Ministers’ Deputies / Délégués des Ministres

Agenda / Ordre du jour

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2010)1086 Section/Rubrique 2 1 PUBLIC                                    17 June/juin 2010

——————————————

1086 meeting / réunion (DH), 1-3 June/juin 2010

Section/Rubrique 2.1 public

——————————————

Public information version /

Version destinée à l'information publique

NEW CASES This section lists the new judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights, (for further details, see the texts of the judgments on http://www.echr.coe.int). Action: For each case or group of cases, the Deputies adopted the decision presented in a ruled box. In cases in which the measures have already been taken in response to earlier judgments raising similar issues or in cases in which the European Court has ordered specific measures, this will be indicated. However, in all cases circulation of the text of the judgment to the competent authorities is required and delegations are invited to provide written confirmation of this. Payment of just satisfaction In all new cases in which states are obliged to pay a sum, whether granted by the Court or agreed to in friendly settlement, the authorities of the state concerned are invited to provide written confirmation of payment to the Secretariat. In all these cases, just satisfaction or sums agreed under a friendly settlement has been awarded to the applicants except in the following cases: Gjyli against Albania (32907/07) (partially reserved) Bushati and others against Albania (6397/04) (reserved) Humbatov against Azerbaijan (13652/06) Mirzayev against Azerbaijan (50187/06) Sartory against France (*40589/07) G.N. and others against Italy (43134/05) (partially reserved) Shannon against Latvia (32214/03) Schembri and others against Malta (*42583/06) (reserved) Almeida Santos against Portugal (50812/06) (partially reserved) Öztürk Selin Aslı against Turkey (39523/03) (reserved) Matsyuk against Ukraine (1751/03) Chaykovskiy against Ukraine (*2295/06) Kolesnik against Ukraine (17551/02)

NOUVELLES AFFAIRES Cette rubrique contient la liste des nouveaux arrêts rendus par la Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme, (pour plus de détails, voir le texte des arrêts de la Cour, http://www.echr.coe.int). Action : Pour chaque affaire ou groupe d'affaires, les Délégués ont adopté la décision reproduite en encadré. Il sera fait mention des mesures déjà prises en réponse à des arrêts précédents soulevant des questions similaires ainsi que des mesures spécifiques ordonnées par la Cour européenne. En tout état de cause, l’envoi des arrêts de la Cour à toutes les autorités concernées est demandé dans toutes les affaires et les délégations sont invitées à en fournir la confirmation écrite. Paiement de la satisfaction équitable Dans toutes les nouvelles affaires où les Etats sont tenus au paiement d’une satisfaction équitable décidée par la Cour ou convenue aux termes de règlements amiables, les autorités de l’Etat défendeur sont invitées à fournir au Secrétariat par écrit les confirmations de paiement. Dans toutes ces affaires, une satisfaction équitable ou une compensation en vertu d'un règlement amiable a été octroyée aux requérants à l'exception des affaires suivantes : Gjyli contre Albanie (32907/07) (partiellement réservée) Bushati et autres contre Albanie (6397/04) (réservée) Humbatov contre Azerbaïdjan (13652/06) Mirzayev contre Azerbaïdjan (50187/06) Sartory contre France (*40589/07) G.N. et autres contre Italie (43134/05) (partiellement réservée) Shannon contre la Lettonie (32214/03) Schembri et autres contre Malte (*42583/06) (réservée) Almeida Santos contre Portugal (50812/06) (partiellement réservée) Öztürk Selin Aslı contre Turquie (39523/03) (réservée) Matsyuk contre Ukraine (1751/03) Chaykovskiy contre Ukraine (*2295/06) Kolesnik contre Ukraine (17551/02)

- 2 cases against Albania / 2 affaires contre l’Albanie

32907/07           Gjyli, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right of access to a court due to the failure by the Ministry of Labour (as from 22/12/2005 to date) to enforce a final domestic judgment ordering his reinstatement in his post of Director of a vocational training centre (violation of Article 6§1).

It also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the relevant case-law of the Constitutional Court offered no effective redress in that when the Constitutional Court found failure to enforce judgments in violation of appellants’ right of access to a court, it nonetheless did not compensate damage sustained, thus preventing the continuation of the alleged violation. The Court also noted that the bailiff’s action was not effective in this case.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage but reserved the application of Article 41 in respect of pecuniary damage.

The Court considered that the question of compensation for the failure to reinstate the applicant may be linked to the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning salary arrears (§67). 

General measures: Failure to enforce final judicial decisions is a systemic problem in Albania, as underlined in other cases (Driza (33771/02, Section 4.2), Ramadhi and 5 others (38222/02, Section 4.2), etc). The issue is also being dealt with in the framework of the project “Removing the obstacles to the non-enforcement of domestic court judgments / Ensuring an effective implementation of domestic court judgments” funded by the Human Rights Trust Fund. The majority of cases relate to the non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and administrative decisions concerning restitution of property and/or compensation of former owners. With regard to the specific situation of non-execution of a final decision ordering the reinstatement of the applicant, an action plan/action report is awaited.

6397/04            Bushati and others, judgment of 08/12/2009, final on 08/03/2010

This case concerns the failure to enforce (28/06/2001 - 14/02/2003) a Supreme Court decision of 2/04/2001 confirming partial recognition of the applicants' property claim and ordering the occupiers to cease occupation of the land without title (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court recalled that in such cases, in which the debtor is a private person, the state must act diligently to assist a creditor in execution of a judgment. The European Court considered that the bailiff's actions had been ineffectual and that they should have resorted to coercive measures to enforce the judgment (see §§80-86).

Moreover, the Court considered that owing to the bailiffs' failure to take adequate and sufficient measures to secure enforcement of the Supreme Court's decision, the applicants were left in a situation of uncertainty and have been unable to enjoy their possessions fully (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court reserved the application of Article 41 in respect of pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage.

General measures: Failure to enforce final judicial decisions is a systemic problem in Albania, as underlined in other cases (Driza, 33771/02, Section 4.2), Ramadhi and 5 others (38222/02, Section 4.2, etc). The issue is also being dealt with in the framework of the project “Removing the obstacles to the enforcement of domestic court judgments / Ensuring an effective implementation of domestic court judgments” funded by the Human Rights Trust Fund. The majority of cases relate to the non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and administrative decisions concerning restitution of property and/or compensation of former owners. With regard to cases such as the present, where the debtor is a private person and the state has to act diligently in order to assist a creditor in execution of a judgment, an action plan / action report is awaited.

- 2 cases against Armenia / 2 affaires contre l’Arménie

45081/04           Stepanyan, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 27/01/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to fair trial due to the lack of an oral hearing before the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant was the representative of a regional opposition party involved in monitoring the 2003 presidential elections. He participated in a major demonstration held on 10/04/2004. On 20 May 2004 the applicant was sentenced to eight days’ administrative detention under former Article 182 of the CAO (Code of Administrative Offences) for “… violating public order and disobeying the lawful orders of police officers”. The applicant appealed to the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal. The latter did not hold an oral hearing and examined the appeal solely on the basis of documents and the evidence given by the two arresting police officers. On 8/06/2004 the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the applicant “did commit the acts in question”.

The European Court noted that although it was not clear from the relevant provisions of the CAO whether the jurisdiction of the President of the Military and Criminal Court of Appeal was limited only to question of law or also fact, it appears from the decision of the President that he had examined not only questions of law but also fact. The European Court found that in the particular circumstances of the case, it was necessary to assess directly the evidence given in person by the applicant and two police officers in question in order to meet the requirements of a fair trial.  

The applicant is obviously no longer detained. 

31761/04           Khachatryan, judgment of 01/12/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the authorities’ failure to ensure enforcement of a final domestic judgment (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as they did not receive monies due to them under the said final judgment (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

The applicants worked for a company, Hrazdanmash, the majority shareholder of which was the state.  No salary was paid to the staff for 1998-2000, as the company was experiencing financial problems. On 17/05/2001 the trade union instituted court proceedings against Hrazdanmash in the interests of the staff, seeking arrears for unpaid salary and other benefits. On 2/07/2001 the Kotayk Regional Court granted the claim and ordered Hrazdanmash to pay a certain sum to the applicants. No appeal was lodged against this judgment which became final. Subsequently, the applicants were paid partially, but the judgment was never fully executed.

In its analysis of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the European Court noted in particular that most of the funds available were transferred to the state budget by a government decree which the applicants could not contest before national courts and that in such circumstances the non-enforcement of the judgment was due to reasons which the bailiffs could not influence.

The Court, taking into account the fact that the Hrazdanmash was not sufficiently independent, either institutionally or operationally, concluded that the state was responsible for the salary debts incurred.

The European Court noted that by failing for years to take necessary steps to comply with the final judgment the authorities had infringed the essence of the applicants’ right to a court and prevented the applicants from receiving in full the money to which they were entitled, which amounted to a disproportionate interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

The Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages, the sum allowed for pecuniary damages corresponding to the outstanding debts due to them.

- 2 cases against Austria / 2 affaires contre l’Autriche

27900/04           Palushi, judgment of 22/12/2009, final on 22/03/2010

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted upon the applicant, who at the material time was being held in custody in Vienna Police Prison with a view to expulsion for illegal stay and the ensuing lack of medical care in solitary confinement (two violations of Article 3).

As regards the applicant’s allegations that he had been stabbed behind his ears with ballpoint pens and the manner in which he was carried to the individual cell, such that his back dragged along the edges of the steps, the European Court found that his injuries had been established beyond reasonable doubt by the medical reports and witnesses. The Court considered that the treatment of the applicant, who had been on hunger strike for three weeks and was in a physically and mentally weakened state, must have caused him physical and mental pain and suffering and had been such as to arouse in him feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of debasing him and possibly breaking his physical and moral resistance.

The European Court observed that the applicant was placed in solitary confinement despite the risks implied by his hunger-strike, such as loss of consciousness, on the assessment of a paramedic, who according to the 1994 CPT report had received only basic training, and had been refused access to a doctor for three days. Taken together, those factors must have caused him suffering and humiliation beyond that which is inevitable in a situation of detention.

49616/06           Koottummel, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that, in April 2006 the applicant was denied an oral hearing before the Administrative Court in proceedings concerning applications under the Aliens’ Employment Act for a grant of an employment permit (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court could not find that in the present case the subject matter of the proceedings before the Administrative Court, namely a highly technical issue or of mere legal nature, was of such a nature as to dispense with its obligation to hold a hearing.

- 4 cases against Azerbaijan / 4 affaires contre l’Azerbaïdjan

4762/05            Mammadov Mikayil, judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 17/03/2010

The case concerns a breach of the right to life due to the authorities’ failure to carry out an effective investigation to establish the extent of the state’s responsibility for the death of the applicant’s wife (procedural violation of Article 2).

The applicant and his family are internally displaced persons. In 1993 they left their permanent place of residence to live in various places and at the end of 2003 the applicant and his family moved into an old, unoccupied administrative building. On 26/03/2004 a group of public agents and police officers arrived in the applicant's new dwelling to evict them. At an unspecified time after the officials’ arrival, the applicant's wife poured kerosene over herself and lit it. She suffered multiple second- and third-degree burns from which she died in hospital on 30/03/2004.

The applicant complained that the domestic authorities were responsible for the death of his wife and had failed to investigate the circumstances of her death effectively.

The Court considered that, owing to the lack of relevant factual details, doubts remain that the responsibility for the applicant’s wife death might have lain at least in part with the authorities. However, having assessed the available material, the Court found those doubts insufficient to establish conclusively that the authorities acted in a manner incompatible with their positive obligation to guarantee the right to life. As regards the investigation into the death of the applicant’s wife the Court found it inadequate as it had not covered all the issues relevant to the assessment of the state’s responsibility for the incident.

In particular, the investigation had been limited to the question as to whether the state agents had incited the applicant’s wife to commit suicide, while it had never examined whether they had done everything necessary to prevent her death or to minimise her injuries.

Moreover, the investigation had been characterised by many other shortcomings:

-           as the manner in which the operation was conducted at the scene of the incident was a prima facie problematic issue in this case, the investigative authorities should have sought from their relevant police superiors a more detailed explanation as to the planning of the operation, as to how the chain of command had been organised on the scene, and as to what specific orders, if any, had been given to individual police officers after the police had arrived at the applicant's dwelling, but none of these steps were taken; 

-           the authorities had not tried to obtain the victim’s testimony before she died and failed to provide explanation of this;

-           the authorities had not attempted to reconstruct the sequence and duration of the events or to address the discrepancies in the witness statements;

-           the domestic investigation had lasted more than four years, having been adjourned and resumed a number of times without any evident progress in its effectiveness and without any substantive improvement in the adequacy of the measures taken ;

-           lastly, by only granting the applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings in June 2006, the authorities had denied him the possibility of effectively intervening in the investigation up to that point.

37700/05           Seyidzade, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to free elections due the successive rejection by the Constituency Electoral Commission, the Central Electoral Commission, the Court of Appeal, the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court of his application to be registered as a candidate to parliamentary elections of November 2005, in application of a law which provided restrictions so wide and imprecise that the very essence of the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No.1 was breached (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.1).

On an unspecified date, the applicant applied to the Electoral Commission to be registered as a candidate for the November 2005 parliamentary elections.

Mr. Seyidzade held the following positions: head of the education department of the Caucasus Muslims Board (Qafqaz Müsəlmanlar İdarəsi, the official governing body of Muslim religious organisations in Azerbaijan), member of the Qazi (Islamic Judges’) Council (Qazılar Şurası) of the Caucasus Muslims Board, and director of the Sumgayit branch of Baku Islamic University. He was also a founder and editor-in-chief ofKelam, a journal with Islamic religious content.

He submitted with his application an undertaking to terminate any professional activity incompatible with the office of member of parliament and by August 2005 he had resigned from all his positions involving professional religious activity. Nevertheless his candidacy was refused.

Article 85 (II) of the Constitution provides that a certain number of persons among which “clergymen” cannot be elected as members of the Parliament. Article 14 of the Electoral Code, as it stood at the material time, provided that “clergymen while engaged in professional religious activity” shall not have the right to serve as members of parliament. Finally, Article 53 of the Electoral Code, as it stood at the material time, provided that “a written undertaking by the candidate to terminate any activities incompatible with a post in an elected state or municipal body shall be submitted together with” the candidacy.

The European Court stated that the relevant legal provisions were not sufficiently precise to enable the applicant to regulate his conduct and foresee which specific types of activities would entail a restriction of his passive electoral rights.

The lack of any definition of the terms “clergyman” and “professional religious activity” allowed an excessively wide discretion to the electoral authorities and left much room for arbitrariness in applying the restriction based on Article 85 (II) of the Constitution and Article 14.2.4 of the Electoral Code and that this was precisely what happened in the present case as, despite the applicant's resignation from all the positions that could be construed as “professional religious activity”, the domestic authorities arbitrarily refused his request for registration without even specifying any factual grounds for their finding that he was still a “clergyman” engaged in “professional religious activity”.

13652/06           Humbatov, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

The case concerns the failure to enforce a final judgment of 31/05/2001 ordering the restoration of the applicant’s right of use of a plot on which buildings had been constructed by a third party, as well as the demolition of these buildings (violations of Article 6 §1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No 1.) 

The European Court held that, within three months from the date on which the judgment became final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention (i.e. by 3/06/2010), the respondent state should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the domestic court's judgment of 31/05/ 2001. In 1996 the applicant obtained the right of use of a state-owned plot of land. In 1998, the plot was occupied by a private company which started constructing buildings. By decision of 31/05/2001 the Economic Court, acting as an appeal court, ordered the restoration of the applicant’s right of use of the plot and the demolition of the buildings. No cassation appeal was lodged against this judgment, the decision is final. 

It transpires from the European Court’s judgment that the plot at issue, which was state property at the time the applicant was given the right to use it, has been owned by a private person since 1999. The Court stated that in finding a violation of Article 6§1 in the present case, it has established the government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation, i.e. to ensure compliance with the applicant's enforceable claim under the judgment of 31/05/2001. Whether such measures would involve restoring the applicant's right of use of the plot in question or providing him with an equivalent plot or, if this proves impossible, granting him reasonable compensation for non-enforcement, or a combination of these and other measures, is a decision that falls to the respondent state. The Court, however, emphasised that any measures adopted must be compatible with the conclusions set out in its judgment.

50187/06           Mirzayev, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010, rectified on 13/01/2010

The case concerns the failure to enforce a final judgment of 23/12/2003 ordering the eviction of unlawful occupants from a flat of which the applicant was the lawful tenant (violation of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No 1).

The European Court held that within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44§2 of the Convention (i.e. by 3/06/2010),the respondent state should secure by appropriate means the enforcement of the domestic court's judgment of 23/12/2003.

By an order of the Azizbeyov District Executive Authority of 18/01/1994, the applicant was issued an occupancy voucher (tenancy right) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku. On the same day, the applicant became aware that the flat was occupied by S. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDPs”). On an unspecified date in 2003, the applicant lodged an action with the Surakhany District Court asking the court to order the eviction of S. and his family from the flat. On 23/12/2003 the Surakhany District Court ordered that the eviction of the unlawful occupants from the flat and their provision of other accommodation in accordance with domestic law. The judgment became final, as no appeal was filed against it, but was never executed.

The European Court reiterated that the state’s responsibility for enforcement of a judgment against a private party extends no further than the involvement of state bodies in the enforcement procedures. When the authorities are obliged to act to enforce a judgment and fail to do so, their inactivity may engage the state's responsibility under Article 6§1 of the Convention.

