Ministers' Deputies

At the present Human Rights meeting, the Committee of Ministers, sitting at the level of the Ministers’ Deputies, will supervise the execution of some 3471 cases in accordance with Article 46, § 2, of the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Supervision is carried out in accordance with the Rules for the application of this Article adopted by the Deputies on 11 January 2001[1]. The Directorate General of Human Rights (Department for the execution of the judgments of the Court) and the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers provide advice and assistance to the Deputies in the fulfilment of their functions under the Convention. Information and communications relating to the cases should be addressed to these departments.

Below follows a short comparative survey of the meeting (the information on the nature of the cases in the different sections is described after the table):

		Meetings
Sections	879		871	863	854	847	841	834	827	819	810	803
General Questions												-
1.1	1		4	3	5	2	3	4	8	2	12	0
1.2	1		5	46	3	5	4	53	2	0	6	11
1.3	1		2	-	2	8	15	47	18	4	11	4
1.4	37		1	12	11	10	17	56	44	10	36	25
2	103		66	131	114	98	76	99	52	108	154	277
3.1.a	338		430	466	486	0	469	439	546	677	638	568
3.1.b	106		91	118	188	0	170	165	129	110	89	116
3.1.c	33		31	31	27	0	40	40	39	38	39	36
3.2	-		-	-	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	1
4.1	25		35	18	10	4	10	15	6	15	17	15
4.2	373		137	196	289	101	82	156	78	116	112	91
4.3	2184		4	122	73	4	5	123	2174	2155	5	71
5.1	35		38	67	40	4	39	33	25	32	21	13
5.2	3		2	6	1	1	-	1	0	1	-	0
5.3	5		7	7	6	3	4	7	5	11	7	16
5.4	-		-	1	0	0	-	0	0	0	-	0
6.1	12		17	18	8	375	372	355	406	377	318	351
6.2	421		396	365	391	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total of the cases on the Agenda[2]	3471		1193	1491	1559	615	1276	1479	3151	3186	1456	1595
Total of final resolutions submitted	40		12	61	21	25	39	160	72	16	65	40
Total of new cases	103		66	131	115	98	76	99	52	108	154	277
Total of pending cases	3634		3545	3540	3448	3352	3312	3380	3370	3327	3276	3187

SECTION 1 – FINAL RESOLUTIONS

In the cases appearing under this heading the Deputies are invited to adopt draft resolutions putting an end to the supervision of execution carried out pursuant to Article 46§2 of the Convention (or former Articles 32[3] and 54 for cases decided before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11).

In these cases the Court (or the Committee) has either found a violation of the Convention or struck the case out of the list on the basis of undertakings made by the parties (for example in the case of friendly settlements – see Article 39 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court).

In all the cases, the Deputies have provisionally found, with the assistance of the Directorate General of Human Rights, that the required execution measures have been taken. The relevant information for each case has been summarised in a draft final resolution presented in Addendum 1. To facilitate examination, the cases are grouped as follows:

Sub-section 1.1. - Leading cases

In these leading cases the measures adopted aim at preventing new violations of the Convention (legislative or regulatory measures, changes of case-law, mere publication in those states where the Convention and the Court’s judgments are given direct effect, administrative measures or other measures) and/or at redressing adequately the individual situation of the applicant (among the measures which may be relevant mention may be made of reopening of proceedings, striking out a conviction from criminal records, granting a residence permit, etc.)

Sub-section 1.2 – Cases concerning problems already solved

This sub-section comprises cases which do not raise problems as regards the applicant’s individual situation, but which concern general problems which have already been solved in the context of similar earlier cases.

Sub-section 1.3 – Cases not involving general or individual measures

Contains cases which do not raise problems of a general or individual character. In these cases the mere dissemination of the judgment to the authorities directly concerned is considered sufficient.

Sub-section 1.4 – Friendly settlement and problems of a general character

This new sub-section groups friendly settlements relating to complaints concerning general problems already under examination by the Deputies in the context of other leading cases in which violations have been established.

No discussion of cases in Section 1 is envisaged since the examination of the different execution questions has already been carried out by the Deputies in the course of earlier meetings.

SECTION 2 – NEW CASES

Under this heading, the Deputies are called upon to conduct a first examination of the execution of the new final judgments delivered by the Court (Article 44 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention) finding violations of the Convention. The Deputies also supervise the execution of judgments striking cases out of the Court’s list (friendly settlements, non-pursuit of the application, or a solution to the dispute) and which contain specific undertakings (Article 39 of the Convention and Article 44 of the Rules of Court).

The examination of new cases is in general resumed after the expiry of the 3-month time-limit normally imparted by the Court for the payment of the just satisfaction.

In those cases where all execution measures have already been taken before this first examination, a draft final resolution summarising the relevant information could be submitted for adoption. Such draft resolutions appear in Addendum 2.

Discussion is envisaged mainly for cases which raise questions of individual measures or new general measures.

Dissemination of the judgments translated to all the authorities involved has been requested in all these cases.

SECTION 3 – JUST SATISFACTION

In these cases the Deputies are called upon to supervise the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and, where required, of any default interest owed.

The section also presents the last cases in which the Deputies, in accordance with former Article 32§2 of the Convention, are called upon to decide on the question of just satisfaction on the basis of proposals submitted by the former European Commission of Human Rights or by the Committee of Special Advisors set up by Resolutions DH(99)681 and (2000)138 (see also decision 692/4.4 from December 1999).

Sub-section 3.1 – control of payment:

3.1.a: Supervisionof the payment of the capital sum of the just satisfaction as well as, where due, of default interest, in cases where the deadline for payment expired less than 6 months ago.

No discussion is envisaged of cases appearing in sub-section 3.1.a. Delegations are invited to submit written confirmation of payment to the Directorate General of Human Rights (Service for the execution of the judgments).

3.1.b: Supervisionof the payment of the capital sum of the just satisfaction in cases where the deadline for payment expired more than 6 months ago.

3.1.c: Examination of special payment problems (for example the disappearance of the applicant, disputes regarding the exact amount paid as a result of exchange rate problems or administrative fees).

The further examination of the cases in sub-sections 3.1 a - c depends on the information received.

Sub-section 3.2 – Decisions on just satisfaction

The Deputies may be are called upon to take a decision on just satisfaction pursuant to former Article 32. The details of the cases are found either in a table presented under this sub-section, or, if the case is complex, in Addendum 3 II.

The examination of such cases will be resumed after the expiry of the 3 months time-limit set for payment.

SECTION 4 – CASES RAISING SPECIAL QUESTIONS

(individual measures, measures not yet defined or special problems)

The cases which appear under this heading require special attention to the extent that they either raise problems regarding the individual situation of the applicant, or concern problems in respect of which the necessary execution measures have not yet been defined, or raise other special problems (for example on account of the magnitude of the problems raised or delays in the adoption of the necessary execution measures).

Sub-section 4.1 – Supervision of individual measures only

This sub-section groups together cases in which the Deputies will exclusively examine the measures taken or to be taken in order to put an end to the violation found and/or remedy its consequences as far as the applicant’s individual situation is concerned – where the just satisfaction awarded by the Court has not done so.

Sub-section 4.2 - Individual measures and/or general problems

This heading presents both cases involving payment problems combined with general problems and cases in which measures have not yet been defined. For supervision of individual measures, see sub-section 4.1 above; for supervision of payment, subsection 3.1.c and for general measures, section 5 below.

Sub-section 4.3 – Special problems

This title groups together complex cases raising special problems.

Supplementary information relating to the cases under this heading may, where necessary, be found in Addendum 4.

As long as individual measures are outstanding cases are examined at each Human Rights meeting, unless the Deputies decide otherwise. Examination of other issues is decided upon on a case-by-case basis.

SECTION 5 – SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

In these cases the Deputies are called upon to supervise the progress made in adopting measures of a general character defined at the national level and to ensure that these measures are apt to prevent new violations similar to those found by the Court. Cases are grouped together according to the nature of the main reforms envisaged.

In complex cases which require the adoption of several kinds of measures, cases are placed in the sub-section which corresponds to the main measures remaining to be adopted. A case may thus, for example, pass from sub-section 5.1 to sub-section 5.4 if the legislative changes required are rapidly adopted, whereas the implementation of the practical measures required turn out to take more time.

Sub-section 5.1 – Legislative and/or regulatory changes

In the cases in this group, the Deputies are mainly waiting for changes of legislation or of government regulations aiming at preventing new similar violations. Delegations of respondent States will thus furnish information about the content of draft legislation or regulations and on the procedure for their adoption.

Sub-section 5.2 – Changes of courts’ case-law or of administrative practice

This heading presents cases in which the Deputies are waiting for evidence (in the form of copies of judgments or decisions, statistics, etc.) of a change of the domestic courts’ case-law or of administrative practice, where such a change cannot, for one reason or another, be presumed solely on the basis of the publication or dissemination of the judgment (cf. the next sub-section).

Sub-section 5.3 – Publication / dissemination

This title encompasses in particular cases in which a change of court case-law or of administrative practice may be presumed, on the basis of evidence of the direct effect accorded to the Court’s judgments in general, as a result of simply publishing or disseminating the judgment in the case at issue, where necessary in translation into the national language. It may also concern other types of cases presenting a broader interest, such as those which imply important indications regarding the scope of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In all these cases, the Deputies are normally waiting for details regarding the publication or dissemination carried out.

No discussion is envisaged under sub-section 5.3 and the Deputies are invited to present all relevant information in writing to the Directorate General of Human Rights (Service for the execution of the judgments of the Court).

Sub-section 5.4 – Other measures

This sub-section includes cases which primarily imply other types of general measures, for example practical measures such as the construction of prison facilities, the recruitment of judges, police training, etc.

Where necessary, supplementary information with respect to the cases in this section will be presented in Addendum 5.

Examination of these cases is normally resumed within 6 months’ time.

SECTION 6 – CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION

In these cases, the information available at this meeting on the measures adopted appears to allow the preparation and presentation of a draft resolution putting an end to the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers.

Supplementary information with respect to the cases in this section will be presented, where necessary, in Addendum 6.

Examination is in principle to be resumed at the next Human Rights meeting.

Sub-section 6.1 – cases in which the new information available since the last examination appears to allow the preparation of a draft final resolution

This sub-section includes cases in which the preparation of a draft final resolution appears to be possible, in the light of new information available since last examination by the Committee of Ministers. The Committee is called to examine this new information with a view to approving the preparation of such a draft.

Sub-section 6.2 – cases waiting for the presentation of a draft final resolution

In these cases, the draft resolutions (prepared in collaboration with the Delegation concerned in cases raising questions of individual measures or new problems of a general character) aiming at putting and end to the examination of the case are not yet available at the time of issuing the annotated agenda and order of business.

If available in time for the meeting, drafts could be distributed separately.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

a. Adoption of the Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

Action

The Deputies are invited to adopt the present annotated agenda and order of business.

b. State of ratification by member States of the European Agreement relating to persons participating in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights, the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe and Protocols No. 12 and No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Action

The Deputies are invited to provide information on the state of signature and ratification of these four texts. Tables showing the current state of signature and ratification appear in Addendum General Questions.

c. Preparation of the next meeting (885th (1-2 June 2004)) see page 168

d. Working methods of the Deputies’ Human Rights meetings

Chairman’s proposals

CM/Inf(2004)8-Final

Action

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of this item.

e. Responses in the event of slow or negligent execution or non-execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

CM(2003)37-Rev 4

Action

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of this item in the light of the revised memorandum prepared by the Secretariat.

f. Problems concerning payment of the just satisfaction

Action

The Deputies are invited to examine this item in the light of a memorandum to be prepared by the Secretariat.

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS

(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

(Addendum 1)

Action

The Deputies are invited to adopt the resolutions putting and end to the examination of the following cases as they appear in Addendum 1.

SUB-SECTION 1.1 – LEADING CASES

- 1 case against Bulgaria

H32-1 30381 Mironov, Interim Resolution DH(99)352

- 1 case against Estonia

H46-3098 37571 Veeber, No. 1, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

- 1 case against Switzerland

H46-3373 41202 Müller, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

- 1 case against Poland

H46-2 27785 Włoch, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 22/01/01

SUB-SECTION 1.3 – CASES NOT INVOLVING GENERAL OR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

- 1 case against Italy

H32-3 39175 Sileo, Interim Resolution DH(99)524

SUB-SECTION 1.4 – FRIENDLY SETTLEMENTS AND PROBLEMS OF A GENERAL CHARACTER

- 1 case against Hungary

H46-4 52727 Theiszler, judgment of 30/09/03 - Friendly settlement

- 15 cases against Italy

6 cases relating to the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

H46-6 37888 Cecchi Ida, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-5 34435 Di Tullio, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-8 40453 G.A. V, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-9 35969 Giannatiempo, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-7 41932+ Istituto Nazionale Case Srl No. 2, judgment of 27/11/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-10 43616 Tamma, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

9 cases relating to the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

H46-11 62135 Attene, judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-12 48728 Blasetti, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-13 60663 Cianfanelli Banci, judgment of 30/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-14 61998 Forte and Di Giuliano, judgment of 11/12/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-15 55674 Matta, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-16 65652 Piovano, judgment of 30/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-17 60661 Rogai, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-18 67076 Santoro, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-19 54612 Zito and Corsi, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

- 20 cases against Turkey

H46-21 24932 Kaplan, judgment of 26/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-22 34499 Kortak, judgment of 31/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-23 35980 Z.E., judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

4 cases against Turkey relating to the excessive length of detention in police custody

H46-24 29883+ Fidan, Çağro and Özarslaner, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-25 24933 Kürküt, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-26 30495 Mutlu and Yildiz, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-27 29425 Özçelik and others, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

5 cases against Turkey relating to the excessive length of detention in police custody

H46-28 29862 Bağci and Murğ, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-29 32450 Çaloğlu, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-30 29866+ Demir C., Demir M. and Gül, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-31 28013+ Karatepe and Kırt, judgment of 17/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-32 28014+ Okuyucu, Kara and Bilmen, judgment of 17/07/01 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 1.4

3 cases against Turkey relating to the excessive length of detention in police custody

H46-33 31896 Değerli, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-34 30453 Özata and others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-35 36760 Şanlı and Erol, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

3 cases against Turkey relating to the excessive length of detention in police custody

H46-36 31787 Göktaş and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-37 31895 Morsümbül, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-38 37191 Yildirim and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

2 cases against Turkey relating to the excessive length of detention in police custody

H46-39 24947 Ekinci Lalihan, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-40 24937 Koç Fırat, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES

Action

The Deputies are invited to hold a first examination, under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the ECHR, of the following new judgments, delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (for further information, see the text of the judgments, http://www.echr.coe.int).

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases after expiry of the time-limit set for payment or according to the specific character of the cases.

PAYMENT OF JUST SATISFACTION

In all the new cases in which States should pay just satisfaction as ordered by the Court or as agreed in a friendly settlement, the authorities of the respondent State are invited to provide the Secretariat, in writing, with confirmations of payment.

INDIVIDUAL AND/OR GENERAL MEASURES

As regards any other execution measures which may be called for in the light of the conclusions of the Court, the authorities of the respondent State are invited, on a preliminary basis, to provide the Secretariat, in writing, with information on the measures mentioned after each case. The possible necessity to take other measures than those mentioned could nevertheless be addressed at the meeting.

Dissemination of the judgments translated to all the authorities involved is requested in all cases and delegations are invited to provide the written confirmation of this dissemination.

In all these cases, just satisfaction or sums agreed under a friendly settlement has been awarded to the applicants except in the following case: Ganci, Steur, Gönülşen, Wynne and Lewis

The Secretariat has indicated the cases for which, in principle, no debate seems to be necessary, by the mention “No debate envisaged”.

Section 2

- 5 cases against Austria

H46-41 40284 Krone Verlag GmbH and CoKG No. 2, judgment of 06/11/03, final on 06/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns a disproportionate interference in the freedom of expression of the applicant company, a newspaper, on account of the imposition in 1998 of a coercive indemnity, under Section 20§1 of the Media Act, for not having fully respected the obligation duly to inform the public of compensation claims instituted against it by publishing a short notice having the same “publishing value” as the articles at the origin of the compensation procedure.

The European Court found that this financial penalty constituted a disproportionate breach of the newspaper’s freedom of expression in that it had been imposed by the Vienna Court of Appeal for the period encompassing the appeal proceedings following a decision at first instance in favour of the newspaper. At least during the period of the appeal proceedings, it could not reasonably have been demanded of the newspaper to publish another notice in the presence of a favourable judicial decision, just in case this decision were to be overturned by a superior court (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: The consequences of the violation found in this case have been considered and given redress by the Court in the context of the award of a just satisfaction.

General measures: Publication of the judgment and wide dissemination to the competent authorities, drawing their attention to the findings of the European Court in this case.

H46-42 39394 Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 13/02/04

The case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression on account of a judicial decision of 1996 sentencing Mr Scharsach to a suspended fine for defamation, under Article 111 of the criminal code, and ordering the applicant company to pay damages, under Article 6 of the Media Act. This decision followed the publication, in the weekly magazine published by the applicant company, of an article by M. Scharsach qualifying certain politicians as «old closet Nazis» (Kellernazi) for not having dissociated themselves from the extreme right. Contrary to the Austrian courts, the European Court considered that the allegations at issue, taken in their context, did not amount to a statement of facts but to value judgment on a subject of public interest, not exceeding the limits of permissible criticism. The Court accordingly found that the applicants’ conviction was not necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: Mr Scharsach’s conviction can be annulled through the reopening of the proceedings, under section 363a of the code of criminal procedure. The Court has, on the other hand, ordered the compensation, as just satisfaction, of the fines paid as a result of the convictions at issue in this case.

General measures: Information is expected on the measures – legislative or other – envisaged, in addition to the publication of the judgment and its wide dissemination to the competent authorities, in order to prevent new violations from occurring. In this respect, it should be noted that the conviction contested by the European Court in this case raise doubts about the effectiveness of the case-law change of 1993 indicated in the framework of the execution of the cases of Lingens (judgment of 08/07/86, resolution DH(87)2), Oberschlick (judgment of 23/05/91, resolution DH (93)60), Schwabe (judgment of 28/08/92, resolution DH (94)23) and of a series of other cases, which were similar to the present one.

Section 2

H46-43 53911 Achleitner, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 23/01/04

The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative authorities and courts. The period taken into consideration by the Court began in November 1976 and the proceedings were still pending at the date of the Court’s judgment (having lasted for almost 27 years) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Acceleration of proceedings if still pending before the domestic courts.

General measures: As concerns proceedings conducted before the Administrative Court, this case presents similarities to the case of G.S. (in sub-section 6.2). Most of the delays having occurred before the administrative authorities responsible for the proceedings, information would be welcome as to any measures already taken or foreseen in order to prevent similar excessively long proceedings in future.

H46-44 41444 Hennig, judgment of 02/10/03, final on 02/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (dealing with tax offences) which began on 27/12/1989 and ended on 02/10/1997 (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court especially noted the delays occurred during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, when the investigation was pending before the tax authorities.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of Schweighofer against Austria (judgment of 09/10/2001), which will be examined in sub-section 4.2 at the 885th meeting (June 2004).

As regards the government’s argument that Section 91 of the Courts Act provides a procedure capable of effectively remedying the excessive length of domestic proceedings, the European Court indicated in its admissibility decision of 23/05/2002 in the Hennig case that this remedy existed only in respect of proceedings pending before ordinary courts, and could not be used by the applicant while the tax authorities were carrying out their investigations.

Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court.

*H46-45 57448 Wintersberger, judgment of 05/02/04 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before civil and administrative courts (complaint under Article 6§1).

- 2 cases against Belgium

H46-46 41290 Taveirne and others, judgment of 15/01/04 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the applicants’ complaints concerning the length of certain proceedings relating to civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (complaint under Article 6§1) and the lack of effective remedy in respect of this length (complaint under article 13).

H46-47 49518 Nelissenne, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 23/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 29/07/1993 and ended on 10/05/2001 (more than 7 years and 9 months).

The European Court recalled that the chronic overload of a court (in the present case, the Brussels Court of Appeal) did not provide a valid justification for the excessive length of proceedings.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of Oval S.P.R.L. and with the other cases concerning the length of proceedings before civil courts, which will be examined at the 885th DH meeting (June 2004) for supervision of general measures.

Section 2

- 1 case against Bulgaria

H46-48 37355 S.H.K., judgment of 23/10/03, final on 23/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant. The proceedings began on 23/08/1996 and ended on 11/10/2001 due to the expiration of the limitation period (more that 5 years and 1 month) (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: The case presents similarities to the Kitov case (sub-section 4.2).

- 2 cases against Croatia

H46-49 66485 Napijalo, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 13/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s freedom of movement due to the seizure of his passport by the customs authorities for more than two years for the non-payment of a fine imposed to him at a border checkpoint in February 1999 (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No 4). The Court could not find any justification for the customs authorities’ refusal to return the applicant’s passport as well as for the Zagreb Municipal Court’s dismissal of his application for an interim measure, as no proceedings had been instituted against him for any customs offence.

The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings brought by the applicant before the civil courts seeking the return of his passport. The proceedings began on 02/03/99 and ended on 10/09/02 (more than 3 years and 6 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 6§1, this case presents similarities to the cases of the Horvat group (sub-section 4.2). As regards the violation of Article 2 of Protocol No 4: information is awaited on the legal provisions governing the conditions under which the passport of a person can be seized and restored, if necessary, by the authorities. Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to customs authorities, police authorities and the competent courts drawing their attention to the national authorities’ obligations under the Convention following the judgment (§§79-81).

H46-50 61237 Aćimović, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in order to obtain a determination of his civil claims for damage caused by the members of the Croatian army during the Homeland War in Croatia between 1992 and 1995. In fact, in 1999, before the adoption of a final court decision at national level in this case, legislation was adopted ordering that all proceedings of this kind were to be stayed until new provisions were enacted to regulate the matter. The new legislation, which provides for the resumption of stayed proceedings, was adopted by the Croatian Parliament only on 14/07/2003 (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level.

General measures: The case presents similarities to the cases of Kutić (sub-section 4.1); publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to all civil courts drawing their attention to §§30, 33 and 34 of the judgment relating to the application of the new Act of 14/07/2003 on the responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War.

Section 2

- 1 case against Denmark

H46-51 52792 Vasileva, judgment of 25/09/03, final on 25/12/03

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to liberty and security (violation of Article 5 § 1). In 1995, having been accused of traveling on a bus without a valid ticket, she was arrested for failing to disclose her identity. She was detained in a police station until she agreed to identify herself, i.e., from 9.30 p.m. to 11.00 the following morning. The European Curt found that, in detaining the applicant for more than 13 hours, the Danish authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the legitimate aim of checking the applicant’s identity and her right to freedom, taking particular account of her age (67) and the trivial nature of the offence of which she was accused.

General measures: Dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the police and the courts concerned, accompanied by a circular underlining the essential points of the judgment (for example, §§ 39 to 42).

- 13 cases against France

H46-52 40892 Koua Poirrez, judgment of 30/09/03, final on 30/12/03

The case relates to the dismissal by the competent authorities of the request made by the applicant in May 1990 to obtain an allowance for handicapped adult (A.A.H.). The refusal of the administration was based on the nationality of the applicant (Ivory Coast), according to article 821-1 of the Social Security Code which excluded foreigners from countries which had not concluded a reciprocal agreement with France in this field from entitlement to this allowance. As from 17/12/1991, the applicant received the minimum welfare benefit (R.M.I).

The European Court concluded that the refusal to grant the applicant an A.A.H. constituted a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

General measures: The Aliens (Conditions of Entry, Residence and Asylum) Act of 11/05/1998 (Law No. 98-439) abolished the national condition.

Individual measures: Following this legislative modification, the applicant formulated a new request and obtained the payment of A.A.H. as from 01/06/1998. As far as the preceding period is concerned, the Court noted that the applicant had “undoubtedly suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage” and granted him an amount of 20 000 euros for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. To date, the applicant has not made any further request before the Committee of Ministers.

H46-53 45840 Bayle, judgment of 25/09/03, final on 25/12/03

(No debate envisaged)

This case concern an infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a court (violation of Article 6§1). In 1998, her appeal on points of law had been struck out from the roll of the Court of Cassation on the basis of Article 1009-1 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that she had only partially complied with the pecuniary order made by the Court of Appeal. The European Court noted, inter alia, that in view of her financial situation, the applicant had been unable to pay all the sums concerned but that her desire to comply with the judgment had been evidenced by the fact that she had paid a substantial sum in partial execution; moreover, regard being had to the Court of Cassation’s case-law on the issue before it, her appeal had good prospects of success. In the light of these circumstances in particular, the European Court considered that the decision to strike the applicant’s appeal out of the roll had been a disproportionate measure which had barred her effective access to the Court of Cassation.

Individual measures: Following the European Court’s judgment, the applicant applied to the First President of the Court of Cassation in order to reinstate the appeal on the roll, which has been accepted. The case is presently pending before the Court of Cassation’s 1st Civil Chamber.

Section 2

General measures: This case presents similarities to that of Annoni di Gussola (judgment of 14/11/2000), (sub-section 6.2). The European Court did not call Article 1009-1 of the New Code of Civil Procedure into question, but its implementation by the judge. The judgment in the Annoni di Gussola case was disseminated and published in January 2001; however, a similar violation was found in the present case (last refusal to replace the applicant’s appeal on the Court of Cassation’s roll: November 2002). Confirmation that the particular attention of the First President of the Court of Cassation has been drawn to this judgment is therefore awaited.

H46-54 71846 Rachdad, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 13/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that he had been convicted solely on the evidence of witnesses whom he had been unable to examine or have examined at any stage of the proceedings (violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3d).

Subsequent to the proceedings at issue, by a judgment of 02/12/1998 the Court of Appeal increased the applicant’s sentence to six years’ imprisonment and ordered his permanent exclusion from French territory.

Individual measure: The applicants, currently placed on a compulsory residence, may apply for re-opening of the procedure on basis of Articles 626-1 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

General measures: Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to competent authorities.

H46-55 50638 Duriez-Costes, judgment of 07/10/03, final on 07/01/04

H46-56 51406 Gaucher, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the unfairness of proceedings before the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation due to the absence of communication to the applicants of the sense of the advocate-general’s conclusions and the lack of possibility to reply to them, the applicants not being represented by members of the Court of Cassation Bar (violations of Article 6§1).

The applicants were convicted of road traffic offences in 1995 and 1997 and sentenced to suspension of their driving licences and fined.

Individual measure: The applicants may apply for the re-opening of the appeal on basis of Articles 626-1 to 626-7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

General measures: The cases are similar to the Slimane Kaïd II, Voisine and Meftah cases (sub-section 6.2). In connection with these cases, the French Delegation informed the Secretariat, by letter of 02/12/2002, that all parties to proceedings before the Court of Cassation, whether or not they are represented by a member of the Court of Cassation bar, are now informed, before the hearing, of the general tenor of the advocate-general’s conclusions. They may reply to the oral opinion and conclusions of the advocate-general through a written note, either produced before the hearing or sent to the court in deliberations.

H46-57 53892 Lilly France, judgment of 14/10/03, final on 14/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the unfairness of proceedings concerning a criminal charge raised against the applicant company before the commercial chamber of the Court of Cassation, due to the failure to communicate to the applicant, a pharmaceutical company, the first part of the report of the reporting judge, containing the statement of facts and procedure and the of the grounds on which the appeal was based (the second part containing his legal analysis and opinion on the merits of the appeal may remain confidential) (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant company was fined for anti-competitive practices in 1996.

Section 2

Individual measures: To date, the applicant company has made no request before the Committee of Ministers.

General measures: The case is similar to those of Slimane Kaïd II (sub-section 6.2) and Fontaine and Bertin (sub-section 3.a). In this context, the French delegation has indicated that the report of the reporting judge (document establishing the question of law raised by the case) is now communicated, together with the file, to both the public prosecutor and the parties; but his opinion on the decision to be adopted and the draft judgments he proposes for the deliberations of the Court of Cassation are communicated to neither.

H46-58 49627 Beladina, judgment of 30/09/03, final on 30/12/03

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of two sets of criminal proceedings and in particular the excessive length of the investigations (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings both began in 1993 and lasted respectively more than 8 years and 7 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction) and more than 9 years and 9 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction).

General measures: This case presents similarities in particular to the case of Etcheveste and Bidart (sub-section 3.a). With regard to the latter case, the French delegation has stated, inter alia, that as from the entry into force of Law No. 2000-516 of 15/06/2000, judicial inquiries are subjected to a proceedings schedule and new rights have been granted to the parties in order to avoid extension of the proceedings.

- Cases concerning of length of civil proceedings

(No debate envisaged)

Item	Application	Case	Length of the proceedings	Cases pending	Proceedings began on
H46-59	42407	C.R., judgment of 23/09/2003, final on 23/12/2003	Commercial proceedings: almost 8 years and 4 months (1 degree of jurisdiction)	No	23/08/1989
H46-59	42407	C.R., judgment of 23/09/2003, final on 23/12/2003	Civil liability proceedings : 9 years and 7 months (4 degrees of jurisdiction)	Yes	01/02/1994
H46-60	55875	Signe, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004	Approximately 10 years and 7 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)	No	08/07/1988

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: In the case of C.R., acceleration of the proceedings which are still pending as confirmed by the applicant’s letter of 13/02/2004.

General measures: Information is awaited concerning the possible measures adopted or envisaged in order to avoid new, similar violations.

H46-61 56243 Chaineux, judgment of 14/10/03, final on 14/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began in 1996 and ended in 2001 (nearly 4 ½ years for 2 degrees of jurisdiction).

The European Court recalled its case-law according to which labour disputes have to be resolved particularly promptly, as they concern issues of major importance for people’s professional situation.

General measures: Information is awaited concerning the possible measures adopted or envisaged to avoid new, similar violations.

Section 2

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

(No debate envisaged)

Item	Application	Case	Length of proceedings	Pending cases	Proceedings started on
H46-62	70753	Bartre, judgment of 12/11/2003, final on 12/02/2004	About 15 years (3 degrees of jurisdiction)	No	06/07/1988
H46-63	27928+	Broca and Texier-Micault, judgment of 21/10/2003, final on 21/01/2004	Broca: more than 8 years and 8 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)	No	21/09/1993
H46-63	27928+		Texier-Micault: almost 5 years and 3 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)	Yes	08/07/1998
H46-64	60992	Sellier, judgment of 23/09/2003, final on 23/12/2003	More than 8 years and 11 months	No	13/02/1991

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1). In the case of Bartre, the European Court stressed the length of the proceedings initially introduced by the applicant before the Conseil d’Etat (4 years and more than 8 months, before declining jurisdiction).

It should be noted that in the case of Broca and Texier-Micault the European Court found that there is now well-established case-law in France according to which parties to proceedings before administrative courts may obtain compensation for the excessive length of proceedings through an appeal based on the state’s responsibility for shortcomings in the workings of justice.

Individual measures: In the case of Broca and Texier-Micault, acceleration of the proceedings concerning Ms Texier-Micault.

General measures: The cases of Broca and Texier-Micault and Sellier present similarities with the case of Sapl (judgment of 18/12/2001) and other similar cases, in sub-section 6.2 following the measures announced by the defendant state. These measures consist principally in the passing of Law No. 2002-1138 of 09/09/2002 (Loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la justice), which applies to all administrative courts and aims at accelerating the functioning of administrative justice. Inter alia, this law provides for: an increase of the number of court staff (recruitment has already begun); the creation of three new courts in five years; the granting of 114 million euros to administrative courts and the Conseil d’Etat for ordinary expenditure and 60 million euros in programme authorisations (autorisations de programme). Procedural measures have also been taken in order to enable administrative courts both to reduce their backlogs more quickly and to reduce the flow of incoming cases (it is now compulsory to be represented by a lawyer before administrative courts of appeal; leave to appeal has been withdrawn concerning certain issues).

The case of Bartre presents similarities with the case of Caillot (judgment of 04/06/1999) and with the other cases concerning the length of proceedings before administrative courts and in particular before the Conseil d’Etat, in sub-section 6.2 following the measures announced by the defendant state. Inter alia, besides the passing of Law No. 2002-1138 (see above), which applies in particular to the Conseil d’Etat, the latter also benefits by new procedural provisions (concerning certain issues: transfer of the appeals to the administrative courts of appeal; concerning certain issues: obligation to lodge a preliminary administrative claim).

Section 2

- 4 cases against Greece

H46-65 61582 Biozokat A.E., judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of property owing to the fact that, in 1996, the application of an “irrebuttable presumption” (Article 1 of Law n° 653/1977) according to which the building of a road is profitable to the adjoining owners, led to an automatic reduction of the applicant’s compensation for the expropriated land for the building of the road (violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1). The presumption was declared “rebuttable” by a change in domestic case-law following the Court’s judgments in the cases of Katikaridis, Tsomtsos and Papachelas (ResDH(2002)105, ResDH(2002)103, ResDH(2002)104 respectively). However, the European Court found this change of the case-law insufficient, since the applicant was obliged to carry out long judicial proceedings for damages, separate from the expropriation procedure, in order to prove that its property was in fact at a disadvantage and thus obtain additional compensation (§§ 31 of the Court’s judgments).

General measures: Subsequent to the facts examined by the Court, the new Law 2971/19/12/2001 incorporated the change already made in domestic case-law and provides that the presumption is no longer “irrebuttable” (Article 33 which entered into force on 19/01/2002). It also provides specific, short proceedings – which do not suspend the expropriation procedure – to enable persons subject to expropriation to rebut the presumption. The question of whether this law has remedied the violation remains to be examined in the context of the similar case of Azas (judgment of 19/09/2002) (sub-section 4.2).

H46-66 59142 Kanakis and others, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 23/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of three sets of proceedings relating to civil rights and obligations (readjustment of pensions) before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1). The two first sets of proceedings began on 17/11/1993 and ended on 22/11/1999 (6 years for three levels of jurisdiction). The third set of proceedings began on 20/07/1993 and ended on 22/11/1999 (6 years and 4 months for three levels of jurisdiction).

General measures: As regards the length of proceedings before the Council of State, the case presents similarities to those of Pafitis (judgment of 26/02/1998), Varipati (judgment of 26/10/1999), etc. which appear in sub-section 6.2 following the constitutional and legislative measures already adopted (Article 95§3 of the revised Constitution, Act 2721/03/06/1999 and Act 2944/08/10/2001) in order to reduce the work-load of the Council of State.

As regards the length of proceedings before administrative courts, the Government has announced that a draft law amending the Code of Administrative Procedure in order to remedy the violation is under way. Further information on its progress is awaited.

Additional administrative measures have been adopted or are under way: a) the Athens Administrative Courts, concerned in this case, have already started to function since 2002 in new premises with modern equipment; b) the number of judges of all jurisdictions has been increased; c) a project for computerisation of courts (including the Council of State and the administrative courts) is under way. Information on the progress of this project is awaited.

H46-67 60821 Diamantides No. 1, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 23/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). They began on 28/06/1995 and were still pending before the criminal court of first instance when the European Court delivered its judgment (8 years and 2 months).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the domestic proceedings.

General measures: The case present similarities to certain cases against Greece (Philis 2, Stamoulakatos, Agga, etc.), which appear in sub-section 6.2 following a number of general measures already adopted.

Recently, further measures have been adopted: Law 3160/2003 amending the Code of Criminal Procedure (entry into force on 30/06/2003); more judges and court administrative staff; computerisation of courts.

Section 2

H46-68 73840 Papazoglou and others, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 13/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings relating to civil rights and obligations (pension allowance) before the Court of Audit (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 06/10/1995 and ended on 12/02/2001 (5 years and 4½ months).

General measures: Administrative measures have been adopted or are under way: a) the Court of Audit has already started to function since July 2003 in new premises with modern equipment); b) the number of its judges has been increased; c) a project of computerisation of its services is under way. Information on the progress of this project is awaited.

- 3 cases against Hungary

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-69 53844 Sikó, judgment of 04/11/03, final on 04/02/04

H46-70 55539 Militaru, judgment of 12/11/03, final on 12/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 30/12/1991 and on 13/10/1995 respectively. The first ended on 26/06/2001 (9 years and 6 months, of which 8 years and 8 months fall within the Court’s jurisdiction), the second was still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (8 years and 1 month).

Individual measures: In the Militaru case, acceleration of the proceedings if they are still pending at national level.

General measures: These cases present similarities to other cases of excessive length of civil proceedings including Tímár against Hungary, judgment of 25/02/2003 (sub-section 4.2).

*H46-71 60037 Németh, judgment of 13/01/04, final on 09/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 02/10/1992 and ended on 14/03/2000 (7 years and 5 months, of which 7 years and 4 months fall within the European Court’s jurisdiction).

General measures: Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to public prosecutors and criminal courts; information is expected about the present situation at national level concerning the length of criminal proceedings.

- 27 cases against Italy

*H46-72 39748 Maestri, judgment of 17/02/04 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns an unlawful interference with the freedom of association of the applicant, a judge, on account of a disciplinary sanction imposed on him in 1995 because of his membership, until March 1993, of a Masonic lodge. The European Court considered that the sanction was not “foreseeable” or “prescribed by the law” because the provisions at its basis (namely, Article 18 of Royal Decree No. 511 of 31/05/1946 combined with a 1990 directive of the Supreme Judicial Board) were not clear enough (violation of Article 11).

The case is similar to the N.F. case (judgment of 02/08/2001, final on 12/12/2001) (sub-section 4.2).

Individual measures: The applicant maintains that his career has been at a standstill since the disciplinary section’s decision of 1995. He accordingly requested that the disciplinary proceedings be reviewed and drew attention to Article 37§6 of the 1946 Decree, which may allow for such a revision (see §45 of the judgment). The Court recalled that it was for the Italian Government to take appropriate measures to redress the effects of any past or future damage to the applicant's career as a result of the disciplinary sanction against him which the Court has found to be in breach of the Convention.

General measures: A new directive, clearly establishing the incompatibility of membership of masonic associations with the exercise of judicial functions was issued in July 1993 (i.e. after the applicant had ceased to be a freemason).

Section 2

H46-73 41576 Ganci, judgment of 30/10/03, final on 30/01/04

The case concerns the fact that the applicant, detained under a special prison regime (Section 41bis of the Prison Administration Act No. 354/75), could not obtain examination by a court of the lawfulness of restrictions imposed on him. The restrictions at issue had been imposed by ministerial decisions (decrees) adopted between November 1996 and December 2000. The deadline of ten days provided by law for deciding on appeals against such decrees was ignored by the competent court (the “Supervisory Court”) which dismissed four of the applicant’s eight appeals without examining them on the merits, since the impugned decree, valid for six months, had meanwhile expired (violation of Article 6).

In this respect, the case is partially different from that of Messina Antonio 2 (application No. 25498/94, judgment of 28/09/2000, final on 28/12/2000), where the applicant’s appeals had been examined on the merits, although too late, and the European Court had found a violation of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy.

General measures: In the framework of the examination of the abovementioned Messina Antonio 2 case, the Italian authorities, by letter of 26/11/2003, informed the Secretariat of the adoption of a new Law, No. 279, of 23/12/2002. The questions of whether this new law effectively prevents new violations and how to ensure the respect of the legal ten-day deadline for deciding appeals will be discussed at the meeting.

The publication of the Ganci judgment and its broad dissemination to Supervisory Courts (responsible for ensuring the execution of sentences) would be useful.

H46-74 44521 Peroni, judgment of 06/11/03, final on 06/02/04

H46-75 52985 S.C., V.P., F.C., M.C. and E.C., judgment of 06/11/03, final on 06/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern disproportionate restrictions of the applicants’ rights in the context of bankruptcy proceedings. In order to protect the rights of others, the Italian law on bankruptcy (Royal Decree No. 267 of 16/03/1942) provides that bankrupts are, inter alia, deprived of their right to administer and dispose of their possessions, that their correspondence should be monitored, that they are prohibited from bringing judicial proceedings and prevented from leaving their place of residence without judicial permission. Although such restrictions are not open to criticism in themselves, they become less necessary with time. Thus, when the length of the bankruptcy proceedings is excessive, as in these cases (more than 15 years and 1 month between 1982 and 1997 in the Peroni case and more than 12 years and 1 month, since 1991, in the S.C., V.P., F.C., M.C. and E.C. case) they upset the balance between the general interest in payment of a bankrupt’s creditors and the interest of the individual.

The European Court accordingly found that the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been violated (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), as had, in the Peroni case, the applicant’s right to have her case decided within a reasonable time (violation of Article 6§1), her freedom of movement (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4) and her right to respect for her correspondence (violation of Article 8).

These cases are similar to the case Luordo (judgment of 17/07/2003), (sub-section 4.2).

Individual measures: Information is expected as regards the acceleration of the proceedings in the S.C., V.P., F.C., M.C. and E.C. case, which were still pending in September 2003 as well as regards the lifting of the restrictions imposed to the applicants. In this respect, a letter was sent to the Italian delegation on 01/03/2004.The available information does not indicate that restrictions continue to be applicable to Ms Peroni’s rights, as the bankruptcy proceedings ended more than 5 years ago.

General measures: In the framework, in particular, of the above-mentioned case Luordo, the Italian authorities have been invited to indicate to what extent the adoption of draft law No. 1243/S, amending the bankruptcy law, will remedy the different violations found and, in particular, ensure a reasonable length of bankruptcy proceedings and prevent that bankrupt’s rights be subject to disproportioned restrictions. Information is also expected on the expected time-frame for adopting the draft law as well as on statistical data as regards the average length of bankruptcy proceedings and the proportion of such cases out of the global number of civil proceedings (letter of 01/03/2004).

Section 2

- Cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants[4]

(No debate envisaged

Item	Application	Case	Duration of the violation	Pending procedure
H46-76	66441	A.G. IV, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004	7 years and 3 months	No
H46-77	65413	Bonamassa, judgment of 02/10/2003, final on 02/01/2004	6 years and 4 months	No
H46-78	62849	Brienza, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004	8 years and 10 months	No
H46-79	63947	Calosi, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004	4 years and 7 months	No
H46-80	56717	Cavicchi and Ruggeri, judgment of 30/10/2003, final on 30/01/2004	16 years and 6 months	No
H46-81	63938	Cucinotta Rosario and Giovanni, judgment of 30/10/2003, final on 30/01/2004	6 years and 3 months	No
H46-82	61667	D’Aloe and others, judgment of 13/11/2003, final on 13/02/2004	7 years and 2 months	No
H46-83	63523	Federici C. and L., judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004	7 years and 1 month	No
H46-84	59635	Gamberini Mongenet, judgment of 06/11/2003, final on 06/02/2004	12 years and 9 months	No
H46-85	53233	Ghelardini and Brunori, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004	9 years and 9 months	No
H46-86	34442	Indelicato Antonio, judgment of 06/11/2003, final on 06/02/2004	8 years and 3 months	Yes
H46-87	63336	Lari, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004	10 years and 6 months	No
H46-88	67412	Ragone, judgment of 02/10/2003, final on 02/01/2004	7 years and 5 months	No
H46-89	55388	Rispoli, judgment of 30/10/2003, final on 30/01/2004	7 years and 7 months	No
H46-90	50293	Robba, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004	6 years and 10 months	No
H46-91	59538	Sabatini and Di Giovanni, judgment of 02/10/2003, final on 02/01/2004	11 years and 4 months	No
H46-92	59537	Savio Delfino, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004	7 years and 6 months	No
H46-93	56924	Scalera, judgment of 13/11/2003, final on 13/02/2004	6 years and 8 months 7 years and 8 months 7 years and 1 month	No
H46-94	58607	Serafini, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004	5 years and 6 months	No
H46-95	47703	Serni, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004	11 years and 6 months	No
H46-96	47758	Tassinari, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004	11 years and 10 months	No

These cases concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, owing inter alia to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions.

Section 2

The European Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the protection of the applicants’ right to property and the requirements of the general interest (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Furthermore, the Court concluded that, as a result of the legislation at issue, rendering eviction orders nugatory, the applicants had been deprived of their right to have their disputes decided by a court, contrary to the principle of the rule of law (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Information is expected on measures envisaged allowing the applicant in the case of Indelicato Antonio (Application No. 34442) to recover possession of his apartment. In the other cases, the applicants recovered their apartments between 1998 and 2003.

As regards general measures, all these cases are similar to that of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/1999, and other similar cases which are proposed for examination in sub-section 4.2 on the basis of a draft interim resolution.

- Cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

H46-97 66754 Carnasciali, judgment of 29/01/04 - Friendly settlement

H46-98 40672+ Gianturco Francesco and Giuseppe, judgment of 22/01/04 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to implement judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6§1).

The cases are similar to the Immobiliare Saffi case, judgment of 28/07/1999 (sub-section 4.2).

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-99 53161 Meilus, judgment of 06/11/03, final on 06/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings. In November 1994 the applicant was suspected of fraud in a criminal case and, when the Court delivered its judgment, the proceedings were still pending before the first instance court (almost 9 years, of which mote than 8 years and 3 months fall within the Court’s jurisdiction). They involved three levels of jurisdiction and a referral following an appeal on a point of law (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings, which were still pending before the first instance court in February 2004. Information concerning the state of these proceedings is awaited.

General measures: By letter of 24/02/2004, the Lithuanian delegation informed the Secretariat that the new Code of Criminal Procedure, entered into force on 01/05/2003, imposes a 6-month time-limit for the pre-trial investigation and, subsequently, a 20-day time-limit for referring the case to a competent court for a first hearing. According to Section 215(1) of the new Code, upon the suspect’s complaint alleging an excessive length of the pre-trial investigation, the investigating judge may compel the competent prosecutor to complete or discontinue the investigation. Further information in expected concerning the measures envisaged or adopted as regards the length of criminal proceedings pending before the courts, as well as on available remedies in this respect.

The judgment was translated and published in the annual compendium Europos žmogaus teisių teismo sprendimai bylose prieš Lietuvos Respubliką (2003 01 01-2004 01 01) and disseminated with a press release to the criminal courts directly concerned and the General Prosecutor’s Office.

Section 2

- 2 cases against the Netherlands

H46-100 44320 Baars, judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns a violation of the presumption of the applicant’s innocence in compensation proceedings he brought after criminal charges against him for bribery of a public official had been dropped. The applicant sued for reimbursement of his legal costs and compensation for his pre-trial detention. The appeal court dismissed his suit on the grounds of the outcome of the criminal proceedings brought against the public official in question, in which the applicant as a witness. The European Court found that the appeal court’s reasoning amounted to a decision on the applicant’s guilt, which had nonetheless not been legally established (violation of Article 6§2).

Individual measures: The applicant did not submit any request in this respect.

General measures: Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to criminal courts.

H46-101 39657 Steur, judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04

The case concerns an interference in the freedom of expression of the applicant, a lawyer, in that in 1996 he was sentenced (under Article 46 of the Act on the legal profession) by a disciplinary council to an admonition for having pleaded during a trial that a social security investigating officer had exerted unacceptable pressure on his client resulting in the latter’s incrimination. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal had upheld the applicant’s admonition on the grounds that he did not support his allegations with evidence when he made them, although he subsequently did so.

The European Court noted in particular that the disciplinary authorities had not attempted to establish whether the applicant’s allegations were true or had been made in good faith. While it is true that no penalty had been imposed on the applicant, the Court found that the threat of an ex post facto review was difficult to reconcile with the advocates’ duty to protect the interests of their clients and might adversely affect the way they performed their professional duties. In the circumstances, the Court found that the restrictions on the applicant’s freedom of expression did not meet a pressing social need (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: Information is expected on the measures envisaged or taken to erase the admonition and its consequences for the applicant.

General measures: Publication of the judgment and broad dissemination to lawyers’ disciplinary authorities, drawing their attention to the Court’s findings in this case. In particular, the translated judgment might be notified in the same way as the sanction.

Section 2

- 14 cases against Poland

H46-102 38654 Goral, judgment of 30/10/03, final on 30/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security in that his detention on remand was extended from 23/11/1996, when his detention order expired to 17/12/1996 when his application for release was rejected, solely on the basis of a bill of indictment and without any judicial decision (violation of Article 5§1). The case also concerns the excessive length of his pre-trial detention from May 1996 to November 1997 (almost 11 months) (violation of Article 5§3) and the excessive length of the subsequent criminal proceedings, which began in 1996 and ended in 2002 (about 6 years and 6 months) (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court also found that the interception of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Commission was not “in accordance with the law” in force at the relevant time (violation of Article 8).

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 5§1, the Polish Supreme Court stated in two decisions dated 6/02/1997 and 2/09/1997, adopted subsequent to the relevant facts that, where a case is submitted to them with a bill of indictment and if the time-limit for detention on remand had expired, criminal courts must take a decision in order to keep the accused on remand (§§31 and 32 of the judgment in the Baranowski case, in sub-section 4.2 at this meeting for the examination of another violation). As regards the violations of Articles 5§3 and 6§1 this case presents similarities to the cases of the Trzaska group (sub-section 4.2). As regards the violation of Article 8 the case presents similarities with the case of Niedbała (judgment of 04/07/2000) closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)124, following a legislative reform which took effect from 01/01/1998.

H46-103 43316 B.R., judgment of 16/09/03, final on 16/12/03

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings which began on 08/06/1994 and were still pending before the first-instance court when the European Court delivered its judgment (more than 9 years and 2 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: The case presents similarities to the Kudła group (sub-section 4.2).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level.

Section 2

- Cases of length of civil proceedings[5]

(No debate envisaged

Item	Application	Case	Length	Pending cases	Proceedings started on
H46-104	71893	Cegielski, judgment of 21/10/2003, final on 21/01/2004	8 years and 2 months (party pending before the first instance court – the Szczecin Regional Court	Yes	20/07/95
H46-105	52037	Ciborek, judgment of 04/11/2003, final on 04/02/2004	11 years and 7 months[6] (2 degrees of jurisdiction; most of the time the case has been pending before the 1st instance court – the Goleniów District Court)	No	06/06/91
H46-106	13557	D.M., judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004	8 years and 5 days (the case was dealt with at 1st instance by 2 jurisdictions, the Lublin District Court and the Lublin Regional Court)	No	27/01/94
H46-107	71894	Dybo, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004	6 years and 5 months (pending before the 1st instance court – the Warsaw District Court)	Yes	April 1997
H46-108	77831	I.P., judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004	9 years and 5 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction; most of the time, the case had been pending before the Warsaw Regional Court)	No	29/04/93
H46-109	22072	Małasiewicz, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004	6 years and 2 months (pending at appeal, after the proceedings had been pending for more than 5 years before the Częstochowa Regional Court)	Yes	August 1997
H46-110	76446	Malinowska Henryka, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004	11 years and 4 months[7] (pending at appeal after a first judgment of the Warsaw Regional Court was partly quashed)	Yes	03/06/92
H46-111	77759	Porembska, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004	8 years and 3 months (pending before the first instance court – the Warsaw District Court)	Yes	12/07/95
H46-112	52468	Sienkiewicz, judgment of 30/09/2003, final on 30/12/2003	+ 10 years and 5 months[8] (the case was referred back on three occasions for re-examination to the first instance court – the Szczecin District Court)	No	1989
H46-113	41431	Wierciszewska, judgment of 25/11/2003, final on 25/02/2004	10 years and 8 months[9] (3 degrees of jurisdiction, the case was examined twice both by the Białystok Regional Court and the Białystok Court of Appeal)	No	30/09/91
H46-114	33334	Wylęgły J. and J., judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003, rectified on 04/06/2003	5 years and 11 months (3 levels of jurisdiction)	No	07/02/97

These cases concern first the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

In the Ciborek and Malinowska Henryka cases, the European Court, while noting the delays determined by the difficulties relating to experts, reiterated that the principal responsibility for these rests ultimately with the state.

In the Małasiewicz case, the European Court noted that the proceedings at issue (concerning a compensation claim for injury caused by an accident) dealt with issues of crucial importance for the applicant and therefore required a special diligence from the domestic courts.

Section 2

In the Porembska case, the European Court found that, having regard to the applicant’s age and financial situation, special diligence was required from the Polish authorities in handling the case.

In the Wylęgły case, the European Court noted a period of approximately 2 years and 7 months of total inactivity of the Supreme Court after the applicants lodged cassation proceedings on 05/06/2000, in spite of the reform of the code of civil proceedings which entered into force on 01/07/2000 and which aimed at reducing the duration of cassation proceedings.

The cases of Cegielski and D.M. also concern the lack of domestic remedies enabling the applicants to enforce their right to a hearing within a reasonable time (violations of Article 13). In this respect, the European Court rejected the Government’s contention according to which the judgment rendered on 04/12/2001 by the Polish Constitutional Court on the application of Article 417 of the Civil code created an effective domestic remedy for claims related to the excessive length of proceedings. The European Court stressed that no case-law of the higher courts was provided by the government in order to substantiate the effectiveness of this remedy and its applicability to facts which occurred before the date of the Constitutional Court’s judgment (see the cases of Małasiewicz, Wierciszewska, Cegielski and D.M.)

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings still pending at national level in the cases of Cegielski, Dybo, Małasiewicz, Malinowska Henryka and Porembska cases.

General measures: These cases present similarities to the other cases relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (inter alia, Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/1998) (sub-section 4.2).

As far as the violation of Article 13 is concerned, the cases of Cegielski and D.M. present similarities to the case of Kudła against Poland (judgment of 26/10/2000, sub-section 4.2).

*H46-115 52595 Skowroński, judgment of 17/02/2004 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings which were examined between 1987 and 1998 by the Lipno District Court (complaint under Article 6§1).

The applicant’s allegations present similarities to those raised in other cases relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (inter alia, Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/1998) (sub-section 4.2).

- 3 cases against Portugal

H46-116 55081 Neves Ferreira Sande e Castro and others, judgment of 16/10/2003,

final on 16/01/2004

H46-117 55340 Sociedade Agrícola do Peral and other, judgment of 31/07/2003,

final on 31/10/2003

(No debate envisaged)

The cases concern the excessive length of judicial proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before civil and administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1).

In the first case, proceedings began on 18/11/1993 and ended on 27/06/2000 (6 years, 7 months) a preparatory decision only being delivered 3 years after the applicants had seised the competent court.

In the second case, the proceedings began on 28/12/1995 and were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court when the European Court delivered its judgment (7 years and 6 months).

Individual measures: As regards the case of Sociedade Agrícola do Peral and other, acceleration of the proceedings, if still pending, is requested.

General measures: These cases present similarities to the other cases relating to the excessive length of court proceedings, including Oliveira Modesto and Others, judgment of 08/06/2000 (sub-section 4.2).

H46-118 55165 Gonçalves Ferrão Caboz Santana, judgment of 29/01/2004 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Supreme Administrative Court (complaint under Article 6§1).

The applicant’s complaint presents similarities to those raised in other cases relating to the excessive length judicial proceedings, inter alia, Oliveira Modesto and Others against Portugal, judgment of 08/06/2000 (sub-section 4.2).

Section 2

- 3 cases against Romania

H46-119 41134 Glod, judgment of 16/09/03, final on 16/12/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to review the lawfulness of an administrative decision dealing with the restitution of a plot of land, due to a legal provision in force at the relevant time (1995) which limited the competence of the courts to deal with this kind of cases (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual and general measures: Following the legislative reforms adopted in 1997 and 2000, the courts enjoy full jurisdiction in respect of complaints against administrative decisions dealing with land restitution. New court proceedings are currently pending in domestic law concerning the conditions of the restitution of the land at issue.

H46-120 40670 Todorescu, judgment of 30/09/03, final on 30/12/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the Supreme Court’s annulment, in 1996, of a final court decision rendered in 1994, which established the validity of the applicants’ title to property that had been previously confiscated in 1988. The Supreme Court intervened following an application for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, at the relevant time, allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions.

The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the principle of legal certainty and accordingly violated the applicants’ right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicants’ right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised the court’s jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of property (violations of Article 6§1). Finally, the European Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision had violated the applicants’ right to respect for their possessions by annulling without justification and without compensation a final court decision recognising the applicants’ right to the apartments in question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

After the judgment of the Supreme Court, the property was sold by the state in November 1996 to the tenant living there.

Individual measures: Under article 41, the Court held that the respondent state was to return the property at issue to the applicants within 3 months from the date on which the judgment becomes final. Failing such restitution, the state is to pay the applicants within the same deadline 50 000 euros corresponding to the current value of the house.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of Brumărescu against Romania (judgments of 28/10/1999 and 23/01/2001) (sub-section 5.1).

*H46-121 49009 Suciu, judgment of 10/02/04 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that, in court proceedings concerning the annulment of a property sale, she could not obtain in 1998 reimbursement in full of the amount she had originally paid, because of the considerable loss of value of the national currency between 1991 and 1998 (complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The legal provision which prevented the adjustment of the sum due to the applicant in order to allow for inflation has been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in 2001.

Section 2

- 1 case against the Russian Federation

H46-122 58263 Timofeyev, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 23/01/04

The case concerns the non-enforcement over several years of a final court decision of the Orsk District Court in July 1998, ordering the Federal Treasury Department to compensate the applicant for the property that had been confiscated in 1981. The European Court found that the delay of almost 3 years in enforcing this decision appeared to have been caused by unlawful acts of the bailiffs, numerous adjournments due to the intervention of the supervisory-review authorities, and lack of clarity in the judgment (violation of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: In June 2001, following an application for supervisory review lodged by the Public Prosecutor of the region, the same district court delivered a new decision in the case, again awarding the applicant compensation for the confiscated property. In October 2002, the Government informed the Court of the payment of this sum in November 2001, but this was disputed by the applicant in letter addressed to the Court in October 2002. Accordingly, information concerning the state of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the decision of June 2001 is expected; acceleration of the proceedings if still pending at national level.

General measures: The case presents similarities with that of Burdov which will be examined at the 885th meeting (June 2004, sub-section 4.2). In addition to the specific measures already adopted and announced in the Burdov case (e.g. execution of over 5,000 domestic judgments concerning the indexation of allowances and allocation of the necessary budgetary means to social security bodies to allow them to meet the obligations arising from these judgments), the Russian authorities are invited to reflect on what additional measures are necessary in order to ensure the enforcement of domestic courts’ decisions. It is also suggested that the experience of other countries which had been confronted with similar problems in the past be taken into account in planning and adopting the general measures in this case (e.g. by strengthening the state’s responsibility in cases of non-enforcement) ; publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the competent domestic authorities.

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

H46-123 66142 Číž, judgment of 14/10/03, final on 14/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of two sets of civil defamation proceedings brought by the applicant against a Member of Parliament and a television company (violation of Article 6§1). These proceedings began respectively on 29/11/1996 and on 13/12/1996 and ended on 12/03/2001 when they were discontinued at the applicant’s request (more that 4 years and 3 months and 4 years and 2 months).

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings (violation of Article 13).

General measures:

- As regards the violation of Article 6§1: General measures have already been adopted to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and avoid new violations, particularly in the context of the examination of the Jóri case which appears in sub-section 6.2 (Act No. 501/2001, which reduces the number of cases in which second-degree courts are competent at first instance and aims to accelerate the adduction of evidence; Act No. 385, which regulates the civil and disciplinary liability of judges for unjustified delays in their cases; Amendment of 2001 to the Constitution, which provides for a constitutional petition for complaints of violations of human rights protected by international treaties).

