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 615 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		847	841	834	827	819	810	803	798	792	783	775
General Questions								-	-	-	1689	-
1.1		2	3	4	8	2	12	0	11	6	3	4
1.2		5	4	53	2	0	6	11	36	26	1	4
1.3		8	15	47	18	4	11	4	8	7	8	3
1.4		10	17	56	44	10	36	25	2	8	7	8
2		98	76	99	52	108	154	277	142	213	83	115
3.1.a		0	469	439	546	677	638	568	536	418	388	390
3.1.b		0	170	165	129	110	89	116	70	58	54	41
3.1.c		0	40	40	39	38	39	36	36	34	36	34
3.2		0	-	-	-	-	-	1	2	-	-	7
4.1		4	10	15	6	15	17	15	8	5	13	36
4.2		101	82	156	78	116	112	91	78	82	65	139
4.3		4	5	123	2174	2155	5	71	72	4	4	3
5.1		4	39	33	25	32	21	13	12	17	18	17
5.2		1	-	1	0	1	-	0	0	-	-	0
5.3		3	4	7	5	11	7	16	3	1	10	7
5.4		0	-	0	0	0	-	0	0	-	-	0
6		375	372	355	406	377	318	351	324	317	336	299
Total of the cases on the Agenda[2]		615	1276	1479	3151	3186	1456	1595	1340	1196	2725	1107
Total of final resolutions submitted		25	39	160	72	16	65	40	57	47	29	19
Total of new cases		98	76	99	52	108	154	277	142	213	83	115
Total of pending cases		3352	3312	3380	3370	3327	3276	3187	2964	2958	2649	2624

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 N° 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.

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.

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 WAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT 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) 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.

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

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 (854th (7-8 October 2003)) see page 87

d. 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

Action

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of this item in the light of the memorandum 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 Latvia

H46-236 46726 Podkolzina, judgment of 09/04/02, final on 09/07/02

- 1 case against Switzerland

H46-1 24699 VGT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

- 1 case against Austria

H46-2 33382 Fischer Joseph, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

- 1 case against Germany

H46-3 45448 Becker, judgment of 16/09/02, final on 26/12/02

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-4 48535+ Beck, Copp and Bazeley, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-5 43208+ Perkins and R., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

*H46-6 36042 Willis, judgment of 11/06/02, final on 11/09/02

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

- 1 case against Austria

H46-7 32381 Baischer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

- 2 cases against Hungary

H46-397 32396 Magyar, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-398 38937 Erdős, judgment of 09/04/02, final on 09/07/02

- 5 cases against Portugal

H46-8 47460 Câmara Pestana, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

H46-9 37528 Martins and Garcia Alves, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-10 43999 Martins Serra and Andrade Câncio, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

H46-11 47833 Marques Francisco, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

H46-12 43654 Pires, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

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

- 1 case against Austria

H46-13 37093 Informationsverein Lentia II, judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Greece

H46-14 43597 Dionyssios Petrotos, judgment of 29/02/00 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Hungary

H46-15 43649 Hegedűs, judgment of 25/03/03 - Friendly settlement

- 6 cases against Portugal

H46-16 54073 Agostinho, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-17 54483 Lógica - Móveis de Organização, Lda, judgment of 19/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-18 50843+ Longotrans - Transportes Internacionais Lda, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-19 49018 Marques Jorge Ribeiro, judgment of 04/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-20 49118 SIB - Sociedade Imobiliária Da Benedita Lda, judgment of 16/05/02

- Friendly settlement

H46-21 54449 Saraiva e Lei, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-22 65905 Rice, judgment of 01/10/02 - 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: Julien Lucien; Bömer; Messina n° 3; Terazzi S.A.S. (reserved); Hammern; Golea (reserved in part); Popovăţ (reserved) and Gökçeli Yaşar Kemal.

Section 2

- 3 cases against Austria

H46-23 39392+ L. and V., judgment of 09/01/2003, final on 09/04/2003

H46-24 45330+ S.L., judgment of 09/01/2003, final on 09/04/2003

The cases concern the fact that former Article 209 of the Austrian Criminal Code incriminated consensual male homosexual acts of adults with teenagers aged between fourteen and eighteen years old whereas, at the material time, consensual heterosexual or lesbian acts between adults and persons over fourteen years of age were not punishable. The European Court found that the fact of keeping Article 209 in force and the conviction of the applicants in the L. and V. case under this article constituted a discriminatory restriction of their right to private life (violation of Article 14 combined with Article 8).

In the case of L. and V., the applicants were convicted in 1997, under Article 209, to suspended sentences of eight and six months’ imprisonment and three years’ probation.

In the case of S.L., the Court found that the applicant, who was sure of his homosexuality at the age of fifteen, was prevented by former Article 209 from entering into any sexual relationship corresponding to his disposition.

General measures: Article 209 was repealed on 10/06/2002 with effect from 14/08/2002.

Possible individual measures: In the case of L. and V., the applicants may apply for the reopening of the proceedings in order to have the consequences of their convictions erased.

H46-25 36757 Jakupovic, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 06/05/2003

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s right to private and family life due to a ten-year residence prohibition imposed in September 1995 on the applicant (a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina) by the Austrian administrative authorities, following two criminal convictions for burglary. The European Court found that the Austrian authorities had not provided sufficiently weighty reasons for the expulsion of a young person (16 years old), who had not been convicted of any violent act, to a country which had recently experienced a period of armed conflict, when there was no evidence that he still had close relatives living there (violation of Article 8).

The applicant, who had arrived in Austria in 1991 to join his family, was deported to Sarajevo in 1997 and was living in Croatia when the European Court rendered its judgment.

Possible individual measures: Adoption of measures aiming at allowing the applicant to join the rest of his family living in Austria.

Possible general measures: Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the authorities which are competent to decide the expulsion of foreigners in order to allow them to apply in future similar cases the principles established by the Court; this case presents some similarities to that of Yildiz against Austria (judgment of 31 October 2002) which was examined by the Committee of Ministers in Section 2 of the 834th meeting (April 2003). It should be noted that, subsequent to the facts of the case, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court of Austria gave direct effect to the judgments of the European Court concerning in particular the expulsion of foreign nationals (see in this respect ResDH(2002)99 concerning the case of Ahmed against Austria). Other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 3 cases against Belgium

H46-26 50567 Immo Fond’Roy S.A., judgment of 22/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Conseil d’Etat (complaint under Article 6§1).

Section 2

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-27 50855 Dautel, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

H46-28 50624 Gökce and others, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The incriminated proceedings started respectively on 21/10 and 26/05//1993 and were still pending before the Brussels Court of Appeal when the European Court issued its judgments (respectively more than nine years and two months and more than 9 years and 7 months, for two degrees of instance).

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

The cases present similarities with that of Oval S.P.R.L., which will be examined in sub-section 4.2 of the 854th meeting (October 2003) with several other cases concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings.

Possible individual measures: acceleration of the proceedings.

- 1 case against Bulgaria

H46-29 38884 Nikolov, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

The case concerns the violation of the right of the applicant, who was a minor at the material time, to be brought promptly before a judge authorised by law to exercise judicial power (between April 1997 and September 1997) in order to contest the legality of the decision to put him in detention pending trial (violation of Article 5§3) and the excessive length of that detention (for about five and a half months) in view of the insufficient reasons to justify it (violation of Article 5§3). The case also concerns certain violations of the applicant’s right to obtain a decision on the legality of his detention due to the fact that his judicial appeal against detention was not examined promptly and that his lawyer was denied access to the case-file (violations of Article 5§4). Finally, the case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s being kept in detention between 16/09/1997 and 23/09/1997 despite a judicial decision of 16/09/1997 placing him under parental control (violation of Article 5§1).

As regards the violations of Article 5§3, the present case presents similarities to the Assenov (judgment of 28/10/98) and Nikolova (judgment of 25/03/99) cases closed by Resolutions ResDH(2000)109 and ResDH(2000)110, following a legislative reform of criminal procedures which took effect from 01/01/2000. Concerning the question relating to the access to the case-file, the present case presents similarities to that of Shishkov (judgment of 9/01/2003), which was examined in Section 2 at the 841st meeting (June 2003).

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication and wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to judicial authorities, judges, prosecutors and persons in charge with the detention centres drawing their attention to the national authorities’ obligations under the Convention following the judgment (§§ 79-84 and 93-95); other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 1 case against the Czech Republic

*H46-30 41486 Bořánková, judgment of 07/01/2003, final on 21/05/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning the division of common assets which had belonged to the applicant and her ex-husband (violation of Article 6§1).

The proceedings, which began in 1985 and ended in 2000, lasted more than 14 years (for four degrees of jurisdiction) of which seven years and ten months were after the European Convention’s entry into force with respect to the Czech Republic.

Possible general measures: Publication and large dissemination of the European Court’s judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

- 3 cases against Finland

H46-31 27824 Posti and Rahko, judgment of 24/09/2002, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns an infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court in that they had no opportunity to challenge before a court the lawfulness of certain decrees issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 1996 and 1998 (based on the 1982 Fishing Act) restricting fishing rights in state-owned waters previously obtained by the applicants from the state (violation of Article 6§1).

In 1991, the Supreme Administrative Court, seised by the second applicant with an appeal against a similar decree, had stated that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the merits of such a complaint.

Possible individual or general measures: According to the information sent by the Finnish Permanent Representation on 18/06/2003, the judgment of the European Court has been translated into Finnish and published in the Finlex database. The Government also undertook to disseminate the judgment widely to various competent bodies; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-32 27751 K.A., judgment of 14/01/2003, final on 14/04/2003

This case concerns the taking into care of the applicant’s three children in 1992 and their placement in a foster family in 1993, following a finding of the competent authorities concerning family conditions that might endanger the children’s development. The European Court found that the competent authorities had infringed the applicant’s right to family life because they failed to take sufficient steps to reunite the applicant’s family, following the placement of the children in foster care. Thus, the authorities failed to conduct a periodic, concrete review of the need to keep the children in public care and adopted severe restrictions on the applicant’s right to visit his children. These restrictions reflected the fact that the reunification of the natural family was not really being considered (§§ 142, 143 of the judgment) (violation of Article 8).