The Court further observed that unlike ordinary cases concerning non-enforcement of a judgment between private parties, where the state has to merely assist a creditor with the execution of a judgment, in this case the execution of the judgment was conditioned by the state's obligation to provide S. and his family with other accommodation. However, it has not been shown that the authorities had continuously and diligently attempted to find other accommodation for S. and his family so as to enforce the judgment in question.

- 1 case against Bosnia and Herzegovina / 1 affaire contre la Bosnie-Herzégovine

27912/02           Suljagić, judgment of 03/11/2009, final on 03/02/2010 The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to protection of his property as a result of the deficient implementation of the domestic legislation on “old” foreign currency savings (foreign currency savings deposited prior to the dissolution of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia) (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The applicant deposited the foreign currency savings in a local bank prior to the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. He was unable to withdraw his deposit from the bank when the war broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, the respondent state and its constituent entities assumed liability for the “old” foreign currency savings. A special law envisaged that the debt in respect of “old” foreign currency savings, including the accrued interest, would be reimbursed through issuing of government bonds to the depositors and introduced a repayment scheme. These depositors had to obtain verification certificates beforehand in order to verify the amounts to be paid to them. They were entitled to a limited initial cash payment, while the remaining amount was to be reimbursed in government bonds. Those bonds are to be amortised in the Republika Srpska by 2013 and in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the “Federation”) and the Brčko District by 2015. Those who are unable or unwilling to wait until the end of the amortisation period may opt for early cash payment by selling their bonds on the Stock Exchange. This legislation was implemented without any problem in the Republika Srpska. However, in the Brčko District, government bonds, although due on 31/03/2008, were issued only on 30/06/2009. Likewise, in the Federation, it appears that bonds, also due on 31/03/2008, have not yet been issued. As a result, the applicant is still unable to sell them on the Stock Exchange and obtain early cash payments. Moreover, the instalments due under the current legislation on 27/09/2008 were paid almost three months later in the Brčko District and almost eight months later in the Federation. Similarly, the instalment due on 27/03/2009 was paid almost three months later in the Brčko District and has not yet been paid in the Federation (§55 of the judgment). The Brčko District and the Republika Srpska also undertook to pay default interest in the event of late payment of any forthcoming instalment, while the Federation failed to do so. “Pilot-judgment” procedure:  1) General measures to solve the problems at the basis of the repetitive violations of the Convention: The European Court noted that the violation in the present case affected many people. According to the International Monetary Fund, more than a quarter of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina had “old” foreign-currency savings. Moreover, there are already more than 1 350 similar applications, submitted on behalf of more than 13 500 applicants, pending before the Court. This represents a serious threat to the future effectiveness of the Convention machinery. The Court therefore considered it appropriate to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in the present case (§63 of the judgment). In view of the systemic situation which it had identified, the Court observed that general measures at national level were undoubtedly called for in execution of the present judgment. In particular, the Court considered that government bonds had to be issued and any outstanding instalments had to be paid in the Federation within six months from the date on which the present judgment became final. Within the same time-limit, the Federation must also undertake to pay default interest at the statutory rate in the event of late payment of any forthcoming instalment. As regards the past delays, the Court did not find it necessary to order that adequate redress should be awarded to all persons affected. If, however, the respondent state fails to adopt the general measures indicated above and continues to violate the Convention, the Court may reconsider the issue of redress in an appropriate future case (§64 of the judgment). 2) Regarding the similar applications pending before the Court:  The Court decided to adjourn adversarial proceedings for six months from the date on which the present judgment became final in any cases pertaining to “old” foreign-currency savings in the Federation and the Brčko District in which the applicants have obtained verification certificates. The Court also decided that it might declare inadmissible any cases pertaining to “old” foreign-currency savings in which the applicants have not obtained verification certificates, because it had found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only with respect to delays in the implementation of the current legislation, and those who have not obtained a verification certificate cannot be considered to be affected by those delays. However, the Court ordered that the respondent state must ensure that the relevant deadlines were extended for at least six months from the date on which the present judgment became final to enable everyone to obtain a verification certificate. Lastly, the Court decided that it might declare inadmissible any cases pertaining to “old” foreign-currency savings in the Republika Srpska, even if the applicants have obtained verification certificates, because no delays in the implementation of the current legislation occurred in that Entity (§65 of the judgment). Individual measures:  The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. General measures: ▪ Information provided by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (14/04/2010): The Federation issued government bonds intended for the repayment of the “old” foreign currency savings, which have been covered by the verification certificates. The Federation government took decisions ordering the first issue of those bonds on 21/10/2009 and the second issue on 24/03/2010. Those decisions have been published in the Federation Official Gazette, Nos. 67/2009 and 17/2010. The Federation government also took a decision ordering the payment of the outstanding instalments due on 27/03/2009 and 27/09/2009. The decision was published in the Federation Official Gazette No. 17/2010. These instalments involved the payment of interest on the bonds (see also §25 of the judgment). The implementation of this decision is under way and it is expected that the actual payment of those instalments will take place until the beginning of July 2010. The relevant deadlines have been extended to enable those who have not yet obtained a verification certificate in respect of their “old” foreign savings to obtain it. The deadline has been extended in Republika Srpska by 31/12/2010, in the Federation by 03/08/2010 and in the Brčko District by 15/10/2010. The respective decisions have been published in the official gazettes of both entities and the the Brčko District. The Federation Ministry of Finance submitted to the Federation government a draft decision envisaging that the Federation should pay default interest at the statutory rate in the event of late payment of any forthcoming instalment. It is expected that the Federation government will adopt this decision before June 2010. The European Court’s judgment has been translated into all official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina and published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. 17/10 of 08/03/2010 and on the Internet page of the Government Agent (http://www.mhrr.gov.ba/ured_zastupnika/Default.aspx). The judgment was also forwarded to a number of relevant judicial and governmental authorities. The Deputies, 1.             noted that authorities of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina have issued the government bonds intended for the repayment of “old savings” and undertook to pay default interest at the statutory rate in the event of late payment of any forthcoming instalment related to “old savings”; 2.             noted further that the relevant deadlines have been extended throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina to enable those who have not yet obtained a verification certificate in respect of their “old savings” to obtain such a certificate; 3.             noted with interest that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina have already taken steps to ensure that until 03/08/2010 at the latest any outstanding instalment in respect of “old savings” is paid in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; 4.             invited the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the developments regarding the payment of outstanding instalments in respect of “old savings” in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; 5.             decided to resume consideration of this case at their 1092nd meeting (September 2010) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on individual and general measures.

27912/02           Suljagić, arrêt du 03/11/2009, définitif le 03/02/2010 L’affaire concerne une violation du droit au respect des biens du requérant en raison d’une mauvaise application de la législation interne sur les « anciens dépôts » d’avoirs en devises (économies en devises déposées en banque avant la dissolution de la République fédérative socialiste de Yougoslavie) (violation de l’article 1er du Protocole n° 1). Le requérant avait déposé des avoirs en devises dans une banque locale avant la dissolution de l’ex-Yougoslavie. Il n’a pu les retirer quand la guerre a éclaté en Bosnie-Herzégovine. Cependant, l’Etat défendeur et ses entités constitutives ont assumé leurs obligations au regard des « anciens dépôts » d’avoirs en devises. Une législation spéciale a envisagé que les sommes dues au titre de ces dépôts, y compris les intérêts accumulés, soient remboursées par l’émission d’obligations d’Etat à l’intention des déposants et elle a créé un mécanisme de remboursement. Les déposants devaient d’abord obtenir des attestations de vérification pour que les montants à rembourser soient contrôlés. Ils avaient droit au versement d’un montant initial limité en liquide, tandis que le reste devait être remboursé en obligations d’Etat. Celles-ci doivent être amorties d’ici 2013 en Republika srpska et d’ici 2015 en Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine (« Fédération ») et dans le district de Brčko. Ceux qui ne peuvent pas ou ne souhaitent pas attendre jusqu’à la fin de la période d’amortissement, peuvent opter pour un paiement anticipé en liquide en vendant les obligations en bourse. La législation a été appliquée sans problème en Republika srpska. Cependant, dans le district de Brčko, les obligations d’Etat qui étaient exigibles le 31/03/2008 ont été émises uniquement le 30/06/2009. De même, dans la Fédération, il semble que les obligations qui arrivaient aussi à échéance au 31/03/2008, n’aient pas encore été émises. En conséquence, le requérant ne peut toujours pas les vendre en bourse et obtenir un paiement anticipé en liquide. De plus, les termes dus en vertu de la législation actuelle le 27/09/2008 n’ont été payés que trois mois plus tard dans le district de Brčko et près de huit mois plus tard dans la Fédération. De même, le terme dû le 27/03/2009 n’a été payé que trois mois plus tard dans le district de Brčko et il n’a toujours pas été versé dans la Fédération (§55 de l’arrêt). Le district de Brčko et la Republika srpska se sont aussi engagés à verser des intérêts moratoires en cas de paiement tardif d’un terme à venir tandis que la Fédération ne l’a pas fait. Procédure d’arrêt pilote :           1) Mesures générales pour régler les problèmes qui sont à l’origine de violations répétées de la Convention : La Cour européenne a noté que la violation en l’espèce avait affecté beaucoup de monde. Selon le Fonds monétaire international, plus d’un quart de la population de Bosnie-Herzégovine détenait des « anciens dépôts » d’économies en devises ». En outre, plus de 1 350 requêtes similaires, soumises au nom de plus de 13 500 requérants, sont déjà pendantes devant la Cour. Cela représente une grave menace pour l’efficacité future du mécanisme de la Convention. La Cour a donc considéré qu’il était approprié d’appliquer la procédure de l’arrêt pilote en l’espèce (§63 de l’arrêt). Etant donné la situation systémique qu’elle a identifiée, elle a relevé qu’il fallait sans aucun doute adopter des mesures de caractère général au niveau interne en exécution du présent arrêt. En particulier, elle a estimé que les obligations d’Etat devaient être émises et que les termes restant dus devaient être payés dans les six mois à compter de la date à laquelle le présent arrêt est devenu définitif. Dans le même délai, la Fédération doit aussi s’engager à verser des intérêts moratoires au taux légal en cas de retard de paiement d’un terme futur. En ce qui concerne les retards passés, la Cour n’a pas jugé nécessaire de préciser quelle réparation appropriée devrait être accordée aux intéressés. Si, toutefois, l’Etat défendeur n’adopte pas les mesures de caractère général précitées et s’il continue de violer la Convention, la Cour pourrait réexaminer la question de la réparation dans une affaire future appropriée (§64 de l’arrêt).           2) Requêtes similaires pendantes devant la Cour : La Cour a décidé d’ajourner pour six mois les procédures contradictoires, à compter de la date à laquelle le présent arrêt est devenu définitif, dans toutes les affaires portant sur d’« anciens dépôts » d’économies en devises dans la Fédération et le district de Brčko où les requérants ont obtenu des certificats de vérification. La Cour a aussi décidé de déclarer irrecevables les affaires pour lesquelles les requérants n’auraient pas obtenu de certificat de vérification, car elle constaté une violation de l’article 1er du Protocole n° 1 uniquement en raison de l’application tardive de la législation actuelle. Ceux qui n’ont pas obtenu les certificats de vérification ne peuvent être considérés comme touchés par ces retards. Cependant, la Cour a ordonné à l’Etat défendeur de veiller à ce que les dates-limites pertinentes soient repoussées d’au moins six mois, à compter de la date à laquelle le présent arrêt est devenu définitif, pour permettre à toute personne intéressée d’obtenir un certificat de vérification. Enfin, la Cour a décidé qu’elle pourrait déclarer irrecevables les affaires concernant d’« anciens » dépôts d’économies en devises en Republika srpska, même si les requérants ont obtenu les certificats de vérification, car dans cette Entité, il n’y a eu aucun retard dans l’application de la législation en vigueur (§ 65 de l’arrêt). Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral subi par le requérant. Mesures de caractère général : • Informations fournies par les autorités des Bosnie-Herzégovine (14/04/2010) : La Fédération a émis des obligations d’Etat pour rembourser les « anciens dépôts » d’économies en devises couverts par les certificats de vérification. Les autorités de la Fédération ont pris les décisions nécessaires pour ordonner une première émission de ces obligations le 21/10/2009 et une seconde émission, le 24/03/2010. Ces décisions ont été publiées dans les éditions du Journal officiel n° 67/2009 et 17/2010. Les autorités de la Fédération ont aussi décidé d’ordonner le versement des termes arrivant à échéance les 27/03/2009 et 27/09/2009. La décision a été publiée au Journal officiel de la Fédération n° 17/2010. Ces termes comprennent le paiement d’intérêts sur les obligations (voir aussi §25 de l’arrêt). La mise en œuvre de la décision est en cours. Il est prévu que ces termes soient effectivement payés d’ici le début de juillet 2010. Les dates-limites pertinentes ont été repoussées pour permettre à ceux qui ne l’avaient pas encore fait, d’obtenir un certificat de vérification au titre de leurs « anciens dépôts » en devises. En Republika srpska, elle a été repoussée au 31/10/2010, dans la Fédération, au 03/08/2010 et dans le district de Brčko au 15/10/2010. Les décisions respectives ont été publiées au Journal officiel de chacune des deux entités et du district de Brčko. Le Ministère des Finances de la Fédération a soumis au Gouvernement de la Fédération un projet de décision envisageant que la Fédération paie les intérêts moratoires au taux légal en cas de retard de paiement futur de tout terme dû. Le Gouvernement de la Fédération devrait adopter cette décision d’ici le mois de juin 2010. L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été traduit dans toutes les langues officielles de Bosnie-Herzégovine et publié au Journal officiel de Bosnie-Herzégovine (n° 17/10 du 08/03/2010) et sur la page internet de l’Agent du Gouvernement (http://www.mhrr.gov.ba/ured_zastupnika/Default.aspx). L’arrêt a également été transmis à un certain nombre d’instances judiciaires et d’autorités gouvernementales. Les Délégués, 1.             notent que les autorités de la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine ont émis des obligations d’Etat afin de rembourser les « anciens dépôts » et qu’elles se sont engagées à verser des intérêts moratoires au taux légal en cas de versement tardif de tout terme à venir dû au titre de ces « anciens dépôts » ; 2.             notent de plus que les délais nécessaires ont été prolongés dans toute la Bosnie-Herzégovine pour permettre à ceux qui n’avaient pas encore obtenu d’attestation de vérification pour leurs « anciens dépôts » de le faire ; 3.             notent avec intérêt que les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine ont déjà pris des mesures pour veiller à ce que tout terme dû au titre des « anciens dépôts » soit versé au plus tard le 03/08/2010 en Fédération de Bosnie Herzégovine ; 4.             invitent les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine à tenir le Comité des Ministres informé des développements concernant le versement des termes impayés au titre des « anciens dépôts » en Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine ; 5.             décident de reprendre l’examen de cette affaire à leur 1092e réunion (septembre 2010) (DH) à la lumière d’informations complémentaires à fournir sur les mesures individuelles et générales.

- 7 cases against Bulgaria / 7 affaires contre la Bulgarie

1108/02            Kolevi, judgment of 05/11/2009, final on 05/02/2010

This case concerns the detention in 2001 of the first applicant, Mr Kolev, a high-ranking Bulgarian prosecutor, and the ineffective investigation into his murder in 2002 amid allegations that the then Chief Public Prosecutor and persons close to him might have been implicated in his unlawful dismissal, unlawful detention and murder. Mr Kolev had lodged an application concerning the irregularity of his detention (see below) before his death in December 2002.

With respect to his detention, the European Court considered that the unwarranted delay of five days and eight hours in bringing him before a judge was incompatible with Article 5§3 of the Convention (§162 of the judgment), and noted that a deficiency in the relevant law in that respect had resulted in unacceptable delays (§164) (violation of Article 5§3).

With respect to the lawfulness of Mr Kolev’s detention between 13/09/2001 and 29/11/2001, the European Court observed there was a “gross and obvious irregularity” in the detention order and it was issued in excess of jurisdiction. Any absence of clarity in the law could in itself be seen as a failure by the state to comply with its obligations under Article 5§1 (§178) (violation of Article 5§1).

The European Court observed that Mr Kolev lodged an appeal against his detention on 07/08/2001 but it was examined 36 days later, a period difficult to reconcile with the requirement of a “speedy examination”. The transmission of the appeal to the courts had been delayed by Sofia Investigation Service for almost a month, even though domestic law required appeals to be transmitted “immediately”, and there had been an additional unlawful delay between 5 and 13/09/2001 at the court itself (violation of Article 5§4).

The European Court found the investigation of Mr Kolev’s death, suspended in September 2008, was neither independent, objective nor effective (procedural violation of Article 2). It considered that, having regard to the material available to them, the investigators should have explored the allegation that the then Chief Public Prosecutor and other high-ranking prosecutors and officials might have been implicated in Mr Kolev’s murder (§201). The fact that the investigation had failed to follow one possible line of inquiry, which appeared obviously to be relevant, clearly undermined its effectiveness. The involvement in the investigation of persons against whom the victim and his relatives had made serious complaints based on specific facts was incompatible with the principles of impartiality and independence. The Court noted that the investigation was for all practical purposes under the control of the then Chief Public Prosecutor, and that until 2003 it was legally impossible to investigate any suspected involvement in the matter by the Chief Public Prosecutor and thereafter, as a result of hierarchical structure of the prosecution system and the internal working methods, it was still not possible to do so (§§204-205; §210).

*36275/02         Dimitrov Stoyan, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

This case concerns the poor conditions, amounting to degrading treatment in which the applicant was detained between 2000 and 2005 in Sofia Prison and the “Kremikovtsi” Prison (violation of Article 3).

The European Court noted in this respect that for a very long period of time the applicant had been locked up in an overcrowded cell for almost the whole day and did not have adequate sanitary facilities. At the time the European Court delivered its judgment, the applicant was still serving a sentence in Sofia Prison. 