- As regards the violation of Article 13: The Constitution of Slovakia has been amended after the relevant facts. According to the new Article 127, in force since 20/03/2002, the Constitutional Court has the power to order the authority concerned to proceed with a case without delay. It may also award financial compensation to those whose constitutional rights have been violated as a result of excessive length of judicial proceedings. The European Court has already found on several occasions that this new constitutional complaint is an effective remedy in the sense of Article 13 of the Convention (see decisions on the admissibility in the case of Hody, of 06/05/2003, Paška, of 03/12/2002 and Andrášik and others, of 22/10/2002).

Section 2

- 3 cases against Spain

H46-124 55524 Stone Court Shipping Company S.A., judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant company’s right of access to a court on account of the Supreme Court’s particularly strict interpretation of its own rules of procedure resulting in 1997 in the rejection of the applicant company’s appeal on a point of law as having been submitted out of time. Whilst the appeal had been lodged with the “on-duty” court the day before the date-limit expired, it was not communicated to the Registry of the Supreme Court until afterwards. The Supreme Court relied in its decision on provisions of domestic law to the effect that appeals could only be lodged with an “on-duty” court if the time-limit for appealing was due to expire the same day and the court with which the appeal had to be lodged was closed for business (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Spanish authorities are invited to clarify whether the applicant company may now apply for the reopening of the impugned proceedings or to lodge a fresh action for damages before the domestic courts without being barred by any procedural obstacles.

General measures: The Spanish authorities are invited to indicate whether any amendment to clarify the law governing proceedings at appeal is envisaged or whether there are any examples of changes in the case-law of the Supreme Court in response to the judgment of the European Court.

Publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment to civil and commercial courts, to allow them to apply the principles established by the Court, particularly regarding access to a court” in future, similar cases.

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-125 59072 González Doria Durán de Quiroga, judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04

H46-126 61133 Lopez Sole y Martin de Vargas, judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the excessive length of two sets of criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

In the first case, the proceedings lasted from 1985 to 1999, i.e. 14 years, 4 months and 5 days for three degrees of jurisdiction. In the second case, the proceedings lasted from 1985 to 2000, i.e. 14 years, 8 months and 2 days for three degrees of jurisdiction.

General measures: Publication and dissemination of the judgments of the European Court, together with a circular letter concerning the length of criminal proceedings identified by the Court, to criminal courts.

- 12 cases against Turkey

H46-127 36141 Guðrún Hansen Sophia, judgment of 23/09/03, final on 23/12/03

The case concerns the failure of Turkish authorities to take necessary and adequate measures to enforce court decisions granting the applicant visiting rights to her daughters between 1992 and 2000. The European Court found that the authorities failed to seek the advice of social services or the assistance of psychologists with the aim of facilitating the applicant’s union with her daughters. Nor did they take any steps to locate the children and their father who arranged to be absent with her daughters on each scheduled visit. Furthermore, the fines imposed on the children’s father for non-compliance with enforcement orders were neither effective nor adequate and no other realistic coercive measures were taken against the former husband.

The access rights became unenforceable when the applicant’s first daughter reached the age of eighteen in June 1999 and her second daughter in October 2000, as the children were considered adults under Turkish law (violation of Article 8).

General measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment (particularly to enforcement officers); other measures to prevent new violations similar to that found in the applicant’s case.

Section 2

H46-128 23656 Ayder and others, judgment of 08/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the destruction of the applicants’ houses and possessions in the South-East of Turkey in 1993 (violation of Articles 3, 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The European Court found that the authorities failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations (violation of Article 13).

General measures: Information is still being awaited as to whether administrative authorisation is required so that a prosecution could be carried out against members of security forces in cases of destruction of property. This case also raises similar issues to those raised by certain other cases concerning actions of the security forces in Turkey (sub-section 4.2).

H46-129 26482 Parti socialiste de Turquie (STP) and others, judgment of 12/11/03, final on 12/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the dissolution of the STP by the Constitutional Court in 1993 on the grounds that its programme was liable to undermine the territorial integrity of the State and the unity of the nation, the Constitutional Court having found that the party programme contained passages calling for a right of self-determination for the Kurds and supporting the right to “wage a war of independence”. The European Court found that the passages in question, read together, presented a political project aiming at establishing, with respect to democratic rules, a social project comprising both the Kurdish and the Turkish peoples. Furthermore, the Court found that the passages did not encourage separation from Turkey. This analysis was not contradicted by any activities on the part of the party as the STP had been dissolved immediately upon its creation and solely on the basis of its programme (violation of Article 11).

Individual measures: The members of the applicant party are no longer subject to any ban on their political activities following the amendments made to the Constitution in 1995.

General measures: The case raises similar issues to those raised by certain other cases against Turkey concerning dissolution of political parties (sub-section 4.2).

- Cases concerning freedom of expression

H46-131 27528 Kızılyaprak, judgment of 02/10/03, final on 02/01/04

H46-130 43928 Karkin, judgment of 23/09/03, final on 23/12/03

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern disproportionate interferences in the freedom of expression of the applicants on account of their convictions, in 1993 and in 1997 respectively. Mr Kızılyaprak was convicted under Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Law and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of 50 000 000 Turkish liras following the publication of a book by the publishing company he owned. Mr Karkın was convicted under Article 312 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and a fine of 860 000 Turkish liras following the speech he delivered on the occasion of Newroz celebrations (violations of Article 10).

The cases also concern the independence and impartiality of State Security Courts which convicted the applicants (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Confirmation is expected as regards the erasure of all consequences of the violations found in these cases, although the applicants’ cases are not eligible for reopening under the current legislation because both judgments became final after 04/02/03, the date on which Law No. 4793, allowing the reopening of the proceedings found to be contrary to the Convention, entered into force.

General measures: 1. The progress made in the implementation of the general measures required in these and other similar cases concerning violations of freedom of expression is to be examined (sub-section 4.2).

2. Concerning the independence and impartiality of State Security Courts, these cases present similarities to that of Çıraklar against Turkey (judgment of 28/10/1998), which was closed by a final resolution, DH(99)555, following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

Section 2

- Cases concerning the independence and impartiality of the State security Courts

H46-132 37452 Demirtaş Nurettin, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

H46-133 59649 Gönülşen, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

H46-134 49164 Kılıç Ayşe, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

H46-135 47311 Özkan Ertan, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

H46-136 47165 Özkan Fadime, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

H46-137 60847 Saçık, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court before the State Security Courts which tried and convicted the applicants on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench (violations of Article 6§1).

These cases present similarities to that of Çıraklar against Turkey (judgment of 28/10/1998) which was closed by a final resolution, DH(99)555, following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

*H46-138 41540 Kaya and Güven, judgment of 17/02/04 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case relates to the length of the applicants’ detention pending trial, which was ordered in July 1993 (complaints under Article 5§3).

Mr Kaya was granted conditional release in October 1997 and Mr Güven in February 1998.

The applicants’ complaints present similarities to those raised in the Demirel case, which will be examined in sub-section 4.2 at the 891st meeting (July 2004).

- 5 cases against the United Kingdom

- Cases concerning the lack of proper review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ continued detention

H46-140 75362 Von Bulow, judgment of 07/10/03, final on 07/01/04

H46-139 67385 Wynne No. 2, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the continued detention of the applicants, who had been sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment. The applicants’ “tariffs” (the minimum period required to be served by a prisoner to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence, after which continued detention is based only on the need for protection of the public) expired, respectively, in 1998 and 1991. The applicants continued to be detained after the expiry of their tariffs without their cases being reviewed by a body with the power to order their release or with the necessary judicial safeguards (violations of Article 5§4).

The Wynne (No. 2) case also concerns the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for the breach of the applicant’s right to liberty (violation of Article 5§5).

Individual measures: Information is requested as to whether the applicants’ detention has been reviewed by a body complying with the requirements of Article 5§4 since the events referred to in the Court’s judgments.

General measures: With regard to the violations of Article 5§4, the cases present similarities to the case of Stafford (judgment of 28/05/2002), to be examined at the 885th meeting (June 2004). As an interim general measure following the judgment in that case, administrative arrangements were put in place from 01/01/2003 allowing for the review and release of mandatory life sentence prisoners (possibility of oral hearing, of examination of witnesses and of legal representation before the Parole Board, and normally, acceptance by the Home Secretary of the Parole Board’s recommendation for release). Further information is awaited in this respect, in particular as to the effect of the enactment of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and as to the date on which the relevant provisions of that Act will come into force.

Section 2

As regards the violation of Article 5§5 in the Wynne (No. 2) case, the case presents similarities to that of O’Hara, to be examined at the 885th meeting (June 2004). The Government has indicated that under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way incompatible with a convention right. Under Section 8 of the Act, if a court finds that such an unlawful act has occurred, it can award damages.

H46-141 1303 Lewis, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the use of listening devices hidden by the police at the applicant’s home in 1997 in order to record his conversations. The European Court found that this interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life was not in accordance with the law, since at the relevant time there was no domestic law regulating the use of such devices by the police (violation of Article 8).

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

General measures: This case presents similarities to those of Govell, Khan, P.G. and J.H and Armstrong (judgments of 18/05/1998, 12/05/2000, 25/09/2001 and 16/07/2002 respectively). These cases appear in see sub-section 6.2 of the present agenda, following the adoption of the Police Act 1997 and of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

*H46-142 63608 Martin, judgment of 19/02/04 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the covert surveillance of the applicant’s home for several months in 2000. The local authorities had, without the applicant’s knowledge, installed a video camera on her neighbours’ property, which monitored the space directly in front of the applicant’s home, following a complaint lodged against the applicant and her family by their neighbours (complaints under Article 8).

H46-143 61036 Owens, judgment of 13/01/04 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the impossibility for the applicant to obtain certain social security benefits (Widowed Mother’s Allowance, Christmas bonus) due to legislation providing for different treatment based on sex (complaints under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case presents similarities to the Cornwell and Leary cases (judgments of 25 April 2000), closed by Resolutions ResDH(2002)95 and ResDH(2002)96 respectively following the introduction of legislative changes in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, granting equal treatment to widows and widowers in respect of social security benefits as from 09/04/2001 (see also Resolution ResDH(2003)130 in the Willis case).

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise the payment of just satisfaction in the following cases pending before the Committee of Ministers for execution supervision. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases in principle at their next Human Rights meeting.

3.a SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OF THE JUST SATISFACTION AS WELL AS, WHERE DUE, OF DEFAULT INTEREST, IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT EXPIRED LESS THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

At the time of issuing the present Annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the Secretariat had not received the written confirmation of payment of just satisfaction and/or default interest in the following cases (see the table below summarising the total number of cases by States). The Representatives of the States concerned are invited to give the Secretariat written confirmation of payment of the sums awarded by the Court and/or the default interests (no debate envisaged during the meeting).

- 1 case against Austria

H46-144 40016 Karner, judgment of 24/07/03, final on 24/10/03[10]

- 6 cases against Belgium

- Default interest to be paid

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-145 49797 De Plaen, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-146 49522 Dooms and others, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-147 49546 Lefebvre, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-148 49794 Oval S.P.R.L., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-149 49495 S.A. Sitram, judgment of15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

- Friendly settlement[11]

H46-150 50567 Immo Fond’Roy S.A., judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Bulgaria

H46-151 39269 Kepenerov, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 03/12/03

- 2 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-152 53341 Hartman J. and J., judgment of 10/07/03, final on 03/12/03[12]

H46-153 48568 Schmidtová, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 03/12/03

Sub-section 3.a

- 62 cases against France

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-154 46044 Lallement, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-155 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02 and judgment of

27/05/03, final on 24/09/03[13]

H46-156 44962 Yvon, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

H46-157 52206 Mokrani, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-158 38410+ Fontaine and Bertin, judgment of 08/07/03, final on 08/10/03

H46-159 56616 Hager, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-160 44081 Perhirin and 29 others, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 04/09/02, revised on

08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

H46-161 49217+ SA Cabinet Diot and SA Gras Savoye, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H46-162 49580 Santoni, judgment of 29/07/03, final on 29/10/03

- Case of length of civil proceedings

H46-164 55926 Loyen and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-166 57030 Asnar, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 03/12/03

H46-167 61173 Lechoisne and others, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-169 68155 Poilly, judgment of 29/07/03, final on 29/10/03

H46-170 46820 Zuili, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

H46-171 50632 Coste Pascal, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

- Default interest to be paid

H46-173 67263 Mouisel, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-174 50528 Coste Thierry, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-175 46802 Mac Gee, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

H46-176 48221 Berger, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-177 36378 Bertuzzi, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 21/05/03[14]

H46-178 51279 Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

H46-179 31520+ Richen and Gaucher, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

H32-180 25971 Proma di Franco Gianotti, Interim Resolution DH(99)566

H46-181 37971 Sociétés Colas Est, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-182 35683 Vaudelle, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 06/09/01

H46-183 29731 Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

H32-184 31677 Watson John, Interim Resolution DH(2000)20

Sub-section 3.a

H46-185 37794 Pannullo and Forte, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-186 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber[15]

H46-187 43191 Laidin, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-188 44964 Louerat, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

H46-211 43722 Wiot, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03[16]

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-189 42405 C.D., judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-190 44482 Hutt-Claus, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

H46-191 41476 Laine, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-192 39278 Langlois, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-193 43627 Molles, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

H46-194 48566 Richart-Luna, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

H46-195 49198 Schiettecatte, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-196 40096 Versini, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-197 44451 A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H46-198 41358 Desmots, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 06/11/02

H46-199 57734 Raitière Michel, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-200 56198 Société Industrielle d’Entretien et de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02,

final on 19/06/02

H46-201 51179 Solana, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-203 60545 Perhirin, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 21/05/03

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-204 49533 Barrillot, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-205 51803 Benmeziane, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03

H46-206 44797+ Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-207 52189 Mouesca, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03

H46-208 49285 Rablat, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 24/09/03

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

H46-209 50975 Jarreau, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

H46-210 53584 Verhaeghe, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

- Friendly settlements[17]

H46-212 33023 Meier, judgment of 07/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-213 49613 Garon, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-214 45172 Fentati, judgment of 22/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-215 41526 Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-216 42279 Diard, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-217 48167 Hababou, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-218 47631 Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-219 43716 Susini and others, judgment of 03/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-220 53607 Cohen and Smadja, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Germany

H46-221 44672 Herz, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 03/12/03

Sub-section 3.a

- 4 cases against Greece

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-222 59506 Papageorgiou Georgios, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 09/08/03

H46-223 55794 Efstathiou and Michaïlidis and Cie Motel Amerika, judgment of 10/07/03,

final on 10/10/03[18]

- Default interest to be paid

- Friendly settlements[19]

H46-224 49282 Marinakos, judgment of 04/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-225 47020 Kolokitha, judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

- 201 cases against Italy

H46-226 25337 Craxi No. 2, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

*H46-227 24638 Carbonara and Ventura, judgment of 30/05/00 and judgment of 11/12/03

(Article 41)

- Cases concerning failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants [20]

H46-228 41427 Del Beato, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-229 34998 P.M. II, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-230 39179 Coviello, judgment of 11/12/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-231 59452 Della Rocca, judgment of 27/11/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-232 46471 L.B. and others, judgment of 31/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-233 42357 Sartorelli II, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

- Default interest to be paid

H46-234 36534 Osu, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

H46-235 25639 F.L., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-236 15918 Antonetto, judgment of 20/07/00, final on 20/10/00

H46-237 26161 Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

H46-238 39221+ Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151

H46-239 36732 Pisano, judgment of 24/10/02 – Striking-out - Grand Chamber

Sub-section 3.a

- Cases concerning failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants[21]

H46-240 38011 Aponte, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-241 34999 C. Spa, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-242 28724 Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

H46-243 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-244 48145 Fabi, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-245 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-246 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

H46-247 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-248 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-249 33696 L. and P. II, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-250 36149 Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-251 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-252 46161 Pepe Giuseppa, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-253 36249 Rosa Massimo, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-254 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-255 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-256 36377 Zannetti, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

- Cases of length of civil proceedings[22]

H46-257 44481 A.C. VII, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-258 46515 Adriani, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-259 46964 Alpites S.P.A., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-260 47785 Angemi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-261 48412 Ar.M., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-262 46958 Ardemagni and Ripa, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-263 44511 Bellagamba, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-264 39121 Bolla, Interim Resolution DH(99)480

H46-265 46980 C.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-266 46959 Circo and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-267 44504 Citterio and Angiolillo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-268 47779 Ciuffetti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-269 47774 Conti Giuliana, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-270 35616 Coscia, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H46-271 44500 Cova, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-272 45880 Cultraro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-273 44513 D’Ammassa and Frezza, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02,

revised on 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H32-274 17482 D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28

H46-275 49372 De Pilla, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-276 39138 Di Fant I, Interim Resolution DH(99)488

H32-277 39139 Di Fant II, Interim Resolution DH(99)489

H46-278 44446 Di Girolamo and 6 others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-279 46976 Di Motoli and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-280 44480 E.G., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-281 46971 F.T., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-282 46968 Falconi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-283 47781 Farinosi and Barattelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-284 46965 Franceschetti and Odorico, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

Sub-section 3.a

H46-285 47786 G.V. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-286 46963 Galiè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-287 47773 Gianni, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-288 44418 I.P.E.A. S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-289 44501 Il Messaggero S.A.S. VI, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-290 47777 Ilardi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-291 44508 Immobiliare Il Messaggero del geometra Antonio Iorillo, judgment of 25/10/01,

final on 25/01/02

H32-292 40571 Lo Sardo, Interim Resolution DH(99)606

H46-293 46962 Lucas International S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-294 46961 Maletti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-295 46957 Marcolongo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-296 44517 Mari and Mangini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-297 46966 Massaro, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-298 46979 Mastrantonio Francesca, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-299 46973 Morelli and Nerattini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-300 44490 Murgia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-301 39872 Nata, Interim Resolution DH(99)617

H46-302 44494 O.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-303 46967 Procaccianti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-304 46969 Procopio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-305 44409 Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, rectified on 04/07/02

H46-306 44479 Rosetti e Ciucci and C., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-307 44527 Rossana Ferrari, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-308 47780 Santorum, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-309 36621 Scalvini, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H46-310 44505 Shipcare S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-311 44491 Sonego, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-312 56094 Sposito, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-313 44486 Tebaldi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-314 44488 Vecchi and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-315 44528 Vecchini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-316 44534 Venturini Alberto I, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-317 44445 W.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts[23]

H46-318 44532 Colacrai, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-319 46975 Di Gabriele, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-320 46978 F.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-321 51156 Fasulo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, rectified on 12/09/02

H46-322 46974 Risola, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-323 46960 Trimboli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings[24]

H46-324 45267 F.R. and 3 others, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-325 44943 Orlandi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-326 24170 Pesce Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)468

H32-327 26806 U.O. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)52

H32-328 26781 U.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)129

H32-329 26782 U.O. III, Interim Resolution DH(98)130

Sub-section 3.a

- Friendly settlements[25]

H46-330 53708 Mas A. and 207 others, judgment of 07/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-331 53705 M.L. and 46 others, judgment of 05/04/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-332 42414 G.G. V, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-333 53231 Bologna, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-334 55673 Savarese, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-335 46079 Biffoni, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-336 60660 Ferretti Maria Grazia, judgment of 06/03/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-337 35997 Candela, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-338 31928 F. and F., judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-339 39451 Fiorentini Vizzini, judgment of 19/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-340 39690 Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-341 31260 Lamperi Balenci, judgment of 21/02/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-342 47895 Sartorelli, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-343 34714 Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-344 36734 Visca, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-345 45071 Capurro and Tosetti, judgment of 28/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-346 40979 Conte Riccardo II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-347 40954 D’Alessandro, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-348 40982 Erdokovy, judgment of 01/02/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-349 40978 Mantini, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-350 40956 Marchetti, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-351 40952 Paderni II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-352 45070 Persichetti and C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-353 28936 Piccinini II, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-354 45065 Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-355 45058 Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-356 43098 Romano, judgment of 28/09/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-357 45068 Toscano and others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-358 41807 Centioni and others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-359 41813 Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-360 41812 Piccirillo Aldo, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-361 41823 Pascali and Conte, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-362 40363 Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-363 43063 Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-364 40975 Bucci, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-365 43094 C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-366 42999 Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-367 43020 Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-368 42996 Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-369 43088 Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-370 43086 Cosimo Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-371 43087 Cosimo Rotondi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-372 43083 D’Addona Simone, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-373 43017 D’Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-374 43059 D’Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-375 40960 Dattilo, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-376 43054 Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-377 43051 Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-378 43062 Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-379 43030 Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-380 43022 Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 3.a

H46-381 43056 Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-382 43058 Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-383 43096 G.A. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-384 43093 G.P. VI, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-385 43075 Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-386 38975 Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-387 43050 Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-388 43074 Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-389 43072 Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-390 43091 Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-391 42998 Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-392 43101 Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-393 43021 Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-394 43067 Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-395 43065 Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-396 43102 Lepore T., Lepore M. and Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-397 43068 Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-398 43095 M.C. X, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-399 43010 Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-400 43000 Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-401 43018 Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-402 43069 Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-403 43057 Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-404 43064 Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-405 43100 Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-406 43076 P.T. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-407 43012 Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-408 43052 Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-409 43061 Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-410 43060 Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-411 43023 Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-412 43019 Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-413 43055 Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-414 43099 Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-415 43085 Silvio Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-416 42997 Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-417 43084 Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-418 43016 Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-419 43070 Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-420 43109 Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-421 43015 Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-422 43066 Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-423 37118 Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-424 48840 Carloni Tarli, judgment of 30/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-425 63600 Notargiacomo, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-426 60662 Nuti, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against the Netherlands

H46-427 48086 Beumer, judgment of 29/07/03, final on 29/10/03

H46-428 39339 M.M., judgment of 08/04/03, final on 24/09/03[26]

Sub-section 3.a

- 1 case against Norway

H46-429 37372 Walston No. 1, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/12/03[27]

- 4 cases against Poland

- Cases of length of civil proceedings[28]

H46-430 39597 Biskupska, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 03/12/03, rectified on 11/09/03

H46-431 41033 R.W., judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-432 49920 Cwyl, judgment of 09/12/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-433 50511 Stańczyk, judgment of 02/12/03 - Friendly settlement

- 11 cases against Portugal

H46-434 48206 Maire, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03

- Cases of length of civil proceedings[29]

H46-435 54926 Costa Ribeiro, judgment of 30/04/03, final on 30/07/03

H46-436 53795 Farinha Martins, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

- Default interest to be paid

H46-437 38830 Czekalla, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

- Cases of length of proceedings[30]

H46-438 44298 Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

H46-439 48187 Rosa Marques and others, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

H46-440 50775 Sousa Marinho and Marinho Meireles Pinto, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

- Friendly settlements[31]

H46-441 48233 Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-442 48752 Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-443 49020 F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-444 54704 Ferreira Pinto, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

- 11 cases against Romania

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-445 32926 Canciovici and others, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 24/09/03

H46-446 38565 Cotleţ, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03

H46-447 42930 Crişan, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03[32]

H46-448 34647 Ruianu, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03[33]

H46-449 33343 Pantea, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03[34]

Sub-section 3.a

- Brumărescu group [35]

H46-450 36017 Dickmann, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H46-451 38445 Erdei and Wolf, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-452 32915 Ghitescu, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-453 31172 Popa and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

- Default interest to be paid

H46-454 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01

(rectification) – Grand Chamber[36]

H46-455 32925 Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02[37]

- 1 case against San Marino

H46-456 69700 Tierce Vanessa, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 03/12/03

- 1 case against Sweden

H46-457 38993 Stockholms Försäkrings- och Skadeståndsjuridik AB, judgment of 16/09/03,

final on 16/12/03[38]

- 23 cases against Turkey

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-458 24209 Y.F., judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H46-459 42560 Külter, judgment of 04/12/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of police custody

H46-460 41478 Şen Nuray, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-462 36596 Karatay, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-465 36961 Satık, judgment of 25/09/03 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 3.a

- Cases concerning Actions of the Turkish security forces[39]

H46-466 29422 Tepe Ayşe, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H46-467 26973 Yöyler, judgment of 24/07/03, final on 24/10/03

- Friendly settlements concerning actions of the security forces and containing undertakings by the Turkish Government[40]

H46-468 32270 Doğan Ülkü and others, judgment of 19/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-469 37446 Kara and others, judgment of 25/11/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-470 39978 Oğraş and others, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-471 31731 Tosun Hanım, judgment of 06/11/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-472 31730 Yurtseven and others, judgment of 18/12/03 - Friendly settlement

- Friendly settlement concerning freedom of expression

H46-473 37059 Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 1, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-474 37059+ Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 2, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-475 37062 Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 3, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

- Friendly settlements in cases against Turkey concerning freedom of expression and containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

H46-476 27529 Caralan, judgment of 25/09/03 - Friendly settlement[41]

- Cases concerning the independence and impartiality of the State security courts

H46-477 44057 Işık Ôzgür, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-478 42430 Yüksel Mustafa, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

- Default interest to be paid

H46-479 24351 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03[42]

H46-480 25656 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/02[43]

H46-481 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99[44]

H46-482 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02[45]

- Friendly settlement[46]

H46-483 46649 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[47]

- 1 case against Ukraine

- Default interest to be paid

H46-484 41220 Aliev, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

Sub-section 3.a

- 5 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-486 39665+ Ezeh and Connors, judgment of 09/10/03 - Grand Chamber

H46-487 34962 Z.W., judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-488 57067 Grieves, judgment of 16/12/03 - Grand Chamber

H46-489 44277 Stretch, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 03/12/03

H46-490 43185+ Price and Lowe, judgment of 29/07/03, final on 03/12/03[48]

- 1 case against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

- Default interest to be paid

- Friendly settlement[49]

H46-491 58185 Janeva, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

3.b SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OF THE JUST

SATISFACTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT

EXPIRED MORE THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

Some of the cases appearing under this section concern late payment for reasons beyond the control of the governments concerned.

Expiry date

of the time-limit set

- 3 cases against France

H46-492 38396 Karatas and Sari, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02 16/11/2002

H46-155 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02 and

judgment of 27/05/03, final on 24/09/03[50] 02/01/2003

H46-493 33424 Nouhaud and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

- 1 case against Greece

H46-494 61351 Mentis, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement 20/05/2003

- 63 cases against Italy

H46-495 33202 Beyeler, judgments of 05/01/00 (merits) and of 28/05/02 (Article 41) 28/08/2002

- Cases concerning failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants [51]

H46-496 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03 09/07/2003

H46-497 64450 Gianni Francesco, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement 10/07/2003

H46-498 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03 09/07/2003

- Cases of length of civil proceedings[52]

H46-499 51668 Lopriore, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

H32-500 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673 22/10/2002

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts[53]

H46-501 44330 Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement 19/03/2001

H46-502 41806 Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-503 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

Sub-section 3.b

H46-504 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-505 35956 Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-506 44525 Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-507 44379 Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-508 44343 Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-509 44352 Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-510 44345 Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-511 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02 06/06/2002

H46-512 44333 V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

H46-513 56226 Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-514 56222 Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-515 56206 Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-516 56208 Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-517 56202 Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-518 56224 D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-519 56217 De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-520 56205 Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-521 56225 Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-522 56221 Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-523 56212 Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-524 56203 Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-525 56204 Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-526 56207 Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-527 56220 Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-528 56211 Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-529 56213 Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-530 56223 Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-531 56219 Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-532 56214 Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-533 56215 Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-534 56201 Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-535 56218 Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-536 44334 Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-537 44341 Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-538 44347 Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-539 44350 Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-540 44337 Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-541 44340 Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-542 44349 Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-543 44348 Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-544 44351 Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

- of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

H46-545 43097 Nicoli, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement 22/09/2000

H46-546 40151 Sciarrotta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02[54] 28/08/2002

- Cases of length of proceedings before the Court of Audit

H46-547 54307 Meleddu, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement 21/05/2002

H46-548 54316 Betti, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-549 54293 Chiappetta Domenico, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-550 54287 Ferrari Sergio, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

Sub-section 3.b

H46-551 54299 Libertini and Di Girolamo, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-552 44359 Marrama, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-553 54286 Strangi, judgment of 07/05/02 – Friendly settlement 07/08/2002

H46-554 54282 Amici, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-555 54278 Leonardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-556 54312 Manna, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-557 54319 Sportola, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

- 3 cases against the Netherlands

H46-558 52750 Lorsé and others, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03 04/08/2003

H46-559 50901 Van der Ven, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03 04/08/2003

H46-560 51392 Göçer, judgment of 03/10/02, final on 21/05/03 21/08/2003

- 1 case against Poland

H46-561 30218 Nowicka, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 03/03/03 03/06/2003

- 1 case against Portugal

H46-563 52657 Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03[55] 27/08/2003

- 25 cases against Romania

H46-564 33176 Moşteanu and others, judgment of 26/11/02, rectified on 04/02/03,

final on 26/02/03 16/05/2003

H46-565 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[56] 26/05/2003

- Cases concerning the annulment of final court decisions relating to property ownership[57]

H46-567 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

rectified on 09/07/02 09/10/2002

H46-566 33631 Savulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03[58] 17/06/2003

H46-568 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02,

final on 21/08/02 21/11/2002

H46-569 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02 04/12/2002

H46-570 35831 Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-571 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-572 32943 Falcoiănu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2002

H46-573 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

H46-574 33358 Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

H46-575 30698 Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03 22/04/2003

H46-576 29769 Curuţiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03 22/04/2003

H46-577 33627 Bărăgan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03 05/05/2003

H46-578 32936 Drăgnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03 26/05/2003

Sub-section 3.b

H46-579 32977 Găvruş, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03 26/05/2003

H46-580 33353 Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03 17/06/2003

H46-581 33355 Popescu Nata, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03 07/07/2003

H46-582 31736 Grigore, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03 11/08/2003

H46-583 31680 State and others, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03 11/08/2003

H46-584 32269 Tărbăşanu, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03 11/08/2003

H46-585 36039 Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03 14/08/2003

H46-586 31678 Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03 21/08/2003

H46-587 29973 Golea, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03[59] 21/08/2003

H46-588 31804 Chiriacescu, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03 04/09/2003

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

H46-589 54822 Micovčin, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement 27/08/2003

- 7 cases against Turkey

H46-590 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00[60] 15/09/2000

H46-591 34688 Akin, judgment of 12/04/01 12/07/2001

H46-592 40153+ Çetin and others, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03 13/08/2003

H46-593 28292 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[61] 22/07/2003

- Delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46-594 27694 A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-595 37087 Bekmezci and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement,

rectified on 19/09/02 and 03/04/03 27/09/2002

H46-596 26546 Acar Ahmet, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03 30/07/2003

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-597 42007 Davies, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02, rectified on 13/09/02 13/12/2002

3.c EXAMINATION OF SPECIAL PAYMENT PROBLEMS (FOR EXAMPLE THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE APPLICANT, DISPUTES REGARDING THE EXACT AMOUNT PAID AS A RESULT OF EXCHANGE RATE PROBLEMS OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES)

- 1 case against France

H46-598 54210 Papon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

CM/Inf(2004)3

In this case, the applicant informed the Secretariat that the French authorities had paid only a part of the just satisfaction allocated by the European Court in its judgement, more than half of the amount due having been retained on account of unpaid tax. At the 871st meeting (February 2004), following a general discussion on the questions raised by the attachment of sums awarded as just satisfaction, the Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 879th meeting (5-6 April 2004) (DH) in the light of a revised Memorandum to be prepared by the Secretariat (see document CM/Inf(2004)3).

- 1 case against Sweden

H46-599 34619 Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03[62]

CM/Inf(2004)3

The facts of the case are presented in sub-section 4.2.

Just satisfaction: By letter of 08/10/2003 the Swedish delegation informed the Secretariat that the payment of just satisfaction had been carried out in two portions. The first portion, covering damages to the applicant, was paid to the applicant’s solicitor on 14/08/2003. The second portion, covering the costs for trial procedures, was paid on 21/08/2003 in two parts: one part (SEK 182 541) was paid to the applicant’s solicitor, and the remaining part (SEK 141 811) was paid to the Swedish Enforcement Service to cover the applicant’s tax arrears.

In a further letter of 02/02/2004, the Swedish authorities put forward their view as to the compatibility with domestic law and with the Convention of the attachment of the sums concerned.

At the 871st meeting (February 2004), following a general discussion on the questions raised by the attachment of sums awarded as just satisfaction, the Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 879th meeting (5-6 April 2004) (DH) in the light of a revised Memorandum to be prepared by the Secretariat (see document CM/Inf(2004)3).

- 31 cases against Turkey

- a. - Currency conversion problems

H46-600 30947 Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-601 26093+ B.T. and others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-602 25182+ Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01

H46-603 25724 Cihan, judgment of 30/01/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-604 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01[63]

H46-605 19279 Göçmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-606 37094 Hattatoğlu, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-607 19285 Karabulut Cemile and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-890 28504 Merinç, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement[64]

H46-608 31963 Özel and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

Sub-section 3.c

H46-609 19303 Şen Celal and Keziban, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-610 27697+ Yaşar and others, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46-611 19310 Yilmaz Hamit, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-612 19308 Yilmaz Zekeriya, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

In these cases the applicants and/or the Secretariat have identified various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems concern mostly more or less substantial shortfalls in payment, due among other things to currency conversion.

The Turkish authorities have undertaken to examine these problems with a view to settling the outstanding amounts due in accordance with the Court’s judgments. Information is awaited on the progress made to that effect.

- b. Other payment problems

- Cases concerning Action of the Turkish security forces[65]

H54-613 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-614 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-615 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and

ResDH(2002)98

H54-616 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-617 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-618 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-619 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-620 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H32-621 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-622 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-623 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-624 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-625 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-626 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-627 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

- Case concerning freedom of expression[66]

H46-628 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

In these cases, the applicants, their representatives and the Secretariat have raised various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems mostly concern more or less substantial shortfalls in payment.

During the examination of these cases in the Committee of Ministers, some concerns have been expressed about the comprehensive and persistent shortfalls in payment of just satisfaction and Turkey has been invited to remedy this problem urgently.

Following a bilateral meeting held in Strasbourg on 18/02/2002 between the Secretariat and a delegation from Ankara, the Turkish authorities’ presented in April 2002 their own calculations in each of the outstanding cases. In many cases the shortfalls acknowledged by the authorities coincide with the figures submitted by the applicants (including the default interest and restitution of a stamp duty erroneously deducted from the payments). However, in some of the cases the calculations differ notably as the payment was not made to the person, to the place or in the currency of payment prescribed by the Court.

Sub-section 3.c

On 07/06/2002, the applicants’ representatives responded to the Governments’ calculations by maintaining and further substantiating the sums claimed.

Between November 2002 and March 2004 the Secretariat, having examined the parties’ communications, has sent letters to the Turkish authorities concerning 21 cases giving the details to facilitate payment in conformity with the judgments.

On 10/05/2003, the applicants’ representatives have informed the Secretariat about the full payment of the shortfall in 9 cases which have been deleted from the cases listed in sub-section 3.c.

The confirmation of payment is still awaited in 12 other cases, in which the shortfall is clearly established.

Finally, concerning the 4 cases in bold, the Secretariat is continuing its contacts with the parties so as to provide the Turkish authorities, as soon as possible, with elements to accelerate payment in accordance with the Court’s judgments.

- Friendly settlement

H46-629 28516 Macir, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[67]

Addendum 3

This is a recent case in which the applicant complains about non-respect of the payment terms agreed in the friendly settlement: contrary to what was agreed, the payment has been made in Turkish lira into a bank account in Turkey and not in euros into the lawyer’s bank account in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the applicant claims that neither she nor her representative was ever informed by the Turkish Government about the payment in Turkish lira.

To date, the applicant has not yet obtained the sum agreed because, according to the local branch of the bank, the sum can only be withdrawn from the main branch of the bank in Ankara where the money was deposited.

The Secretariat notes that the sum deposited on the blocked account has lost some of its value, i.e. by the end of February the sum was worth approximately 67 000 euros instead of the 70 000 euros agreed in the friendly settlement. Moreover, the practice is that the sums awarded under the Convention should be readily available to applicants.

Table summarising the total number of cases by States

State	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum (3.a capital sums)	Payment after expiration of the time-limit set and no confirmation of payment of the default interest due (3.a default interest)	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum although payment due since more than 6 months (3.b)	Special payment problems (3.c)
Austria	1
Belgium		6
Bulgaria	1
Czech Republic	2
France	15	48	3	1
Germany	1
Geece	2	2	1
Italy	8	193	63
Macedonia		1
Netherlands	2		3
Norway	1
Poland	4		1
Portugal	3	8	1
Romania	9	2	25
San Marino	1
Slovakia			1
Sweden	1			1
Turkey	18	5	7	31
United Kingdom	5		1
Ukraine		1

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTION
(INDIVIDUAL MEASURES, MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS)

(See Addendum 4 for part or all these cases)

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise the progress made in the adoption of the implementing measures in the following cases raising several problems. Supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will be issued in Addendum 4. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these items on a case-by-case basis.

SUB-SECTION 4.1 – SUPERVISION OF INDIVIDUAL MEASURES ONLY[68]

- 1 case against Belgium

H46-630 33400 Ernst and others, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

This case concerns searches carried out in 1995 in the homes and business premises of the applicants, four professional journalists and two associations of professional journalists. These searches were carried out as part of preliminary investigations in cases where no charge had been brought against the applicants (the cases concerned related to violations of professional secrecy, some of which seemed attributable to one or more members of the public prosecutor’s office).

The European Court found an infringement of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression (violation of Article 10), because the measures aimed at discovering their journalistic sources were not proportionate to the intended legitimate aims (among other things: preventing the disclosure of confidential information), particularly in the light of the inadequacy of the grounds for the searches and of the latter’s massive character.

The Court also found an infringement of the applicants’ right to respect for their home and private life (violation of Article 8), because of the inadequacy of the grounds for the searches, the broad wording of the terms of the search warrants, the great number of objects seized and the absence of information to the applicants regarding the legal proceedings that made the operation necessary.

Individual measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), information was asked for concerning why certain objects and documents were still in the hands of the judicial authorities.

General measures (No examination envisaged at this meeting): At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Belgian delegation stated that bills relating to the protection of journalistic source were under discussion before Parliament. It also recalled that this judgment, like all other judgments of the European Court, is published in the official languages on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice. At the same meeting, the dissemination of the judgment to investigating magistrates and to the police, together with a circular, has been asked for, as well as information relating to the progress of the discussion before Parliament.

- 3 cases against Croatia

H46-631 48778 Kutić, judgment of 01/03/02, final on 01/06/02

H46-662 60533 Kastelic, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-663 58112 Multiplex, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

These cases concern the violations of the applicants’ right of access to a court to obtain a determination of their civil claims filed in 1993 and 1994 for damage caused by the members of the Croatian army or police during the Homeland War in Croatia or resulting from terrorist acts. In 1996 and 1999, before the adoption of a final court decision at national level in these cases, legislation was adopted ordering all proceedings of this kind to be stayed until new provisions were enacted to regulate the matter.

When the European Court delivered its judgments (more than 4 years, 5 years and 5 months, and 3 years and 7 months respectively) had elapsed and no new legislation had been passed in the meantime (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level. The Croatian delegation has indicated that the examination of these proceedings must be resumed by the domestic courts ex officio and that this has already been done in the cases of Kutić and Kastelic. In this respect further information will be useful on the measures envisaged in order to ensure the monitoring of the examintaion of these cases at national level.

Sub-section 4.1

General measures: On 14/07/2003 the Croatian Parliament adopted the Act on the Responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for Damage caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War and the Act on the Responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for Damages resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations. These laws provide for the resumption of civil proceedings which had been stayed in accordance with the law of 1996 and 1999.

The judgment of the European Court in the case of Kutić was translated and published on the official Internet site of the government (www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html), in the Collected Papers of the Zagreb Law School (issue n° 2/2003) and in the journal The Informer (issue n° 5022/2002). Moreover, it has been disseminated to the courts of the country. The judgment of the European Court in the case of Multiplex was published in the journal The Informer (issue n° 5176/2003).

- 1 case against the Czech Republic

H46-632 29010 Credit and Industrial Bank, judgment of 21/10/03

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant company’s right of access to a court with the power to review the legitimacy of administrative and judicial decisions taken in 1993 by the Czech National Bank on the grounds that its financial situation had been unsatisfactory (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), there was discussion concerning whether the applicant company may apply for reopening of the impugned proceedings or lodge a fresh complaint before domestic courts challenging the substantive reasons for which the compulsory administration had been imposed on it in 1993. Further information is expected in this respect.

General measures (No examination envisaged at this meeting): The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.justice.cz). Confirmation of its dissemination is awaited.

- 1 case against Finland

H46-633 32559 The Fortum Corporation, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the non-adversarial and thus inequitable nature of certain proceedings brought against the applicant company before the Supreme Administrative Court in 1995 by the Competition Office, in that two memoranda submitted to the Court by the Competition Office had not been communicated to the applicant. The European Court concluded that the applicant company, sentenced to a fine, had not been given an opportunity to comment on these memoranda and therefore had been unable to participate properly in the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Finnish authorities have indicated that, according to sections 63 and 64 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act, extraordinary appeals can be lodged against final administrative decisions if, inter alia, “a procedural error which may have had a relevant effect on the decision has been committed”. Such an appeal has to be lodged within five years of the date upon which the decision becomes final. For “very significant reasons”, a decision may also be annulled later on.

General Measures (No debate envisaged): The Finnish authorities have confirmed that the judgment of the European Court was translated, published on Finlex and widely disseminated with a covering letter to various authorities concerned.

Since December 1996, the procedure before the Supreme Administrative Court has been regulated by the Act on Administrative Court Procedure which allows in Article 34 exceptions from the principle of communication to the parties of any evidence that may affect the resolution of the matter, particularly in cases when such communication is found to be “manifestly unnecessary”. Further information is expected on the domestic case-law concerning the application of Article 34.

Sub-section 4.1

- 1 case against France

H32-634 33656 Lemoine Daniel, Interim Resolution DH(2000)16

This case concerns the fact that the applicant could not contest before a court a decision discharging him from his post in 1988 on grounds of physical unfitness; this resulted from the fact that a non-judicial organ, a commission instituted by the French railway company (Société nationale des chemins de fer - S.N.C.F.), had exclusive jurisdiction in this field (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations (about 4 years and 5 months) from 1989 to 1996 (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Following the finding of a violation in this case, the applicant brought new proceedings before the civil courts, with a view first to annulling the decision to lay him off and securing re-employment in the S.N.C.F., and secondly to obtaining an expert opinion on his state of health. The Rennes Labour Court declared this appeal inadmissible on 04/04/2003. The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment. A first hearing before the Rennes Court of Appeal took place on 02/12/2003.The applicant successfully applied for a new hearing before this Court in a different composition. This hearing will take place on 01/06/2004. The possibility of a new appeal based on the modified rule as presented below has also been evoked.

General measures (No debate envisaged): On 18/04/2000, the French authorities wrote to the Secretariat indicating that, on 15/03/1999, the Minister of Transport had decided to modify Article 15 of the S.N.C.F. rules on health and the organisation of the occupational health service. Article 15 b) now provides that “(…) in the specific case of disagreement, where an agent contests a decision taken by the company occupational health officer declaring him/her unfit for his/her job, the agent may seise the transport labour inspector, who will take a decision after consulting the transport occupational health officer”. By a letter dated 04/06/2003, the French delegation indicated that several possibilities existed to appeal against decisions by transport labour inspectors (who in fact are ordinary labour inspectors): submission for an out-of-court settlement to the inspector who took the decision; disciplinary complaint to the Minister of Transport; submission for a legal settlement before the administrative court.

As far as the length of the proceedings is concerned, general measures have been adopted in the framework of the execution of the Hermant case (application No. 31603, Final Resolution ResDH(2003)88).

- 4 cases against Italy

H32-635 33286 Dorigo Paolo, Interim Resolutions DH(99)258 of 15/04/99 (finding of a violation), ResDH(2002)30 and ResDH(2004)13 (adoption of individual measures)

The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings as a result of which the applicant was condemned to more than thirteen years’ imprisonment for, among other things, involvement in a terrorist bomb attack on a NATO military base in 1993. His conviction was based exclusively on statements made before the trial by three “repented” co-accused, the applicant not having been allowed to examine these statements or to have them examined, in conformity with the law in force at the relevant time (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3d).

Individual measures: The Italian authorities have been strongly urged, without further delay, to ensure the adoption of measures allowing for the consequences for the applicant in this case to be erased (see in particular Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)13 of 10/02/04). Information is expected on this. In particular, the Deputies encouraged the Italian authorities to ensure the rapid adoption of new legislation allowing for the reopening of domestic proceedings in conformity with the principles in Recommendation No. R(2000)2 (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)30 of 19/02/02). Furthermore, the applicant’s lawyer, in a letter of 15/09/2003, requested the applicant’s immediate released pending the outcome of a new trial (see Addendum 4 prepared for the 854th meeting, October 2003).

Sub-section 4.1

In fact, Italian law does not at present provide for re-examination of judicial proceedings found to be contrary to the Convention and, as no other measure has been taken in favour of the applicant, the latter is still executing the prison sentence resulting from the unfair proceedings. Different legislative proposals aimed at introducing in Italian law the possibility to reopen domestic proceedings not in conformity with the Convention have been examined by the Italian Parliament at least since 1998. A new draft law in this respect (No.2441/S) was approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 28/07/2003 and is now pending before the Senate for final adoption. This text provides for the possibility to review criminal proceedings if a violation of Article 6 of the Convention has been found by the Court or the Committee of Ministers. If the violation of the Convention was found before the entry into force of the law, the request for revision must be introduced within 180 days after the entry into force, with the exception of cases concerning mafia and terrorism crimes, for which no revision will be allowed if the violation was committed before the entry into force of the law. Therefore if this draft law were adopted as it stands it would not be applicable to the case of Dorigo.

General measures (No debate envisaged): Constitutional and legislative amendments were introduced in November 1999, February 2000 and March 2001 in order to ensure that the adversarial principle should be respected and thus prevent new violations of the right to fair criminal proceedings similar to that found in this case.

H46-636 41879 Saggio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

The case concerns in particular the fact that no effective remedy was available to the applicant from 1995 onwards to claim payment of back pay from a company which had been placed under compulsory administration, or to contest the action of the liquidator because at that time judicial action was only possible after the list of debts had been established (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: Information has been awaited since 2002 on measures envisaged to provide an effective remedy and bring to an end the violation found, as the applicant cannot recover his money as long as the compulsory administration proceedings, which have been pending since 1995, are not completed. Information would be particularly useful as regards means available to accelerate and complete the proceedings at issue.

General measures (No debate envisaged): New provisions entered into force in August 1999 (Legislative Decree No. 270/99), allowing any creditor henceforth to contest the action of a liquidator in compulsory administration proceedings started after the entry into force of the law, before domestic courts. Furthermore, the judgment of the European Court was published in the Official Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice, No. 13 of 17/07/2002 and brought to the attention of the judicial authorities.

H46-637 37119 N.F., judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

The case concerns in particular unlawful interference in the freedom of association of the applicant, a judge, on account of disciplinary sanction imposed on him in 1994 because of his membership, until October 1992, of a Masonic lodge. The European Court considered that the sanction was not “foreseeable” or “prescribed by the law” because the provisions at its basis (namely, Article 18 of Royal Decree No. 511 of 31/05/1946 combined with a 1990 directive of the Supreme Judicial Board (C.S.M.)) were not clear enough (violation of Article 11).

Individual measures: On the basis of the Court’s judgment, the applicant initiated proceedings before the administrative courts seeking the annulment of a decision of the C.S.M. of 13/07/2000 refusing to grant him promotion as of 16/10/1997, because of the disciplinary sanction (see applicant’s letter of 27/01/2003). He also filed two requests to the disciplinary section of the C.S.M. to obtain retroactive promotion and the annotation of the Court’s judgment in his professional file.

Sub-section 4.1

As regards the proceedings introduced before the administrative courts, information is expected on the outcome of the proceedings currently pending before the Council of State, as a result of the C.S.M.’s appeal against a decision of the regional administrative court on 11/07/2002, which quashed the decision of the C.S.M. of July 2000 to refuse the applicant’s promotion on account of the disciplinary sanction of 1994. The Italian authorities have indicated that a Council of State decision in favour of the applicant would allow the consequences of the violation found to be erased, as the C.S.M. would then have to reconsider the applicant’s request for promotion.

As regards the revision proceedings before the disciplinary section of the C.S.M., a first request was rejected on 30/07/2002 on the grounds that the European Court’s judgment could not be considered as a “new fact” and that Italian law does not allow reopening of proceedings on the basis of the findings of the European Court. The applicant’s request to have the Court’s judgment mentioned in his professional file was also rejected at the same occasion.

Following the second request, filed on the basis of the decision of the regional administrative court of 11/07/2002 (see above), the C.S.M. on 02/04/03 partially revised its previous decision, by retroactively acknowledging the applicant’s promotion as of 16/10/2000. The applicant maintains however that the decision should apply as from 16/10/1997 (see applicant’s letter of 29/04/2003).

General measures (No debate envisaged): A new directive, clearly establishing the incompatibility of membership of Masonic associations with the exercise of judicial functions was issued in 1993 (after the applicant had ceased to be a freemason and the procedure against the applicant had already begun).

The Italian authorities indicated, by letter of 3/10/2003, that the judgment of the European Court had been brought to the attention of the competent judicial authorities. The judgment was also published in the legal journal Il Foro italiano, No. 11 of 2001.

H46-3054 57574+ Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicants’ expulsion to Bosnia-Herzegovina in March 2000 (complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4).

According to the friendly settlement reached, the Italian Home Affairs Ministry undertook, in addition to the payment of certain sums to the applicants and to their lawyer:

1) to revoke the deportation orders in respect of the applicants;

2) to permit them to enter Italy with their families;

3) to issue them with residence permits on humanitarian grounds, valid for one year and renewable, allowing them to work and study in Italy;

4) to provide them with temporary accommodation, in association with the Rome local authorities, pending the finding of long-term accommodation in an equipped camp and to keep them informed of any development thereon;

5) to arrange with the competent authorities for the children of school age to attend school and be helped to make up for the school years lost after their expulsion to Bosnia;

6) to arrange with the competent authorities for a sick child to receive the medical attention she needs from the public health system.

Individual measures expected: At 04/03/2004, some undertakings had not been fully respected yet, according to information submitted by the applicants’ lawyer. Written information is accordingly expected on the measures taken in order to:

- 3) renew the residence permits of two applicants (Nenad Sulejmanovic, Fatima Sejdovic);

- 4) settle Nenad Sulejmanovic’s family in an equipped site;

- 5) ensure that the applicants’ children of school age can be helped to make up for the school years lost because of their expulsion;

- 6) ensure that the applicants can benefit from the health services needed.

Sub-section 4.1

Information is also expected on the position of the Italian authorities as regards the applicants’ complaint that the settlement of the families of Paso Sulejmanovic, Vedrana Sulejmanovic, Vahida Sulejmanovic and Izet Sulejmanovic in equipped sites would not be fully in conformity with the undertakings subscribed (see undertaking No. 4).

Individual measures taken: The agreed sums were paid. Furthermore:

- 1) The deportation orders were revoked on 18/10/2002 and the applicants’ names removed from the “Schengen” database;

- 2) All the applicants re-entered Italy, their travel being paid by the Italian authorities who also accepted to extend the time-frame agreed in the friendly settlement for their return;

- 3) All the applicants, except two (see above) have residence permits in conformity with the terms of the friendly settlement;

- 4) All the applicants, except three (see above) have been settled in equipped sites respectively in November 2002 (Izet Sulejmanovic’s family, settled in their grandmother’s container) and October 2003 (families of Paso Sulejmanovic, Vedrana Sulejmanovic, Vahida Sulejmanovic).

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-428 39339 M.M., judgment of 08/04/03, final on 24/09/03[69]

This case concerns the unlawful interception of certain telephone conversations of the applicant by a private individual with the assistance of the police who had, in 1993, suggested that the private individual concerned connect a cassette recorder to her telephone, carried out the connection and provided operating instructions.

The European Court considered that there had been interference by a public authority and that this interference had not been “in accordance with the law”, the conditions in force at the relevant time concerning telephone interception not having been met in this case (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: Information is awaited regarding whether the recordings at issue (and copies thereof) are in the possession of the authorities.

General measures (No debate envisaged at this meeting): Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the police, public prosecutors and the competent judges (particularly the Supreme Court) are also awaited.

- 1 case against Poland

H46-638 43786 Szymikowska and Szymikowski, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of civil proceedings (complaint under Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government undertook to supervise the progress of the impugned proceedings. By letter of 10/02/2004, the Polish authorities reported that the first-instance court’s judgment (rendered on 19/03/2002) has been quashed by the appellate court on 18/12/2003, the case being remitted for consideration. The Polish Delegation indicated that the case has been placed under the administrative supervision of the President of the Court and of the Ministry of justice, which closely monitor its progress. More information is awaited in this context.

Sub-section 4.1

- 5 cases against Romania

H46-643 29411 Anghelescu, judgment of 09/04/02, final on 09/07/02

H46-565 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[70]

These cases concern the Supreme Court’s annulment of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' titles to property that had been previously nationalised. The Supreme Court intervened following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions. The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the principle of legal certainty and accordingly violated the applicants’ right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicants’ right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised courts’ jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of property (violations of Article 6§1). Finally, the European Court found that the Supreme Court’s decisions had violated the applicants’ right to respect for their possessions by annulling without justification and without compensation final court decisions that recognised the applicants’ property rights to the apartments in question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In the Nagy case, the violation of the property right is also determined by the uncertainty flowing from the existence of two contradictory property titles to the apartment at issue. The state obtained a property title based on the 1995 Supreme Court decision (annulling the previous final decision returning the apartment to the applicant) and obtained the right to note this title in the land register in February 1999. On the other hand, the applicant had bought the apartment from the state in 1975 (and is occupying it) and noted his right in the land register in March 1999.

In the Anghelescu case, the domestic proceedings were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment.

Individual measures: Concerning the Anghelescu case, the Secretariat indicated at the 810th meeting (October 2002) that measures should be taken to accelerate the proceedings to revoke the applicant’s property title, which are still pending at national level. Information is expected on this matter.

As far as the Nagy case is concerned, the Romanian authorities were asked at the 841st meeting (June 2003) to indicate what measures could solve the conflict between the contradictory property titles.

General measures: The cases present similarities to the case of Brumărescu (judgments of 28/10/1999 and 23/01/2001) (sub-section 5.1).

H46-447 42930 Crişan, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03[71]

The case concerns the impossibility for the applicant to challenge before a court the lawfulness of the decisions of an administrative body (issued in 1991 and 1994 based on Legislative Decree No. 118/1990) granting him certain rights as a person who had been persecuted on political grounds, following the repeal in 1997 of the possibility to lodge a judicial complaint against such decisions (violation of Article 6§1).

In 1998, a legislative reform re-instituted the possibility of a judicial complaint in this field.The European Court nonetheless found that in the circumstances of the case it had not been sufficiently established that the applicant could have used this procedure.

Individual measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), information was requested concerning whether the applicant could make an application before the national authorities.

General measures (No examination envisaged at this meeting): At the 863rd meeting, the Romanian delegation indicated that a few people are still in the applicant’s situation, most of them having already used the new judicial procedure. Confirmation is awaited of the publication of the judgment of the European Court in the Official Gazette and of its wide dissemination.

Sub-section 4.1

H46-448 34647 Ruianu, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03[72]

The case concerns the non-enforcement of two final court decisions (issued in 1993 and 1995) enjoining the defendants to demolish a building illegally constructed on the applicant’s property (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court concluded that, in spite of the repeated requests of the applicant, the only adequate attempt to enforce the judgments had taken place only in 2000. Following this attempt, the subsequent requests made by the applicant for the enforcement of the judgments remained unsuccessful.

Individual measures: By letter sent to the European Court on 21/11/2003, the applicant requested the demolition of the building. At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Secretariat indicated that the execution of the individual measures in this case required the enforcement of the 1993 and 1995 court decisions. Information is awaited in this respect.

General measures (No examination envisaged at this meeting): The general measures are being examined by the Secretariat together with the Romanian authorities. The confirmation of the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court is awaited.

H46-449 33343 Pantea, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03[73]

The case concerns the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant by his fellow-prisoners in January 1995 during his detention on remand, in circumstances which engaged the state’s responsibility, and the shortcomings of the investigation carried out by the Romanian authorities into the facts of the case (violations of Article 3).

The case also concerns the illegality (acknowledged by the national courts) of the applicant’s detention on remand in July 1994, and the fact of his being kept in detention until April 1995 after the expiry of the warrant committing him to prison on 19 August 1994 (violations of Article 5§1).

The case furthermore concerns the fact that the applicant, whose detention was ordered by a prosecutor, was not brought rapidly before a judge (violation of Article 5§5).

Furthermore, the competent court took more than three months (December 1994 – April 1995) to rule on the applicant’s request to be freed from detention on remand (violation of Article 5§4). The case also concerns the fact that Romanian law did not provide the possibility to obtain compensation for illegal detention in the applicant’s situation (violation of Article 5§5).

Finally, the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant on 7/06/1994, which were still pending before the court of first instance when the European Court rendered its judgment, after having completed two procedural cycles, lasted excessively long (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Information is awaited concerning the possibility of a new evaluation of the accusations brought by the applicant against his fellow-prisoners and the prison warders, in the light of the European Court’s findings under Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, information on the acceleration of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant is also necessary.

General measures (No examination at this meeting): The constitutional and legislative changes adopted in 2003 (concerning the Code of Criminal Procedure) provide the obligation to bring detainees before a judge within three days and for compensation for illegal detention in situations similar to that of the applicant. Information on the publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, as well as on the measures required by the other aspects covered by the judgment, especially on the violation of Article 5§4 of the Convention, is awaited.

Sub-section 4.1

- 1 case against San Marino

H46-644 35430 Ercolani, judgment of 25/11/2003 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings against the applicant, which led to his conviction in 1996 to two years and 5 months’ imprisonment together with ancillary penalties without having being heard by the deciding judge in a public hearing either at first instance or at appeal, in conformity with the law applicable at that time (complaints under Article 6§1).

The proceedings at issue in this case are the same as those examined by the Court in the case of Stefanelli, (judgment of 08/02/2000, final on 08/05/2000, Resolution ResDH(2004)4). The Court took note in the present case of a friendly settlement between the parties, according to which the government undertook to renounce recovery of certain debts; to set aside its statutory right to be paid in preference to other creditors up to the sum of 800 000 000 lire; to grant the applicant a period of ten years for the payment of certain sum; and to give favourable consideration to the applicant’s request for rehabilitation, should he decide to introduce such a request.

Individual measures: written information is expected concerning the measures undertaken by the competent domestic authorities in order to ensure the implementation of the undertakings subscribed to in the friendly settlement.

- 3 cases against Spain

H46-645 68066 Gabarri Moreno, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

The case concerns the failure to take account of a mitigating circumstance when determining the sentence imposed on the applicant. In 1996 the applicant was convicted of heroin trafficking by the Madrid Audiencia Provincial and sentenced to 8 years and 1 day in prison and a fine. The Audiencia noted that he had been suffering from acute depression, a mental disorder which it accepted as a mitigating circumstance. The applicant appealed on the basis of this mitigating circumstance, claiming that the court should have delivered a more lenient sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the reduction in sentence he had been given by the Audiencia had not been manifestly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence.

The European Court found that when the mitigating circumstance was taken into account, the applicant’s sentence under Spanish criminal law should have been of between 6 years and 1 day and 8 years’ imprisonment. The legal certainty requirement inherent in the lawfulness principle should have entailed the rectification of the sentence, but this was not done (violation of Article 7§1).

