CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 mars 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 } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA2B16EFE { width:100.76pt; display:inline-block } .sD2EAAA92 { width:54.15pt; 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   101 2.03.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France and Romania   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following two Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1] (Both judgments are only available in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Favre v. France (application no. 72313/01)   Violation of Article 13   The applicant, Claudette Favre, is a French national who was born in 1951 and lives in Lyon.   At the request of a third party, she was committed to hospital from 13 November 1990 to 5 January 1991. Considering that she had suffered damage as a result of her unlawful hospitalisation, the applicant made an initial claim for compensation to the Bron Hospital Centre on 21 December 1994 which was rejected. She then started proceedings in the administrative court to have the decisions relating to her hospitalisation annulled and to obtain compensation. The case is still pending before the Administrative Appeal Court.   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 proceedings. She also complained of not having had a domestic remedy to challenge the length of the proceedings and pleaded Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the proceedings in issue, which began on the date of the initial claim and are still continuing, had to date lasted for nine years and more than one month for two court levels. In the circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant's case had not been heard within a reasonable time and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court further found that at the date when the applicant lodged her claim, French law provided no effective remedy "in practice" or "in law" allowing her to challenge the excessive length of administrative proceedings. Accordingly the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mme Favre 8   000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1   000 for costs and expenses.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Popescu v. Romania (no. 48102/99)   Violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1   The applicant, Sabin Popescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1920 and lives in Craiova.   A final judgment given on 20 March 1992 by the Craiova court of first instance transferred the ownership of a plot of land situated in the Gherceşti district to the applicant. On 11 June 1992, the court ruled that the applicant was in fact entitled to two plots of land. In August 1994, the authorities offered him an equivalent plot in a different place, but Mr Popescu declined the offer. He brought legal proceedings to oblige the authorities to transfer the ownership of the disputed plots to him and to seek compensation, but without success.   Mr Popescu lodged more than 150 complaints and pleadings with the Romanian authorities to secure the enforcement of the judgment. A criminal complaint against the mayor of Gherceşti resulted in a decision of no case to answer and he made several applications to the prefect of Dolj. In 2003, the prefect informed him that the disputed plot had been transferred to a third party.   The applicant complained that the authorities had failed to enforce a final court judgment and claimed that the non-enforcement had interfered with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.   The Court found that the refusal of the Romanian authorities to comply with the judgment of 11 June 1992 amounted to a restriction on the effective right of access to a court. It noted that the applicant had been allocated a plot of land equivalent to that to which he was entitled, but without the substitution having been made by formal administrative decision. Moreover, the courts which had ruled on the applicant’s appeal had found that the obligation on the authorities had expired, but without referring to the reasons or to the legal basis for the substitution of the plots. The Court also noted the prefect's statements to the effect that the local authorities had been in bad faith and the allocation of the disputed plot to a third party.   According to the Court, neither the authorities nor the courts had put those reasons to the applicant, even though they were relevant. Accordingly the Court considered that the restriction on the applicant's right to have the court judgment executed was not compatible with Article 6 § 1, and held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Convention.   By refusing to enforce the judgment in question, the Romanian authorities had deprived the applicant of his right to the enjoyment of the disputed plots without giving him any reasons.   Instead, the authorities had offered him ownership of a different plot of land, which the applicant had declined. According to the prefect, that ownership was not valid, but even assuming it was it was liable to be nullified. The Court found that the non-effective and revocable allocation of an equivalent plot of land did not compensate for the absence of reasons for the interference with the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, nor did it deprive the applicant of his status as a victim. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr Popescu, by six votes to one, EUR   1 500 for pecuniary damage and unanimously EUR   27 for costs and expenses.     ***   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.