This case also concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention (violation of Article 5§3), the fact that the applicant’s applications with respect to the lawfulness of his detention were not decided speedily (violation of Article 5§4), and the fact that not all aspects of the lawfulness of his detention were examined by a court (violation of Article 5§4).

Finally, the case concerns the unjustified monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence, including his correspondence with his lawyer and the European Court (violation of Article 8).

333/04              Aliykov, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to fair trial due to the unjustified refusal in 2003 by the Supreme Court of Cassation to reopen the criminal proceedings which had resulted in his conviction in absentia in 2002 (violation of Article 6§1).  The European Court noted that there was no evidence that the domestic authorities had fulfilled their obligation to attempt to inform the applicant of the proceedings in question (although the applicant was aware of an initial set of proceedings) and in the circumstances there was nothing to authorise the conclusion that the applicant had unequivocally waived his right to appear with respect to the proceedings in question. The applicant did not attempt to hide his address from the authorities. The European Court held that the applicant should have had the possibility of obtaining a re-trial at which he could be present.

The applicant, who was arrested in November 2002, served his sentence and was released in 2003. The European Court considered that where, such as in this case, an individual is convicted despite a violation of his right to participate in the proceedings, a retrial or the reopening of proceedings represent in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation found of Article 6 (§72).

68334/01           Agromodel OOD and Mironov, judgment of 24/09/2009, final on 24/12/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicant company’s right of access to a court in proceedings for damages brought by it against the state from 1997 to 2005 in that the domestic courts refused to examine the proceedings on the ground of the applicant company’s failure to pay the court fees (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted in particular that the lack of flexibility in the system of court fees (which resulted in particularly high court fees in this case) and the legal impossibility for legal persons lacking sufficient means, such as the applicant company, to request a waiver of court fees resulted in an automatic denial of the applicant company’s access to a court. The European Court considered that a general prohibition on waiving court fees was in itself problematic under Article 6§1.

35185/03           Raykov, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

This case concerns the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that he did not have free legal assistance in criminal proceedings against him even though he requested the assistance of an officially appointed lawyer in 2001.

The European Court found that the domestic courts did not properly examine the applicant’s request. Article 6§3c) sets out that the exercise of the right to free legal assistance depends on two conditions: the lack of means and the interests of justice.  The European Court noted that the government did not deny that the applicant did not have the means to appoint his own lawyer. It found that given the severity of the punishment faced by the applicant (three to fifteen years’ imprisonment), the complexity of the applicable law (including the provisions governing recidivism and the difficulty in establishing of the facts), and the fact that the applicant did not have a high level of education, the interests of justice demanded that, in order to receive a fair trial, the applicant should have benefited from free legal assistance in criminal proceedings against him (violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3c)). 

The European Court noted that the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in 2001. He has been released.

18967/03           Mutishev and others, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

This case concerns the failure to execute a final judgment of 22/03/2002 restoring to the applicants the right of property of 28 plots of land, amounting 104,8 hectares, which had been collectivised during the communist era (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court noted that there had been a great delay – more than five years – before some of the land (16 hectares) was restored and noted the inertia of the authorities in that respect. In addition, although the municipal authorities had taken a decision in 2003 to restore a further 4,2 hectares to the applicants, they had not yet done so at the time the Court delivered its judgment.

As for the failure to execute the judgment with respect to 84,65 hectares of farmland, the sole reason put forward by the government and the municipal service was the application to the applicants’ case of a provision of law (Article 10, point 8 of the Law of 1991 on the ownership and use of farmland) providing that farmland may be given back to property owners up to a limit of 20 hectares (and beyond that limit, an application could be made for compensation), even though a decision of 26/03/2003 to that effect by the Municipal Agricultural Service had been quashed by a domestic court. The European Court found that the administration had provided no specific information on the existence of legitimate reasons for refusing to restore the land. The Court held that the interference with the applicants’ right was unlawful with respect to the principle of the rule of law, insofar as the only ground for refusing execution was the application by the municipal service of the legal provision mentioned above.

The Court recalled the absence in Bulgarian law of a remedy whereby the administrative authorities could be directly compelled to execute the judgment of 22/03/2002.

The European Court reserved the question of the application of Article 41.

17353/03           Naydenov, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

This case concerns the failure to enforce an administrative decision of 22/01/1998 granting the applicant the restoration of his title to two plots of agricultural land that had belonged to his father and had been nationalised under the communist regime (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).  The decision stated that the property to be restored was to be determined by way of an official plan of newly divided plots of land to be prepared, adopted and approved by the authorities.

The European Court found that the Bulgarian authorities had not acted with the coherence and diligence required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, noting that ten years after the official recognition of the applicant’s right to restitution of or compensation for the land, the procedure, which was in the hands of the authorities, had not yet come to an end. At the time of delivery of the European Court’s judgment, it appeared that measures to realise the applicant’s rights were being adopted or were to shortly be adopted.

- 3 cases against Croatia / 3 affaires contre la Croatie

*15766/03         Oršuš, judgment of 16/03/2010 – Grand Chamber

The case concerns discrimination against the applicants in that their placement in Roma-only classes, based on their inadequate command of the Croatian language, lacked objective and reasonable justification (violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1). The applicants were placed in Roma-only classes in two primary schools in Međimurje County between 1996 and 2007.

The European Court noted that Croatian law did not provide for separate classes for children lacking proficiency in the Croatian language. In addition, the tests used to decide whether to assign pupils to Roma-only classes had not been specifically designed to test their command of that language (§§158-160).

Concerning the fact that the curriculum taught in Roma-only classes might have been simplified and reduced by 30% in volume and scope as compared with that taught in other classes, the European Court found that no exact legal basis was indicated for such a reduction and that it was not shown that it could be considered an appropriate way to address the applicants’ alleged lack of proficiency in Croatian.

Moreover, the Court observed that, once assigned to Roma-only classes, the applicants were not provided with any specific programme to address their alleged linguistic insufficiencies (§§165-166). The European Court also considered that the lack of a prescribed and transparent procedure to monitor the applicants’ progress in learning Croatian left much room for arbitrariness concerning their possible transfer to mixed classes (§175).

Concerning the fact that the drop-out rate of Roma pupils in Međimurje County was as high as 84%, the European Court considered that additional measures were needed to raise awareness of the importance of the education among the Roma population and to assist the applicants with any difficulties encountered in following the school curriculum, including active and structured involvement of the relevant social services (§177).

Several Council of Europe bodies have issued reports on Roma education in Croatia:

1) The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has published three reports on Croatia in 1999, 2001 and 2005 concerning, inter alia, the issue of education in respect of Roma community in Croatian schools. In its last report, ECRI urged the Croatian authorities to take measures without delay to improve equal opportunities for Roma children in education and to put an end to segregation between Roma and non-Roma children.

2) The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities has issued two opinions in 2001 and 2004 expressing, inter alia, its concerns for the fact that Roma children were placed in separate classes (see also Committee of Ministers’ related Resolutions adopted in 2002 and 2005).

3) The Commissioner for Human Rights: In the course of his visit to Croatia in April 2010, including to Međimurje County, the Commissioner for Human Rights recalled that systematic efforts were necessary to ensure access of Roma to education in full compliance with this judgment and recommended further efforts to develop facilities for pre-school education.

The case also concerns the excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings lasted between 2002 and 2007 and concerned the applicants’ complaint that they had been subject to discrimination on account of their placement in Roma-only classes and the violation of their right to education.

25282/06           Dolenec, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

The case concerns the authorities’ failure to conduct a thorough, effective and independent investigation of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by prison guards on two occasions, on 18/09/2006 and 21/01/2007 (procedural violation of Article 3).

The European Court noted in respect of the first incident that the onus was primarily on the Varaždin County judge responsible for the execution of sentences, to whom the applicant had submitted his complaint of ill‑treatment, or other independent prosecuting or judicial authority, to examine the available evidence. However, the judge ignored the applicant’s allegations (§153 of the judgment). In respect of the second incident, the European Court noted that the Pula County Court judge had dismissed the applicant’s allegations without having heard any of the guards involved in person. In addition, the report of Pula Prison authorities submitted to the judge had not described the details of the incident (§157 of the judgment).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, as he was not able to prepare an adequate defence and was not afforded equality of arms (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3). In particular, the applicant did not have unrestricted access to the case file despite his repeated requests to this effect in criminal proceedings brought against him involving more than twenty counts of theft and aggravated theft. In addition, the applicant complained to the presiding judge that in February 2005 he had not been able to contact the counsel assigned to him by telephone and he requested permission for a visit to the prison from his counsel, but received no answer to this request (§212 of the judgment).

48185/07           Prežec, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial in that in 2004 he had not been granted free legal assistance at the trial stage in criminal proceedings against him and in that the counsel assigned to him at the appeal stage had not contacted him (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3(c)).

The European Court noted that the applicant’s mental state and the fact that as a convicted prisoner he had been charged with an offence against a prison employee warranted his legal representation in the proceedings at issue (§29 of the judgment). The European Court also observed that in view of the fact that the counsel assigned to the applicant at the appeal stage had never contacted him, the counsel could hardly have been acquainted with the applicant’s version of events. Thus, representation by a legal-aid lawyer during the appeal proceedings did not satisfy the requirements of a fair trial (§§31, 32).

Individual and general measures: The European Court considered that the finding of a violation of Article 6§§1 and 3(c) of the Convention together with the possibility open to the applicant under national law to seek a fresh trial (Article 430 of the Croatian Code of Criminal Procedure) constituted in itself just satisfaction in the circumstances of the present case (§47).

▪ Information provided by the Croatian authorities (letter of 12/03/2010): The judgment of the European Court has been translated into Croatian and published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). It was sent to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, County Court in Pula and Municipal Court in Pula. The judgment will be also published in a periodical dedicated to the case-law of the European Court.

- 1 case against the Czech Republic / 1 affaire contre la République tchèque

*32921/03+       Kohlhofer et Minarik, arrêt du 15/10/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010

L’affaire concerne la violation du droit d’accès des requérants à un tribunal, ces derniers n’ayant pas la faculté, en tant qu’actionnaires minoritaires d’une société, de contester en justice une résolution de liquidation une fois celle-ci inscrite au registre du commerce, (violation de l'article 6§1).

Un amendement de 2001 au Code du commerce a conféré aux actionnaires d’une société par actions le pouvoir de liquider la société et de transférer l’ensemble de ses actifs à tout actionnaire possédant plus de 90 % des parts. Les actionnaires minoritaires devaient quant à eux être indemnisés. Les requérants sont d’anciens actionnaires minoritaires dans des sociétés qui ont fait l’objet de résolutions de ce type adoptées en assemblée générale. Ils ont tenté de contester les résolutions en cause devant les juridictions en invoquant certaines irrégularités, mais dans chacun des cas leurs demandes ont été rejetées au motif que le Code du commerce ne permettait pas aux juridictions ordinaires de contrôler la légalité des résolutions une fois les transferts inscrits au registre du commerce. Ils n’avaient pas non plus qualité pour participer aux procédures devant les organes judiciaires chargés de la gestion du registre du commerce, ces organes, bien qu’informés des procédures pendantes devant les juridictions, n’ont pas tenu d’audience ni suspendu le processus d’inscription.

Selon la Cour européenne, il n’a pas été établi que la limitation du droit d’accès des requérants à un tribunal, prévue par le droit interne, était proportionnée au but légitime consistant à favoriser la stabilité du monde des affaires en prévenant la contestation abusive des résolutions.

- 1 case against Estonia / 1 affaire contre l’Estonie

10664/05           Mikolenko, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

This case concerns the excessive length of detention of the applicant in a deportation centre, (i.e. more than 3 years and 11 months) during expulsion proceedings.

The European Court, recalling that privation of liberty is justified under Article 5 only for as long as deportation proceedings are being conducted, and that if such proceedings are not being prosecuted with due diligence, such detention is no longer justified, considered that in this case the detention of applicant was not valid for the whole period, due to the domestic authorities’ failure to conduct proceedings with due diligence. The Court noted in particular that it had been provided with no information as to whether any steps with a view to applicant’s deportation had been taken between August 2004 and March 2006 (violation of Article 5§1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Information provided by the Estonian authorities (18/02/2010): By decision of the Tallinn Administrative Court the applicant was released from prison on 18/10/2007. He has since been at liberty.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Estonian authorities (18/02/2010): The judgment has been translated into Estonian, placed on the website of the Council of Europe Information Office in Tallinn (www.coe.ee) and distributed to all authorities concerned. In the view of the Estonian authorities, as the case would appear as an isolated one, there is no need for specific legislative or regulatory action.

• The information provided by the authorities is being assessed.

- 3 cases against France / 3 affaires contre la France

*3394/03           Medvedyev et autres, arrêt du 29/03/2010 – Grande Chambre

L’affaire concerne la détention irrégulière des requérants, membres de l’équipage d’un cargo dénommé Winner et immatriculé au Cambodge, lequel avait fait l’objet en juin 2002 d’une demande d’interception de la part de la France, étant soupçonné de transporter des quantités importantes de drogue vouées à être distribuées sur les côtes européennes (violation de l’article 5§1).

Par une note verbale du 7/06/2002, le Cambodge donna son accord à l’intervention des autorités françaises. Sur ordre du préfet maritime et à la demande du procureur de la République de Brest, un remorqueur fut dépêché de Brest pour prendre en charge le navire et le dérouter vers ce port français. Suite à l’interception du Winner par la Marine française au large des îles du Cap Vert, l’équipage fut consigné dans les cabines du cargo et maintenu sous la garde des militaires français. A leur arrivée à Brest le 26/06/2002, soit treize jours plus tard, les requérants ont été placés en garde à vue, avant d’être présentés le jour même à des juges d’instruction.

La Cour européenne a d’abord noté que les requérants relevaient bien de la juridiction de la France au sens de l’article 1 de la Convention en raison du contrôle absolu et exclusif, au moins de fait, exercé par les autorités françaises sur le Winner et son équipage dès l’interception du navire, de manière continue et ininterrompue. Ensuite, la Cour européenne a estimé que la situation des requérants après l’arraisonnement constituait bien une privation de liberté au sens de l’article 5, puisque les requérants avaient été soumis au contrôle des forces militaires spéciales et privés de leur liberté durant toute la traversée.

Enfin de l’avis de la Cour européenne, il n’était pas contesté que la privation de liberté des requérants durant le déroutement vers la France avait pour but de les conduire « devant l’autorité judiciaire compétente », au sens de l’article 5§1c). Cependant l’intervention des autorités françaises ne pouvait trouver sa justification, comme le soutient le Gouvernement, dans la Convention de Montego Bay ou dans le droit international coutumier.

La loi française n’avait pas non plus vocation à s’appliquer puisque, d’une part, le Cambodge n’était pas partie aux conventions transposées en droit interne, en particulier la Convention de Vienne, et, d’autre part, le Winner ne battait pas pavillon français. La note verbale du 7/06/2002 adressée par les autorités cambodgiennes constituait un accord ponctuel permettant l’interception du Winner, mais pas la détention des requérants et leur transfert qui n’étaient pas visés par cette note.

L’intervention des autorités françaises basée sur cette mesure de coopération exceptionnelle – s’ajoutant à l’absence de ratifications des conventions pertinentes par le Cambodge ou de pratique continue entre le les deux pays dans la lutte contre le trafic de stupéfiants en haute mer – ne pouvait passer pour « clairement définie » et prévisible. Ainsi la privation de liberté subie par les requérants à compter de l’arraisonnement et jusqu’à l’arrivée à Brest n’était pas « régulière » faute de base légale ayant les qualités requises pour satisfaire au principe général de sécurité juridique.

19576/08           Daoudi, arrêt du 3/12/2009, définitif le 3/03/2010

Cette affaire concerne le risque pour le requérant, ressortissant algérien, condamné pour la préparation d’un acte de terrorisme et pour usage de faux, d'être soumis à des traitements contraires à l’article 3 de la Convention, si l'arrêté d'expulsion vers l’Algérie pris à son encontre était mis à exécution.

La Cour européenne a noté qu’il est légitime que les Etats fassent preuve d’une grande fermeté à l’égard de ceux qui contribuent à des actes de terrorisme, qu’elle ne saurait en aucun cas cautionner. Elle a toutefois souligné qu’il ressort de sources à la fois multiples, concordantes, fiables et récentes (notamment des rapports du Comité des Nations Unies contre la torture, de plusieurs organisations non gouvernementales, du Département d’Etat américain et du ministère de l’Intérieur britannique) qu’en Algérie, les personnes impliquées dans des faits de terrorisme sont arrêtées et détenues par les services de sécurité (DRS) de façon peu prévisible et sans base légale clairement établie, essentiellement afin d’être interrogées pour obtenir des renseignements, et non dans un but uniquement judiciaire. Selon ces sources, ces personnes, placées en détention sans contrôle des autorités judiciaires ni communication avec l’extérieur (avocat, médecin ou famille), peuvent être soumises à des mauvais traitements, y compris la torture. Le gouvernement n’a pas produit d’indications ou d’éléments susceptibles de réfuter ces affirmations. Eu égard en particulier au profil de l’intéressé qui n’est pas seulement soupçonné de liens avec le terrorisme, mais qui a fait l’objet, pour des faits graves, d’une condamnation en France dont les autorités algériennes ont connaissance, la Cour européenne était d’avis qu’il est vraisemblable qu’en cas de renvoi vers l’Algérie le requérant deviendrait une cible pour le DRS.