Having been in custody since 13/05/1995, the applicant was released on licence on 25/07/1999.

Individual measures: Clarification has been sought concerning whether the conclusion of the European Court’s judgment may be noted in the applicant’s criminal record and whether he may apply to the domestic courts to reopen the impugned proceedings.

General measures (No examination envisaged at this meeting): The judgment of the European Court has been published in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice, No. 1954 of 01/12/2003. Confirmation of its dissemination to the competent authorities is awaited.

H46-646 62435 Pescador Valero, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 24/09/03

The case concerns the lack of impartiality of a judge of the High Court of Justice which in 1999 had examined and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against his removal from an administrative post at the local university. It subsequently emerged that the judge presiding over the section of the court responsible for examining this appeal had been a visiting professor at the same university. The European Court found that the judge had had regular, close professional connections with the applicant’s opponents and that this could give rise to fears on the part of the applicant as to the judge’s impartiality (violation of Article 6§1).

Sub-section 4.1

Individual measures: Clarification has been sought concerning whether the applicant may request reopening of the proceedings before the domestic courts.

General measures (No examination envisaged at this meeting): The judgment of the European Court was published in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice, No. 1959 of 01/12/2003. Confirmation of its dissemination to the competent authorities is awaited.

H46-827 58496 Prado Bugallo, judgment of 18/02/03, final on 18/05/03

The case concerns judicially authorised interception of the applicant’s telephone communications at different periods in 1990 and 1991, following a criminal investigation by the police into drug trafficking (violation of Article 8). The European Court found in particular that the legislation in force at the material time did not precisely define the nature of the offences which could give rise to telephone tapping, the conditions for drawing up formal reports of the intercepted conversations or the use and erasure of recordings.

Individual measures: Information is awaited regarding whether the recordings at issue are in the possession of the authorities.

General measures (No examination envisaged at this meeting): At the 847th meeting (July 2003), the Spanish Delegation stated that information would be provided concerning further legislative measures (on telephone tapping) envisaged in addition to the amendments already adopted following the judgment of the European Court in the Valenzuela Contreras case (Resolution DH(99)127). Information is expected in this respect.

The judgment of the European Court has been published in Spanish in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice No. 1954 of 01/12/2003. Written confirmation of its dissemination is awaited.

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-952 48539 Allan, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, in that the police carried out surveillance using covert devices within his cell. The European Court considered that this interference was not provided by law at the time as there was no legal system governing the use of secret listening devices (violations of Article 8).

The cases also concern the lack of effective remedy against this interference (violations of Article 13).

The Court finally found a breach of the applicant’s right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself and thus of his right to a fair trial in that evidence admitted during trial was obtained through a police informer in a manner which might be regarded as having been obtained against the applicant’s will (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant was sentenced in 1998 to life imprisonment.

Individual measures: Information is awaited concerning whether the applicant may have his conviction re-examined.

General measures: As regards Article 8 and Article 13, the case present similarities to that of Khan against the United Kingdom (judgment of 12/05/2000) which is at present in sub-section 6.2 following the general measures already adopted, in particular the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) which now constitutes the statutory basis for the installation of covert listening devices in cells (sections 26(3) and 48(1)) and establishes an Investigatory Powers Tribunal to deal with complaints about covert surveillance and the use of informants by the police.

The judgment of the European Court was published in European Human Rights Report 36 (2003) p. 143.

Sub-section 4.1

H54-648 19187 Saunders, judgment of 17/12/96, Interim Resolution DH(2000)27

H46-649 29522 I.J.L., G.M.R., and A.K.P., judgment of 19/09/00, final on 19/12/00, and judgment of 25/09/01 (Article 41), final on 25/12/01

Addendum 4

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right not to incriminate themselves and thus their right to a fair trial in that, at the trial that led to their criminal conviction in 1990 for offences under business criminal law, the prosecution made use of statements given earlier under legal compulsion to Department of Trade and Industry Inspectors (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures: The 1999 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act limited the possibility to make use of evidence obtained under legal compulsion against accused persons. The reform took effect as from April 2000.

Individual measures: As far as the case of I.J.L., G.M.R. and A.K.P is concerned, the applicants have complained to the Committee of Ministers that they cannot obtain the reopening of their trial. They have asked for the law to be changed to allow courts to quash convictions found by the European Court to be in violation of the Convention, even if the source of such violation is a provision of primary legislation. Alternatively, they request the adoption of ad hoc measures (such as an executive pardon, the repayment of the fines, etc.) based on the idea that, in view of the passage of time, the interests of justice do not call for the charges against them to be maintained. In support of these demands, they stress in their letter of 20/09/2002 the particularly heavy consequences they continue to suffer as result of the impugned criminal convictions imposed on them, including the fact that these convictions seriously affect their personal and business reputations, involve certain regulatory prohibitions limiting their ability to conduct some financial activities and have imposed the payment of substantial fines of up to several millions of pounds.

- The developments in the domestic proceedings can be summarised as follows: Following the judgments of the European Court, the applicants’ cases were referred to the Court of Appeal for a new examination by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as the latter had found that there was a real possibility that the Court of Appeal might not uphold the convictions because of the decisions of the European Court.

In its decision of 21/12/2001, the Court of Appeal indicated among other things that “…if we concluded that we were bound to give effect to the Strasbourg Court’s decision that the trial was unfair by examining anew the safety of the convictions, we would not uphold the convictions on the basis that they are safe in any event.” (§47 of the Court of Appeal’s decision). However the Court of Appeal did not find itself so bound: courts were required to apply the law as existing at the time of the events, unless there was a subsequent contrary indication of the legislator. On this specific issue, the Human Rights Act made no changes since it had no retrospective effect. The Court of Appeal added that it did not share the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, Article 46 of the Convention required such a re-examination; it added that, even if this were the case, the applicable legislation prevented it from giving effect to such international obligation. (idem, especially §§ 50-53). Neither did the Court of Appeal uphold any other ground of appeal. Accordingly, it concluded that the convictions were safe and dismissed the appeal (§86).

The applicants sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords. In its judgment of 14/11/2002 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd021114/lyons-1.htm), the House of Lords unanimously upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and in particular confirmed that courts were obliged to examine the safety of convictions according to the law as it stood at the time of the trial (see §§ 16,17,18, 29, 34, 59, 82, 96, 100 of the judgment of the House of Lords). In the present case, the law applicable at the relevant time admitted answers given under compulsory questioning as evidence. The House of Lords also confirmed that the law incorporating the Convention (the Human Rights Act, entered into force on 02/10/2000) has not been retrospective and has preserved parliamentary supremacy (§ 81). Lord Bingham added (§ 19) that it was neither necessary nor desirable for the House of Lords to consider what full reparation might be required in a case such as this in which the interests of justice would not appear to require a retrial in view of the lapse of time, the partial serving of prison sentences and the age and health of some of the appellants – it was rather for the European Court or for the Committee of Ministers to deal with these issues.

Sub-section 4.1

- The second application to Strasbourg: on 08/07/2003, the European Court rejected as inadmissible a second request (Application No. 15227/03) lodged by the applicants, complaining among other things of a new violation of Article 6 flowing from the decision of domestic courts not to exclude the impugned evidence from the review of safety of their convictions. The European Court found that the review proceedings did not give rise to any new violation of Article 6 since they formed part of an ongoing judicial process rooted in the original determination of the charges against the applicants. The Court also found that it should rather deal with the application under Article 46 of the Convention. The Court noted in this respect that a finding of a violation of the Convention imposes on the respondent state a legal obligation, not just to pay the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and, as far as possible to redress its effects. As far as the individual measures were concerned in the present case, the Court noted this is a matter of ongoing discussion between the Committee of Ministers and the UK authorities. The Court indicated that it was not called

upon to assume any role in this dialogue by directing the state to adopt a specific measure such as to open a new trial or to quash a conviction or by finding a violation of the Convention on account of its failure to take either of these courses of action. Nevertheless, the Court stressed the fact that these considerations were not intended to detract from the importance of ensuring that domestic procedures are in place which allow cases to be revisited in the light of findings of violation of Article 6, since such procedures represent an important aspect of the execution of the Court’s judgments and indicate a state’s commitment to the Convention.

- The position of the UK authorities, as it has been developed since the 798th meeting (June 2002), can be summarised as follows: the authorities have done all that was required by the Court’s judgment (payment of just satisfaction and legislative reform to prevent recurrence of the violations found). Even if reopening of proceedings was a desirable measure in certain circumstances, the Convention did not require such a measure in all circumstances, and in particular not in respect of cases such as the applicants’.

Citing from the House of Lords’ judgment, the delegation indicated that restitutio in integrum could not be achieved in these cases, since it was impossible to speculate on what would have been the outcome of the trial in the absence of the impugned evidence. Recalling the position of the Court of Appeal according to which a retrial would be inappropriate in the light of the significant time elapsed since the events and the applicants’ age and state of health, the Delegation indicated that in the specific circumstances of the case, any further measures, such as quashing the convictions, would place the applicants in a better position than they were before the violation found by the European Court, which would go beyond the UK’s obligations under Article 46 of the Convention (see Addendum 4).

Moreover, a requirement to reopen or to quash the applicants’ convictions could risk opening the floodgates to revision requests in respect of cases in which there had been, or might have been, a violation of a Convention right at trial many years ago, something that would risk undermining the “controlled introduction” of the Convention rights into domestic law achieved through the Human Rights Act; therefore, it was not envisaged to give retrospective effect to the Human Rights Act.

- The applicants’ response can be summarised as follows: they have opposed the closure of the case, stressing the fact that the Court of Appeal had concluded that, in the absence of the evidence collected in breach of the Convention, their conviction could not be upheld as safe. They summarised their arguments in a memorandum sent to the Secretariat on 24/10/2003 (see Addendum 4).

- The Secretariat is currently considering the situation. Its preliminary view is that it is not convinced by the arguments advanced by the UK Delegation to justify the closure of the case inasmuch as the applicants continue to suffer the consequences of the violation found by the European Court and have not received redress.

SUB-SECTION 4.2 – INDIVIDUAL MEASURES AND/OR GENERAL PROBLEMS

- 1 case against Austria

H46-3035 32636 A.T., judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

The case concerns the lack of a public hearing in two proceedings concerning the applicant’s compensation claims under the Media Act following the publication of statements against him in the weekly publication News (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures: The Austrian delegation has informed the Committee that the Ministry of Justice was contemplating an amendment of Article 8a of the Law on Media in the framework of a reform of this law which is currently under preparation. Further information on this issue is awaited.

The judgment of the European Court was published (in ÖIMR-Newsletter 2002/No. 2 and Österreichische Juristenzeitung 2002) and disseminated to all relevant courts and authorities in order that relevant conclusions could be drawn.

- 3 cases against Belgium

H46-650 37370 Strategies and Communications and Dumoulin, judgment of 15/07/02,

final on 15/10/02

The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings (investigation phase) which began on 24/04/1996, when searches were carried out at the company’s head office and the applicant’s home. The case was still in the hands of the investigating judge and had lasted 6 years and 2 months when the European Court rendered its judgment (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). In this respect, the European Court notes that the law of 12/03/1998, which entered into force on 02/10/1998 and amended Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code, introduced a remedy under domestic law enabling the accused to complain of the length of a criminal investigation. However, the Court noted that Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code raised issues in domestic law which had not yet been resolved (§55 of the judgment). Consequently, the Court found that Article 136 had not acquired sufficient legal certainty to constitute a remedy under the terms of Article 13 of the Convention.

Individual measure: Information is awaited concerning the acceleration of the proceedings.

General measure: Information is also awaited concerning measures taken to give Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code the necessary degree of legal certainty.

H46-651 32576 Wynen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

This case concerns an infringement of the applicants’ right to a fair trial before the Cour de cassation in that their complementary observations were declared inadmissible because they were handed in late. The European Court considered that Article 420 bis of the Code d’instruction criminelle under which appellants on points of law are obliged to file pleadings within two months after the registration of the appeal on the general list without imposing any comparable time-limit on the respondent, disregarded the principle of equality of arms (violation of article 6§1).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice. By letter of 14/04/2003, the delegation of Belgium furthermore informed the Secretariat that a solution for a general measure was currently under study. Information on that point as well as on dissemination of the Court’s judgment is expected.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-652 51564 Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/02

The case concerns the facts surrounding the expulsion from Belgium of the applicants, Slovakian nationals of Romany origin and asylum seekers. Summoned to the police station under the pretext of completing the files concerning their application for asylum, the applicants were in fact arrested, taken to a closed transit centre and then deported to Slovakia. The European Court found that it was not compatible with Article 5 for administrations to make a conscious decision to deceive people – even people in an irregular situation – so as to deprive them more easily of their liberty in the context of a summons (violation of Article 5§1). The conditions of their detention did not permit them to lodge an appeal on the legality of their detention (violation of Article 5§4). The circumstances under which the applicants were deported, at the same time as about 70 other asylum seekers, did not take into account the genuine and individual situation of each of those concerned, leading to a violation of Article 4 of Protocol 4. Finally, the remedies against expulsion, particularly application for suspension which may be brought before the Conseil d’Etat makes the implementation of a remedy too uncertain to satisfy the requirements of Article 13 (violation of Article 13 of the Convention combined with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice. By a letter of 11/10/2002, the Belgian authorities informed the Secretariat of the adoption by the Ministry of Interior, on 19/07/2002, of a directive concerning the execution of orders to leave the territory taken against certain unsuccessful asylum seekers. The directive, notified to the Director General of the Aliens’ Office, lays down the rule that “in the case of introduction of applications for stays under the emergency procedure before the Conseil d’Etat of an order to leave the territory taken against an unsuccessful asylum seeker, the order to leave the territory will not be executed as long as the Conseil d’Etat has not ruled on this emergency stay of execution.” At the request of the Belgian authorities, the Secretariat sent a letter to the delegation, on 18/12/2003, setting out in detail the questions at issue in this case. Information is expected in reply to this letter.

- 6 cases against Bulgaria

H46-653 50963 Al-Nashif and others, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

The case concerns the deportation of the first applicant, a stateless person, to Syria on 04/07/1999. The European Court considered that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to family life, as the applicable legal provisions did not give sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, the first applicant having been deported on the basis of considerations of national security exclusively within the discretionary power of the Minister of the Interior (violation of Article 8). The Court further found that the applicants had not had access to an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). The case finally concerns the fact that the first applicant had, under the applicable law, been given no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention while awaiting deportation (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures: By letter of 02/12/2002, the applicant's lawyer indicated that he had introduced an application to reopen the judicial proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court with a view to lifting the ban on his entry to Bulgaria. By decisions of 08/05/2003 (No. 4332) and 12/05/2003 (No. 4473), the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judicial decisions challenged by the European Court and referred the applicant's complaint back to the Sofia City Court and to the District Court of Smolian for new examination. Further information on the outcome of these proceedings is awaited.

General measures: At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the attention of the Bulgarian authorities was drawn to a number of problems in the legislation and regulations which were the basis of the violations found by the European Court in the present case (see in particular Article 46 of the Aliens Law). Indeed, Bulgarian law does not provide for judicial review of the lawfulness of aliens' detention in case of their expulsion on the grounds of national security (cf. Court's finding under Article 5§4), nor of the decision of expulsion itself when such reasons are evoked.

Sub-section 4.2

The Bulgarian authorities have thus been invited to bring domestic law in line with the Convention so as effectively to prevent new violations similar to those found in the present judgment. It was suggested that the experience of other countries which had been confronted with similar problems in the past be taken into account in planning and adopting the general measures in this case (e.g. Chahal against the United Kingdom, judgment of 15/11/1996, Resolution ResDH(2001)119).

At the 827th meeting (February 2003), the Bulgarian delegation informed the Committee that their authorities were carefully considering the above-mentioned issues. It added that the translation of the judgment of the European Court into Bulgarian had already been made.

However, so far no other concrete information has been provided on general measures, adopted or planned. It should be noted that the Administrative Supreme Court observed in its decision No. 4473 of 12/05/2003 that the amendments to the law on foreigners of 22/04/2003 did not change the current legal provisions in accordance with the requirements of the Convention.

H46-655 41488 Velikova, judgment of 18/05/00, final on 04/10/00

H46-654 38361 Anguelova, judgment of 13/06/02, final on 13/09/02

These cases concern breaches of the right to life, since it has been concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants’ relatives died as a result of injuries inflicted on them while they were detained in police custody on charges of theft (violations of Articles 2 and/or 3). The cases also concern the lack of effective investigation by the Bulgarian authorities into the deaths of the applicants' relatives (violations of Articles 2 and 13). The Anguelova case concerns in addition the failure by the police to provide timely medical care during the detention of the applicant's son (violation of Article 2) and the unlawfulness of his detention as it was not based on a written order as required by domestic law and was not properly recorded in the police custody register (violation of Article 5§1).

General measures: 1. As regards the violations of Article 2 and/or 3 (right to life and lack of medical care): Having regard to the conclusions of the European Court in §§68-76 of the Velikova judgment, the attention of the Bulgarian authorities was drawn in particular to need for training for the police. The delegation indicated that in 2001, following the judgment in the case of Velikova, a total of 500 police officers attended 5 seminars on the requirements of the Convention and of the CPT to be respected in the exercise of their duties; other similar education and training activities were carried on in 2002. In 2000 a specialised Human Rights Committee was set up at the National Police Directorate whose main functions are to organise human rights training of the managing and executive police staff and to take concrete measures to prevent cases of police ill-treatment. In May 2002 an important high-level working meeting was held in Sofia to discuss various measures adopted or being taken by the enforcement authorities to improve protection against ill-treatment. At the beginning of 2002 a new declaration form was introduced, containing information relating to the basic rights of the detained person. The declaration is filled in immediately upon the detention in order to make police action transparent and provable. Furthermore, a Code of Police Ethics was introduced by order of the Minister of Interior in October 2003. The provisions of this code were drawn up in co-operation with the Council of Europe and in accordance with Recommendation R(2001)10 of the Committee of Ministers on the European Code of Police Ethics.

Sub-section 4.2

2. As regards the violations of Articles 2 and 13 (lack of effective investigation): during the first examination of the Velikova case (December 2000), it was stressed in particular that certain administrative measures for awareness-raising (instructions to examining magistrates and prosecutors drawing their attention to §§78-79, 82-84 and 89 of the judgment; a circular to judges stressing their powers to supervise investigations) could help prevent similar shortcomings in criminal investigations. Furthermore, information showing the effectiveness of civil, administrative and criminal remedies against ill-treatment in police custody, including relevant statistics concerning the results of the investigations and the number of convicted persons, was requested.The Bulgarian authorities have provided the following information:

- the legislative amendments adopted on 27/04/2001 provide for judicial review of prosecutors’ decisions to close criminal proceedings and enable courts to send files back to prosecutors with instructions to carry out specific investigations (Article 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure); the authorities furthermore recalled that Bulgarian criminal procedure does not oblige prosecutors to seek any authorisation to investigate alleged offences by police officers;

- the case-law of Bulgarian courts is constantly developing so as better to take the Convention and the European Court's case-law into account; this has been demonstrated by a number of domestic judgments which refer directly to the Convention and to the judgments of the European Court; this development results in increased judicial control over prosecutors' decisions concerning detention in police custody or detention on remand. The delegation provided the Secretariat with two recent interpretative judgments (No. 1 of 25/06/2002 and No. 2 of 2002) of the Supreme Court of Cassation and several judgments of domestic courts which refer directly to the Convention and to the European Court's judgments concerning in particular Article 5 and 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Bulgarian authorities indicated that a number of ECHR training activities had been organised for the judiciary in 2002 and 2003, notably with the participation of the Centre for the training of judges (set up in 1999) in co-operation with the Council of Europe.

Statistics relating to the criminal investigation of cases of allegations of police violence have also been provided. In 2002 the Ministry of Interior received information on 146 cases, the files in 12 cases were sent to the Military Prosecutor’s Office, and 21 disciplinary sanctions were imposed. For the first nine months of 2003 the Ministry of Interior registered 246 complaints concerning police violence. Six of these complaints were transmitted to the Military Prosecutor’s Office. One person was convicted and ordered to pay an administrative fine. In the other cases for the moment only disciplinary sanctions have been imposed on the responsible police officers.

None the complaints transmitted to the prosecutor relates to a case concerning the use of violence by a police officer against a person held in custody.

- the Velikova judgment has been translated and disseminated by the Ministry of Justice to the Director of the National Police, to the General Prosecutor and to the Director of the special investigation service to be distributed to all officials from their respective administration with a circular letter drawing their attention to the Court’s findings. This judgment was published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg and distributed to all judges by the Centre for training of judges.

3. As regards the violations of Article 5§1 in the Anguelova case (illegal detention): the delegation has sent the Secretariat the text of the existing rules governing detention in police custody. Pursuant to Article 72§1 of the Law on the Ministry of Interior and Article 54§1 of the Rules implementing this law issued by the Minister of the Interior, a written order must be issued for the detention of a person by the police. The order is filed in a special register (Art. 54§5 of the Rules). The detained person may contest the legality of his or her detention before the competent court which shall pronounce its decision immediately (Art. 70§3 of the law on the Ministry of Interior).

Sub-section 4.2

Item	Application	Case	Length of proceedings	Pending cases	Proceedings started on
H46-657	37104	Kitov, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03	1st set of proceedings – about 8 years and 11 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction and new examination before the 1st instance court )	Yes, partially	27/05/1993
H46-657	37104	Kitov, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03	2nd set of proceedings – about 4 years and 5 months (at the stage of preliminary investigation)	No	27/03/1995
H46-658	35825	Al Akidi, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003 rectified on 16/10/2003	5 years and 6 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)	No	10/09/1993
H46-659	35436	Hristov, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	5 years and 6 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)	Non	10/09/1993

These cases concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants (violations of article 6§1).

The applicants in the cases of Al Akidi and Hristov (together with the applicants in the cases of Ilijkov and Mihov, see sub-section 6.1) were all co-accused in criminal proceedings concerning a fraudulent VAT refund. Their cases concern the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand between 1993 and 1997 in view of the insufficient reasons to justify it (violations of Article 5§3).

The case of Hristov also concerns the non-adversarial nature of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in respect of the applicant’s requests for release (violation of Article 5§4). This case also concerns the lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level in the case of Kitov.

General measures: As regards the violations of Article 6§1: information was requested concerning the measures envisaged or adopted as regards the length of criminal proceedings, as well as on available remedies in this respect. The publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment in the Kitov case, together with a circular, to criminal courts, prosecutors and preliminary investigation authorities drawing their attention to the conclusions and the concrete suggestions of the Court on the problems found (especially §§ 71, 73 and §§ 81-83) have also been requested.

As regards the violations of Article 5§3 (excessive length of the detention on remand) and of Article 5§4 (lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of this detention on remand), these cases present similarities to the Assenov (judgment of 28/10/1998) and Nikolova (judgment of 25/03/1999) cases closed by Resolutions ResDH(2000)109 and ResDH(2000)110, following a legislative reform of criminal procedure which took effect from 01/01/2000.

As regards the violations of Article 5§4 (non-adversarial nature of proceedings before the Supreme Court) the Hristov case presents similarities to that of Ilijkov, (Section 6.1).

- 10 cases against Croatia

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-664 51585 Horvat, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-665 54727 Cerin, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-668 52634 Futterer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-669 49706 Rajak, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-667 48771 Delić, judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

H46-671 45435 Radoš and 4 others, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

Sub-section 4.2

H46-670 56773 Rajčević, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 06/11/02

H46-666 58115 Čuljak and others, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-673 47863 Šoć, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 09/08/03

H46-672 63412 Sahini, judgment of 19/06/03, final on 19/09/03

These cases, except the Šoć case, concern the excessive length of civil proceedings, which began between 1975 and 1995 and lasted between 3 and 25 years[74] (violations of Article 6§1). In the Čuljak and others case one set of proceedings was stayed in accordance with the law of 29/10/1999 providing that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from acts of members of the Croatian army or police committed during the war in Croatia were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.

The cases of Horvat, Delić and Radoš and others also concern the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law since the formal institution of proceedings upon a complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court depended on the discretion of the latter. In the Šoć case, the European Court held that the applicant had had no effective domestic remedy available to challenge the length of 2 sets of civil proceedings, which started in 1994 and 1997 and ended in 2002, as the request pursuant to Section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Court Act does not apply to proceedings that have already come to an end (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level in the cases of Horvat, Cerin, Futterer, Delić, Radoš and others and Čuljak and others.

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 6§1, an Act amending the Act on Civil Procedure was adopted on 14/07/2003. This law aims at strengthening procedural discipline and accelerating civil proceedings. This legislative reform is part of the “Strategy for the Reform of the Judicial System”, adopted by the Croatian government and setting the short-term and long-term objectives for overall judicial reform. The strategy is intended to be implemented before the end of 2007. Further information on the relevant provisions of this new law, as well as information concerning further measures envisaged or already adopted within the framework of the reform of the legal system, is awaited.

As regards the violation of Article 6§1 in the Čuljak and others case due to the stayed civil proceedings, this case presents similarities to the case of Multiplex (sub-section 4.1).

As regards the violation of Article 13, a new Act amending the Act on the Constitutional Court entered into force on 15/03/2002. In the case of Radoš and others and in the admissibility decisions in the cases of Slaviček (decision of 04/07/2002), Nogolica (decision of 05/09/2002), Plaftak and others (decision of 03/10/2002), Jeftić (decision of 03/10/2002) and Sahini (decision of 11/10/2002), the European Court found that the new Section 63 of this law provided an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning excessive length of proceedings. It should be noted that in the Šoć case the Court considered that this provision does not represent an effective remedy in respect of the length of civil proceedings that had already come to an end.

The first five judgments of the European Court have already been translated, and disseminated to domestic courts. They have also been published on the official internet site of the Government www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html and in legal journals. The judgment of the European Court in the Šoć case was also published on the internet site of the Croatian government.

- 2 cases against Cyprus

H46-674 44730 Serghides and Christoforou, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

The case concerns the expropriation of part of the applicant’s property (191 m² out of 2182), without the applicant being notified and without the right to compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Between 1978 and 1979, the District Land Registry Office of Nicosia registered the disputed area as part of the public domain.

Sub-section 4.2

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in order to determine the lawfulness of the action complained of. The Supreme Court in 1993 rejected the applicant’s motion at first instance as having been filed out of time even though she had never received notification of the expropriation of part of her land. Furthermore the same court, seised at appeal in 1998, dismissed her appeal on the grounds that she had no locus standi. It found that the applicant, by giving her property away, despite the fact that the gift did not include the expropriated part, had forfeited her legitimate interest in the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

Finally, the case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings which lasted from 17/11/1989 to 27/02/1998 (8 years 3 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: At the 834th meeting (April 2003), publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court were requested. In addition, the Committee asked whether legislative reform was envisaged. As regards the last issue, the Government has provided information which is being examined by the Secretariat.

H46-675 30873 Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00

CM/Inf(2004)5-Rev

The case mainly concerns the inhuman treatment inflicted upon the applicant by state officials during his arrest before being admitted to hospital in Larnaca (violation of Article 3) and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). On 01/12/1995, the Attorney General filed at the Nicosia District Court a nolle prosequi in the applicant’s case, in accordance with Article 113.2 of the Constitution. The applicant was released on the same day. On 04/12/1995, the Nicosia District Court discharged the applicant.

Individual measures: The applicant’s lawyer wrote to the Secretariat on 19/04/2001 and on 26/09/2002 raising several questions about the need to adopt individual measures in this case. He asked in particular whether the Attorney General had instituted criminal proceedings against the officers involved and, if not, what reasons had been given.

By letter of 14/10/2003, the Secretariat was informed that by decision of the Attorney General of 30/04/2003, an independent criminal investigator had been appointed in the Egmez and Denizci cases (information already transmitted by letter of 19/03/2003 and included in CM/Inf(2003)30). The investigation is at present well under way: all documentary evidence and written statements following interviews with the applicants themselves and numerous other persons and sources has been completed. The investigator has already received all the relevant files from the Attorney General’s office and from other governmental departments or bodies which conducted investigations related to these cases.

In response to the letter sent by the Secretariat to the Cypriot authorities on 18/12/2003, the latter provided further information by note handed to the Secretariat on 09/02/2004. Certain questions remain outstanding in this respect, however. In particular, information is awaited as to the current state of investigations, and further information is awaited with respect to some of the procedural safeguards surrounding the investigation. The latter also concern general measures in the present case (see below).

General measures: As in the Denizci and others case (sub-section 5.1) the Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all institutions concerned (judiciary and police/security forces, Attorney General’s Office, Ombudsman, Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministries of Justice and the Interior have requested that appropriate instructions be prepared and distributed to all state officials in order to avoid any future cases of ill-treatment. Instructions prepared by the Attorney General have also been distributed to all authorities concerned. Finally, the judgment has received extensive media coverage in Cyprus. Details of its publication in translation have been requested.

Sub-section 4.2

Amendments to the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Ratification) Acts of 1990 and 1993 came into force on 13 December 2002. In addition to the criminal offence of committing torture, which already existed, these amendments make it a criminal offence for any person to submit another person to inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment, and the sanctions imposed against members of the police force committing such offences are now heavier. In addition, in order to avoid impunity in such cases, where ill treatment of this kind is alleged to have been committed in a police station and there is no other reasonable explanation for injuries sustained and also insufficient evidence to instigate criminal proceedings against an identified police officer, the officer in charge of the station will be held criminally responsible.

The Committee has asked whether, as far as the violation of Article 13 is concerned and in the light of §§71 and 99 of the Court’s judgment, the Cypriot authorities envisage adopting specific measures to guarantee that similar violations do not recur.

In response to a request by the Cypriot delegation at the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Secretariat informed the delegation in its letter of 18/12/2003 of the outstanding issues related to the violations found in the present case, concerning in particular the procedural safeguards surrounding investigations. Areas of particular concern included the powers of independent investigators appointed by the Attorney General to carry out criminal investigations, the safeguards existing to ensure that the right to an effective investigation and subsequent punishment of perpetrators of serious abuses is secured and complainants’ access to the investigations. The Cypriot authorities provided further information in this respect in a note handed to the Secretariat on 09/02/2004.

All the information received to date from the Cypriot authorities concerning the present case, the questions raised by the applicants’ representatives and other delegations and the present evaluation of the situation are included in the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat (see CM/Inf(2004)5-rev).

- 2 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-676 41486 Bořánková, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-152 53341 Hartman J. and J., judgment of 10/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003[75]

These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). In the first case, the proceedings which began in 1985 and ended in 2000, lasted more than 14 years (4 degrees of jurisdiction) of which 7 years and 10 months were after the European Convention’s entry into force with respect to the Czech Republic.

In the second case, in respect of the first applicant, proceedings began in 1992 and ended in 2002 (almost 10 years). In respect of the second applicant, proceedings began in 1995 and ended in 2000 and 2002 respectively (almost 5 years, and 6 years and 3 months respectively). The Hartman case also concerns the fact that the remedies available in the domestic legal order (hierarchical appeal and constitutional complaint) could do nothing to accelerate the pending proceedings or compensate for their excessive length (violation of Article 13).

General measures: At the 847th meeting (July 2003), the Czech delegation indicated that information would be provided about measures envisaged to ensure the reasonable length of civil proceedings.

As regards the violation of Article 13 in the case of Hartman, at the 871st meeting (February 2004), information was requested about measures envisaged to ensure an effective remedy for complaints of excessive length of civil proceedings in the light of the Court’s findings indicating a structural problem. Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court were requested.

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against Germany

H46-677 37568 Böhmer, judgment of 03/10/02, final on 21/05/03

The case concerns the decision of the Hamburg Appeal Court of 16/10/1996 to revoke the suspended prison sentence of two years with four years’ probation, pronounced against the applicant on 14/06/1991. The European Court considered that the Appeal Court had breached the presumption of the applicant’s innocence and thus his right to a fair trial in that, in substantiating the decision to revoke the suspension, it went into an in-depth analysis of the applicant’s guilt with regard to other proceedings still pending in order to conclude that the applicant had committed a criminal offence during the probation period (violations of Articles 6§§1 and 2).

Individual measures: The Pardon Division at the Hamburg Court of Appeal suspended the execution of the sentence pending the result of the proceedings before the European Court. The Government indicated that, by an order of 21/10/2003, the Senior Public Prosecutor stated that the enforcement of the decision of the Hamburg Regional Court of 14/06/1991 was altogether inadmissible in view of the violations found by the European Court. The applicant has been informed accordingly.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was sent out to criminal courts. Confirmation of publication is awaited.

H46-678 31871 Sommerfeld, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the domestic courts’ dismissal of the applicant’s request for access to his child born out of wedlock. The European Court found that the applicant had suffered discriminatory treatment insofar as Section 1634§1 of the Civil Code provided, at the time of the facts, for different and unjustified criteria making it more difficult for fathers of children born out of wedlock than for divorced fathers of children born in wedlock to obtain custody of their children (violation of Article 14, taken together with Article 8).

In addition, the Court found similarly that the applicant had suffered a discriminatory treatment in that he could not file a further appeal under Section 63a of the Act on Non-contentious Proceedings which was, at the time of the facts, available only to divorced fathers of children born in wedlock (violation of Article 14, taken together with Article 8).

General measures: As regards the violations caused by Section 1634§1 of the Civil Code, measures have been adopted following the Elshoz case (ResDH(2001)155). As regards Section 63a of the Act on Non-contentious Proceedings, at the origin of the second violation, it has been repealed by the Law on Family Matters of 1997 (see §36 of the Court’s judgment). Clarification would be useful as to whether there are new provisions ruling the procedural rights of parents of children born out of wedlock.

The judgment of the European Court was published in the Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht, 6, 2002.

- 1 case against Estonia

H46-679 45771 Veeber Tiit (No. 2), judgment of 21/01/03, final on 21/04/03

The case concerns the sentencing of the applicant on charges of tax evasion, confirmed by the Supreme Court on the 08/04/1998 for acts committed between 1993 and 1996, under Article 148-1§7 of the Penal Code which entered into force on 13/01/1995. The European Court found that the courts had retrospectively applied this provision to acts which previously did not constitute a criminal offence (violation of Article 7§1). It also noted that a considerable number of the acts of which the applicant was convicted had been committed exclusively before January 1995 and that the sentence imposed took into account the acts committed both before and after that date.

Sub-section 4.2

The applicant was sentenced to 3 years, 6 month’s imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

Individual measures: On 15/08/2003 the Supreme Court granted the applicant's request for reopening of the proceedings. Further information on the development of these proceedings is awaited.

General measures: The Estonian delegation indicated that on 01/09/2002 a new Criminal Code entered into force. Since the new Criminal Code establishes new criteria for defining tax evasion, further clarifications are awaited concerning how the entry into force of the new code will prevent new violations of the Convention similar to those found by the European Court in this case.

The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published on the website of the Council of Europe Information Centre in Estonia (www.coe.ee) and in the book Human rights and their protection in Europe, which is distributed free of charge to NGOs and all relevant governmental agencies, libraries and universities. The case was discussed in seminars with the participation of the competent authorities (representatives of the police and of the Prosecutors’ Office) as well as in a television programme with the participation of the applicant, prosecutors, police officers and judges.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent the judgment of the European Court to the Ministry of the Interior and to the Ministry of Justice with a proposal for its dissemination to the institutions coming under their responsibility.

- 10 cases against France

H46-177 36378 Bertuzzi, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 21/05/03[76]

This case concerns a violation of the applicant's right of access to a tribunal in order to claim (in 1995) for damages against a lawyer whom he considered not to have represented him properly in previous proceedings, and hence of his right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1). Although he had been given legal aid, the applicant did not have the assistance of a lawyer, because of the successive withdrawals of various lawyers officially assigned to him. The European Court found that the competent authorities should have taken the steps necessary to give effect to the decision to grant legal aid, in order to allow the applicant to have an effective defence. Indeed, according to this decision, even if the representation by a lawyer was not compulsory in this case (a civil matter) it was nevertheless of the utmost importance. In June 1997, the President of the Bar informed the applicant that the decision to grant him legal aid had lapsed.

Individual measures: According to the applicant’s present lawyer, the applicant does not want to resume the proceedings at issue.

General measures: The European Court's judgment has been published on the official Internet site www.legifrance.gouv.fr, section “actualité européenne”. Furthermore, at the 847th meeting (July 2003) information was requested concerning the other measures already adopted or envisaged to avoid new, similar violations.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-186 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber[77]

H46-680 38436 APBP, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-681 38748 Immeubles Groupe Kosser, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-682 44565 Theraube, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 21/05/03

CM/Inf(2003)15

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern infringements of the right to a fair trial on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the trial bench in proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat (violations of Article 6§1). The Government Commissioner actually takes no part in voting on the trial bench, as he has already expressed his submissions on the case orally during the hearing. He attends the deliberations and answers, if necessary, any question which might be put to him. On this point, the European Court considered that the advantage for the bench of this purely technical assistance by the Government Commissioner in the deliberations “is to be weighed against the higher interest of the litigant, who must have a guarantee that the Government Commissioner cannot, through his presence influence their outcome.” (see §85 of the Kress judgment).

The Kress case also concerns the excessive length (10 years, 1 month, 8 days) of the proceedings before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: The French Delegation sent the Secretariat a copy of the memorandum of 23/11/2001 addressed to Government Commissioners by the President of the section du contentieux of the Conseil d’Etat, in which it is in particular explained that they may continue to attend deliberations on condition that they do not take the initiative of speaking during deliberations. The points of view of the Government and the Secretariat concerning this measure have already been described in an information note dated 31/03/2003 (CM/Inf(2003)15) as well as in a note submitted by the Government in June 2003. The Court will be examining the question under discussion in the framework of a pending case (Application No. 61164/00 – Barbe and others). Consequently, the Secretariat, with the agreement of the French delegation, proposes to postpone the examination of this group until the outcome of this case is known.

H46-683 40472 Tricard, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

This case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a tribunal (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant is domiciled (and actually lives) in French Polynesia and was a party to criminal proceedings in metropolitan France. The Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on a point of law on the grounds that it was out of time, in application of Articles 568 and 271, paragraph 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to these articles and the relevant case-law, the time-limit for lodging such an appeal was of five clear days following date upon which the notification of the contested decision was sent. But in the present case, the applicant received the notification seven days after it had been sent, i.e. after the expiration of the appeal time-limit, because of the time needed to deliver post to French Polynesia.

Individual measures: The applicant could have asked for the re-opening of the appeal on basis of Articles 626-1 to 626-7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

General measures: At the 775th meeting (December 2001), the publication and the dissemination of the judgment to the Court of Cassation was requested. At the same meeting, France had also been invited to take other measures to ensure that similar violations could not happen again. At the 854th meeting (October 2003), the French delegation stated that the Court of Cassation had made an error in this case, as it should have asked the applicant to find an address in metropolitan France and that the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry responsible for France’s overseas departments and territories (outre-mer) were trying to find a solution to the problem revealed by this case. Further information is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-684 36515 Fretté, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

The case concerns the unfairness of certain proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat in 1996 (violation of Article 6§1). According to the practice in force at the time of the facts, the applicant, who was not represented, was not summoned to the hearing; consequently, he did not have the opportunity to be informed of the submissions of the Government Commissioner (Commissaire du Gouvernement) and therefore could not answer them. Not being represented, neither could he get the general sense of these submissions. He was thus denied a fair hearing of his case in adversarial proceedings.

General measures: Since 01/01/2001, all parties have been notified of hearing dates. Information concerning the measures concretely adopted by the Conseil d’Etat towards applicants not represented by a lawyer, as regards communication to them of the general tenor of the submissions of the Government Commissioner, is awaited.

H46-685 36436 Piron, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations regarding consolidation of parcels of land, before administrative courts. When the European Court issued its judgment, these proceedings had already lasted, for the purposes of the Convention, 26 years and 5 months and were still pending (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, as she had been deprived of a part of her property in consequence of the same proceedings, without obtaining adequate compensation (i.e. for being deprived of her property and for damages resulting from the length of this privation) within a reasonable time (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: It has been suggested, since the first examination of the case at the 749th meeting (April 2001), that particular attention be paid to closing the case at national level (the proceedings lasted 26 years and 5 months for the purposes of the Convention, but actually more than 35 years). The judgment of the European Court recalls that it was for national tribunals to evaluate the material damage. By letter dated 10/10/03, the French delegation stated that, following an appeal of the applicant, the Conseil d’Etat cancelled, on 29/03/02, the decision of the competent authority (Commission nationale de remembrement) on the applicant’s compensation and that the proceedings were consequently again pending before this authority.

General measures: Information was requested, at the 819th and 827th meeting (December 2002 and February 2003) concerning the running and the work-load of commissions responsible for consolidating parcels of land. In a letter of 10/10/03, the Delegation provided the explanations sought, but also indicated that it was intended to modify the existing scheme in the near future, by means of the Promotion of the Development of Rural Areas Bill, which was in the process of being drafted. This Bill simplifies and decentralises land-use development processes, provides for the abolition of the relevant national authority and makes it easier to obtain compensation where it is impossible to alter the division of land. Information is awaited as to the progress of the Bill.

H46-168 46096 Mocie, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

This case concerns the excessive length of two sets of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1). The first set of proceedings began in 1988 and was still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (14 years and 10 months); the second began in 1990 and ended in 1998 (almost 8 years).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings still pending. Information is expected in this respect.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: According to the European Court, it is important that this kind of situations be resolved particularly speedily; thus, publication and dissemination of the judgment was asked for at the 854th meeting (October 2003) with the intention that it be taken into consideration by the relevant authorities.

Furthermore, this case presents similarities with that of Sapl and with the other cases concerning the length of proceedings before the administrative courts, in sub-section 6.2 following the measures announced by the defendant state. For a brief summary of the measures adopted, see the cases of Bartre, Broca and Texier-Micault, and Sellier, in section 2.

H46-686 50331 Julien Ferdinand, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violations of Article 6§1). The proceedings began in 1991 and were still pending when the European Court rendered its judgment (more than 11 years and 4 months for 2 levels of jurisdiction).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings still pending. Information is expected on this point.

General measures: According to the Court, it is important that this kind of situations be resolved with exceptional promptness; thus, publication and dissemination of the judgment to the competent authorities was asked for at the 854th meeting (October 2003). On this question, see also the cases of Seguin and Wiot (sub-section 5.3).

- 9 cases against Greece

H46-688 46355 Tsirikakis, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 10/07/02 and of 23/01/03, final on 09/07/03 (Article 41)

H46-692 48392 Hatzitakis, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, in the context of expropriation proceedings (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In the first case, this violation concerns the protracted uncertainty experienced by the applicants about both the amount of compensation fixed, which had seriously depreciated through the passage of time until the applicants withdrew the compulsory purchase compensation, and the fate of the non-expropriated part of their land, given that the state, contesting their ownership, had declared it all to be public property.

In the second case, the violation concerns the fact that the applicant could not obtain the compensation determined by the courts for the expropriation of his property because of the excessive length of the procedure concerning the recognition of his entitlement to compensation. As there was no land registry covering that region of Greece, the authorities had been unable to give an immediate answer to the question of whether the state had any property rights over the land and they had to resort to this complex procedure. On 19/09/2001, the applicant’s entitlement to compensation was recognised and he was able to obtain it at any moment.

In the first case, the civil proceedings concerning judicial recognition of the applicants’ ownership also lasted a very long time (more than 13 years and 3 months). They began in 1988 and when the European Court delivered its judgment they were still pending before the Court of Cassation (violation of Article 6§1). On 24/12/1998 the applicants finally withdrew the compulsory purchase compensation which had been placed on deposit for them on 04/11/1983.

Concerning the violation of Article 6§1, this case presents particular similarities to that of Academy Trading Ltd and others (judgment of 04/04/2000), at present in sub-section 6.2 following measures already adopted (increase of the number of judges and court administrative staff; computerisation of courts and construction of modern court premises; Law 2915/29/05/2001 which limits the possibility of adjournments of trials and includes provisions to improve evidence procedure).

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: In the Tsirikakis case, information regarding the state of the proceedings before national courts is awaited.

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Government has recalled that a new Code of Expropriation has been adopted; additional information is awaited, explaining how these new legislative measures will guarantee that no similar violation will be found in the future. Information is also awaited about the creation of a land registry in Greece and about interim measures.

The judgments of the European Court have been published on the official web site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to the judicial authorities. Their broad dissemination to the competent administrative authorities is awaited.

H46-690 41666 Kyrtatos, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns several violations:

- The failure of the authorities to demolish two buildings near the applicants’ property in compliance with two decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court annulling the permits for their construction (violation of Article 6§1). This aspect of the case presents similarities with the cases of Hornsby (judgment of 19/03/1997) and Iatridis (judgment of 25/03/1999), etc., which appear in sub-section 6.2 following constitutional and legislative measures already adopted in order to reinforce the administration’s obligation to comply with judicial decisions (Article 95§§ 4-5 of the revised Constitution, Act 3068/12/11/2002, establishing specific judicial monitoring of the administration and allowing seizure against the state’s private property).

- The excessive length of certain civil proceedings instituted by the applicants against their neighbour for trespassing on their property. These proceedings began on 31/01/1991 and when the Court delivered its judgment they were still pending at appeal (more than 12 years for two levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1). This aspect of the case presents similarities, in particular to the case of Academy Trading Ltd, which appears in sub-section 6.2 following the measures already adopted (Law 2915/29/05/2001 which provides: restriction of the need to postpone trials, faster evidence procedures; more judges and court administrative staff, computerisation of courts and construction of modern court buildings).

- The excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts instituted by the applicants against an administrative decision ordering the demolition of their house because it had been built without a building permit. These proceedings began on 06/10/1994 and, when the Court delivered its judgment, they were still pending at appeal (more than 8 years and 3 months for one level of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1). In order to remedy this violation several measures are already adopted (more judges and court administrative staff, computerisation of courts and construction of modern court buildings).

Individual measures: Information is awaited about the demolition of the buildings at issue. As to the domestic judicial proceedings, they have ended in favour of the applicants (the civil proceedings by the judgment 176/2003 of the Aegean Court of Appeal and the proceedings before administrative courts by the judgments 1674 and 1675/2000 of the Piraeus Administrative Court of Appeal).

Other general measures under way: In order further to accelerate the proceedings before the administrative courts, a draft law is under consideration, amending the Code of Administrative Procedure. This reform will be finalised in 2004. Further information on this issue is awaited. In the meantime, Article 22 of Law 3226/2004 contains a number of relevant provisions (including reinforcement of the system of examination at the same trial of applications based on a similar judicial and factual basis). The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official website of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to the competent judicial authorities.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-691 50824 Azas, judgment of 19/09/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-223 55794 Efstathiou and Michaïlidis and Cie Motel Amerika, judgment of 10/07/03,

final on 10/10/03[78]

H46-693 58642 Interoliva Abee, judgment of 0/07/03, final on 10/10/03

H46-694 58634 Konstantopoulos AE and others, judgment of 10/07/03, final on10/10/03

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right of property (violations of Article 1 of Protocol 1) in that the application of an “irrebuttable presumption” (Article 1 of Law No. 653/1977) according to which the building of a road is profitable to the adjoining owners, led to an automatic reduction of the applicants’ compensation for land expropriated for the building of the road. The presumption was declared “rebuttable” by a change in domestic case-law following the Court’s judgments in the cases of Katikaridis, Tsomtsos and Papachelas (ResDH(2002)105, ResDH(2002)103, ResDH(2002)104 respectively). However, the European Court found this change insufficient, since the applicants were obliged to engage in lengthy judicial proceedings for damages, separate from the expropriation procedure, to prove that their properties were in fact at a disadvantage and thus obtain additional compensation (§54 of the Court’s judgment). Some of the applicants in the Azas case have lodged proceedings of this kind which were pending when the European Court delivered its judgment.

In the Azas case, the violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 is also due to the fact that the maximum amount imposed by law for the reimbursement of lawyers’ fees did not reflect the actual amount of the fees due, so that the applicants had had to bear part of the fees.

Individual measures: Information is awaited concerning the progress of the domestic proceedings in the Azas case.

General measures: As regards the first aspect of the case, the new Law 2971/19/12/2001 adopted the change already made in domestic case-law and provides that the presumption is no longer “irrebuttable” (Article 33 which entered into force on 19/01/2002). It also provides specific, short proceedings – which do not suspend the expropriation procedure – to enable persons subject to expropriation to rebut the presumption. The question of whether this law has remedied the violation remains to be examined.

As regards the reimbursement of lawyers’ fees, the new Code of Expropriations (Law 2882/06/02/2001, Article 18§4) has abrogated the imposition of a maximum amount of legal fees payable.

H46-695 46372 Papastavrou, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns a breach of the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. In 1994, the prefect of Athens ordered the reafforestation of plots possessed in good faith by the applicants, but considered by the state as its own property. This decision confirmed a similar decision taken by the Minister of Agriculture in 1934, covering the same plots, and was taken without a fresh reassessment of whether the plots in question were forests or not. The applicants’ appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court was declared inadmissible on the sole ground that the prefect’s decision was not an enforceable act but simply confirming the 1934 decision. The European Court considered that the failure of the Prefect to reassess the situation, together with the reasoning followed by the Supreme Administrative Court, had deprived the applicants of adequate protection, in particular taking into account that there is no possibility of obtaining compensation under Greek law in such cases, (where the property rights have not been finally determined by a court) (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The question of Article 41 was reserved as a whole. The adoption of individual measures is linked with the judgment expected under Article 41, as well as with the general measures (creation of a Forest Registry, see below).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: Information as regards the creation of a Forest Registry is awaited. The issue of efficient identification of the ownership of land is examined in the context of the Tsirikakis and Hatzitakiscases (sub-section 4.2).The judgment was published on the official web site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). Its broad dissemination to the Supreme Administrative Court as well as to the competent national administrative authorities, accompanied by a circular, is necessary.

H46-696 55828 Satka and others, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 27/06/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the fact that repeated interventions by the state rendered ineffective two judicial decisions revoking the expropriation of the applicants’ land in 1953 and 2000, because of the state’s refusal to pay the applicants the compensation fixed by the courts (violation of Article 6§1).

The aspect of the case concerning the state’s refusal to pay the compensation awarded presents similarities in particular to the cases of Hornsby (judgment of 19/03/1997) and Iatridis (judgment of 25/03/1999) which appear in Section 6.2 following constitutional and legislative measures already adopted in order to reinforce the administration’s obligation to comply with judicial decisions (Article 95§§ 4-5 of the revised Constitution, Act 3068/12/11/2002 establishing specific judicial monitoring of the administration and allowing seizure against the state’s private property).

The case also concerns the fact that the applicants have not been able to use their land since 1991: the adoption of successive decrees amending the regional development plan which classified the land concerned as being for public use, as well as the conduct of the local authorities aimed at preventing the applicants from using their land, showed that the authorities’ aim was to appropriate the properties without bringing expropriation proceedings within a reasonable time or paying them compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1). The question of Article 41 was reserved as a whole.

Individual measures: Information is awaited on measures envisaged in order to clarify the applicants’ situations.

General measures: Information is awaited as to whether Act 3068/12/11/2002 could prevent the uncertainty for owners caused by similar interventions by the state or whether additional measures would be necessary. The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). Its wide dissemination to the competent authorities would be useful.

Sub-section 4.2

- 4 cases against Hungary

- Cases concerning the length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations including before the labour courts

Item	Application	Case	Jurisdiction and length of proceedings	Pending cases	Proceedings started on
H46-700	36186	Tímár, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 09/07/03	Civil courts – 11 years and 6 months[79] (2 degrees of jurisdiction and proceedings of review before the Supreme Court)	No	06/02/1990
H46-699	42961	Simkó, judgment of 08/04/03, f inal on 08/07/03	Civil courts – 5 years and 6 months[80] (2 degrees of jurisdiction)	No	09/10/1992
H46-697	43657	Lévai and Nagy, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 24/09/03	Labour courts – more than 10 years (2 degrees of jurisdiction and proceedings of review before the Supreme Court)	Yes	04/03/1993
H46-698	52724+	Nyírő and Takács, judgment of 21/10/2003, final on 11/11/2003	Labour courts – 12 years and 12 years ½ [81] (2 degrees of jurisdiction and proceedings of review before the Supreme Court)	Yes	16/12/1991

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations including before the labour courts (violations of Article 6§1).

The European Court recalled its case-law according to which industrial conflicts must be resolved particularly promptly.

Individual measures: acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level.

General measures: as regards the violation of Article 6§1, the Government indicated that the reform of the judicial system in Hungary was under way including the creation as of 01/07/2003, of three High Courts, which could contribute efficiently to the reduction of the workload of the Supreme Court and to the examination of cases within a reasonable time. As regards the effective remedy against excessive length of civil proceedings the Ministry of Justice has prepared a draft proposal allowing parties to complain in order to require the responsible court to continue proceedings without delay. Additional information is awaited on the manner of which the courts lately created will contribute to reduce the workload of the Supreme Court, as well as on the progress of the draft proposal concerning the effective remedy. It would be interesting to have also information on the outlook for the creation of a compensatory remedy aiming at allowing at national level the compensation of damage caused by the excessive length of judicial proceedings, as well as on further general measures already adopted or envisaged by the Hungarian authorities to prevent new violations similar to those found by the European Court in these cases.

The judgments of the European Court in the first three cases ware published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.im.hu. The judgments in the cases of Tímár and Simkó were sent to the Office of the National Judicial Council in order to be disseminated to civil courts. Confirmation of the dissemination of the judgments in the cases of Lévai and Nagy and Nyírő and Takács is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against Iceland

H46-701 39731 Sigurđsson, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

The case concerns the lack of objective impartiality of the Supreme Court of Iceland which had in 1997 rejected the applicant’s appeal in certain compensation proceedings he had brought against the National Bank of Iceland because of the close and important financial relationships between judge of the Supreme Court and her husband and the National Bank of Iceland (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant lodged two petitions with the Supreme Court requesting reopening of the proceedings: the first was dismissed in July 1997 on the ground that he had not referred to any new fact or adduced any new evidence having a bearing on the merits of the case and that there had been no reason for believing that the judge in question had not been impartial. The second petition was rejected in November 1997 on the ground that a party may apply only once for re-examination of a case.

Individual measures: The applicant has indicated his intention to apply to reopen the proceedings but according to Article 169 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, No. 91/1991, a party may apply only once to re-open a case. There is no procedure in Icelandic Law to re-open proceedings following the finding of a violation by the European Court.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been translated and sent out to the Icelandic judicial authorities. The Icelandic version has also been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.dkm.is).

H46-702 44671 Arnarsson SigurÞór, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing by a tribunal, concerning a criminal matter (violation of article 6§1). In May 1997, the applicant was involved in a fight following which a person died, and was charged with kicking the victim in the head causing a cerebral haemorrhage which resulted in death. After having heard the witnesses and the applicant, the District Court acquitted him. Following an appeal by the prosecution, the Supreme Court sentenced the applicant in May 1998 to two years and three months’ imprisonment, basing its decision on a reassessment of the oral evidence given before the lower court without hearing evidence from him or the other witnesses. The European Court found that the issues to be determined by the Supreme Court when convicting and sentencing the applicant could not have been examined properly without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicant in person and by certain witnesses.

Individual measures: By letter dated 23/02/2004, the Icelandic delegation provided the information that the applicant served time until 20/12/1999 (when he was released on probation for two years) and that he has not applied for re-opening of the proceedings. The applicant’s lawyer specified that the applicant will not apply for reopening of the proceedings.

General measures: In its letter dated 23/02/2004, the Delegation stated that the Icelandic authorities consider this case to be unique, that the violation found by the Court originated in the specific circumstances of the case and that, thus, no measures were envisaged apart from translation, dissemination and publication of the European Court’s judgment.

In this regard, the Secretariat notes, on the one hand, that in §26 of the judgment (Government’s submissions), the Court noted that it is “in accordance with its consistent practice, [that] the Supreme Court relied on the District Court’s transcripts, which included the full testimony of both defendants and all the witnesses, and had been prepared on the basis of the tape recordings of the hearing”, and on the other hand, that according to Law No. 62 of 1994, the European Court’s case-law is not imperative in Icelandic law. Hence, it would be helpful to have further information enabling the Committee to conclude that in future the Supreme Court will take into account the Strasbourg case-law concerning this issue.

Sub-section 4.2

- 109 cases against Italy

H46-703 56298 Bottaro, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-704 32190 Luordo, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern disproportionate restrictions of the applicants’ rights in the context of bankruptcy proceedings. In order to protect the rights of others, the Italian law on bankruptcy (Royal Decree No. 267 of 16/03/1942) provides that bankrupts are, inter alia, deprived of their right to administer and dispose of their possessions, that their correspondence should be monitored, that they are prohibited from bringing judicial proceedings and prevented from leaving their place of residence without judicial permission. Although such restrictions are not open to criticism in themselves, they become less necessary with time. Thus, when the length of the bankruptcy proceedings is excessive, as in these cases (more than 12 years and 6 months since 1990 in the Bottaro case and more than 14 years and 8 months, between 1984 and 1999, in the Luordo case) they upset the balance between the general interest in payment of a bankrupt’s creditors and the interest of the individual.

The European Court accordingly found that the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been violated (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), as had their right of access to a court (violation of Article 6§1 in the Luordo case), their freedom of movement (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4) and their right to respect for their correspondence (violations of Article 8). Furthermore, no effective remedy was available as regards the last of these rights (violation of Article 13 in the Bottaro case).

Individual measures: Information is expected as regards the acceleration of the proceedings in the Bottaro case, which were still pending in June 2003, as well as regards the lifting of the restrictions imposed on the applicants in both cases. In this respect, a letter was sent to the Italian delegation on 01/03/2004.

General measures: A draft reform of the bankruptcy law is being examined by the Italian parliament (draft law No. 1243/S); the Italian authorities have been invited, by letter of 01/03/2004, to indicate:

- to what extent the adoption of this draft law will remedy the different violations found and, in particular, ensure a reasonable length of bankruptcy proceedings and ensure that bankrupts’ rights are not subject to disproportionate restrictions;

- the expected time-frame for the reform of the bankruptcy law to enter into force;

- statistical data on the average length of bankruptcy proceedings and the proportion of such cases out of the overall number of civil proceedings.

The judgments of the European Court have been published in Italian in the Ministry of Justice’s Bulletin, No. 1 of 15/01/2004 and have been brought to the attention of the competent authorities.

*H46-830 52763 Covezzi and Morselli, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 24/09/03

The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to the respect of their family life on account of the length of certain proceedings (between 1998 and 2000) before a youth court concerning the removal of their four children (then aged 11, 9, 7 and 4), their placement in public care and the withdrawal of the applicants’ parental authority. The case also concerns the failure to involve the applicants adequately in the decision-making process with a view to taking a prompt final decision concerning their parental rights (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The adoption of individual measures does not appear necessary in this case: the Court found no breach of the Convention as regards the emergency care order made in respect of the applicants’ children and the manner in which it had been implemented, the failure to hear the applicants before its implementation, the placement of the children or the lengthy suspension of contacts between the children and the applicants, who had been convicted of sexually abusing the children. On the other hand, the applicants, who have submitted no request for adoption of individual measures before the Committee of Ministers, may at any time seise the domestic courts in order to obtain a reassessment of the need of the measures taken in their respect.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: Information is expected as regards the measures envisaged in order to prevent new violations similar to that found in this case. In particular, the Italian authorities have been invited:

- to specify whether, in the framework of the new law No. 149 of 2001 on adoption and placement of children, parents’ involvement is now ensured throughout the emergency care procedure including renewal of emergency care orders;

- to forward any relevant information as regards the reform, currently under consideration, of the youth courts system;

- to indicate the measures envisaged to draw the attention of social services staff to the Court’s findings in this case.

