|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pressemitteilung
 Der Kanzler des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte 30/03/06 Gerichtshof – Kammerurteile Belgien, Bulgarien, Griechenland, Italien, Slowenien und die Türkei betreffend [en] EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 186
Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgments concerning
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 32 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgment is final.1 One repetitive case2 and 26 length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can also be found at the end of the press release.
In mid-1995 criminal proceedings were opened against him in relation to his duties at the popular bank. In August 1995 he was charged with having engaged in banking business without the requisite licence and in January 1996 he was charged with misappropriating funds. In May 1996 the investigator in charge of the applicant’s case ordered his pre-trial detention as, among other things, he had failed to appear for questioning. That decision was confirmed by a prosecutor of Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office ten days later. After a nation-wide search the applicant was arrested on 5 July 1996. His appeal to the prosecution authorities against his pre-trial detention was rejected on the ground that, since he had been charged with a “serious intentional offence”, detention was mandatory. On 2 October 1996, in view of his ailing health, the prosecutor’s office released the applicant from pre-trial detention and placed him under house arrest. He was released from house arrest on 3 July 2003. The applicant complained that he had not been brought before a judge or judicial officer and that there had been insufficient reasons to justify his deprivation of liberty. He also complained that he could not obtain a proper judicial review of his pre-trial detention or challenge the lawfulness of his house arrest before a court. He further complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unreasonably long. He relied on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights found that neither the investigator, nor the prosecutor who ordered the applicant’s detention were sufficiently independent and impartial, in view of the practical role they played in the investigation and the prosecution, and the prosecutor’s potential participation as a party to the criminal trial. The Court found unanimously that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 3 to be brought before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. The Court noted that on 1 January 2000 the legal provisions applicable to house arrest in Bulgaria were amended and that the applicant would have been able to challenge his detention before a court. The Court therefore only took into consideration the applicant’s deprivation of liberty prior to that date. The Court found that the authorities had failed to justify his continued deprivation of liberty for the period of three years and almost six months. It held unanimously that there had been a breach of the applicant’s right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial under Article 5 § 3. The Court observed that the applicant had not brought proceedings to challenge his pre-trial detention. His allegations about the scope of the judicial review of this detention were therefore a matter of speculation. The Court could not conjecture how the proceedings which the applicant never brought would have unfolded. It therefore held unanimously there had been no violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 4 in respect of the period which he spent in pre-trial detention. Concerning the availability of a judicial remedy during the applicant’s subsequent house arrest, the Court noted that until 1 January 2000 there existed no provision under domestic law which established a procedure whereby an individual could apply to a court to review the lawfulness of his or her house arrest. The Court therefore found unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 as regards the period which the applicant spent under house arrest prior to 1 January 2000. The Court noted that the criminal proceedings had started in August 1995 and that they were still pending. The Court found that their length, amounting to at least nine years and nine months failed to satisfy the reasonable time requirement. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1. The Court awarded Mr Pekov EUR 6,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
He was arrested on 22 June 1993 on a fraud charge and detained pending trial. On 21 December 1994, after almost a year and a half as a remand prisoner, he was released under the supervision of the court. On 16 November 2001 he was acquitted by Athens Assize Court but it refused to make any award of compensation for the time he had spent in pre-trial detention. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time), the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings and the Assize Court’s decision not to award him compensation. The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted eight years, four months and 24 days for one level of jurisdiction. It found that that period was excessive in the circumstances of the case and accordingly held unanimously that there had been a breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement of Article 6 § 1. It further noted that it had previously condemned the Greek courts’ practice of dismissing requests for compensation without giving sufficient reasons and held unanimously that there had been a violation of the Article 6 § 1 on account of procedural unfairness. It awarded the applicant EUR 20,000 for pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Markin v. Russia (no. 59502/00) Preliminary objection accepted