Par lettre en date du 20/04/2010, les autorités françaises ont indiqué que la France se conformera à cet arrêt en toutes ses dispositions ; la décision de la Cour nationale du droit d’asile du 31/07/2009 fait obstacle au renvoi du requérant en Algérie. Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours concernant les mesures individuelles.

*40589/07         Sartory, arrêt du 24/09/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010

Cette affaire concerne la durée excessive d’une procédure devant les juridictions administratives relative à la mutation du requérant (du 18/09/1995 au 23/04/2002, donc plus de six ans et sept mois pour deux degrés de juridiction) (violation de l’article 6§1).

La Cour européenne a constaté que le redressement fourni (3 000 €) par le Conseil d’Etat au requérant n’était pas approprié et suffisant compte tenu de la lenteur excessive de la procédure d’indemnisation et que par conséquent, il pouvait toujours se prétendre « victime » au sens de la Convention. La Cour européenne a relevé que le Conseil d’Etat avait lui-même considéré que la durée de la procédure était excessive, après avoir souligné notamment que l’affaire ne présentait pas de difficultés particulières. Elle a rappelé qu’une célérité particulière est nécessaire en matière de litiges relatifs à l’emploi appelant par nature une décision rapide.

La procédure en réparation des préjudices résultant de la mutation, initiée le 10/12/2002, était toujours pendante lorsque la Cour européenne a rendu son arrêt (voir §14 de l'arrêt).

• Des informations ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 8/02/2010. Des contacts bilateraux sont en cours en vue de réunir les informations complémentaires nécessaires à la présentation d'un bilan d'action au Comité.

- 2 cases against Georgia / 2 affaires contre la Géorgie

30323/02           Pandjikidzé et autres, arrêt du 27/10/2009, définitif le 27/01/2010

4313/04            Gorguiladzé, arrêt du 20/10/2009, définitif le 20/01/2010

Ces affaires concernent une atteinte au droit des requérants à un procès équitable dans la mesure où ils ont été jugés par un tribunal qui ne peut être considéré comme un « tribunal établi par la loi », deux des trois juges de la formation de jugement étant des magistrats non professionnels dont l’exercice n’était régi par aucune loi (violations de l'article 6§1).

L’affaire Gorgiladzé concerne en outre les conditions inhumaines et dégradantes dans lesquelles le requérant a été détenu, janvier à août 2003 ainsi que de décembre 2004 à juillet 2005, à la prison n° 5 de Tbilissi (violation de l'article 3).

Dans l’affaire Pandjikidzé et autres, trois des requérants ont été jugés coupables de haute trahison le 8/11/2001 et condamnés à 3 ans ou 2 ans et 5 mois d’emprisonnement.

M. Gorgiladzé a été condamné le 21/05/2003 à 18 ans d’emprisonnement pour homicide. Il est toujours en détention.

Dans toutes ces affaires, la Cour européenne a alloué aux requérants, une satisfaction équitable pour dommage moral. Elle a en outre dit que lorsqu'il y a eu, comme en l'espèce, une condamnation en premier ressort par un tribunal qui n'était pas établi par la loi contrairement aux exigences de l'article 6 de la Convention, et qu'un nouvel examen global de l'affaire au fond n'a pas eu lieu par la suite, un nouveau procès ou une réouverture de la procédure quant au fond, à la demande des requérants concernés, représente en principe un moyen approprié de redresser la violation constatée.

- 2 cases against Germany / 2 affaires contre l’Allemagne

22028/04           Zaunegger, judgment of 03/12/2009, final on 03/03/2010

The case concerns discrimination against the applicant in his capacity as father of a child born out of wedlock due to provisions of domestic law (Article 1626a §2 of the German Civil Code) and court decisions of 2003 that prevented him from assuming joint custody of his daughter (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8).

The European Court observed that under Article 1626a §1 of the German Civil Code, the parents of a minor child born out of wedlock may exercise joint custody if they make a declaration to that effect (joint custody declaration) or if they marry. Otherwise Article 1626a§2 provides that the mother obtains sole custody.

The European Court did not share the assumption that joint custody against the will of the mother is prima facie not in the child's interest. While it was true that legal proceedings on attribution of parental authority might unsettle a child, domestic law provided for judicial review of the attribution of parental authority in cases where the parents were or had been married or had opted for joint parental authority. The European Court did not see sufficient reasons why the situation in the present case call for a lesser degree of judicial scrutiny. The Court concluded that in respect of the discrimination at issue there was not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the general exclusion of judicial review of the initial attribution of sole custody to the mother and the aim pursued, namely the protection of the best interests of a child born out of wedlock.

• Information provided by the German authorities (31/03/2010 and 26/04/2010): The action report and action plan provided by the German authorities are being assessed by the Secretariat.

*30175/07         Wetjen, judgment of 25/03/2010

The case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of a number of offences allegedly committed while he had been acting as a court-appointed liquidator, including the grant of an undue benefit and embezzlement (violation of Article 6§1).

The proceedings in the present case began on 7/02/2000 and ended on 9/06/2008 (eight years and four months) when the Halle Public Prosecutor withdrew the appeal against the decision of Halle Regional Court of 17/03/2008 acquitting the applicant of all of charges.

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy which could have expedited the proceedings or provided adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (violation of Article 13).

- 6 cases against Greece / 6 affaires contre la Grèce

8249/07            Shuvaev, judgment of 29/10/2009, final on 29/01/2010

The case concerns the conditions under which the applicant was detained on remand from 26/09/2006 until 03/01/2007 at the Police Headquarters of Salonika.

The European Court held that the conditions of his detention, in particular the absence of facilities for outdoor exercise and the insufficient arrangements for meals, in combination with the duration of his detention, constituted inhuman and degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

The case also concerns the absence of sufficient reasons to justify the applicant’s continuing detention from 16/03/2007 until 10/08/2007 (violation of Article 5§3). The European Court pointed out inter alia that, when ordering the extension of the remand beyond the initial six-month period, the Indictment Division of the Salonika Criminal Court motivated its decision with stereotyped formulae, repeating general and abstract elements already cited in its previous decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal for release. It also noted that no consideration had been given to alternative measures to detention on remand.

The applicant was released on 10/08/2007.

8256/07            Tabesh, judgment of 26/11/2009, final on 26/02/2010

The case concerns the conditions under which the applicant was detained pending expulsion in the Police Headquarters of Salonika. The applicant was held there for about 3 months, having been arrested for irregularly entering Greek territory and possessing false papers.

The European Court held that the conditions of his detention, in particular the absence of facilities for outdoor exercise and the insufficient arrangements for meals, in combination with the duration of his detention, constituted degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

The case also concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention pending expulsion: the European Court noted that the fact that the applicant’s immediate expulsion was not possible, as he possessed no travel documents, combined with the inactivity of the national authorities, rendered his detention unlawful (violation of Article 5§1(f) of the Convention).

In addition, the case concerns the absence of effective judicial control of the applicant’s detention. The European Court noted that the judicial authority failed to reply to the applicant’s argument that he could not be expelled. It also found that, in general, national law does not provide direct control of the legality of the detention of foreigners pending expulsion.

Furthermore, national law (Law No 3386/2005) appears to make no distinction between the detention decision and that of expulsion, but rather the first is included in the second, while application for annulment or for suspension before the administrative courts cannot lift the measure of detention (violation of article 5§4).

The applicant was released on 28/03/2007 with an order to leave the country. He filed a request for political asylum on 16/04/2007, which was still pending when the judgment of the European Court was issued.

*50796/07         Tsourlakis, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to private and family life in that in 2007he was denied effective access to a report on his child’s living conditions drawn up by the competent national Social Service (the Athens Child Welfare Society) in the course of judicial proceedings regarding the grant of custody to one of the parents (violation of Article 8).

The European Court noted that the domestic law on the use made of welfare reports was less than clear. Moreover, the applicant had had a legitimate claim to be informed of the use made of the details he had provided for the purpose of the compiling of the report.

The European Court found that the government had not given reasons for the refusal to allow the applicant to consult the report and had not adduced any compelling reasons to justify the failure to disclose the contents of the document, which contained personal information of direct concern to the applicant. Accordingly, the authorities had not ensured effective observance of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life.

The child, born in 1989, has reached the age of majority. The custody was granted to the mother at all levels of jurisdiction and the applicant had filed no cassation appeal against the final judgment of the Court of Appeal.

*39574/07         Apostolakis, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the total, automatic withdrawal of his pension in 2007, as provided by national law when, like the applicant, a state employee is irrevocably found guilty of certain crimes against the state such as falsification of paybooks (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court noted that the infringement of the right to property had caused the applicant to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden, which could not be justified by the need to deter civil servants from offending and to ensure the proper functioning of the administration and the credibility of the public service. The Court observed that, following his conviction, the applicant had been automatically deprived of his pension for the rest of his life, even though the offence he had committed had no causal link with his retirement rights. The Court also noted that the penalty imposed on the applicant involved the total forfeiture not only of his right to a pension, but also of social cover, including health insurance. These had the effect of extinguishing the principal means of subsistence of a person who had reached retirement age, an effect compatible neither with the principle of social rehabilitation governing the criminal law of the states party to the Convention, nor with the spirit of the Convention.

53361/07           Roumeliotis, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

55484/07           Petropoulos, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court, in that the Court of Cassation declared their cassation appeals inadmissible (judgments of 2007) (violations of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the rule applied by the Court of Cassation to dismiss the applicants’ appeal was a principle enshrined in its case-law and arose from the specific nature of the Court of Cassation’s role, namely supervision of whether the law had been observed. However, in declaring inadmissible the submissions in question on the ground that the applicants had not clearly specified the facts of the case on which the Court of Appeal had based its judgment, the Court of Cassation had taken an excessively formalistic approach, thus preventing the applicants from having the merits of their allegations examined by the Court of Cassation. That limitation on the applicants’ right of access to a court had not been proportionate to the aim sought, namely to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice

The cases also concern the length of civil proceedings lodged by the applicants (violations of Article 6§1). The Roumeliotis case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

- 2 cases against Hungary / 2 affaires contre la Hongrie

26958/05           Sándor Lajos Kiss, arrêt du 29/09/2009, définitif le 29/12/2009

37376/05           Talabér, arrêt du 29/09/2009, définitif le 29/12/2009

Ces affaires concernent la violation du droit des requérants à une audience publique, la juridiction d’appel ayant confirmé à huis clos et en l'absence des avocats des requérants, la culpabilité de ceux-ci (violations de l’article 6§1).

Après avoir rappelé qu’en matière pénale, le droit d’un prévenu à être entendu en personne devrait être une règle générale, la Cour européenne a estimé qu’en l’espèce, compte tenu de la nature des charges retenues contre les requérants, vandalisme dans l’affaire Talabér et coups et blessures aggravés dans l’affaire Sándor Lajos Kiss, la cour d’appel aurait dû entendre les requérants directement. La Cour a en particulier fait observer que la cour d’appel pouvait être saisie de questions de fait ou de droit et que la nature des infractions pouvait soulever des questions telles que la personnalité et le caractère des requérants ; une audience publique aurait donc dû être organisée.

La Cour européenne a en outre rappelé dans ces deux affaires que lorsqu’un particulier a été condamné à l’issue d’une procédure qui ne remplissait pas les conditions d’équité, la réouverture ou un nouveau procès, à la demande de l'intéressé, représente en principe un moyen approprié de redresser la violation constatée.

- 4 cases against Italy / 4 affaires contre l’Italie

28634/06           Maiorano et autres, arrêt du 15/12/2009, définitif le 15/03/2010

Cette affaire concerne le manquement des autorités à leur devoir de protéger la vie des personnes relevant de leur juridiction, en raison de l’octroi en 2004 d’un régime de semi-liberté à un récidiviste dangereux, période au cours de laquelle il a assassiné les proches des requérants (violation du volet matériel de l’article 2).

La Cour européenne a noté que les éléments positifs qui ont amené le tribunal de l’application des peines de Palerme à octroyer à l’intéressé un régime de la semi-liberté « étaient contrebalancés par de nombreux éléments en sens contraire, qui, aux yeux de la Cour, auraient dû inspirer une plus grande prudence au moment de décider de donner ou non à une personne condamnée pour des crimes violents d'une gravité extrême la possibilité de passer la majeure partie de la journée en dehors du pénitencier et d'entrer en contact avec le monde libre » (§115 de l'arrêt).

La Cour a également estimé qu’il y eu un manquement de la part des magistrats du parquet de Campobasso, d’informer le tribunal de l’application des peines compétent du non-respect des prescriptions liées au régime de semi-liberté par l’intéressé pour que le tribunal puisse engager une procédure de révocation de ce régime (§§120-122).

L’affaire concerne en outre le manquement de l’Etat à son obligation positive d’établir la responsabilité de ses agents impliqués dans les faits incriminés (violation du volet procédural de l’article 2). A cet égard, la Cour a conclu que l’action disciplinaire engagée par le Ministère de la Justice à l’encontre des juges du tribunal d’application des peines ayant octroyé le régime de semi-liberté n’a pas entièrement satisfait à l’obligation d’établir la responsabilité des agents impliqués dans les faits. Elle a noté en particulier qu’aucune poursuite disciplinaire n’avait été engagée à l’encontre des autorités de Campobasso.

43134/05           G.N. et autres, arrêt du 01/12/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010

Cette affaire concerne le manquement des autorités à leur obligation procédurale de protection du droit à la vie en raison de la durée excessive de la procédure intentée par les requérants. Cette procédure avait pour objet la réparation des préjudices qu'ils estimaient avoir subis à la suite de leur contamination, ou de celle de leurs proches, par le VIH et les virus de l'hépatite B et C lors de transfusion et/ou d'administration de sang et de produits sanguins dans le cadre de structures sanitaires publiques (violation de l’article 2 en son volet procédural). L’affaire concerne également le traitement discriminatoire subi par le requérants qui, à la différence des personnes hémophiles, n’ont pu bénéficier de règlements à l'amiable (violation de l’article 14 combiné avec l’article 2).

La Cour européenne a relevé que la procédure incriminée dans laquelle les requérants sont intervenus entre 1991 et 2001, a duré entre plus de trois ans et plus de dix ans selon les requérants, et s’est terminée en 2005. Elle a noté en outre, que la Commission européenne des droits de l'homme, examinant en 1998 la première instance de cette procédure, avait exprimé l’avis selon lequel il y avait eu violation de l'article 6§1 sous l'angle du « délai raisonnable ». Déjà à l’époque, la Commission avait rappelé la jurisprudence de la Cour selon laquelle, dans le domaine des procédures en réparation intentées par des hémophiles infectés par le virus du SIDA à la suite de transfusions sanguines, « une diligence exceptionnelle » s'impose, « nonobstant le nombre de litiges à traiter ». Le Comité des Ministres a fait sien l’avis de la Commission dans sa Résolution intérimaire DH(98)392 (requêtes 37874/97, 37878/97 and 37879/97).

Par ailleurs, la Cour a considéré que le recours prévu par la loi n^o 89 du 24/03/2001 (« loi Pinto ») et permettant de se plaindre de la durée excessive d'une procédure (recours que les requérants n'ont pas formé) aurait été insuffisant en l'espèce, dès lors que ce n'était pas simplement la durée de la procédure qui était en cause, mais la question de savoir si, dans les circonstances de l'affaire prise globalement, l'Etat pouvait passer pour avoir satisfait à ses obligations procédurales au regard de l'article 2 de la Convention. 

39128/05           Lombardi Vallauri, arrêt du 20/10/2009, définitif le 20/01/2010

L'affaire concerne l’atteinte à la liberté d’expression du requérant en raison du défaut de motivation de la décision du Conseil de Faculté d’une université catholique de Milan de ne pas examiner sa candidature d’enseignant en 1998 (violation de l’article 10).

Elle concerne également l’absence d’accès à un tribunal du fait que les juridictions administratives saisies de l’affaire n’ont pas remédié à ce défaut de motivation dans leurs décisions de 2001 et 2005 (violation de l’article 6§1).

La décision litigieuse du Conseil de Faculté était basée sur le fait que le Saint Siège avait refusé au requérant l’agrément nécessaire pour enseigner dans l’université catholique en question au motif que certaines de ses positions « s'oppos[ai]ent nettement à la doctrine catholique ». La Cour européenne a relevé tout d'abord que le Conseil de Faculté n'avait pas communiqué au requérant dans quelle mesure les opinions qui lui étaient reprochées se reflétaient dans son activité d'enseignement et comment, de ce fait, elles étaient susceptibles d'affecter l'intérêt de l'Université de dispenser un enseignement inspiré des convictions religieuses qui lui sont propres.

S’agissant du contrôle juridictionnel de la décision incriminée, la Cour a noté que les juges nationaux ont refusé de mettre en question le fait que le Conseil de Faculté n'ait pas communiqué au requérant les opinions qui lui étaient reprochées. Elle a noté, en outre, que « loin d'impliquer que les autorités judiciaires se livrent elles-mêmes à un jugement sur la compatibilité entre les positions du requérant et la doctrine catholique, la communication de ces éléments aurait permis à celui-ci de connaître et dès lors de contester le lien existant entre ses opinions et son activité d'enseignant ». En conclusion, la Cour a estimé que l'intérêt de l'Université de dispenser un enseignement inspiré de la doctrine catholique ne pouvait pas s'étendre jusqu'à atteindre la substance même des garanties procédurales dont le requérant jouit au sens de l'article 10 de la Convention.

L’absence de contrôle juridictionnel adéquat en l’espèce a amené la Cour à conclure également à une violation distincte du droit du requérant d’accès à un tribunal.

3449/05            Hokic et Hrustic, arrêt du 01/12/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010

L'affaire concerne le retard dans la remise en liberté d’un des requérants d’un centre de rétention pour étrangers, malgré la décision du juge de paix annulant l’arrêté d’expulsion pris à son encontre et ordonnant sa remise en liberté (violation de l’article 5§1).

