CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 décembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6E4E611B { width:45.39pt; display:inline-block } .sB587DA96 { width:167.49pt; display:inline-block } .s6920B987 { width:234.91pt; display:inline-block } .s2D9F2AF8 { width:120.79pt; display:inline-block } .sAAD17F25 { width:110.8pt; display:inline-block } .s1F32E279 { width:1.45pt; display:inline-block } .s99F7FB72 { width:120.14pt; display:inline-block } .s82CB9C70 { width:122.81pt; display:inline-block } .s46A4255E { width:126.83pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sB981B81D { width:120.82pt; display:inline-block } .s70AA3140 { width:328.89pt; display:inline-block } .sBC78BB81 { width:90.13pt; display:inline-block } .sB7E4F12 { width:95.53pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE6CDA57B { width:66.77pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s570D6F30 { width:40.79pt; display:inline-block } .s16EA93AD { width:114.1pt; display:inline-block } .s5BB1A8BF { width:112.8pt; display:inline-block } .s54C2A3F6 { width:46.13pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     979   20.12.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Austria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 16 Chamber judgments of which only Janssen v. Germany and the friendly settlements are final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1)     Janssen v. Germany (application no. 23959/94)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Gretel Janssen (now deceased) claimed she contracted an asbestos-related illness through cleaning the clothes of her husband, who worked in an asbestos factory. She brought   proceedings before the German social courts for compensation, which lasted seven years and 23 days. Margit Jakobs, born Janssen, and Roswitha and Melanie Janssen, all German nationals and   relatives of Mrs Janssen, complained about the length of the proceedings.   The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to determination of civil rights within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights and awarded the applicants 10,000 Deutsche marks (DEM) for non-pecuniary damage and DEM 4,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (2)     F.   L.   v. Italy (no. 25639/94)   Violation Article 13   No violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 On 12 July 1984, the insurance company Columbo Spa was put into administrative liquidation. F.   L., an Italian national, was a creditor. According to the latest information received by the Court, the liquidation procedure was still ongoing on 29 January 2001. The applicant complained that he had been unable either to obtain payment for the sums due or to bring proceedings to recover his money. He further complained of lack of access to a court and that he had no effective remedy.   The Court considered that the main cause of the delay was the debtor’s lack of resources and the difficulties in recovering the debts, for which the Italian authorities could not be held responsible, rather than the length or nature of the liquidation procedure itself. The Court held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Noting that the applicant had been unable to apply to the authorities to make his claim or complain about the action taken by the liquidator for a period lasting round 16 years and six months, the Court held, unanimously, that he had been denied an effective remedy, in violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court further held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the complaint raised under Article 6 § 1. The applicant was awarded 30,000,000 Italian lire (ITL) for non-pecuniary damage and ITL 1,500,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (3)     Baischer v. Austria (no. 32381/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Erwin Baischer, an Austrian national, was convicted twice and fined for failing to give the relevant authority information on who had used his car on specific days. He appealed unsuccessfully. He complained about the lack of an oral hearing in the criminal proceedings against him.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and awarded the applicant 32,688.50 Austria schillings for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (4)     Ludescher v. Austria (no. 35019/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Helmut Ludescher, an Austrian national, complained about the length of administrative proceedings concerning the reforestation of his land, which lasted nearly four years and 10 months before the administrative court.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 30,000 Austrian schillings (ATS) for non-pecuniary damage and ATS 30,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (5)     Lsi Information Technologies v. Greece (no. 46380/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 The applicant company complained about the length of civil proceedings (which lasted seven years and six days) concerning the level of compensation to be paid by the company for the late delivery of computers and printers.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 1,000,000 Greek drachmas (GRD) for non-pecuniary damage and GRD 2,500,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6)     Normann v. Denmark (no. 44704/98)   Friendly settlement Kirsten Normann, a Danish national, complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of proceedings concerning the division of property.