The Italian authorities also indicated that the European Court’s judgment had been published in the Official Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice, No. 1 of 15/01/2004 and that it would be included in the training and awareness-raising programme for youth courts in May 2004.

- Cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

H46-705 22774 Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99

H46-76 66441 A.G. IV, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004[82]

H32-706 20177 Aldini, Interim Resolution DH(97)413 du 17/09/97

H46-707 22534 A.O., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00

H46-240 38011 Aponte, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[83]

H46-708 35550 Auditore, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-709 66920 Battistoni, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-77 65413 Bonamassa, judgment of 02/10/2003, final on 02/01/2004[84]

H46-78 62849 Brienza, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004[85]

H46-241 34999 C. Spa, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03[86]

H46-710 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-79 63947 Calosi, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004[87]

H46-242 28724 Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02[88]

H46-711 45006 Capurso, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-712 48842 Carbone Anna, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

H46-713 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-714 34819 Cau, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-80 56717 Cavicchi and Ruggeri, judgment of 30/10/2003, final on 30/01/2004[89]

H46-715 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-243 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[90]

H46-716 45356 Conti Lorenza, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 03/12/03

H46-717 36268 Clucher II, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-81 63938 Cucinotta Rosario and Giovanni, judgment of 30/10/2003, final on 30/01/2004[91]

H46-82 61667 D’Aloe and others, judgment of 13/11/2003, final on 13/02/2004[92]

Sub-section 4.2

H46-718 32589 D.V. II, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-719 33113 D’Ottavi, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-720 37117 De Benedittis, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-721 59634 De Gennaro, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-228 41427 Del Beato, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03[93]

H46-722 36254 Del Sole, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-498 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[94]

H46-723 30883 Esposito Paola, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-244 48145 Fabi, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[95]

H46-83 63523 Federici C. and L., judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004[96]

H46-724 39735 Fegatelli, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-725 63408 Ferroni Rossi, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-726 60464 Fezia and others, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-727 33909 Fiorani, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-728 34454 Fleres, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-729 32577 Folli Carè, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-245 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[97]

H46-246 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03[98]

H46-730 43580 G.G. VI, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-731 22671 G.L. IV, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46-84 59635 Gamberini Mongenet, judgment of 06/11/2003, final on 06/02/2004[99]

H46-732 59454 Gatti and others, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-247 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[100]

H46-85 53233 Ghelardini and Brunori, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004[101]

H46-733 28272 Ghidotti, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-734 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-735 32006 Gnecchi and Barigazzi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-736 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-737 32766 Immobiliare Sole Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-86 34442 Indelicato Antonio, judgment of 06/11/2003, final on 06/02/2004[102]

H46-738 64151 Kraszewski, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-739 32392 L. and P. I, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-249 33696 L. and P. II, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[103]

H46-248 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[104]

H46-740 41610 L.M. VII, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-741 62020 La Paglia, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-87 63336 Lari, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004[105]

Sub-section 4.2

H46-250 36149 Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[106]

H46-742 21463 Lunari, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-743 32391 M.C. XI, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-744 31923 M.P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-745 42343 Malescia, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-251 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[107]

H46-746 60388 Marigliano, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-747 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-748 31129 Merico, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-749 58408 Miscioscia, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-750 58191 Mottola, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

H46-751 35024 Nigiotti and Mori, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-752 24650 P.M. I, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 5/09/01

H46-229 34998 P.M. II, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[108]

H46-753 15919 Palumbo, judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-754 37008 Pannocchia, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-252 46161 Pepe Giuseppa, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[109]

H46-755 59539 Pulcini, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-88 67412 Ragone, judgment of 02/10/2003, final on 02/01/2004[110]

H46-756 32385 Ricci Onorato, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-89 55388 Rispoli, judgment of 30/10/2003, final on 30/01/2004[111]

H46-90 50293 Robba, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004[112]

H46-253 36249 Rosa Massimo, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[113]

H46-757 55725 Rosati, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-758 30530 Rossi Luciano, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-91 59538 Sabatini and Di Giovanni, judgment of 02/10/2003, final on 02/01/2004[114]

H46-759 32644 Sanella, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-254 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[115]

H46-92 59537 Savio Delfino, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004[116]

H46-93 56924 Scalera, judgment of 13/11/2003, final on 13/02/2004[117]

H46-760 33227 Scurci Chimenti, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-94 58607 Serafini, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004[118]

H46-95 47703 Serni, judgment of 09/10/2003, final on 09/01/2004[119]

H46-761 31223 T.C.U., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-762 23424 Tanganelli, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-96 47758 Tassinari, judgment of 16/10/2003, final on 16/01/2004[120]

Sub-section 4.2

H46-763 62000 Tempesti Chiesi and Chiesi, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-496 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[121]

H46-764 33252 Tona, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-255 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[122]

H46-765 33692 Traino, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-766 30972 V.T., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-767 48730 Voglino, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

H46-256 36377 Zannetti, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[123]

H46-768 35006 Zazzeri, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

At the time of issuing these notes, a draft interim resolution was being prepared for discussion at the present meeting. This draft will be distributed separately as soon as it is ready.

These cases mainly concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, principally on account of the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions. The European Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the protection of the applicants’ right to property and the requirements of the general interest (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In most of these cases, the Court also concluded that, as a result of the legislation at issue, rendering eviction orders nugatory, the applicants had been deprived of their right to have their disputes decided by a court, contrary to the principle of the rule of law (violation of Article 6§1).

106 further cases similar to these, having led to the conclusion of friendly settlements (including those in section 2), have been examined to date by the Committee of Ministers.

Individual measures: Information is expected on measures envisaged in order to allow the applicants in the cases of Carbone Anna (48842), C.T. II (35428), Esposito Paola (30883), M.P. (31923), Marini (35088) and Indelicato Antonio (34442), to recover possession of their apartments and thus put to an end the violations found. In the other cases, the applicants recovered their apartments between 1992 and 2003, i.e. between 4 and 17 years after the eviction decisions had been issued.

General measures expected: Information is expected on the measures – legislative or other – envisaged, in addition to those already adopted (see below), in order to solve the structural problem at the origin of the violations found in these cases. In this respect, by letter of 19/01/2004, the Italian authorities indicated that the legislative office of the Ministry of infrastructures and transport had been asked at the end of November 2003 to consider possible additional legislative measures. In June 2001, the Italian authorities had indicated that the Ministry for Home Affairs was approaching the other competent departments in order to identify further and more effective measures, both on the administrative and legislative level, notably with a view to simplifying proceedings. Statistical data on the number of evictions pending execution since 1998 would furthermore be useful.

General measures taken: A law was adopted in December 1998 (Law No. 431/98 “Regulations concerning the renting and the repossession of housing”), which sets - inter alia - the conditions, modalities and deadlines for the enforcement of eviction decisions. However, this law has not solved the problems at the origin of these cases and it is still difficult in Italy to have eviction decisions enforced, notably due to the lack of police forces available for this task, to the recurrent adoption of new legislation suspending evictions (for example, they are currently suspended until 30/06/2004 as regards certain categories of tenants) and to the absence of responsibility both on the part of tenants and of the state in case enforceable eviction orders are not respected. According to statistical data forwarded by the Italian authorities on 04/07/2003, concerning the period 1983-2002, the number of eviction orders implemented has remained stable around 18 000 per year. On the other hand, following the adoption of the Law of 1998, the number of requests of implementation of eviction orders decreased by 23,64% between 1998 and 1999, from 126 011 to 96 219 and the number of eviction procedures also decreased from 50 226 in 1997 to 37 610 in 2002.

In addition, the Immobiliare Saffi judgment has been published in the legal journal Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, No. 1/2000, P. 252-265.

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against Latvia

H46-770 48321 Slivenko, judgment of 09/10/03 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the deportation of the applicants, former Latvian residents of Russian origin, to Russia. The first applicant, whose father was an officer in the Soviet army, had lived in Latvia all her life. The second applicant, the daughter of the first applicant, was born in Latvia and lived there until she was 18. In November 1994 the applicants’ registration (as “ex-USSR citizens”) in the Latvian residents’ register was annulled relying on the Latvian-Russian treaty of 1994 on the withdrawal of Russian troops. The applicants’ deportation was ordered in August 1996. They also lost the flat were they had lived. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged their removal from Latvia before the domestic courts. In July 1999 the applicants moved to Russia to join the first applicant’s husband and subsequently obtained Russian citizenship. The applicants’ deportation order prevented them from returning to Latvia for 5 years (this prohibition expired on 20/08/2001) and then limited their visits to 90 days a year.

The European Court found that the expulsion of the applicants could not be considered as necessary in a democratic society, in that they were at the material time sufficiently integrated into Latvian society and that their presence could not be construed as a threat to national security simply through belonging to the family of a retired Soviet soldier who was not himself considered to present such a danger and had remained in the country on retiring in 1986 (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: At the 863rd and 871st meetings (December 2003 and February 2004), the Latvian Delegation stated that the measures to be taken to remedy the applicant’s situation were being examined by the authorities and asked for postponement of the examination of these measures to the present meeting.

General measures: Publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment to authorities competent for deportation matters to allow them to apply the principles established by the Court in future, similar cases.

On 22/03/2004, the Latvian Delegation submitted to the Committee of Ministers a letter concerning the individual and general measures envisaged or adopted in response to the Court’s judgment, to be distributed at its request to all delegations for the meeting.

H46-771 58442 Lavents, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

The case concerns a number of violations concerning, first the pre-trial detention of the applicant, a former Chairman of the Board of the largest Latvian bank (Banka Baltija) which had gone bankrupt, and secondly the criminal proceedings brought against him before the Latvian courts.

The European Court found the following shortcomings:

- the composition of the Riga Regional Court of had been contrary to domestic law (violation of Article 6§1);

- the lack of impartiality of this court due to public statements made by its President suggesting the applicant's guilt (violation of Article 6§1);

- a violation of the presumption of innocence due these statements (violation of Article 6§2);

- the lack of effective judicial supervision of the applicant's detention on remand, given the unlawfulness of the composition of the aforementioned court and the fact that it was not impartial (violation of Article 5§4);

- the excessive length of this detention on remand which lasted roughly four and half years (violation of Article 5§3);

- the excessive length of the criminal proceedings which lasted more than five and half years and which are still pending at appeal (violation of Article 6§1);

- the continuing monitoring of the correspondence between the applicant and his family and his lawyers on the basis of Article 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lacks the precision required by the Convention (violation of Article 8);

- the total refusal of family visits during part of his detention, a measure deemed unnecessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 8).

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: Shortly before the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Latvian delegation informed the Committee that on 27/01/2003 the applicant had been released pending trial and placed under police supervision.

As regards the violations of Article 6, on 13/02/2003 the Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Riga Court of first instance of 19/12/2001 and referred the case back to that court for re-examination with a new bench of judges.

As to the violations of Article 8, as of 20/04/2000 the prohibition of family visits imposed on the applicant was lifted. On 27/03/2003 a judge of the Riga Court of first instance ordered an end to the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence, which had been imposed on him in 1997.

As to the acceleration of the excessively long criminal proceedings pending at national level, further information is awaited.

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 5§3 (excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand), information concerning the new draft of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the draft law on detention on remand is awaited.

As to the violation of Article 8 due to the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence, at the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Latvian Delegation announced that legislative amendment of the impugned provisions (Article 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is envisaged. Further information concerning this subject is awaited.

Concerning the violation of Article 8 due to the refusal of family visits during a part of the applicant’s detention, the Latvian Delegation indicated that legislative measures in this field are envisaged. In addition, by a decision of 19/12/2001, the Latvian Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional any form of interference with the subjective rights of an individual solely on the basis of a ministerial order. Clarification was sought concerning the effects of this decision.

The judgment of the European Court was translated into Latvian and published in the Official Gazette on 12/02/2003. Information concerning the dissemination of the Court’s judgment, as well as concerning the training of the Latvian judges on the Convention and the Court’s case-law is expected.

On 17/03/2004, the Latvian delegation submitted to the Committee of Ministers a letter concerning the additional individual and general measures envisaged or adopted in response to the Court’s judgment, to be distributed at its request to all Delegations for the meeting.

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-772 41510 Jasiūnienė, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

This case concerns the executive authorities’ failure to execute a judgment of the Klaipėda Regional Court of 03/04/1996 requiring them to take appropriate measures to choose the form of compensation to be afforded to the applicant in respect of her late mother’s land, which had been nationalised during the Soviet occupation of Lithuania. The European Court considered that, at least from 02/06/1999 (the date of adoption of a law authorising the authorities in such cases to choose the most appropriate form of compensation under judicial control) the Lithuanian authorities, by failing to take steps to execute the judgment, had unjustifiably infringed the applicant’s right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1).

The Court also decided that, by failing to comply with the judgment, the national authorities had prevented the applicant from obtaining the compensation she could reasonably have expected to receive, and so infringed her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). When the European Court rendered its judgment, the domestic judgment had still not been complied with.

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: By letter dated 27/08/2003, the Lithuanian delegation provided the following information: On 14/03/2003, the Government’s agent informed the Governor of the region of Klaipėda, in writing, of the violations found by the Court in this case; subsequently, on 31/03/2003 the Governor of the region of Klaipėda asked the Mayor of the City of Palanga (the city where the contested piece of land is located) to find a solution to the problem. The text of the judgment of the European Court and its translation into Lithuanian were also presented to the authorities concerned. In another letter dated 12/06/2003, the Government’s agent repeatedly drew the abovementioned authorities’ attention to the applicant’s imperative demand to fulfil her right to the property which had belonged to her mother. The applicant refuses both the plot of land that was offered to her in compensation and any pecuniary compensation. The Palanga town council is trying to find another solution which could be accepted in this case. The Government’s agent has asked the Governor of the region of Klaipėda and the Mayor of Palanga to inform him of any further measures envisaged in order to implement the judgment of the European Court. During the 863rd DH meeting, the delegation stated that the authorities were carrying on their efforts. Further information is awaited concerning the implementation of the impugned internal judgment.

General measures: In its letter of 27/08/2003, the Lithuanian delegation indicated that the judgment of the European Court had already been translated and transmitted by the Government’s agent to the local authorities concerned. The Government is aware of the aspects of Lithuanian law which raise problems in respect of the Convention. Furthermore, the judgment will be published this year in the annual compendium Europos žmogaus teisių teismo sprendimai bylose prieš Lietuvos Respubliką.

Further information is awaited concerning the measures taken or envisaged in order to avoid further similar violations.

- 1 case against Luxembourg

*H46-773 51772 Roemen and other, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 25/05/03

This case concerns searches conducted at the home and the workplace of the first applicant, a journalist, and at the chambers of the second applicant, his lawyer, following the publication in the daily newspaper Lëtzëbuerger Journal of an article by the first applicant on tax frauds of which a minister was allegedly guilty. The latter had brought a civil action for damages against the first applicant as well as a criminal complaint. In the context of this complaint, the State Prosecutor had opened a preliminary investigation in order to discover who was responsible for breaching professional secrecy within the relevant public services, as well as any possible subsequent illegality committed by the first applicant in the execution of his duties (receiving information resulting from a violation of professional secrecy). The searches were carried out in implementation of this preliminary investigation. The European Court found that the first applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been violated because these searches, even though they had no result, were intended to discover his journalistic sources and were not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, i.e. the prevention and the repression of infractions (violation of Article 10). Furthermore, by a partially similar reasoning but also in the light of the wide wording of the search warrant, the Court judged that the searches carried out in the second applicant’s chambers, as well as the seizure of a document relating to the first applicant, violated her right to respect for her home (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The document seized during the searches in the second applicant’s chambers has been returned, in execution of the European Court’s judgment.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures:

1. Concerning the draft law on freedom of expression in the media, and particularly the section covering the protection of journalistic sources, information was requested about whether the area of application of these provisions was wide enough to cover situations similar to that of the first applicant, who had been indicted. Indeed, according to the wording of the relevant provisions, only journalists who are heard as witnesses enjoy the protection of their sources: first, they are entitled to refuse to divulge them; secondly, the authorities must refrain from taking measures aiming at or having the effect of circumventing this right, including searches and seizures. The Luxembourg Delegation (on 27/11/2003) made it clear that in principle the protection of journalistic sources “only applies to journalists who are not presumed to have, or convicted of having, committed an offence”. However, it is in particular extended to journalists who are charged in order to remove this protection. The commentary on the draft law explains that this article aims to bring Luxembourg law into full compliance with, in particular, the Court’s case law and Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation R(2000)7, of which it recalls the principles. It adds that the reasoning accepted on this draft law “presupposes, of course, that the national authorities are made aware and familiarised with the mechanism set up by the ECHR”. Some clarifications are still needed concerning the compatibility of the relevant provisions of the draft law with the Court’s case-law. On that issue, the Secretariat sent a letter to the Luxembourg Delegation on 09/03/2004.

2. Examining magistrates’ attention has been drawn to the need to draft search warrants with more precision, in conformity with the Court’s case-law. The Juge d’instruction-Directeur (Chief examining magistrate) has confirmed that all examining magistrates have taken note of this requirement.

3. The judgment of the European Court has been sent out to all courts and investigating magistrates. On 04/06/2003 the Ministry of Justice sent the State Public Prosecutor (Procureur général d’Etat) the European Court’s letter indicating that the judgment is available on the HUDOC Internet site for information and dissemination. Courts and investigating magistrates have been informed of the judgment. Finally, the “law” part of the judgment of the European Court was published in CODEX (law and politics monthly review of Luxembourg), in February 2003 (Internet site: www.codex-online.com).

- 1 case against Malta

H46-774 55263 Kadem, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

The case concerns the fact that the applicant was unable to obtain a prompt judicial decision concerning the lawfulness under Maltese law of his arrest and detention with a view to his extradition to the Kingdom of Morocco (during the period October 1998 – September 1999) (violation of Article 5§4).

On 15/01/1999 the applicant was released on the grounds that there was no evidence to justify his extradition to Morocco and the police, acting as the immigration authority, ordered him to return to the Netherlands within hours. On 01/09/1999, the applicant’s action challenging the lawfulness of his detention was declared to have been abandoned and his case was struck off the list.

The case presents some similarities to those of Aquilina (judgment of 29/04/1999), T.W (judgment of 29/04/1999) and Sabeur Ben Ali (judgment of 29/06/2000) (sub-section 6.2).

Individual measures: Information has been requested concerning whether the applicant may return to Malta, if he so wishes.

General measures: Information has been requested as regards the applicability of the legislative changes following the Aquilina case to the circumstances of this case.

Sub-section 4.2

- 1 case against Moldova

H46-775 45701 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 27/03/02

The case concerns the failure of the Government to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. The European Court concluded that this non-recognition constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion (notably because the absence of recognition deprived it of an effective access to a court to claim property entitlements). This interference, although pursuing a legitimate aim, was not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus not justified under the Convention (violation of Article 9). The Court also concluded that the applicants did not enjoy an effective remedy in respect of their claims at domestic level (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: Following the Court's judgment, the Moldovan authorities recognised and registered the applicant Church on 30/07/2002 in accordance with the Moldovan Law on Religious Denominations, as amended on 12/07/2002. The Church has thus acquired legal personality opening the possibility for it to claim property entitlements, among other things.

According to the information provided by the Moldovan authorities in October 2003, a number of the Church’s sub-divisions have been registered (30 parishes and 4 monasteries). It also disposed at the time of more than 120 rectories with almost 160 priests.

In September 2003 the Committee of Ministers was made aware of pending domestic court proceedings – initiated by the applicant Church in February 2002 – challenging a decision by the Moldovan authorities of 26/09/2001 approving an amendment to the statute of the Moldovan Metropolitan Church by which the latter declared itself as the legal successor to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia (which ceased its activity in 1944). It was claimed that such approval allegedly infringed the property rights of the applicant Church.

At the 854th meeting (October 2003), the Committee asked the Moldovan authorities to be kept informed about these domestic proceedings. Subsequently, the Committee was informed that, on 02/02/2004, the Supreme Court, sitting as court of first instance, had allowed the applicant Church’s complaint and cancelled the government’s decision of 26/09/2001. The representative of the applicant Church has since lodged an appeal against the reasoning of this decision with the Enlarged Board of the Supreme Court.

By letter of 10/02/2004, the applicant Church informed the Committee that it had encountered some obstacles with the registration of its parishes with the competent authority (State Service for Religious Affairs) mainly because these parishes had the same names as parishes of another religious denomination and due to the alleged refusal of certain local authorities to issue the parishes with the formal certificates required for their registration. As regards the first issue, by letter of 08/03/2004, the Moldovan authorities provided explanations as to the legal obstacles to registering entities with a name identical to another entity. As to the second issue, they stated that measures would be taken to solve the problem, provided that the parishes concerned brought the matter to the attention of the competent authority.

General measures: The Moldovan authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the original version of the judgment of the European Court and its official translation into Moldovan were published on 09/07/2002 in the Official Journal of Moldova.

Sub-section 4.2

The Moldovan authorities also indicated that the Moldovan legislation on religious denominations was amended by Law No. 1220-XV which entered into force on 12/07/2002. Article 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been amended so as to allow the reopening of domestic civil proceedings following violations of the Convention found by the European Court. These amendments were found to be insufficient to prevent new, similar violations, inasmuch as they did not reflect the requirement of proportionality inherent in the Convention and as the right of a religious community to take judicial proceedings to challenge a registration decision was not provided with sufficient clarity.

A new draft law was submitted to the Committee in March 2003, an analysis of which showed that it still did not solve all outstanding problems. This analysis was shared by the independent experts mandated by the Council of Europe to conduct a broader legal expertise on the draft at the request of the Moldovan authorities. This expertise was transmitted to the Moldovan authorities on 17/04/2003.

Following the examination of the case at the 841st meeting (June 2003), the Chairman invited the Moldovan authorities to intensify their efforts, in consultation with the Secretariat, to revise the draft law on religious denominations so as to ensure its compatibility with the Convention and thus solve the remaining issues raised by this case.

On 14 and 15/07/2003, a working meeting was held at the Moldovan Ministry of Justice with the participation of the Secretariat, experts as well as representatives of different religious denominations. The problems of the draft law were examined in detail and concrete solutions were proposed. In conclusion, the authorities were invited to present to the Committee of Ministers for the 854th meeting (October 2003) a revised draft resolving all the outstanding problems.

A second version of the draft law was submitted by the Moldovan authorities shortly before the 854th meeting. While it contained a number of improvements, a number of outstanding issues remained. A third version of the draft law was accordingly submitted by the Moldovan authorities on 05/01/2003.

A second working meeting on the draft law was held in Chisinau on 26 and 27/01/2004 with the participation of the Secretariat and Council of Europe experts. Information on the further progress of the draft law is awaited.

Follow-up by the Parliamentary Assembly: On 16/09/2003 the Committee of Ministers was seised of Written Questions no. 432 by Mr Cubreacov and Mrs Patereu: “Right of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia to its own succession in title” (CM(2003)138).

At the 869th meeting (21/01/2004), the Deputies adopted the reply to Written Questions no. 432 which is contained in the document CM/AS(2004)Quest432-final.

- 62 cases against Poland

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings – Effective remedy

H46-776 30210 Kudła, judgment of 26/10/00 - Grand Chamber

H46-777 37443 Lisiak, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

CM/Inf(2003)42

These cases concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicants, which began in 1991 (more than 9 years, and 11 years and 1 month)[124] (violations of Article 6§1).

The Kudła case also concerns the excessive length (2 years, 4 months) of the applicant’s detention on remand on charges of fraud and forgery (violation of Article 5§3) and the lack of effective remedies to enforce, at national level, the applicant’s right to a hearing “within a reasonable time” (violation of Article 13).

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 5§3 due to the excessive length of the detention on remand, the case of Kudła presents similarities to those of Trzaska and others against Poland (sub-section 4.2).

Sub-section 4.2

As regards the violation of Article 6§1, by letter of 02/07/2003 and in a memorandum of 05/12/2003, the Polish Delegation indicated a number of legislative measures taken to accelerate criminal proceedings in the framework of the 1997 Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular the most recent amendments which came into effect on 01/07/2003. According to the most important provisions, courts may longer refer cases back to the preliminary proceedings in order to conduct further investigations; increased possibilities of closing criminal proceedings by way of settlement are provided and preparatory proceedings and those concerning several co-defendants are simplified. This information was supplemented with statistical data, which shows that the number of cases examined by domestic courts increased for the first half of 2003 compared with the same period in 2002. According to these statistics, during the first half of 2003 the average duration of proceedings before first-instance criminal courts was between 5.5 and 5.9 months. The Secretariat is examining these positive developments in the light of the information provided by the Polish authorities in the framework of the examination of the cases concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings (see in particular Podbielski, Styranowski, in sub-section 4.2).

As regards the violation of Article 13, during the first examination of the Kudła case (732nd meeting, December 2000), the Committee noted the scope of this judgment: for the first time the Court had applied Article 13 of the Convention in order to affirm that contracting states must provide effective domestic remedies to resolve the problem of excessive length of proceedings. The Committee also took note of the fact that the remedies required in this regard by Article 13 could be both compensatory and preventive (§159 of the judgment). It should be noted that general consideration was given to this topic, not least within the CDDH and its expert sub-committees, in order to facilitate the search for suitable solutions in member states. The result of this discussion is expected. The Committee nonetheless considered that this general consideration must not be allowed to prejudice its supervision of measures to comply with the Kudła judgment in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention.

At the 854th meeting (October 2003), the Polish delegation submitted a memorandum concerning:

- a draft law of 20/08/2003 providing an effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings;

- a draft law of 08/04/2003 on amendments to the Civil Code concerning the civil liability of the State Treasury for actions or omissions of public authorities; and

- a decision of the Constitutional Court of 04/12/2001, which might open a way to making civil claims against state officials on the grounds of excessive length of judicial proceedings (see CM/Inf(2003)42).

During consultations with the Polish delegation in September and October 2003, the Secretariat stressed the importance and the positive development of these reforms and presented certain observations concerning the two drafts. They principally concern the non-application of the draft law on an effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings to the length of the preliminary investigation, the limitation of compensation in cases of unjustified delay to 10 000 zlotys (about 2 200 euros) and the limited competence of the court the complaint was lodged with to “recommend” to the court examining the merits to take the appropriate measures to remedy the situation. Information regarding further progress of the draft law and other possible general measures adopted or envisaged is awaited.

At the time of issuing these notes, the Secretariat was preparing a draft interim resolution in collaboration with the Polish delegation in order to take stock of the measures adopted so far and point out the outstanding questions.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-778 31583 Klamecki No. 2, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

The case concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand (between November 1995 and March 1998) in the absence of “sufficient” and “relevant” reasons to justify it, as well as the fact that the detention was ordered by a public prosecutor, thus infringing the applicant’s right to be promptly brought before a “judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial functions” (violations of Article 5§3).

The case also concerns the non-adversarial character of the procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, since neither the applicant nor his counsel were given the possibility to participate (violation of Article 5§4). Finally, the case deals with the routine and discretionary censorship by the Polish authorities, by virtue of the relevant legislation, of all the applicant’s correspondence (personal letters and letters addressed to lawyers, public authorities or Strasbourg organs), as well as with the restrictions on the applicant’s contact with his wife between August 1996 and August 1997 (violations of Article 8).

Concerning the right to be promptly brought before a judge, the right to be involved in the proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the detention and the right to uncensored correspondence with state authorities and the Strasbourg organs, this case presents similarities to the Niedbała case (judgment of 04/07/2000), closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)124, following reform of the Criminal Procedure Code and of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences). As far as the length of detention on remand is concerned, the case presents similarities to the Trzaska case (judgment of 11/07/2000), (sub-section 4.2).

General measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003) and by letter of 10/02/2004, the Polish delegation indicated that the Code of Execution of Criminal Sanctions had been amended in September 2003. Under the new law, correspondence of convicted persons with, inter alia, their lawyers or the Strasbourg organs cannot be censored or stopped, but can only form the object of supervision conducted by opening the letters in the presence of the convicted person, in cases where there is a reasonable risk that the letters might contain prohibited objects. As far as detainees are concerned, the new provisions provide that their correspondence may be supervised by the organ at whose disposal they remain (a public prosecutor or a court).

The Delegation also mentioned the Minister of Justice’s draft rules (not yet in force) on internal functioning of common courts of law, which provides that the correspondence of both detainees and convicted persons with the international organs dealing with human rights, the state organs or the Ombudsman shall be sent directly to the addressee without being censored.

More information is awaited on these issues, in particular concerning the possibility under the new Code of Execution of Criminal Sanctions to interfere with the right to correspondence of persons placed in detention on remand and concerning the legal provisions governing the restrictions which may be imposed on contacts of detainees on remand with their families. Information is also awaited concerning the publication of the judgment of the European Court and its dissemination to the competent authorities.

H46-779 33870 Fuchs, judgment of 11/02/03, judgment of 11/05/03

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative authorities and before the Supreme Administrative Court (violation of Article 6§1). The first proceedings, instituted by the applicant against a building permit granted to one of his neighbours, began on 04/07/1989. The second, concerning a demolition order, began on 07/03/1990. Both were still pending at the date of the European Court’s judgment.

Some of the issues raised by this case are similar to those raised by other cases against Poland concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings (e.g. Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/1998) (sub-section 4.2).

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: The Polish delegation has indicated that the administrative authorities issued a final decision which prevented the continuation of the building at issue. As far as the second set of proceedings is concerned, the building concerned is currently being demolished. Further information on this point is expected.

General measures: By letter of 06/02/2004, the Polish authorities informed the Secretariat of the entry into force, on 01/01/2004, of the Act on the Organisation of Administrative Courts and of the Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts. These laws institute a two-instance system of administrative courts and provide solutions aiming at accelerating procedures, such as mediation and summary proceedings. Moreover, the draft laws to create effective domestic remedies for allegations of excessive length of procedures (examined within the framework of the Kudła case, judgment of 26/10/2000, sub-section 4.2), are also applicable to administrative proceedings.

Additional information is awaited concerning the publication of the judgment of the European Court and its dissemination to the administrative authorities.

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-780 25792 Trzaska, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-781 33492 Jabłoński, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-782 33079 Szeloch, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-783 27504 Iłowiecki, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

H46-784 28358 Baranowski, judgment of 28/03/00

H46-785 34097 Kreps, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-786 34052 Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

These cases, except the Baranowski case, concern the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand between 1991 and 1997, given that the grounds relied upon by the domestic courts in support of the detention could not be deemed, as required by the case-law of the European Court, “relevant and sufficient” and since “special diligence” was not displayed in the conduct of the proceedings (violations of Article 5§3).

The cases of Trzaska, Jabłoński, Iłowiecki and Baranowski also concern the domestic courts' failure to examine promptly the applicants’ requests for release. In the Trzaska case, the European Court also found that the proceedings to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand were not adversarial (violations of Article 5§4).

All the cases, except the Baranowski case, also concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings has been requested in the Iłowiecki and Olstowski cases, which are still pending at national level. The Polish Delegation has indicated that the Ministry of Justice has asked the President of the competent court (the Gdansk Regional Court) to supervise progress in these proceedings.

General measures: As regards the violations of Article 5§§3 and 4: The grounds for placement and maintenance in detention on remand were modified with the entry into force on 01/09/98 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. Detention on remand may be ordered if there is a strong probability that the accused has committed an offence and, cumulatively, if there is a risk of his or her absconding, obstructing the proceedings or, in certain cases, re-offending. According to Article 258§3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused may be detained on remand if he or she risks a long term of imprisonment (if the charges relate to offences punishable by at least 8 years of imprisonment or if a court of first instance sentenced the accused to a minimum of 3 years of imprisonment). The maximum period of detention on remand before the case is referred to a court is limited to 3 months; in exceptional cases, to 12 months. Additional information is awaited about the measures concerning the prompt examination of appeals against detention on remand.

Sub-section 4.2

The Ministry of Justice has sent out circulars, drawing the attention of courts and public prosecutors to the reasoning required for decisions prolonging detention on remand. The first five judgments were published for the moment in the Bulletin of the Council of Europe Information Centre and disseminated to the competent authorities.

- As regards the violation of Article 5§4, in respect of the lack of fairness of the procedure to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand, the Trzaska case presents similarities to that of Niedbała (judgment of 04/07/2000), closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)124, following a legislative reform of criminal procedures which took effect from 01/09/1998.

- As regards the violations of Article 6§1, the cases present similarities with a number of other cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings pending before the Committee of Ministers for supervision of general measures (see in particular Podbielski, Styranowski, Kudła and Lisiak (sub-section 4.2)).

- Cases concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings

H54-787 27916 Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98

H54-788 28616 Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98

H46-789 38328 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

H46-430 39597 Biskupska, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 03/12/03, rectified on 11/09/03[125]

H46-790 38665 Bukovski, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03, rectified on 10/07/03

H46-791 27918 C., judgment of 03/05/01

H46-104 71893 Cegielski, judgment of 21/10/2003, final on 21/01/2004[126]

H46-105 52037 Ciborek, judgment of 04/11/2003, final on 04/02/2004[127]

H46-106 13557 D.M., judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004[128]

H46-107 71894 Dybo, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004[129]

H32-792 24559 Gibas, Interim Resolution DH(97)242

H46-793 48001 Goc, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-639 53698 Górska, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03

H46-794 29695 Gronuś, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

H46-795 46034 Gryziecka and Gryziecki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-108 77831 I.P., judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004[130]

H46-796 29691 Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-797 52518 Koral, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-640 77746 Kroenitz, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-798 37437 Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-799 43779 Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02, final on 15/04/02

H46-800 52168 Majkrzyk, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-109 22072 Małasiewicz, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004[131]

H46-801 35843 Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00, final on 14/03/01

H46-110 76446 Malinowska Henryka, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004[132]

H46-802 40887 Maliszewski, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-641 74816 Orzeł, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03

H46-803 36250 Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01, final on 18/03/02

Sub-section 4.2

H46-804 51429 Paśnicki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-805 40330 Piechota, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-806 39619 Piłka Andrzej and Barbara, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-807 29455 Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-111 77759 Porembska, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004[133]

H46-808 77597 R.O., judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03

H46-431 41033 R.W., judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03, rectified on 11/09/03[134]

H46-809 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

H46-810 37645 Sawicka, judgment of 01/10/02, final on 01/01/03

H46-112 52468 Sienkiewicz, judgment of 30/09/2003, final on 30/12/2003[135]

H46-811 42078 Sitarek, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03, rectified on 11/09/03

H46-812 40694 Sobański, judgment of 21/01/03, révisé le 23/01/03, final on 09/07/03,

rectified on 17/09/03

H46-813 25693+ Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 26/01/01

H46-642 49349 Sobierajska-Nierzwicka, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

H46-814 40835 Szarapo, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-815 48684 Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

H46-816 39505 W.M., judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

H46-817 65660 W.Z., judgment of 24/10/02, final on 24/01/03

H46-818 32734 Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/09/01

H46-113 41431 Wierciszewska, judgment of 25/11/2003, final on 25/02/2004[136]

H46-819 33082 Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00, final on 22/01/01

H46-114 33334 Wylęgły J. and J., judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/09/2003, rectified on

04/06/2003[137]

H46-820 34158 Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 27/03/02

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

In the Górska case, the European Court found that, having regard to the applicant’s age (she was born in 1919), special diligence was required from the Polish authorities in handling the case. Also, in the Kroenitz case the Court indicated that the litigation was of crucial importance for the applicant (born in 1903) due, inter alia, to her age and disability. As far as the Orzeł case is concerned, the Court indicated that the proceedings (which dealt with a compensation claim for medical malpractice) were of considerable importance for the applicant since they were intended not only to result in compensation but also to enable the applicant to receive the best medical treatment.

Individual measures: The acceleration of the pending proceedings in the Górska, Kroenitz and Orzeł cases.

Concerning the Górska case, the Polish authorities indicated that the case is currently pending before the Kielce first-instance court.

Concerning the Kroenitz case, the Polish authorities indicated that the proceedings are, since 18/12/2003, currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Concerning the Orzeł case, the Polish authorities informed the Secretariat by letter of 10/02/2004 that the proceedings were still pending before the first-instance court, after its previous judgment had been quashed. The Polish Delegation also referred to hearings held in May, June, August October and December 2003 and indicated that an expert had been appointed to evaluate the compensation for the applicant. It was also indicated that the case had been placed under the administrative supervision of the president of the court as well as of the Ministry of Justice and that it is conducted diligently and efficiently.

By letter of 10/02/2004, the Polish Government also confirmed that the proceedings were concluded in the Paśnicki case and provided information on the stage reached by the proceedings in the Piłka and Sobierajska-Nierzwicka cases.

Sub-section 4.2

Additional information on the progress of the proceedings in all these cases, as well as on the measures envisaged for their acceleration (for example, priority treatment) is expected.

General measures: The Secretariat is preparing a draft Interim Resolution in co-operation with the Polish Delegation concerning the structural measures adopted in view of dealing with the problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings, as well as the creation of effective domestic remedies in this respect.

- 16 cases against Portugal

- Cases concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings

a. Cases before civil courts

H46-435 54926 Costa Ribeiro, judgment of 30/04/03, final on 30/07/03[138]

H46-3038 53997 Dias Da Silva and Gomes Ribeiro Martins, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 27/06/03

H46-3039 53534 Esteves, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-3043 53937 Ferreira Alves, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

H46-3044 49671 Ferreira da Nave, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46-3046 49279 Koncept-Conselho em Comunicação e Sensibilização de Públicos, Lda, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

H46-562 52412 Marques Nunes, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 20/05/03

H46-3041 54566 Moreira and Ferreirinha, Lda and others, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03

H46-3042 34422 Oliveira Modesto and others, judgment of 08/06/00, final on 08/09/00

H46-439 48187 Rosa Marques and others, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02[139]

H46-438 44298 Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02[140]

b. Cases before criminal courts

H46-3045 48956 Gil Leal Pereira, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

H46-440 50775 Sousa Marinho and Marinho Meireles Pinto, judgment of 03/04/03, final on

03/07/03[141]

H46-563 52657 Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03[142]

c. Case before family courts

H46-3040 51806 Figueiredo Simoes, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

d. Case before labour courts

H46-436 53795 Farinha Martins, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03[143]

In these cases, violations of Article 6§1 were found on account of the excessive length of judicial proceedings before civil, criminal, family and labour courts.

Individual measures: At the 854th meeting (October 2003), acceleration of the proceedings if still pending was requested as regards the cases of Oliveira Modesto and Others, Dias Da Silva and Gomes Ribeiro Martins, Esteves and Costa Ribeiro.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: By a letter of 18/12/2003, the Portuguese delegation informed the Committee of the following measures adopted to improve the efficiency of the judicial system:

- The adoption of laws to simplify and accelerate administrative proceedings in specific fields (Law 13/2002 approving the new Statute of the administrative and fiscal tribunals and Law 15/2002 approving the Code of procedure applicable in the administrative and fiscal tribunals). In particular, these laws provide for the creation and establishment of ten new administrative district tribunals (tribunais administrativos de circulo), with competences previously held by the Supreme Administrative Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, as well as the transformation of the Central administrative Court into a Court of Appeal;

- A reform of enforcement proceedings through the assignment of certain functions to a specialised enforcement officer (e.g. summons, publications, sale of seized goods), to accelerate enforcement proceedings (Legislative Decree 38/2003);

- A reform of bankruptcy proceedings aimed at commencing insolvency and bankruptcy cases in reasonable time (Law 39/2003);

- The adoption of a law regulating the jurisdiction of justices of peace, to promote settlement of disputes by means of conciliation between the parties (Law 78/2001);

- The adoption of laws increasing the number of judges. In particular, these laws provide for exceptional shortening of magistrates’ traineeships, the temporary assignment of lawyers with recognised professional experience as judges in courts of first instance, the recruitment of judges’ assistants (Law 3/2000, Legislative Decree 179/2000, Legislative Decree 330/2001 and Law 7-A/2003);

- The adoption of a law transposing European Directive 2000/35/CE on combating late payment in commercial transactions into the domestic legal order, which aims at relieving judges’ workload in this field (Law 32/2003).

At the request of the Portuguese Delegation, the letter of 18/12/2003 was distributed to all delegations.

In addition, the judgments of the European Court have been published on the website of the Office of Documentation and Comparative Law of the General Prosecutor’s Office (www.gdds.pt).

By a letter of 23/02/2004, the Secretariat asked the Portuguese delegation to provide a summary of the relevant provisions of the legislation described above. Further information is also expected concerning in particular the effects of these reforms, as well as on measures envisaged or adopted to allow the victims of excessive length of judicial proceedings to obtain compensation before domestic courts and/or acceleration of the pending proceedings.

- 3 cases against Romania

H46-821 28114 Dalban, judgment of 28/09/99- Grand Chamber

The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for criminal libel in 1994, under Article 206 of the Criminal Code, for having published articles in which he exposed a series of frauds allegedly committed by a senior official and a member of parliament. The European Court found a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression on account of the fact that, although Article 207 of the Romanian Criminal Code admits the adduction of evidence supporting the truthfulness of the declaration at issue when it has been made in order to protect a legitimate interest, the Romanian courts had not allowed the applicant to prove the truth of his allegations but, inter alia, found it established that these were untrue since a non-indictment decision had been issued by the prosecutor’s office against the public official at issue concerning the same allegations (violation of Article 10).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: Since December 1999, the attention of the Romanian authorities has been drawn to the problems posed in particular by Section 206 of the Criminal Code regarding freedom of expression, and the question was raised of the state of advancement of the reforms envisaged in this field. In May 2002, certain provisions of the Criminal Code concerning defamation were modified by an emergency order, subject to parliamentary ratification. According to available information, these amendments would increase the severity of the penalties provided in defamation cases, without modifying the substantive provisions. In a report of December 2002 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, it was regretted that this draft reform did not fully respect the requirements of the Council of Europe and the opinion was expressed that it would rather had been advisable to cancel from the criminal code all provisions related to libel, insult and defamation. Subsequently, the Romanian delegation informed the Secretariat that new amendments were being prepared and that the draft criminal code will be examined by Council of Europe experts in 2003.

According to the information available on the internet site of the Romanian Ministry of Justice, the new draft criminal code provides for the decriminalisation of insult and the possibility to use the defence of good faith in the case of libel. Also, prison sentences for libel are to be eliminated. The Secretariat is waiting for official information concerning the contents of this draft law and its transmission for comment.

Furthermore, the Delegation has indicated that the Dalban judgment had been translated and sent out to Presidents of Courts of Appeal and that the case had been discussed in 1999 and 2000 at a seminar organised in by the Romanian Judges’ Association, a meeting of the Presidents of Courts of Appeal and a meeting of the Romanian Journalists’ Association. Information on the developments of the Romanian courts’ case-law as regards the criteria for holding a statement to be true is expected.

H46-822 31551 Stoicescu, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03[144]

H46-823 28341 Rotaru, judgment of 04/05/00 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life in that the relevant national legislation does not contain sufficient safeguards against abuse as regards the way in which the Romanian intelligence service gathers, keeps and uses information. The European Court has thus concluded that the holding and use by the secret service of information on the applicant's private life were not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of the Convention (violation of Article 8). The case also concerns an infringement of his right to an effective remedy before a national authority that could rule on his application to have the file amended or destroyed (violation of Article 13). Lastly, the case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the Court of Appeal’s failure to consider the claim for damages and costs (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the Romanian delegation indicated that there was no individual file on the applicant. Following the judgment of the European Court, the document that was in the possession of the Romanian intelligence service, based on which the applicant was erroneously designated as a member of an extreme-right organisation, was modified in order to avoid any confusion (another person bearing the same name as the applicant was listed there). Written confirmation concerning this fact is awaited.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published in the official gazette. The attention of the delegation has been drawn to the fact that the European Court’s conclusions in this case meant that Law No. 14/1992 on the organisation and operation of the Romanian intelligence service would have to be amended. The delegation indicated, during the first examination of the case in October 2000, that a bill on the protection of data of a personal nature was being examined. A letter recalling in detail the above-mentioned measures was sent to the Representation of Romania on 06/11/2000. At the 775th bis (January 2002), 819th (December 2002) and 834th (April 2003) meetings, the Romanian delegation indicated that legislative reforms were in the process of being adopted. The Secretariat is in contact with the Romanian delegation in order to clarify the scope of the necessary execution measures.

Sub-section 4.2

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

H46-825 41784 A.B., judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to present her case on equal terms with the defendant in that, in 1997, without a formal and reasoned decision, a court rejected her requests for the appointment of a lawyer to represent her in certain civil proceedings and her case was dismissed in her absence. Furthermore, since the higher levels of jurisdiction confirmed this outcome in camera, the shortcoming was not remedied (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: At the 847th meeting (July 2003), the government was asked to provide information as regards whether the applicant could have her case re-examined in proceedings ensuring the equality of arms. The government indicated that according to Article 228 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, reopening of proceedings may only be requested when there are new facts, decisions or evidence and there is a possibility to obtain an advantageous decision, or when the decision was delivered through judge’s fault.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in the law revue Justičná Revue No. 6-7/2003. It was also sent to the presidents of the Regional Courts and to the President of the Supreme Court.

The government was asked to provide information about the measures envisaged in order to ensure representation by a lawyer in similar cases. It indicated that according to the Code of Civil Procedure, courts may appoint a representative at the request of a party who meets the requirements for waiver of court fees when it is necessary for the protection of that party’s interests. The president of the court’s chamber shall appoint an advocate to represent a party in the circumstances set out above (Article 30§§1, 2). An appeal on points of law is available when a party has been prevented, by the appellate court’s conduct, from acting before the court (Article 237(f)). Courts deliver a formal decision inter alia on issues relating to the conduct of proceedings (Article 167§1).

According to the Bar Act of 1990 everyone has the right to legal assistance and can ask any advocate for it. An advocate is only entitled to refuse legal assistance to a person for serious reasons permitting the advocate to conclude that he or she cannot provide such assistance in an appropriate manner. This does not apply to cases when an advocate was assigned to represent a person under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Bar Association examines whether such a refusal was justified. A person whose request for legal assistance has been turned down may ask the Bar Association to appoint an advocate to represent him or her (Article 15 §§ 1, 2 and 3). The Government is of the opinion that this legislation is sufficient but it was wrongfully applied in the present case, which is an isolated one.

Furthermore, measures in a broader sense have been taken: The Constitutional Court, by judgment No. PL.ÚS 14/98 of 22/06/1999, abrogated Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure (which authorised in-camera decisions for simple cases) as contrary to the Constitution and to Article 6§1 of the Convention. As a result, this provision ceased to be effective from 14/07/1999 (see §31 of the European Court’s judgment). The Government indicated that this provision had been amended. The new text, which entered into force on 01/01/2003, is at present being examined by the Secretariat. As regards more precisely cases concerning social security, Article 250s (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in appellate proceedings or in proceedings on appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court, a hearing is not required. Information about a potential amendment of this provision is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against Sweden

H46-599 34619 Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03[145]

The case concerns the applicant’s right of access to court to determine the merits of criminal charges brought against him because of allegedly incorrect tax declarations. On 08/03/1996 the applicant requested reconsideration of the surcharges decided by the tax authority and a stay of execution. Notwithstanding this request, the tax authority took enforcement measures, particularly on the basis of the surcharges. The stay of execution was refused by the tax authority on 21/05/1996, as no security had been furnished for the amounts due. The enforcement proceedings were continued with the result that the applicant was declared bankrupt on 10/06/1996, before the administrative courts had decided on his appeal against the refusal to stay execution. His applications for leave to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court were eventually refused on 03/11/1998 in respect of the stay of execution and on 18/09/1996 in respect of the bankruptcy. The decisions on the reconsideration of the surcharges, which were a precondition for the court’s examination of the appeal on their merits, were not taken until three years after the applicant’s request for reconsideration. The European Court found that the tax authority had failed to act with the required urgency and thereby unduly delayed a judicial determination of the issues, depriving the applicant of effective access to court (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the excessive overall length of the proceedings. The proceedings started on 01/12/1995, the date of the tax authority’s audit report containing the surcharges, and were still pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal at the date of the European Court’s judgment (almost 6 years and 8 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: During the first examination of the case at the 847th meeting (July 2003), acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level was requested, particularly to remedy the applicant’s lack of effective access to a court. At the 863rd and 871st meetings (December 2003 and Feburary 2004) the Swedish delegation provided further details as to past proceedings and stated that the proceedings were now pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal, which was intending to rule on the present case and the case of Västberga (sub-section 4.2) at the same time. Further information on the state of these proceedings is awaited.

General measures: At the 871st meeting, the Swedish delegation provided a substantial amount of information concerning measures taken to reduce the length of proceedings in tax disputes, changed practices when a stay of execution is sought and new legislation, which came into force on 01/07/2003, aimed at adapting tax surcharge proceedings to the requirements of the Article 6. The Secretariat is currently examining this information.

According to the Swedish authorities, the judgment has attracted a great deal of attention in Swedish media and is well known. Explanatory reports, together with copies of the judgments in the present case and that of Västberga, have been sent to the relevant judicial authorities. The judgments were commented on in an important legal journal, Svensk Juristtidning, and summaries of the judgments are available on the Government’s website (www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se), from where there are links to the judgments on HUDOC.

H46-828 36985 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03

The case concerns the applicants’ right of access to court in the determination of the merits of criminal charges brought against them because of allegedly incorrect tax declarations. On 04/09/1995 the first applicant (a taxi company) requested reconsideration of the surcharges decided by the tax authority. On 18/12/1995, the second applicant (the company’s president) appealed against the tax authority’s decision.

Sub-section 4.2

The facts are very similar to those of Janosevic against Sweden, with the exception that, at the date of the first applicant’s dissolution, the question of the merits had already been pending before the County Administrative Court for two and a half years. The European Court considered that the tax authority as well as the County Administrative Court had failed to act with the required urgency and thereby unduly delayed the determination of the issues by a court, depriving the applicant of effective access to a court (violation of Article 6 § 1).

The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings. In respect of the first applicant, proceedings started on 20/02/1995, when the tax authority informed the company of its intention to impose surcharges. The proceedings on the merits of these surcharges were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court at the date of the European Court’s judgment (almost seven years and five months). As regards the second applicant, the proceedings started on 11/08/1995, the date of the tax authority’s report including in particular the surcharges, and ended on 03/05/2002 (six years and nine months) (violation of Article 6 § 1).

Individual measures: During the first examination of the case at the 847th meeting (July 2003), acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level concerning the first applicant was requested, particularly to remedy the applicant’s lack of effective access to a court. At the 863rd and 871st meetings (December 2003 and February 2004) the Swedish delegation provided further details on past proceedings and stated that the proceedings were now pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal, which was intending to rule on the present case and the case of Janosevic (Section 4.2) at the same time. Further information on the state of these proceedings is awaited.

General measures: This case presents strong similarities to the case of Janosevic v. Sweden (judgment of 23/07/2002) (sub-section 4.2).

- 1 case against Switzerland

H46-829 26899 H.B., judgment of 05/04/01, final on 05/07/01

This case concerns the role of the examining magistrate of the Canton of Soleure who ordered the applicant’s arrest and provisional detention, bearing in mind the possibility that this same magistrate could intervene on the prosecution side in subsequent criminal proceedings if the case were to be referred to a district criminal court. This being so, the European Court considered that the applicant was not brought before an “officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” (violation of Article 5§3).

Individual measures: according to a letter of the Swiss delegation dated 08/10/01, the applicant may apply for a revision of the judgment rendered by the Federal Tribunal at the end of the proceedings.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been disseminated, in particular to the Département de la justice et des constructions of the Canton of Soleure and to the Federal Court. It has been published in the periodical Jurisprudence des autorités administratives de la Confédération. The authorities of the Canton of Soleure have instituted an immediate measure according to which an examining magistrate may no longer order provisional detention of suspects in proceedings that he or she is conducting, another judge deciding. Furthermore a reform creating the function of “magistrate responsible for imprisonment” has been instituted. Some aspects of this reform, which should enter into force in 2005, will be submitted to a referendum on 16/05/2004.

- 151 cases against Turkey

*H46-831 36590 Göç Mehmet, judgment of 11/07/02 – Grand Chamber

The case concerns the breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, first on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings conducted in 1995 based on Law No. 466 concerning his compensation claim for unlawful detention, and also on account of the non-communication to the applicant in 1996 of the written opinion submitted by the Principal Public Prosecutor to the Court of Cassation on the merits of the applicant’s appeal (violations of Article 6§1).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: Concerning the first issue, according to information available to the Secretariat, Article 142 of the draft new Code of Criminal Procedure still provides that assize courts may deal with claims for compensation for unlawful detention without holding a hearing. Information is awaited concerning this issue, and on the possibility of interim measures to ensure that interested parties may be personally heard by the competent court in this kind of proceedings.

Concerning the second issue, by a letter of 15/01/2003, the Turkish authorities indicated that a new provision was added by Law No. 4778 of January 2003 to Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring notification of written opinions of the Principal Public Prosecutor to parties by the competent chamber of the Court of Cassation.

At the 827th meeting (February 2003), the Turkish delegation indicated that the judgment of the European Court had been published. Written information concerning the details of this measure is awaited.

- 51 cases concerning Action of the Turkish security forces

CM/Inf(2004)12

H46-627 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [146]

H54-614 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolustions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98 [147]

H46-832 22947+ Akkoç Nebahat, judgment of 10/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54-833 21987 Aksoy, judgment of 18/12/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-834 32574 Algür, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-479 24351 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03[148]

H46-835 22279 Altay, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-836 25657 Avşar, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 27/03/00

H54-837 23178 Aydin, judgment of 25/09/97, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-625 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [149]

H46-623 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [150]

H46-838 25659 Bilgin İrfan, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-839 28340 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-840 23657 Çakici, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H32-841 22677 Çetin, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-842 25704 Çiçek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 05/09/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-604 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01[151]

H46-843 20869 Dikme, judgment of 11/07/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-844 25801 Dulaş Zubeyde, judgment of 30/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-845 27602 Ekinci Ülkü, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

H54-616 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98 [152]

H46-847 20764 Ertak Ismail, judgment of 09/05/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-846 29484 Esen, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H46-624 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [153]

H54-848 21593 Güleç, judgment of 27/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-849 22277 Ilhan Nasir, judgment of 27/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-618 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [154]

Sub-section 4.2

H54-613 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98 [155]

H46-850 22492 Kiliç, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54-615 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98 [156]

H54-851 23186 Menteş, Turhallı M. and S, and Uvat, judgment of 28/11/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)434

H46-852 21594 Oğur, judgment of 20/05/99 - Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-853 31889 Orak Abdurrahman, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

H46-480 25656 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/02[157]

H46-620 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [158]

H46-626 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [159]

H46-854 31866 Satık and others, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54-855 23184 Selçuk and Asker, judgment of 24/04/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-482 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02[160]

H46-856 26129 Tanlı, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01, rectified on 28/04/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-617 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [161]

H46-622 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [162]

H46-466 29422 Tepe Ayşe, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03[163]

H46-857 27244 Tepe İsak, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 19/08/03

H54-858 22496 Tekin, judgment of 09/06/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-619 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [164]

H46-859 32357 Veznedaroğlu Sevtap, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 18/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54-860 22495 Yaşa, judgment of 02/09/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-861 29485 Yaz, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H32-621 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin et Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98 [165]

H46-467 26973 Yöyler, judgment of 24/07/03, final on 24/10/03[166]

These cases concern violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, notably in respect of unjustified destruction of homes by the gendarmerie, disappearances, infliction of torture and ill-treatment during police custody and killings committed by members of the security forces. All the cases more specifically highlighted the general problem of the lack of effective domestic remedies capable of redressing violations of the Convention (violations of Article 13).

Sub-section 4.2

Since the very beginning of the Committee’s examination of these cases, it has been noted that the violations found are due to a number of structural problems: general attitudes and practices of the security forces, their education and training system, the legal framework of their activities and, most importantly, serious shortcomings in establishing at the domestic level administrative, civil and criminal liability for abuses. Thus, the Committee called upon the Turkish authorities to rapidly adopt comprehensive measures remedying these shortcomings in order to comply with the Court’s judgments.

On 09/06/1999, the Committee adopted Interim Resolution DH(99)434 in which it noted with satisfaction some progress in the adoption of such measures, while at the same time calling on Turkey rapidly to adopt further comprehensive measures to prevent new similar violations.

On 10/07/2002, the Committee adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 which anew took stock of the progress in the execution of some 40 judgments concerning the action of the Turkish security forces.

In conclusion of this Resolution the Committee:

Welcomes Turkey's recent enhanced efforts which have resulted in the adoption of various important reforms necessary to comply with the above-mentioned judgments of the European Court;

Calls upon the Turkish Government to focus its further efforts on the global reorganisation of the basic, in-service and management training of Police and Gendarmerie, building notably on the efforts deployed in the framework of the Council of Europe's Police training project, with a view to achieving, without delay, concrete and visible progress in the implementation of the major reforms which were found necessary;

Urges Turkey to accelerate without delay the reform of its system of criminal prosecution for abuses by members of the security forces, in particular by abolishing all restrictions on the prosecutors' competence to conduct criminal investigations against State officials, by reforming the prosecutor's office and by establishing sufficiently deterring minimum prison sentences for persons found guilty of grave abuses such as torture and ill-treatment;

Strongly encouragesthe Turkish authorities to pursue and develop, in particular in the context of the new Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative, short and long-term training strategies for judges and prosecutors on the Convention and the European Court's case-law, including wider dissemination of translated judgments to the domestic courts, rapid adoption and implementation of the legislation on the Turkish Academy of Justice and inclusion in its curricula of in-depth courses on the Convention;

Calls upon the Turkish Government to continue to improve the protection of persons deprived of their liberty in the light of the recommendations of the Committee for the prevention of torture (CPT);

Invites the Turkish authorities regularly to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the practical impact of the measures taken, notably by providing statistics demonstrating effective investigations into alleged abuses and adequate criminal accountability of members of the security forces;

Decides to pursue the supervision of the execution of the present judgments until all necessary measures have been adopted and their effectiveness in preventing new similar violations has been established.

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of this dossier with a view to assessing progress in the execution of all these judgments, in the light of the requests made in Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 and of the new information provided to date by the Turkish authorities.

This information will be summarised in an update of the Memorandum that was prepared for the 834th meeting (April 2003) (see CM/Inf(2004)12).