Les requérants, M. Hokic et Mme Hrustic, sont un couple rom originaire de Bosnie-Herzégovine et résidant à Rome. Le 11/01/2005 la police leur a notifié à chacun un arrêté d'expulsion chacun et le même jour, en exécution de ces arrêtés d’expulsion, ils ont été placés au centre de rétention de Ponte Galeria (Rome). Les requérants ont introduit chacun un recours devant le juge de paix contre les arrêtés d’expulsion. La seconde requérante a été remise en liberté pour des raisons de santé et l’arrêté d’expulsion à son encontre a été annulé. Le 22/02/2005, l’arrêté d’expulsion à l’encontre de M. Hokic a également été annulé et sa remise en liberté a été ordonnée par le juge de paix. La décision du juge de paix a été déposée au greffe le 01/03/2005 et communiquée au bureau de l'immigration de la police de Rome le 03/03/2005. Le requérant a été remis en liberté dans la soirée du 03/03/2005.

La Cour européenne a noté que le délai entre le dépôt au greffe de la décision du juge de paix et la remise en liberté du requérant avait été de 48 heures minimum et de 60 heures minimum (§31 de l'arrêt). De plus la Cour a noté que pas moins de 6 jours se sont écoulés entre la date de la décision du juge de paix et celle du dépôt au greffe de celle-ci (§34).

- 2 cases against Latvia / 2 affaires contre la Lettonie

547/02              Jeronovičs, arrêt du 01/12/2009, définitif le 01/03/2010, rectifié le 16/032010

La présente affaire concerne la violation du droit du requérant à un procès équitable en raison de l’impossibilité pour ce dernier de comparaitre à l’audience du sénat de la Cour suprême qui examinait son pourvoi en cassation dans une procédure pénale (violation de l’article 6§1).

La Cour européenne a relevé que le requérant avait expressément demandé à comparaître, en vertu de l’article 458 de l’ancien code de procédure pénale, et qu’en outre il n’était pas assisté d’un avocat.

L’affaire concerne en outre les traitements dégradants infligés au requérants en raison de son enfermement dans des cellules extrêmement exigües dans les prisons de Griva et de Daugavpils, avant et après son transfert d’un établissement pénitentiaire à un autre, de l’insuffisance de nourriture et de son enfermement dans la cellule d’isolement provisoire de Rēzekne en attendant l’audience de la cour régionale (violation de l’article 3).

32214/03           Shannon, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

The case concerns the failure by a regional court promptly to examine the applicant’s appeals against the extension of his remand in custody (violations of Article 5§4).

The European Court recalled that Article 5§4 requires a prompt judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the release of the detainee if it proves unlawful.

- 1 case against Lithuania / 1 affaire contre la Lituanie

*15869/02         Cudak, arrêt du 23/03//2010 – Grande Chambre

La présente affaire concerne une violation du droit d’accès de la requérante à un tribunal en raison d’une interprétation extensive effectuée par les juridictions lituaniennes de l’immunité de juridiction de l’Etat polonais dans un litige qui concernait le licenciement de la requérante de ses fonctions au sein de l’ambassade de Pologne en Lituanie (violation de l’article 6§1).

En décembre 1999, la requérante a été licenciée de ses fonctions au sein de l’ambassade de Pologne à Vilnius. Le recours pour licenciement abusif, intenté par la requérante devant les juridictions lituaniennes, a été rejeté sur la base des considérations tirées du principe de l’immunité de juridiction de l’Etat polonais. Dans son arrêt définitif du 25/06/2001, la Cour suprême de Lituanie, considérant que les fonctions accomplies par la requérante au sein de l’ambassade contribuaient à l’accomplissement des fonctions liées à l’exercice de la souveraineté de l’Etat polonais, a estimé que pour cette raison, la République de Pologne pouvait prétendre à l’immunité de juridiction.

La Cour européenne a constaté qu’au sein de l’ambassade, la requérante était chargée notamment d’enregistrer les conversations internationales, de dactylographier des textes, de photocopier des documents et d’aider à organiser certains événements. Elle a estimé que ces fonctions ne pouvaient passer pour mettre en cause les intérêts de l’Etat polonais en la matière et que l’immunité de juridiction de cet Etat en Lituanie devrait être interprétée en l’espèce de manière restrictive de façon à permettre à la requérante de faire valoir ses droits civils devant des instances judiciaires. 

- 1 case against Malta / 1 affaire contre Malte

*42583/06         Schembri and others, judgment of 10/11/2009, final on 10/02/2010

This case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions due to the expropriation of their property in 1974 without adequate compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In 1974 the Maltese authorities gave notice of the expropriation of land owned by the applicants. The applicants refused the compensation offered. In October 1995 the Land Arbitration Board (LAB) ordered the transfer of the land and established the amount of compensation to be paid. No appeal existed against a decision of the LAB. In April 2006, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint that the expropriation violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, holding that the estimates provided by the applicants were based on the current market value, whereas the evaluation of the LAB referred to the real value of the land in 1974 when it had been expropriated.

The European Court held the expropriation to constitute a “deprivation of possessions” (§30 of the judgment), which satisfied the requirement of lawfulness (§31) and was “in the public interest” (§34). The Court noted that neither the transfer of the land nor the payment of compensation had taken place 35 years after the government took possession of the land. The Court concluded that in the circumstances of the present case, “by awarding compensation reflecting values applicable decades before and deferring the payment of such for at least twenty years until the date of the LAB decision which did not take into account this delay, the national authorities rendered that compensation inadequate and, consequently, upset the balance between the protection of the right to property and the requirements of the general interest” (§34).

The Court reserved the application of Article 41 of the Convention.

- 3 cases against Moldova / 3 affaires contre la Moldova

2638/05            Roşca Petru, judgment of 06/10/2009, final on 06/01/2010

The case concerns the authorities’ failure to investigate the applicant’s complaints of excessive use of force by police officers during his arrest (procedural violation of Article 3).  .

The European Court found a number of deficiencies in the investigation, such as the failure to identify and hear the witnesses; the failure to establish the manner in which the injuries had been caused to the applicant; the lack of an in-depth medical examination of the applicant.

The case further concerns the applicant’s conviction for an administrative offence in the absence of a lawyer without being given sufficient time to prepare his defence (violation of Article 6§1 in conjunction with Article 6§3 (c) and (d)).

In particular, the European Court noted that even if the applicant made no request to be assisted by a lawyer or for time to prepare his case, the domestic court must have realised that after a night in detention and having seen only the record of his arrest, the applicant could not have prepared for the hearing, for instance by identifying witnesses on his behalf or undergoing a medical examination. Therefore under the circumstances, regardless of any request to offer the applicant time and facilities to prepare his case, such an opportunity should have been given to him by the court ex officio, the more so since he risked fifteen days' administrative detention as punishment

*13936/02         Manole and others, judgment of 17/09/2009, final on 17/12/2009

The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression due to censorship and political control in 2001-2006 by state authorities of the State Television Company, Teleradio-Moldova (TRM), in which the applicants worked as journalists, editors and producers, and which also resulted in the applicants’ dismissal (violation of Article 10).

The European Court noted in particular that during the relevant period there was a significant bias towards reporting on the activities of the President and Government in TRM’s television news and other programming, with insufficient opportunity for representatives of the opposition parties to gain access to television to express their views. In addition, there was a policy of restricting discussion or mention of certain topics because they were considered to be politically sensitive or to reflect badly in some way on the government.

The Court further noted that in view laws ensuring TRM’s independence from political interference and control, the state authorities were under a duty to ensure a pluralistic audiovisual service. However, during the period taken into consideration by the Court, i.e. from February 2001 to September 2006, when one political party controlled Parliament, Presidency and government, domestic law did not provide a sufficient guarantee of political balance in the composition of TRM's senior management and supervisory body nor any safeguard against interference from the ruling political party in these bodies' decision-making and functioning, despite a number of recommendations by the Council of Europe.

Thus the Court ruled that the state had not discharged its positive obligation under Article 10, as the legislative framework throughout the period in question was flawed in that it did not provide sufficient safeguards against the control of TRM’s senior management, and thus its editorial policy, by the political organ of the government. These flaws were not remedied when Law No. 1320-XV was adopted and amended.

As regards the application of Article 46 of the Convention, the Court held that as a response to its finding of a violation Moldova, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, should at the earliest opportunity take general measures, including legislative reform, to ensure that the legal framework complies with the requirements of Article 10 and takes into account the Council of Europe’s relevant recommendations.

The Court reserved the question of just satisfaction under Article 41.

39391/04           Business Si Investitii Pentru Toti, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant company’s right of access to a court due to the failure by domestic courts to consider its claim or to involve it as a party to proceedings which concerned its rights and obligations as well as to the dismissal of its request to reopen the said proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

- 5 cases against Poland / 5 affaires contre la Pologne

38273/02           Stochlak, judgment of 22/09/2009, final on 22/12/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to respect for family life due to the authorities insufficient action to secure return of a child abducted by her mother (violation of Article 8).

The applicant is a Polish national who has lived in Canada since 1985. In 1993 he and his wife, E.S. had a daughter. At the end of a holiday in Poland in 1996 E.S. refused to return to Canada, having decided to remain in Poland with their daughter. From March 1997, the applicant brought a civil and then criminal proceedings, seeking to have the child returned to him. In January 2003 a special police unit was put in charge of looking for the girl. The applicant, deprived of any contact with his daughter during the proceedings, contacted the relevant Polish bodies as well as private detective agencies and the Canadian authorities. He was reunited with his daughter on 14 April 2003.

The European Court recalled that proceedings relating to the granting of parental responsibility required urgent handling, as the passage of time could have irremediable consequences for relations between a parent and his or her child. It was clear in January 1997 that the applicant’s daughter had been unlawfully removed. A year and seven months passed between the district court’s first decision and the dismissal of the appeal. Furthermore, the European Court observed that in the context of the civil enforcement proceedings, three years passed where no activity by the authorities could be identified. It was only in January 2003 that a meeting was finally organised to ensure effective cooperation between the various State bodies. The European Court found that the authorities had not taken measures to punish the lack of cooperation by the child’s mother, which was the source of most of the problems (§64 of the judgment) and that “when the national legal order did not provide for effective sanctions … it is for each state to equip itself with a sufficient legal arsenal to ensure respect for the positive obligations under Article 8” (§64 of the judgment).

The European Court concluded that notwithstanding the margin of appreciation of the respondent state, the authorities had not made appropriate efforts to respect the applicant’s right to the return of his child; failing to respect his right to family life under Article 8” (§66 of the judgment).

10373/05           Moskal, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 01/03/2010

This case concerns the privation of the applicant’s property due to the withdrawal of the early retirement pension which had been granted by mistake several months before and constituted the applicant's sole source of income (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

In August 2001 the Social Security Board granted the applicant an early retirement pension in order to allow her to take care for her son who needed constant care (“EWK pension”). The applicant resigned from her full-time job, in which she had been employed for the past thirty years. In June 2002 the Social Security Board reopened the proceedings, quashed the 2001 decision and refused to continue to pay the applicant her pension on the grounds that her child’s health condition was not severe enough to require his mother’s permanent care. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision in the courts. Following separate social-security proceedings, on 25/10/2005 the District Labour Office granted her another benefit amounting to approximately 50% of her discontinued early retirement pension, with retroactive effect from 25/10/2002, but without interest.

The European Court held that the applicant had applied for the early retirement pension in good faith and in compliance with the law. The 2002 decision had amounted to an interference with her possessions. The interference had been lawful and had pursued a legitimate aim. As regards proportionality, it was desirable that public authorities act with the utmost scrupulousness, in particular when dealing with matters of vital importance to individuals, such as welfare benefits. In this case the authorities, having discovered their mistake, had failed in their duty to act in good time and in an appropriate and consistent manner. As a general principle, public authorities should not be prevented from correcting their mistakes. However, if a mistake was caused by the authorities themselves, a different proportionality approach had to be taken in determining whether the burden borne by the recipient of the benefit was excessive. As a result of the impugned measure, the applicant had been faced, practically from one day to the next, with the total loss of her early retirement pension, which constituted her sole source of income. Moreover, there was a risk that she would have considerable difficulty in securing new employment. It was not until three years later that she had been able to obtain a new benefit. The burden placed on the applicant had therefore been excessive.

The European Court noted that it had been seised of approximately 120 similar applications (§28).

*22531/05         Bugajny et autres, arrêt du 06/11/2007, définitif le 01/03/2010, révisé le 15/12/2009

Cette affaire concerne l’ingérence disproportionnée dans le droit au respect des biens en raison du refus des autorités d'exproprier un terrain, appartenant aux requérants et affecté par la municipalité à la construction de voies de circulation à l'usage du public, et de leur accorder une indemnisation à ce titre (violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

Le refus des autorités s’est fondé sur le fait que les voies de circulation étaient qualifiées de « privées » et que les intéressés devait demeurer propriétaire des parcelles sur lesquelles elles avaient été réalisées. Les tribunaux administratifs et les juridictions civiles ont confirmé cette décision.

La Cour européenne a relevé qu’en « en pratique, les mesures en cause ont réduit de manière significative l’exercice effectif de leur droit de propriété » (§59). La Cour européenne a noté que les mesures prises par les autorités avaient servi l’intérêt général de la commune.

Toutefois, les intéressés ont non seulement dû supporter les coûts de réalisation et d’entretien des voies de circulation passant sur leur terrain mais ils ont également été contraints d’accepter que celui-ci fût affecté à l’usage public, sans aucune limite temporelle (§74).

27209/03           Kuliś and Różycki, judgment of 06/10/2009, final on 06/01/2010

This case concerns a violation of the applicants' right of freedom of expression due to disproportionate and unsjustified findings against them by civil courts in respect of the publication of an article (violation of Article 10).

The first applicant owns a publishing house which publishes a weekly magazine, Angora, and its supplement for children, Angorka. The second applicant was Editor-in-chief of the magazine.

On 16/05/1999 Angorka published an article referring to an advertising campaign by a company, Star Foods, for its potato crisps. The article was critical of an advertisement placed in company’s crisp packaging which called a popular cartoon character for children “a murderer”.

The Star Foods Company brought a civil claim for protection of personal rights under Article 23 of the Civil Code, against both applicants seeking an apology and payment to a charity. This claim was granted by the courts, who found that the applicants’ article had discredited the products of the company. The applicants’ appeals were dismissed in 2002.

The European Court found that the applicants had not aimed to denigrate the quality of the crisps but to raise awareness of the type of slogans used by the company and the unacceptability of such tactics to generate sales. Accordingly, the European Court considered that the domestic courts had “failed to have regard to the fact that the press had a duty to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest and in so doing could resort to some exaggeration or even provocation” (§39 of the judgment), as had been the situation in the present case. The European Court concluded that “the reasons adduced by the domestic courts could not be regarded as relevant and sufficient to justify the interference at issue” (§39 of the judgment).

25924/06           Nowiński, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that his claim for compensation against the Wrocław Court of Appeal was declared inadmissible on the sole ground that the applicant had not provided his home address (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant provided the Wrocław Regional Court with his work address and post-office box address for correspondence. However, the court considered that in spite of that information he had not indicated his “place of residence” with the meaning of Article 126 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, on 16/05/2005 the Regional Court refused his claim.

The European Court found that the applicant, who was the claimant in the case, was in permanent contact with the domestic courts and it was in his interest to ensure that the proceedings progressed without problems. He had therefore provided a fixed address through which he could be contacted. The Court recalled that the right of access to a court is not absolute; it may be subject to limitations, provided those limitations pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate. The European Court accepted that “a requirement to indicate a place of residence served a legitimate aim …However, it considered that the strict application [of the rule] in the applicant’s case” was disproportionate (see §34 of the judgment). The Court concluded that as “the Government failed to submit any arguments making it possible to assess the need for the limitations imposed on the applicant, the Court cannot but conclude that the requirements of Article 6§1 were not complied with” (§35 of the judgment). 

- 1 case against Portugal / 1 affaire contre Portugal

50812/06           Almeida Santos, arrêt du 06/10/2009, définitif le 06/01/2010

Cette affaire concerne la violation du principe de l'égalité des armes, et partant du droit à un procès équitable, du fait que la requérante n’a pas eu les mêmes possibilités de présenter sa cause que celles de la partie adverse dans le cadre d’une procédure d’inventaire en partage des biens d’une succession (violation de l'article 6§1).

La procédure devant le tribunal de Caldas de Rainha s’est déroulée en 1992-1993 sans la participation de la requérante qui n’avait reçu notification que de l’introduction de cette procédure du fait de sa qualité d’héritière ne résidant dans la circonscription judiciaire du tribunal compétent (conformément à la législation – article 1330 du code de procédure civile – applicable à l’époque des faits). Par conséquent, à l’entretien entre les intéressés (conferência de interessados) fixée par le juge le 30/01/1993 seule l’autre partie comparut. Le 03/03/1993 le tribunal homologua le partage des biens de la succession. La requérante introduisit une demande d’annulation de cette décision, laquelle fut rejetée par le même tribunal le 14/02/2003. Cependant, le 15/06/2004 la cour d’appel de Lisbonne fit droit à la requérante, affirmant que cette dernière n’avait pas bénéficié d’un procès équitable selon l’article 6 de la Convention européenne et que l’article 1330 du code de procédure civile était aussi contraire au principe constitutionnel du procès équitable (article 20 de la Constitution). Par la suite, le 06/04/2005 le Tribunal constitutionnel a décidé que l’article visé n’était pas contraire à la Constitution parce que « il n'était pas disproportionné d'exiger d'un intéressé résidant en dehors de la circonscription judiciaire en cause qu'il se maintînt informé du déroulement de la procédure d'inventaire » (§16). Le dossier a été renvoyé devant la cour d’appel de Lisbonne. Bien qu’elle se soit conformée à la décision du Tribunal constitutionnel quant à la constitutionnalité de l’article 1330, la cour d’appel a considéré, dans son arrêt du 20/09/2005, que le résultat auquel avait abouti l'entretien entre les intéressés était contraire aux principes de bonne foi et d'enrichissement sans cause et elle a annulé cet acte, invitant le tribunal de Caldas de Rainha à organiser un nouvel entretien entre les intéressés, avec la participation de la requérante. Finalement, le 08/06/2006 la Cour suprême a annulé la décision de la cour d'appel et a confirmé la décision du tribunal de Caldas de Rainha : la Cour suprême a souligné que la requérante avait été régulièrement citée à comparaître et que l'absence de notification aux fins de participation à la réunion entre les intéressés n'était pas l'un des motifs d'annulation du partage des biens limitativement énumérés par la loi applicable (§19).

