CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 7 avril 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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   175 7.4.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING KOPECKY v. SLOVAKIA   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today, Wednesday 7 April 2004 at 9 a.m., on the merits in the case of Kopecký v. Slovakia (application no. 44912/98).   The applicant   The case concerns an application (no. 44912/98) brought by a Slovak national, Juraj Kopecky, who was born in 1921 and lives in Brezová pod Bradlom, Slovakia.   Summary of the facts   On 12 February 1959 his father was fined and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment for keeping 131   gold coins and 2,151 silver coins of numismatic value. The coins were also confiscated.   On 1 April 1992 the judgment was quashed and, on 30 September 1992, the applicant claimed the restitution of his father’s coins under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1991 (the Act).   On 19 September 1995 Senica District Court ordered the Ministry of the Interior to restore the coins to the applicant. The Ministry of the Interior appealed, however, arguing that all relevant documents had been destroyed and that the onus of proof concerning the location of the coins was on the applicant. On 29 January 1997 Bratislava Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that the applicant had failed to show where the coins had been deposited when the Act had become operative on 1 April 1991. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was also dismissed.   Complaint   The applicant alleged, in particular, that the dismissal of his claim for restitution of the coins violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   Procedure   The application was lodged on 25 August 1998 with the European Commission of Human Rights and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998. By a decision of 1 February 2001 the Court declared the application partly admissible.   In its Chamber Judgment of 7 January 2003, the Court attached particular importance to the fact that the evidence submitted by the applicant comprised a detailed inventory of the coins and an official record indicating when they had been deposited with the Ministry of the Interior, which had failed to provide any plausible explanation as to why the coins were no longer in its possession. The Court observed that the applicant was unable, for reasons which were imputable to public authorities, to trace the coins after they had been deposited with the Ministry of the Interior. As a result, he was deprived of any possibility of complying with the obligation to show where the coins had been at the time when the Act became operative. Finding that this requirement imposed an excessive burden on the applicant, the Court held, by four votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant EUR 13,323 for pecuniary damage and EUR 310 for costs and expenses, in addition to the FRF 4,100 already received for legal aid.   On 4 April 2003, the Slovakian Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber [1] . The request was accepted on 21 May 2003.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian) Peer Lorenzen (Danish) , Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian) , Nina Vajić (Croatian) , Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian) , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian) , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian) , Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian) , Lech Garlicki (Polish) , Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), judges , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot) , Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese) , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands) , substitute judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar . Representatives of the parties   Government :   Peter Kresák , Agent ,   Marica Pecníková , Co-Agent,   Kristína Supeková , Adviser ;   Applicant :   Lívia Krnčoková ,   Matej Valašík, Counsel .     ***     After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A judgment will be delivered at a later date.   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.