When the Court rendered its judgment, only one of the three children (born in 1986) was still a minor.

This case presents similarities, particularly with regard to the attitude of the national authorities, with that of K. & T. against Finland case (judgment of 12 July 2001, Grand Chamber, and judgment of 27 April 2000, fourth section), listed in Section 6 of this meeting.

General measures: By letter of 18/06/2003, the Finnish Delegation indicated that the judgment had been translated and published in the Finlex database, and has also been distributed to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The Government also undertook to distribute the judgment to various other competent authorities. Confirmation of this measure is awaited.

Individual measure: In its letter of 18/06/2003, the Finnish Delegation also stated that the youngest child, J., who is nearly seventeen, meets his parents each month and does not wish to leave the foster family in which he is living.

H46-33 42059 Eerola, judgment of 06/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

This case concerns the applicant’s complaint regarding the inequity of criminal proceedings initiated against him because of changes in the composition of the first-instance court in the course of proceedings (complaint under Article 6§1).

- 17 cases against France

H46-34 67263 Mouisel, judgment of 14/11/2002, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment undergone by the applicant in that he was kept in prison until his provisional release on 22/03/2001, despite the decline in his state of health, which was considered more and more alarming and less and less consistent with his imprisonment (violation of article 3).

Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

H46-35 48221 Berger, judgment of 03/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003

This case concerns an infringement of the principles of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms during proceedings before the Criminal Chamber of the Cour de cassation which the applicant had combined with a civil action for damages (violation of Article 6§1). In 1998 the Cour de cassation rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant without communicating the two parts of the report of the reporting judge to the applicant’s lawyer, whereas the whole file had been given to the Advocate General (violation of Article 6§1).

This case present similarities to those of Reinhardt and Slimane-Kaïd (judgment of 31/03/1998; Resolution DH(98)306) and of Slimane-Kaïd II (judgment of 25/01/2000), which are listed in Section 6 of this meeting.

Possible individual measure: the applicant may apply for re-opening of the appeal on basis of Articles 626-1 to 626-7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

H46-36 49636 Chevrol, judgment of 13/02/2003, final on 13/05/2003

This case concerns the refusal of a request submitted in 1995 by the applicant, who holds an Algerian doctorate of medicine, to be included, in accordance with the “Evian Agreement”, on the roll of the local medical professional body in the Département of Bouches-du-Rhône. The Conseil d’Etat, as is its constant practice, held itself to be bound by the opinion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs with regard to the applicability of the international treaty at issue in the case, considering the assessment of the reciprocity condition contained in Article 55 of the Constitution which provides that treaties or agreements duly ratified or approved have, upon publication, a higher degree of authority than domestic laws, provided the other party applies the same rule (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court held that, under these conditions, the applicant did not have access to a court having sufficient competence to examine all the legal or factual questions relevant to the determination of the dispute.

By Ministerial Decree of 22/01/1999, the applicant was authorised to practice medicine in France and her name was placed on the roll of the professional body.

It is recalled that, as to the closely related question of the interpretation of an international treaty of which the content is ambiguous or uncertain, the Conseil d’Etat has modified its practice since 1990 (case of G.I.S.T.I., judgment of 29/06/1990) in that, whilst it may seek the opinion of the executive power, it does not consider itself as being bound by it (cf in this respect, in the case of Beaumartin against France, the European Court’s judgment of 24/11/1994, concerning a lawsuit which ended before this change had been made).

Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-37 44565 Theraube, judgment of 10/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1). These proceedings began on 24/06/1988 and ended on 04/05/1998 (nine years, ten months and ten days) The case also concerns an infringement 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 administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1).

With regard to the breach of the right to a fair trial, this case presents similarities to that of Kress (judgment of 07/06/2001. On the other hand, as far as the excessive length of proceedings is concerned, the case also presents similarities to that of Sapl (judgment of 18/12/2001) and other cases of excessive length of administrative proceedings. All these cases will be examined in Section 4 at the 854th meeting (October 2003).

Section 2

*H46-38 36378 Bertuzzi, judgment of 13/02/2003, final on 21/05/2003

This case concerns a violation of the applicant's right of access to a tribunal in order to claim for damages against a lawyer who 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 could not avail himself of the assistance of a lawyer, because of the successive withdrawals of different 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.

Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the European Court's judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-39 42405 C.D., judgment of 07/01/2003, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 04 and 25/10/1984 and were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgement (at least sixteen years and three months, for two degrees of instance)

Possible individual measure: acceleration of the proceedings if they are still pending.

*H46-40 43716 Susini and others, judgment of 03/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

This case concerns the length of certain criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages, as well as the question of the existence of effective remedies to determine such a complaint (complaints under Articles 6§1 and 13).

- Cases concerning the length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of a criminal charge before the administrative courts

These cases (see table below) concern the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1).

The first six cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts, introduced between November 1986 and April 1992). The Louerat case also concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings which began in 1991 (7 years and 4 months for three degrees of instance).

The cases of Faivre and Vieziez concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning criminal charges before the administrative courts, which began respectively in 1991 and 1989.

These cases present similarities with the case of Sapl and with the other cases concerning the length of proceedings before the administrative courts, which will be examined in Section 4 at the 854th meeting (October 2003).

Possible individual measures: acceleration of the proceedings which are still pending in the Louerat case; moreover, in the Perhirin case, the applicant has applied for a review before the special cassation commission for pensions (CSCP), temporarily joined to the Conseil d’Etat.

Section 2

Item	Application	Case	Length of proceedings	Case pending
Cases concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts
H46-43	58600	Benhaim, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03	9 years, 4 months and 2 weeks (examination of a preliminary request and two degrees of instance)	No
*H46-44	43969	Kroliczek, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 21/05/03	Almost 9 years and 2 months (three degrees of instance)	No
H46-45	44964	Louerat, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03	- 1st set of proceedings: 7 years and almost 4 months (1 degree of instance)	No
			- 2nd set of proceedings: 10 years and almost 10 months (2 degrees of instance)	Yes
			- 3rd set of proceedings: 10 years and almost 9 months (2 degrees of instance)	Yes
			- 4th set of proceedings: 10 years and more than 7 months at the day of the judgment (2 instances)	Yes
*H46-46	60545	Perhirin, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 21/05/03	7 years and 11 months (examination of a preliminary request and three degrees of instance)	No
H46-47	51066	Raitiere, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03	6 years and 10 months (three degrees of instance)	No
*H46-48	43719	Scotti, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03	8 years, 3 months and 19 days, almost 5 years of which for only one degree of instance	No
Cases concerning the determination of criminal charge before the administrative courts
H46-41	46215	Faivre, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03	more than 10 years and 7 months (three degrees of instance)	No
*H46-42	52116	Vieziez, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 21/05/03	10 years and 19 days (three degrees of instance)	No

- Cases concerning the length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts and in particular the Conseil d’Etat

H46-49 54596 Epoux Goletto, judgment of 04/02/2003, final on 04/05/2003

H46-50 42276 Julien Lucien, judgment of 14/11/2002, final on 21/05/2003

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts and particularly the Conseil d’Etat (violations of Article 6§1). In the case of Goletto, the proceedings started in 1988 and lasted 10 years and more than 9 months, 5 years and 6 months of which before the Conseil d’Etat. In the case of Julien, the two sets of proceedings started in 1986 and 1989 and lasted respectively 10 years and more than 2 months and 7 years and more than 1 month including respectively nearly 4 years and more than 5 years, 4 months before the Conseil d’Etat.

These cases present similarities in particular to the Caillot case, listed in Section 6 of this agenda and order of business.

Section 2

- 5 cases against Germany

*H46-51 37568 Böhmer, judgment of 03/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns the decision of the Hamburg Appeal Court of 16/10/1996 to revoke the suspension 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).

The Pardon Division at the Hamburg Court of Appeal suspended the execution of the sentence pending the result of the proceedings before the Court.

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to all criminal courts; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-52 44324 Kind, judgment of 20/02/2003, final on 20/05/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings before the civil courts and the Federal Constitutional Court (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings started on 20/06/1982 and finished on 04/04/1998 (15 years and 9 months).

H46-53 39547 Niederböster, judgment of 27/02/2003, final on 27/05/2003

The case concerns in particular the excessive length of proceedings brought by the applicant before the Federal Constitutional Court in order first to obtain the right to visit his daughter (born in 1985) and secondly to establish the unconstitutionality of Article 1711 of the Civil Code. Proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court started on 23/06/1993 and ended on 01/12/1998 (5 years, 5 months and 8 days of which 4 years and 1 month before the Federal Constitutional Court) (violation of Article 6§1).

On 19/10/1998, the applicant declared his appeal before the Federal Constitutional Court as being settled. On 26/10/1999 the applicant withdrew his appeal against the decision of the court of first instance of Bonn of 30/04/1998. The applicant’s daughter has now reached the age of eighteen.

*H46-54 45835 Hesse-Anger, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Federal Constitutional Court (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court started on 23/12/1986 and ended on 10/06/1998 (almost eleven and a half years).

*H46-55 38365 Thieme, judgment of 17/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts and the Federal Constitutional Court (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings started on 11/03/1991 and finished on 11/07/1997 (6 years and 4 months).