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 45,000 Danish kroner (DKK)   is to be paid for any non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and DKK 40,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)         (7)     Fütterer v. Croatia (no. 52634/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Aleksandar Fütterer, a Croatian national, complained about the length of civil proceedings started by his mother on 5 July 1990 and still pending, concerning her property rights.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant 20,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) for non-pecuniary damage and HRK 2,440 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   SECTION 3   (8)     Eğinlioğlu v. Turkey (no. 31312/96)   Friendly settlement On 12 September 1984 Erkan Eğinlioğlu, a Turkish national, was arrested on suspicion of being a member of the illegal armed organisation Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way) and was subsequently also accused of involvement in activities undertaken in the name of Dev-Yol including, among other things, a bomb attack, opening fire on a house and several robberies. On 27 December 1995 the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued. He complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of the proceedings.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 50,000 French francs is to be paid to the applicant on an ex gratia basis. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (9)     Buchberger v. Austria (no. 32899/96)   Violation Article 8     Violation Article 6 § 1 Waltraud Buchberger, an Austrian national, is the mother of T., born in 1993, and A., born in 1994, who were provisionally taken into care on 31 March 1995. The Youth Welfare Office requested formal custody of the children, which was refused. It appealed successfully and gained custody of the children, on the basis of new evidence which was not communicated to the applicant. It was found that the applicant was incapable of caring for her children in view, among other things, of her failure to protect another of her children against physical abuse by her former partner.   The Court noted that the failure of the Regional Court to inform the applicant of the additional evidence deprived her of an opportunity to react and be involved in the decision-making process. The Court therefore held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for family life). The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), in that the Regional Court relied on evidence of which the applicant had not been informed. The applicant was awarded ATS 80,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (10)     Weixelbraun v. Austria (no. 33730/96)   Violation Article 6 § 2 Franz Johann Weixelbraun, an Austrian national suspected of murder and robbery, was arrested and remanded in custody from 7 February 1989 until his acquittal on 17 June 1992. He claimed compensation for his detention. The courts rejected his claim on the ground that, he had not been acquitted because his innocence had been proven, but on the benefit of the doubt, given certain discrepancies between the witness statements.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and awarded the applicant ATS 60,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (11)     P.S v. Germany (no. 33900/96)   Violation Article 6 § 3 (d) taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1   On 10 January 1994, P.S., a German national, was convicted of sexual abuse of an eight-year-old girl, S., while giving her a private music lesson. The court relied on the statements made by S.’s mother - concerning her daughter’s account of the events in question, her behaviour on 29   April 1993 and her character in general - and of the police officer who had questioned S. shortly after the offence. The court decided not to hear S. in order to protect her personal development. The applicant complained that he was convicted on the basis of statements made by S., without having an opportunity to put questions to her.   The Court noted that at no stage of the proceedings had S. been questioned by a judge, nor did the applicant have an opportunity to observe her behaviour under direct questioning, and thus test her reliability. The Court observed that, where a conviction was based solely or to a decisive degree on depositions made by a person whom the accused had had no opportunity to examine or have examined, the rights of the defence were restricted to an extent that was incompatible with the guarantees provided by Article 6.   While organising criminal proceedings in such a way as to protect the interests of juvenile witnesses, in particular in trial proceedings involving sexual offences, was a relevant consideration, the reasons given for refusing to question S. and dismissing the applicant’s request for an expert opinion were rather vague and speculative and did not, therefore, appear relevant. A psychological expert opinion on S.’s credibility was only prepared in October 1994, one-and-a-half years after the relevant events.   Finally, the information given by the girl was the only direct evidence of the offence in question and the domestic courts based their finding of the applicant’s guilt to a decisive extent on S.’s statements.   Finding that the use of this evidence involved such limitations on the rights of the defence that the applicant could not be said to have received a fair trial, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of paragraph 3 (d), taken in conjunction with paragraph 1, of Article 6. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (12)     Leray and others v. France (no. 44617/98)   Violation Article 6 § 1 On 14 February 1979 a cargo ship, the François Vieljeux, sank off the Spanish cost with a loss of 23 lives. The families of the victims claimed compensation, which was rejected on 18 April 1984. The applicants appealed against this decision. The proceedings ended on 13 March 1998 when the Conseil d'Etat rejected their demand. The thirteen applicants, all French nationals, complained about the length of the administrative proceedings, which lasted 14 years, two months and 14 days.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicants the amounts listed below in French Francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Stéphane Leray, Sandrine Leray, Marie-Anne Leray and Aulde Leray FRF 170,000   Yvette   Ameon, Fabrice Ameon and Stéphane Ameon FRF 140,000 Christèle   Guilcher, Danièle Guilcher and Françoise   Guilcher FRF 140,000   Noëlla   Mad and Nadine   Mad FRF 110,000   Marcelle Margue FRF 80,000   (13)     Conceição Fernandes v. Portugal (no. 48960/99)   Friendly settlement Rui Conceição Fernandes and his wife Edite Nunes Conceição Fernandes are both Portuguese nationals, born in 1944 and 1942 respectively, who live in Queluz (Portugal). They complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the excessive length of civil proceedings (started on 14 July 1994 and still pending) concerning an undertaking to exchange two apartments.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which 1,000,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) is to be paid for any non-pecuniary damage and PTE 200,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   SECTION 4   (14)     Bayrak v. Germany (no. 27937/95)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Murat Bayrak, who has both Turkish and German nationality, was born in 1918 and lives in Bonn. He complained about the length of civil proceedings (which lasted more than eight years) concerning his claim for compensation in relation to a bank’s failure to honour a loan.   The Court held by four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the applicant DEM 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage and DEM 15,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (15)     Zawadzki v. Poland (no. 34158/96)   Violation Article 6 § 1 Józef Zawadzki, a Polish national born in 1948 and living in Katowice, complained about the length of three separate sets of proceedings. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of each of the three sets of proceedings and awarded the applicant a total of 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 10,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (16)     Gorzelik and others v. Poland (no. 44158/98)   No violation Article 11 Jerzy Gorzelik, Rudolf Kołodziejczyk and Erwin Sowa, are all Polish nationals, who, with 190 others, decided to form an association called the “Union of People of Silesian Nationality”. The Polish authorities refused to register the association on the ground that both the intended name and certain provisions of the Union’s memorandum of association, which characterised Silesians as a “national minority”, implied that their real intention was to circumvent the provisions of the electoral law. Also, had the members of the Union been recognised as a “national minority”, they would automatically have gained unqualified and legally enforceable privileges. The applicants complained that the decision not to register their association violated their right to freedom of association.   The Court initially observed that it was not its task to express an opinion on whether or not the Silesians were a “national minority”.   It went on to note that the authorities’ concerns did not seem to have lacked a reasonable basis. Paragraph 30 of the memorandum of association stated that “The Union is an organisation of the Silesian national minority”. The words “organisation”, “national” and “minority” were precisely those found in section   5(1) of the Law on Parliamentary Elections, laying down conditions for exemption from the threshold of votes required to participate in the distribution of seats in Parliament. This coincidence, together with the name proposed for the applicants’ association, gave the impression that in future the members of the association might aspire to stand in elections. The Court considered that the applicants could easily have dispelled the doubts voiced by the authorities, in particular by slightly changing the name of their association and by sacrificing, or amending, a single provision of the memorandum of association. Those alterations would not, in the Court’s view, have had harmful consequences for the Union’s existence as an association and would not have prevented its members from achieving their objectives. Pluralism and democracy were based on a compromise that required various concessions by individuals and groups of individuals, who must sometimes be prepared to limit some of their freedoms so as to ensure the greater stability of the country as a whole. This was particularly true regarding the electoral system, which was of paramount importance for any democratic State.   Considering that the Polish authorities had acted reasonably, in order to protect the country’s electoral system, the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article   11 (freedom of assembly and association). (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   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 Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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.