Sub-section 4.2

- 59 friendly settlements cases and 1 striking-out concerning action of the security forces containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

CM/Inf(2004)12

H46-862 24940 Acar, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-863 31137 Adalı, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-864 32598 Akbay, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-865 37453 Akman, judgment of 26/06/01, final on 25/10/01 – Striking-out

H46-593 28292 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[167]

H46-866 24935 Avcı, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-867 28293 Aydın K., C. Aydin and S. Aydin and others, judgment of 10/07/01- Friendly

settlement

H46-868 29289 Aydın Mehmet, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-869 29875 Başak and others, judgment of 16/10/03 – Friendly settlement

H46-870 24946 Boğ, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-871 24938 Boğa, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-872 24934 Değer, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-873 22280 Demir Mahmut, judgment of 05/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-874 24990 Demir, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-875 31845 Dilek Kemal, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-468 32270 Doğan Ülkü and others, judgment of 19/06/03 - Friendly settlement[168]

H46-876 24939 Doğan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-877 30492 Erat and Sağlam, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-878 31246 Ercan, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-879 26337 Erdoğan Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-880 42428 Eren and others, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-483 46649 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[169]

H46-881 24945 Güngü Kemal, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-882 29864 H.K. and others, judgment of 14/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-883 30953 I.I., I.S., K.E., and A.O., judgment of 06/11/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-884 24849+ Kalın, Gezer and Ötebay, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-885 38578 Kaplan Süleyman, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-469 37446 Kara and others, judgment of 25/11/03 - Friendly settlement[170]

H46-886 38588 Keçeci, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-887 42591 Kılıç Özgür, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-888 31890 Kınay M. and Kınay R., judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-889 24944 Kızılgedik, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-629 28516 Macir, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[171]

H46-890 28504 Merinç, judgment of 17/06/03 - Friendly settlement[172]

H46-891 33234 N.Ö, judgment of 17/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-892 31865 O.O. and S.M., judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-470 39978 Oğraş and others, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement[173]

H46-893 31136 Önder Yalçın, judgment of 25/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-894 24936 Orak Adnan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-895 27735 Oral and others, judgment of 28/03/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-896 31883 Özbey, judgment of 31/01/02 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 4.2

H46-897 29856 Özcan Mehmet, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-898 37088 Özkur and Göksungur, judgment of 04/03/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-899 24942 Parlak, Aktürk and Tay, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-900 29359 Saki, judgment of 30/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-901 41926 Sarı Ramazan, judgment of 31/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-902 31154 Şen Filiyet, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-903 24991 Şenses, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-904 31153 Soğukpınar, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-905 28632 Sünnetçi, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-906 38382 Toktaş, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-471 31731 Tosun Hanım, judgment of 06/11/03 - Friendly settlement[174]

H46-907 36189 Yakar, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-908 31152 Yalçın Şaziment, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-909 37049 Yaman Mehmet, judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-910 22281 Yaşa Sıddık, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-911 32979 Yıldız Özgür, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-912 28308 Yıldız Zeki, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-472 31730 Yurtseven and others, judgment of 18/12/03 - Friendly settlement[175]

H46-913 27532 Z.Y., judgment of 09/04/02 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

These cases mainly concern alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 between October 1988 and November 1996 connected with the disappearance of applicants’ relatives and the destruction of properties during certain operations conducted by the security forces, the ill-treatment inflicted on applicants during police custody and their prolonged detention without being presented promptly before a judge.

According to the friendly settlements, the Turkish Government, in addition to payment of just satisfaction, undertakes in particular “to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all the necessary measures” – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – to ensure that the right to life and the prohibition of such forms of ill-treatment are respected in the future, that all deprivations of liberty are fully recorded by the authorities and that effective investigations into alleged disappearances are carried out in accordance with their obligations under the Convention. In some cases, the Government referred in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the Declaration agreed on in Application No. 34382/97 (Denmark against Turkey) and reiterated its resolve to give effect to those commitments.

General Measures: The general measures were summed up in Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 adopted at the 803rd meeting (July 2002). Following this interim resolution, the Turkish authorities adopted a number of general measures to comply with the judgments. The Committee will resume consideration of all these measures at the present meeting in the context of the cases concerning the actions of security forces (see above).

Sub-section 4.2

- 5 cases concerning dissolution of political parties

H46-914 25141 Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP), judgment of 10/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-915 23885 Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP), judgment of 08/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H54-916 19392 United Communist party of Turkey and others, judgment of 30/01/98

H54-917 21237 Socialist Party and others, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolution DH(99)245

H46-918 22723 Yazar, Karataş, Aksoy and le Parti of travail of peuple (HEP), judgment of 09/04/02

CM/Inf(98)48

The cases concern the dissolution of the above-mentioned political parties by the Constitutional Court in 1991, 1992 and 1993. The United Communist Party and the ÖZDEP party were dissolved shortly after their creation, on the mere basis of their programmes. The Socialist Party was dissolved on account of certain statements made by its chairman, Mr Perinçek. The reasons advanced by the Constitutional Court covered the undermining of the territorial integrity and the unity of the nation by references to the Kurdish people or to Kurdish self-determination (breaches of the Constitution and of various Articles in the Law on Political Parties (LPP). Among those cited by the prosecutor, mention may be made of Articles 78, 81 and 101 b) of the LPP. HEP was dissolved in similar circumstances. In the United Communist Party case an additional ground was the title “communist”, banned in Article 96(3) of the LPP. In the ÖZDEP case an additional ground was a perceived aim to abolish the secular nature of the state in violation of Article 89 of the LPP.

The cases also concern the ensuing banning for life of the leaders of the parties from holding similar offices in any other political party.

In all the cases, the European Court found violations of the right to freedom of association (Article 11).

The Socialist Party case also concerns the criminal conviction of Mr Perinçek, subsequent to the Court’s judgment, on account of the same statements as led to the party’s dissolution.

General measures: The judgments of the European Court have been published in Turkish in the Official Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice.

The change of the Constitution in 1995 changed the permanent ban on political activities for members of dissolved parties to a 5-year ban and made it applicable only to party leaders.

The necessity of a further reform of the LPP has been pointed out since May 1998. Such a reform should remove the automatic ban of a party under Article 96§3 of the Constitution on the mere ground that its title contains the word "communist" and abrogate the possibility of dissolving parties solely on the basis of non-violent political speech or programmes which respect the rules of democracy. The possibility to ensure the compatibility of Turkish law with the Convention through a change of case-law was also noted (see in particular CM/Inf(98)48).

Further amendments to the Constitution entered into force on 17/10/2001. These amendments have among other things introduced a general principle of proportionality and the possibility to resort to less severe sanctions than dissolution of the party in case of violations of the authorised limits of political action, which however remain unchanged in Article 68 of the Constitution. Subsequently, a number of amendments to the LPP were adopted on 26/03/2002 in order to ensure that it is in conformity with the Constitution.

During the examination of these different amendments at the 792nd meeting (April 2002), the improvements brought about were noted, but certain hesitations were expressed in view of the absence of any change of several key provisions. More detailed information on positions adopted may be found in the Addendum 4 prepared for the 854th meeting. Following this exchange of views, the Deputies agreed to resume consideration of these cases at their 810th meeting (October 2002) in order to examine any clarifications which might have been made in the meantime through the case-law of Turkish courts, in particular by the Constitutional Court. At that meeting the Turkish Delegation informed the Committee that the Communist Party had been allowed to participate in the general elections, a fact which may be accepted as a change of practice under Article 96/3 of the Constitution. Further information on the effect of the recent constitutional and legislative amendments was however requested.

Sub-section 4.2

Subsequently, The Turkish representation furnished information concerning the additional legislative measures taken in respect of the LPP (see Addendum 4 of the 854th meeting, for details) which entered into force 11/01/2003. According to new amendments, the conditions for being a member of a political party have been eased: being convicted under Article 312 of the Penal Code is no longer grounds for a restriction regarding being a member of a political party. Some other restrictions were lifted. The provisions of the LPP (Articles 98,100,102 and 104) were amended so as to conform to the Constitutional amendments. Finally, political parties were granted the right to appeal against requests of the Chief Public Prosecutor before the Constitutional Court.

At the 834th meeting it was agreed to wait for possible evolution of the case-law of the Constitutional Court as regards the effect given to the Convention and to the judgments of the European Court, or for other constitutional amendments, with a view to adopting, in the light of such evolution, either an interim or a final resolution at a subsequent meeting.

Individual measures: The bans on political activities imposed on the applicants following the dissolution of the Parties have all been lifted. The Committee of Ministers found that under former Article 53 (today Article 46§1) of the Convention, Turkey was under an obligation to erase the consequences of Mr Perinçek’s criminal conviction (see Interim Resolutions DH(99)245 and 529). Mr Perinçek was conditionally released after having served ¾ of his 14-month prison sentence and, following the application of amnesty legislation, he once again enjoys the civil and political rights which he lost as a result of his conviction, although on the condition that he does not “commit a further crime”. He has lodged a new complaint with the Court on account of this situation (Application No. 46669/99). This complaint was declared admissible by the Court on 26/02/2002. The Committee is awaiting the outcome of these proceedings.

- 25 cases concerning freedom of expression

(Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106)

CM/Inf(2003)43

H46-919 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-920 23462 Arslan, judgment of 08/07/99

H32-921 25658 Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolution DH(99)560 du 08/10/99

H46-481 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99[176]

H46-922 27214 C.S.Y., judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

H46-476 27529 Caralan, judgment of 25/09/03 - Friendly settlement[177]

H46-923 23556 Ceylan, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-924 28496 E.K., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-590 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00[178]

H46-925 25067+ Erdoğdu and Ince, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-926 24919 Gerger, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-927 27215+ Gökçeli Yaşar Kemal, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

H54-928 22678 Inçal, judgment of 09/06/98

H46-930 33179 Karataş Seher, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-931 23168 Karataş, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-932 28493 Küçük Yalçın, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

H46-933 24246 Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-628 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 [179]

H46-934 24914 Öztürk Ayşe, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

Sub-section 4.2

H46-935 22479 Öztürk, judgment of 28/09/99

H46-936 23500 Polat, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-938 23927+ Sürek and Özdemir, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-939 24122 Sürek II, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-940 24762 Sürek IV, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-941 29590 Yağmurdereli, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

These cases all relate to unjustified interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular on account of their conviction by State Security Courts following the publication of articles and books or the preparation of messages addressed to a public audience. In the Özgür Gündem case, the Court also concluded that the search operation conducted in the applicant newspaper’s premises had not been necessary in a democratic society and that the respondent government had failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect the applicant newspaper in the exercise of its freedom of expression. Furthermore, the case Öztürk Ayşe specifically concerns the seizure of a publication (violations of Article 10)[180].

Individual measures: Since June 1998 it has been repeatedly stressed in the Committee that the applicants’ convictions found to be contrary to Article 10 must be erased from their criminal records and that their civil and political rights, if restricted as a result of the convictions, must be restored.

On 23/07/2001, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 (see CM/Inf(2003)43), which, among other things, “urges the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to take ad hoc measures allowing the consequences of the applicants’ convictions contrary to the Convention in the above mentioned cases to be rapidly and fully erased”.

On 04/02/2003 a new law (No. 4793) entered into force allowing for the re-opening of domestic proceedings in all cases which have already been decided by the European Court and in all new cases which would henceforth be brought before the European Court. The provisions however exclude re-opening for all cases which were pending before the European Court at the date of entry into force of the law and had not yet been decided, as well as for cases resulting in friendly settlements.

On 10/02/2003, Law No. 4809 on suspension of proceedings and sentences concerning crimes committed through the press entered into force. Under certain conditions, this law provides that convictions related to freedom of expression might be erased, including their consequences. Furthermore, on 19/07/2003, Law No. 4928 abrogated Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Act No. 3713.

Updated information on the current situation of the applicants and on the concrete follow-up given to Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 have been regularly requested (see the information available in this respect in the table appended to document CM/Inf(2003)43).

As regards the annulment of the convictions, according to the information available at the time of preparing these notes, in at least 7 cases (Mr Arslan, Mr Gerger, Mr Inçal, Mr Küçük, Mr Öztürk, Ms Öztürk Ayşe, Mr Polat) the criminal records of the applicants have been erased following procedures under Law No. 4809. Similar procedures are pending in respect of at least four other cases (Mr Ibrahim Aksoy, Mr Ceylan, Mr Ahmet Zeki Okçuoğlu, Mr H. Karataş). In the case of Mr Aslantaş, the authorities indicated that the applicant’s criminal record had been erased on 25/03/2003, but by letter of 16/04/03 the applicant contested this information and indicated his intention to request a retrial under Law No. 4793. Five other applicants

Sub-section 4.2

(Mr Arslan, Mr Ceylan, Ms E.K., Mr Karataş, Mr Sürek) have also filed requests for retrial, following the entry into force of Law No. 4793. In the case of Mr Arslan, this request was dismissed on 10/03/2003 on grounds that a new decision would not bring any benefit to the applicant. This decision was confirmed at appeal on 26/03/2003.

As regards the restoration of the applicants’ civil and political rights, according to the information available at the time of preparing these notes, at least 8 applicants are no longer subject to restrictions of their rights (Mr M.S. Okçuoğlu, Mr U. Erdoğdu, Mr S. Ince, Mr K.T. Sürek, Mr Y. Özdemir, Ms Öztürk Ayşe, Mr Küçük). Information is expected about the situation of the other applicants, in particular as regards the outcome of proceedings initiated by some of them to this effect and the consequences, if any, of the above-mentioned laws in this respect.

General measures: The question has been raised, since 1998, of the need to adapt Turkish law to the requirements of the Convention so as to avoid further violations similar to those found. In particular, attention has been drawn to the need to assess the proportionality of restrictions on freedom of expression in the light of the presence of an “incitement to violence”. Furthermore, since 1999, the Turkish authorities have been invited to introduce a general criterion of truth and public interest into the Anti-Terrorism Law and to amend or abrogate Article 6 of this law; to review minimum penalties in crimes related to freedom of expression; to adopt specific measures aimed at ensuring the protection of freedom of expression (see CM/Inf(2003)43 for details). At the 834th meeting (April 2003), in connection with the examination of the case of Ayse Öztürk, questions were raised concerning the reform of the press law under way.

Awareness raising and training measures: As a preliminary measure, the Ministry of Justice has published the most important judgments against Turkey in Turkish, sending them out in their regular bulletin to judges and prosecutors and making some of them accessible through the Ministry of Justice website (<http://www.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/aihmk.htm>). Furthermore, at the 741st meeting (February 2001), the Turkish Delegation indicated that an information note would be sent to judges and public prosecutors in order to raise their awareness of the requirements of the Convention. A copy of this note has been requested. In June 2002 a Council of Europe/European Commission Joint Initiative was launched in collaboration with the Turkish authorities, made up of three distinct projects: (i) the development and implementation of short and long-term strategies on the Convention and the case-law for judges, prosecutors and other public officials; (ii) the creation and launch of a comprehensive campaign to increase awareness and understanding of human rights among the public at large; (iii) a review of certain draft and existing legislation to ensure its conformity with European standards. The implementation of these projects is currently under way.

Legislative measures: In March 2001, the Turkish authorities presented the National Programme containing information on the reforms planned for the “short term” and the “medium term” (respectively 2002 and 2003-2004). Subsequently, on 03/10/2001, a number of constitutional amendments, concerning inter alia the provisions on freedom of expression and information, were adopted and are directly applicable. Since then, a series of packages of laws have been adopted and entered into force respectively on 19/02/2002 (Law 4744); on 09/04/2002 (Law 4748); on 09/08/2002 (Law 4771), on 11/01/2003 (Law 4778), on 04/02/2003 (Law 4793), on 19/07/2003 (Law 4928) and on 07/08/2003 (Law 4963).

These laws have in particular:

- modified Article 159 of the Criminal Code on insult and derision of public bodies by reducing maximum and minimum sanctions and by making them applicable only if the courts consider that there was an “intention” to insult or deride;

- modified Article 312 of the Criminal Code, on incitement to hatred, by limiting its scope to expression constituting an explicit threat to public order and by reducing its maximum penalties;

- modified Article 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 3713 by specifying that propaganda on behalf of terrorist organisations will incur sanctions if carried out in a manner that encourages resorting to violence or other terrorist means;

- abrogated Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 3713;

- erased prison penalties from the Press Law No. 5680 and introduced provisions prescribing the respect of the confidentiality of journalists’ sources.

Sub-section 4.2

Although these amendments are aimed at generally improving the situation of freedom of expression, they do not seem to solve all the problems raised by the Court’s judgments. Additional information has accordingly been requested on a number of points and the Turkish authorities were invited to clarify the expected impact of the reforms on freedom of expression in Turkey.

By letters of 16/12/2002, 03/01/2003, 28/03/2003, 25/07/2003 and 15/09/2003, the Turkish authorities have provided examples of the case-law of the Court of Cassation and Security courts, concerning in particular the interpretation of the criterion of “threat to public order” in the application of Article 312 of the Criminal Code as revised in 2002 as well as the interpretation of the criterion of “intention” in the application of Article 159 of the Criminal Code as revised in 2002. These examples show that the Turkish courts’ interpretation of Articles 312 and 159 of the Criminal Code in accordance with the amendments presents parallel with, to some extent, to that of used by the Strasbourg Court and may thus assist in preventing, notably as far as Article 312 is concerned, new violations of the Convention. The Turkish authorities expect that these changes and case-law developments will also affect the interpretation of other relevant articles, notably in the anti-terrorism law. Examples of such developments are expected.

At the time of issuing these notes, a draft interim resolution was being prepared for discussion at the present meeting. This draft will be distributed separately as soon as it is ready.

H46-929 27692+ Karakoç and others, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

(Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106)

CM/Inf(2003)43

This case concerns a disproportionate interference in the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of their conviction in 1994 under Article 8 of Anti-terrorism Law No. 3713 for having, in their capacity as representatives of trade unions and of the press, issued a press statement in 1993 denouncing the government’s alleged responsibility for extra-judicial killings in the South-East region. Following the amendment of the Anti-terrorism Law in 1995, the applicants were given a suspended sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment, which they had already partially served, and a fine. Mr Karakoç was also dismissed from his job without compensation because of his conviction (violations of Article 10).

The case also concerns the lack of impartiality of the State Security Court in that the judges who convicted the applicants had already been implicated in the decision concerning their detention on remand and had justified such decision on the basis of a detailed reasoning on the applicants' guilt. The European Court found that this situation, as well as the presence of a military judge in the State Security Court who convicted the applicants, justified objectively the applicants' doubts regarding the impartiality of the Court (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: In accordance with the Committee of Ministers' position on similar cases, the applicants' convictions and all their consequences should be erased (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106). In this perspective, the applicants may apply for the reopening of their proceedings before the domestic courts, as provided by Law No. 4793 which entered into force on 04/02/2003. Information is furthermore expected about the consequences for the applicants of the abrogation of Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Act No. 3713 in July 2003.

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 10 of the Convention, the case is similar to the other above-mentioned Turkish cases of violations of freedom of expression. As regards the impartiality of State Security Courts, since 1999, military judges no longer sit in these courts (see Resolution DH(99)555 adopted in the case of Cıraklar).

At the 834th meeting (April 2003), information was requested on the measures envisaged as regards the other aspects of the violation of Article 6§1 raised by the European Court.

Sub-section 4.2

- 8 friendly settlements in cases concerning freedom of expression and containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

CM/Inf(2003)43

H46-942 32985 Altan, judgment of 14/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-944 37048 Demirtaş Nurettin, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-945 37721 Erkanlı, judgment of 13/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-946 35076 Erol Ali, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-947 27209+ Kiliç Özcan, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-948 25753 Özler, judgment of 11/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-949 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-950 32455 Zarakolu, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

These cases all relate in particular to alleged unjustified interferences in the applicants’ freedom of expression, on account of their conviction by State Security Courts following public speeches or the publication of articles, drawings and books (complaints under Articles 10 and 6§1).

The Court took note of the friendly settlements reached between the parties. The Turkish Government undertook to pay a sum of money to the applicants, to implement all necessary reform of domestic law and practice in order to bring the Turkish law into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in the area of freedom of expression and to adopt the individual measures set out in Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106, adopted on 23/07/2001(appended to CM/Inf(2003)43), in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicants’ conviction.

These cases are comparable with the “freedom of expression” cases against Turkey mentioned above.

Individual Measures: Information is expected on the current situation of the applicants as well as on the measures envisaged, in conformity with the undertakings included in the friendly settlements, in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicants’ conviction. The Turkish authorities indicated, by letter of 02/06/2003, that the applicant’s criminal records in the case Erkanli had been erased, as a result of the application of Law No. 4809 which (entered into force on 10/02/2003) on suspension of proceedings and sentences concerning crimes committed through the press which, under certain conditions, provides the possibility to erase convictions related to freedom of expression and their consequences.

General Measures: See above (“freedom of expression” cases against Turkey).

- 17 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-953 28212 Benjamin and Wilson, judgment of 26/09/02, final on 26/12/02

The case concerns the fact that the applicants, following sentence by courts to terms of discretionary life imprisonment, were unable to exercise their right to have their continued detention in hospital reviewed by a body empowered to examine the lawfulness of their detention since the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHR Tribunal) could only recommend but not order their release (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures: The first applicant had been convicted of rape in 1983 and released by decision of the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the MHR Tribunal on 09/01/2001. The second applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery in 1977 and on 13/06/2000 (date of the last review by the MHR Tribunal) he was still in prison. Information about the applicant’s present situation has been requested.

General measures: Confirmation of publication of the judgment of the European Court was received on 17/04/2003; the Committee has enquired whether the United Kingdom were considering the possibility of giving the MHR Tribunal the power to release detainees if it so decided.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-954 38784 Morris, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

The case mainly concerns the applicant’s complaint concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of the Army court-martial which judged him, on account of various structural problems (violation of Article 6§1).

The case present similarities to the Findlay case (see Resolution DH(98)12) following which the Army Act 1996 was adopted, entering into force in April 1997. In the present case, the Court questioned some of the new provisions included in this Act. It noted in particular that the safeguards surrounding the independence of the ordinary members of the court-martial were not sufficient to exclude the risk of outside pressure and that the Reviewing Authority, which was a non-judicial body, had the power to vary the finding and sentence imposed by the court-martial.

General measures: On 16/12/2003, the Grand Chamber of the European Court delivered its judgment in the case of Cooper. In the light of the new information before the Court in that case, which concerned a Royal Air Force (RAF) court-martial, it found that there had been no violation of Article 6. The Court was satisfied on the basis of this information that the final decision in such a case would always lie with a judicial body, which was not bound by the advice to or the decision of the Reviewing Authority. It was also satisfied that there were sufficient safeguards surrounding the ordinary members of the court-martial to ensure their independence; in this respect, an important element was the distribution and content of the CMAU (RAF) Briefing Notes to ordinary members of the RAF court-martial. Although the Cooper case dealt with an RAF court-martial, it was not disputed that the relevant regulatory frameworks governing Army and RAF courts-martial were the same in all material respects. In view of the fact that the Briefing Notes distributed to ordinary members of the court-martial do not clearly fall within the regulatory framework that can be said to be the same in the Army and RAF, information as to the distribution and content of Briefing Notes to ordinary members of Army courts-martial would be useful.

The judgment of the European Court in the present case has been published in European Human Rights Reports at (2002) 34 EHRR 1253.

H46-955 35605 Kingsley, judgment of 28/05/02 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in determining his civil rights and obligations, due to the lack of independence and impartiality of the Gaming Board which revoked the applicant’s licence to hold a management position in the gaming industry (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court found that the Panel of the Gaming Board had not presented the necessary appearance of impartiality not least due to some statements made against the applicant prior to the hearing, and that the subsequent judicial reviews of the Panel’s decision were too limited to rectify the shortcomings.

Individual measures: The applicant applied to the Gaming Board for a new license. In a letter dated 10/03/2003, the Board informed him that it would be minded to grant the application if he obtained employment or the formal offer of employment in a British casino operation. The criterion for the approval would be the applicant’s sufficient knowledge of current casino operation. The decision would also be subject to a check by the Criminal Records Bureau. On 25/03/2003, the applicant wrote and thanked the Board for its helpful co-operation and has not been in further contact since.

General measures: Information is awaited about measures envisaged to deal with the fact that reviewing courts do not have full jurisdiction to quash decisions of the Gaming Board or to remit the case for a new decision by an impartial body (see § 32 of the judgment).

The judgment of the European Court was published in the European Human Rights Report, 10 (2003). Confirmation of its dissemination to the Gaming Board and to the competent judicial authorities is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-956 46477 Edwards Paul and Audrey, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

The case concerns a breach of the positive obligation imposed on the national authorities to protect the life of the applicants’ son, who was killed while in custody by another detainee considered dangerous, who shared the same cell (November 1994). The case also concerns the ineffectiveness of the inquiry into the death of the applicants’ son as it was not possible to oblige prison staff to give evidence and because the applicants were not sufficiently associated with the investigation procedure (violation of Article 2). Finally, it concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: By a letter of 13/10/2003, the United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee that the Prison Service had conducted a further investigation looking into the specific issues that still concerned the applicants. The terms of reference, including 35 questions, were agreed with the applicants. The investigation was carried out by a senior governor, who reported on 27/06/2003 to the applicants and the commissioning authorities. All current Prison Service employees who were asked to be interviewed agreed to do so (including two who had previously declined to give evidence to the inquiry impugned before the Court). The applicants were involved not only with drawing up the terms of reference of the investigation but also with its progress. All documentation within the control of the Prison Service was made available to them at its conclusion and they attended a meeting with the investigator. After considering the report and meeting the investigator, three outstanding issues were identified. A meeting with members of staff who could give first-hand evidence relating to these issues was organised and a follow-up meeting planned for 13/10/2003 focusing on mentally ill offenders generally. The Prison Service has no current plan to publish the investigation report, which it sees as a matter entirely for the family.

General measures: The Committee has requested information about any measures that the United Kingdom might envisage adopting, in particular with respect to changes of practice and procedures in the Prison Service.

By a letter of 13/10/2003, the United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee of a number of consultation exercises that had been carried out with respect to the investigation of deaths in custody. These included a proposal to extend the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s terms of reference to include the investigation of deaths in custody; a report of June 2003 focusing on the coroners’ system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which had identified a number of weaknesses in the current coronial system (including the need for a more clearly defined and extensive role for the coroner, better training for coroners and their officers and a clearer and more involved role for the bereaved) and which was expected to lead to legislation in due course; and a July 2003 report of the Attorney General on the role and practices of the Crown Prosecution Services in cases arising from deaths in custody. Furthermore, the Prison Service was currently carrying out trials of strengthened internal investigations with some external input. These sought to put families more centre-stage and were partly based on experiences in the present case. Information would be useful as to any further developments in the above respects, in particular as to any legislative or regulatory follow-up envisaged.

The United Kingdom authorities have informed the Committee that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all the authorities concerned and published in the European Human Rights Report (Sweet & Maxwell) at (2002) 35 EHRR 487.

H46-960 50390 McGlinchey and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment suffered prior to her death by a prisoner addicted to heroin who was the mother of the first two applicants and daughter of the third applicant. The European Court found in particular that the prison authorities had failed to provide accurate means of monitoring her weight loss, that despite her worrying health condition there was a gap of two days in the monitoring of her condition by a doctor, and that she was not admitted to hospital quickly enough (violation of Article 3).

Sub-section 4.2

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy allowing an examination of the standard of care given in prison and the possibility of obtaining damages (violation of Article 13).

General measures: To prevent a recurrence of the Article 3 violation, a programme is under way concerning prison health policy on the handling of substance abusers and addicts. It involves the transfer of health services for prisoners from the Prison Service to a primary care trust by 2006. The aim of this transfer is to improve the quality and appropriateness of health care services for prisoners and to maintain these services within the National Health Service. In addition, the Prison Health Team is reviewing its advice on the clinical management of substance abusers on entry into prison. The programme is currently undergoing consultation with health service and Prison Service colleagues. Further information about the progress of these programmes is awaited.

As regards the violation of Article 13, the government has indicated that the Human Rights Act 1998 provides an effective remedy.

The judgment of the European Court was sent out to the Prison Service. Confirmation of its publication is awaited.

H46-961 36022 Hatton and others, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the effect upon the applicants of the implementation of the 1993 scheme for regulating night flights at Heathrow Airport, London and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect. Although it ultimately found no substantive violation of Article 8, as had been alleged, the European Court found that the scope of review by the domestic courts prior to the entry into force of the Human Rights Act was limited to English public law concepts (such as unlawfulness and patent unreasonableness) and did not allow consideration of whether the claimed increase in night flights under the 1993 Scheme represented a justifiable limitation on the right to respect for private and family life or the homes of those who live in the vicinity of Heathrow Airport (violation of Article 13).

General and/or individual measures: 1. Information is awaited concerning the scope of review by national courts conducting the judicial review of administrative acts adopted prior to the entry into force of the Human Rights Act.

2. Information concerning the publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court is still being awaited.

3. Information is awaited concerning the individual situations of the applicants.

H46-962 53236 Waite, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

The case concerns the fact that the applicant, who had been released on licence from detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure in 1994, had been unable to challenge the lawfulness of his re-detention in that he had not had an oral hearing before the Parole Board in September 1997 when he was re-imprisoned (violation of Article 5§4).The case also concerns the fact that the applicant could not obtain compensation for this violation under domestic law (violation of Article 5§5).

The applicant was freed again in 1998 but once more recalled to prison in 1999, on the basis of his original conviction, following his arrest for possession of drugs. When the European Court delivered its judgment he was detained in open prison and his next review was scheduled for December 2002 (§36 of the Court’s judgment).

Individual measures: Information is awaited on the applicant’s present situation, including the question of whether he is in a position to challenge periodically the continuing legality of his detention with the guarantee of an oral hearing (§ 56 of the Court’s judgment).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 5§4, this case presents similarities to those of Hussain and Singh (judgments of 21/02/1996) which were closed by final resolutions, DH(98)149 and DH(98)150 respectively, following the adoption of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. In the light of these judgments the Secretary of State announced, on 23/07/1996, the introduction of interim measures taking effect from 01/08/1996 and applying pending the entry into force of this Act. These measures required oral hearings in reviews before the Parole Board. On 01/10/1997, the Act came into force. Section 28(5) provides that the Secretary of State is under a duty to release a prisoner detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure where so directed by the Parole Board. Information is awaited concerning the procedure followed by the Parole Board, particularly regarding oral hearings.

As regards the violation of Article 5§5, the Government indicated in the context of the examination of the O’Hara case, that under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act (HRA), it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way incompatible with a Conventional right. Under Section 8 of the HRA, if a court finds such an unlawful action, it can award damages.

- Action of the security forces in the United Kingdom

H46-485 29178 Finucane, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 01/10/03

H46-963 43290 McShane, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

H46-964 28883 McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46-965 37715 Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46-966 24746 Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46-967 30054 Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

CM/Inf(2004)14

These cases concern the death of applicants’ next-of-kin during police detention or security forces operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicions of collusion of such forces. In this respect, the Court found various combinations of the following shortcomings in the proceedings for investigating deaths giving rise to possible violations of Convention rights (violations of Article 2): lack of independence of the investigating police officers from security forces/police officers involved in the events; lack of public scrutiny and information to the victims’ families concerning the reasons for decisions not to prosecute; the inquest procedure did not allow for any verdict or findings which could play an effective role in securing a prosecution in respect of any criminal offence which might have been disclosed; the soldiers / police officers who shot the deceased could not be required to attend the inquest as witnesses; the non-disclosure of witness statements prior to the witnesses’ appearance at the inquest prejudiced the ability of the applicants to participate in the inquest and contributed to long adjournments in the proceedings; the inquest proceedings did not commence promptly and were not pursued with reasonable expedition.

The McShane case also concerns the finding by the Court of a failure by the respondent state to comply with its obligations under Article 34, in that the police had – albeit unsuccessfully – brought disciplinary proceedings against the solicitor who represented the applicant in national proceedings for having disclosed certain witness statements to the applicant’s legal representatives before the European Court.

Individual measures: These are being examined together with general measures. See below and document CM/Inf(2004)14.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: Information submitted by the United Kingdom authorities and other interested parties, including new information not taken into account in previous versions of the document, appears in document CM/Inf(2004)14, along with the Secretariat’s evaluation of that information. A full history of the previous examination of the first five cases appears in the Annotated Agenda of the 854th meeting (October 2003).

At that meeting it was decided to postpone the examination of these cases until the present meeting, in order to be able to take into account the judgment of the House of Lords, which was still awaited, in the Middleton case. Subsequently, it was decided to join the Finucane case with the present group.

In the meantime, the Middleton judgment was delivered, alongside the House of Lords’ judgment in the domestic proceedings in the McKerr case, on 11/03/2004; information concerning these judgments is included in the revised memorandum (see CM/Inf(2004)14).

- Cases of length of proceedings

H46-968 44808 Mitchell and Holloway, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-490 43185+ Price and Lowe, judgment of 29/07/03, final on 03/12/03[181]

H46-969 42116 Somjee, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

H46-970 50034 Obasa, judgment of 16/01/03, final on 16/04/03

The first two cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). In thefirst case the proceedings started on February 1988 and ended on June 1998, in which the applicants complained of a period of unjustified delay from October 1991 to March 1994. In the second case the proceedings began in February 1986 and ended in March 1998. In particular, a period of eight and a half years elapsed between the issuing of the writ initiating proceedings in 1986 and the fixing of the date of the first hearing in August 1994.

These cases present similarities to the Foley case (judgment of 22/10/2002) which appears in sub-section 6.2, following the publication of the judgment of the European Court.

The two other cases concern the excessive length of several sets of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violations of Article 6§1). In the Somjee case, there were three sets of proceedings lodged in 1988 and 1989 and ended in 1997 and 1998 (more than 7 and 8 years for each). In the Obasa case the proceedings were instituted in December 1991 and completed in April 1999 (7 years and 4 months).

General measures: Given the fact that in these cases a structural problem concerning the administration of justice was revealed, (see §§54-56 of the Mitchell and Holloway judgment, §§17, 72-73 of the Somjee judgment and § 35 of the Obasa judgment), the Government was asked, at the 847th meeting (July 2003), to provide information about measures envisaged to ensure reasonable length of proceedings. As regards proceedings before labour courts, the Secretariat is currently being examining the information provided by the government. Information is also awaited on measures envisaged to remedy the violation found in the other cases, relating to excessive length of proceedings before other civil courts. Confirmation of the publication of the judgments of the European Court is also awaited.

SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

- 2180 cases against Italy

(CM/Inf(98)29, CM/Inf(98)40, CM/Inf(99)37, CM/Inf(2000)40, CM/Inf(2000)40-Add, CM/Inf(2001)37 and CM/Inf(2002)47 and Addendum and Addendum 2)

Interim Resolutions DH(97)336, DH(99)436, DH(99)437 and ResDH(2000)135)

Appendix to this draft Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

Addendum 4

In all the 2180 cases against Italy listed in the Appendix to the annotated agenda and order of business, violations of Article 6§1 were found on account of the excessive length of civil proceedings (1567 cases), execution proceedings (7 cases), labour proceedings (362 cases), administrative proceedings (118 cases), criminal proceedings (122 cases) and criminal proceedings combined with proceedings for damages (4 cases). Approximately 200 other similar cases concluded with a friendly settlement have been up to now examined by the Committee of Ministers.

In agreement with the Italian Delegation and on account of the fact that the Italian authorities have not provided in time the information needed for the examination of the progress made in the implementation of effective measures in order to solve the structural problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings, it is proposed to postpone this examination to the next meeting (885th DH meeting, 1-2 June 2004).

It is recalled that the decision to resume consideration at the latest in April 2004 had been adopted by the Deputies on 24/02/03 as regards civil, labour and criminal courts and on06/01/04 as regards administrative courts, insofar as the information available did not allow the progress made to be assessed. At a bilateral meeting held on 23/10/03 between the Secretariat and the Italian authorities, the latter had indicated that the statistical data concerning year 2003 would be ready at the beginning of 2004 and had accordingly undertaken to provide the information required in time for the examination of April 2004. Several letters, recalling the outstanding questions have been addressed to the Italian authorities and are reproduced in Addendum 4.

It is also recalled that the special monitoring procedure, on the basis of a comprehensive report to be presented each year by the Italian authorities was set up in October 2000 by the Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)135. In 2001, 2002 and 2003 the Committee thus examined the two first reports, covering mainly the period 2000-2002.

- 3 cases against Turkey

H46-3031 25781 Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber

CM/Inf(2004)4-Rev, CM/Inf(2004)4/1-Rev and CM/Inf(2004)4/3-Rev

The case relates to the situation that has existed in northern Cyprus since the conduct of military operations there by Turkey in July and August 1974 and the continuing division of the territory of Cyprus. The European Court of Human Rights held that the matters complained of by Cyprus in its application entailed Turkey’s responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights. In its judgment, the Court held that there had been 14 violations of the Convention:

Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

- a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;

Sub-section 4.3

- a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they were in Turkish custody at the time of their disappearance;

- a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in that the silence of the Turkish authorities in the face of the real concerns of the relatives attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.

Home and property of displaced persons

- a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) concerning the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus;

- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights;

- a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the failure to provide to Greek Cypriots not residing in northern Cyprus any remedies to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in Karpas region of northern Cyprus

- a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life;

- a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship;

- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised;

- a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them;

- a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment;

- a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home;

- a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities, as a matter of practice, with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus

- a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) on account of the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts.

The Deputies examined this case for the first time at their 760th meeting (July 2001). During the second examination of the case at the 764th meeting (October 2001) delegations strongly supported the proposal made by the Delegation of Liechtenstein that the Committee should follow the approach already proposed by the Director General of human rights at the 760th meeting, that is, identifying specific categories of violations according to the complexity of the execution measures required, without preventing the Deputies from pursuing in parallel an examination of the other issues raised in the Court’s Judgment :

- the question of missing persons,

- the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus,

- the rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus,

- the question of the homes and property of displaced persons.

Sub-section 4.3

Since then, the different categories have been addressed at several times and the Delegation of Turkey as well as other delegations provided information that has been examined by the Committee of Ministers (for further details on the history of this case’s examination by the Committee of Ministers, see document CM/Inf(2004)4-Rev).

A Turkish translation of the judgment was published in the legal journal Yargı Mevzuatı Bülteni of 01/07/2003.

For the present meeting, the Chairman has proposed to focus the debates on the question of missing persons and on some specific questions concerning the living conditions of the Greek Cypriots in the northern part of Cyprus, in particular those related to education.

In the framework of the earlier discussions on the question of missing persons (see CM/Inf(2004)4/1-Rev), the Delegation of Turkey has underlined the importance of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP), stressing the efforts of Turkey to contribute to the work of this committee and the need to reactivate it. Several other delegations have referred to the judgment of the Court, which states that “the respondent State’s procedural obligation at issue cannot be discharged through its contribution to the investigatory work of the CMP [and that] (…) although the CMP’s procedures are undoubtedly useful for the humanitarian purpose for which they were established, they are not of themselves sufficient to meet the standard of an effective investigation required by Article 2 of the Convention, especially in view of the narrow scope of that body’s investigations”.

Information has also been provided on the living conditions of the Greek Cypriots living in the northern part of Cyprus, including the specific questions related to education (see CM/Inf(2004)4/3-Rev).

Concerning the censorship of schoolbooks for Greek Cypriot primary schools in the northern part of the island, considered as excessive by the Court in respect of Article 10 of the Convention, the Turkish authorities have declared – submitting examples – that many books contain demonstrated bias. This has been denied by the Cypriot authorities. The Committee is still awaiting information on the changes made in comparison with the situation criticised by the Court in order to accelerate and simplify procedures, to relax the criteria for censorship and to reintegrate this process into the framework of the confidence-building measures recommended by UNFICYP.

Finally, in connection with the issue of secondary education, the Turkish authorities have underlined that there are too few Greek Cypriot children to justify the opening of a secondary school in the north of the island, but that they could receive an appropriate education since it is now possible to cross freely between the north and the south of Cyprus. The Cypriot delegation has pointed out that the nearest school to the Karpaz area is located more that two-and-a-half hours’ drive away. Information is still needed on measures envisaged or taken to ensure that the authorities in northern Cyprus have made “continuing provision” for appropriate secondary schooling as required by the Court’s judgment.

H46-3032 26308 Institut de Prêtres français and others, judgment of 14/12/00 – Friendly settlement - Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)173

The case concerns a Turkish judicial decision of 1993 annulling the applicant Institute’s property entitlement to a plot of land on the grounds that, by letting part of this land to a private company, this Institute was no longer eligible for special treatment as a non-profit body (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9). The parties concluded a friendly settlement according to which the Government undertook the following obligations:

- The Treasury and the Directorate General of Foundations recognise the right to usufruct to the benefit of the priests representing the applicant Institute. This right to usufruct shall comprise the full use and enjoyment of the land and the buildings thereon and the right to rent the land for profit-making purposes in order to meet its needs;

- The two above-mentioned state authorities agree to undertake the formalities necessary to register their respective declarations in the land register with a view to renewing the life tenancy in favour of the priests who will replace the current usufructuary;

- The Directorate General of Foundations waives its claim to USD 41,670 owed by the applicant Institute in rent collected over the five years since its property title was annulled.

Sub-section 4.3

The necessity of urgent compliance with these obligations has been stressed in the Committee of Ministers at each of its DH meetings since October 2001, as well as in two letters of the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the first sent on 06/11/2002 to the Turkish Permanent Representative, the second on 17/06/2003 to Mr Gül, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey.

On many occasions the Turkish delegation has indicated that the problems encountered in ensuring respect of the commitments made would be solved. On 18/04/2003, the first Chamber of the Council of State, consulted for advice, did not approve the friendly settlement.

On 08/10/2003, the Committee of Ministers adopted an Interim Resolution “urging the Turkish authorities in order to comply without delay with the Court’s judgment in this case” and deciding “to pursue the supervision of the execution of the present judgment, if need be, at each of its forthcoming meetings, until all necessary measures have been adopted”.

On 30/12/2003, the Chamber of Administrative Matters of the Council of State quashed the decision of 18/04/2003, concluding that the Council of State’s opinion was not necessary in this case because the amount of the undertakings taken by the state had not exceed the upper limit above which such an opinion is necessary. It also underlined that the Court’s striking-out judgments following friendly settlements are binding on states, which have to abide by them under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers.

By letter of 27/02/2004, the Turkish authorities stated that they were convinced that the right to usufruct would be granted to the applicant Institut in the very near future.

By letter of 09/03/2004, the representative of the Institute informed the Secretariat that, to date he had not received any information concerning a follow-up to this decision.

By letter of 12/03/2004, the Turkish Delegation informed the Secretariat that the Ministry of Finance had delivered its official approval for the right to usufruct to be given to a member of the applicant institute and that the necessary administrative steps had been taken in this regard. More detailed information about these steps is expected.

H46-3033 29900+ Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59

Addendum 4

The case concerns the violation of the right to a fair trial in proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court, which sentenced the four applicants, members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, to 15 years’ imprisonment in December 1994.

The violations found are the following:

- lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court (violation of Article 6§1 - see §40 of the judgment);

- lack of timely information about the legal redefinition of the accusation brought against the applicants and lack of sufficient time and facilities to prepare the applicants’ defence (violation of Article 6§3 a and b taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§57-59 of the judgment);

- impossibility to examine or to have examined the witnesses who testified against the applicants (violation of Article 6§3d taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§67-68 of the judgment).

Having found these violations, the Court did not consider it necessary to decide separately the applicants’ complaints under Articles 10, 11 and 14.

Individual measures:

In view of the extent of the violations of the right to a fair trial and of their consequences for the applicants, the Turkish authorities were requested, at the 764th meeting (October 2001), to consider urgently specific individual measures to erase these consequences. (cf. Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation R(2000)2 and its Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 on the individual measures in cases concerning freedom of expression in Turkey).

Sub-section 4.3

Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59(see Addendum 4): At the 794th meeting (30/04/2002), as no progress in the execution of the judgment was reported on this point, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution in which it: “Strongly urges the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to respond to the Committee’s repeated demands that the said authorities urgently remedy the applicants’ situation and take the necessary measures in order to reopen the proceedings impugned by the Court in this case, or other ad hoc measures erasing the consequences for the applicants of the violations found;”

On 03/08/2002 a new law came into force which introduced into the penal and civil codes the possibility of reopening proceedings but only in new cases (coming before the Court after 03/08/2002). This new law has been strongly criticised within the Committee of Ministers since it was inapplicable to the four applicants. A new urgent action in their favour was consequently requested. In view of the absence of such an action, the Secretariat was asked at the 810th meeting (October 2002) to prepare a new draft interim resolution. This was not adopted in view of the reopening of the impugned proceedings in Turkey (see below).

Adoption of new legislation and retrial: On 04/02/2003 a new law entered into force allowing the reopening of domestic proceedings in all cases which have already been decided by the European Court and in all new cases which would henceforth be brought before the European Court. The provisions however exclude re-opening for all cases which were pending before the Court at the date of entry into force of the Law.

On the basis of this new law, the applicants' request for retrial was accepted by the State Security Court of Ankara on 28/02/2003 and twelve public hearings of the case have already been held by the same court. The Committee of Ministers welcomed the reopening of the impugned domestic proceedings.

However, the Committee has noted that successive requests to suspend the execution of the original prison sentence have been rejected by the State Security Court without convincing reasons being provided, notwithstanding the fact that the applicants continue to suffer the consequences of the violations found, i.e. imprisonment on the basis of an unfair trial.

This situation has given rise to calls for further measures to put an end to all negative effects for the applicants of the violations found. These requests have been reiterated at every meeting of the Committee of Ministers starting with April 2003. Moreover it has been suggested that the Prosecutor makes the proprio mutu request that the applicants are released in order to conform to the European Court’s judgment.

The Turkish delegation indicated that these concerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities. It also recalled that the question of suspension of the original sentence lies within the competence of the State Security Court, also stressing the fact that the public prosecutor enjoys the same guarantees as judges as far as his independence is concerned. So far the State Security Court has constantly rejected the request for release made by the applicants.

Following the mandate given by the Committee of Ministers at the 854th Meeting (October 2003), the President of the Committee addressed a letter to the Turkish authorities on 20/11/2003, expressing concern regarding the continued detention of the applicants and the alleged lack of fairness of the new trial, especially in relation to the presumption of innocence and the equality of arms (see Addendum 4).

On 19/02/2004 the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs replied to this letter indicating that the applicants are considered as convicted persons in view of the initial court decision, which remains valid until the outcome of the new proceedings. The Minister stressed the fact that no convicted person could be released on the ground of a judgement of the European Court and insisted that the Government could not and should not interfere with the court proceedings. Moreover, he considered that the issues related to the equity of the new proceedings fall within the competence of the higher Courts and of the Strasbourg Court (see Addendum 4).

Sub-section 4.3

At the time of preparing this document, a draft Interim Resolution on the applicants’ release was being prepared for discussion at the present meeting, in accordance with the Deputies’ decision at the 871^st meeting (February 2004). This draft will be distributed separately, as soon as it is ready.

Follow-up by the Parliamentary Assembly: From the outset, the Parliamentary Assembly has been closely scrutinising the follow-up to the present judgment. At its 4th part session (23/09/2002) the Assembly held a debate and adopted Resolution 1297(2002) and Recommendation 1576(2002) on the implementation of the Court's judgments by Turkey. In these texts the Assembly, in particular, strongly supported demands to remedy the applicants' situation and urged the Committee of Ministers to use all means at its disposal to ensure compliance with the judgment without further delay.

In its reply to Recommendation 1576(2002), the Committee "welcomes the fact that (…) the criminal proceedings in the aforementioned case are to be reopened before the State Security Court of Ankara. The Committee nevertheless notes that the suspension of the execution of the original prison sentence of the applicants pending the new trial was not approved when the request to re-open proceedings was accepted. The Committee trusts that a new, fair trial will proceed expeditiously so as effectively to erase the consequences of the violations found by the Court."

On 30/04/2003, the Committee received a new written question (CM(2003)69) by Mr Erik Jurgens, a member of the Assembly, in which he "regret[s] notably that the execution of the original prison sentence imposed in the unfair proceedings had not been suspended" and "ask[s] if the Committee does not consider that to comply with the European Court's judgment Turkey must suspend the execution of [this] sentence (…) awaiting the new fair trial". A reply to this question was issued under the reference CM/AS(2003)Quest426-final and transmitted to the Parliamentary Assembly.

In its report of 17/03/2004 on Honouring of obligations and commitments by Turkey, the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe took the opinion that the decisions of the Turkish courts rejecting the applicants’ requests for release on bail were “particularly incomprehensible and regrettable since Mrs Zana and the others, who have been imprisoned for more than ten years, are scheduled to be released in June 2005 and it cannot be claimed that the offences for which they are to be retried represent a serious threat to public order, given the time elapsed since the events took place”.

General measures: Measures have been adopted, particularly in the context of the constitutional reform, to replace the military judge in State Security Courts by a civil judge (see the case Çiraklar v Turkey, judgment of 28/10/1998, Resolution DH(99)555), strengthening the constitutional protection afforded to the right to fair trial.

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H54-3034 25599 A., judgment of 23/09/98

CM/Inf(2004)6-rev

The case concerns the failure of the state to protect the applicant, at the time a child of nine years old, from ill-treatment by his step-father, who was acquitted of criminal charges brought against him after he raised the defence of reasonable chastisement (violation of Article 3).

General measures: Newspaper coverage has been extensive. The judgment of the European Court has been published at (1999) 27 EHRR 611 and [1998] 2 FLR 959.

A full history of the previous examination of the execution of this judgment by the Committee of Ministers appears in the Annotated Agenda of the 871st meeting (February 2004); the present notes focus on recent developments, and in particular on the statement presented by the United Kingdom authorities by letter of 03/02/2004.

Sub-section 4.3

In this statement and at the above-mentioned meeting the United Kingdom authorities stressed that the findings in this case did not require states to criminalise any form of physical rebuke, however mild, by a parent of their child; that the abolition of the defence of reasonable chastisement would mean that all corporal punishment by parents would be an unlawful assault; and that the commitment entered into by the Government before the Court was not a commitment to outlaw all forms of corporal punishment but to amend the law so as to ensure that the corporal punishment of children would be unlawful under domestic law if it breached the standards required by Article 3 of the Convention. They argued that the incorporation of the provisions of the Convention into domestic law, through the commencement of the Human Rights Act 1998 in October 2000, combined with the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 25/04/2001 in the case of R. v. H., meant that trial courts were now bound by the standards applicable under Article 3 just as if the law had been changed by Act of Parliament. In addition, judges, prosecutors and other professionals were well aware of this change in the law, and guidance on relevant Convention issues was readily accessible to all Crown Prosecution Service lawyers wherever the defence of reasonable chastisement was likely to be raised. The application of the law was kept under review by the Attorney General’s department, which considered that the change in the law had been effective, as parents could be (and had been) prosecuted for excessive corporal punishment. Finally, the relevant law was also publicised widely through the consultation paper “Protecting Children, Supporting Parents”, published in January 2000, and in the Government’s response to that consultation in November 2001, which also referred to the present judgment and to the above-mentioned judgment in R. v. H.

Several delegations expressed some support for these views and requested clarification from the Secretariat as to whether it considered the measures taken to be sufficient.

Other delegations contested the position taken by the United Kingdom and considered that it was too soon for the Committee of Ministers to conclude its examination of this case.

Reference was not least made to the Government’s undertaking before the Court to change the relevant law. It was in particular pointed out that the Human Rights Act on its own could not be considered to be a sufficient legislative measure to execute the present judgment, since this would imply that once states had incorporated the European Convention into their domestic law, they would never need to legislate to execute a judgment, a logic that was clearly untenable. More importantly, the case-law developments did not demonstrate that United Kingdom law had changed as required by the Court’s judgment. The judgment in the case of R. v. H., relied upon by the United Kingdom authorities had led to the acquittal of a father who had used a leather belt to beat his four-year-old son, causing bruising, after his son had refused to write his name. Furthermore, the problem also appeared to remain in Scotland as Scottish law on justifiable assault did not demonstrate satisfactorily that Convention requirements had been taken into account. The ineffectiveness of the case law changes so far appeared accepted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (a select committee of both houses of the United Kingdom Parliament) as it had found, in its Tenth Report of Session 2002-03, that the retention of the defence of reasonable chastisement constituted a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. A number of delegations recalled that all judgments had to be executed, even if this was sometimes difficult notably because of domestic public opinion.

The Secretariat noted in particular that, in the domain of the criminal law, legislative action remained the best means of achieving the changes required. If this path was not chosen, then the Committee of Ministers must be satisfied that change had effectively occurred through a change of case-law. It emphasised that doubts subsisted both as to the standards now applied by the United Kingdom courts and as to whether the current state of the UK law, including the information provided the public thereon, provided effective deterrence against treatment in breach of Article 3, as required by the judgment in this case.

In the light of the different views expressed, the Secretariat was requested to prepare a revised, shorter Memorandum to serve as a basis for the examination of the case at the present meeting (see document CM/Inf(2004)6-rev).

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

(See Addendum 5 for part or all these cases)

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise progress in the adoption of general measures aiming at preventing further similar violations to those found by the Court in the following cases. If necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in Addendum 5. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases in 6 months at the latest.

SUB-SECTION 5.1 – LEGISLATIVE AND/OR REGULATORY CHANGES

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-3036 25316 Denizci and others, judgment of 23/05/01, final on 23/08/01

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns in particular the fact that the applicants (and in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were subjected to ill-treatment considered inhuman by the European Court (violation of Article 3), that they have been victims of unlawful arrest and detention (violation of Article 5§1) and that they have been subjected to restrictions on their freedom of movement (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

Individual measures: By a letter of 14/10/2003, the Secretariat was informed that by decision of the Attorney General of 30/04/2003, a criminal investigator has been appointed in the Egmez and Denizci cases (information already transmitted by letter of 19/03/2003 and included in CM/Inf(2003)30). The investigation is at present well under way: all documentary evidence and written statements following interviews with the applicants themselves and numerous other persons and sources has been completed. The investigator has already received all the relevant files from the Attorney General’s office and from other governmental departments or bodies which conducted investigations related to these cases.

In view of the Court’s conclusions in this case and of the fact that the applicants have not pursued this matter, no further examination of individual measures appears to be called for.

General measures: Information received concerning general measures taken with respect to Article 3 has also been considered in the context of the execution of the judgment in the Egmez case (Section 4.2) and appears in the memorandum concerning that case.

As regards the violation of Article 5§1, a Bill has been tabled in Parliament introducing improved access of detained persons to a lawyer and a doctor, and providing for criminal sanctions against police officers who breach those rights. According to this Bill it is also a criminal offence for a police officer to deprive an individual of his or her liberty except in the circumstances specified under Article 11(2) of the Constitution or to arrest an individual without an arrest warrant (except persons arrested in flagrante delicto). The Bill was examined by the relevant parliamentary committee in December 2003.

In response to a request by the Cypriot delegation at the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Secretariat informed the delegation in a letter of 18/12/2003 that the following issues remained outstanding:

- formal publication of the judgment following its translation;

- adoption of additional legislation making it a criminal offence for a member of the police unlawfully to deprive a person of his or her liberty;

- adoption of the draft legislation introducing improved access of detained persons to a lawyer and a doctor.

In addition, confirmation was sought that the various dissemination and training measures referred to in the submissions of the Cypriot authorities had addressed the violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in the present case. This was confirmed by the authorities in a note handed to the Secretariat on 09/02/2004.

Information is awaited with respect to the three outstanding points listed above.

Sub-section 5.1

- 30 cases against Romania

H46-454 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01

(rectification) – Grand Chamber[182]

H46-570 35831 Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02[183]

H46-577 33627 Bărăgan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03[184]

H46-571 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02[185]

H46-580 33353 Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03[186]

H46-567 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

rectified on 09/07/02[187]

H46-573 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02[188]

H46-588 31804 Chiriacescu, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03[189]

H46-455 32925 Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02[190]

H46-576 29769 Curuţiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03[191]

H46-450 36017 Dickmann, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03[192]

H46-578 32936 Drăgnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[193]

H46-451 38445 Erdei and Wolf, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03[194]

H46-572 32943 Falcoiănu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02[195]

H46-579 32977 Găvruş, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[196]

H46-586 31678 Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03[197]

H46-452 32915 Ghitescu, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03[198]

H46-587 29973 Golea, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03[199]

H46-582 31736 Grigore, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03[200]

H46-569 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02[201]

H46-575 30698 Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03[202]

H46-574 33358 Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02[203]

H46-585 36039 Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03[204]

Sub-section 5.1

H46-453 31172 Popa and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03[205]

H46-581 33355 Popescu Nata, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03[206]

H46-566 33631 Savulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03[207]

H46-583 31680 State and others, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03[208]

H46-568 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02,

final on 21/08/02[209]

H46-584 32269 Tărbăşanu, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03[210]

H46-3047 29407 Vasiliu, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the Supreme Court’s annulment of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' titles to property that had been previously nationalised. The Supreme Court intervened following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions. The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the principle of legal certainty and accordingly violated the applicants’ right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicants’ right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised courts’ jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of property (violations of Article 6§1 in all the cases except Grigore and State and others). Finally, the European Court found that the Supreme Court’s decisions had violated the applicants’ right to respect for their possessions by annulling without justification and without compensation final court decisions that recognised the applicants’ property rights to the apartments in question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court indicated, under Article 41 of the Convention, that the State was to return the properties at issue to the applicants within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, or to pay within the same deadline an amount of money corresponding to the current value of the houses at issue.

General measures: By letter of 11/09/2003, the Romanian delegation informed the Secretariat that Article 330 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure had been repealed by an emergency ordinance adopted by the government and published in the Official Gazette on 28/06/2003. Information is awaited concerning the approval of this measure by Parliament.

- 4 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-958 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber

H46-959 28957 Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber

These cases concern, in particular, the state’s failure to comply with its positive obligation to ensure the right of the applicants (post-operative, male-to-female transsexuals) to respect for their private life, in particular due to the lack of legal recognition given to their gender re-assignment (violations of Article 8) as well as the impossibility for them to marry a person of the sex opposite to their re-assigned gender (violations of Article 12).

Sub-section 5.1

Individual measures: The current state of the law prevents the taking of measures to erase the consequences of the violations found for the individuals concerned. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament) has emphasised in its reports dealing with the draft Gender Recognition Bill (described in the general measures section below) that including the possibility of retrospective recognition of a person’s acquired gender, at least from the date on which the violation was established by the Court, would provide a remedy for successful litigants in Strasbourg and the United Kingdom, and others whose cases were pending at that date. The Government has so far not accepted this proposal.

General measures: On 11/07/2003 the Government of the United Kingdom announced the publication of a draft Gender Recognition Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by the JCHR. The Bill aims to allow transsexual people who have taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in the acquired gender to gain legal recognition in that gender.

By letter of 08/03/2004, the United Kingdom authorities drew attention to the progress of the Bill through Parliament. The Bill was scrutinised by the JCHR, which made a number of recommendations, some of which were accepted by the Government. In its Scrutiny of Bills: Second Progress Report of 10/02/2004, the JCHR highlighted certain outstanding concerns with respect to the effect of a recognised change of gender on previous marriages. These include the effect on the family relationships of individuals affected, as well as the consequences for their pensions and other social rights.

Having made its way through the House of Lords, the Bill was brought to the House of Commons on 11/02/2004, where it is now being debated. The Secretariat is currently examining the Bill. Further information on its progress through Parliament would be useful.

The Goodwin judgment was published at (2002) 35 EHRR 447.

H46-957 35765 A.D.T., judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life on account of the existence of legislation prohibiting homosexual acts between consenting men in private, and of the applicant’s prosecution and conviction for gross indecency in respect of such acts, which had taken place in private, at the applicant’s home (violation of Article 8).

The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on 20/11/1996 and has been conditionally discharged.

Individual measures: In March 2003, the applicant’s representative informed the Secretariat that the applicant did not wish to pursue the adoption of individual measures.