Section 2

- 4 cases against Greece

H46-56 50824 Azas, judgment of 19/09/2002, final on 21/05/2003

This case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right of property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1) owing to the fact that:

a) 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 applicants’ compensation for the expropriated land 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 carry out long judicial proceedings for damages, separate from the expropriation procedure, in order 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 have lodged proceedings of this kind which were pending when the European Court delivered its judgment.

b) The maximum amount imposed by law for the reimbursement of lawyers’ fees payable did not reflect the actual amount of the fees payable, so that the applicants had had to bear part of the fees.

Possible individual and/or general measures: Information about the state of progress of the pending proceedings would be useful.

As regards the first aspect of the case, the new Law 2971/19/12/2001adopted the change already made in domestic case-law and provides (Article 33) that the presumption is no longer “irrebuttable”. 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 discussed at the meeting.

As regards the second aspect of the case, 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.

H46-57 52464 Papadopoulos Georgios, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts instituted in May 1986 and completed in December 1996 (12 years and 6 months for several levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the courts directly concerned.

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-58 52848 Papadopoulos Ioannis, judgment of 09/01/2003, final on 21/05/2003

H46-59 55753 Papazafiris, judgment of 23/01/2003, final on 23/04/2003

The cases concern the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). In the first case, the proceedings began on 16/07/1998 and were still pending before the Athens Court of Appeal when the European Court delivered its judgment (more than 4 years and 4 months for two degrees of instance). In the second case, the proceedings began on 28/02/1992 and ended on 01/10/1997 (7 years, 7 months for four degress of instance).

These cases present similarities to certain other cases against Greece (Philis 2, Stamoulakatos, Agga and others), which are listed in Section 6 following a number of general measures already adopted (especially an increase in the number of judges, and the construction and equipment of new court premises).

Section 2

- 8 cases against Italy

H46-60 40877 Cordova Agostino No. 1, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

H46-61 45649 Cordova Agostino No. 2, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

These cases concern violations of the applicant’s right of access to a court in order to obtain an examination of his complaints concerning alleged insult and defamation by members of Parliament, on account of the immunity given by Article 68§1 of the Italian Constitution, which at the material time was interpreted as covering all acts and expressions by members of Parliament (violations of Article 6§1). In 1998, the Italian Constitutional Court decided that acts and expressions not directly related to the exercise of parliamentary functions, as in these cases, should no longer be covered by immunity.

H46-62 40231 Spinello Salvatore, judgment of 04/07/2002, revised on 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of certain criminalproceedings which had already lasted more than 8 years since 1994 and were still pending before the Milan appeal court when the European Court issued its judgment (violation of Article 6§1).

The case is similar to, among others, the case of Ledonne I (judgment of 12/05/99, final on 12/08/99), which will be re-examined at the latest in April 2004.

Possible individual measure: acceleration of the pending proceedings.

General measures: The question of general measures required and under way was in particular dealt with in Interim Resolutions DH(97)336, DH(99)436, DH(99)437 and ResDH(2000)135. In the last-named Resolution, the Deputies decided among other things “to resume its consideration of the progress made, at least at yearly intervals, on the basis of a comprehensive report to be presented each year by the Italian authorities”. The first annual report (issued under the reference CM/Inf(2001)37 and covering mainly the period 2000), was examined between October 2001 and July 2002 (see press releases of 3/10/01, 21/02/02 and 10/07/02). After examining the second annual report (CM/Inf(2002)47, covering mainly the year 2001), the Committee decided to re-examine in April 2004 at the latest the progress made in the implementation of the measures required in order to solve the structural problem of the excessive length of proceedings apart from measures concerning administrative jurisdictions which will be re-examined in October 2003 (see press releases of 05/12/02 and 13/02/03).

*H46-63 33993 Messina No. 3, judgment of 24/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

This case concerns the monitoring by prison authorities of the applicant’s correspondence with the Strasbourg organs between 1996 and 1998. The European Court found that such interference was not prescribed by the law, given the lack of clarity of Italian law on the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence (law No. 354/75), which leaves too much leeway to the public authorities, particularly in respect of the duration of monitoring measures and the reasons justifying such measures, authorises the monitoring of correspondence with the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights and provides for no effective remedy against decisions ordering the monitoring of correspondence (violation of Article 8).

This case is to some extent similar to that of Calogero Diana (judgment of 15/11/96), which is examined in Sub-section 4.2 of this meeting.

General measures: As concerns the specific problem at issue in this case, namely the monitoring of the correspondence with the Strasbourg organs, a Presidential Decree on penitentiary organisation entered into force on 06/09/2000, Article 38§11 of which provides that correspondence addressed to international human rights organisations should be exempt from monitoring. (see also the Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178 concerning the general measures to be taken in order to solve the more general problem of monitoring of

prisoners’ correspondence in Italy).

Section 2

*H46-64 27265 Terazzi S.A.S., judgment of 17/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns a disproportionate interference in the property rights of the applicant company on account of the inaction of the authorities. The latter have since 1962 imposed a ban on building on the applicant company’s land with a view to its expropriation, without giving any follow-up to this decision despite the deadlines established by law. Having regard in particular to the uncertainty suffered, the lack of an effective remedy, the hindrances in the full enjoyment of the property rights and the lack of any compensation, the Court found that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated.

Possible individual measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

General measures: during the examination of the case Elia S.r.l. (judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01), which is similar to the present case, the Italian authorities were invited to state what measures were envisaged in order notably to introduce an effective remedy against the State’s inaction and the compensation of landowners when restrictions were maintained after the expiry of the deadlines set by the law. In particular, the question was raised of whether the Codified text on expropriation adopted in 2001 covered these issues. According to information available to the Secretariat, this law was going to enter into force on 30/06/2003.

- 3 cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

H46-65 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/2003, final on 27/05/2003[4]

This case concerns the sustained impossibility for the applicants, for six years and seven months from 1988 to 1996, to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce a judicial decision ordering their tenants’ eviction. As in the case of Immobiliare Saffi (judgment of 28/07/99 examined in Sub-section 4.2 of this meeting), the European Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the protection of the applicants’ right of property and the requirements of the general interest (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and that 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).

General measures: During the examination of the Immobiliare Saffi case, the Italian authorities informed the Committee of the adoption of a law 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) and to the tenants’ and state’s impunity in case of non-enforcement of judicial decisions. By letter of 19/06/2001, the Italian authorities informed the Committee 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 the proceedings. Information is expected on the outcome of the ongoing reflections.

At the time of issuing these notes, a draft interim resolution was being prepared for discussion at the 847th meeting (see Sub-section 4.2).

H46-66 62135 Attene, judgment of 22/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-67 48840 Carloni Tarli, judgment of 30/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

These cases concern the prolonged impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to implement judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6§1).

These cases are similar to the case of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99, in Sub-section 4.2 of this meeting.

Section 2

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-68 41510 Jasiūnienė, judgment of 06/03/2003, final on 06/06/2003

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 unjustly 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.

Possible individual or general measures: dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the authorities concerned; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 2 cases against Luxembourg

H46-69 51772 Roemen and Schmit, judgment of 25/02/2003, final on 25/05/2003

This case concerns searches conducted at the home and the workplace of the first applicant, a journalist and at the chambers of his advocate, the second applicant, following the publication, in the daily newspaper « Lëtzëbuerger Journal » of an article by the first applicant about 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 aimed, even if they did not have any result, at discovering his journalistic sources (violation of Article 10) and 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).

Possible individual and general measures: dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to courts and investigating magistrates; the “law” part of the judgment has been published in the CODEX (law and politics monthly review of Luxembourg) issue of February 2003 (Internet site: www.codex-online.com). Other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-70 51773 Schaal, judgment of 18/02/2003, final on 18/05/2003

This case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life. In 1994, in the course of divorce proceedings instituted by the applicant’s wife, the court suspended its consideration of his application for visitation and custody rights with regard to his daughter pending the outcome of criminal proceedings brought against him for rape and indecent assault against the daughter. In 2000 the applicant was acquitted of those charges. The European Court considered that the unreasonable delays in the conduct of this trial (more than six years for a single level of jurisdiction) constituted an infringement of his right to his family life, taking account of the interests of the child and the need to allow family links to redevelop as soon as the suspension appeared no longer to be necessary (violation of Article 8).

The case also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, in a matter requiring exceptional diligence given the importance of the dispute for the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).

Possible individual and general measures: Visitation and custody rights were granted to the applicant by a judgment of 10/01/2001. Dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to courts and investigating magistrates ; the “law” part of the judgment has been published in the “CODEX” (law and politics monthly review of Luxembourg) issue of February 2003 (Internet site: www.codex-online.com). Other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

- 1 case against Malta

H46-71 55263 Kadem, judgment of 09/01/2003, final on 09/04/2003

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 discharged 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), presently in Section 6 of this agenda.

- 3 cases against the Netherlands

H46-72 52750 Lorsé and others, judgment of 04/02/2003, final on 04/05/2003

H46-73 50901 Van der Ven, judgment of 04/02/2003, final on 04/05/2003

These cases concern in particular the fact that the detention regime to which the applicants were subjected in a maximum security prison (EBI). The European Court indicated that the situation in maximum security prisons gave rise to concern, as the Committee for the prevention of torture and of inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment (CPT) had found. The Court considered that Mr Lorsé and Mr Van der Ven had undergone inhuman or degrading treatment due to the number of supervisory measures and the unjustified recourse to strip-searches on a weekly basis for several years (violations of Article 3).

Mr Lorsé was detained on remand on 24/07/1994 and sentenced on 30/06/1998 to fifteen years’ imprisonment. From 27/09/1994 to 15/01/2001 he was placed in a maximum security institution (EBI).

Mr Van der Ven was detained on remand on 11/09/1995 and sentenced on 26/03/2002 to fifteen years’ imprisonment. From 29/10/1997 to May 2001 he was placed in an EBI.