On 13 May 1997 Bashkir Customs Board confiscated the applicant’s car after it discovered that the car had been customs cleared by its previous owner on the basis of forged documents. On 19 March 1999 the Customs’ decision was quashed as the applicant had not known that the customs clearance was improper. After a series of appeals the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 3 June 2002. In the meantime the applicant tried unsuccessfully to recover his car which, according to the Russian Government had been sold following its confiscation. The applicant complained that, despite the final judgment in his favour, the Customs Board had not returned the car to him or compensated him in the form of damages. He relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court found that although it was open to the applicant under Russian legislation to sue for damages in respect of the confiscation of his car, he chose not to do so. The Court therefore considered that the applicant had not provided the Russian courts with the opportunity of addressing, and thereby preventing or putting right, the particular Convention violation alleged against it. The Court therefore accepted unanimously the Government’s preliminary objection and held that it could not consider the merits of the case. (The judgment is available only in English.) Violation of Article 10
Between June 1998 and March 1999 it was given three warnings and its licence was twice suspended by the broadcasting regulatory authority, the RTÜK, which accused it of, among other things, broadcasting programmes liable to incite the people to engage in violence, terrorism or ethnic discrimination or to stir up hatred. The programmes touched on various themes such as corruption, the methods used by the security forces to tackle terrorism and possible links between the State and the Mafia. The applicant company applied to the administrative courts for an order setting aside each of the penalties, but its applications were dismissed. In its complaint to the Court it alleged that the penalties that had been imposed by the RTÜK entailed a violation of Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination). It also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) about the absence of effective remedies in Turkish legislation that would have enabled it to contest the RTÜK’s decision. The Court declared the applications admissible with regard to Articles 10 and 14 and inadmissible with regard to Article 13. The issue before the Court was whether the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression had been “necessary in a democratic society”. In assessing the situation, the Court said it would have particular regard to the words that had been used in the programmes and to the context in which they were broadcast, including the background to the case and in particular the problems linked to the prevention of terrorism. The Court noted that the programmes covered very serious issues of general interest that had been widely debated in the media. The dissemination of information on those themes was entirely consistent with the media’s “watchdog” role in a democratic society. The Court noted that the information concerned had already been provided to the public. Some of the programmes had done no more than to relate, without comment, newspaper articles that had already been published and for which no one had been prosecuted. Moreover, the applicant company had been careful to explain that it was citing newspaper articles and to identify the sources. Lastly, the Court observed that although certain particularly acerbic parts of the programmes had made them somewhat hostile in tone, they had not encouraged the use of violence, armed resistance or insurrection and did not constitute hate speech. That was an essential factor to be taken into consideration. The Court noted the severity of the penalties that had been imposed on the applicant company, which were disproportionate to the aims pursued and, therefore, not “necessary in a democratic society”. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. In the light of that conclusion, it considered it unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 14. As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant company EUR 15,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
In 1995 he was charged with being a member of an illegal armed organisation and committed for trial in İzmir State Security Court. At one of the hearings, he read out a speech in which he criticised the Turkish judiciary whom he described among other things as “torturers in robes”. He was given six months’ solitary confinement for contempt of court. He served two months, the state security court having decided to suspend the remainder of the term. In November 1998 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained of procedural unfairness, owing to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court. He further alleged a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) on account of his conviction for contempt of court. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the state security court. As to the other complaints of procedural unfairness, it pointed out that a court whose lack of independence and impartiality had been established could not, in any circumstances, guarantee a fair trial to the persons subject to its jurisdiction, so that it was unnecessary to examine them. As to the remarks made by the applicant in his speech the Court considered them to have been particularly acerbic. Constituting as they did a direct attack on the dignity of the judges, the Court was able to accept that the state security court should have deemed it necessary to impose a penalty. However, the length and severity of the sentence which the applicant had received appeared to be disproportionate to the aims pursued and, therefore, not “necessary in the democratic society”. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10. As regards just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant EUR 3,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Repetitive case In the following case the Court reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention. Gianni and Others v. Italy (no. 35941/03) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
In their application to the Court they alleged that they had been deprived of their land in circumstances which were incompatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). The Court considered that the loss of all ability to dispose of the land coupled with the lack of a remedy amounted to a de facto expropriation that was incompatible with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and was therefore reserved. (The judgment is available only in French.) Length-of-proceedings cases In the following cases the applicants complain of the excessive length of civil or administrative proceedings. Panier v. Belgium (no. 2527/02) Friendly settlement
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
*** 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). Press contacts: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note |
Note |