La Cour européenne a observé que la requérante avait été placée dans une situation de net désavantage par rapport à la partie adverse et que rien ne permettait de penser qu’elle avait renoncé à ses droits de caractère civil et à la possibilité de participer pleinement à la procédure d’inventaire en partage des biens (§§ 40-41). La Cour a considéré, en outre, que la législation applicable à l’époque aux personnes dans la situation de la requérante était loin de remplir ces critères (§42).

- 8 cases against Romania / 8 affaires contre la Roumanie

2712/02            Agache and others, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

The case concerns the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation of the death of the applicants’ relative, a police officer murdered by private individuals during the anti-communist demonstrations which took place in Romania in December 1989 (procedural violation of Article 2).

The European Court noted that the procedure had lasted for more than eleven years. The Court considered that the investigation had been extremely complex but noted that between June 1994 and November 1997 no measure had been taken with a view to concluding the investigation, nor had any procedural steps been taken. It was only after receiving a written request to this end from the higher prosecutor’s office that the competent prosecutor’s office committed the five persons suspected of having attacked and murdered the applicants’ relative to trial, in December 1997. The Court also noted that the authorities had taken evidence from only three witnesses and two of the accused and had based their findings on the statements made by the other witnesses during the investigation. According to the Court, in absence of other evidence, the domestic courts should have heard the eyewitnesses who had been found, to establish the facts and the identity of the perpetrators. Finally, the Court noted that three of the persons convicted for the violence that led to the death of the applicants’ relative have not served their prison sentences, the Romanian authorities not having taken the necessary steps to secure their extradition.

The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings had not been conducted with sufficient diligence and they failed to afford appropriate redress for the infringement of the right to life.

3990/04            Trufin, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

The case concerns the lack of an effective investigation of the violent death of the applicant’s brother in 1992 (violation of Article 2). In May 1992, the applicant’s 66-year-old brother was found unconscious in the suburbs of Botosani. A few days later, he died and a criminal investigation was initiated.

The main deficiencies of the investigation revealed by the Court concern:

- the overall duration of the investigation (eleven years and six months) and its obvious slowness, even after the authorities established that the death had been violent and the case was one of homicide;

- the fact that the initial autopsy report did not reveal any skull fracture while the subsequent report, issued in 1996, noted the existence of such a fracture;

- the fact that the measures taken by the authorities to clarify the circumstances of the death were limited to an investigation on the spot and the medical examinations and that all these acts seem to have been carried out only as a consequence of repeated complaints and requests submitted by the applicant, the authorities taking no initiative to carry out an effective investigation.

Regarding the involvement of the applicant in the proceedings, the Court noted that she was twice refused access to certain documents in the investigation file, the only reason communicated to her being that the investigation was still pending. Important decisions taken during the investigation procedure were communicated to the applicant with significant delay and only at her repeated requests. All the information addressed to the applicant comprised only the decision taken, without other details concerning the reasons for them. Consequently, the Court found that the requirements of public control and access of the victim’s family to the investigation were not observed during the procedure.

It should be mentioned that in May 2004, the applicant received a letter from the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, informing her among other things that given that the prosecution had become statute-barred, the proceedings had been discontinued. 

64301/01           Velcea and Mazăre, judgment of 01/12/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns the failure to conduct an effective investigation of the murder of relatives of the applicants in 1993, by third parties (procedural violation of Article 2).

On 7/01/1993, Georgeta V and Tatiana A. (mother and daughter) were killed during a fight that had started between Tatiana A. and her husband, Aurel A, who was accompanied by his brother, George L., an off-duty police officer. Aurel A. committed suicide after confessing to the murder in writing. The criminal investigation in respect of Aurel A. was discontinued on the ground that the he committed suicide and no-one else had been involved. The first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against George L. The proceedings were discontinued in 2004.

The European Court noted the following deficiencies in the investigation:

-           although they had been informed of George L’s involvement in the incident, it was not until several months later, after the applicants had lodged a formal criminal complaint, that the authorities opened an investigation in his regard;

-           as George L was a police officer (although he was not acting in that capacity when the incident occurred), the investigation in his regard has been carried out by military prosecutors, who were not independent officers;

-           the investigation of George L’s involvement, which lasted 11 years, was not conducted with the requisite speed;

-           the applicants were not duly informed of the orders discontinuing the proceedings, which might have prevented them from challenging those decisions effectively.

The case also concerns the violation of the first applicant’s right to respect for his family life to the extent that the domestic courts allowed the murderer’s family to inherit from Tatiana A (violation of Article 8). In this respect, the courts gave a restrictive interpretation to Article 655 of the Civil Code, which required, with a view to disqualifying an individual from inheriting from the deceased, that he/she had been convicted for murdering that person. 

According to the European Court, there was no doubt that Aurel A. had killed Tatiana A. Without calling into question the personal and non-transferable nature of criminal responsibility, the Court considered that it was unacceptable that following a person’s death the unlawfulness of his acts should remain without effect. In the specific circumstances of this case, by applying the provision of the Civil Code on causes of unworthiness mechanically and too restrictively, the Romanian courts had gone beyond what was necessary to ensure adherence to the principle of legal certainty.

21737/03           Haralambie, judgment of 27/10/2009, final on 27/01/2010

The case concerns the refuse of the domestic courts in 2003 to examine the legality of an administrative decision concerning the restitution of a plot of land, in view of the exclusive competence of administrative commissions in this field (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the authorities’ failure in their positive obligation to provide the applicant with an effective and accessible procedure enabling him to obtain access within a reasonable time to his personal file drawn up by the former Securitate (violation of Article 8). The applicant was allowed to study his personal file only in June 2008, more than six years after his first request on this issue.

23782/06+         Constantin and Stoian, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial due to their conviction for drug trafficking in 2005, following active incitement by state agents (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court considered that the police agent who introduced himself as an alleged buyer, in a transaction with the applicants, had procured a criminal activity which would not have happened otherwise. In addition, the Court considered that the domestic courts had not sufficiently investigated the allegations of incitement. In this context, the Court noted that the applicants had been acquitted by the first-instance court, which noted that there had been active incitement by the police. However, the appeal court sentenced the applicants to 7 and 6 years’ imprisonment respectively, based on the same evidence.

The Court noted in particular that the appeal court took no evidence, nor did it directly question the applicants on the merits of the accusations against them.

6289/03+          Popa Irinel and others, judgment of 01/12/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns several violations related to the applicants’ detention on remand between September 2002 and June 2003.

The case deals with the infringement of the “law” by the prosecutor when remanding the applicants in custody for 30 days (between September and November 2002) (violation of Article 5§1c)). The European Court noted in this respect that neither the prosecutor, nor even the courts which confirmed the remand at issue specified any reasons or facts to establish that the measure was based on relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 148 d), g) or h)), but limited themselves to simply citing the provisions at issue.

The case also concerns the violation of the right of the applicants, who were placed in detention on remand by a prosecutor, to be brought promptly once detained before a judge (violation of Article 5§3). The case also concerns the courts’ failure to give reasons for extending the applicants’ detention on remand (violation of Article 5§3). In addition, the case concerns the lack of effective access of the applicants’ lawyers to the criminal investigation file during the judicial supervisory procedure concerning the detention on remand (violation of Article 5§4). Finally, the case concerns the fact that some of the applicants were at no stage able to contest the extension of their detention on remand in adversarial proceedings (violation of Article 5§4). The applicants were released in 2003.

75300/01           Ieremeiov No. 1, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

4637/02            Ieremeiov No. 2, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010

The cases concern the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in two sets of criminal proceedings for defamation brought against the applicant, a journalist, following the publication in June 2000 of articles he had written. In both sets of proceedings the courts acquitted the applicant at first instance. However, the appellate courts sentenced the applicant to administrative fines and ordered him to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

According to the European Court, the fact that the applicant had been able to address the domestic courts before the end of the hearings could not be equated with his right to be heard during trial, given that the courts had to carry out an assessment of the subjective element of the alleged offence, that is, the applicant’s intent to denigrate. The Court therefore concluded that by quashing the first-instance judgments and re-examining the merits of the accusations against the applicant without hearing evidence from him and without allowing him to present his defence, the Romanian courts had failed to comply with the requirements of a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1).

The cases also concern the disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The Court found that the articles in question, concerning two public figures, had dealt with issues – indecent behaviour towards an intern and rumours of collaboration with the communist political police – which were of legitimate public concern and had therefore contributed to a debate of public interest. Furthermore, there had been facts to support the applicant’s statements.

The Court attached no importance to the domestic courts’ finding that the applicant had acted in bad faith, insofar as the criminal proceedings lacked the requirements of a fair trial. Although the fines and damages imposed on the applicant had been moderate, the Court found that the Romanian authorities had not given relevant and sufficient reasons in either of the cases to justify the interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression (violation of Article 10).

- 5 cases against the Russian Federation / 5 affaires contre la Fédération de Russie

1062/03            Golubeva, judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 17/03/2010

The case concerns the killing of the applicant’s partner in the course of an arrest operation not organised so as to minimise to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force and any risk to his life (substantive violation of Article 2).

The European Court concluded that the use of force by a police officer was justified. However, it found that the arrest operation was conducted in an uncontrolled manner and that the measures taken by the police lacked the degree of caution to be expected from law-enforcement personnel in a democratic society, even when dealing with dangerous, armed suspects.

The Court also noted that the operation stood in marked contrast to the standard of care reflected in the instructions governing the organisation of the police operations which existed at the time.

32704/04           Vasilyev Denis, judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 17/03/2010

The case concerns the authorities’ failure to take measures needed to protect the applicant’s life after he had been assaulted by persons unknown (violation of Article 3).

The European Court noted that, undeniably, the police had been aware that the applicant was in a vulnerable and life-threatening position, having found him unconscious. Under Russian law, the police had a duty to assist all persons and especially victims of attacks; this duty was codified in detail in the relevant laws. The Convention also imposed the obligation on the state to protect the physical well-being of those who find themselves in a vulnerable position by virtue of being within the control of the authorities. The two officers who had found the applicant, however, had not examined him, had not called an ambulance, but instead had dragged him by the armpits although that had been contrary both to the law and to the most basic requirements of first-aid. As regards the police officers’ precipitate departure from the scene, the fact that there had existed an arrangement under which orders of private security co-ordinators took precedence over the orders of the duty officers at the police station, was found by the Court to be a flagrant perversion of priorities, as it had the effect of putting the protection of private property before that of the applicant’s life.

The case also concerns the lack of medical care provided to the applicant after his transfer to the Moscow City Hospital (violation of Article 3). The Court noted in this respect that the applicant had been left lying undressed and unconscious in a hospital corridor for almost two days without medical attention, the hospital having failed to carry out the most basic procedures provided for a new patient. The Court gave greater credence to the findings of the first medical study, as it had been conducted using the original medical file and by a medical panel working for the Ministry of Defence which, unlike the second panel affiliated to the Moscow authorities, had been an institution unrelated to both the hospital and the investigative authority. The case finally concerns the lack of effective investigation into the applicant’s assault (procedural violation of Article 3). The Court noted that local residents had informed the police immediately of the brutal attack on the applicant. Despite that, the police officers who had arrived at the scene had not drawn up any report or opened an inquiry into the circumstances in the days that followed. Furthermore, although criminal proceedings were ultimately brought, the prosecution authorities had themselves acknowledged that a number of major investigative steps had not been taken, such as reporting on the crime scene and interviewing neighbourhood residents. The responsibility for the investigation was transferred to a different police or prosecution authority at least three times and within five years no less than twelve decisions to discontinue criminal proceedings were issued, only to be subsequently set aside by supervising prosecutors. The Court also concluded that there had been no effective investigation of the actions of the police or the medical negligence of hospital staff (two violations of Article 3). In particular, the Court held that the authorities had been somewhat late in opening criminal investigations of the applicant’s complaints, as these had been brought respectively six months and almost two years after the events. In addition, the investigation concerning the actions of the police had been incomplete and the prosecution had failed to collect the necessary evidence which had led to the collapse of the case against the police officers in court. As regards the investigation of medical negligence, the investigative authorities had demonstrated determination to get rid of the case in a hasty manner; as a result, several investigators had been reprimanded or disciplined. In addition a crucial piece of evidence, the original medical record, had been lost making it impossible to determine whether the allegedly inadequate medical assistance had led to damage to his health.

The Court finally concluded that there was no effective remedy on account of a structural problem in the Russian legal system whereby a civil claim for damages has limited chances for success where criminal proceedings against state officials have been discontinued or ended in an acquittal (violation of Article 13).

7025/04            Pishchalnikov, judgment of 24/09/2009, final on 24/12/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to legal assistance at the initial stage of police questioning.

The European Court first noted that, as soon as arrested, the applicant had asked sufficiently clearly for a specific lawyer to represent him. The authorities had not contacted that lawyer, nor had they offered free legal assistance to the applicant. Instead they had interrogated him intensely in the first few days after his arrest, in the absence of a lawyer, in an effort to produce evidence helpful to the prosecution case. Subsequently, the confessions he had made were decisive for his conviction.

In addition, the Court was not convinced that the applicant had fully realised the consequences of subsequently waiving his right to be legally represented. While the evidence collected suggested that he had systematically refused counsel, it had been unexplainable that during purely formal, procedural investigative steps the applicant had always been assisted by legal aid counsel, while he had usually refused legal assistance when he had to answer the investigators’ questions. Furthermore, after the applicant had been assisted by legal aid counsel on a mandatory basis and had been interrogated in counsel’s presence, he had denied his confession statements made to the investigators during the first two days after his arrest.

Consequently, the Court found that the lack of legal assistance to the applicant at the initial stages of police questioning had irreversibly affected his defence rights and undermined the possibility of a fair trial (violation of Article 6§3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The European Court observed that the proceedings had lasted approximately four years and eight months for two levels of jurisdiction and that there had been substantial periods of inactivity attributable to the domestic authorities and for which the government had not submitted any satisfactory explanation (violation of Article 6§1).

The Court reiterated that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested. The Court noted, in this connection, that Article 413 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if the Court finds a violation of the Convention.

36337/03           Kunashko, judgment of 17/12/2009, final on 17/03/2010

23554/03           Makarova, judgment of 01/10/2009, final on 01/01/2010

These cases concern the state’s failure to assist the applicants in securing enforcement of judgments delivered in their favour in proceedings they initiated against private companies (violations of Article 6§1).

The Makarova case also concerns excessive length of civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

- 2 cases against Serbia / 2 affaires contre la Serbie

*44698/06+       Vinčić and others, judgment of 01/12/2009, final on 02/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing due to judicial uncertainty stemming from the inconsistent adjudication of the District Court of Belgrade in respect of claims brought by many claimants in identical situations (violation of Article 6§1). This inconsistent adjudication of the claims, which were based on the same facts, continued even after the District Court in Belgrade, as the court of last resort in the matter, adopted an opinion on the legal issue concerned. Since the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ request to intervene, these conflicts were not institutionally resolved.

The European Court noted that all this created a state of continued uncertainty, which in turn must have reduced public confidence in the judiciary. It considered that the judicial uncertainty in question had in itself deprived the applicants of a fair hearing before the District Court in Belgrade (§56).

The European Court also observed that dozens of separate cases similar to the applicants’ seemed to be still pending at first or second instance.

Individual and/or general measures:

▪ Information provided by the Serbian authorities (13/04/2010):The European Court's judgment has been translated into Serbian and published in the Official Gazette (No. 109 of 01/12/2009) as well as on the website of the Government Agent (www.zastupnik.gov.rs). The judgment was also published on the Internet page of the Paragraf legal magazine, with expert comments. The Government Agent forwarded the judgment to the Supreme Court of Cassation requesting its distribution to all courts. 

36500/05           Salontaji-Drobnjak, judgment of 13/10/2009, final on 13/01/2010

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair hearing in proceedings which resulted in the partial privation of his legal capacity for several reasons (violation of Article 6§1). First, the applicant was excluded from the final hearing and had therefore been unable to challenge personally an expert report recommending the partial privation of his legal capacity. Secondly, the domestic court offered no reasoning for the statement in its decision that the applicant’s appearance in person at the final hearing would not have been “purposeful”. Lastly, the applicant had no opportunity to meet his state-appointed lawyer and to give her instructions as to how the case should be conducted at the last hearing.

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a court in proceedings to obtain restoration of his legal capacity, for several reasons. First, although the applicant and his guardian lodged numerous requests to this effect, four years later a court of law has still to consider the merits of the full restoration of the applicant’s legal capacity. Secondly, no comprehensive psychiatric examination of the applicant has been undertaken in the context of the proceedings. Lastly, domestic law seems to provide no periodic judicial re-assessment of the applicant’s situation (violation of Article 6§1).