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgment of the European Court; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-74 51392 Göçer, judgment of 03/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings initiated by the first applicant in order to contest the withdrawal of some of his social security benefits. The proceedings started on 30/11/1993 and ended on 16/12/1998, and thus lasted for a total period of 5 years and 16 days, for two degrees of jurisdiction, before the Hague Regional Court and the Central Appeals Tribunal (violation of Article 6§1).

- 3 cases against Norway

H46-75 30287 Hammern, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

H46-76 29327 O., judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

H46-77 56568 Y., judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

These cases concern violations of the presumption of the applicants’ innocence on account of judicial acts subsequent to criminal proceedings resulting in their acquittal (violation of Article 6§2).

In the two first cases the European Court found that decisions taken in 1995 by the Norwegian courts concerning the compensation claims by the applicants in respect of damage suffered as a result of the criminal proceedings were based, in application of Article 444 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on reasoning implying suspicion of criminal guilt despite the applicants’ acquittal. In the Y. case the Court concluded that the language employed by domestic courts, which accepted the civil claim by decisions of 1998 and 1999, overstepped the limits of civil proceedings, thus casting doubt on the correctness of the applicants’ acquittal.

Section 2

Individual measures: According to Article 391 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act the applicants may request the reopening of the proceedings.

Possible general measures: publication and broad dissemination of the European Court’s judgments to judicial authorities, judges and prosecutors, drawing their attention to the Court’s conclusions; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 7 cases against Poland

H46-78 33870 Fuchs, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative authorities and before the Supreme Administrative Court (violation of Article 6§1). The first set of proceedings, concerning a building permit, started on 04/07/89 and is still pending (13 years and 6 months, of which more than 9 years and 8 months after Poland accepted the right of individual application). The second set, concerning a demolition order, started on 07/03/90 and is also still pending (12 years and 10 months, of which more than 9 years and 8 months after Poland accepted the right of individual application).

Some of the issues raised by the case are similar to those raised by other cases against Poland concerning the excessive lengths of civil proceedings (e.g. Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/2001) for examination in Sub-section 5.1 of the 854th meeting (October 2003) for supervision of general measures.

Possible individual and/or general measures: acceleration of the proceedings still pending; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). In the Kubiszyn case, which dealt with divorce proceedings and determination of the arrangements for custody of the applicant’s child, the European Court noted that special diligence was required from the domestic courts, considering what was at stake for the applicant.

These cases present similarities to the other cases relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/2001) for examination under sub-section 5.1 of the 854th meeting (October 2003) for supervision of general measures.

Possible individual and general measures: Accelerate the pending proceedings at national level (W.M and Bukovski cases); other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

Item	Application	Case	Length of proceedings	Pending cases	Proceedings started on
H46-79	38665/97	Bukovski, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03	16 years and 10 months[5] (one degree of jurisdiction)	Yes	15/03/86
H46-80	52518/99	Koral, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 21/05/03	21 years and 1 months[6] (three degrees of jurisdiction)	No	15/10/77
H46-81	37437/97	Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03	6 years and 6 months (three degrees of jurisdiction)	No	23/06/94
H46-82	39505/98	W.M., judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03	10 years and 6 months[7] (pending before the court of first instance, after the first judgment had been quashed by the appellate court)	Yes	18/05/92

Section 2

H46-83 43786 Szymikowska and Szymikowski, judgment of 06/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46-84 67165 Sędek, judgment of 06/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

These cases concern the length of civil proceedings (complaints lodged under Article 6§1).

Individual measures: In the case of Szymikowska and Szymikowski, the government, under the terms of the friendly settlement, indicated that it would supervise the progress of the impugned proceedings. Information is awaited in this context.

- 4 cases against Portugal

H46-85 52657 Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/2003, final on 27/05/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages (violation of Article 6§1).

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-86 53937 Ferreira Alves, Limited, judgment of 27/02/2003, final on 27/05/2003

H46-87 51806 Figueiredo Simões, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

H46-88 52412 Marques Nunes, judgment of 20/02/2003, final on 20/05/2003

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings in the Ferreira Alves case started on 14/02/1995 and ended on 02/05/2000 (5 years and 3 months). Proceedings in the Figueiredo Simoes case started on 26/03/1996 and finished on 13/07/2001 (5 years and 4 months). Proceedings in the Marques Nunes case started on 20/10/1994 and ended on 04/01/2002 (7 years, 2 months 15 days).

- 6 cases against Romania

*H46-89 31678 Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003

*H46-90 29973 Golea, judgment of 17/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003

H46-91 31736 Grigore, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

H46-92 32265 Popovăţ, judgment of 25/02/2003, final on 25/05/2003

H46-93 31680 State and others, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

H46-94 32269 Tărbăşanu, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

These cases concern the Supreme Court’s annulment of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' titles to real estate 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 the cases of Gheorghiu, Golea, Popovăţ and Tărbăşanu). 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 at stake (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In the Gheorghiu, Golea and Popovăţ cases, the proceedings were still pending at domestic level when the European Court rendered its judgment.

These cases present similarities to that of Brumărescu and other cases against Romania (judgments of 28/10/99 and 23/01/01) which were examined in Section 4.2 of the 834th meeting (April 2003) for supervision of general measures (amendment of Article 330 of the civil procedure code).

Section 2

- 1 case against the Russian federation

H46-95 63486 Posokhov, judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

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 of a list of lay judges by local elected authorities, the selection of these judges at random from this list and the two-week maximum length of their 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 was drawn up prior to February 2000 (violation of Article 6§1).

While the applicant was found guilty by the aforementioned court in 2000, he was immediately dispensed of serving his sentence. Subsequently, the original conviction was quashed as time-barred.

Possible general measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 7 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-96 47227 Baková, judgment of 12/11/2002, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right for a public hearing during proceedings concerning the restitution of property (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: 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 §§ 27 and 35 of the European Court’s judgment). Further information concerning the replacement of this provision would be useful.

H46-97 41784 A.B., judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

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).

Possible individual and /or general measures: Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the competent courts; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-98 44965 Molnárová and Kochanová, judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings instituted on 23/09/1992 which ended in 21/04/1998 (5 years and 7 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

It presents similarities with the Jóri case (judgment of 09/11/2000) which is listed in section 6, following general measures already adopted.

*H46-99 54822 Micovčin, judgment of 27/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-100 63999 Rusnáková, judgment of 27/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-101 62191 Sisák, judgment of 27/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-102 57985 Slovák II, judgment of 03/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

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

Section 2

- 1 case against Spain

H46-103 58496 Prado Bugallo, judgment of 18/02/2003, final on 18/05/2003

The case concerns the interception, with judicial authorisation, of the applicant’s telephone communication at different periods in 1990 and 1991, following a criminal investigation by the police in respect of drug trafficking (violation of Article 8).

The European Court considered 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.

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgment of the European Court; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 2 cases against Sweden

*H46-104 34619 Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/2002, final on 21/05/2003

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 has 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 leaves 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 taken only three years after the applicant’s request for reconsideration.

The European Court found that Article 6 applied to the procedure for the imposition of the surcharges and considered 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 art 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 were still pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal at the date of the European Court’s judgment (almost six years and eight months) (Violation of Article 6§1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: acceleration of the procedure; publication of the judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-105 36985 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic, judgment of 23/07/2002, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns the applicants’ right of access to court in the determination of the merits of criminal charges brought against them because of alleged incorrect tax declarations. On 04/09/1995 the first application (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. The facts are very similar to those of the Janosevic case described above, 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 Court found that Article 6 applied to the procedures for the imposition of the surcharges and 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 court.

Section 2

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 procedings on the merits of these surcharges was 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).

Possible individual and/or general measures: acceleration of the proceedings; publication of the European Court’s judgment; other measures as discussed in the context of the Janosevic case.

- 13 cases against Turkey

H46-106 26546 Acar Ahmet, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

The case concerns in particular the applicant’s complaints of breach of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the administration’s delay in paying additional compensation awarded by domestic courts for expropriation of his property and due to the substantial difference between the default interest rate applicable at the time and the average rate of inflation in Turkey (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

This case presents similarities to those of Akkuş and Aka against Turkey (judgments of 09/07/1997 and 23/09/1998) closed by Resolutions ResDH(2001)71 and ResDH(2001)70 respectively, following a legislative reform which brought the statutory rate of default interest into line with the annual rediscount rate applied by the Turkish Central Bank to short-term debts (the latter rate is fixed and permanently reviewed, taking into account particularly the country’s inflation rate).

- Friendly settlement concerning Actions of the Turkish security forces containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

H46-107 37049 Yaman Mehmet, judgment of 22/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-108 31845 Dilek Kemal, judgment of 17/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-109 28504 Merinç, judgment of 17/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

These cases concern in particular allegations of ill-treatment during custody, the death of one of the applicants and the destruction of property in the course of operations conducted by security forces between May 1989 and August 1996 in Ankara and Bingöl (complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13,14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

According to the friendly settlements, the Turkish Government, in addition to payment of compensation, 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 ill-treatment are respected in the future. The Government also referred to the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of execution of other, similar judgments.

The complaints and the governmental undertakings in these cases present similarities with those made in a number of other friendly settlements relating to actions of the Turkish security forces, which will be re-examined at 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) for supervision of their implementation.

H46-110 41316 Atça and others, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 06/05/2003

H46-111 39324 Demirel, judgment of 28/01/2003, final on 28/04/2003

H46-112 43818 N.K., judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003, rectified on 18/02/2003

H46-113 59659 Özdemir Tekin, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 06/05/2003

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in that their cases were not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Courts (violations of Article 6§1).