General measures: By letter of 08/03/2004, the United Kingdom authorities indicated that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 would come into force on 01/05/2004. The main provisions of this Act do not deal with the issues raised by the present case; however, it appears that the provisions criticised by the European Court have been repealed in the relevant schedule of repeals and revocations. Confirmation would be useful in this respect. The judgment of the European Court has been published in European Human Rights Report at (2001)31 EHRR 803.

Sub-section 5.1

H46-3048 24833 Matthews, judgment of 18/02/99 - Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution DH(2001)79

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the non-respect of the right to participate in elections to choose the legislature in that no election to the European Parliament (EP) was held in Gibraltar (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: The Government of the United Kingdom has informed the Committee of Ministers of the government’s efforts within the European Union to find a satisfactory solution to this case. The Government’s priority remains to secure the agreement of its EU partners to the enfranchisement of Gibraltar through a change to the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections to the European Parliament. The United Kingdom is committed to achieving enfranchisement for Gibraltar for the 2004 EP elections.

The United Kingdom Parliament adopted the European Parliament (Representation) Act which received the Royal Assent on 08/05/2003. Pursuant to the provisions of this Act, Gibraltar should be treated as part of one of the English or Welsh electoral regions for the purposes of EP elections. As required by the Law, on 27/08/2003 the Electoral Commission made a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor as to include Gibraltar in the constituency of the South West region.

The European Parliamentary Elections (Combined Region and Campaign Expenditure) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004 has been approved by Parliament and is now in force. This order set up the combined region and governs the conduct of political parties during the election. A second order, which has more general provisions relating to the actual running of the election, has been laid before Parliament. It has already been debated and will come into force by the end of March 2004. The final order, which relates to the disqualification of members of Gibraltar's House of Assembly from also being members of the EP is currently with the Electoral Commission. Gibraltar published its own European Parliamentary Elections Bill 2004 on 29/01/2004. Further information is expected concerning the implementation of these measures as to ensure the participation of Gibraltar residents in the elections to the European Parliament in June 2004.

It should be noted that Spain questioned the compatibility of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 with European Union law before the European Commission, because this act grants franchise to persons who are not nationals of the UK and hence not EU citizens, and because it creates a “combined electoral region” incorporating Gibraltar into an existing electoral region in England and Wales. On 29/10/2003 the Commission declared that the United Kingdom has organised the extension of voting rights to residents in Gibraltar within the framework of the margin of discretion presently given to member states by EU law. However the Commission did not adopt a reasoned opinion within the meaning of Article 227 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community.

The case has received extensive newspaper coverage and the judgment of the European Court has been published, in particular in the Human Rights Report, Human Rights Digest and other legal journals.

SUB-SECTION 5.2 – CHANGES OF COURTS’ CASE-LAW OR OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE

- 1 case against Croatia

H46-661 53176 Mikulić, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 04/09/02

The case concerns the inefficiency of the proceedings in an action to establish paternity brought in 1997 by the applicant, born in 1996, and her mother. No measure existed under Croatian law to compel the alleged father to comply with a court order to submit to DNA testing; nor was there any direct provision governing the consequences of such non-compliance or other alternative means enabling an independent authority to determine the paternity claim promptly (violation of Article 8).

When the European Court delivered its judgment the proceedings were pending before the Appellate Court of Zagreb and had lasted about 5 years, of which about 4 years and 2 months fall under the jurisdiction of the Court (violation of Article 6§1). The applicant had no effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings (violation of article 13).

Individual measures: The Croatian authorities have indicated that the domestic proceedings were ended by a final judgment rendered on 26/02/2002.

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 8, on 14/07/2003 the Croatian Parliament adopted the new Family Act. Article 292 provides that courts may request medical tests to establishing maternity or paternity, which are to be carried out within three months from the court’s order. Where the person concerned refuses to undergo such tests or fails to appear at the appointment, the court shall take its decision taking into account this fact (Article 292§6). Examples of domestic case-law under this provisions are awaited showing that this procedure constitutes a "sufficient and adequate" means for establishing the paternity or the maternity of a person, in particular when the putative father or mother is avoiding the court’s order that medical examination be carried out.

As regards the violation of Articles 6 and 13, the case presents similarities to the Horvat group (see sub‑section 4.2).

The European Court’s judgment has been translated and published on the Internet site of the Government (http://www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html) and in the Collected Papers of the Zagreb Law School (issue n° 2/2003).

- 1 case against Poland

H46-3037 26761 Płoski, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for private and family life because of the refusal to allow him, at the material time (1994) detained on remand, to attend his parents’ funerals (violation of Article 8).

General measures: The relevant provisions of the new Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences of 1997 which govern the granting of permission for leave for family reasons have remained in substance unchanged compared to those of the Code of 1969 which was in force at the relevant time. Under the terms of Article 141a of the new Code prisoners may, in circumstances of special importance for them, apply to the Penitentiary Judge for permission for leave under the escort of prison officers or other trustworthy persons for a maximum of five days. In cases concerning persons detained on remand the preliminary authorisation of the court competent for the extension of the remand is also required.

Since these provisions are in principle in conformity with the requirements of Convention and the conclusions of the European Court in this case and it was rather the national authorities’ application of the relevant provisions which was challenged in this judgment, the dissemination of the judgment to the competent authorities seems to be a relevant and sufficient measure for the prevention of new violations of the same nature. The Polish Delegation indicated that the Ministry of Justice has sent the text of the judgment of the European Court together with a circular letter to the presidents of courts of appeal to be disseminated to all judges.

Recent examples of decisions of the domestic courts confirming that a direct effect is given in national law to the Convention and to the case-law of the European Court will be useful to confirm the effect of the dissemination of the judgment in this case.

Sub-section 5.2

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

H46-3049 32106 Komanický, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to fair trial during civil proceedings he brought after being dismissed from employment in 1991. The European Court concluded that the procedure followed in this case by the national courts did not enable the applicant to participate properly in the proceedings and to comment on all evidence adduced, notably because the national court had proceeded with his case in his absence, although he had notified the court in advance that he could not attend for health reasons. This procedure did not therefore satisfy the requirements of the principle of the equality of arms (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicant has requested the reopening of the impugned proceedings. In a judgment of 12/03/2003 the Constitutional Court declared itself incompetent to examine the applicant’s request to this end. The Slovak authorities indicated that under the terms of Article 228§1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a final decision by a domestic court can be cancelled following a judgment of the European Court if this judgment may be considered as a new fact which could be at the origin of a decision more favourable to the applicant. In practice this solution is not applicable to the applicant’s case as the application for revision must be made within a strict time-limit of three years starting from the date on which the judgment of the national court became final. In this context, the Secretariat is examining, in co-operation with the Slovak delegation, to what extent the applicant continues to suffer the consequences of the violation found by the European Court.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in Justičnà Revue No.11/2002. By letter of 08/07/2003 the Slovakian Delegation indicated that the judgment of the European Court had been sent to the President of the Supreme Court and to the presidents of all district courts, to be disseminated to all judges. The Secretariat has also received copies of the relevant texts of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning the participation of parties in hearings before civil courts. Recent examples of domestic case-law showing that the courts take the judgments of the European Court effectively into consideration would be very useful to confirm the effect of the dissemination of the judgment in this case.

SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

- 3 cases against France

H46-163 50344 E.R., judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The proceedings, which began in 1990 and ended in 2001 (more than 10 years and 4 months for 6 degrees of jurisdiction), were brought in order to establish the applicant’s paternity, and were therefore of particular importance to the applicant and the child concerned. The European Court stressed that exceptional promptness was required.

General measures: According to the European Court, it is important that this kind of situations is resolved with an exceptional promptness; thus, publication and dissemination of the judgment were requested at the 863rd meeting (December 2003) with the intention that it be taken into consideration by the competent authorities.

H46-3050 42400 Seguin, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 06/11/02

H46-211 43722 Wiot, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03[211]

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (and administrative courts in the case of Seguin, concerning a redundancy for economic reasons) (violations of Article 6§1).

In the case of Seguin, the proceedings began in 1984 and ended in 1998 (12 years and 9 months).

In the case of Wiot, the proceedings began in 1992 and were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (almost 10 years and 4 months).

Individual measures: Concerning the Wiot case, the French delegation stated at the 841st meeting (June 2003) that the proceedings were closed at internal level.

General measures: with the intention that these judgments be taken into consideration by the relevant authorities, publication was requested at the 827th (February 2003) and 841st meetings (June 2003) respectively.

- 1 case against Poland

H46-3052 27715 Berliński Roman and Sławomir, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

The case concerns in particular the prosecutor's failure to deal with the applicants' request for free legal assistance at the first stage of criminal proceedings. The applicants were deprived of a lawyer for more than a year and were sentenced in 1996 to one and one-and-a-half years’ imprisonment, suspended (violation of Articles 6§§1 and 3c).

General measures: At the 819th meeting (December 2002), publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to all prosecutors were suggested. On 07/02/2003, the Polish delegation informed the Secretariat that the judgment (in Polish translation) had been disseminated to the offices of all public prosecutors attached to appeal courts with a request to communicate it to all public prosecutors and to take it into account in the training of the subordinate prosecutors’ offices. The publication of the judgment has not yet been confirmed.

Sub-section 5.3

- 1 case against Spain

H46-826 56673 Iglesias Gil and A.U.I., judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

The case concern the violation of the applicants’ right to respect of their family life in that national authorities had not made appropriate and sufficient efforts to guarantee respect of Ms Iglesias Gil’s custody rights in respect of her son and the rights of the child to return to her mother (violation of Article 8).

By a decision of 20/121996, Ms Iglesias was given custody of the applicant A.U.I. (born on 07/12/1995). On 01/02/1997, the child was kidnapped by his father and removed from Spanish territory.

Individual measures: On 08/06/2000, the child was returned to his mother.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice, No. 1958 of 01/02/2004. Confirmation of its dissemination to the authorities concerned, as requested at the 854th meeting (October 2003), is still awaited.

SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

No new case

SECTION 6 - CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION:

(See Addendum 6 for part or all these cases)

Action

At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the information available on the measures taken in these cases seemed to allow the preparation of draft resolutions putting an end to their examination by the Committee of Ministers (if necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in an Addendum 6). As regards the cases appearing under sub-section 6.1, the Deputies are invited to examine the new information available with a view to evaluating whether a draft final resolution can be prepared. As regards cases listed under sub-section 6.2, the Deputies are invited to note that the elaboration of a draft final resolution, in cooperation with the Delegation of the respondent State, is under way. In both cases, the Deputies are invited to postpone consideration of these cases to their next meeting.

Sub-section 6.1

Cases in which the new information available since the last examination appears to allow the preparation of a draft final resolution

In principle, no debate is envisaged during the meeting

- 1 case against Austria

H46-3053 37295 Yildiz M., G. and Y., judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

The case concerns a breach of the right to respect for family life of the applicants, Turkish nationals (a married couple and their young child, all living at the time in Austria), due to the residence prohibition imposed on the first applicant, under Article 18 of the 1992 Aliens Act, and to his expulsion in June 1997 to Turkey, following several minor criminal offences committed in Austria (shoplifting, driving offences).

The European Court concluded that although provided in law and pursuing a legitimate aim, the interference in the applicants’ right to respect for their family life was not proportionate and thus not necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 8).

Since March 2001, the first two applicants have divorced. The mother, who is living in Austria, has obtained custody of her daughter and has temporarily left her in Turkey to be cared for by relatives. The father has visiting rights.

Individual measures: The Austrian delegation indicated, by letter of 03/03/2004, that the Austrian Consulate General in Istanbul issued to the first applicant, on 20/02/2004 – the day after his request – a Schengen category “D” visa valid for six months. In addition, the delegation informed the Secretariat of written confirmation by the Ministry of Interior that it will issue a “settlement permission” (Niederlassungsbewilligung) to the applicant, the highest category of residence permit in Austria. The Austrian authorities have also indicated that the applicant’s daughter (who will finish her school-year in Turkey before travelling to Austria) will also be granted, upon request, the same type of visa.

General measures: The Austrian delegation has indicated that former Article 18 of the 1992 Aliens Act was replaced in 1997 by a new Article 36 containing an explicit reference to the provisions of Article 8§2 of the Convention. At the same time, Article 37 of the Act now provides that when adopting a residence prohibition, protection of private and family life has to be duly balanced against the interest of deportation taking due account of elements such as the degree of integration of the person concerned or of his or her family and the strength of existing family or other ties.

It should also be noted that, subsequent to the facts of the case, the Austrian Constitutional Court and Supreme Administrative Court gave direct effect to the judgments of the European Court concerning the expulsion of foreign nationals (see in this respect ResDH(2002)99 concerning the case of Ahmed against Austria).

The publication of the judgment of the European Court in the Österreichische Juristenzeitung has been confirmed.

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

Pre-trial detention – Length of criminal proceedings

H46-656 33977 Ilijkov, judgment of 26/07/01

H46-660 35519 Mihov, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

The applicants in these cases were co-accused in criminal proceedings concerning a fraudulent VAT refund. The cases concern the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand between 1993 and 1997 in view of the insufficient reasons to justify it (violations of Article 5§3). They also concern the non-adversarial nature of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in respect of the applicants’ requests for release (violations of Article 5§4). Finally the Ilijkov case concerns the lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand (violation of Article 5§4) and the overall excessive length of the criminal proceedings (violation of article 6§1).

Sub-section 6.1

General measures: As regards the violations of Article 5§3 (excessive length of the detention on remand) and of Article 5§4 (lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of this detention on remand), these cases present similarities to the Assenov (judgment of 28/10/1998) and Nikolova (judgment of 25/03/1999) cases closed by Resolutions ResDH(2000)109 and ResDH(2000)110, following a legislative reform of criminal procedure which took effect from 01/01/2000.

As regards the violations of Article 5§4 (non-adversarial nature of proceedings before the Supreme Court): The Bulgarian Delegation has indicated that, at the preliminary investigation stage of criminal cases, appeals against pre-trial detention are examined by the competent court in oral hearing, in the presence of the defendant, of his lawyer and the prosecutor (Articles 152a§10 and 152b§9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). At the trial stage, applications for release are also examined in oral hearing, with the participation of the parties (Article 255, modified in 2003, and new Article 268a, adopted in 2003). The trial court’s decision is subject to appeal to the higher court. The latter also examines the appeal in oral hearing with the participation of the parties since, in the absence of specific provisions regulating the procedure before the appeal court, the applicable rules are those of the procedure before the first-instance court (Articles 348§4 and 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

The Delegation provided the Secretariat with two recent interpretative judgments (No. 1 of 25/06/02 and No. 2 of 2002) of the Supreme Court of Cassation and several judgments of domestic courts which refer directly to the Convention and to the European Court's judgments concerning in particular Article 5 and 6 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Bulgarian authorities indicated that a number of ECHR training activities had been organised for the judiciary in 2002 and 2003.

The judgment of the European Court was translated, published on the internet site of the ministry of justice www.mjeli.government.bg and disseminated with a circular to domestic courts.

- 1 case against France

H46-3051 49857 Ottomani, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The proceedings started on 16/06/1992 and ended on 26/11/1998 (more than 6 years and 5 months, more than 4 years of which covered only the investigatory stage).

General measures: The dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to investigating magistrates was requested at the 834th meeting (April 2003). However, in the meantime, the French delegation stated in the case of Etcheveste and Bidart (See sub-section 3.a) that certain measures had been adopted in order to avoid new cases of excessive length of criminal proceedings and in particular of the investigatory stage. In particular, as from the entry into force of Law No. 2000-516 of 15/06/2000, judicial inquiries are subject to a proceedings schedule and new rights have been granted to parties to avoid extension of proceedings.

- 1 case against Greece

H46-689 54589 Anagnostopoulos, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the fact that, during criminal proceedings in which the applicant had claimed damages in 1994, the delay with which the relevant authorities examined the case caused the prosecution of the offences to become time-barred and, consequently, made it impossible for the applicant to have his compensation claim determined before the criminal courts (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicant is entitled to introduce his claims for compensation before the civil courts.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official web site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to prosecution authorities. In addition, other legislative and administrative measures were adopted: Law 3160/2003 (in force on 30/06/2003), amending the Code of Criminal Procedure to accelerate criminal proceedings before prosecution authorities as well as before criminal courts; more judges and court administrative staff; computerisation of courts.

Sub-section 6.1

- 1 case against Italy

H46-3055 43522 Grava, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

The case concerns the unlawful detention of the applicant, in 1998 for 2 months and 4 days, as the judicial decision granting him the remission of sentence to which he was entitled by law was pronounced too late, after his release (violation of Article 5§1a).

Individual measures: The Italian authorities have indicated that the applicant is entitled, under domestic law, to request compensation for the illegal detention suffered.

General measures: The violation found in this case resulted from a wrongful implementation by the courts of the provisions concerning remission of sentence. The interpretation of these provisions was later clarified by the Court of Cassation in a judgment of May 1998. Furthermore, the judgment of the European Court was published in Italian in the Official Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice, No. 1 of 15/01/2004, p. 7.

- 1 case against Liechtenstein

H46-769 28396 Wille, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression on the grounds that the Head of State of Liechtenstein, His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II, informed him, in a letter of 27/02/1995, that he would not appoint him to public office on account of certain constitutional views the applicant had expressed during a conference (violation of Article 10). The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy to defend his reputation and to seek protection of his personal rights to challenge the action taken by the Prince with regard to the opinion expressed on the occasion of his lecture (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: No question has arisen on this issue in the present case.

General measures: The measures adopted by the authorities of Liechtenstein may be summarised as follows. As to the question of the existence of an effective remedy, the State Court Act was modified on 27/11/2003 (entry into force: 20/01/2004) in order to clarify the competence of the State Court to hear cases of alleged violations of the Convention by any public authority. Article 15 of the new State Court Act introduces a clear individual right to a remedy before the State Court to review the conformity with the Convention of any exercise of state power (öffentliche Gewalt), including powers exercised by the Prince. This understanding of Article 15 is confirmed by the explanatory notes to the Act (report on the bill prepared by the Government). There is no contradiction between this provision and Article 7§2 of the Constitution, concerning the Prince’s immunity; the latter concerns only the person of the Prince, but not his acts. Furthermore, the Court’s case-law has direct effect in Liechtenstein and the judgment of the European Court was published in German in the Liechtensteinische Juristen-Zeitung, December 2000 edition.

- 1 case against Spain

H46-647 45238 Perote Pellon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

The case concerns the lack of objective impartiality of a military court in that two of the judges sitting on the court which judged the applicant, the president and the rapporteur, had been involved in several investigatory procedures including the confirmation of the applicant’s indictment at appeal, the extension of his detention on remand and the rejection of his súplica appeal against this decision (violation of Article 6§1).

A chamber of the central military court, in a judgment dated 09/07/1997, sentenced the applicant to 7 years’ imprisonment for the crime of revealing secrets or information concerning national security or defence and cashiered him from the army. On 15/04/1999 he was released on parole having served three quarters of his sentence.

Sub-section 6.1

Individual measures: The applicant has not submitted any request in this respect.

General measures: By letter of 21/07/2003, the Spanish authorities sent the Secretariat the new law (No. 9/2003) amending that of 1987 on the competence and organisation of military courts. The law governs inter alia the rules concerning the composition of the military courts. In particular, the bench sitting at appeal was reduced from 5 to 3 members so as to exclude the possibility that a judge who sat at first instance could be included on the appeal bench.

Furthermore, the Court’s judgment has been published in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice, No. 1955 of 15/12/2003 and has been widely covered by the media. Its translation has been transmitted to all competent constitutional and judicial authorities.

- 1 case against the Russian Federation

H46-824 63486 Posokhov, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

The case concerns the unlawful composition of the Neklinovski District Court (Rostov region) due to the authorities' failure to observe the provisions of the Lay Judges Act, which require the setting up of a list of lay judges by elected local authorities, the selection of these judges at random from this list and the two-week maximum length of service. The European Court considered that this court could not be considered as established according to law because the above-mentioned act was not respected and particularly because no list of lay judges had been drawn up prior to February 2000 (violation of Article 6§1).

While the applicant was found guilty by this aforementioned court in 2000, he was immediately dispensed of serving his sentence. Subsequently, the original conviction was quashed as time-barred.

General measures: The new Code of Criminal Procedure, which entered into force on 01/07/2002, repealed the Lay Judges Act of 10/01/2000. In accordance with the transitional provisions of the new Code, lay judges could sit in criminal cases only until 01/01/2004.

As a provisional measure ensure implementation of this judgment of the European Court, on 17/04/2003, the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court sent to the chairmen of all domestic courts a circular drawing their attention to the Court’s findings and drawing their attention to the need to secure compliance with rules on participation of lay judges in criminal trials until 01/01/2004.

On 10/10/2003, the Plenum of the Supreme Court adopted a decision concerning the application by the courts of common jurisdiction of the principles and norms of international law and international treaties entered into by the Russian Federation. In particular, while referring to Article 47 of the Russian Constitution and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in this decision it is reiterated that the composition of courts should in each civil and/or criminal case be established by law.

The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published in Rossijskaia Gazeta on 08/07/2003.

- 2 cases against Turkey

H46-937 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00

The case relates to a disproportionate interference in the applicant’s freedom of expression, on account of her conviction in 1994 by the Istanbul State Security Court following the publication of an article in the weekly review of which she was the owner and editor. The applicant was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment and a fine of TRL 50 000 000 under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law. In September 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to defer the imposition of a final sentence on the applicant on condition that she did not commit any further offence as an editor within 3 years (violation of Article 10).

The case also concerns the unfairness of the proceedings resulting in the applicant’s conviction in that the presence of a military judge could cast doubts on the independence and impartiality of the Security Court (violation of Article 6§1).

Sub-section 6.1

Individual measures: The applicant does not suffer from the consequences of her conviction since Law No. 4928 of 19/07/2003 abrogated Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Law. In a letter of 01/12/2003 the Turkish authorities stated that the applicant’s convictions had been erased from her criminal record. (Article 8 of Law on Criminal Records (as amended by Law No. 4778) provides that any information on criminal records shall be erased when an offence is de-criminalised). As regards procedures initiated under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law prior to its abrogation, Law No. 4928 provides that preliminary prosecutions shall be discontinued; that persons arrested shall be released and that cases pending for decision or for execution shall be urgently examined by the competent courts in conformity with the principle set by Article 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege).

General measures: Article 8 of Anti-Terrorism Law which prohibited written and spoken propaganda, meetings, assemblies and demonstrations aimed at undermining the territorial integrity of the Republic or the indivisible unity of the nation was abrogated by Law no. 4928 of 19/07/2003. Concerning the independence and impartiality of State Security Courts, this case presents similarities to that of Çıraklar against Turkey (judgment of 28/10/1998), which was closed by a final resolution (DH(99)555) following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

H46-943 27307 Bayrak Mehmet, judgment of 03/09/02 - Friendly settlement

This case concerns allegedly unjustified interferences in the applicant’s freedom of expression, on account of his three convictions under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law by the Ankara State Security Court in 1994 following publication of three books (complaint under Article 10).

Individual measures: In November 2003 the Ankara State Security Court ordered the erasure of the applicant’s convictions from the criminal record following the abrogation of Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law. (Article 8 of Law on Criminal Records (as amended by Law No. 4778) provides that any information on the criminal records shall be erased when an offence is de-criminalised). As regards procedures initiated under Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law prior to its abrogation, Law No. 4928 provides that preliminary prosecutions shall be discontinued; that persons arrested shall be released and that cases pending for decision or for execution shall be urgently examined by the competent courts in conformity with the principle set by Article 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege).

General measures: Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law, which prohibited written and spoken propaganda, meetings, assemblies and demonstrations aimed at undermining the territorial integrity of the Republic or the indivisible unity of the nation was abrogated by Law No. 4928 of 19/07/2003.

Sub-section 6.1

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-951 44652 Beckles, judgment of 08/10/02, final on 08/01/03

The case concerns a violation of the right to a fair hearing in that the trial judge had indicated in his direction to the jury that it was at liberty to draw an adverse inference from the applicant’s silence during police interviews, without however giving appropriate weight to the applicant’s explanation according to which he had been advised by his solicitor to remain silent (violation of Article 6§1).

In 1997, the applicant was sentenced to 15 year’ imprisonment.

Individual measures: The applicant can ask for the reexamination of the case by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

General Measures: Following the judgment of the European Court in the case of Condron against the United Kingdom (judgment of 02/05/2000) the domestic case-law evolved towards strengthening the right to silence of the accused persons. The specimen direction published by the Judicial Studies Board in 2001, which provides guidelines for judges when directing the jury on the inferences that can be drawn from the silence of an accused person, refer specifically to the situation when legal advice is relied upon to justify silence. The direction indicates, inter alia, that no conclusions should be drawn against the defendant if the jury considered that he had or may have had an answer to give, but reasonably relied on the legal advice to remain silent.

The judgment of the European Court has been published at (2003) 36 EHRR 162.

Sub-section 6.2

Cases waiting for the presentation of a draft final resolution

- 27 cases against Austria

H46-3056 57080 Pokorny, judgment of 16/12/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3057 35021+ Kolb and others, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-3058 24430 Lanz, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 31/04/02

H46-3059 36757 Jakupovic, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/23

H46-3060 36519 Petschar, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3061 45330+ S.L., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-3062 34994 Walter, judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H32-3063 17291 Hortolomei, Interim Resolution DH(99)28

H46-3064 37950 Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

H46-3065 38237 Sailer, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

H46-3066 38275 W.F., judgment of 30/05/02, final on 30/08/02

H32-3067 26113 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H., Interim Resolution DH(98)378

H46-3068 25878 Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00

H46-3069 28501 Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-3070 33501 Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-3071 29477 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-3072 32899 Buchberger, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-3073 39392+ L. and V., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-3074 49455 Gollner, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-3075 33505 H.E., judgment of 11/07/02, final on 06/11/02

H46-3076 38536 Schreder, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-3077 31266 G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-3078 26297 G.S., judgment of 21/12/99

H46-3079 35019 Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-3080 37075 Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

H46-3081 33915 Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01

H46-3082 42032 Widmann, judgment of 19/06/03, final on 19/09/03

- 3 cases against Belgium

H54-3083 17849 S.A. Pressos Compania Naviera and others, judgment of 20/11/95, Interim Resolution DH(99)724

H54-3084 25357 Aerts, judgment of 30/07/98

H46-3085 49497 Teret, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03 – Striking-out

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

H46-3086 32438 Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-3087 29221 Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

Sub-section 6.2

- 1 case against Croatia

H46-3088 62912 Benzan, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-3089 29515 Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

- 6 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-3090 40226 Červeňáková and others, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3091 36541 Bucheň, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46-3092 33071 Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-3093 33644 Český, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00

H46-3094 31315 Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00

H46-3095 35848 Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

- 2 cases against Denmark

H46-3096 48470 Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-3097 56811 Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

- 11 cases against Finland

H46-3099 37801 Suominen, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 22/07/03

H46-3100 52529 Hyvönen, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3101 31611 Nikula, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-3102 49684 Hirvisaari, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-3103 28856 Jokela, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 21/08/02

H46-3104 31764 K.P., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 05/09/01

H46-3105 29346 K.S., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-3106 25702 K. and T., judgment of 12/07/01 – Grand Chamber

H46-3107 30013 Türkiye iş Bankasi, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

H46-3108 35999 Pietiläinen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 27/01/03

H46-3109 42059 Eerola, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

- 109 cases against France

H46-3110 36677 SA Dangeville, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-3111 34000 DuRoy and Malaurie, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-3112 47160 Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

H32-3113 26242 Lemoine Pierre, Interim Resolution DH(99)353

H32-3114 31409 Riccobono, Interim Resolution DH(99)557

H46-3115 37786 Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

Sub-section 6.2

H46-3116 24846 Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 –

Grand Chamber

H32-3117 26984 Picard, Interim Resolution DH(99)30

H46-3118 25803 Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99- Grand Chamber

H46-3119 34406 Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-3120 25088 Chassagnou and others, judgment of 29/04/99

H54-3121 25017 Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

H32-3122 27019 Slimane-Kaïd I

H54-3123 23618 Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

H32-3124 27413 Cazes, Interim Resolution DH(99)31

H46-3125 25444 Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

H46-3126 31819+ Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46-3127 42195 Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

H32-3128 27659 Ferville, Interim Resolution DH(99)254

H32-3129 28845 Venot, Interim Resolution DH(2000)19

H46-3130 29507 Slimane-Kaïd II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00

H46-3131 27362 Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

H54-3132 14032 Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

H32-3133 17572 A.C.

H54-3134 25201 Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-3135 34791 Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-3136 53613 Goth, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

H54-3137 24767 Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-3138 31070 Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

H32-3139 20282 G.B. I

H32-3140 23321 Delbec I, Interim Resolution DH(98)15

H46-3141 32911+ Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/02 - Grand Chamber

H46-3142 45019 Pascolini, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-3143 53118 Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-3144 44069 G.B. II, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

H46-3145 39626 Granata, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-3146 51434 Granata No. 2, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-3147 35589 Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-3148 50267 Kornblum, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

H46-3149 41943 L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3150 47575 Marks and Ordinateur Express, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H32-3151 29877 Pauchet and others - Interim Resolution DH(98)100

H46-3152 44952+ Van der Kar and Lissaur Van West, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-165 56927 Appietto, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-687 42277 Jussy, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

H46-3153 39273 Vermeersch, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

H54-3154 36313 Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-3155 36317 Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-3156 32217 Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

H54-3157 33441 Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

H46-3158 48215 Lutz, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H32-3159 31842 Darmagnac Pierre V, Interim Resolution DH(98)388

H46-3160 42189 H.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3161 40493 Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-3162 42276 Julien Lucien, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-3163 57753 C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

Sub-section 6.2

H46-3164 44211 Lacombe, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-3165 43288 Mahieu, judgment of 19/06/01

H32-3166 25309 Maljean, Interim Resolution DH(97)239

H46-3167 47007 Arnal, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-3168 51575 Baillard, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-3169 44617 Leray and others, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-3170 46708 Zaheg, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-3171 37565 Sapl, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-3172 54367 Bufferne, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-3173 43719 Scotti, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-3174 58600 Benhaim, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

H46-3175 49544 Butel, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-3176 50368 Heidecker-Carpentier, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-3177 43969 Kroliczek, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-3178 39282 Laidin Monique No. 2, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

H46-3179 48954 Traore, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-3180 46215 Faivre, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-3181 52116 Vieziez, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-3182 57115 Bouilly, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-3183 62274 Jarlan, judgment of 15/04/03, final on 15/07/03

H46-3184 46022 Loyen No. 2, judgment of 30/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3185 63056 Mustafa, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-3186 59153 Plot, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-3187 45256 Richeux, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03

H46-3188 55007 SCI Boumois, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-3189 60955 Seidel No. 2, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-3190 46659 Verrerie de Biot S.A., judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

H46-3191 43543 Loyen René, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Conseil d’Etat

H46-3192 38249 Arvois, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

H46-3193 28660 Ballestra, judgment of 12/12/00, final on 12/03/01

H46-3194 33207 Blaisot C. and M., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-3195 36932 Caillot, judgment of 04/06/99, final on 04/09/99

H46-3196 42401 Camps, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 09/04/01

H46-3197 54757 Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-3198 41449 Durrand I, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-3199 42038 Durrand II, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-3200 54596 Epoux Goletto, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

H46-3201 30979 Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00

H46-3202 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/02,

final on 14/08/02

H46-3203 44066 Grass, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-3204 41001 Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

H46-3205 37387 Lambourdiere, judgment of 02/08/00, final on 02/11/00

H46-3206 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 10/07/02

H32-3207 32510 Peter, Interim Resolution DH(99)132

H46-3208 33989 Thery, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-3209 38042 Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

H46-172 50342 Sanglier, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

H32-3210 39966 De Cantelar, Interim Resolution DH(2000)86

H46-3211 38398 Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

H46-3212 47194 Leboeuf, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-3213 44791 Marcel, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

Sub-section 6.2

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-3214 44070 Beljanski, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3215 33951 Caloc, judgment of 20/07/00

- 5 cases against Germany

H46-3216 46544 Kutzner, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 10/07/02

H46-3217 30943 Sahin, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

H46-3218 37928 Stambuk, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

H46-3219 39547 Niederböster, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

H46-3220 33900 P.S., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 04/09/02

- 47 cases against Greece

H46-3221 50776+ Agga No. 2, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

H46-3222 47734 Adamogiannis, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46-3223 46356 Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H54-3224 19233+ Tsirlis and Kouloumpas, judgment of 29/05/97

H54-3225 24348 Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97

H54-3226 23372+ Larissis and others, judgment of 24/02/98

H54-3227 18748 Manoussakis and others, judgment of 25/09/96

H46-3228 38178 Serif, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-3229 34369 Thlimmenos, judgment of 06/04/00

H46-3230 37098 Antonakopoulos, Vortsela and Antonakopoulou, judgment of 14/12/99,

final on 21/03/00

H54-3231 21522 Georgiadis Anastasios, judgment of 29/05/97

H46-3232 41209 Georgiadis Dimitrios, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H32-3233 34373 Goutsos, Interim Resolution DH(99)558

H54-3234 18357 Hornsby, judgment of 19/03/97

H46-3235 31107 Iatridis, judgments of 25/03/99 and 19/10/00 (Article 41) – Grand Chamber

H46-3236 53478 Sajtos, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H32-3237 32397 Sinnesael, Interim Resolution DH(99)130

H46-3238 43622 Malama, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 05/09/01 and judgment of 18/04/02

(Article 41), final on 18/07/02

H46-3239 25701 Former king of Greece, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini, judgment of 23/11/00 and judgment of 28/11/02 (Article 41) - Grand Chamber

H46-3240 64825 Halatas, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-3241 30342 Academy Trading Ltd and others, judgment of 04/04/00

H46-3242 40434 Kosmopolis S. A., judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

H46-3243 56625 Koumoutsea, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

H46-3244 46380 LSI Information Technologies, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-3245 52464 Papadopoulos Georgios, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 21/05/03

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-3246 42079 E.H., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46-3247 41459 Fatourou, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46-3248 41867 Messochoritis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H54-3249 20323 Pafitis and others, judgment of 26/02/98

H46-3250 38971 Protopapa and Marangou, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

Sub-section 6.2

H46-3251 38704 Savvidou, judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

H32-3252 34569 Société anonyme Dimitrios Koutsoumbos, société technique, commerciale and touristique, Interim Resolution DH(99)271

H46-3253 47891 Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-3254 49215 Angelopoulos, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-3255 46806 Sakellaropoulos, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-3256 40437 Tsingour, judgment of 06/07/00, final on 06/10/00

H46-3257 38459 Varipati, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/01/00

H46-3258 55611 Xenopoulos, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-3259 62530 Vitaliotou, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-3260 37439 Agga, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-3261 56599 Ipsilanti, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

H46-3262 52848 Papadopoulos Ioannis, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-3263 55753 Papazafiris, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

H54-3264 19773 Philis 2, judgment of 27/06/97

H54-3265 28523 Portington, judgment of 23/09/98

H32-3266 32857 Stamoulakatos Nicholas I, Interim Resolution DH(99)49

H32-3267 24453 Tarighi Wageh Dashti

- 13 cases against Italy

H46-3268 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00

H46-3269 33993 Messina No. 3, judgment of 24/10/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-3270 41221 Troiani Marcello II, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 10/07/02

H46-3271 31227 Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

H32-3272 16609 Intrieri, Interim Resolution DH(97)50

H54-3273 14025 Zubani, judgments of 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

H46-3274 34896 Craxi II, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

H46-3275 40877 Cordova Agostino No. 1, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-3276 45649 Cordova Agostino No. 2, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-3277 43269 Leoni, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-3278 33354 Lucà, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-3279 30882 Pellegrini Maria Grazia, judgment of 20/07/01, final on 20/10/01

H46-3280 30127 Sciortino, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 27/03/02

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-3281 50108 Kulakova, judgment of 18/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 10 cases against Lithuania

H46-3282 48297 Butkevičius, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H46-3283 37975 Graužinis, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-3284 36743 Grauslys, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-3285 34578 Jėčius, judgment of 31/07/00

H46-3286 47679 Stašaitis, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-3287 42095 Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01

H46-3288 44558 Valašinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-3289 44800 Puzinas, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46-3290 55479 Šlezěvičius, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-3291 47698 Birutis and others, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

Sub-section 6.2

- 3 cases against Malta

H46-3292 25642 Aquilina, judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-3293 25644 T.W., judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-3294 35892 Sabeur Ben Ali, judgment of 29/06/00, final on 29/09/00

- 10 cases against the Netherlands

H46-3295 25989 Van Vlimmeren and Van Ilverenbeek, judgment of 26/09/00

H46-3296 32605 Rutten, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-3297 31465 Sen, judgment of 21/12/01, final on 21/03/02

H32-3298 14084 R.V. and others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

H46-3299 28369 Camp and Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-3300 29192 Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-3301 31725 Köksal, judgment of 20/03/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-3302 33258 Holder, judgment of 05/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-3303 34549 Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

H46-3304 26668 Visser, judgment of 14/02/02

- 3 cases against Norway

H46-3305 30287 Hammern, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-3306 29327 O., judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-3307 56568 Y., judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

- 30 cases against Poland

H46-3308 37774 P.K., judgment of 06/11/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3309 6901 Sagan, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3310 61888 Wysocka-Cysarz, judgment of 01/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3311 29537+ Radaj, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

H46-3312 35489 Sałapa, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-3313 38670 Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

H46-3314 33310 H.D., judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-3315 24244 Migoń, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

H46-3316 32499 Z.R., judgment of 15/01/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-3317 25874 Kawka, judgment of 09/01/01

H46-3318 55106 Górka, judgment of 05/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-3319 67165 Sędek, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3320 71891 Hałka and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

H46-3321 64120 Niziuk, judgment of 15/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-3322 45288 Ciągadlak, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 01/10/03

H46-3323 31382 Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-3324 71621 Chudyba, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3325 58780 Dragan, judgment of 15/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3326 73009 Górecka, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3327 53551 Godlewski, judgment of 08/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3328 49033 Janowski No. 2, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 6.2

H46-3329 75098 Kledzik, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3330 76158 M.M. and E.M.M., judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3331 72662 Mazurkiewicz Piotr, judgment of 14/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3332 8205 Mikulska, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3333 71009 Nowakowski, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3334 45957 Pawlinkowska, judgment of 08/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3335 57465 Pieniążek Krzysztof, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3336 67162 Skóra, judgment of 01/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3337 75929 Szymański, judgment of 21/10/03 - Friendly settlement

- 6 cases against Portugal

H46-20 53793 Morais Sarmento, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-3338 44872 Magalhães Pereira, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-3339 29813+ Almeida Garret, Mascarenhas Falcao and others, judgment of 11/01/00

and judgment of 10/04/01

H46-3340 37698 Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

H54-3341 15777 Matos and Silva and 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

H46-3342 33290 Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

- 3 cases against Romania

H54-3343 27053 Vasilescu, judgment of 22/05/98, Interim Resolution DH(99)676

H54-3344 27273 Petra, judgment of 23/09/98

H32-3345 32922 C.C.M.C., Interim Resolution DH(99)333

- 2 cases against San Marino

- Cases concerning the unfairness of criminal proceedings

H46-3346 36451 De Biagi, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-3347 34657 Forcellini, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

- 23 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-3348 24530 Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-3349 29032 Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

H46-3350 32686 Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

H46-3351 41384 Varga, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-3352 72022 Bóna, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-3353 69145 Sika, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-3354 34753 Jóri, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-3355 40058 Gajdúšek, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-3356 47804 Havala, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-3357 39752 Matoušková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-3358 48672 Nemec and others, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-3359 40345 Stančiak, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H46-3360 44965 Molnárová and Kochanová, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

H46-3361 38794 J.K., judgment of 23/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-3362 62171 Lancz, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 6.2

H46-3363 41783 Polovka, judgment of 21/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3364 46843 Remšíková, judgment of 17/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-3365 65640 Rotrekl, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3366 63999 Rusnáková, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3367 56452 Nezbeda, judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3368 62191 Sisák, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3369 57985 Slovák II, judgment of 03/06/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-3370 43377 Žiačik, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

- 2 cases against Slovenia

H46-3371 29462 Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

H46-3372 28400 Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

- 11 cases against Switzerland

H46-3374 33958 Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-3375 27798 Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

H54-3376 23224 Kopp, judgment of 25/03/98

H46-3377 54273 Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

H46-3378 33499 Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-3379 27426 G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-3380 28256 M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H32-3381 27613 P.B., Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)83

H54-3382 19800 R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678

H54-3383 20919 E.L., R.L. and O.-L., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)111

H54-3384 19958 A.P., M.P. and T.P., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)110

- 66 cases against Turkey

H46-3385 40035 Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00

H46-3386 37021 Avcı Zeynep, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-3387 30944 Öcal, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-3388 29295+ Ecer and Zeyrek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-3389 34686 Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-3390 29495 Erdemli, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/10/01

H46-3391 24669 Karataş and Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-3392 31249 Gündüz and others, judgment of 14/11/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-3393 25144 Sadak Selim and others, judgment of 11/06/02, final on 06/11/02

- Length of the detention on remand / on custody

H46-461 41000 Bektaş, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-463 39446 Köroğlu, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-464 39447 Kovankaya, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3394 25756 Dalkılıç, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

H46-3395 34481 Filiz and Kalkan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-3396 31850 Günay and others, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-3397 31877 Gündoğan Halil, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

Sub-section 6.2

H46-3398 29296 İğdeli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-3399 24737+ Satık, Camlı, Satık and Maraşlı, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-3400 29863 Barut, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3401 36971 Kuray, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-3402 36203 Temel and others, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3403 34684 Yolcu, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- Action of the Turkish security forces

H46-3404 31882 Çakmak, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-3405 31849 İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-3406 31733 Tuncay and Ozlem Kaya, judgment of 08/11/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-3407 28505 Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-3408 28011 Yeşiltepe, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

- Independence and impartiality of the State security courts

H46-3409 27696 Yalçın Halit, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3410 41316 Atça and others, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

H46-3411 45672 Dertli and others, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-3412 50102 Işık, judgment of 05/06/03, final on 05/09/03

H46-3413 44272 Kaya Orhan, judgment of 05/06/03, final on 05/09/03

H46-3414 28018 Kaya Yusuf, judgment of 24/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3415 43818 N.K., judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03, rectified on 18/02/03

H46-3416 59659 Özdemir Tekin, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

H46-3417 42739 Özel Yaşar, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46-3418 40999 Yurtdaş and İnci, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

H46-3419 29851 Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-3420 31880 Adıyaman, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3421 32964 Akçam, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3422 33362 Akyazı, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3423 29280 Başpınar, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3424 29913 Binbir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3425 26480 Bürkev, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3426 29912 Çilengir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3427 32981 Dede and others, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-3428 29699 Dinleten, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3429 31891 Genç, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3430 39428 İnan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3431 28291 Kanbur, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3432 32990 Karademir, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3433 32987 Keskin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3434 29360 Ketenoğlu Gülşen and Ketenoğlu Halil Yasin, judgment of 25/09/01,

final on 25/12/01

H46-3435 29700 Metinoğlu, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3436 29701 Özcan Süleyman, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3437 31960 Pekdaş, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3438 39810 Ramazanoğlu, judgment of 10/06/03, final on 10/09/03

H46-3439 31961 Şahin Metin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46-3440 29702 Sarıtaç, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3441 29911 Uygur, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3442 31834 Yağız Hasan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-3443 29703 Zülal, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-3444 32984 Alfatli Ali and others, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-3445 31879 Değirmenci and others, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 6.2

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-3446 29921 Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

- Delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46-3447 35983 Gür, judgment of 24/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- 24 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-3448 32771 Cuscani, judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

H46-3449 39393 M.G., judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

H46-3450 39197 Foley, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-3451 36533 Atlan A. and T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H46-3452 48521 Armstrong, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

H46-3453 24724 T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-3454 24888 V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-3455 45276 Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H54-3456 24839 Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

H32-3457 26109 Santa Cruz Ruiz, Interim Resolution DH(99)131

H46-3458 28901 Rowe and Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

H46-3459 35718 Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

H46-3460 33274 Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

H46-3461 39360 S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H54-3462 20605 Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Interim Resolution DH(1999)725

H46-3463 36670 Duyonov and others, judgment of 02/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-3464 32340 Curley, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-3465 37471 William Faulkner, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-3466 52770 Brown, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- Interference in private life due to covert police surveillance

H46-3467 63831 Chalkley, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03

H46-3468 35394 Khan, judgment of 12/05/00, final on 05/10/00

H32-3469 27237 Govell, Interim Resolution DH(98)212

H46-3470 44787 P.G. and J.H., judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46-3471 47114 Taylor-Sabori, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

c. PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING
(885th MEETING, 1-2 June 2004)

(See Addendum Preparation of the next meeting)

Action

The Deputies are invited to approve the preliminary lists of items to be examined at the next DH meeting, which appears in Addendum Preparation of the next meeting to the present annotated agenda and order of business.

879th meeting (DH) – 5 and 6 April 2004

APPENDIX 1

879th METING OF THE MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES

(Strasbourg, 5 and 6 April 2004 – DH)

APPENDIX TO THE ANNOTATED AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS

Global list of Italian cases of length of proceedings (Section 4.3)[212]

- 2180 cases against Italy

(CM/Inf(98)29, CM/Inf(98)40, CM/Inf(99)37, CM/Inf(2000)40, CM/Inf(2000)40-Add, CM/Inf(2001)37 and CM/Inf(2002)47 and Addendum and Addendum 2)

Interim Resolutions DH(97)336, DH(99)436, DH(99)437 and ResDH(2000)135)

- 1567 cases before the civil courts

H32-971 26017 A. and B.T., Interim Resolution DH(96)479

H32-972 40581 A. and M.B., Interim Resolution DH(99)564

H32-973 35284 A. L.M., Interim Resolution DH(99)565

H32-974 31643 A., G., C. and M.B., Interim Resolution DH(97)611

H32-975 36653 A., M., R. and R.Z., Interim Resolution DH(99)133

H32-976 27194 A.A. and L.M., Interim Resolution DH(97)22

H32-977 24166 A.A. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)471

H32-978 26021 A.A. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)478

H32-979 29135 A.A. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)365

H32-980 35296 A.A. IV, Interim Resolution DH(98)391

H32-981 26829 A.A.Q. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)615

H32-982 26846 A.B. IV, Interim Resolution DH(96)616

H32-983 37874+ A.B., E.F. and C.C., Interim Resolution DH(98)392

H32-984 30097 A.C. and C.R., Interim Resolution DH(97)444

H32-985 26036 A.C. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)480

H32-986 23588 A.C. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)559

H32-987 27985 A.C. V, Interim Resolution DH(97)159

H32-988 38148 A.C. VI, Interim Resolution DH(99)272

H46-257 44481 A.C. VII, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-989 26418 A.F. IV, Interim Resolution DH(96)521

H32-990 35334 A.F. V, Interim Resolution DH(98)393

H32-991 18067 A.G. I

H32-992 36627 A.G. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)134

H32-993 39129 A.G. III, Interim Resolution DH(99)474

H32-994 26413 A.I. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)522

H32-995 35304 A.I. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)394

H32-996 29668 A.M. IV, Interim Resolution DH(97)424

H32-997 31640 A.M. A., Interim Resolution DH(97)612

H32-998 31352 A.M. L., Interim Resolution DH(97)613

H32-999 26424 A.M. R., Interim Resolution DH(96)523

H32-1000 38488 A.P. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)370

H46-1001 35265 A.P. II, judgment of 28/07/99

H32-1002 16480 A.R.

H46-261 48412 Ar.M., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1003 24022 A.S., A.T. and M.S., Interim Resolution DH(95)262

H32-1004 25999 A.T. IV, Interim Resolution DH(96)481

H32-1005 27165 A.T. V, Interim Resolution DH(97)23

H32-1006 24023 A.V., Interim Resolution DH(95)263

H46-1007 40947 Abbate Giuseppe, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-1008 28730 Abrami, Interim Resolution DH(97)246

H32-1009 26842 Adamo Antonia, Interim Resolution DH(96)617

H46-1010 40944 Adamo Nino Andrea, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-258 46515 Adriani, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1011 39882 Adrignola A., G., and P., Interim Resolution DH(99)566

H32-1012 34854 Agnello, Interim Resolution DH(98)395

H46-1013 40963 Aiello, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-1014 44392 Albergamo, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 10/07/02

H46-1015 49316 Albertosi, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1016 29158 Albertosi, Interim Resolution DH(97)298

H32-1017 38519 Albini, Interim Resolution DH(99)371

H32-1018 40617 Alborghetti et Brivio S., E., M.C., and R., Interim Resolution DH(99)567

H46-1019 45078 Aldo Tripodi, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H32-1020 24033 Alessandrini, Interim Resolution DH(95)264

H46-1021 49371 Alfonsetti, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1022 44383 Alicino, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1023 34838 Allegranzi, Interim Resolution DH(98)329

H46-1024 51651 Allegri, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1025 19752 Aloe

H46-259 46964 Alpites S.P.A., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-1026 45084 Altamura, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H32-1027 34234 Altieri and Cifani, Interim Resolution DH(98)225

H32-1028 27459 Aluffi, Interim Resolution DH(97)169

H46-1029 49353 Am. M. and S.I., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1030 37132 Amato, Interim Resolution DH(99)234

H32-1031 27495 Ambiveri and Arnoldi, Interim Resolution DH(97)91

H32-1032 26039 American Eagle S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(96)482

H32-1033 27982 Amighetti and Jolly Moto S.N.C., Interim Resolution DH(97)156

H46-1034 52979 An.M., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1035 29155 Andreoletti, Interim Resolution DH(97)299

H32-1036 31635 Anfosso, Interim Resolution DH(97)614

H32-1037 34841 Angeli, Interim Resolution DH(98)330

H32-1038 24162 Angelone and Celeste, Interim Resolution DH(96)472

H46-260 47785 Angemi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1039 40604 Annibale, Interim Resolution DH(99)568

H32-1040 28592 Annunziata, Interim Resolution DH(99)51

H32-1041 26444 Antognelli, Interim Resolution DH(96)524

H46-1042 46993 Antonini C. and A., judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-1043 26836 Antonini V. and I., Interim Resolution DH(96)618

H32-1044 24796 Antoniotti, Interim Resolution DH(96)38

H32-1045 27452 Aprile, Interim Resolution DH(97)51

H46-1046 45881 AR.GE.A S.n.c. en liquidation, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-1047 24163 Archimede, Interim Resolution DH(96)224

H46-262 46958 Ardemagni and Ripa, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-1048 44628 Aresu, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-1049 46987 Arienzo, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-1050 29720 Arlistico, Interim Resolution DH(97)547

H46-1051 38098 Arnò, judgment of 09/11/99

H46-1052 51671 Arrigoni, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1053 20046 Arruzzolo

H32-1054 38138 Artefice, Interim Resolution DH(99)273

H32-1055 30099 Artuso Maria Nicoletta, Interim Resolution DH(97)445

H32-1056 39900 Artuso Paolo

H32-1057 28383 Ass. Consumatori San Gregorio, Interim Resolution DH(98)161

H46-1058 56084 At.M., judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-1059 44456 Atzori, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1060 38520 Ausiello Pasquale, Interim Resolution DH(99)372

H32-1061 30094 Ausilio, Interim Resolution DH(97)446

H32-1062 39137 Avallone

H32-1063 28729 Avellani, Interim Resolution DH(97)247

H32-1064 25287 Azzarà, Interim Resolution DH(96)483

H32-1065 29129 B.A. S., Interim Resolution DH(97)300

H32-1066 26849 B.M., Interim Resolution DH(96)619

H32-1067 35940 B.Z., Interim Resolution DH(99)52

H32-1068 39119 Baffoni, Interim Resolution DH(99)476

H32-1069 28727 Baglietto, Interim Resolution DH(97)248

H32-1070 40587 Bagnarelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)570

H46-1071 44433 Bagnetti and Bellini, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1072 51678 Baioni and Badini, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1073 26410 Bakovic, Interim Resolution DH(96)525

H32-1074 37135 Balderi, Interim Resolution DH(99)135

H46-1075 49362 Baldi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1076 47001 Baldini, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-1077 34852 Balzani, Interim Resolution DH(98)331

H32-1078 27964 Baracchini, Interim Resolution DH(97)142

H32-1079 38101 Baranelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)274

H32-1080 35294 Barbagiovanni Gasparo, Interim Resolution DH(98)396

H32-1081 39117 Barbarino I, Interim Resolution DH(99)477

H32-1082 39142 Barbarino II, Interim Resolution DH(99)478

H46-1083 38109 Bargagli, judgment of 09/11/99

H46-1084 49377 Barnaba, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1085 52987 Barone Antonio and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-1086 49369 Baroni and Michinelli, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1087 34268 Barraco, Interim Resolution DH(98)226

H32-1088 38507 Bartolini I, Interim Resolution DH(99)373

H32-1089 39895 Bartolini II, Interim Resolution DH(99)571

H46-1090 44458 Bartolini III, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1091 29662 Bartolucci, Interim Resolution DH(97)526

H32-1092 35342 Basile Bernardo Domenico, Interim Resolution DH(98)397

H32-1093 34863 Basile and Perazza, Interim Resolution DH(98)317

H32-1094 26011 Basile Rocco Antonio and Nicolò, Interim Resolution DH(96)484

H46-1095 40928 Battistelli, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-1096 34260 Baudone, Interim Resolution DH(98)227

H32-1097 35921 Bazzea, Interim Resolution DH(99)53

H46-1098 49315 Bazzoni, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1099 39128 Bedin, Interim Resolution DH(99)479

H46-263 44511 Bellagamba, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1100 27969 Belletti, Interim Resolution DH(97)146

H32-1101 27476 Bellio, Interim Resolution DH(97)170

H46-1102 40977 Beltramo, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-1103 44431 Beluzzi and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-1104 51661 Beluzzi and Mangili, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-1105 52974 Beneventano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1106 30593 Berardini Angelo I, Interim Resolution DH(97)527

H32-1107 35286 Berardini Angelo II, Interim Resolution DH(99)54

H32-1108 26826 Bergonzini, Interim Resolution DH(96)620

H46-1109 44435 Berlani, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1110 34869 Bernardi, Interim Resolution DH(98)398

H32-1111 34261 Bernardoni, Interim Resolution DH(98)399

H46-1112 46995 Berto, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H46-1113 51667 Bertot, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-1114 39883 Bertozzi, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/04/00

H32-1115 38493 Bertuccelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)374

H46-1116 44388 Besati, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1117 51695 Bettella, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-1118 44442 Bevilacqua, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1119 29652 Bianchi Armando, Interim Resolution DH(97)425

H32-1120 26817 Bianchi Ines, Interim Resolution DH(96)621

H32-1121 26027 Biasci, Interim Resolution DH(97)52

H46-1122 36811 Bielectric S.R.L., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1123 33802 Bimbi, Interim Resolution DH(98)162

H46-1124 40937 Binelis and Nanni, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1125 49358 Bini, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1126 34266 Bisaro, Interim Resolution DH(98)228

H32-1127 26845 Bizzotto, Interim Resolution DH(97)92

H46-1128 44437 Bocca, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1129 38482 Boccabella and Torlone, Interim Resolution DH(99)375

H32-1130 22944 Boccardi and Comune, Interim Resolution DH(96)225

H32-1131 35308 Bogliolo Giacomo I, Interim Resolution DH(98)400

H32-1132 35309 Bogliolo Giacomo II, Interim Resolution DH(98)401

H32-1133 35311 Bogliolo Giacomo III, Interim Resolution DH(98)402

H32-1134 27181 Bogliolo Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)93

H32-1135 37175 Bolignari, Interim Resolution DH(99)136

H32-264 39121 Bolla, Interim Resolution DH(99)480

H46-1136 49313 Bonacci and others, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1137 25257 Bonaccorso, Interim Resolution DH(96)163

H32-1138 34247 Bonanno, Interim Resolution DH(98)229

H46-1139 44457 Bonelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1140 38133 Bonetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)275

H32-1141 19838 Bonfanti I

H32-1142 19839 Bonfanti II

H32-1143 19840 Bonfanti III

H32-1144 19841 Bonfanti IV

H32-1145 19842 Bonfanti V

H32-1146 19843 Bonfanti VI

H32-1147 19837 Bonfanti VII, Interim Resolution DH(96)226

H32-1148 29150 Bonforte, Interim Resolution DH(97)301

H32-1149 26840 Bongianni R. and F. M., Interim Resolution DH(96)622

H32-1150 38516 Bongiovanni, Interim Resolution DH(99)376

H46-1151 45059 Bono, judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-1152 39902 Bonomi A. and S., Interim Resolution DH(99)572

H32-1153 38114 Bonvicini, Interim Resolution DH(99)276

H32-1154 31347 Bordogna, Interim Resolution DH(97)615

H32-1155 33782 Borracci, Interim Resolution DH(98)163

H32-1156 37148 Borromeo, Interim Resolution DH(99)137

H32-1157 31358 Borselli, Interim Resolution DH(97)616

H32-1158 24816 Boscaro, Interim Resolution DH(96)40

H46-1159 36608 Bosio and Moretti, judgment of 06/09/99

H32-1160 30108 Botta II, Interim Resolution DH(97)447

H32-1161 27979 Botti, Interim Resolution DH(97)154

H32-1162 21075 Bottiglieri

H32-1163 29650 Bramante, Interim Resolution DH(97)426

H32-1164 40620 Bricalli, Interim Resolution DH(99)573

H46-1165 51660 Brivio, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1166 29139 Broccia, Interim Resolution DH(97)302

H32-1167 27952 Bruno Emanuele, Interim Resolution DH(97)175

H46-1168 52914 Bruno Paolo, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-1169 44436 Buffalo s.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1170 33790 Buldini Kotecha, Interim Resolution DH(98)164

H32-1171 32284 Buompastore, Interim Resolution DH(98)22

H32-1172 34872 Buonfino, Interim Resolution DH(98)332

H46-1173 48419 Buonocore, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-1174 46534 Burghesu, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1175 39879 Burigat, Interim Resolution DH(99)574

H46-1176 51682 Butta, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1177 34857 C. C., Interim Resolution DH(98)403

H32-1178 27988 C. D.C., Interim Resolution DH(97)178

H32-1179 33131 C. D.L., Interim Resolution DH(98)101

H32-1180 39898 C., G., and N.A., and T.M., Interim Resolution DH(99)575

H46-1181 49302 C.A.I.F., judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1182 38146 C.B. and F.E.V., Interim Resolution DH(99)277

H32-1183 38099 C.B.S., Interim Resolution DH(99)278

H32-1184 35912 C.C. and 5 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)55

H32-1185 31330 C.I.P.D.I. S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(97)617

H46-265 46980 C.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1186 34243 C.L.P.C., Interim Resolution DH(98)230

H32-1187 30587 C.M. I, Interim Resolution DH(97)528

H32-1188 35944 C.M. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)56

H32-1189 30582 C.M.R. L.C., Interim Resolution DH(97)529

H32-1190 31641 C.R.A.D.C.C. S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(97)618

H32-1191 35340 Cacace, Interim Resolution DH(98)404

H32-1192 37151 Caccamo, Interim Resolution DH(99)138

H32-1193 39875 Caccialupi Olivieri Parteguelfa and Ciarrocchi, Interim Resolution DH(99)576