Lastly the case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life in that the partial privation of his legal capacity has been disproportionate (violation of Article 8). The European Court noted in particular that whilst the limitation of the applicant’s legal capacity has been very serious, the procedure by which domestic courts decided it had itself been fundamentally flawed (see above).

Moreover, some four years later and despite repeated requests to this effect, the applicant’s legal capacity has yet to be re-assessed on the merits by a court of law (§144).

Individual and/or general measures:

▪ Information provided by the Serbian authorities (01/02/2010): The European Court's judgment has been translated into Serbian and published in the Official Gazette (No. 92 of 07/11/2009) as well as on the website of the Government Agent (www.zastupnik.gov.rs). The judgment was also published on the Internet page of the Paragraf legal magazine, with expert comments. The Government Agent forwarded the judgment to the Supreme Court of Serbia requesting its distribution to all courts as well as to the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Labour and Social Rights.

- 1 case against Slovenia / 1 affaire contre la Slovénie

8673/05+          Eberhard and M., judgment of 01/12/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns the violation of the first applicant’s right to respect for his family life due to the authorities‘ failure to take adequate and effective steps to enforce an administrative order giving him access to his daughter, and to conduct the subsequent court proceedings concerning his access and custody rights in compliance with the requirements of the Convention (violation of Article 8).

The European Court observed that the fines imposed on the child’s mother following her failure to comply with the order, final as of 03/10/2002, were never actually paid and that no measure was taken in response to her lack of co-operation (§135 of the judgment). Otherwise, no further coercive and/or preparatory measure was taken to create the necessary conditions to enforce the administrative order (§136).

With respect to the court proceedings, the European Court noted that they lasted for more than four years and six months and that an interim access order was issued three years after the proceedings had begun (§139). Moreover, the child’s mother refused to co-operate in the court proceedings without consequence, which resulted in a two-year delay for the expert examination (§§ 141-142).

- 4 cases against Spain / 4 affaires contre l’Espagne

16012/06           Gurguchiani, arrêt du 15/12/2009, définitif le 15/03/2010

L'affaire concerne la violation du principe de « pas de peine sans loi » dans la mesure où la peine infligée au requérant au titre d’une infraction pour laquelle il a été condamnée était plus forte que celle qui était applicable au moment où l’infraction a été commise (violation de l’article 7).

Le requérant, un ressortissant géorgien résidant illégalement en Espagne, a été condamné en janvier 2003 à une peine de dix-huit mois de prison pour une tentative de vol. Suite à cette condamnation la Direction de la police a demandé au juge de l’exécution des peines de procéder à l’expulsion du requérant en vertu de l’article 89 du Code pénal. Cette disposition prévoyait la possibilité pour le juge de remplacer une peine d’emprisonnement inférieure à six ans infligée à un étranger résidant illégalement en Espagne par son expulsion du territoire national et l'interdiction de son retour pour une durée de trois à dix ans. Le juge saisi de l’affaire a décidé de ne pas autoriser l'expulsion du requérant, estimant plus adéquat de procéder à l'exécution de la peine d’emprisonnement. Toutefois, l'expulsion du requérant et l'interdiction du territoire espagnol pour une durée de dix ans a été autorisée par décision du 6/04/2004 rendue par l'Audiencia Provincial de Barcelone, en application d'une nouvelle rédaction de l'article 89 du code pénal en vigueur depuis le 1/10/2003. Selon la nouvelle version, une peine de prison inférieure à six ans infligée à un étranger résidant illégalement en Espagne devait être remplacée par l'expulsion du condamné, sauf cas exceptionnel.

La Cour européenne a observé que, par le biais de cette modification législative, l'expulsion était devenue la règle et que l'appréciation du juge n'entrait plus en ligne de compte, sauf circonstances exceptionnelles que le requérant ne pouvait plus faire valoir lors d'une comparution devant le tribunal.

Elle a relevé enfin que la disposition en cause imposait, dans sa version de 2003, l'expulsion de la personne condamnée et l'interdiction de retour pour une durée de dix ans, peine bien plus sévère que celle prévue par l'ancienne version de la même disposition du code pénal, qui prévoyait l'expulsion et une interdiction de territoire de trois à dix ans, selon l’évaluation du juge.

• Des informations préliminaires ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 24/03/2010. Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours en vue de réunir les informations complémentaires nécessaires à la présentation d'un plan/bilan d'action au Comité.

49151/07           Muñoz Díaz, arrêt du 08/12/2009, définitif le 08/03/2010

L'affaire concerne le refus des autorités d’octroyer à la requérante, une ressortissante espagnole appartenant à la communauté rom et mariée selon le rite propre à cette communauté, la pension de réversion accordée aux conjoints survivants, au motif que son mariage était dépourvu d’effets civils.

La Cour européenne a considéré que ce refus constituait une différence de traitement disproportionnée par rapport au traitement réservé, par la loi ou par la jurisprudence, à des situations analogues, lorsque les intéressés croient de bonne foi à l'existence du mariage même si celui-ci n’est pas légalement valable (violation de l’article 14 combiné avec l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

La Cour a considéré, par ailleurs, que le refus de reconnaître la qualité de conjointe à la requérante, aux fins de l'obtention d'une pension de réversion, avait omis de tenir compte des spécificités sociales et culturelles de la requérante pour apprécier la bonne foi de celle-ci.

La Cour a observé à cet égard que, « un consensus international se fait jour au sein des États contractants du Conseil de l'Europe pour reconnaître les besoins particuliers des minorités et l'obligation de protéger leur sécurité, leur identité et leur mode de vie (…), non seulement dans le but de protéger les intérêts des minorités elles-mêmes mais aussi pour préserver la diversité culturelle qui est bénéfique à la société dans son ensemble ».

La Cour a relevé, en outre, que dans son jugement du 30/05/2002 rendu dans cette affaire, le juge du travail no 12 de Madrid a interprété la législation applicable en faveur de la requérante mais que ce jugement a été par la suite infirmé par l'arrêt d'appel du 7/11/2002 du Tribunal supérieur de justice de Madrid. Le Tribunal Constitutionnel a rejeté le recours d’amparo de la requérante en 2007.

Le 03/12/2008, en vertu de la loi n° 40/2007 du 04/12/2007 introduisant la possibilité de bénéficier d’une pension de réversion dans les cas d’unions de fait (respectant certaines conditions et délais), la requérante s’est vu octroyer une pension de réversion à compter du 01/01/2007, en tant que compagne de M.D.

• Des informations préliminaires ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 24/03/2010. Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours en vue de réunir les informations complémentaires nécessaires à la présentation d'un plan/bilan d'action au Comité.

1425/06            C.C., arrêt du 06/10/2009, définitif le 06/01/2010

L'affaire concerne l’atteinte au droit à la vie privée et familiale du requérant en raison de la divulgation de son identité et de sa séropositivité dans un jugement rendu dans le cadre d’une procédure civile entre lui et son compagnie d’assurance (violation de l'article 8).

Le requérant avait assigné devant le juge de première instance n° 4 de Salamanque sa compagnie d’assurance, étant donné que cette dernière refusait de lui payer une indemnisation au titre de son incapacité permanente absolue. Malgré la requête explicite de confidentialité sollicitée par le requérant, dans le jugement du 24/12/2003 son identité a été divulguée et mise en relation avec son état de santé.

La Cour européenne a estimé que la divulgation dans le jugement de ce type de données à caractère personnel relatives à la santé ne se justifiait pas par un quelconque motif impérieux (§40 du jugement).

25242/06           Juez Albizu, arrêt du 10/11/2009, définitif le 10/02/2010

L'affaire concerne l’atteinte au droit du requérant à un procès équitable en raison du manque de motivation d’une décision judiciaire rejetant l’appel qu’il avait interjeté dans le cadred’une procédure civile pour inexécution des obligations contractuelles d’une société de promotion immobilière relatives à la construction d’une villa (violation de l’article 6§1).

Dans son arrêt du 10/10/2002 le juge de première instance analysa le contrat, objet du litige, et au vu de son contenu, il estima qu'il s'agissait d'un contrat d'arrhes et non d'un contrat de vente (comme le prétendait le requérant), et rejeta les prétentions du requérant. Dans la procédure d’appel, le 07/02/2003 l'Audiencia Provincial rejeta le recours du requérant affirmant qu'elle ne pouvait se prononcer sur le fond de ses prétentions, le contrat sur lequel se fondait l'appel n'ayant pas été versé au dossier de la procédure.

Cependant, dans sa décision suivante du 15/09/2003, rendue suite à l'action en nullité du requérant, la même Audiencia Provincial soutenait que, malgré la rédaction de son arrêt du 07/02/2003 rendu en appel, elle avait effectivement examiné le contrat présenté devant la première instance. Enfin, dans son arrêt du 12/11/2005, le Tribunal constitutionnel considéra que les décisions rendues par l'Audiencia Provincial étaient motivées.

La Cour européenne a estimé que l'Audiencia Provincial n'avait pas dûment motivé le rejet du recours d'appel interjeté par le requérant. Elle a observé que l'Audiencia Provincial n’avait pas rejeté l'appel du requérant sur la base des motifs du jugement de première instance et qu’elle ne s’était pas prononcée sur le fond au motif que le contrat en cause ne figurait pas dans le dossier de la procédure. Saisie à nouveau dans le cadre de l'action en nullité, l'Audiencia Provincial semble avoir voulu corriger cette erreur, sans toutefois expliquer les motifs de cette contradiction.

La Cour a aussi noté que d'autres questions soulevées par le requérant devant l’Audiencia Provincial étaient restées sans réponse, notamment le fait de savoir si la partie défenderesse avait ou non respecté les obligations dérivées du contrat en ce qui concerne les caractéristiques de la villa.

• Des informations préliminaires ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 18/02/2010. Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours en vue de réunir les informations complémentaires nécessaires à la présentation d’un plan/bilan d’action au Comité.

- 1 case against Switzerland / 1 affaire contre la Suisse

12675/05           Gsell, arrêt du 08/10/2009, définitif le 08/01/2010

Cette affaire concerne une atteinte injustifiée au droit du requérant à la liberté d’expression en ce que l’article 36, alinéa 1er, de la Constitution fédérale qui a constitué l’unique base juridique de la restriction imposée au requérant, à savoir l’interdiction de se rendre à Davos afin de participer à une conférence internationale organisée par les altermondialistes, ne satisfaisait pas à l’exigence de prévisibilité au sens de l’article 10§2 de la Convention.

La Cour européenne, après avoir souligné le principe selon lequel la responsabilité d’un Etat peut être engagée s’il n’a pas respecté son obligation d’édicter une législation interne, a estimé que les autorités nationales auraient dû appuyer la mesure litigieuse sur une base légale plus précise que l’article 36 alinéa 1er de la Constitution fédérale (violation de l’article 10).

Mesures de caractère individuel : la Cour européenne a accordé une satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage matériel.

• Évaluation : Aucune autre mesure ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Informations fournies par les autorités suisses le 07/04/2010) : Le parlement du canton Grisons a adopté le 28/11/2001 un nouvel article 8a à l’ordonnance sur la police cantonale. Cette ordonnance qui est entrée en vigueur le 01/01/2002, est libellée comme suit : « La police cantonale a la compétence d’ordonner, dans une situation donnée, les mesures nécessaires pour sauvegarder la sécurité et l’ordre publics et pour prévenir les menaces. Elle peut, en particulier, a) enjoindre à des personnes de quitter un lieu ou un périmètre ; b) interdire l’accès à des objets, des biens-fonds ou des périmètres ; c) interdire de séjourner dans des objets, des biens-fonds ou des périmètres ; (…)  En cas de non-respect d’un tel ordre, elle peut en imposer l’exécution par les moyens nécessaires et appropriés ». Cette disposition a été ultérieurement reprise dans l’article 12 de la nouvelle loi du 20/10/2004 sur la police du canton des Grisons, en vigueur depuis le 01/07/2005.

Le Tribunal fédéral et les autres autorités directement concernées ont été informés de l’arrêt et de son contenu. Par ailleurs, l’arrêt de la Cour a été publié dans le Rapport trimestriel sur la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne et son résumé diffusé auprès de tous les cantons et autorités fédérales.

• Les informations fournies par les autorités suisses sont en cours d'évaluation.

- 2 cases against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” / 2 affaires contre « l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine »

1431/03            Stojanovski Trajče, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

The case concerns the violation of the right to liberty of the applicant, who is a deaf and mute, in that his continued psychiatric confinement in a closed hospital, ordered in 1998 following his conviction for an offence, has not been shown to have been necessary and justified during the second review of his confinement in 2003 (violation of Article 5§1(e)).

In 2003, the hospital lodged with the Štip Court of First Instance a second a proposal for the applicant’s conditional release, repeatedly citing his good behaviour and good relations with the personnel and other patients in the hospital. However, the domestic courts dismissed this request on the basis of the information provided by the police regarding the applicant’s behaviour outside the hospital and the local inhabitants’ perceptions of him. In doing so, the courts disregarded the hospital’s opinion as not binding on them.

The European Court was not persuaded that the domestic courts had established that the applicant’s mental disorder was of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, or that the validity of the confinement could be derived from the persistence of such a disorder. Therefore, it found that the applicant’s continued confinement was manifestly disproportionate to his state of mind at that time and, as such, unjustified (§§36‑37 of the judgment).

4922/04            Lazoroski, judgment of 08/10/2009, final on 08/01/2010

This case concerns the unlawful detention of the applicant in police custody in 2003, in that the detention was not founded on a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence (violation of Article 5§1 (c)).

The European Court noted that the judicial authorities had provided no information about an alleged offence in this case, nor any evidence in support of the applicant’s involvement in such an offence (§47of the judgment). There was thus nothing to suggest that the applicant was involved in the offence (§48).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to liberty in that the authorities did not inform him of the reasons for his arrest (violation of Article 5§2).

Lastly, the case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that he was prevented from participating effectively in the criminal proceedings against him (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the written evidence presented by the Ministry of the Interior to the investigating judge who decided on the lawfulness of detention had not been disclosed to the applicant. The applicant had furthermore not been summonsed by the investigating judge to attend the decisive hearing and to present arguments in his favour. His complaints in this respect had been likewise left unanswered on appeal.

- 9 cases against Turkey / 9 affaires contre la Turquie

*30471/08         Abdolkhani and Karimnia, judgment of 22/09/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns the risk that the applicants might be subject to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if they were to be removed to Iran or Iraq.

The case also concerns the lack of an effective and accessible remedy in relation to the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as their contention that their removal to Iran or Iraq would have consequences contrary to this provision was never examined by the national authorities (violation of Article 13). 

The European Court noted that the lack of any response by the national authorities regarding the applicants’ allegations amounted to a lack of the “rigorous scrutiny” that is required by Article 13 of the Convention and that by failing to consider the applicants’ requests for temporary asylum, to notify them of the reasons for not taking their asylum requests into consideration and to authorise their access to legal assistance while in police headquarters, the national authorities prevented applicants from raising their allegations under Article 3 in the framework of the temporary asylum procedure provided by the 1994 Regulation and Circular No. 57. The Court also stated that the applicants could not apply to the administrative or judicial authorities for annulment of the decision to deport them to Iraq or Iran as they were never served with the deportation orders made in their respect. The Court considered that the judicial review in deportation cases in Turkey cannot be regarded as an effective remedy since an application for annulment of a deportation order does not have suspensive effect unless the administrative court specifically orders a stay of execution of that order.

Lastly, the case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicants’ detention due to the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention pending deportation and setting time-limits for such detention (violation of Article 5§1); the violation of their right to be informed of the reasons for their continued detention (violation of Article 5§2) and the absence of a remedy whereby the applicants could obtain judicial review of their detention (violation of Article 5§4).

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (03/11/2009) The Ministry of the Interior granted the applicants temporary residence permits of 5 months, which allow them to reside in Kırklareli province. They further noted that the applicants could leave Kırklareli Refugees’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in accordance with these residence permits.

14526/07+         Ürper and others, judgment of 20/10/2009, final on 20/01/2010

The case (nine applications), which was lodged with the European Court by 26 applicants, who were theowners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of four daily newspapers, concerns the suspension of the publication and dissemination of these newspapers for periods ranging from 15 days to a month (violation of Article 10).

The European Court observed that the suspension of the publications had not been imposed only on selected reports but on the future publications of entire newspapers whose content had been unknown at the time of the domestic courts’ decisions. It considered that less draconian measures could have been envisaged by the Turkish authorities, such as confiscation of particular issues of the newspapers or restrictions on the publication of specific articles. The European Court held that the practice of banning the future publication of entire periodicals on the basis of Article 6(5) of Anti-Terror Law (Law no. 3713) went beyond any notion of “necessary” restraint in a democratic society, and instead amounted to censorship in violation of Article 10.

The European Court, considering that the violation of Article 10 of the Convention originated in a problem of a systemic nature, arising out of the Turkish legislation, held that the respondent state should revise Article 6(5) of Law No. 3713 to take account of the principles enunciated in paragraphs 35-45 of the judgment with a view to putting an end to the practice of suspending the future publication and distribution of entire periodicals (§52).

18342/03           Davran, judgment of 03/11/2009, final on 03/02/2010

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s right to access to the Court of Cassation, due to the authorities’ failure to notify a first-instance judgment.

The European Court noted that it was not Article 28 of the Notification Act (Law No. 7201) which was applicable in the applicant’s case, providing notification through publication in the Official Gazette when it is not possible to locate the persons concerned, but Article 19 – requiring the notification of a judgment to a prisoner though the prison authorities, and that it would have given him an effective right of access to the Court of Cassation(violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court further noted the shortcomings in the arrangements for publication of the judgment, and pointed out that it was incumbent on the state to put in place an information network between the judicial authorities across the country (§§20, 33, 45, 46).