Section 2

The Demirel case also concerns the applicant’s excessively long detention on remand between 28/09/1991 and 21/10/1998 (more than 7 years). In this respect the European Court found that the judicial decisions were insufficiently reasoned or not reasoned at all with respect to the risks justifying her being kept in detention (violation of Article 5§3). Finally the case concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant (7 years and 8 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

As regards the violations of Article 6§1 in respect of independence and impartiality of state security courts, the cases present similarities to those 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.

Possible general measures in the Demirel case: Publication and wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to competent authorities and criminal courts; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

- Freedom of expression cases against Turkey

H46-114 40153+ Çetin and others, judgment of 13/02/2003, final on 13/05/2003

This case concerns a disproportionate interference in the freedom of expression of the applicants, who are journalists, on account of the ban on distribution of the daily newspaper Ülkede Gündem, imposed on 1 December 1997 by the Governor in a region subject to the state of emergency. The European Court noted in particular that neither the provisions empowering the Governor to ban the circulation or distribution of written texts (section 11(e) of Law no. 2935 on the State of Emergency and Article 1(a) of Legislative Decree no. 430) nor their application were subject to judicial scrutiny and that the Governor had given no reasons for the ban. Moreover, the Court noted that the ban in question was still in force in June 2000 and that successor papers to Ülkede Gündem, like others, had met with the same fate (violation of Article 10).

Possible general measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court. Since the lifting of the state of emergency in Turkey on 30/11/2002, the legislation at the origin of the violation found in this case is no longer applicable.

H46-115 27214 C.S.Y., judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

H46-116 27215+ Gökçeli Yaşar Kemal, judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

These cases concern disproportionate interferences in the freedom of expression of the applicants on account of their conviction, in 1996, under Article 312 of the Criminal Code following publication by the publishing company C.S.Y. of an article written by Mr Yaşar Kemal Gökçeli. The applicant company was given a suspended sentence to a fine while Mr Gökçeli was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine (violations of Article 10). These cases are similar to the other Turkish cases of violations of freedom of expression, which are to be examined in Sub-Section 4.2 at this meeting.

Possible individual measures: In accordance with the Committee of Ministers' position on similar cases, Mr Gökçeli’s conviction and all its consequences should be erased (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106). However, the new law No. 4793, allowing the reopening of proceedings found to be contrary to the Convention, does not apply to this case because the European Court's judgment became final after 04/02/2003, the date on which this legislation entered into force. Information is expected concerning whether the applicant may have his conviction erased on the basis of Law 4809 on the postponement of procedures and sentences concerning crimes committed through press and publishing, which entered into force on 10/02/2003.

Possible general measures: The progress made in the implementation of the general measures required in this and other similar cases is to be examined in Sub-section 4.2 of this meeting.

Section 2

*H46-117 32455 Zarakolu, judgment of 27/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

This case concerns the applicant’s complaints concerning a violation of her freedom of expression on account of her conviction in 1995 by the State Security Court of Istanbul following the publication of an article by the publishing company that she owned (complaint under Article 10). The applicant also complained about the partiality of the Security Court who convicted her, on account of the presence of a military judge (complaint under Article 6). The applicant was sentenced to 5 months’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine for disseminating PKK propaganda under Article 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act No. 3713.

This case presents similarities to the cases against Turkey concerning the freedom of expression to be examined in Sub-section 4.2 at this meeting.

Individual and general measures: The applicant died on 28/01/2002 and her husband continued the procedure before the Strasbourg Court. According to the friendly settlement concluded, the Turkish Government undertook to pay him a sum of money and to implement all necessary reform of domestic law and practice in order to bring Turkish Law into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in the area of freedom of expression. Furthermore, the government undertook to adopt the individual measures set out in Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the conviction at issue.

*H46-118 25141 Dicle for the democratic party (DEP), judgment of 10/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003

The case concerns the dissolution of the above-mentioned political party by the Constitutional Court by a judgment of 16/07/1994 on the grounds that the speeches made in Germany and in Iraq by its former president and a written declaration by its central committee were likely to undermine the territorial integrity of the State and the unity of the nation. The European Court found that the dissolution of this party could not reasonably be considered to correspond to a “pressing social need” on account of the speech made in Germany and the written declaration, and that it could not be regarded as proportionate to the aims pursued on account of the speech made in Iraq. The Court concluded that dissolution of DEP could not be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society” and that there had been a violation of Article 11.

This case presents similarities to the cases of Özdep (judgment of 08/12/1999), United Communist Party of Turkey (judgment of 30/01/1998), Socialist Party and others (judgment of 25/05/1998) and Yazar, Karatas, Aksoy and HEP (judgment of 09/04/2002) against Turkey which will be re-examined by the Committee at the 854th meeting (October 2003) for supervision of individual and/or general measures.

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the European Court’s judgment; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

- 4 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-119 50272 Hutchison Reid, judgment of 20/02/2003, final on 20/05/2003

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to have the lawfulness of his detention in a mental hospital reviewed by a court because in his appeal for release in 1994 the domestic courts placed the burden of proof on him to establish that his mental disorder was not treatable and that, therefore, his continued detention did not satisfy the conditions of lawfulness (violation of Article 5§4). The case also concerns the excessive length (4 years and 8 months) of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s release (violation of Article 5§4).

Possible individual and/or general measures: As regards the first violation of Article 5§4, Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) Scotland Act 1999 (Section 64 A1) makes it clear now that, in cases such as the applicant's, the fact that the mental disorder is not treatable does not require release where a risk to the public remains (see §§ 34 and 53 of the Court’s judgment). In addition, according to recent domestic case-law, the burden lies on the authorities to prove that the patient suffers from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention (see §§ 38, 62 and 70 of the Court’s judgment). Possible other measures will be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

H46-120 50034 Obasa, judgment of 16/01/2003, final on 16/04/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts, instituted in December 1991 and completed in April 1999 (7 years and 4 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

The case presents similarities with the Somjee case (judgment of 15/10/2002) which will be examined at the 854th meeting (October 2003) in Section 4.2.

General measures: During the examination of the Somjee case at the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Government was asked to provide information about the measures envisaged. This information is awaited.

H46-121 44647 Peck, judgment of 28/01/2003, final on 28/04/2003

The case concerns a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life in that, in 1995, a local council disclosed pictures of him to the media, without sufficient safeguards to prevent disclosure inconsistent with the guarantees of this right, i.e., without his consent or masking his identity. These pictures showed the applicant in a town centre just before a suicide attempt, holding a knife. They were filmed by a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera installed in a public street for disorder and crime prevention purposes (violation of Article 8).

The case also concerns the lack of effective remedy in relation to the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life (violation of Article 13).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published in the “European Human Rights Reporter”, 2003 36 p. 41.

As regards the violation of Article 8, the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 (in force in October 2000) requires primary and subordinate legislation be read and given effect as far as possible in a manner compatible with the Convention. It also provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way incompatible with a right guaranteed by the Convention (see §47 of the Court’s judgment).

In addition, according to information provided by the Government, the Information Commissioner’s Code of Practice, published in 2001, provides clear guidance on the disclosure of CCTV footage to third parties.

The advisability of further standard-setting in this field is being examined.

Other possible measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-122 44808 Mitchell and Holloway, judgment of 17/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (which started on February 1988 and ended on June 1998) of which the applicants complained of a period of unjustified delay from October 1991 to March 1994 (violation of Article 6§1).

The case presents similarities with that of Foley (judgment of 22.10.2002) which will be re-examined at the 854th meeting (October 2003) in section 5.3.

Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the European Court’s judgment and dissemination to the courts directly concerned; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

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.

A table, containing the list of cases for which information on the payment has been provided to the Secretariat, will be distributed separately and updated regularly. The Secretariat recalls that the cases requiring supervision of payment will be examined at the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) in accordance with the decisions taken at the 841st meeting (3-4 June 2003).

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.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)

List of cases for which information on payment of just satisfaction has been provided

since the 841st meeting (DH)

Liste d’affaires pour lesquelles des informations sur le paiement de la satisfaction équitable
ont été fournies depuis la 841e réunion (DH)