H32-1194 26443 Cacciola, Interim Resolution DH(96)647

H32-1195 31334 Cairo, Interim Resolution DH(97)619

H32-1196 34829 Calandra, Interim Resolution DH(98)318

H32-1197 35292 Calandrella F., P. and 2 others

H32-1198 38129 Calanna, Interim Resolution DH(99)279

H32-1199 19830 Calaudi

H46-1200 46541 Calbini, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1201 40588 Calderone R., A.M., A.M., and E., Interim Resolution DH(99)577

H32-1202 35941 Caldora, Interim Resolution DH(99)57

H32-1203 35305 Calipso Montana s.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(98)406

H32-1204 27473 Calistri, Interim Resolution DH(97)180

H32-1205 26430 Callegari, Interim Resolution DH(96)527

H46-1206 36624 Calor Sud, judgment of 26/10/99

H46-1207 56092 Calvagni and Formiconi, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-1208 51649 Camici, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1209 23203 Camodeca, Interim Resolution DH(96)227

H46-1210 48423 Campana, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1211 27472 Campoli, Interim Resolution DH(97)53

H32-1212 37140 Canali, Interim Resolution DH(99)139

H46-1213 51680 Canapicchi, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1214 34855 Canocchi, Interim Resolution DH(98)319

H46-1215 40959 Cantacessi, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-1216 47004 Cantu, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-1217 27959 Capezzali, Interim Resolution DH(97)139

H46-1218 41802 Capoccia Agnese, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-1219 39881 Capodanno, judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/04/00

H32-1220 38137 Caporaso Adamo, Interim Resolution DH(99)280

H46-1221 40951 Cappellaro, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1222 51696 Cappelletti and Dell’Agnese, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1223 39161 Capriotti, Interim Resolution DH(99)481

H32-1224 30583 Capulli, Interim Resolution DH(97)530

H46-1225 45074 Caputo, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H46-1226 44382 Caracciolo, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1227 33152 Carbonaro, Interim Resolution DH(98)102

H46-1228 51702 Carbone, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1229 25265 Carbone Alessandro, Interim Resolution DH(96)211

H32-1230 38523 Carbone Benito, Interim Resolution DH(99)377

H46-1231 46526 Carboni, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1232 39165 Carcani and Monterosso, Interim Resolution DH(99)482

H32-1233 29153 Carcassi I, Interim Resolution DH(97)303

H32-1234 31339 Carcassi II, Interim Resolution DH(97)620

H32-1235 25230 Cariola E. and M.R., Interim Resolution DH(96)228

H32-1236 27179 Carlino, Interim Resolution DH(97)24

H32-1237 35297 Carloni Natale, Interim Resolution DH(98)407

H32-1238 27978 Carloni Paolo, Interim Resolution DH(97)153

H32-1239 37147 Carnevali, Interim Resolution DH(99)140

H32-1240 39159 Carozza, Interim Resolution DH(99)483

H46-1241 44516 Carrone, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1242 35301 Carrubba, Interim Resolution DH(98)408

H46-1243 44399 Cartoleria Poddighe S.N.C., judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1244 45859 Caruso Giuseppina, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-1245 26035 Caruso Salvatore, Interim Resolution DH(96)486

H32-1246 26406 Caruso, Giardiello and Caruso, Interim Resolution DH(96)528

H32-1247 27182 Casanica, Interim Resolution DH(97)167

H32-1248 27470 Casavola, Interim Resolution DH(97)54

H32-1249 31335 Casilli, Interim Resolution DH(97)621

H32-1250 35332 Casini, Interim Resolution DH(98)409

H32-1251 37313 Cassa Edile della Provincia di Ascoli Piceno, Interim Resolution DH(99)578

H32-1252 37137 Cassandra Luigi II, Interim Resolution DH(99)207

H46-1253 40961 Cassetta, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-1254 51679 Cassin, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-1255 40962 Castelli Elia, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H32-1256 35333 Castelli Massimiliano, Interim Resolution DH(98)410

H32-1257 34233 Castellucci Galtrucco, Interim Resolution DH(98)237

H46-1258 44448 Castrogiovanni, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1259 34843 Casula, Interim Resolution DH(98)411

H46-1260 46510 Catalano, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-1261 45075 Catania and Zuppelli, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/04/01

H32-1262 29161 Cavadini, Interim Resolution DH(97)304

H46-1263 45861 Cavallaro, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-1264 26860 Cavallin, Interim Resolution DH(96)623

H32-1265 38487 Cavallini and Gualersi, Interim Resolution DH(99)378

H32-1266 25215 Caviglia, Interim Resolution DH(96)164

H46-1267 52915 Cazzato, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1268 25249 Cazzorla and Gigante

H32-1269 34272 Cecchi, Interim Resolution DH(98)231

H46-1270 40936 Cecere Maria Rosaria, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-1271 27479 Cecere Pasquale, Interim Resolution DH(97)55

H32-1272 29138 Ceglia, Interim Resolution DH(97)305

H32-1273 37154 Celebre, Interim Resolution DH(99)141

H32-1274 29136 Celi Lelio, Interim Resolution DH(97)306

H32-1275 29647 Celi Leonida, Interim Resolution DH(97)427

H32-1276 39150 Centi, Interim Resolution DH(99)484

H46-1277 44429 Centi I, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1278 44432 Centi II, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1279 44377 Centineo, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1280 27196 Centore, Interim Resolution DH(97)25

H32-1281 20554 Ceravolo

H46-1282 36620 Ceriello, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H32-1283 34830 Cerqueti, Interim Resolution DH(98)333

H46-1284 46537 Cerulli and Zadra, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1285 38504 Ceruti, Interim Resolution DH(99)379

H46-1286 48418 Cesaro, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H54-1287 22461+ Ceteroni, judgment of 15/11/96

H32-1288 35938 Chiapetto Vincenzo II, Interim Resolution DH(99)142

H46-1289 45869 Chiappetta, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-1290 13569 Chiarelli

H32-1291 40582 Chinnici I, Interim Resolution DH(99)579

H46-1292 49374 Chinnici II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1293 26023 CI.ME.B. S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(96)487

H46-1294 46989 Ciabocco, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H46-1295 52970 Ciancetta and Mancini, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1296 27469 Cianci G. and A., Interim Resolution DH(97)56

H32-1297 35928 Cibin, Interim Resolution DH(99)58

H32-1298 22527 Cicely and others, Interim Resolution DH(96)27

H32-1299 35303 Cicerone E., S., S. and D., Interim Resolution DH(98)453

H32-1300 29654 Cicino, Interim Resolution DH(97)467

H32-1301 39168 Cilea, Interim Resolution DH(99)485

H32-1302 31333 Ciliberti, Interim Resolution DH(97)622

H32-1303 31336 Cimenti, Interim Resolution DH(97)624

H32-1304 26862 Cimini, Interim Resolution DH(96)624

H32-1305 35914 Cimino Antonio, Interim Resolution DH(99)59

H32-1306 33792 Cims Iole, Interim Resolution DH(98)165

H32-1307 31346 Cims Marco, Interim Resolution DH(97)625

H32-1308 35902 Cipolletti, Interim Resolution DH(99)60

H46-266 46959 Circo and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1309 36603 Cirillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)143

H32-1310 29648 Cirino, Interim Resolution DH(97)428

H46-1311 40955 Cittadini and Ruffini, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-267 44504 Citterio and Angiolillo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-1312 46999 Ciuffetelli, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-1313 27474 Ciuffetelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)94

H46-268 47779 Ciuffetti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1314 25341 Civelek, Interim Resolution DH(99)580

H32-1315 37187 Clucher, Interim Resolution DH(99)144

H46-1316 43434 Cobianchi I, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-1317 45852 Cobianchi II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-1318 31344 Coccia, Interim Resolution DH(97)626

H32-1319 37167 Coduto Fernando I, Interim Resolution DH(99)145

H32-1320 37181 Coduto Fernando II, Interim Resolution DH(99)146

H32-1321 38509 Cogo, Interim Resolution DH(99)380

H32-1322 40590 Colangelo, Interim Resolution DH(99)581

H46-1323 56095 Colasanti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1324 35925 Colautti, Interim Resolution DH(99)61

H32-1325 26024 Comentale, Interim Resolution DH(96)488

H32-1326 20010 Condoluci and Napoli

H32-1327 29669 Condoluci, Interim Resolution DH(97)429

H46-1328 44460 Condominio Citta di Prato, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1329 34842 Condominio Rosa Dei Venti, Interim Resolution DH(98)334

H32-1330 12168 Condominio via Flaminia. 141

H46-1331 49375 Consalvo, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1332 46532 Conte Gaspare and others, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-1333 32765 Conte Nunzio II, judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-1334 34239 Conte Riccardo, Interim Resolution DH(98)232

H32-1335 40589 Conti Elia, Interim Resolution DH(99)582

H46-269 47774 Conti Giuliana, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1336 39160 Copropriété X., Interim Resolution DH(99)486

H32-1337 38128 Coralluzzo, Interim Resolution DH(99)281

H46-1338 48416 Corcelli, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-1339 44385 Cornaglia, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-1340 46527 Corsi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1341 39140 Corso and Facchetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)525

H32-1342 27201 Cortellessa, Interim Resolution DH(97)26

H46-270 35616 Coscia, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H32-1343 27199 Cosma Bonifacio, Interim Resolution DH(97)27

H46-1344 45884 Cossu, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-1345 46538 Costantini Francesco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-271 44500 Cova, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1346 27164 Covi and Anzelini, Interim Resolution DH(97)28

H32-1347 19827 Crea

H46-1348 56085 Cristina, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-1349 49309 Crotti, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1350 24027 Crovato, Interim Resolution DH(95)275

H32-1351 20332 Crupi and others

H32-1352 40583 Cucinotta Orazio, Interim Resolution DH(99)583

H32-1353 38105 Cucinotta Tullio, Interim Resolution DH(99)282

H46-272 45880 Cultraro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1354 28384 Cunsolo, Interim Resolution DH(98)166

H32-1355 34827 Curatola, Interim Resolution DH(98)335

H32-1356 26855 Curatolo and Marucchelli, Interim Resolution DH(96)625

H32-1357 38524 Curia, Interim Resolution DH(99)381

H32-1358 25240 Curio, Interim Resolution DH(96)473

H32-1359 25226 D. and P.D.R. and L.M., Interim Resolution DH(96)167

H32-1360 34859 D. S., Interim Resolution DH(98)337

H32-1361 40576 D., F., and F.M. and M.V., Interim Resolution DH(99)584

H32-1362 27178 D.C. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)57

H46-1363 46536 D.C. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-1364 46507 D.G., judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-1365 44533 D.I., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1366 26026 D.M. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)489

H32-1367 26448 D.M. IV, Interim Resolution DH(96)529

H32-1368 16300 D.S. and O.P., Interim Resolution DH(96)112

H46-1369 52925 D’Alfonso, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1370 27200 D'Agata, Interim Resolution DH(97)29

H32-1371 20207 D'Agostino and Pugliese

H46-273 44513 D’Ammassa and Frezza, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, revised on

09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-1372 49307 D'Amore, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1373 45872 D’Annibale, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-1374 45890 D'Antoni, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-1375 51662 D'Apice, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-274 17482 D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28

H46-1376 49318 D'Arrigo, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1377 40216 D’Arrigo and Garrozzo, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H32-1378 38485 Dalla Pozza I, Interim Resolution DH(99)382

H32-1379 40597 Dalla Pozza II, Interim Resolution DH(99)585

H32-1380 29127 Dall'Acqua, Interim Resolution DH(97)307

H32-1381 27968 Dambra, Interim Resolution DH(97)145

H46-1382 52921 Damiano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1383 40603 Dan, Interim Resolution DH(99)586

H32-1384 29163 Danesi, Interim Resolution DH(97)308

H32-1385 36651 Danieli, Interim Resolution DH(99)235

H32-1386 39147 Datti A. and F., and Bezzi, Interim Resolution DH(99)487

H32-1387 38139 De Agazio Fortunato III, Interim Resolution DH(99)283

H32-1388 37157 De Agazio Giancarlo, Interim Resolution DH(99)147

H32-1389 30102 De Camillis Emidio, Interim Resolution DH(98)168

H32-1390 23603 De Camillis Giovanni, Interim Resolution DH(97)95

H32-1391 40566 De Cicco Concetta, Interim Resolution DH(99-587)

H32-1392 33797 De Cicco Nicola, Interim Resolution DH(98)167

H32-1393 37134 De Cristofaro, Interim Resolution DH(99)148

H46-1394 51683 De Guz, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-1395 40974 De Lisi, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

H32-1396 40580 De Lorenzi, Interim Resolution DH(99)588

H32-1397 26843 De Luca Gianni, Interim Resolution DH(96)661

H32-1398 22741 De Luca Vincenzo, Interim Resolution DH(96)34

H32-1399 24805 De Mita, Interim Resolution DH(96)45

H32-1400 26010 De Mori, Interim Resolution DH(96)491

H46-275 49372 De Pilla, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1401 36625 De Pasquale, Interim Resolution DH(99)149

H46-1402 52920 De Rosa Francesco, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1403 19559 De Santis Armando

H46-1404 49366 De Santis Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on, 25/01/02

H46-1405 49367 De Santis Guiseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1406 52923 De Santis III, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-1407 44455 De Simine, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1408 35287 De Simon and Incontrera, Interim Resolution DH(98)412

H32-1409 35300 De Simone and 6 others, Interim Resolution DH(98)454

H46-1410 42520 De Simone Pasquale, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1411 35949 De Simone, Interim Resolution DH(99)62

H32-1412 40567 Decaro G., A., M., and F., Interim Resolution DH(99)589

H46-1413 52968 Del Bono and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1414 36640 Del Mistro, Interim Resolution DH(99)150

H32-1415 24644 Del Prete, Interim Resolution DH(96)229

H32-1416 35933 Del Sole, Interim Resolution DH(99)63

H32-1417 37183 Del Vecchio Michele, Interim Resolution DH(99)201

H32-1418 26015 Delfino, Interim Resolution DH(96)490

H46-1419 56106 Dell’Aquila, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1420 32299 Della Corte, Interim Resolution DH(98)169

H46-1421 44408+ Delmonte and Badano, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1422 38469 Deschamps, judgment of 15/02/00

H46-1423 40965 Di Annunzio, judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/07/00

H32-1424 27974 Di Bella and others, Interim Resolution DH(97)150

H32-1425 24853 Di Blasio A. and L., Interim Resolution DH(97)96

H32-1426 38497 Di Caro, Interim Resolution DH(99)590

H32-1427 29143 Di Ciccio, Interim Resolution DH(97)470

H32-1428 37314 Di Cicco, Di Giammatteo and Fantini, Interim Resolution DH(99)644

H32-1429 34251 Di Domenico, Interim Resolution DH(98)234

H32-1430 29666 Di Donfrancesco, Interim Resolution DH(97)430

H32-1431 34851 Di Fabio I, Interim Resolution DH(98)338

H46-1432 49355 Di Fabio II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-276 39138 Di Fant I, Interim Resolution DH(99)488

H32-277 39139 Di Fant II, Interim Resolution DH(99)489

H32-1433 35910 Di Florio, Interim Resolution DH(99)64

H46-1434 44495 Di Francesco, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1435 39130 Di Gianfilippo, Interim Resolution DH(99)490

H32-1436 36629 Di Giovanni II, Interim Resolution DH(99)151

H32-1437 36645 Di Girolamo, Interim Resolution DH(99)152

H46-278 44446 Di Girolamo and 6 others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1438 25242 Di Gregorio, Interim Resolution DH(97)97

H46-1439 34256 Di Mauro, judgment of 28/07/99

H46-279 46976 Di Motoli and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-1440 52978 Di Niso, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1441 35285 Di Prisco and Cappon, Interim Resolution DH(98)455

H46-1442 40970 Di Rosa, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H32-1443 35923+ Di Salvo and Formica, Interim Resolution DH(99)65

H46-1444 45898 Di Teodoro and others, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-1445 33153 Di Trapani and Crescimanno, Interim Resolution DH(98)123

H46-1446 41740 Diebold, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H32-1447 26411 Diglio, Interim Resolution DH(96)530

H32-1448 34840 Dionisi, Interim Resolution DH(98)339

H32-1449 33160 Domenico and Giusa, Interim Resolution DH(98)103

H32-1450 34848 Donati, Interim Resolution DH(98)340

H32-1451 32285 Donato, Interim Resolution DH(98)23

H32-1452 29665 Donfrancesco M. and A., Interim Resolution DH(97)431

H46-1453 40925 D'Onofrio Francesco, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1454 46520 Dorigo Franco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1455 34870 D'Orsi, Interim Resolution DH(98)336

H32-1456 29159 Dotti, Interim Resolution DH(97)370

H32-1457 38513 Dulcamara and Del Vecchio, Interim Resolution DH(99)383

H32-1458 40579 E.A., Interim Resolution DH(99)591

H32-1459 38107 E.B., E.B. and M.B., Interim Resolution DH(99)284

H32-1460 27186 E.C. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)30

H32-1461 38484 E.D.C., Interim Resolution DH(99)384

H32-1462 19824 E.D.G., Interim Resolution DH(97)58

H32-1463 24817 E.F. and M.C.P., Interim Resolution DH(96)46

H46-280 44480 E.G., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1464 48422 E.I., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1465 24801 E.M. and A.P., Interim Resolution DH(96)47

H46-1466 44519 E.M. II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1467 23600 E.M., R.V. and A.S.S.

H32-1468 23623 E.P. I

H32-1469 26043 E.P. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)492

H46-1470 40953 Ediltes S.n.c., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H32-1471 24036 Elettrodiffusion S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(96)35

H32-1472 27477 Elia, Interim Resolution DH(97)59

H32-1473 39906 Emmebiemme S.r.l.

H46-1474 40976 Ercolino and Ambrosino, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-1475 40926 F. I, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1476 40971 F. II, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H32-1477 30577 F., A.M., M.G. and P.P. S., Interim Resolution DH(97)531

H46-1478 46524+ F., T. and E., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1479 27457 F.B. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)98

H32-1480 27458 F.B. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)99

H46-1481 44523 F.C. and F.G., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1482 35337 F.C. IV, Interim Resolution DH(98)413

H46-1483 51653 F.CA., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1484 26409 F.D.A. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)531

H32-1485 37143 F.D.L., Interim Resolution DH(99)153

H32-1486 38505 F.D.S., Interim Resolution DH(99)385

H32-1487 39869 F.D'A III, Interim Resolution DH(99)593

H32-1488 39870 F.D'A IV, Interim Resolution DH(99)594

H32-1489 39874 F.E., Interim Resolution DH(99)595

H32-1490 26029 F.L., Interim Resolution DH(96)493

H46-1491 46533 F.L.S., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1492 26421 F.P. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)532

H32-1493 26422 F.P. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)533

H32-1494 38134 F.P.R., Interim Resolution DH(99)431

H32-1495 30597 F.R., Interim Resolution DH(97)532

H46-1496 44471 F.S. II, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1497 39164 F.S.p.A. II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-281 46971 F.T., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1498 34249 F.V., Interim Resolution DH(98)235

H32-1499 38499 Fabbiano, Interim Resolution DH(99)386

H32-1500 26012 Facciolini

H32-1501 38136 Facciolini II, Interim Resolution DH(99)285

H32-1502 29040 Faieta, Interim Resolution DH(98)25

H46-282 46968 Falconi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1503 38474 Faldetta, Interim Resolution DH(99)387

H32-1504 36635 Falleni A. and M., Interim Resolution DH(99)154

H46-1505 52972 Falzarano Carmine, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1506 25264 Famas S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(96)171

H32-1507 35319 Fanni Bruno, Interim Resolution DH(98)414

H32-1508 36638 Fanni Susanna, Interim Resolution DH(99)155

H46-283 47781 Farinosi and Barattelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1509 39157 Fattore A. and M., Interim Resolution DH(99)491

H32-1510 40596 Fazioli, Interim Resolution DH(99)596

H32-1511 20042 Fedele

H46-1512 45892 Feffin, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-1513 35935 Feliciano, Interim Resolution DH(99)66

H32-1514 27957 Feminella, Interim Resolution DH(97)137

H32-1515 39126 Feneziani, Interim Resolution DH(99)492

H46-1516 51675 Ferfolja, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-1517 52916 Ferrara Vincenza, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-1518 44405 Ferraresi, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1519 25216 Ferrari Stefano, Interim Resolution DH(96)172

H32-1520 27456 Ferraro Salvatore, Interim Resolution DH(97)60

H32-1521 39156 Ferrazzini, Interim Resolution DH(99)493

H46-1522 45870 Ferrazzo and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-1523 27197 Ferretti Amleto, Interim Resolution DH(97)31

H32-1524 26835 Ferretti Guido, Interim Resolution DH(96)626

H32-1525 39880 Ferron, Interim Resolution DH(99)597

H32-1526 33803 Ficara Carmela, Interim Resolution DH(98)170

H46-1527 45062 Ficara Domenico, judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-1528 38475 Filippello, Interim Resolution DH(99)598

H46-1529 45868 Filippello Giorgio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-1530 34868 Filocamo and Dominijanni, Interim Resolution DH(98)341

H46-1531 49317 Filosa, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1532 32296 Filosa II, Interim Resolution DH(98)26

H32-1533 27464 Finvilden S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(97)61

H32-1534 30100 Fiorentino, Interim Resolution DH(97)448

H46-1535 44393 Fiorenza, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1536 36611 Fioretto and De Luca, Interim Resolution DH(99)156

H32-1537 26832 Firme zia Lilla, Interim Resolution DH(96)627

H32-1538 38121 Florio and Butera, Interim Resolution DH(99)286

H32-1539 38145 Focardi and Conti, Interim Resolution DH(99)287

H32-1540 24050 Foggetti and Quaini, Interim Resolution DH(95)280

H46-1541 44424 Follo, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1542 36616 Fondificio A.C.F., Interim Resolution DH(99)157

H32-1543 39166 Fontana and Sartorio, Interim Resolution DH(99)495

H32-1544 29653 Foresta, Interim Resolution DH(97)432

H32-1545 27448+ Formica, Interim Resolution DH(97)62

H32-1546 26830 Formichetti, Interim Resolution DH(97)100

H32-1547 22975 Fornara and others

H32-1548 26420 Forni, Albanese, Centro Orafo Mantovano, Interim Resolution DH(96)534

H46-1549 45079 Fortunati, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H46-1550 46996 Fracchia, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H46-284 46965 Franceschetti and Odorico, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1551 26022 Franceschi, Interim Resolution DH(96)494

H46-1552 46529 Franchina, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1553 49373 Franco, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1554 38118 Fraschetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)288

H32-1555 29124 Frediani, Interim Resolution DH(97)309

H32-1556 27192 Furnari A., G., G. and F., Interim Resolution DH(97)32

H32-1557 26415 Fusco G., F. and P., Interim Resolution DH(96)556

H32-1558 36655 G. D'A., Interim Resolution DH(99)159

H32-1559 16014 G. and A.P.

H46-1560 44510 G. and C.C., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H32-1561 31355 G. and I.B., Interim Resolution DH(97)628

H46-1562 46997 G. Giappichelli Editore S.r.l., judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-1563 31356 G. S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(97)627

H32-1564 33161 G., R. and V. V., Interim Resolution DH(98)104

H32-1565 35945 G.A. and 7 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)67

H32-1566 19496 G.B. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)110

H46-1567 44397 G.B. IV, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1568 33134+ G.B., A.C. and L.V., Interim Resolution DH(98)105

H32-1569 33136 G.B.C., Interim Resolution DH(98)106

H32-1570 32290 G.C. IV, Interim Resolution DH(98)342

H32-1571 36605 G.C.VI, Interim Resolution DH(99)158

H46-1572 44441 G.C. VII, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1573 34236 G.D. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)236

H46-1574 44522 G.F. and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1575 27960 G.F.I, Interim Resolution DH(97)140

H32-1576 31645 G.F. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)629

H32-1577 29660 G.G.II, Interim Resolution DH(97)433

H32-1578 30598 G.G. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)533

H32-1579 26016 G.I., Interim Resolution DH(96)495

H46-1580 51666 G.L., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1581 24315 G.L. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)173

H32-1582 30585 G.L. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)534

H32-1583 40614 G.L.S., Interim Resolution DH(99)599

H32-1584 25247 G.M. IV, Interim Resolution DH(96)174

H32-1585 27183 G.M. V, Interim Resolution DH(97)33

H32-1586 31351 G.M. VI, Interim Resolution DH(97)630

H32-1587 35330 G.M. VII, Interim Resolution DH(98)415

H46-1588 37131 G.M.N., judgment of 02/11/99, final on 02/11/99

H32-1589 25266 G.M.N., Interim Resolution DH(96)175

H32-1590 38503 G.P. and 25 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)388

H32-1591 31357 G.P. and F.C., Interim Resolution DH(97)631

H32-1592 33794 G.P. IV, Interim Resolution DH(98)171

H32-1593 38123 G.P.F. and M.V. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)289

H32-1594 27954 G.P.M., Interim Resolution DH(97)135

H32-1595 32287 G.R. and P.M., Interim Resolution DH(98)41

H32-1596 23300 G.R. and S.D., Interim Resolution DH(97)535

H32-1597 23480 G.R. II

H46-1598 46543 G.S. and L.M., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1599 26447 G.S. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)535

H32-1600 27180 G.S. IV, Interim Resolution DH(97)34

H32-1601 29658 G.S. V, Interim Resolution DH(97)434

H32-1602 32281 G.S. VI, Interim Resolution DH(98)172

H32-1603 35312 G.S. VII, Interim Resolution DH(99)600

H32-1604 29670 G.V. I, Interim Resolution DH(97)435

H32-1605 32279 G.V. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)27

H32-1606 35341 G.V. III, Interim Resolution DH(98)416

H32-1607 38506 G.V. IV, Interim Resolution DH(99)389

H46-285 47786 G.V. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-1608 44421 Galasso, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1609 35315 Galazzi, Interim Resolution DH(98)417

H46-1610 39871 Galgani and De Matteis I, judgment of 28/09/00

H46-1611 44497 Galgani and de Matteis II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-286 46963 Galiè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1612 26848 Galletti, Interim Resolution DH(96)628

H46-1613 46990 Gallo Carmelo, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-1614 37163 Gambardella, Interim Resolution DH(99)160

H32-1615 33800 Gambini and Macchia, Interim Resolution DH(98)173

H32-1616 26828 Garavaglia, Interim Resolution DH(97)63

H32-1617 27956+ Garberi P. E. and M., Interim Resolution DH(97)632

H32-1618 30091 Garufi, Interim Resolution DH(97)420

H46-1619 51648 Gaspari, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1620 25225 Gasparoli, Interim Resolution DH(96)176

H32-1621 31646 Gasperoni, Interim Resolution DH(97)633

H32-1622 33140 Gatta, Interim Resolution DH(98)107

H32-1623 34242 Gatti, Interim Resolution DH(98)418

H46-1624 49304 Gatto, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1625 45873 Gaudino, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-1626 36636 Gavoncini Lenci A. and A. and Scanu, Interim Resolution DH(99)161

H46-1627 52984 Ge.Im.A.S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1628 36614 Gennari, Interim Resolution DH(99)162

H46-1629 56099 Genovesi, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1630 23422 Gentile Italo, Interim Resolution DH(96)536

H32-1631 19870 Gerace

H32-1632 40602 Geva S.a.s., Interim Resolution DH(99)601

H32-1633 36623 Ghedina, Interim Resolution DH(99)163

H46-1634 38116 Ghilino, judgment of 02/11/99

H32-1635 30590 Ghirardi, Interim Resolution DH(97)536

H32-1636 26019 Ghiron, Interim Resolution DH(96)496

H32-1637 35266 Giacomon, Interim Resolution DH(99)68

H32-1638 28733 Giambrone, Interim Resolution DH(97)249

H32-1639 35908 Giampietri, Interim Resolution DH(99)69

H46-1640 40942 Gianetti and De Lisi, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1641 46528 Giannalia, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-287 47773 Gianni, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1642 25245 Giardinieri, Interim Resolution DH(96)177

H46-1643 45888 Giarratana, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-1644 45109 Gibertini, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H32-1645 33789 Gigante E. and N., Interim Resolution DH(98)192

H32-1646 35916 Gilio Benito, Interim Resolution DH(99)70

H46-1647 53361 Giomi, judgment of 05/10/00, final on 05/01/01

H32-1648 24322 Giorgi Alberti, Interim Resolution DH(95)417

H46-1649 40930 Giorgio, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-1650 22572 Giovanelli and Vicentini

H46-1651 46531 Giovannangeli, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1652 21340 Giovannetti

H32-1653 18924 Giovannetti Graziani

H32-1654 32283 Giraldi Francesco, Interim Resolution DH(98)28

H32-1655 32294 Giraldi Germana, Interim Resolution DH(98)29

H32-1656 29141 Giraldi I, Interim Resolution DH(97)310

H46-1657 45860 Giuseppe Nicola and Luciano Caruso, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-1658 27475 Giusti I, Interim Resolution DH(97)64

H32-1659 32297 Giusti II, Interim Resolution DH(98)30

H32-1660 26838 Giusto, Interim Resolution DH(96)629

H46-1661 40941 Glebe Visconti, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-1662 24542 Godet, Interim Resolution DH(96)230

H32-1663 33791 Golia Angelo, Interim Resolution DH(98)174

H32-1664 23431 Gracci, Interim Resolution DH(96)231

H32-1665 38486 Graizzaro, Interim Resolution DH(99)390

H32-1666 30092 Granatelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)449

H32-1667 21671 Granatiero Rosa and Raffaella

H32-1668 27963 Grande and others, Interim Resolution DH(97)181

H46-1669 45110 Grappio, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H46-1670 44430 Grassi, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1671 45886 Gratteri, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-1672 27467 Gravagno Francesca, Interim Resolution DH(97)65

H46-1673 44512 Greco, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1674 39151 Greppi, Interim Resolution DH(99)496

H32-1675 26408 Grignano, Interim Resolution DH(96)649

H32-1676 35907 Grilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)71

H46-1677 49308 Grimaldi, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1678 26020 Grio, Interim Resolution DH(96)497

H32-1679 38511 Gris, Interim Resolution DH(99)391

H46-1680 49303 Grisi, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1681 27986 Gualtieri, Interim Resolution DH(97)160

H46-1682 49321 Guarnieri, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1683 24782 Gubitosi, Interim Resolution DH(96)51

H46-1684 52975 Gucci, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02, revised on 01/10/02,

final on 01/01/03

H46-1685 44403 Guerrera I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1686 44423 Guerrera II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1687 44413 Guerrera Angelo Giuseppe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-1688 40601 Guerrera and Fusco, judgment of 03/04/03

H32-1689 33144 Guetti G, G. and G., Interim Resolution DH(98)108

H46-1690 45896 Guidi, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-1691 31639 Gurciullo and Cappello, Interim Resolution DH(97)634

H46-1692 44502 Gusso and Grasso, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1693 30109 Hay, Interim Resolution DH(97)450

H46-1694 40957 I., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-1695 40968 I.F., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-1696 51708 I.M., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-1697 52957 I.P.A. S.r.l., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-288 44418 I.P.E.A. S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1698 39116 I.R., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H32-1699 29157 I.S. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)311

H32-1700 34839 I.S. III, Interim Resolution DH(98)343

H32-1701 35336 I.S. IV, Interim Resolution DH(98)419

H32-1702 37158 I.S. V, Interim Resolution DH(99)164

H32-1703 22974 I.S. and M.A.T. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)178

H32-1704 36606 I.S. and M.A.T. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)165

H32-1705 29126 Iaconetta, Interim Resolution DH(97)312

H46-1706 44530 Iacovelli, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1707 40973 Iadanza, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-1708 45885 Iannelli, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-1709 49359 Iannetti, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1710 30580 Ianni Domenico I, Interim Resolution DH(97)537

H32-1711 35295 Ianni Domenico II, Interim Resolution DH(98)420

H46-1712 46986 Ianni III, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H46-1713 44447 Ianniti and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-1714 44514 Iezzi and Cerritelli, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1715 39154 Il quadrifoglio" calzature-pelletteria di Maria Enrica Colombo S.a.s.,

Interim Resolution DH(99)497

H46-1716 45876 Il Messaggero S.a.s. I, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-1717 46516 Il Messaggero S.a.s. II, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-1718 46517 Il Messaggero S.a.s. III, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-1719 46518 Il Messaggero S.a.s. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-1720 46519 Il Messaggero S.a.s. V, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-289 44501 Il Messaggero S.A.S. VI, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-290 47777 Ilardi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-291 44508 Immobiliare Il Messaggero del geometra Antonio Iorillo, judgment of 25/10/01,

final on 25/01/02

H32-1721 34270 Immobiliare Li.ma. s.a.s., Interim Resolution DH(98)238

H32-1722 26853 Immobiliare San Teodoro s.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(96)631

H32-1723 34861 Imparato Francesco, Interim Resolution DH(98)344

H32-1724 29156 Inches, Interim Resolution DH(97)313

H32-1725 28728 Inteco S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(97)250

H32-1726 33786 Iorillo Antonio, Interim Resolution DH(98)175

H46-1727 45875 Iorillo Debora, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H46-1728 56088 IT.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-1729 44396 Ital Union Servizi S.a.s. No. 1, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-1730 44913 Ital Union Servizi S.a.s. No. 2, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-1731 44914 Ital Union Servizi S.a.s. No. 3, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-1732 39894 Italiano, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-1733 46530 Iulio, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-1734 44515 L., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1735 35291 L. P., Ga. C. and Gi. C., Interim Resolution DH(98)421

H46-1736 40924 L. S.r.l., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1737 56087 L.B., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 04/09/02

H32-1738 26018 L.C. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)498

H32-1739 26040 L.C. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)650

H32-1740 24024 L.D.C., Interim Resolution DH(95)284

H32-1741 35922 L.D.T., Interim Resolution DH(99)72

H32-1742 27973 L.F. IV, Interim Resolution DH(97)149

H32-1743 30088 L.F. V, Interim Resolution DH(97)451

H32-1744 36646 L.G. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)166

H32-1745 40575 L.G. IV, Interim Resolution DH(99)602

H46-1746 40980 L.G.S. S.p.a., judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/07/00

H46-1747 39487 L.G.S. S.p.a. II, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01

H32-1748 31354 L.L., C.S. and S.M., Interim Resolution DH(97)635

H32-1749 24825 L.M. V, Interim Resolution DH(96)474

H32-1750 32276 L.M. VI, Interim Resolution DH(98)31

H32-1751 36633 L.M.L., Interim Resolution DH(99)167

H32-1752 30576 L.P. I, Interim Resolution DH(97)538

H32-1753 36631 L.P. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)168

H32-1754 31329 L.R. B., Interim Resolution DH(97)636

H46-1755 52986 L.S., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1756 27958 L.S. and T.R., Interim Resolution DH(97)138

H32-1757 26423 L.U., Interim Resolution DH(96)537

H32-1758 18664 La Ferrara and others

H32-1759 34853 La Gorga, Interim Resolution DH(98)422

H32-1760 33788 La Mantia, Interim Resolution DH(98)176

H32-1761 34845 La Monica, Interim Resolution DH(98)345

H32-1762 13570 La Porta

H32-1763 39152 La Rosa, Interim Resolution DH(99)498

H32-1764 38100 La Torre, Interim Resolution DH(99)290

H32-1765 28731 Labate A., G., S. and B., Interim Resolution DH(97)251

H46-1766 44520 Lagana, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-1767 33158 Laino, judgment of 18/02/99

H46-1768 46542 Lanino, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1769 19832 Lanzo

H32-1770 35919 Larotonda I, Interim Resolution DH(99)73

H32-1771 35920 Larotonda II, Interim Resolution DH(99)392

H32-1772 39866 Lasagna and Milandri I, Interim Resolution DH(99)603

H32-1773 39867 Lasagna and Milandri II, Interim Resolution DH(99)604

H32-1774 25237 Latella, Interim Resolution DH(96)232

H32-1775 26038 Laterza, Interim Resolution DH(96)499

H32-1776 31341 Lazzari and Scagnoli, Interim Resolution DH(97)637

H32-1777 39144 Lazzari M. and C. and F., Interim Resolution DH(99)499

H32-1778 26844 Lazzarini, Interim Resolution DH(96)632

H32-1779 28726 Lealini, Interim Resolution DH(97)252

H32-1780 23604 Legge Massimo and Liberato, Interim Resolution DH(97)101

H32-1781 28721 Lelli G., L. and L., Interim Resolution DH(97)555

H32-1782 39158 Lenza, Di Stefano and Mancini, Interim Resolution DH(99)500

H32-1783 37171 Leo, Interim Resolution DH(99)169

H32-1784 39897 Leone Prefabbricati S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(99)605

H32-1785 27188 Lepore Armando I, Interim Resolution DH(97)35

H32-1786 27993 Lepore Armando II, Interim Resolution DH(97)161

H32-1787 29128 Li Donni, Interim Resolution DH(97)314

H46-1788 44394 Liberatore, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1789 35331 Liberi, Interim Resolution DH(98)423

H46-1790 40950 Liddo and Batteta, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1791 49376 Lilla Santilli, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1792 31327 Lilloni, Interim Resolution DH(97)638

H32-1793 34835 Limardi, Interim Resolution DH(98)346

H32-1794 35930 Lipari, Interim Resolution DH(99)74

H46-1795 45055 Lippera Zaniboni, judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-1796 38122 Lispi, Interim Resolution DH(99)291

H32-1797 29167 Litardi, Interim Resolution DH(97)315

H32-1798 34860 Liut, Interim Resolution DH(98)347

H46-1799 45853 Lo Cicero, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-292 40571 Lo Sardo, Interim Resolution DH(99)606

H32-1800 35915 Lodi and Delmonte, Interim Resolution DH(99)75

H32-1801 25239 Lombardi Satriani I, Interim Resolution DH(96)180

H32-1802 26008 Lombardi Satriani II, Interim Resolution DH(96)500

H32-1803 34831 Lombardi Satriani III, Interim Resolution DH(98)320

H32-1804 35273 Lombardi Satriani IV, Interim Resolution DH(98)424

H46-1805 52958 Lombardo Francesco, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-1806 46523 Lonardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-499 51668 Lopriore, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1807 38132 Losardo, Interim Resolution DH(99)292

H32-1808 33842 Lucarini Maria Clementina II, Interim Resolution DH(99)393

H46-293 46962 Lucas International S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-1809 52919 Luciani, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1810 27865 Lunari, Interim Resolution DH(97)253

H32-1811 39122 Lupi Giovanni II, Interim Resolution DH(99)501

H32-1812 25244 Luzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)181

H32-1813 38126 M. and G.P., Interim Resolution DH(99)502

H32-1814 33133 M. G., Interim Resolution DH(98)110

H46-1815 40940 M. I, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1816 40931 M. II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1817 44406 M. S.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-1818 33154 M., G.F. and A.T., Interim Resolution DH(98)109

H32-1819 27953 M.A.D.F., Interim Resolution DH(97)134

H46-1820 45893 M.A.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 07/11/00, final on 06/04/01

H32-1821 26000 M.C. C., Interim Resolution DH(96)651

H32-1822 24797 M.C. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)53

H32-1823 39135 M.C. IX, Interim Resolution DH(99)503

H32-1824 26833 M.C. V, Interim Resolution DH(96)662

H32-1825 34263 M.C. VI, Interim Resolution DH(98)239

H32-1826 37141 M.C. VII, Interim Resolution DH(99)170

H46-1827 38478 M.C. VIII, judgment of 09/11/99

H32-1828 18253 M.C., A.C., A.N.C., G.S. and E.S.

H32-1829 25228 M.D.M., Interim Resolution DH(96)182

H32-1830 34873 M.F. C., Interim Resolution DH(98)348

H32-1831 38525 M.G. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)394

H46-1832 49305 M.I. and E.I., judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1833 31647 M.L. D.R., Interim Resolution DH(97)639

H32-1834 25231 M.L. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)183

H32-1835 31353 M.M. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)640

H46-1836 46985 M.Q., judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-1837 35943 M.R. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)100

H32-1838 38496 M.R.G. and E.F., Interim Resolution DH(99)395

H32-1839 26006 M.R.V., Interim Resolution DH(96)501

H32-1840 35934 M.S. and F.B., Interim Resolution DH(99)76

H32-1841 40578 M.S.A., Interim Resolution DH(99)607

H32-1842 27168 M.T. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)36

H32-1843 34252 M.T.P., Interim Resolution DH(98)240

H32-1844 32302 M.V., Interim Resolution DH(98)32

H32-1845 37133 M.V.F. and M.O.M., Interim Resolution DH(99)171

H32-1846 27169 M.Z., Interim Resolution DH(97)77

H32-1847 26028 Ma. C., Interim Resolution DH(96)652

H32-1848 25214 MA.RI.OR. S.a.s., Interim Resolution DH(96)184

H32-1849 37159 Maccà Amelia I, Interim Resolution DH(99)172

H32-1850 38110 Maccà Amelia II, Interim Resolution DH(99)293

H46-1851 44464 Maccari Ada, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1852 39877 Macelloni, Interim Resolution DH(99)608

H32-1853 29663 Maffeo and Papa, Interim Resolution DH(97)548

H32-1854 27965 Maggi and Arcangeloni, Interim Resolution DH(97)143

H32-1855 39896 Maggioni and Rota, Interim Resolution DH(99)609

H32-1856 25263 Maggiore, Interim Resolution DH(96)185

H32-1857 35903 Magnano and Anselmo, Interim Resolution DH(99)77

H32-1858 35932 Magnante Trecco, Interim Resolution DH(99)78

H32-1859 34280 Magnaterra, Interim Resolution DH(98)241

H32-1860 27184 Magni, Interim Resolution DH(97)37

H32-1861 26007 Magno Di Gaspare, Interim Resolution DH(96)502

H32-1862 26859 Magri, Interim Resolution DH(96)633

H32-1863 34275+ Maiorano G, C., and M. and Serafini, Interim Resolution DH(98)242

H32-1864 24822 Majani S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(96)113

H32-1865 25221 Maldini and Garulli G. B. and M., Interim Resolution DH(96)233

H46-294 46961 Maletti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1866 21076 Malvaso Maria Concetta and Carmela

H32-1867 20012 Malvaso Rocco

H32-1868 24332 Manca Antonio Gavina, Interim Resolution DH(95)425

H32-1869 31636 Manca Marisa, Interim Resolution DH(97)641

H46-1870 40938 Manca Renata and Maria, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1871 46994 Mancinelli, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-1872 34248 Mandelli, Interim Resolution DH(98)243

H32-1873 38104 Manieri, Interim Resolution DH(99)294

H46-1874 51706 Mannari, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1875 29132 Manni, Interim Resolution DH(97)371

H32-1876 34241 Manni Salvatore, Interim Resolution DH(98)244

H32-1877 31350 Manotti, Interim Resolution DH(97)642

H32-1878 35314 Mansueto, Interim Resolution DH(98)425

H46-1879 44498 Mantini II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1880 28725 Manzi A., B. and L., Interim Resolution DH(97)254

H32-1881 29154 Manzinali, Interim Resolution DH(97)316

H46-1882 49370 Marcantoni, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1883 28734 Marcellino, Interim Resolution DH(97)256

H32-1884 32278 Marcello, Interim Resolution DH(98)33

H32-1885 33142 Marchese Carlo, Interim Resolution DH(98)111

H32-1886 26403 Marchetti Alessandro I, Interim Resolution DH(96)653

H32-1887 25882 Marchetti Alessandro II, Interim Resolution DH(97)102

H46-1888 44443 Marchi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-295 46957 Marcolongo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1889 37156 Marè, Interim Resolution DH(99)208

H46-1890 45063 Mari I, judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H46-1891 49365 Mari II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-296 44517 Mari and Mangini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1892 38481 Marinelli and C.S.n.c. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)610

H32-1893 38514 Marinelli and C.S.n.c. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)611

H32-1894 38515 Marinelli and C.S.n.c. III, Interim Resolution DH(99)612

H32-1895 35335 Marinelli Guiseppe, Interim Resolution DH(98)426

H46-1896 49364 Marinelli Lucia, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1897 33781 Marino Liliana, Interim Resolution DH(98)177

H32-1898 26005 Marino Ruggiero, Interim Resolution DH(96)503

H32-1899 37139 Marletta, Interim Resolution DH(99)173

H32-1900 25250 Marolda, Interim Resolution DH(96)186

H32-1901 29656 Martelli and Straccia, Interim Resolution DH(97)436

H46-1902 47784 Martinetti and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1903 32298 Martino, Interim Resolution DH(98)34

H46-1904 44422 Marzinotto, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-1905 44496 Masala, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1906 40972 Masi, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H32-1907 37185 Massa, Interim Resolution DH(99)174

H46-297 46966 Massaro, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-298 46979 Mastrantonio Francesca, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-1908 34849 Mastrocinque Giovanni, Interim Resolution DH(98)321

H46-1909 47479 Mastromauro S.R.L., judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H32-1910 27453 Matarrese and Di Masi, Interim Resolution DH(97)66

H32-1911 39141 Matera, Interim Resolution DH(99)504

H46-1912 52973 Mattaliano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1913 35931 Matteoni O. F. A. and R., Interim Resolution DH(99)79

H46-1914 44420 Mauri, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-1915 44391 Mauti, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-1916 27187 Mazzà Giuseppe and others, Interim Resolution DH(97)38

H32-1917 26044 Mazzacuva, Interim Resolution DH(96)504

H32-1918 34828 Mazzella, Interim Resolution DH(98)322

H32-1919 33779 Mazzi, Interim Resolution DH(98)178

H32-1920 31328 Mazziotti, Interim Resolution DH(97)643

H46-1921 51655 Mazzoleni and others, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1922 29142 Mazzoli and 8 others, Interim Resolution DH(97)317

H32-1923 26417 Mazzone, Interim Resolution DH(96)538

H32-1924 26254 Medzihradszky, Interim Resolution DH(98)112

H32-1925 24798 Meistro and Santin, Interim Resolution DH(96)475

H46-1926 44438 Mel Sud S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1927 35917 Melchionna, Interim Resolution DH(99)80

H32-1928 26857 Meloni S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(96)634

H32-1929 24789 Meluso Angelo I, Interim Resolution DH(96)66

H32-1930 26416 Meluso Angelo II, Interim Resolution DH(96)539

H32-1931 38471 Meluso Angelo III, Interim Resolution DH(99)396

H32-1932 38472 Meluso Angelo IV, Interim Resolution DH(99)397

H32-1933 35288 Mengano and Morini, Interim Resolution DH(98)427

H32-1934 34269 Mercandino, Interim Resolution DH(98)245

H32-1935 30578 Merlanti, Interim Resolution DH(97)539

H32-1936 26419 Merra, Interim Resolution DH(96)540

H46-1937 56101 Mesiti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1938 37168 Messina Giuseppe I, Interim Resolution DH(99)175

H32-1939 40574 Messina Giuseppe II, Interim Resolution DH(99)613

H32-1940 29146 Mezzatesta, Interim Resolution DH(97)318

H46-1941 49311 Mezzena, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1942 51654 Mezzetta, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1943 33796 Micanzi, Interim Resolution DH(98)179

H32-1944 38130 Michieli and Gentilini, Interim Resolution DH(99)295

H32-1945 34847 Milani, Interim Resolution DH(98)428

H32-1946 33798 Milano, Interim Resolution DH(98)180

H32-1947 35906 Milazzo, Interim Resolution DH(99)81

H46-1948 48403 Minici, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-1949 32280 Minnai, Interim Resolution DH(98)35

H32-1950 33163 Minniti and Lucianò, Interim Resolution DH(98)113

H32-1951 25218 Minotti, Interim Resolution DH(96)187

H46-1952 45098 Miola, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H46-1953 46540 MMB S.N.C. and Beloli, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-1954 36612 Mobilio, Interim Resolution DH(99)176

H32-1955 36609 Molari, Interim Resolution DH(99)177

H46-1956 48417 Mole, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-1957 51652 Molek, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-1958 51650 Molinaris, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-1959 34250 Monaco Maria, Interim Resolution DH(98)246

H32-1960 35909 Monorchio, Interim Resolution DH(99)82

H32-1961 39885 Montanari, Interim Resolution DH(99)614

H32-1962 32282 Monti, Interim Resolution DH(98)247

H32-1963 38492 Monticelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)398

H32-1964 39120 Morelli F. and G., Interim Resolution DH(99)505

H46-1965 49354 Morelli and Levantesi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-299 46973 Morelli and Nerattini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-1966 45066 Morena, judgment of 27/07/00, final on 27/10/00

H46-1967 48413 Morese II, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-1968 40932 Morese, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-1969 45067 Moretti, judgment of 27/07/00, final on 27/10/00

H32-1970 26428 Moroni, Interim Resolution DH(96)542

H32-1971 37138 Morra, Interim Resolution DH(99)178

H32-1972 34267 Morticella, Interim Resolution DH(98)248

H32-1973 39143 Moscarelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)506

H46-1974 52926 Mostacciuolo, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1975 36641 Mostosi, Interim Resolution DH(99)179

H32-1976 36656 Motta Umberto S.R.L., Interim Resolution DH(99)180

H32-1977 35293 Mucciola and Bottino, Interim Resolution DH(98)429

H32-1978 37153 Mugnaini Brandani, Interim Resolution DH(99)236

H46-300 44490 Murgia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-1979 46514 Murru I, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-1980 45091 Murru II, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1981 45095 Murru III, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1982 44386 Murru IV, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-1983 56089 Murru V, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-1984 34846 Musci, Interim Resolution DH(98)323

H32-1985 26002 Muso Aurelio I, Interim Resolution DH(96)505

H32-1986 30087 Muso Rosina, Interim Resolution DH(97)452

H46-1987 44507 Musti and Iarossi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-1988 39868 N.M. and A.M., Interim Resolution DH(99)615

H32-1989 35329 N.Z., Interim Resolution DH(98)430

H32-1990 20043 Napoli and Mammoliti

H32-1991 27970 Nardelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)147

H32-1992 29661 Nardone Angelo I, Interim Resolution DH(97)438

H32-1993 37173 Nardone Angelo II, Interim Resolution DH(99)181

H32-1994 29667 Nardone Antonio, Interim Resolution DH(97)437

H46-1995 40949 Nardone Ennio and Antonella, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-1996 27972 Naselli, Interim Resolution DH(97)148

H32-1997 39878 Nasto, Interim Resolution DH(99)616

H32-301 39872 Nata, Interim Resolution DH(99)617

H32-1998 33780 Nati, Interim Resolution DH(98)181

H32-1999 38147 Nati II, Interim Resolution DH(99)296

H32-2000 34277 Nazzaro, Interim Resolution DH(98)249

H32-2001 38500 Nembrini Gonzaga, Interim Resolution DH(99)399

H46-2002 46522 Nolla, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-2003 38124 Novello, Interim Resolution DH(99)297

H46-2004 45072 Novotny, judgment of 27/07/00, final on 27/10/00

H32-2005 29646 O. S.a.s., Interim Resolution DH(97)439

H32-2006 38108 O.B. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)298

H46-2007 44506 O.B. II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2008 29657 O.C., Interim Resolution DH(97)440

H46-2009 51698 O.M., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2010 26837 O.O., Interim Resolution DH(96)635

H46-302 44494 O.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-2011 49320 Onori, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-2012 38473 Orelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)400

H32-2013 35905 Orlando, Interim Resolution DH(99)101

H32-2014 27463 Orlando and Fiorentino, Interim Resolution DH(97)67

H32-2015 36622 Orlandoni and Lapis, Interim Resolution DH(99)182

H32-2016 25232 Ottelli, Interim Resolution DH(96)476

H32-2017 26861 Ozimo and Lamanna, Interim Resolution DH(96)636

H46-2018 51692 P. and M.O., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2019 34858 P. T. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)349

H32-2020 39864 P., M.R. and C.E., Interim Resolution DH(99)618

H32-2021 37144 P.A. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)209

H32-2022 37145 P.A. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)183

H32-2023 37146 P.A. III, Interim Resolution DH(99)184

H32-2024 26441 P.B. IV, Interim Resolution DH(96)543

H46-2025 44468 P.B. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2026 27161 P.C. and F.Z., Interim Resolution DH(97)40

H32-2027 27976 P.C. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)151

H32-2028 39162 P.C. III, Interim Resolution DH(99)507

H32-2029 38140 P.D.B, Interim Resolution DH(99)299

H46-2030 47000 P.I., judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-2031 14140 P.P. I

H32-2032 27460 P.P.II, Interim Resolution DH(97)68

H32-2033 25258 P.U. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)188

H32-2034 25259 P.U. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)189

H32-2035 25260 P.U. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)190

H32-2036 40568 Padalino R., C., and M.R., Interim Resolution DH(99)619

H46-2037 40570 Padalino V. and G., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-2038 35994 Paderni I, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 29/06/00

H32-2039 24334 Pala, Interim Resolution DH(95)428

H32-2040 36637 Paladini, Interim Resolution DH(99)185

H32-2041 28723 Pallotti, Interim Resolution DH(97)255

H32-2042 38127 Palmisano, Interim Resolution DH(99)312

H46-2043 49310 Palumbo, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-2044 40565 Panarari and Turani, Interim Resolution DH(99)620

H32-2045 30579 Panella Bruno I, Interim Resolution DH(97)540

H32-2046 31349 Panella Bruno II, Interim Resolution DH(97)644

H32-2047 21707 Panissa, D., G. and A. Vittonetto

H32-2048 35302 Panozzo, Interim Resolution DH(98)431

H32-2049 32295 Pansa, Interim Resolution DH(98)36

H46-2050 46991 Paolelli I, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H46-2051 44463 Paolelli II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2052 26033 Paolillo and Morini, Interim Resolution DH(96)506

H32-2053 40573 Paradiso Giorgio, Interim Resolution DH(99)621

H32-2054 24331 Parisi, Interim Resolution DH(95)429

H32-2055 25219 Parodi, Interim Resolution DH(96)191

H32-2056 40585 Pasinetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)622

H32-2057 34274 Pasquali Zanotti, Interim Resolution DH(98)258

H46-2058 45101 Pasquetti, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H32-2059 28056 Pasquino, Interim Resolution DH(97)645

H32-2060 27160 Passarella, Interim Resolution DH(97)41

H32-2061 38096 Passerini I, Interim Resolution DH(99)300

H32-2062 38097 Passerini II, Interim Resolution DH(99)301

H32-2063 39125 Pasta, Interim Resolution DH(99)508

H46-2064 51657 Pastrello, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2065 30095 Patelli and Pesenti, Interim Resolution DH(97)666

H32-2066 29169 Patrizi I, Interim Resolution DH(97)326

H32-2067 34833 Patteri, Interim Resolution DH(98)432

H46-2068 49396 Peda, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-2069 51700 Pelagagge, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-2070 56098 Pelagatti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2071 35338 Pellegrini Odilia, Interim Resolution DH(98)433

H32-2072 38489 Pepe, Interim Resolution DH(99)401

H32-2073 29664 Pepiciello, Interim Resolution DH(97)441

H32-2074 31337 Peresson, Interim Resolution DH(97)646

H46-2075 51699 Perico, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2076 39155 Perilli and Gigotti Micheli, Resolution DH(99)509

H32-2077 24047 Perini, Interim Resolution DH(95)293

H46-2078 45894 Pernici and D'Ercole, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-2079 25267 Perrone, Interim Resolution DH(96)192

H32-2080 29160 Pesaresi and 8 others, Interim Resolution DH(97)319

H32-2081 33147 Pesarin, Interim Resolution DH(98)114

H46-2082 40923 Petix, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-2083 25246 Petromilli, Interim Resolution DH(96)193

H32-2084 29137 Pettinelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)320

H46-2085 44380 Pettirossi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-2086 25248 Pezzati, Interim Resolution DH(96)194

H32-2087 30592 Pezzilli, Interim Resolution DH(97)541

H32-2088 34278 Pezzini, Interim Resolution DH(98)250

H32-2089 31644 Pia, Interim Resolution DH(97)647

H32-2090 29162 Piazzalunga II, Interim Resolution DH(97)321

H46-2091 51697 Piccinin, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2092 26031 Piccinini I, Interim Resolution DH(96)654

H32-2093 33167 Piccininno, Interim Resolution DH(98)182

H46-2094 45878 Piccirillo Angela, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-2095 47003 Piccoli, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-2096 29655 Piccolo, Interim Resolution DH(97)442

H32-2097 35942 Picconi and Puggioni, Interim Resolution DH(98)434

H32-2098 31642 Pierfederici, Interim Resolution DH(97)648

H32-2099 29140 Pierucci, Interim Resolution DH(98)115

H32-2100 34862 Pioli, Interim Resolution DH(98)350

H32-2101 39899 Pirilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)623

H32-2102 35283 Piscopo and 5 others, Interim Resolution DH(98)435

H46-2103 45874 Pittoni, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-2104 51665 Plebani, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2105 26445 Poddighe and others, Interim Resolution DH(96)544

H32-2106 35901 Poli, Interim Resolution DH(99)83

H46-2107 52976 Policriti and Gioffré, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2108 34834 Polidoro, Interim Resolution DH(98)351

H32-2109 35317 Poligamma s.n.c., Interim Resolution DH(98)436

H32-2110 24794 Polperio and 7 others I, Interim Resolution DH(96)71

H32-2111 24795 Polperio and 7 others II, Interim Resolution DH(96)72

H46-2112 44499 Pomante Pappalepore, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2113 37164 Poppi, Interim Resolution DH(99)237

H46-2114 44454 Porcelli, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2115 30584 Porfilio, Interim Resolution DH(97)542

H46-2116 40967 Privitera, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-303 46967 Procaccianti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-304 46969 Procopio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2117 27955 Proietti Valeri, Interim Resolution DH(97)136

H46-2118 49312 Provide S.R.L., judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-2119 37593 Provide S.r.l. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)624

H32-2120 40621 Provide s.r.l. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)625

H32-2121 13545 Provinzano

H32-2122 20235 Pucchielli

H32-2123 20208 Pucci

H32-2124 35911 Pucci and Veschi, Interim Resolution DH(99)84

H32-2125 27447 Puglia, Interim Resolution DH(97)69

H32-2126 25254 Pugliani and Cianca, Interim Resolution DH(96)195

H46-2127 41803 Pupillo, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00; revised on 18/12/01 (Article 41),

final on 18/03/02

H32-2128 39893 Quattrone Francesco, Interim Resolution DH(99)626

H46-2129 44412 Quattrone Pasquale, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-2130 40927 R. I, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-2131 40964 R. II, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H32-2132 26440 R.D., Interim Resolution DH(96)545

H46-2133 52971 R.L., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2134 33156 R.L.P., Interim Resolution DH(98)183

H32-2135 30090 R.M. IV, Interim Resolution DH(97)453

H46-2136 44526 R.P. and others, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2137 24807 R.P. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)73

H32-2138 36626 R.P. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)210

H32-2139 34245 R.R., Interim Resolution DH(98)251

H32-2140 36602 R.S.p.A., Interim Resolution DH(99)186

H32-2141 26425 R.V. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)546

H46-2142 44381 Raffa, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2143 26046 Raffi Giuliano I, Interim Resolution DH(96)507

H32-2144 26841 Raffi Giuliano II, Interim Resolution DH(96)637

H46-2145 52962 Raffio, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2146 44524 Ragas, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02, revised on 17/12/02, (Article 41),

final on 17/03/03

H32-2147 35939 Ragnolini, Interim Resolution DH(99)85

H32-2148 27171 Ragusi, Bordandini, Pattuelli and Vidimian, Interim Resolution DH(97)42

