CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBD98652E { width:80.12pt; display:inline-block } .sF50659C9 { width:22.06pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .sE98EEF35 { width:150.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7B59859F { width:238.25pt; display:inline-block } .sC358185F { width:90.82pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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   107 4.3.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Austria, Belgium, Croatia and Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]     Löffler v. Austria (application no. 72159/01)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Hans-Peter Löffler, is an Austrian national, born in 1944 and living in Linz.   In 1987, the applicant was convicted of murder. He complained that the length of the criminal proceedings, concerning his appeal and application for compensation for detention, were incompatible with Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The proceedings are still pending and have lasted approximately ten years and 11 months.   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 Convention and awarded the applicant 6,600 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Silvester’s Horeca Service v. Belgium (no. 47650/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicant, Silvester’s Horeca Service, is a Belgian company based in Louvain (Belgium).   In 1987 it was ordered to pay administrative tax fines for contravening the VAT legislation. As the applicant company failed to pay the sums due, the fines were increased and the authorities issued an order to pay, against which the applicant company appealed.   In the course of the proceedings, the Minister of Economic Affairs granted the applicant company a reduction in the amount of the fines. However, Brussels Court of Appeal declared enforceable the payment of the full increased fine mentioned in the order to pay, on the ground that its review was limited to verifying that the offences had actually been committed and that the fiscal penalties were legal. The court stated that it was not empowered either to rule on whether the fines should have been imposed or to authorise reductions. The applicant company appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Cassation.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), the applicant company complained that it had been denied access to a court, since the Belgian courts had verified the legality of the fines without assessing the level of the fines or whether they should have been imposed.   The Court noted that the applicant company had not had the opportunity to submit the decision it complained of to review by a judicial body with full jurisdiction, that is to say a body which was empowered to rule on the dispute as a whole, including both the factual and   legal questions. It acknowledged that there had been a development in Belgian law on this issue, but only after the Court of Cassation had tried the applicant company’s case. The Court therefore considered that the applicant company had not had access to a court and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It awarded the applicant company EUR 5,000 for damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     Violation of Article 6 § 1 Pibernik v. Croatia (no. 75139/01)   Violation of Article 8 The applicant, Zdenka Pibernik, is a Croatian national, born in 1965 and living in Zagreb.   On 25 September 1995 S.Ž. broke into and took possession of her flat in Split (Croatia). On 3 February 2000 an eviction order was issued by Zagreb Municipal Court. However, the applicant did not regain possession of her flat until 21 March 2003.   Ms Pibernik complained about her prolonged inability to recover possession of her flat and about the duration of the eviction proceedings, which lasted seven years, five months and 17 days, of which the Court can take into consideration five years, four months and 15 days (the period of time from 6 November 1997, when the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in Croatia). She relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), in that she was unable to live in her flat for more than seven years.   The European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1, given the length of the proceedings and the failure to enforce the eviction order for a period of around four years.   Concerning Article 8, the Court noted that the flat in question was the applicant’s home, where she had been living, and that S.Ž. broke into her flat and was living there illegally. Although Zagreb Municipal Court had recognised the applicant’s right to live in her home and ordered the eviction of S.Ž., its judgment was not enforced for a very long period of time, for reasons which were entirely attributable to the domestic authorities. The only way the applicant could have repossessed her flat was through judicial proceedings before a civil court, since the occupiers refused to comply with the court’s judgment ordering their eviction.   The delay in executing the eviction order meant that the applicant was prevented from living in her home for a period of more than three years after the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia.   It was evident that Croatia had not show that it had organised its legal system in such a way that it would prevent obstruction of the execution of the final judgments of its courts. Such a failure created or at least enabled a situation where the applicant was prevented from using her home for a very long period of time. Finding that Croatia had not complied with its positive obligations to protect the applicant’s right to respect for her home, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8. The applicant was awarded EUR   11,250 for pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)     Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Fossi and Mignolli v. Italy (no. 48171/99)   Violation of Article 6 § 1 In the following Italian case, the applicants complained that they had been unable to recover possession of their apartments over an extended period, owing to a lack of police assistance. They also complained of the length of the eviction proceedings. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court held unanimously in this case that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1. It awarded Enrico Fossi EUR   15,000 for pecuniary damage and both Andrea Fossi and Luciano Mignolli EUR   5,000 each. They all received EUR   3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,700 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. [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.