State / Etat	Application / Requête	Case/ Affaire	Meeting / Réunion	Judgment of / Arrêt du	Final on / Définitif le
A	34994	Walter	847-6	28/11/02	28/11/02
A	37295	Yildiz M., G. & Y.	854-4.2	31/10/02	31/01/03
B	32576	Wynen	854-4.2	05/11/02	05/02/03
F	33592	Baumann	854-4.2	22/05/01	22/08/01
F	49544	Butel	854-4.2	12/11/02	12/02/03
F	43125	Delbec Annick n° 3	854-4.2	18/06/02	18/09/02
F	42195	Mortier	847-6	31/07/01	31/10/01
F	42400	Seguin	854-5.3	16/04/02	06/11/02
F	56198	Société Industrielle d’Entretien et de Service (Sies)	854-3.a	19/03/02	19/06/02
F	51179	Solana	854-3.a	19/03/02	04/09/02
F	40472	Tricard	854-4.2	10/07/01	10/10/01
FIN	27751	K.A.	847-2	14/01/2003	14/04/2003
I	38576	Barattelli Carlo	April / Avril 2004	04/07/02	04/10/02
I	41863	Boldrin Stefano	April / Avril 2004	04/07/02	04/10/02
I	51127	Carolla	April / Avril 2004	28/02/02 28/11/02	28/05/02 28/11/02
I	37249	Casadei Roberto	April / Avril 2004	04/07/02	04/10/02
I	44513	D’Ammassa et Frezza	854-3.a	25/10/01 09/01/03	25/01/02 09/04/03
I	35991	Del Federico Alberto	April / Avril 2004	04/07/02	04/10/02
I	42619	Di Vuono Bernardo	April / Avril 2004	04/07/02	04/10/02
I	43621	F.M.	April / Avril 2004	28/11/02	28/02/03
I	51156	Fasulo	854-3.a	28/02/02	28/05/02
I	52924	Frattini and others / et autres	April / Avril 2004	12/02/02 26/11/02	12/05/02 26/02/03
I	51103	Gattone and others / et autres	April / Avril 2004	28/02/02 03/10/02	28/05/02 03/01/03
I	44501	Il Messaggero S.A.S. VI	854-3.a	25/10/01	25/01/02
I	38594	Mereu & S. Maria Navarrese	854-4.3	13/06/02	13/09/02
I	44173	Mucciacciaro Raffaele	April / Avril 2004	04/07/02	04/10/02
I	42287	Pascazi Domenico	April / Avril 2004	04/07/02	04/10/02
I	45789	Pugliese Massimo	April / Avril 2004	28/11/02	28/11/02
I	44524	Ragas	April / Avril 2004	23/10/01 17/12/02	23/01/02 17/03/03
I	44409	Rizzo Giuseppe	854-3.a	25/10/01	25/01/02
I	43915	Rocci Luigi	April / Avril 2004	04/07/02	04/10/02
I	51090	Scaccianemici	April / Avril 2004	28/02/02 03/10/02	28/05/02 03/01/03
I	52831	Simone & Pontillo	April / Avril 2004	28/02/02 03/10/02	28/05/02 03/01/03
I	40231	Spinello Salvatore	847-2	30/01/2003	30/04/03
I	42291+	Tumbarello & Titone	April / Avril 2004	04/07/02	04/10/02
I	44416	Viola	April / Avril 2004	25/10/01 07/11/02	25/01/02 07/02/03
LIT	41510	Jasiūnienė	847-2	06/03/2003	06/06/2003
LIT	37571	Veeber n° 1	854-4.2	07/11/02	07/02/03
LUX	51772	Roemen & Schmit	847-2	25/02/2003	25/05/2003
P	48752	Coelho	854-3.a	30/05/02	30/08/02
P	49020	F. Santos Lda.	854-3.a	16/05/02	16/05/02
P	49671	Ferreira da Nave	847-6	07/11/02	07/02/03
P	53793	Morais Sarmento	847-6	03/10/02	-
P	44298	Tourtier	854-3.a	14/02/02	-
POL	38328	Bejer	854-51	04/10/01	04/01/02
POL	55106	Górka	856-6	05/11/02	05/11/02
POL	33885	Kawka Eryk	854-6	27/06/02	27/09/02
POL	30218	Nowicka	854-3.a	03/12/02	03/03/03
POL	34052	Olstowski	854-5.1	15/11/01	15/02/02
POL	27506	Owczarzak	854-3.a	DH(99)260	-
POL	67165	Sędek	847-2	06/05/2003	06/05/2003
POL	43786	Szymikowska & Szymikowski	847-2	06/05/2003	06/05/2003
POL	48684	Uthke	854-5.1	18/06/02	18/09/02
POL	39505	W.M.	847-2	14/01/03	14/04/03
POL	32499	Z.R.	854-6	15/01/02	15/01/02
TR	32574	Algür	854-4.2	22/10/02	22/01/03
TR	37721	Erkanlı	847-4.2	13/02/03	13/02/03
TR	29864	H.K. and others / et autres	854-4.2	14/01/03	14/01/03
TR	27692+	Karakoç and others / et autres	847-4.2	15/10/02	15/01/03
TR	28493	Küçük Yalçın	847-4.2	05/12/02	05/03/03
TR	25656	Orhan Salih	854-4.2 +3.a[8]	18/06/02	06/11/02
TR	42739	Özel Yaşar	854-6	07/11/02	07/02/03
TR	37088	Özkur & Göksungur	854-4.2	04/03/03	04/03/03
TR	24914	Öztürk Ayşe	847-4.2	15/10/02	15/01/03
TR	24737+	Satık, Camlı, Satık & Maraşlı	847-6	22/10/02	22/01/03
UK	32771	Cuscani	854-4.2	24/09/02	24/12/02
UK	47114	Taylor-Sabori	854-4.2	22/10/02	22/01/03
UK	36042	Willis	847-1.2	11/06/02	11/09/02

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[9]

- 1 case against France

H46-123 47160 Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

Addendum 4

The case concerns the sentencing of the applicant, a Moroccan national, to permanent exclusion from French territory even though the offences he committed cannot be considered particularly serious, and given that the applicant has strong links with France but none with Morocco except for the mere fact of nationality (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The French authorities have indicated that the applicant had been placed on a compulsory residence order by decision of 03/07/01. The applicant’s lawyer has lodged an application for rescission of the exclusion order (precondition for the delivery of a residence permit).

On 10/06/2003, the French Delegation wrote to the Vice-Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies recapitulating the position of France in this case, i.e. that the case can be closed. The Secretariat has answered by a letter of 25/06/2003, explaining the reasons why, in its view, it should not be closed (see Addendum 4).

- 1 case against Italy

H46-124 57574+ Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic et 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 to the Convention).

According to the friendly settlement reached, the Italian Home Affairs Ministry has undertaken, in addition to the payment of certain sums to the applicants and to their lawyer:

- to revoke the deportation orders in respect of the applicants;

- to permit them to enter Italy with their families;

- to issue them with residence permits on humanitarian grounds, valid for one year and renewable, allowing them to work and study in Italy;

- 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 ;

- 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;

- to arrange with the competent authorities for a sick child to receive the medical attention she needs in the framework of the public health system.

Individual measures: The agreed sums were paid on 10/02/03 to 5 applicants and on 17/03/03 to 8 applicants and their lawyer. Payment to three other applicants is under way. As regards the other undertakings:

- The deportation orders were revoked on 18/10/02 and the applicants’ names removed from the “Schengen” database.

- With the exception of Ms Vahida Sulejmanovic, who could not be found, 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.

- With the exception of the missing applicant, all the applicants have been granted residence permits in conformity with the terms of the friendly settlement.

Sub-section 4.1

- Upon their return to Italy, the applicants were placed for some time at the state’s expense in a temporary accommodation, that they have now left. The family of Izet Sulejmanovic settled in an equipped site where their grandmother lived, while no long-term accommodation in an equipped site has been found so far for the other two families, in spite of the efforts made by the authorities with the assistance of an NGO, because of the lack of suitable equipped sites in Rome. By letter dated 29/05/03, the applicants’ lawyer drew the attention to the urgency of solving this problem and recalled that the authorities had engaged to keep the applicants’ informed of any developments. At the 841st meeting (June 2003), the Italian authorities confirmed their commitment to continue their efforts.

- In reply to the applicants’ lawyer letter of 29/05/03 signalling that no step had been taken yet by the competent authorities as regards undertakings concerning the schooling and medical care of the children, the Italian Delegation recalled, at the 841st meeting (June 2003) that, on the basis of their residence permits, the applicants were entitled to benefit from the public school and health system and that specific action to be taken would be considered once they registered the children at schools and addressed the competent local health services.

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-125 47698 Birutis and others, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings conducted in 1997 before the Kaunas Regional Court, in that the applicants were convicted either solely or partially on the basis of anonymous testimony without the opportunity to question these witnesses or to have them questioned (violation of Article 6§1 and §3d).

As a result, the first and second applicants were sentenced to 10 years’ and the third applicant to 6 years' imprisonment.

Individual measures: Following the European Court's judgment, the impugned proceedings have been reopened (decision by the Supreme Court of 27/06/2002) and are currently pending before the Appeal Court. In the meantime, the third applicant, whose conviction was based solely on anonymous testimony, was released from detention on 03/05/2001 under Article 54 of the Criminal Code (conditional release before completion of the term). The two other applicants remain in detention as they continue to serve prison sentences imposed by Siauliai Regional Court on 16/08/1996 in separate criminal proceedings (not concerned by the European Court's judgment in the case of Birutis against Lithuania).

General measures: The new Code of Criminal Procedure, which entered into force on 01/05/2003, provides for detailed procedural safeguards of all parties in proceedings involving anonymous witnesses (see inter alia Articles 198-204 and 282-283). These new provisions should prevent new violations similar to those found in the present case.

Sub-section 4.1

- 1 case against Turkey

H46-126 29900+ Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59

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:

Background: 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).

The Turkish authorities initially informed the Committee (at the 775th meeting, December 2001) that possibilities for re-opening domestic proceedings following the European Court’s judgments would be shortly introduced through legislation. However, at the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Turkish Delegation indicated that preparation of the draft law in question had been adjourned but that the Turkish authorities were continuing to seek ways to adopt the necessary individual measures in the present case. Many Delegations expressed their disappointment at the fact that the new legislation, which was of such urgency for the execution of the present judgment, had been adjourned and deplored the fact that no specific measure had yet been taken in respect of the applicants. Some delegations furthermore stressed that the execution of the judgment was being attentively observed by the Parliamentary Assembly (cf. AS(2002)CR2) and outside the Council of Europe, notably by the European Union.

Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59: At the 794th meeting (30 April 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;

-Decides, in view of the urgency of the situation, to resume its control of the adoption of these individual measures, if necessary at each of its meetings.

At the 798th (June 2002) and 803rd (July 2002) meetings, the Turkish delegation stated that the authorities were still considering the introduction of a possibility for reopening of proceedings through legislation.

At the 807th meting (September 2002), the Representative of Turkey presented the reforms adopted by the Parliament on 03/08/2002 and the Deputies specifically considered the amendments to the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure, which concern the reopening of domestic proceedings. Disappointment was expressed at the fact that that the four applicants in the present case – who continue to serve their 15-year prison sentences and to suffer the consequences of the violations found – will not be able to benefit from the newly adopted provisions (the latter were applicable only to new cases lodged with the European Court after their entry into force, i.e. after 03/08/2003). The necessity for urgent action to grant the applicants the appropriate redress has been accordingly strongly reiterated.