H46-2149 38498 Rando, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H32-2150 27162 Ranucci, Interim Resolution DH(97)103

H46-2151 52913 Rapisarda, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2152 19222 Rapotez

H32-2153 38495 Ravanelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)510

H46-2154 46984 Ravignani, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-2155 35289 Redaelli Tecna S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(98)437

H32-2156 26014 Reinaudo, Interim Resolution DH(96)509

H32-2157 26847 Reni, Interim Resolution DH(96)638

H32-2158 36652 Reniero, Interim Resolution DH(99)238

H32-2159 26001 Ricchiuto, Interim Resolution DH(96)510

H32-2160 38483 Ricci Maria Annina, Interim Resolution DH(99)402

H32-2161 35327 Ricci Riccardo, Interim Resolution DH(98)438

H46-2162 46988 Ricci Silvia, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-2163 26030 Riccioni, Interim Resolution DH(96)511

H32-2164 36617 Rico Giovanni I, Interim Resolution DH(99)187

H32-2165 36618 Rico Giovanni II, Interim Resolution DH(99)188

H32-2166 17049 Righetti

H46-2167 44465 Rigutto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2168 25256 Ristoro G., A. and A., Interim Resolution DH(96)196

H46-2169 49357 Rizio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2170 26404 Rizza, Interim Resolution DH(96)547

H32-2171 38477 Rizzo, Interim Resolution DH(99)403

H46-305 44409 Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, rectified on 04/07/02

H32-2172 27983 Rizzo M. R. and G. and De Martino, Interim Resolution DH(97)157

H32-2173 39892 Roberto R., M-L., C., and F., and Tudisco, Interim Resolution DH(99)627

H46-2174 51659 Roccatagliata, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2175 31345 Rocchi Almerico, Interim Resolution DH(97)649

H46-2176 51664 Rodolfi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-2177 45887 Roma, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-2178 26437 Romagnoli, Interim Resolution DH(96)548

H32-2179 30089 Romaniello, Interim Resolution DH(97)454

H32-2180 33510 Romaniello G. and A., Interim Resolution DH(98)266

H46-2181 52969 Romano Almanio Antonio, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2182 38106 Romei, Interim Resolution DH(99)302

H32-2183 40572 Rondinone, Interim Resolution DH(99)628

H46-2184 44531 Rongoni, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-2185 40948 Ronzulli, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-2186 49361 Rosa Antonio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2187 36643 Rosa Elisabetta, Interim Resolution DH(99)189

H32-2188 34874 Roselli Italo I, Interim Resolution DH(98)439

H32-2189 35328 Roselli Italo II

H46-2190 38480 Roselli Italo III, judgment of 15/02/00

H46-306 44479 Rosetti e Ciucci and C., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-307 44527 Rossana Ferrari, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2191 40598 Rossi Eufrasia, Interim Resolution DH(99)629

H32-2192 27971 Rossi Franca, Interim Resolution DH(97)171

H46-2193 51710 Rossi Gianbattista, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-2194 52988 Rossi Maria Giovanna, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2195 34238 Rossi Romano, Interim Resolution DH(98)252

H46-2196 44472 Rossi Valeria, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-2197 51704 Rota Giacomo and Gianfranco, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-2198 51705 Rota Roberto and Giuseppe, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2199 25236 Rotella and Zuccalà, Interim Resolution DH(96)197

H46-2200 46513 Rotiroti, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H32-2201 27977 Ruggeri, Interim Resolution DH(97)152

H32-2202 27478 Rullo Tassone, Interim Resolution DH(97)70

H46-2203 40934 S., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-2204 33143 S. C. IV, Interim Resolution DH(98)116

H32-2205 27962 S. D.P., Interim Resolution DH(97)141

H46-2206 40184 S.A.GE.MA S.n.c. II, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

H32-2207 24042 S.B., Interim Resolution DH(95)298

H32-2208 26042 S.C. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)78

H32-2209 26405 S.C. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)549

H32-2210 26407 S.D., Interim Resolution DH(96)550

H32-2211 39118 S.G., Interim Resolution DH(99)526

H32-2212 39148 S.I.E.L.P.A. S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(99)511

H32-2213 34864 S.I.P.I. S.n.c., Interim Resolution DH(98)324

H32-2214 38508 S.M., Interim Resolution DH(99)404

H32-2215 26414 S.P. and S.V., Interim Resolution DH(96)551

H46-2216 45061 S.S., judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-2217 24324 Sabia, Interim Resolution DH(95)441

H32-2218 25107 Sacchi, Interim Resolution DH(96)115

H46-2219 44461 Sacchi Roberto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2220 37169 Salamanca, Interim Resolution DH(99)190

H32-500 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673

H32-2221 38111 Salomone, Interim Resolution DH(99)303

H32-2222 36642 Saltari, Interim Resolution DH(99)240

H32-2223 30104 Salvatore I, Interim Resolution DH(97)455

H32-2224 30105 Salvatore II, Interim Resolution DH(97)456

H32-2225 30106 Salvatore III, Interim Resolution DH(97)457

H32-2226 30110 Salvatore IV, Interim Resolution DH(97)458

H32-2227 30111 Salvatore V, Interim Resolution DH(97)459

H32-2228 30112 Salvatore VI, Interim Resolution DH(97)460

H46-2229 40943 Salvatori and Gardin, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-2230 49360 Salvi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46-2231 44404 Salzano, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 04/04/01

H32-2232 31340 Sambati, Interim Resolution DH(97)650

H32-2233 27174 Samir, Interim Resolution DH(97)43

H46-2234 38135 Sanna, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H32-2235 35929 Santarcangelo, Interim Resolution DH(99)86

H32-2236 30588 Santella, Interim Resolution DH(97)543

H46-2237 45895 Santini, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-2238 26034 Santonocito and others, Interim Resolution DH(96)512

H46-2239 44466 Santoro Valerio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-308 47780 Santorum, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2240 32288 Sapuppo, Interim Resolution DH(98)37

H32-2241 35326 Sardo, Interim Resolution DH(98)441

H32-2242 40569 Sarti, Interim Resolution DH(99)630

H46-2243 45069 Sartori, judgment of 27/07/00, final on 27/10/00

H32-2244 30591 Sasso, Interim Resolution DH(97)544

H32-2245 38490 Saullo, Interim Resolution DH(99)405

H46-2246 49368 Savanna and La Selva, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2247 33166 Savini and Malaspina, Interim Resolution DH(98)117

H46-2248 45854 Savino, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-2249 38479 Savona, judgment of 15/02/00

H46-2250 52977 Savona II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2251 44419 Sbrojavacca Pietrobon, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-2252 34237 Scagliola, Interim Resolution DH(98)253

H32-2253 24021 Scala, Interim Resolution DH(95)299

H46-309 36621 Scalvini, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H32-2254 33793 Scannella, Interim Resolution DH(98)184

H46-2255 44489 Scannella Giuseppe, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2256 35904 Scappaticci A.F. and A., and Ruzza, Interim Resolution DH(99)87

H46-2257 40929 Scarano, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-2258 30096 Scerra, Interim Resolution DH(97)461

H32-2259 24780 Schiavone, Interim Resolution DH(96)76

H46-2260 40623 Sciarrotta and Guarino, judgment of 05/04/00

H46-2261 52918 Scinto, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2262 32286 Scipioni, Mancini C.M., B. and D., Interim Resolution DH(98)38

H32-2263 24814 Scognamiglio II, Interim Resolution DH(96)116

H32-2264 38470 Scoppio, Interim Resolution DH(99)406

H32-2265 14578 Scotti II

H32-2266 26834 Scuderi Graziella, Interim Resolution DH(96)639

H46-2267 52983 Seccia, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2268 51672 Selva, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-2269 44467 Seminara, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2270 38119 Serino Luigi, Interim Resolution DH(99)304

H46-2271 49306 Servillo and D'Ambrosio, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-2272 44402 Servodidio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-2273 52959 Sessa, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2274 33151 Sestito, Sestito and Zaccone, Interim Resolution DH(98)118

H32-2275 37155 Severino, Interim Resolution DH(99)191

H32-2276 33787 Sferlazza, Interim Resolution DH(98)185

H32-2277 33148 Sgrò, Interim Resolution DH(98)119

H32-2278 27984 Sgroi, Interim Resolution DH(97)158

H46-310 44505 Shipcare S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-2279 40945 Siega and 7 others, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-2280 40577 Siena I, Interim Resolution DH(99)631

H46-2281 48415 Siena II, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2282 26432 Siface, Interim Resolution DH(96)552

H32-2283 26825 Silvan S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(96)640

H46-2284 44400 Silvestri, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-2285 27176 Simonetti, Interim Resolution DH(97)39

H32-2286 30581 Simoni, Interim Resolution DH(97)545

H32-2287 26854 Simotti A, O. and M., Interim Resolution DH(96)641

H32-2288 26402 Siniscalchi and others, Interim Resolution DH(96)553

H46-2289 44493 Siper S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2290 36604 Sirol Soc. Coop. a.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(99)192

H46-2291 52989 Sirufo, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2292 25243 SO.CO.AB.S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(97)291

H46-2293 56093 Società Croce Gialla Romana S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2294 35271 Società Sant'Andrea S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(98)442

H32-2295 32289 Société Générale de Sucreries, Interim Resolution DH(98)39

H32-2296 34240 Somigli, Interim Resolution DH(98)254

H32-2297 33146 Sonego, Interim Resolution DH(98)120

H46-311 44491 Sonego, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2298 39901 Sonzogno, Interim Resolution DH(99)632

H32-2299 34832 Sorace Carmelo, Interim Resolution DH(98)443

H32-2300 26004 Sorace Giuseppe I, Interim Resolution DH(96)513

H32-2301 38494 Sorace Giuseppe II, Interim Resolution DH(99)407

H32-2302 27468 Sorbo, Interim Resolution DH(97)168

H46-2303 51670 Sordelli and C. S.n.c., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2304 25235 Sorrenti Alessandro II, Interim Resolution DH(96)198

H46-2305 44470 Spada, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2306 35299 Spadon, Interim Resolution DH(98)444

H32-2307 27195 Spadoni Giacomo, Interim Resolution DH(97)44

H32-2308 38125 Spadoni Maurizio, Interim Resolution DH(99)305

H32-2309 39132 Spampani, Interim Resolution DH(99)512

H46-2310 51711 Spanu, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-2311 46512 Sparano, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H32-2312 34232 Sparti, Interim Resolution DH(98)267

H46-2313 44487 Spera II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2314 26839 Spiccia, Interim Resolution DH(96)642

H32-2315 36613 Spinato, Interim Resolution DH(99)193

H46-2316 56105 Spinelli, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2317 29651 Spinosi, Interim Resolution DH(97)443

H32-2318 40618 Spitale, Interim Resolution DH(99)633

H32-2319 39873 Sportelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)634

H46-312 56094 Sposito, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2320 39705 Spurio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-2321 37142 Squeo, Interim Resolution DH(99)194

H46-2322 44503 Squillante Gennaro, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2323 39136 Squillante Pasquale, Interim Resolution DH(99)513

H46-2324 52990 Stabile, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2325 30586 Stacchiotti, Interim Resolution DH(97)651

H32-2326 39865 Staffolani, Interim Resolution DH(99)635

H32-2327 35282 Statile, Interim Resolution DH(98)445

H46-2328 44518 Stefanini, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-2329 49314 Steiner and Hassid Steiner, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-2330 25229 Sterchele C. and C., Interim Resolution DH(96)199

H46-2331 47002 Storti, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-2332 21507 Stringini, Interim Resolution DH(97)104

H32-2333 25252 Strongoli I, Interim Resolution DH(96)200

H32-2334 25253 Strongoli II, Interim Resolution DH(96)201

H46-2335 45056 Studio Tecnico AMU S.A.S., judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-2336 27173 Sud Ovest S.A.S., Interim Resolution DH(97)45

H32-2337 24039 T. s.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(95)302

H32-2338 37165 T.A.M., Interim Resolution DH(99)88

H32-2339 24040 T.M. and M.G.C., Interim Resolution DH(95)303

H32-2340 38521 T.M.A.2 S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(99)408

H32-2341 35937 T.P. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)89

H32-2342 23566 T.-S.I., Interim Resolution DH(97)297

H32-2343 24803 T.S.I. s.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(96)77

H32-2344 35298 Taddei, Interim Resolution DH(99)90

H46-2345 44417 Tagliabue, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-2346 33661 Tagliavini, Interim Resolution DH(98)446

H32-2347 36610 Talarico, Interim Resolution DH(99)239

H32-2348 38102 Talenti, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)58

H46-2349 51656 Targi and Bianchi, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-2350 40933 Tarsia, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-2351 33165 Tartaglia I, Interim Resolution DH(98)121

H46-2352 48402 Tartaglia II, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-313 44486 Tebaldi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2353 13692 Tedesco I

H32-2354 13693 Tedesco II

H32-2355 40593 Tedesco Mario Felice, Interim Resolution DH(99)636

H46-2356 44425 Tedesco Michele, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-2357 46508 Teofili, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H32-2358 35913 Tesolin S. and F., Interim Resolution DH(99)91

H32-2359 30589 Tessadri, Interim Resolution DH(97)546

H46-2360 51673 Tiozzo Peschiero L. and L., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2361 26436 Todesco Aldo, Interim Resolution DH(96)554

H32-2362 38468 Tommaselli C., A., M. V. and G., Interim Resolution DH(99)409

H46-2363 45862 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.p.a. I, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-2364 45863 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.p.a. II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-2365 45864 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.p.a. III, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-2366 45865 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.p.a. IV, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-2367 45866 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.p.a. V, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-2368 45867 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.p.a. VI, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-2369 46539 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.P.A. VII, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-2370 56100 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.p.a. VIII, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2371 39123 Torregiani, Interim Resolution DH(99)514

H54-2372 26433 Torri, judgment of 01/07/97

H32-2373 39903 Torzo, Interim Resolution DH(99)637

H32-2374 39167 Tosone, Interim Resolution DH(99)515

H46-2375 45104 Trapani Francesco II, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H32-2376 34265 Trapani, Interim Resolution DH(98)255

H46-2377 44439 Traspadini, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-2378 34856 Tripodi Giacinto, Interim Resolution DH(98)352

H46-2379 40946 Tripodi Giuseppe, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00, revised on 23/10/01,

final on 23/01/02

H32-2380 27177 Tripodo M, C. and G. and Leonardo, Interim Resolution DH(97)46

H32-2381 34230 Trippa, Interim Resolution DH(98)256

H32-2382 38491 Triuzzi, Interim Resolution DH(99)410

H32-2383 34844 Trivellini, Interim Resolution DH(98)353

H32-2384 27961 Troccolo and Carrassi L. and C., Interim Resolution DH(97)172

H46-2385 44478 Troiani Marcello I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2386 31637 Troncato, Interim Resolution DH(98)40

H32-2387 38510 Tulli, Interim Resolution DH(99)411

H46-2388 45879 Turchini, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H32-2389 36632 Turetta, Interim Resolution DH(99)195

H32-2390 35267 Tuso, Interim Resolution DH(98)447

H32-2391 26013 Uricchio, Interim Resolution DH(96)514

H32-2392 27198 V. and R.R., Interim Resolution DH(97)47

H32-2393 29168 V. L.S., Interim Resolution DH(97)322

H32-2394 36628 V.B. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)196

H32-2395 36634 V.D.P., Interim Resolution DH(99)197

H46-2396 51674 V.I., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 04/09/02

H32-2397 31342 V.L., Interim Resolution DH(97)652

H32-2398 25234 V.M. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)202

H32-2399 29130 V.M. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)323

H32-2400 30216 V.N., Interim Resolution DH(97)653

H32-2401 33155 V.P. and F.P., Interim Resolution DH(98)122

H32-2402 26401 V.R. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)655

H32-2403 30103 V.R. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)462

H46-2404 52967 Vaccarella, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2405 30101 Vaccari, Interim Resolution DH(97)463

H46-2406 46977 Vaccarisi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2407 23147 Vaggelli-Lupi, Interim Resolution DH(96)245

H46-2408 44459 Vairano, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-2409 49356 Valenti, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2410 24793 Valentini, Interim Resolution DH(96)79

H46-2411 44398 Valentino, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-2412 38467 Valeri and Valeri and Rosa, Interim Resolution DH(99)412

H32-2413 37180 Valerio, Interim Resolution DH(99)198

H32-2414 34836 Valesani, Interim Resolution DH(98)354

H32-2415 27980 Valsecchi, Interim Resolution DH(97)155

H46-2416 44384 Valvo and Branca, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2417 27455 Vannucchi, Interim Resolution DH(97)71

H46-2418 51707 Vanzetti, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2419 40584 Vardaro, Interim Resolution DH(99)638

H32-2420 25251 Varvaro, Interim Resolution DH(96)477

H32-2421 36607 Vasto, Interim Resolution DH(99)241

H32-2422 37172 Vattano, Interim Resolution DH(99)199

H46-2423 56086 Vazzana, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-314 44488 Vecchi and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-315 44528 Vecchini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2424 34253 Vedovato, Interim Resolution DH(98)257

H46-2425 52960 Ventrone, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2426 56096 Venturin, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-316 44534 Venturini Alberto I, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-2427 44535 Venturini III, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2428 33801 Verdelli, Interim Resolution DH(98)186

H32-2429 27166 Verini I, Interim Resolution DH(97)105

H32-2430 40586 Verini II, Interim Resolution DH(99)639

H46-2431 46982 Verini III, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H46-2432 46983 Verini IV, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H46-2433 46992 Verini V, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-2434 16087 Vernillo

H32-2435 35948 Verza, Interim Resolution DH(99)92

H32-2436 25222 Vesentini, Interim Resolution DH(96)203

H46-2437 52965 Vetrone, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2438 18011 Vicari G., R., and V.

H32-2439 36654 Vicari I, Interim Resolution DH(99)200

H46-2440 40599 Vicari II, judgment of 15/02/00

H32-2441 19835 Villani I

H46-2442 51663 Villanova, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2443 35306 Vincenti Salvatore, Interim Resolution DH(98)448

H46-2444 40935 Vinci, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H32-2445 38501 Viola, Interim Resolution DH(99)413

H46-2446 44395 Visentin, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-2447 37166 Vitale and others, judgment of 02/11/99

H32-2448 29144 Vitali I, Interim Resolution DH(97)324

H32-2449 34875 Vitone, Interim Resolution DH(98)235

H32-2450 29164 Vivian, Interim Resolution DH(97)325

H46-2451 45064 Von Berger Icilio and Luciano, judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-2452 26850 Von Berger Icilio I, Interim Resolution DH(96)644

H32-2453 26851 Von Berger Icilio II, Interim Resolution DH(96)645

H32-2454 26852 Von Berger Icilio III, Interim Resolution DH(96)646

H32-2455 35926 Von Berger Luciano I, Interim Resolution DH(99)93

H32-2456 35927 Von Berger Luciano II, Interim Resolution DH(99)94

H32-2457 27471 W.B., Interim Resolution DH(97)72

H46-317 44445 W.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-2458 45060 X200 S.R.L., judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-2459 39127 Zagato, Interim Resolution DH(99)516

H32-2460 23587 Zanelli

H46-2461 44462 Zanasi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2462 40606 Zanon and Lazzaro, Interim Resolution DH(99)640

H32-2463 27185 Zappavigna and Andriano, Interim Resolution DH(97)48

H32-2464 27966 Zarzana, Interim Resolution DH(97)144

H32-2465 34257 Zavatta I, Interim Resolution DH(98)259

H32-2466 34259 Zavatta II, Interim Resolution DH(98)355

H32-2467 27175 Zilaghe and Dettori, Interim Resolution DH(97)49

H46-2468 37079 Zironi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-2469 27451 Zoccali, Interim Resolution DH(97)73

H32-2470 39133 Zoccola, Interim Resolution DH(99)517

H46-2471 52966 Zotti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2472 52963 Zotti and Ferrara I, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2473 52964 Zotti and Ferrara II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2474 45087 Zurzolo, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

- 7 cases concerning execution proceedings

H46-2475 40958 A.V. and A.B., judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/07/00

H32-2476 34273 De Luca Antonio, Interim Resolution DH(98)233

H54-2477 15797 Di Pede, judgment of 26/09/96

H32-2478 35290 Finocchiaro, Interim Resolution DH(99)494

H46-2479 40969 Muso Aurelio II, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-2480 40981 Muso Aurelio III, judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/07/00

H54-2481 24295 Zappia, judgment of 26/09/96

- 118 cases before administrative courts

H46-2482 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-513 56226 Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2483 29171 Abbate Giovanni, Interim Resolution DH(97)367

H54-2484 25587 Abenavoli, judgment of 02/09/97

H46-502 41806 Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-2485 26863 Almanno, Interim Resolution DH(96)611

H46-503 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-2486 25579 B.Q., Interim Resolution DH(96)213

H32-2487 26864 Bacci Roberto Maria, Interim Resolution DH(96)612

H32-2488 25585 Bagnoli and Mazzone G., A. and M., Interim Resolution DH(96)214

H32-2489 34878 Barcellona, Interim Resolution DH(99)202

H32-2490 35343 Bertozzi, Vorrasi, Ciarmoli and Forgione, Interim Resolution DH(99)642

H32-2491 27189 Bevilacqua, Interim Resolution DH(97)524

H46-2492 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

H46-2493 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-537 44341 Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-538 44347 Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H32-2494 19977 Carriero, Interim Resolution DH(96)26

H32-2495 31628 Catania, Interim Resolution DH(99)414

H32-2496 25576 Cavaliero s.n.c., Interim Resolution DH(96)215

H32-2497 34882 Cecamore, Interim Resolution DH(99)203

H46-2498 44332 Cecchini, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-539 44350 Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-514 56222 Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2499 29170 Cerruto, Interim Resolution DH(97)368

H32-2500 29125 Chierici B. and E., Interim Resolution DH(97)331

H46-504 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-515 56206 Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-2501 41811 Comitini, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-516 56208 Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-517 56202 Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2502 27494 Corona Vincenzo, Interim Resolution DH(97)020

H32-2503 25577 Cosma, Interim Resolution DH(96)216

H32-2504 25588 D.M. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)217

H32-2505 27996+ D'Amico and Altobelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)130

H46-518 56224 D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-519 56217 De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H54-2506 25574 De Santa, judgment of 02/09/97

H32-2507 20359 Della Sala Raffaele, Interim Resolution DH(96)614

H46-540 44337 Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-520 56205 Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2508 14147+ Di Bonaventura

H46-521 56225 Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-522 56221 Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-506 44525 Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-507 44379 Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-523 56212 Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-542 44349 Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H32-2509 30600 G. D.P., Interim Resolution DH(97)525

H32-2510 25584 G.L.C., Interim Resolution DH(96)218

H32-2511 31622 G.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)654

H46-505 35956 Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-511 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-541 44340 Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-524 56203 Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2512 25580 Giorgini, Interim Resolution DH(96)219

H54-2513 25586 Lapalorcia, judgment of 02/09/97

H46-536 44334 Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H32-2514 25581 Latini, Interim Resolution DH(96)220

H46-525 56204 Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-526 56207 Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2515 15080 Magnaghi, Interim Resolution DH(96)379

H32-2516 27994+ Manzini and Benet, Interim Resolution DH(97)129

H46-508 44343 Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-509 44352 Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-527 56220 Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2517 38149 Mazzone G. and E. (I), Interim Resolution DH(99)306

H32-2518 38150 Mazzone G. and E. (II), Interim Resolution DH(99)307

H46-2519 33804 Mennitto, judgment of 05/10/00

H32-2520 25589 Mentastro, Interim Resolution DH(96)221

H46-2521 38594 Mereu and S. Maria Navarrese, judgment of 13/06/02, final on 13/09/02

H46-2522 44338 Miele, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-2523 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H32-2524 17814 Mori Puddu, Interim Resolution DH(97)177

H46-2525 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H32-2526 38526 Murgo M, O, and S. and Giannone, Interim Resolution DH(99)415

H32-2527 30322 Nani, Interim Resolution DH(98)193

H46-528 56211 Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-543 44348 Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H54-2528 25839 Nicodemo, judgment of 02/09/97

H46-2529 44335 O., judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-2530 18908 P.P. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)111

H46-544 44351 Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H32-2531 35950+ Paglietti and 126 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)99

H46-2532 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H32-2533 15800+ Perego and Romanet

H46-529 56213 Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-530 56223 Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2534 34880 Polto Miranda, Interim Resolution DH(99)204

H46-531 56219 Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-501 44330 Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2535 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

H32-2536 27493 Recinelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)21

H32-2537 27999+ Recinelli and Corona, Interim Resolution DH(97)132

H32-2538 27997 Ridolfi, Interim Resolution DH(97)131

H46-510 44345 Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-532 56214 Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-533 56215 Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2539 26865+ Rubbo and others, Interim Resolution DH(96)613

H32-2540 34881 Ruocco, Interim Resolution DH(99)643

H32-2541 25582 Sansoni, Interim Resolution DH(96)222

H32-2542 31625 Santoro Claudio, Interim Resolution DH(97)655

H46-534 56201 Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2543 29672 Scopelliti II, Interim Resolution DH(97)469

H32-2544 27484+ Serino and others, Interim Resolution DH(97)133

H32-2545 25450 Spera Michele, Interim Resolution DH(97)372

H46-535 56218 Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2546 34283 Stampacchia, Interim Resolution DH(98)272

H32-2547 25583 Stracuzzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)241

H32-2548 25578 Turrina and Scattolini, Interim Resolution DH(96)223

H32-2549 31620 U. P., Interim Resolution DH(97)656

H32-2550 38152 Ullo, Interim Resolution DH(99)308

H46-512 44333 V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2551 44346 Venturini Alberto II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2552 29301 Vitali II, Interim Resolution DH(97)332

H32-2553 29302 Vitali III, Interim Resolution DH(97)333

H32-2554 39170 Zappalà, Interim Resolution DH(99)523

H46-2555 41814 Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

- 362 cases before the labour courts

H46-2556 44390 A.V. II, judgment of 06/11/01, final on 06/02/02

H32-2557 27991+ Accuosto and Saviello, Interim Resolution DH(97)166

H46-2558 51031 Aceto and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2559 38141 Altieri, Interim Resolution DH(99)313

H46-2560 48421 Altomonte, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2561 36648 Ambrosino Antonio, Interim Resolution DH(99)211

H32-2562 33145 Antonini Giuseppe, Interim Resolution DH(98)124

H32-2563 28771 Apicella, Interim Resolution DH(97)290

H46-2564 32375 Aprile De Puoti, judgment of 09/11/99

H46-2565 51089 Armellino Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2566 51093 Armellino Lucia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2567 44469 Ascolinio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2568 27462 Bagli and Musumeci, Interim Resolution DH(97)79

H32-2569 39891 Balbi, Interim Resolution DH(99)645

H32-2570 40605 Barone Maria, Interim Resolution DH(99)646

H32-2571 34271 Belloni, Interim Resolution DH(98)260

H46-2572 52824 Belviso and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2573 38115 Ben Charfeddine, Interim Resolution DH(99)314

H32-2574 28769 Benedetto, Interim Resolution DH(97)257

H46-2575 56091 Bernardini, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2576 56103 Bevilacqua Giovanni, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2577 52804 Bianco Pellegrino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2578 52816 Biondi and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2579 51030 Biondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2580 35918 Buffa, Interim Resolution DH(99)95

H32-2581 29645 C.A., Interim Resolution DH(97)418

H46-2582 45882 C.a.r.l. en Liquidation I, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H46-2583 45883 C.a.r.l. en Liquidation II, judgment of 16/01/01, final on 16/04/01

H32-2584 26439 Cagnetta, Interim Resolution DH(96)559

H32-2585 28747 Cairella, Interim Resolution DH(97)258

H46-2586 51150 Calabrese, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2587 48408 Calo, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2588 40595 Camerino, Interim Resolution DH(99)648

H32-2589 39169 Capoluongo Giuseppe, Interim Resolution DH(99)649

H32-2590 40619 Capoluongo M.R.V., Interim Resolution DH(99)650

H32-2591 28745 Caporaso Carmela, Interim Resolution DH(97)259

H32-2592 38142 Capozzi Di Stefano, Interim Resolution DH(99)316

H32-2593 36615 Cappello, Interim Resolution DH(99)212

H32-2594 38120 Cappelloni, Interim Resolution DH(99)315

H46-2595 49319 Capri, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H32-2596 38095 Cardillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)317

H46-2597 51134 Cardo Cristina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2598 51146 Cardo Elisa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2599 48414 Carlucci, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-2600 51127 Carolla, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised on 28/11/02,

final on 28/02/03

H32-2601 40612 Caruso Angelina, Interim Resolution DH(99)652

H32-2602 35339 Cascone and Marrazzo, Interim Resolution DH(98)449

H32-2603 37136 Cassandra Luigi I, Interim Resolution DH(99)213

H32-2604 40600 Celentano, Interim Resolution DH(99)653

H46-2605 52835 Cerbo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2606 29131 Cherubini, Interim Resolution DH(97)369

H46-2607 56102 Ciampaglia, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2608 52801 Ciarmoli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2609 46521 Ciccardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-2610 31343 Cimadoro, Interim Resolution DH(97)623

H46-2611 52815 Cimmino and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2612 28741 Circelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)260

H46-2613 51112 Circelli Maria Antonia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2614 28739 Cocchiaro, Interim Resolution DH(97)261

H46-318 44532 Colacrai, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-2615 52821 Colangelo Domenico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2616 51116 Colella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2617 26827 Conti Filippo, Interim Resolution DH(96)663

H32-2618 39888 Coppola, Interim Resolution DH(99)651

H32-2619 38502 Corrarello I, Interim Resolution DH(99)416

H32-2620 39149 Corrarello II, Interim Resolution DH(99)518

H32-2621 39146 Correnti, Interim Resolution DH(99)519

H46-2622 51147 Crisci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2623 51164 Crovella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2624 56104 Cullari, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2625 51154 Cuozzo Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2626 51149 Cuozzo Giovanna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2627 28766+ Cusano and La Salvia, Interim Resolution DH(97)262

H32-2628 37186 Cutillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)214

H46-2629 51163 D’Angelo Michele, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2630 33141 De Candia, Interim Resolution DH(98)125

H46-2631 51098 De la Rosa Giovanna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2632 28763 De Luca Maria, Interim Resolution DH(97)264

H46-2633 51141 De Rosa Maria, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2634 34254 De Sando, Interim Resolution DH(98)261

H46-2635 51137 Del Grosso Nicola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2636 28767 Del Pozzo, Interim Resolution DH(97)265

H46-2637 51160 Del Re, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2638 51027 Del Vecchio Anna Rita, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2639 51155 Della Ratta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2640 28736 Delle Donne, Interim Resolution DH(97)266

H46-2641 51129 Di Dio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-319 46975 Di Gabriele, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2642 38112 Di Gilio, Voto, Peduto and Notari, Interim Resolution DH(99)318

H46-2643 51131 Di Maria, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2644 52813 Di Meo and Masotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2645 52846 Di Meo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2646 51099 Di Meo Franca, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2647 51092 Di Mezza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2648 43011 Di Niro, judgment of 27/07/00, final on 27/10/00

H32-2649 23243 Di Paola, Interim Resolution DH(96)242

H46-2650 51157 Di Resta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2651 40616 Di Santo, Interim Resolution DH(99)654

H46-2652 44414 Di Sisto, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-2653 51143 Donato Pepe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2654 28743 D'Onofrio Gelsomina, Interim Resolution DH(97)263

H32-2655 39153 Dottorini, Interim Resolution DH(99)520

H46-2656 48404 Dragonetti, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2657 32292 E.Z., Interim Resolution DH(98)42

H46-2658 48420 Efisio Pisano, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2659 37184 Esposito Loredana, Interim Resolution DH(99)215

H46-2660 51119 Esposito Lucia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-320 46978 F.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2661 35269 F.V. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)450

H32-2662 33157 Falbo, Interim Resolution DH(98)126

H32-2663 27990 Falco, Interim Resolution DH(97)165

H46-2664 51145 Falluto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-321 51156 Fasulo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, rectified on 12/09/02

H46-2665 51121 Falzarano Pasquale, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2666 51091 Ferrara Clementina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2667 51128 Ferrara Serafina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2668 25220 Ferrari Giampiero, Interim Resolution DH(96)212

H46-2669 33440 Ferrari Marcella I, judgment of 28/07/99

H46-2670 51144 Fiorenza Carmine, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2671 51142 Formato, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2672 40613 Formichella, Interim Resolution DH(99)655

H46-2673 45897 Forte, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-2674 45855 Fr.C., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-2675 52843 Franco and Basile, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2676 36619 Franklin, Interim Resolution DH(99)216

H46-2677 52924 Frattini and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02, revised on

26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H32-2678 33150 G. D. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)451

H32-2679 24826 G.B. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)59

H32-2680 39163 G.B. III, Interim Resolution DH(99)521

H32-2681 24779 G.B.S., Interim Resolution DH(96)60

H32-2682 30093 G.D.Z., Interim Resolution DH(97)552

H32-2683 28744 Gagliarde, Interim Resolution DH(97)267

H46-2684 51161 Gagliardi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2685 51103 Gattone and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised on 03/10/02,

final on 03/01/03

H46-2686 51135 Gaudino Palma, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2687 37176+ Gazzo, Rossini, Poli, Dal Forno and Ferro, Interim Resolution DH(99)217

H46-2688 47186 Gentile Agostino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2689 37170 Giampietro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-2690 28749 Giannini, Interim Resolution DH(97)268

H46-2691 52830 Giannotta and Iannella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2692 39905 Gilio Antonia, Interim Resolution DH(99)656

H46-2693 51148 Gisondi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2694 34850 Grassi, Interim Resolution DH(98)356

H46-2695 51159 Grasso Alfonsina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2696 26807 Grosso, Interim Resolution DH(96)243

H46-2697 48411 Grasso Armando, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02, revised on 29/04/03,

final on 29/07/03

H46-2698 39124 Guagenti, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-2699 51094 Iacobucci and Lavorgna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2700 38144 Iammarino, Interim Resolution DH(99)319

H46-2701 51153 Iannotta Antonietta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2702 24806 Iaria, Interim Resolution DH(96)61

H46-2703 51102 Iesce and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2704 39890 Iescone, Interim Resolution DH(99)657

H32-2705 39145 Incarbone, Interim Resolution DH(99)522

H32-2706 27981 Iudica, Interim Resolution DH(97)162

H46-2707 51120 Izzo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2708 39889 Izzo Domenico, Interim Resolution DH(99)658

H46-2709 51170 Izzo Giovanni, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2710 24694 L.C. I, Interim Resolution DH(96)517

H32-2711 26442 La Bella, Interim Resolution DH(96)560

H46-2712 51021 La Torella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2713 52802 Lagozzino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2714 28737 Lamberti, Interim Resolution DH(97)269

H32-2715 36639 Lapolla, Interim Resolution DH(99)218

H46-2716 52812 Lavorgna and Iorio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2717 38103 Lentini, Interim Resolution DH(99)320

H32-2718 38512 Leonessa, Interim Resolution DH(99)417

H32-2719 37182 Leonetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)219

H32-2720 40592 Liberato, Interim Resolution DH(99)659

H32-2721 32291 Lilli, Interim Resolution DH(98)43

H46-2722 51140 Lombardi Emma, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2723 51100 Lombardi Gaetana, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2724 26009 Lombardo Sestilio, Interim Resolution DH(96)518

H32-2725 28762+ Longo, D'Occhio and Bruno, Interim Resolution DH(97)270

H46-2726 48405 Lucio Mario Catillo, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2727 27446 M. D.C. I, Interim Resolution DH(97)81

H46-2728 52822 Macolino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2729 29166 Maiale, Interim Resolution DH(97)330

H46-2730 52819 Mancino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2731 36644 Maniglio, Interim Resolution DH(99)220

H32-2732 35936 Marasco, Interim Resolution DH(99)321

H32-2733 35947 Marchese Giuseppina, Interim Resolution DH(99)96

H32-2734 27202+ Marino Ettore and others, Interim Resolution DH(97)82

H46-2735 51169 Marotta Alberto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2736 51138 Marotta Arturo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2737 37160 Marsicovetere, Interim Resolution DH(99)221

H32-2738 38117 Marsili, Interim Resolution DH(99)322

H46-2739 51168 Martino Alfonso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2740 29123 Mascia, Interim Resolution DH(97)553

H32-2741 28750 Massimo, Interim Resolution DH(97)271

H32-2742 40608 Mastrantone, Interim Resolution DH(99)660

H46-2743 52827 Mastrocinque Mafalda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2744 29649 Mastronunzio, Interim Resolution DH(97)419

H46-2745 51167 Matera Tommasina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2746 42993 Mattiello, judgment of 27/07/00, final on 27/10/00

H32-2747 28758 Maturo, Interim Resolution DH(97)272

H46-2748 51101 Maturo and Vegliante, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2749 49322 Mazzacchera, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-2750 52845 Mazzarelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2751 28760 Mazzilli, Interim Resolution DH(97)273

H46-2752 51130 Mazzone and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2753 51158 Meccariello, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2754 30098 Mecozzi, Interim Resolution DH(97)421

H46-2755 51118 Melillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2756 51677 Meneghini, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H32-2757 28752 Mennillo, Interim Resolution DH(97)274

H46-2758 52818 Meola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2759 40594 Mideo, Interim Resolution DH(99)661

H32-2760 33164 Minieri, Interim Resolution DH(98)357

H46-2761 51133 Moffa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2762 52840 Mongillo Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2763 39887 Montano, Interim Resolution DH(99)662

H32-2764 38518 Morzillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)418

H32-2765 30596 Mostacciulo, Interim Resolution DH(97)549

H32-2766 32301 Mostacciuolo, Interim Resolution DH(98)44

H32-2767 31348 Napoli, Interim Resolution DH(98)55

H32-2768 26003 Napoli Elio, Interim Resolution DH(96)664

H46-2769 44415 Napolitano, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-2770 44428 Nardone Antonio, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2771 51123 Natalina de Rosa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2772 51136 Nazzaro, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2773 52832 Nero and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2774 21438 Nicoletti, Interim Resolution DH(96)111

H32-2775 27191 O.F.T., Interim Resolution DH(97)83

H46-2776 51029 Ocone, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2777 39886 Olgato, Interim Resolution DH(99)663

H32-2778 38522 Orsillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)419

H46-2779 40966 P., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H32-2780 27193 P.V.G., Interim Resolution DH(97)84

H46-2781 51105 Pacifico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2782 51114 Paduano, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2783 28756 Pagnano, Interim Resolution DH(97)275

H46-2784 52829 Pallotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2785 28732 Palma, Interim Resolution DH(97)276

H46-2786 51023 Palmieri Maddalena, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised on

18/04/02, final on 18/07/02

H46-2787 51022 Palmieri Mario Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2788 52841 Panza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2789 29152 Paolini, Interim Resolution DH(97)327

H32-2790 36650 Papa Saletta, Interim Resolution DH(99)222

H32-2791 36630 Pappalardo, Interim Resolution DH(99)223

H32-2792 38143 Paradiso Marilena, Interim Resolution DH(99)323

H32-2793 40611 Parente, Interim Resolution DH(99)664

H46-2794 52842 Pascale Elda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2795 52837 Pascale and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2796 52826 Pascale Maria Annunziata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2797 28740 Pasquariello, Interim Resolution DH(97)277

H46-2798 44444 Pastore, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-2799 32277 Patrizi II, Interim Resolution DH(98)045

H46-2800 51111 Patuto Salvatore, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2801 51113 Pelosi Concetta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2802 51162 Pengue, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2803 52808 Perna Giuseppina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2804 26856 Persia, Interim Resolution DH(96)665

H32-2805 40610 Pesce Agnese, Interim Resolution DH(99)665

H32-2806 37174 Pesce Giuseppa, Interim Resolution DH(99)224

H32-2807 36649 Petrillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)225

H46-2808 52828 Petrillo and Petrucci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2809 51025 Petrillo Gino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2810 34262 Petrone, Interim Resolution DH(98)262

H46-2811 44529 Pezzuto, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2812 35946 Piazza, Interim Resolution DH(99)097

H46-2813 46509 Picconi, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H32-2814 34837 Piconi, Interim Resolution DH(98)326

H32-2815 28761 Piesco, Interim Resolution DH(97)278

H46-2816 51139 Pilla Addolorata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2817 28759 Pilla Michele, Interim Resolution DH(97)279

H46-2818 51024 Porto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2819 34279 Pristerà, Interim Resolution DH(98)263

H32-2820 40622 Proietti Giuseppe, Interim Resolution DH(99)666

H32-2821 32293 Prologo, Interim Resolution DH(98)46

H46-2822 52825 Pucella and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2823 17292 R.d.R.

H32-2824 26045 R.M. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)519

H32-2825 26429 R.S. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)562

H46-2826 51126 Raccio Emilia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2827 28722 Radicioni, Interim Resolution DH(97)280

H32-2828 40615 Ranaldo Pellegrino, Interim Resolution DH(99)667

H32-2829 33149 Regino, Interim Resolution DH(98)187

H46-2830 48409 Reino, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-2831 51109 Restuccio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2832 51095 Riccardi Lucia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2833 52820 Riccardi Vicenzina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2834 51096 Riccio and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2835 51108 Rinaldi Giovanni, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2836 28753 Rinaldi Giuseppe, Interim Resolution DH(97)281

H46-322 46974 Risola, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-2837 52823 Romano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2838 48407 Romano Giuseppina, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02

H46-2839 52844 Romano Rosa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2840 38113 Rotondi II, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

H46-2841 51151 Ruggiero, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2842 17336 Rulli

H32-2843 37162 S.C. V, Interim Resolution DH(99)226

H32-2844 34246 Sabio, Interim Resolution DH(98)264

H32-2845 40609 Saccone, Interim Resolution DH(99)668

H46-2846 52833 Santagata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2847 51165 Santina Pelosi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2848 28751 Sanzari, Interim Resolution DH(97)282

H32-2849 38131 Sarli, Interim Resolution DH(99)324

H32-2850 28754 Sauchella, Interim Resolution DH(97)283

H32-2851 29165 Savoia II, Interim Resolution DH(97)328

H46-2852 51090 Scaccianemici, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised on 03/10/02,

final on 03/01/03

H32-2853 30107 Scagnoli, Interim Resolution DH(97)550

H46-2854 44389 Scarfone, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-2855 52982 Sciacchitano and Lo Sciuto, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2856 31638 Sciarra, Interim Resolution DH(97)657

H46-546 40151 Sciarrotta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H32-2857 24784 Scognamiglio I, Interim Resolution DH(96)117

H32-2858 34255 Sellan, Interim Resolution DH(98)265

H32-2859 28746 Serena and De Filippo, Interim Resolution DH(97)284

H46-2860 52917 Serino Antonella, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-2861 28738 Simeone, Interim Resolution DH(97)285

H46-2862 52831 Simone and Pontillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised on 03/10/02,

final on 03/01/03

H32-2863 27454 Società Italiana Cauzioni S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(97)85

H32-2864 30595 Soriano, Interim Resolution DH(97)551

H46-2865 51115 Spagnoletti, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2866 40607 Sperandeo, Interim Resolution DH(99)669

H32-2867 34865+ Spiezio and Di Furia, Interim Resolution DH(98)358

H46-2868 48406 Stefanucci, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H32-2869 33162 Stile, Interim Resolution DH(98)127

H46-2870 52839 Tanzillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2871 51122 Tarantino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2872 40591 Tascione, Interim Resolution DH(99)670

H46-2873 52810 Tazza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2874 52836 Tazza and Zullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2875 28748 Tedesco Luigi, Interim Resolution DH(97)286

H32-2876 33799 Tesauro, Interim Resolution DH(98)188

H32-2877 39876 Tola, Interim Resolution DH(99)671

H46-2878 52922 Tommaso, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-2879 48410 Tozzi, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-2880 51152 Tretola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-323 46960 Trimboli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-2881 52809 Truocchio Edmondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2882 51166 Truocchio Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2883 51124 Tudisco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2884 45108 Tullio D'Angelo, judgment of 12/10/00, final on 12/01/01

H46-2885 51097 Uccellini and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2886 52817 Urbano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2887 51026 Uzzo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2888 27466 V.B. I, Interim Resolution DH(97)086

H32-2889 34871 Venzo, Interim Resolution DH(98)359

H32-2890 39907 Verde, Interim Resolution DH(99)672

H32-2891 33785 Vespucci, Interim Resolution DH(98)189

H32-2892 28755 Vigliotti, Interim Resolution DH(97)287

H46-2893 52811 Villari, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-2894 44416 Viola, judgments of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 and of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H32-2895 28757 Viscio, Interim Resolution DH(97)288

H32-2896 33783 Visco and Montuoro I, Interim Resolution DH(98)190

H32-2897 33784 Visco and Montuoro II, Interim Resolution DH(98)191

H46-2898 52847 Viscuso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2899 27167 Vitale Rosa, Interim Resolution DH(97)87

H46-2900 51028 Vitelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2901 27989 Volpe, Interim Resolution DH(97)164

H32-2902 17765 Zaffarana, Interim Resolution DH(96)244

H32-2903 36647 Zampetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)227

H46-2904 51132 Zeolla, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2905 38517 Zito, Interim Resolution DH(99)420

H46-2906 52814 Zoccolillo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H32-2907 28735 Zollo, Interim Resolution DH(97)289

H32-2908 27987 Zuccardi Merli, Interim Resolution DH(97)163

H32-2909 29134 Zullino, Interim Resolution DH(97)329

H46-2910 52800 Zuotto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

- 122 cases before criminal courts

H32-2911 21807+ A. and A.F. and A.R., Interim Resolution DH(97)176

H32-2912 27141 A.A.Q. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)128

H32-2913 26774 A.D., Interim Resolution DH(98)208

H32-2914 21068 A.M. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)366

H32-2915 23356 A.R. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)47

H32-2916 21873 Achilli, Interim Resolution DH(98)91

H46-2917 35207 Aggiato, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H32-2918 33454 Albé, Interim Resolution DH(99)421

H32-2919 22873 Arconte I, Interim Resolution DH(98)48

H32-2920 31230 Arconte II, Interim Resolution DH(99)102

H46-2921 44970 Arganese, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H32-2922 20854 Arichetta, Interim Resolution DH(97)108

H32-2923 24920 Ballestra, Interim Resolution DH(98)268

H46-2924 38576 Barattelli Carlo, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H32-2925 27584 Bertelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)325

H46-2926 41863 Boldrin Stefano, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H32-2927 24909 Bonomo, Interim Resolution DH(99)228

H32-2928 25541 Bortolussi, Interim Resolution DH(97)554

H32-2929 27540 Brincat Joseph II, Interim Resolution DH(99)103

H46-2930 44976 C.P., judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-2931 39997 Cancellieri, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H32-2932 16752+ Capoccia Vittorio

H46-2933 42600 Carbone Biagio, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-2934 37249 Casadei Roberto, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-2935 38878 Ciacci, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2936 27240 Cilione, Interim Resolution DH(99)326

H32-2937 33950 Cola, Interim Resolution DH(99)422

H46-2938 42210 Corsi Andrea, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 02/10/03

H32-2939 24854 Coser Lauro, Interim Resolution DH(97)292

H46-2940 39714 Davinelli, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-2941 33969 De Blasiis, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 06/04/00

H32-2942 23968 De Santis Roberto, Interim Resolution DH(98)269

H46-2943 35991 Del Federico Alberto, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-2944 42351 Del Giudice, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01

H46-2945 41513 Di Donato and 3 others, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-2946 42619 Di Vuono Bernardo, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H32-2947 29077 E.M. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)229

H32-2948 16549 Emmanuele V. and G.

H46-2949 40457 F.C., judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H32-2950 35000 F.F., Interim Resolution DH(99)423

H46-2951 43621 F.M., judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

H46-324 45267 F.R. and 3 others, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H32-2952 31009 Fabrizi, Interim Resolution DH(99)327

H46-2953 37263 Falcone Nicolò, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-2954 34203 Ferrarin, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 06/09/01

H32-2955 28166 Forte II, Interim Resolution DH(98)49

H32-2956 28591 Frisaldi, Interim Resolution DH(98)270

H32-2957 17043 G. and A.G. and M.C.

H46-2958 41603 G.B.Z., L.Z. and S.Z., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 15/02/00

H32-2959 28664 G.C. V, Interim Resolution DH(98)456

H32-2960 28666 G.N. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)50

H32-2961 22120 G.P. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)465

H32-2962 33605 G.P. V, Interim Resolution DH(99)424

H32-2963 35554 G.S. VIII, Interim Resolution DH(99)425

H46-2964 37752 Gelli, judgment of 19/10/99, final on 01/02/00

H32-2965 28594 Ghignoni, Interim Resolution DH(99)104

H46-2966 41094 Giannangeli, judgment of 05/07/01, final on 05/10/01

H32-2967 18138 Giner, Interim Resolution DH(95)444

H32-2968 36057 Giunchiglia, Interim Resolution DH(99)426

H46-2969 41275 Guarino Carmela, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 06/09/01

H46-2970 32646 Guerresi, judgment of 24/04/01, final on 24/04/01

H46-2971 40458 Ialongo, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-2972 40662 Iarrobino and De Nisco, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-2973 45260 Icolaro, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H32-2974 28963 Isnardi II, Interim Resolution DH(97)659

H32-2975 23570 L.C. and P.A., Interim Resolution DH(97)464

H32-2976 22870 L.G. I, Interim Resolution DH(97)294

H32-2977 33377 L.Z., Interim Resolution DH(99)328

H46-2978 35742 Ledonne I, judgment of 12/05/99, final on 12/08/99

H46-2979 38414 Ledonne II, judgment of 12/05/99, final on 12/08/99

H32-2980 20543 Lupo, Interim Resolution DH(96)107

H32-2981 29508 M.B. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)329

H32-2982 22901 M.C. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)466

H32-2983 24904 Maggiani, Interim Resolution DH(97)660

H46-2984 41206 Mangascia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01

H46-2985 37702 Marchetti Alessandro III, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-2986 41893 Martinez, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-2987 43635 Matera Domenico, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-2988 43350 Maurano, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H32-2989 23306 Milioni Guerriero and Mansueti, Interim Resolution DH(97)661

H32-2990 30605 Mongiardo, Interim Resolution DH(98)457

H32-2991 28167 Moni Mario, Interim Resolution DH(98)51

H32-2992 32045 Morelli, Interim Resolution DH(99)105

H32-2993 28903 Motalli, Interim Resolution DH(97)280

H46-2994 47681 Motta Luciana, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 06/09/01

H46-2995 44173 Mucciacciaro Raffaele, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H32-2996 25124+ Nativi, Loriga+, Interim Resolution DH(97)662

H46-2997 41424 Nuvoli, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

H46-325 44943 Orlandi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-2998 18755 P.B. III, Interim Resolution DH(96)109

H46-2999 45269 P.G.F., judgment of 05/07/01, final on 05/10/01

H46-3000 37507 Palmigiano Natale, judgment of 11/01/00, final on 11/04/00

H46-3001 42287 Pascazi Domenico, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-3002 29898 Patanè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-3003 30132 Pepe Umberto, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

H32-3004 36733 Perilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)427

H32-326 24170 Pesce Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)468

H32-3005 23310 Poidimani, Interim Resolution DH(97)173

H32-3006 35007 Profeta, Interim Resolution DH(99)428

H32-3007 29881 Puccio, Interim Resolution DH(98)458

H46-3008 45789 Pugliese Massimo, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

H46-3009 43915 Rocci Luigi, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H32-3010 29530 Rossi Antonio, Interim Resolution DH(98)459

H46-3011 40693 Rotellini and Barnabei, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-3012 45480 S.G., S.M. and P.C., judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-3013 36719 Saccomanno, judgment of 12/05/99, final on 12/08/99

H32-3014 21567 Salerno, Interim Resolution DH(97)174

H46-3015 43536 Schiappacasse, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-3016 40231 Spinello, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02 and of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H32-3017 32728 Spissu, Interim Resolution DH(99)330

H46-3018 34081 Starace, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

H32-3019 33749 Suraci A. and A., Interim Resolution DH(99)331

H46-3020 45264 Tommaso Palumbo, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/07/01

H46-3021 42291+ Tumbarello and Titone, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H32-327 26806 U.O. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)52

H32-328 26781 U.O. II,Interim Resolution DH(98)129

H32-329 26782 U.O. III, Interim Resolution DH(98)130

H32-3022 33691 V.B. III, Interim Resolution DH(99)332

H32-3023 28839 Viezzer, Interim Resolution DH(98)271

H46-3024 43199 Visintin, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-3025 29510 Vocca, Interim Resolution DH(98)460

H32-3026 31461 Zaia, Interim Resolution DH(2000)21

- 4 cases of criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

H46-3027 45856 Bacigalupi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-3028 45857 Comella and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-3029 46970 Contardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-3030 45858 Tesconi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

[1] Following a decision taken by the Deputies on 26 February 2001 these Rules are also applicable to the control of execution of cases decided by the Committee of Ministers itself under the former Article 32 of the Convention or transmitted to the Committee by the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to former Article 54 of the Convention (as worded before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 on 1 November 1998).

[2] Certain cases may be registered in two different sections.

[3] Cases decided by the Committee itself under the former Article 32 of the Convention (the last decision on a violation of the Convention pursuant to this procedure was taken at the 741st meeting in February 2001).

[4] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[5] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[6] Out of which 9 years and 8 months fall within the competence of the European Court.

[7] Out of which 10 years and 6 months fall within the competence of the European Court.

[8] Out of which 7 years and 1 month fall within the competence of the European Court.

[9] Out of which 9 years and 1 month fall within the competence of the European Court.

[10] The just satisfaction being paid, the Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case to the 885th meeting (1-2 June 2004).

[11] The question of the applicability of default interest to friendly settlements is under discussion.

[12] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[13] This case also appears in sub-seciton 3.b, for part of the just satisfaction.

[14] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[15] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[16] This case also appears in sub-section 5.3

[17] The question of the applicability of default interest to friendly settlements is under discussion.

[18] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[19] The question of the applicability of default interest to friendly settlements is under discussion.

[20] These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.2.

[21] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[22] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.3 (see list in Appendix to this Annotated Agenda and Order of Business).

[23] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.3 (see list in Appendix to this Annotated Agenda and Order of Business).

[24] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.3 (see list in Appendix to this Annotated Agenda and Order of Business).

[25] The question of the applicability of default interest to friendly settlements is under discussion.

[26] This case also appears in sub-section 4.1

[27] The just satisfaction being paid, the Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case to the 885th meeting (1-2 June 2004).

[28] These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.2.

[29] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[30] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[31] The question of the applicability of default interest to friendly settlements is under discussion.

[32] This case also appears in sub-section 4.1

[33] This case also appears in sub-section 4.1

[34] This case also appears in sub-section 4.1

[35] These cases also appear in sub-section 5.1

[36] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[37] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[38] The just satisfaction being paid, the Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case to the 885th meeting (1-2 June 2004).

[39] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[40] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[41] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[42] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2 (Action of the Security forces)

[43] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2 (Action of the Security forces)

[44] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2 (Freedom of expression)

[45] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2 (Action of the Security forces)

[46] The question of the applicability of default interest to friendly settlements is under discussion.

[47] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2 (Action of the Security forces)

[48] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[49] The question of the applicability of default interest to friendly settlements is under discussion.

[50] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for part of the just satisfaction.

[51] These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.2

[52] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.3 (see list in Appendix to this Annotated Agenda and Order of Business).

[53] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.3 (see list in Appendix to this Annotated Agenda and Order of Business).

[54] This case also appears in sub-section 4.3 (see list in Appendix to this Annotated Agenda and Order of Business).

[55] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[56] This case also appears in sub-section 4.1

[57] These cases also appear in sub-section 5.1

[58] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[59] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[60] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2. (Freedom of expression)

[61] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2. (Action of the Security forces)

[62] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[63] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2 (Action of the Security forces)

[64] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[65] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[66] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[67] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2 (Friendly settlements concerning Action of the Security forces).

[68] Inclusion of cases in this Section does not exclude the possibility that general measures may be examined at subsequent meetings.

[69] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[70] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[71] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[72] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[73] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[74] The Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 05/11/1997

[75] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[76] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[77] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[78] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[79] Eight years and nine months of which elapsed since Hungary recognised the right of individual application.

[80] Five years and five months of which elapsed since Hungary recognised the right of individual application.

[81] Eleven years of which elapsed since Hungary recognised the right of individual application.

[82] The case also appears in Section 2

[83] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[84] The case also appears in Section 2

[85] The case also appears in Section 2

[86] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[87] The case also appears in Section 2

[88] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[89] The case also appears in Section 2

[90] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[91] The case also appears in Section 2

[92] The case also appears in Section 2

[93] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[94] This case also appears in sub-section 3.

[95] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[96] The case also appears in Section 2

[97] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[98] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[99] The case also appears in Section 2

[100] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[101] The case also appears in Section 2

[102] The case also appears in Section 2

[103] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[104] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[105] The case also appears in Section 2

[106] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[107] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[108] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[109] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[110] The case also appears in Section 2

[111] The case also appears in Section 2

[112] The case also appears in Section 2

[113] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for supervision of payment of default interest.

[114] The case also appears in Section 2

[115] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[116] The case also appears in Section 2

[117] The case also appears in Section 2

[118] The case also appears in Section 2

[119] The case also appears in Section 2

[120] The case also appears in Section 2

[121] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[122] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet.been paid.

[123] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[124] Poland’s declaration recognising the right of individual petition (former Article 25 of the Convention) took effect on 1/05/1993.

[125] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[126] This case also appears in section 2

[127] This case also appears in section 2

[128] This case also appears in section 2

[129] This case also appears in section 2

[130] This case also appears in section 2

[131] This case also appears in section 2

[132] This case also appears in section 2

[133] This case also appears in section 2

[134] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a. since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[135] This case also appears in section 2

[136] This case also appears in section 2

[137] This case also appears in section 2

[138] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a. since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[139] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[140] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[141] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[142] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[143] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a. since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[144] The Secretariat proposes to postpone consideration of this case pending the outcome of the revision procedure before the European Court.

[145] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[146] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[147] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[148] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supersivion of payment of default interest.

[149] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[150] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[151] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[152] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[153] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[154] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[155] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[156] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[157] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[158] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[159] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[160] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[161] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[162] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[163] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[164] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[165] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[166] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[167] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[168] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[169] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[170] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[171] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[172] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[173] The case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[174] The case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[175] The case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[176] The case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[177] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[178] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[179] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[180] Furthermore, in the cases of Başkaya & Okçuoğlu and E.K., the sentence imposed was not provided by law (violation of Article 7). Some of these cases also concern the independence and impartiality of State Security Courts (violation of Article 6§1) and measures have already been adopted in order to solve this problem, thus preventing new similar violations (see Resolution DH(99)255 adopted in the case of Ciraklar).

[181] The case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[182] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[183] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[184] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[185] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[186] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[187] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[188] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[189] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[190] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a for supervision of payment of default interest.

[191] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[192] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[193] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[194] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[195] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[196] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[197] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[198] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[199] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[200] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[201] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[202] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[203] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[204] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[205] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a since the just satisfaction has not yet been paid.

[206] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[207] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[208] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[209] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[210] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[211] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[212] The cases in bold also appear in Section 3.