000 EUR for costs and expenses under Article 41 (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in English).   Weil v. France (no. 49843/99)                                        Violations of Article 6 §   1 The applicant, Robert Weil, is a French national who was born in 1922 and lives in Paris. He was chairman and chief executive of a grain trading company.   In September 1988, he was given a three-year suspended prison sentence as an accessory to misappropriation and forgery and use of forged commercial documents in the context of a cereal export fraud.   On 1 September 1986, the customs authorities informed him that charges would be brought against him and drew up a formal statement which he signed. The customs authorities then opened a judicial investigation against him on the charge that he had arranged to obtain illegal subsidies from the European Community. The applicant was given a three-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay a number of fines. The customs proceedings were concluded on 7 November 2001 by a judgment of the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the unfairness of the procedure before the Court of Cassation, on the ground that he had not been given a copy of the judge-rapporteur's report although it had been disclosed in full to the advocate- general.   He also complained of the excessive length of the customs proceedings.   Referring to its case law, the Court noted that the failure to give a copy of the judge-rapporteur's report to the applicant or his counsel prior to the hearing, combined with the fact that it had been disclosed to the advocate-general, created an imbalance that was not compatible with the requirements of a fair trial. While the second part of the report, which was confidential to the judges, could be withheld both from the parties and from the advocate-general, the first part was not protected by judicial confidentiality and should have been disclosed as appropriate to the parties and the advocate-general on equal terms. The Court therefore held unanimously that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been violated.   With regard to the length of the customs proceedings, the Court noted that they began on 1 September 1986 and ended on 7 November 2001 with the judgment of the Court of Cassation, and had thus lasted for 15 years, two months and six days for five court levels. The Court considered that such a length was not consistent with the concept of "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6   § 1, and therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of that Article.   The Court awarded the applicant 10,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction). (The judgment is available only in French).   Kosmopoulou v. Greece (no. 60457/00)         Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Eleni Kosmopoulou, is a Greek national who was born in 1965 and lives in Athens.   She married in 1987 and a child was born of the marriage in 1988. In 1996, she left the matrimonial home and went to the United Kingdom, leaving her husband and daughter behind. The court granted custody of the child to her former husband and she was granted visiting rights. A medical report drawn up in June 1997 by three psychologists, but without the applicant having been examined, found that the child was suffering from physical neglect and abandonment by her mother. The report concluded that a temporary separation between mother and child might help to dispel the child’s negative feelings.   By a judgment of 30 July 1997, the Athens Regional Court ordered that the mother have care of the child one day a week and for several days during the school holidays.   At the request of the child's father, the order was reviewed in August 1997 and the number of days during which the applicant could have the child to stay was reduced. A few days later the child, who was with her mother at the time, refused to stay any longer. The court then suspended the applicant's visiting rights at the request of the child's father.   By a judgment of 11 December 1997, the Regional Court found that it was essential for the child to have contact with her mother, and considered that the child's reluctance to see her mother was due to the behaviour of the father, who had involved the child in his own disputes with the mother. Both parents and the child were examined by a psychiatrist whose medical report produced in June 1998 concluded that it was necessary for the child to have contact with her mother.   However the applicant was given a copy of the report only in February 2002, the authorities having earlier refused to do so on the ground that it was confidential.   The applicant then asked the court take formal note that her former husband was deliberately preventing her from having contact with the child, but her civil claims were dismissed and the criminal proceedings she brought ended with a decision that there was no case to answer.   There are currently more than 35 sets of criminal proceedings brought either by the applicant or by her former husband pending before the national courts.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for family life), the applicant complained that the Greek courts had failed to promote her speedy reunion with her child, that her visiting rights had been twice suspended without her having been able to make prior representations, and that her former husband's lack of cooperation had not been taken into account.   In examining whether the non-enforcement of her visiting rights amounted to a lack of respect for the applicant's family life, the Court must strike a balance between the competing interests involved. With regard to the child's interests, the Court observed that it was not for it to say how the domestic courts should have assessed the issue. However it found it striking that no further action had been taken by the competent authorities, despite the fact that the psychiatrist's report detailed the child's psychological problems and recommended regular contact with her mother.     With regard to the applicant's interests, the Court noted that her visiting rights had been suspended twice without her representations having been heard, shortly after they had been granted by the court and at a particularly crucial time if the nine-and-a-half-year-old child was to re-establish regular contact with her mother. The Court further noted that the mother had received a copy of the 1998 psychiatric report only three and a half years later. It stressed in that respect the importance of ensuring that parents are always in a position to make representations in favour of greater contact with their children and have access to all the relevant information available to the domestic courts. The Court further noted that none of the three psychologists who had drafted the 1997 medical report had examined the applicant before reaching their conclusions.   Accordingly the applicant had not been involved in the decision-making process to a sufficient extent to ensure the proper protection of her interests. The Court therefore held unanimously that Article 8 had been violated, and awarded the applicant 10,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage and 6,000 EUR for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English).   Papathanasiou v. Greece (no. 62770/00)       No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Georgios Papathanasiou, is a Greek national who was born in 1965 and lives in Athens.   On 30 August 1995, the applicant was charged with forgery and use of forged documents, fraud and smuggling, by reason of his alleged involvement in a network using false certificates to obtain tax reductions. Having received a 13 month suspended prison sentence for the use of forged documents, the applicant appealed on points of law. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 23 May 2000.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him (four years, eight months and 24 days for three court levels).   In the light of the particular circumstances of the case, the Court found that they had not exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 and therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of that Article. (The judgment is available only in French).   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 Parisi and 3 Others v. Italy (no. 39884/98)            No violation of Article 13 The applicants, Pieralberto, Maurizio, Tiziana and Maria Cristina Parisi, are Italian nationals who were born in 1963, 1958, 1955 and 1952 respectively. The applicants live in Bari, except for Maria Cristina Parisi who lives in Vicenza.   In June 1983, the Bari Court declared the applicants’ father bankrupt. He launched proceedings for that order to be revoked, and he died in 1988. In 1998, a judge ordered that their father’s property be restored to the applicants.   In November 1997, the Bari Appeal Court upheld the father’s appeal and revoked the bankruptcy order of June 1983. That ruling was confirmed by the Court of Cassation in November 2000. The applicants then applied several times for the revocation the bankruptcy order to be recorded at the Land Registry so that they could recover their property. The order was recorded in March 2002, when their property was made available to the applicants.     Relying on Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 (protection of property), the applicants complained that the bankruptcy order had deprived them of their possessions, and further alleged that Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) had been violated.   The Court noted that it had in the past considered applications which raised similar issues and had concluded that there had been a violation of the Convention. It found that the bankruptcy procedure had lasted approximately eighteen years and nine months for one court level, which did not strike the right balance between the general interest in the creditors being repaid and the individual interests of the applicants, namely the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The interference with the rights and freedoms of the applicants had thus been disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved. The Court therefore held unanimously that Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 had been violated.   With regard to the complaint under Article 13, the Court noted that, after having applied several times, the applicants had succeeded in having the revocation of the bankruptcy order recorded at the Land Registry, which brought the proceedings to an end. Accordingly it found that the applicants had had an "effective" remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, and held unanimously that it had not been violated.   The Court awarded each applicant the sum of 45,000 EUR for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 100,000 EUR jointly for costs and expenses. (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.       [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.