Sub-section 4.1

As no concrete action in this respect had been reported at the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Secretariat was mandated to prepare a new draft Interim Resolution. The latter was however not adopted by the Committee given concrete measures taken by Turkey to reopen the impugned proceedings (see below).

Adoption of new legislation and retrial: On 04/02/2003 a new Law entered into force allowing 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 Court at the date of entry into force of the Law (4 February 2003).

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 three public hearings of the case have already been held by the same court (on 28/03/2003, 25/04/2003 and 23/05/2003). The Committee of Ministers welcomed the reopening of the impugned domestic proceedings.

At the same time, the Committee has noted that successive requests to suspend the execution of the original prison sentence have been rejected by the State Security Court 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.

The Turkish delegation has indicated that these concerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities. It has also recalled that the question of suspension of the original sentence lies within the competence of the State Security Court. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of this case at the 847th meeting (8-9 July 2003) in the light of the responses to be given by the Turkish authorities.

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 April 2003, the Committee received a new written question (CM(2003)68) 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 draft reply to this question has been issued under the reference CM/AS(2003)Quest426 but it has not yet been transmitted to the Parliamentary Assembly.

General measures:

Information has been requested with regard to the measures the Turkish authorities envisage with a view to preventing new violations of the right to a fair trial in the proceedings before the security courts. The Turkish authorities have informed the Committee that some reforms had already been adopted and certain others were under way.

As regards the specific problem relating to the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security courts, general measures have already been adopted within the constitutional reform which replaced the military judge on State Security Courts by a civil judge (see the Çiraklar against Turkey case, judgment of 28/10/1998, Resolution DH(99)555). As regards the right to a fair trial in general, this right received constitutional protection as a result of an amendment to Article 36 of the Constitution on 17/10/2001.

SUB-SECTION 4.2 – INDIVIDUAL MEASURES AND/OR GENERAL PROBLEMS

- 1 case against Austria

H46-127 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 (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: 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. The Austrian Delegation has informed the Committee that the Ministry of Justice is 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.

- 2 cases against Cyprus

H46-128 30873 Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00

CM/Inf(2003)30

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 raising several questions about the need to adopt individual measures in this case. In May 2001 the Secretariat forwarded a copy of the letter to the Cypriot authorities, who confirmed that they were examining measures that might need to be taken in this case and undertook to keep the Secretariat informed of developments.

On 26/09/2002, the Secretariat received a letter from the applicant’s lawyer requesting among other things precise information about the measures under examination by the Cypriot authorities. He also asked whether the Attorney-General had instituted criminal proceedings against the officers involved and, if not, what reasons had been given. Finally, he requested that a copy of his letter be made available to all the Deputies.

At the 827th meeting (11-12/02/2003), the Cypriot authorities informed the Committee that the Attorney-General intended to appoint independent criminal investigators to look into the question of criminal offences committed by members of the police (the statement was distributed at the meeting).

General measures: As in the Denizci & others case, also examined under section 4.2, the Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all institutions concerned (judicial and also police/security forces, Attorney General’s Office, Ombudsman, Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of 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. Information about its publication has been requested.

Furthermore, sections 242-243 of the Criminal Code and related parts of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been amended taking into account the findings of the European Court. However, further legislative measures are envisaged. The Cypriot authorities have sent the Secretariat details in Greek. An English summary was also sent to the Secretariat on 04/10/2002.

Sub-section 4.2

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.

On 31/10/2002, the Cypriot Delegation met the Secretariat, which highlighted the issues in need of clarification and requested to have this, if possible, in time for the examination of the Egmez and Denizci cases at the 819th meeting.

On 07/02/2003, there was a further meeting between the Cypriot Delegation and the Secretariat. Written information was handed to the Secretariat. This information was subsequently presented to the Committee by the Cypriot Representative at the 827th meeting and a copy of the statement was distributed to all Delegations.

Subsequently, on 26/02/2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Cypriot authorities, indicating those areas in which further information/clarifications are awaited.

At the 834th meeting (April 2003) the Cypriot authorities indicated that additional information in response to the Secretariat’s letters of 26/02/2003, would be transmitted to Secretariat shortly. The Committee decided to postpone the examination of the case to its 847th meeting (July 2003).

On 20/05/2003, the Secretariat received this information.

All the information received so far from the Cypriot authorities, and the questions raised by the applicants’ representatives and other Delegations are included in the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat (see CM/Inf(2003)30).

H46-129 25316 Denizci and others, judgment of 23/05/01, final on 23/08/01

CM/Inf(2003)30

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: The Cypriot authorities have stated that the applicants were released from detention. The Committee has asked whether the investigation proceedings, which started in 1995, are still open (§23 of the judgment of the European Court).

At the 827th meeting (11-12/02/2003), the Cypriot authorities informed the Committee that it is the intention of the Attorney-General to appoint independent criminal investigators to carry out an investigation into the commission of criminal offences by members of the police (the statement was distributed at the meeting).

General measures: The Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all institutions concerned (judicial and also the police force/security forces, the Attorney General’s Office, the Ombudsman, the Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of 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. Exact references as to its publication and the dissemination have been requested. Furthermore, sections 242-243 of the Criminal Code and related parts of the code of criminal proceedings were already amended taking into account the findings of the European Court. However, further legislative measures are envisaged. The Cypriot authorities have transmitted to the Secretariat, in written form, details of the above-mentioned information in Greek. An English summary was also sent to the Secretariat on 04/10/2002.

On 31/10/2002, a meeting took place between the Cypriot Delegation and the Secretariat. At the meeting, the Secretariat identified the issues for which clarifications are needed, and requested to have this, if possible, in time for the examination of the Egmez and Denizci cases at the 819th meeting.

Sub-section 4.2

Subsequently, on 26/02/2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Cypriot authorities, indicating those areas in which further information/clarifications are awaited.

On 20/05/2003, the Secretariat received this information.

- 1 case against France

H46-130 36436 Piron, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01[10]

- 1 case against Greece

*H46-131 47541 Vasilopoulou, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02 and judgment of 26/09/02

(Article 41) final on 21/05/03

This case concerns the refusal of the administration to comply with a decision of the Court of Audit delivered in 1997, granting the applicant a supplementary pension and declaring unconstitutional Section 3 of the Law n° 2512/1997. According to this provision, any relevant claim was statute-barred and any pending judicial proceedings set aside (violation of Article 6§1). Despite the fact that the Government had so far remedied similar problems with other people by means of a Ministerial decision, n° 71320/2000, the applicant has still not received the sums in question and has challenged the efficiency of this measure.

The European Court found in addition that the Court of Audit’s judgment had created an established right to payment in the applicant’s favour and that the belated adoption of the ministerial decision upset the fair balance between the protection of the applicant’s right to property and the requirements of the general interest (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case presents similarities to those of Logothetis (judgment of 12/04/2001), to be examined at the 863rd meeting (December 2003) in Sub-section 4.2 and Antonakopoulos and Georgiadis Dimitrios (judgments of 14/12/1999 and 28/03/2000) which are listed in Section 6 following the constitutional and legislative measures already adopted.

The deadline for the payment of the just satisfaction is 21/08/2003.

General measures: At the 775th meeting (December 2001), the Government was asked to provide information on the question whether there would be a risk of similar violations in the future on account of Section 3 of the Law n° 2512/1997. This information is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against Ireland

H46-132 36887 Quinn, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-133 34720 Heaney and McGuinness, judgment of 1/12/00, final on 21/03/01

Addendum 4 Volume II

These cases concern in particular the failure to respect the applicants’ right to remain silent and not to incriminate themselves (violation of Article 6§1) and the consequent breach of the presumption of their innocence (violation of Article 6§2). The applicants, remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed terrorist acts, were initially informed by the police that they had the right to remain silent. However, charges subsequently laid against them included that of refusing to answer questions under the terms of Article 52 of the 1939 Offences against the State Act. In the subsequent criminal proceedings, they were found not guilty of the substantive charges but convicted and sentenced (June 1991 in the Heaney & McGuinness case, and May 1997 in the Quinn case) to six months’ imprisonment for having refused to answer questions while on remand, under the terms of the above-mentioned Article 52.

Individual measures: The applicant in the Quinn case has brought proceedings, which are pending before the High Court, seeking inter alia to have his conviction quashed. As regards the Heaney & McGuinness case, the Court of Criminal Appeal has not received any communication from the applicants’ solicitors with a view to taking any procedural steps necessary to determine the appeal. Information as to the outcome of the proceedings at the domestic level in the Quinn case has been requested.

The Secretariat has requested information on any individual measure envisaged e.g. the deletion of the conviction or, at least, the annotation of the records with the conclusion of the judgment of the European Court in the applicants’ criminal records.

General measures: The measures already adopted or under way are detailed in the appendix to the draft interim resolution submitted to the Deputies, with a view to its adoption, at this meeting (see Addendum 4 Volume II).

- 54 cases against Italy

H46-134 35972 Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani, judgment of 02/08/01,

final on 12/12/01

The case concerns in particular a disproportionate interference with the freedom of association of the applicant, an Italian Masonic association affiliated to the Universal Freemasons, on account of the obligation for candidates to public office in the Marches region to declare that they are not members of the Freemasons. The European Court concluded that this restriction, established by Article 5 of Marches Regional Law No. 34 of 1996, was not necessary in a democratic society nor was it justified by the character of the public office concerned by the law (violation of Article 11).

General measures: the attention of the Italian authorities was drawn to the need to modify or abrogate Article 5§2, point (e) of Marches Regional Law No. 34/1996. The question was also raised of whether similar provisions existed in other regional laws. The Italian authorities were furthermore invited to ensure the publication of the judgment of the European Court. At the 827th meeting (February 2003), the Italian Delegation indicated that the Regional Council was examining a draft amendment to the law, aiming at putting it in conformity with the Court’s judgment and that the pertinent laws of other regions did not seem to raise the same problems underlined by the Court in respect of this case.