42981/04           Övüş, arrêt du 13/10/2009, définitif le 13/01/2010

Cette affaire concerne essentiellement une violation du droit de la requérante au respect de sa vie familiale

En janvier 1999, la requérante, résidente en Allemagne, avait introduit une action en divorce à l’encontre de son époux devant le tribunal de Heidelberg. Le tribunal a prononcé la divorce et a attribué le droit de garde des enfants à la requérante. Ce jugement a reçu l’exequatur en Turquie par un jugement rendu par le tribunal de grande instance d’Adana en juin 2001.

Entretemps, en mars 2000, l’époux de la requérante avait également introduit une action en divorce devant le tribunal de grande instance d’Adana qui, par un jugement rendu en octobre 2000, a prononcé la divorce et a attribué le droit de garde des enfants à l’époux de la requérante. Or, ce jugement n’a pas été dûment notifié à la requérante.

Lorsqu’en juin 2001, la requérante s’est rendue en Turquie accompagnée de ses enfants, son ex-époux, s’appuyant sur le jugement rendu en octobre 2000, a obligé la requérante à rentrer en Allemagne sans les enfants.

La Cour européenne a estimé d’une part qu’en l’absence de notification adéquate, la requérante avait été privé de la possibilité de participer à la procédure de divorce introduite par son mari devant le tribunal de grande instance bien que l’issue de cette procédure ait eu des répercussions importante sur sa vie familiale (violation de l’article 6§1). La Cour a également constaté que les autorités nationales avaient omis de déployer des efforts adéquats et suffisant pour faire respecter au moins le droit de visite de la requérante de manière à lui permettre de rétablir le contact avec ses enfants.

A cet égard, la Cour européenne a estimé, compte tenu de l’âge des enfants, que l’Etat défendeur devait prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour soutenir les efforts de la requérante dans le but de rétablir progressivement le lien maternel entre la requérante et ses enfants (§71).

35570/02           Özbek et autres, arrêt du 06/10/2009, définitif le 06/01/2010

Cette affaire concerne l’atteinte à la liberté d’association des requérants en raison du refus des tribunaux nationaux d’enregistrer leur fondation (violation de l’article 11).

En décembre 2000, les requérants avaient décidé de créer une fondation d’utilité publique qu’ils avaient dénommé Kurtuluş Kiliseleri Vakfı (Fondation des Églises de la Libération) et avaient demandé au tribunal du chef-lieu du siège de la fondation de l’enregistrer sur son registre. La demande des requérants a été rejetée définitivement par un arrêt du 14/02/2002 de la Cour de cassation. Cette dernière a considéré que le statut de la fondation allait dans le sens d’un soutien aux membres de la communauté protestante exclusivement et n’était pas compatible notamment avec le principe d’égalité consacré par la Constitution. 

La Cour européenne a estimé que les juridictions internes en n’accordant pas aux requérants un délai pour modifier les statuts litigieux de la fondation, avaient dépassé leur marge d’appréciation. Selon la Cour, un tel refus était disproportionné par rapport aux objectifs poursuivis et n’était pas « nécessaire dans une société démocratique ».

39523/03           Öztürk Selin Aslı, arrêt du 13/10/2009, définitif le 13/01/2010

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit d’accès de la requérante à un tribunal dans la mesure où les juridictions nationales lui ont refusé la qualité pour agir afin de demander l’exequatur du jugement de divorce de son père, décédé peu après le prononcé du divorce.

En février 2001, le tribunal de grande instance de Bensheim avait prononcé la divorce du père de la requérante et de son épouse de nationalité allemande. En mai, le père de la requérante est décédé sans demander l’exequatur de ce jugement de divorce en Turquie.

En décembre 2001, la demande de la requérante concernant l’exequatur de ce jugement de divorce a été rejetée définitivement par la Cour de cassation. Cette dernière a considéré, suivant sa jurisprudence établie en la matière, que seules les parties à la procédure initiale pouvaient demander l’exequatur d’un jugement de divorce rendu à l’étranger.

La Cour européenne a considéré que la limitation litigieuse avait porté atteinte à la substance même du droit de la requérante d’accès à la justice en ce qu’elle avait constitué un obstacle insurmontable pour la requérante lors de sa tentative de revendication de la totalité de la succession de son père défunt. Sur la base de ces mêmes considérations la Cour a également constaté une violation du droit au respect de ses biens (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

La Cour a également noté que la nouvelle loi relative au droit et à la procédure internationaux privés, entrée en vigueur le 12/12/2007, permet à toute personne ayant un intérêt juridique dans la délivrance de l’exequatur d’en faire la demande.

3197/05            Özerman et autres, arrêt du 20/10/2009, définitif le 20/01/2010

La présente affaire concerne essentiellement une violation du droit au respect des biens des requérants en raison de l’absence d’indemnisation pour le transfert de leur bien au Trésor public et à la municipalité d’Antalya (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

En 1955, le bien litigieux avait été inscrit sur le registre foncier au nom de M.Ö, dont les requérant sont les héritiers. En février 2002, à la suite d’un recours introduit par la Direction générale des forêts parmi d’autres, le tribunal cadastral, considérant qu’une partie du bien litigieux relevait du domaine forestier, a annulé le titre de propriété des requérants sur cette partie et a décidé son enregistrement au nom du Trésor public comme domaine forestier.

Entretemps, en avril 1995, alors que cette procédure était pendante devant le tribunal cadastral, la municipalité d’Antalya a engagé une action contre plusieurs personnes, dont les requérants, en demandant l’expropriation des biens et leur inscription sur le registre foncier à son nom. Par un jugement devenu définitif en janvier 2000, cette demande a été partiellement accueillie par le tribunal de grande instance, mais considérant qu’une autre procédure au sujet des titres de propriété était pendante devant le tribunal cadastral, il n’a pas fixé d’indemnité d’expropriation et n’a ordonné aucun paiement à la municipalité.

30326/03           Erkuş, judgment of 29/09/2009, final on 29/12/2009

The case concerns the unlawful privation of liberty of the applicant, a conscript at the material time, between 22/02/2003 and 11/03/2003 before he was brought before a judge after his arrest on suspicion of being an army deserter (violation of Article 5§1).

In the absence of any concrete information or documentation to the contrary, the European Court did not find it convincing that the authorities in İzmir had needed 12 days to organise the applicant’s transfer back to his army base in Kırklareli or to prevent his escape since he was a suspected deserter. Nor did the European Court consider it necessary to detain him for a total of 17 days before bringing him before a judge (§32).

34806/03           Talay, arrêt du 22/09/2009, définitif le 22/12/2009

Cette affaire concerne le maintien en détention du requérant pendant huit jours, en dépit de la décision rendue par la cour de sûreté de l’Etat de suspendre l’exécution de la peine du requérant pour raison de santé (violation de l’article 5§1).

La Cour européenne a considérée que les nécessités d’ordre pratique avancées par le gouvernement pour expliquer le retard en question n’étaient pas justifiées en l’espèce d’autant que l’état de santé du requérant avait été jugé incompatible avec le maintien en détention, ce qui appelait une libération immédiate.

L’affaire concerne également l’absence de voie de réparation pour le maintien en détention dans des conditions contraires à l’article 5 (violation de l’article 5§5).

Cette affaire se distingue du groupe d’affaires Değerli et autres (18242/02), dans la mesure où dans ce dernier groupe d’affaires, il s’agit de la prolongation de facto de la détention provisoire des requérants en raison du retard pris par le personnel de l’établissement pénitentiaire dans la mise en œuvre des ordonnances de remise en liberté. Dans la présente affaire, le requérant n’était pas en détention provisoire mais en train de purger sa peine d’emprisonnement et c’est le retard pris par le procureur de la République dans l’examen du dossier du requérant qui a donné lieu à la libération tardive de ce dernier. C’est pour les mêmes raisons que la présente affaire se distingue également de l’affaire Sahin Karatas (16110/03) où le requérant avait été maintenu illégalement en détention du fait d’erreurs dans le calcul des périodes de détention provisoire déjà effectuées.

- 7 cases against Ukraine / 7 affaires contre l’Ukraine

53896/07           Okhrimenko, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 15/01/2010

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicant when detained on remand in that he was constantly handcuffed to his bed for security reasons during in-patient treatment for a number of diseases in a civil hospital (violation of Article 3)

The European Court noted in particular that although the applicant had refused examination and treatment and sworn at the hospital personnel, there was no indication that he had ever behaved violently or attempted to escape. Furthermore, he was constantly guarded by three SIZO (remand centre) officers. Moreover, when taken to the hospital the applicant had been suffering from an advanced stage of cancer and after undergoing surgery and subsequent radiotherapy was in a weak condition. The Court therefore considered that the restraint of the applicant by handcuffs could not be justified by security reasons, given his poor state of health.

20437/05           Shagin, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the lack of a public hearing in criminal proceedings against him (violation of Article 6§1).

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were opened on the suspicion that a network of private commercial enterprises, “Top-Service”, directed by the applicant, had organised an armed group with conspiracy to kill state officials and businessmen who were allegedly obstructing its business. In a ruling of 23/05/2003, the Kyiv Court of Appeal advanced two reasons for excluding the public from the hearings: the privacy of the witnesses and victims and the security of participants in the trial. The only explanation given as to what had given rise to those concerns was a reference to the presence of an unidentified individual in the public gallery, who was allegedly armed and who had allegedly been making an audio recording of the hearings on the applicant's instruction and in disregard of the judges' remarks.

The European Court considered that it was not apparent why the presence of one individual called for the exclusion of all the public: any security issues raised by the individual could have been resolved by less far-reaching measures, such as removing him from the court-room. The trial court's other comments, a reference to the need to avoid disclosure of the statements of witnesses and victims and a general reference to the security of participants, were not put in context or otherwise explained by the authorities. The Court consequently found that no reasons had been given which could justify the exclusion of the public from the entirety of the first-instance proceedings.

In addition, the Court did not consider that the public examination of the case by the Supreme Court remedied the lack of a public hearing before the trial court. Thus, in practice its review was incomparably more limited than that of the first-instance trial, as there was no re-hearing or examination of witnesses and only one hearing was held at that stage of the proceedings.

The case also concerns a breach of the principle of presumption of innocence due to statements made by a public official at the very initial phase of the criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§2).

In the European Court's view, the wording chosen indicated that the official concerned considered it to be an established fact that the applicant had been ordering and paying for murders, while the only issue about which he was less confident was the exact amount paid for the killings. Accordingly, this statement, which had been made long before the applicant's indictment, amounted to a declaration of his guilt which, first, encouraged the public to believe him to be guilty and, secondly, prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority.

1751/03            Matsyuk, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to domestic courts’ inconsistent interpretation of the procedural legislation, which deprived the applicant of the possibility to challenge in clear and practical manner the administrative authorities’ refusal to pay compensation in connection with certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant claimed compensation from the tax police for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of unjustified criminal proceedings brought against him.

By a letter of 23/11/2001 the tax police informed the applicant that his claim had been rejected and explained their reasoning for that decision. After their failure to respond to his renewed claim, the applicant applied for compensation to a court, but was informed that he must first appeal against the refusal of the tax police to award it. After he had fulfilled that requirement, three levels of jurisdiction dismissed his complaint without consideration on the ground that the police decision at issue had not been issued as a resolution but stated in a simple letter.

17551/02           Kolesnik, judgment of 19/11/2009, final on 19/02/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial, in that his conviction for murder was based first on self-incriminating statements obtained at pre-trial stage in the absence of legal assistance and allegedly against the applicant's will and secondly on statements of key witnesses for the prosecution whom the applicant was not able to confront during the trial (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3 (c)).

The European Court found that despite the acknowledgement by the domestic courts of the violation of the applicant’s right to defence, his self-incriminating statements had served as a key element in his conviction. It further concluded that the domestic authorities had not taken sufficient steps to ensure the presence of key witnesses before the court to verify their pre-trial testimony.

Individual measures: The applicant is currently detained. The European Court noted that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It further noted that where an applicant has been convicted in proceedings judged to be unfair as in this case, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, would constitute in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation found.

Ukrainian law provides that court proceedings may be reopened if the European Court has found a violation of the Convention.

• Information is awaited in this respect.

General measures:

• An action plan/ action report is awaited on the measures taken or planned to tackle the problems revealed by the Court.

4785/02            Mironenko and Martenko, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

The case concerns a number of violations of the applicants’ rights while in detention on remand. In particular:

-           the authorities’ failure to bring the applicants promptly before a judge to verify the lawfulness of their arrest: the applicants were not brought before a judge for almost 4 months after their arrest (violation of Article 5§3);

-           the lack of proper and timely judicial review of the applicants’ continuing detention: the consideration of the applicant’s request lasted for more than two months and led to no decision, as the proceedings were discontinued on the basis of a resolution of the Plenary of the Supreme Court which did not have the force of law (violation of Article 5§4);

-           the lack of any remedy at the material time whereby compensation might be granted for the violations found (violation of Article 5§5).

The case further concerns the lack of impartiality of the single-judge trial court, the judge having participated at earlier stages of the criminal proceedings against the applicants and having already expressed an opinion about the applicants’ guilt (violation of Article 6§1).

*2295/06           Chaykovskiy, judgment of 15/10/2009, final on 01/03/2010

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of individual petition to the European Court due the retention by prison authorities of an enclosure to a letter sent by the European Court to the applicant (violation of Article 34).

The Court noted in particular that such interference ran counter to the express wording of Article 113 of the Code on Enforcement of Sentences, further elaborated in Order No. 13 of the State Department for Execution of Sentences of 25/01/2006, according to which the correspondence of detainees with the Court had a privileged status.

11932/02           Mikhaylyuk and Petrov, judgment of 10/12/2009, final on 10/03/2010

The case concerns the unlawful interception of the applicants’ correspondence by a prison administration (violation of Article 8).

At the time of the event, the second applicant worked for the prison and had his permanent place or residence registered there. Subsequently, the applicants lived together in the first applicant’s flat.

As regards legal provisions cited by the Ukrainian authorities, the European Court noted that they were applicable only to persons held in pre-trial detention or serving sentences in prison. However, the applicants did not fall into those categories. As regards the instructions on dealing with correspondence by the Ministry of Interior and the State Department of Execution of Sentences, the Court noted that those instructions were internal and unpublished. The Court accordingly found that the interference with the applicants' correspondence had no basis in law.

- 2 cases against the United Kingdom / 2 affaires contre le Royaume-Uni

1820/08            Omojudi, judgment of 24/11/2009, final on 24/02/2010, rectified on 25/03/2010

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to private and family life as his deportation to Nigeria in 2008 was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (violation of Article 8).

The applicant, a Nigerian citizen, was granted two months’ leave to enter the United Kingdom in September 1982, which was later extended to January 1986. In 1983 the applicant was joined by his partner. They married in 1987, and had three children between 1986 and 1992, all of whom are British citizens.

In 2000 the applicant and his wife applied to have their immigration status regularised, and on 18/04/2005 were both granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom. The applicant was convicted of a number of serious criminal offences on 07/03/1989, and sentenced to a total of nine years’ imprisonment. He was convicted of an unrelated offence, sexual assault, on 19/11/2006, for which he was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.

On 31/03/2007 the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971, made a deportation order on the basis that deportation was necessary for the prevention of disorder and crime and the protection of health and morals. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully, and was deported to Nigeria on 27/04/2008, where he currently lives. The applicant’s wife and children remained in the United Kingdom.

The European Court found that the deportation interfered with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention, but that it was lawful and served a legitimate aim. It attached “considerable weight” to the fact that the United Kingdom authorities were fully aware of the applicant’s offending history when granting him Indefinite Leave to Remain, and  therefore, in assessing the necessity of the interference, only considered the offence committed after Indefinite Leave to Remain had been granted (§§42-43 of the judgment). In this context, the Court noted that the applicant’s offence was not at the most serious end of the spectrum of sexual offences (§44 of the judgment).  The Court held that “having regard to the circumstances of the case, in particular the strength of the applicant’s family ties to the United Kingdom, his length of residence, and the difficulty that his youngest children would face if they were to relocate to Nigeria”, the applicant’s deportation was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (§48 of the judgment).

• Information submitted by the United Kingdom authorities on 09/04/2010 is currently being assessed.

821/03              Financial Times Ltd and others, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

This case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression due to a court order in 2001 obliging them to provide documents enabling the identification of, and instigation of proceedings against, an unknown journalistic source (violation of Article 10).

On 27/11/2001 and 28/11/2001 the applicants, four newspapers and a news agency, received a copy of a leaked confidential document from an unknown source, concerning a possible takeover of South African Breweries plc by a competitor, Interbrew, which, it appeared, had a significant impact on the share price of the companies concerned. On 19/12/2001 the High Court, observing that there was a substantial public interest in identifying the source, granted Interbrew a disclosure order requiring the applicants to deliver up documents provided by third parties, or evidencing discussions with any journalistic source, concerning the possible takeover. The applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 08/03/2002. The applicants have refused to comply with the order, which has not been enforced.

The European Court noted that the disclosure order remains capable of being enforced and thus constitutes an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, but that it was lawful and served a legitimate aim. Emphasising the “chilling effect” that “will arise wherever journalists are seen to assist in the investigation of anonymous sources” (§70 of the judgment), the Court found that “Interbrew’s interests in eliminating the threat of future damage and obtaining damages for breaches of confidence were insufficient to outweigh the public interest in the protection of journalists’ sources” (§71 of the judgment).

• Information submitted by the United Kingdom authorities on 09/04/2010 is currently being assessed.