Sub-section 4.2

- Cases concerning the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence

H54-136 15211 Diana Calogero, judgment of 15/11/96, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

H54-137 15943 Domenichini, judgment of 15/11/96, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

H46-138 39920 Di Giovine, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-139 25498 Messina Antonio II, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

H46-140 26161 Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

H46-141 31543 Rinzivillo, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

Addendum 4

These cases mainly concern violations of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the lack of clarity of Italian law concerning the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence (Law No. 354/75), which leaves too much leeway to the public authorities, particularly in respect of the duration of monitoring measures and the reasons justifying such measures; authorises the monitoring of correspondence with the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights and provides for no effective remedy against decisions ordering the monitoring of correspondence (violation of Article 13 in the Diana and Domenichini cases).

In the Domenichini case, the Court also found a violation of Article 6§3 because one of the applicant’s letters to his lawyer had been intercepted while penal proceedings were still pending, thus impairing his defence rights.

The case of Messina Antonio 2 also concerns the lack of effective remedies against the restrictions resulting from the special prison regime (Section 41bis of the Prison Administration Act n° 354/75) to which he was subject (violation of Article 13).

General measures: In December 2001, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178, urging the Italian authorities rapidly to adopt the legislative reform required fully to ensure that Italian law complies with the Convention on the points raised by the Court; it decided to resume consideration of the issue once the process of amending law No. 354/75 had been completed or, at the latest, at its first meeting in 2003. It noted with satisfaction the provisional measures already taken, which are summarised in the above-mentioned Interim Resolution (see Addendum 4).

A Presidential Decree on penitentiary organisation entered into force on 06/09/2000, Article 38§11 of which provides that correspondence addressed to international human rights organisations should be exempt from monitoring. As regards the other problems highlighted by the Court in these judgments, a new Bill (No. 2675/C) aimed at amending the law on monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence was presented to the Chamber of Deputies in April 2002.

Furthermore, the Domenichini judgment (the section “The law”) was translated and published in the Italian legal journal Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo (1997, vol. II, p. 119-124) and, in March and April 1999, the Italian Ministry of Justice addressed circular letters to presidents and public prosecutors of appeal courts, drawing their attention to the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention, as established in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, with regard to monitoring prisoners’ correspondence, and to prison authorities giving them guidelines on how to comply with the above-mentioned requirements. However, it results from the Natoli judgment (§15) that letters between the applicant and his lawyers were in fact submitted to monitoring measures even after the issuing of the circulars and in spite of the fact that Article 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1989, prohibits such surveillance.

As regards the effectiveness of remedies to check the lawfulness of restrictions imposed on prisoners, the Italian authorities informed the Secretariat, by letter of 04/12/2000, that the judgment of Messina Antonio 2 had been translated, published in the legal magazine Documenti Giustizia and communicated to the authorities concerned, and that the Department for Penitentiary Administration would consider possible measures to prevent new violations of Article 13, similar to those found by the Court in this case (§§ 84-97 of the judgment). Information has been requested as to the result of these reflections.

Sub-section 4.2

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

H46-142 22774 Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99

H46-143 22534 A.O., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00

H32-144 20177 Aldini, Interim Resolution DH(97)413

H46-145 35550 Auditore, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-146 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-147 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-148 34819 Cau, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-149 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-150 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-151 32589 D.V. II, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-152 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-153 30883 Esposito Paola, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-154 33909 Fiorani, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-155 34454 Fleres, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-156 32577 Folli Carè, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-157 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-65 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03[11]

H46-158 22671 G.L. IV, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46-159 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-160 28272 Ghidotti, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-161 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-162 32006 Gnecchi and Barigazzi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-163 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-164 32766 Immobiliare Sole Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-165 32392 L. and P., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-166 33696 L. and P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-167 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-168 21463 Lunari, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-169 32391 M.C. XI, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-170 31923 M.P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-171 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-172 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-173 31129 Merico, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-174 24650 P.M., judgment of 11/01/01, final on 5/09/01

H46-175 15919 Palumbo, judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-176 30530 Rossi Luciano, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-177 32644 Sanella, judgment of 19/12/202, final on 19/03/03

H46-178 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-179 33227 Scurci Chimenti, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-180 31223 T.C.U., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-181 23424 Tanganelli, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-182 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-183 33252 Tona, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-184 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-185 30972 V.T., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-186 35006 Zazzeri, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

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, notably 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 of property and the requirements of the general interest (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In most of these cases,

Sub-section 4.2

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).

90 further cases similar to these, having led to the conclusion of friendly settlements (including those under Section 2 of this Agenda), 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 C.T. II (35428), Esposito Paola (30883), M.P. (31923) and Marini (35088), 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 2001, i.e. between 5 and 17 years after the eviction decisions had been issued.

General measures: 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) and to the tenants’ and state’s impunity in case of non-enforcement of judicial decisions. By letter of 19/06/2001, the Italian authorities informed the Committee 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 the proceedings. Information is expected on the outcome of the ongoing reflections.

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. 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.

H32-135 23924 C.A.R srl, Interim Resolution DH(98)54

The case concerns the fact that the applicant company was unable, for a three-year period between 1991 and 1994, to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce a judicial decision ordering its tenants eviction for non payment of rent. In fact, in order to preserve public order, the Prefect of Latium refused to provide police assistance to evict the group of Somali refugees illegally occupying buildings belonging to the applicant company. The case also concerns the absence of compensation from the State for the financial damage the applicant company suffered as a result of the authorities’ inaction.

On 18/06/1998, the Committee of Ministers decided, accepting the reasoning of the Commission, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: the Prefect’s refusal could be considered justified in the general interest but the violation was due to the absence of a right of compensation for the prejudice suffered in terms of both unpaid rent and damage to the property during the period of non-execution, in connection with the refugee’s occupation of the property until the administrative authorities had found them alternative accommodation.

General measures: Information has been requested with regard to the general measures envisaged in order to ensure a right to compensation in cases similar to that of C.A.R., in particular in the light of the decision of the Rome Court of Appeal of 16/05/2000, rejecting the applicant’s request for reparation of the prejudice suffered. In fact, contrary to the Convention’s requirements (see also the case of Hayot Société Caraïbe against France, application No. 19053, Resolution DH(99)4), the Italian legislation and case-law still exclude any responsibility of the state for damage resulting from the authorities’ action when this is justified by public interest reasons.

Sub-section 4.2

- 1 case against Liechtenstein

H46-187 28396 Wille, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

Addendum 4

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 (violation of Article 10). The case also concerns the lack of effective remedy to defend his reputation and to seek protection of his personal rights (violation of Article 13).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in German in the Liechtensteinische Juristen-Zeitung, December 2000 edition.

By letter of 24/09/2002 (answering the Secretariat’s letter of 26/04/2002), the Representative of Liechtenstein informed the Committee of Ministers that Article 23 of the law on the State Court provides a remedy in case of alleged violations of the ECHR by courts and governmental authorities. He also indicated that the Liechtenstein courts give direct effect to the case-law of the European Court with respect to all material rights, but thus so far not to Article 13. His authorities were, however, considering a change of the law on the State Court to remove any legal uncertainties. A copy of a draft law concerning amendments to the State Courts was forwarded to the Secretariat on 06/05/2003 (in German). The draft aims at adapting the law on the State Court to Liechtenstein’s acceptance of the right of individual petition under the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. A summary of the draft is included in Addendum 4 and a full copy, in its German version, can be obtained from the Secretariat.

It is now proposed that the existing provisions in Article 23 whereby a remedy lies before the State Court in case of alleged violations of the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights be replaced by a global formula providing a remedy in case of alleged violations of rights contained in an international agreement in respect of which Liechtenstein has accepted a right of individual petition.

In the meantime a Constitutional amendment has been adopted by referendum. Under Article 7 (2) of the new Constitution (not yet in force) “the Prince Regnant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts and does not have legal responsibility”.

As it is not clear how the changes to Article 23 of the law on the State Court can introduce the effective remedy required under Article 13 in this situation, the Secretariat has addressed a letter to the Liechtenstein Permanent Representation requesting further clarifications.

- 1 case against Poland

H46-188 25196 Iwanczuk, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

The case concerns the infliction of degrading treatment on the applicant while detained on remand, in that he was verbally abused during a strip search which took place on 19/09/1993 in Wroclaw prison in front of a group of prison guards (violation of Article 3). The case also concerns unjustified delays before releasing the applicant on bail (violation of Article 5§3) and the excessive length of criminal proceedings (8 and a half years), which are still pending (violation of Article 6§1).

As regards the violation of Article 6§1 the present case presents similarities to the Kudła case (judgment of 26/10/2000), which was examined in sub-section 4.2 at the 841st meeting (June 2003).

Individual measures: During the first examination of the case at the 792nd meeting (April 2002) acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level was requested. Information concerning the state of these proceedings is awaited.

General measures: The Polish authorities have been asked what possible measures they envisage to define more precisely the grounds and conditions for body-searching detainees. Information is also awaited concerning the publication and the wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to prisons, detention centres and courts (drawing special attention to §§54-59).

Sub-section 4.2

- 1 case against the Russian Federation

H46-189 59498 Burdov, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 04/09/02

The case concerns the non-execution in full or in part over several years by the Russian social authorities of final decisions delivered in 1997-2000 by the Shakhty City Court (Rostov region) which ordered them to pay the applicant compensation for damage to his health sustained during his participation in emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear plant (violations of Articles 6 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The amounts owed were paid on 05/03/2001.

General measures: During the examination of the case at 810th (October, 2002) and 819th (December, 2002) meetings, the Russian authorities informed the Committee of the following measures adopted in response to the European Court's judgment:

- publication of the judgment in Rossijskaia Gazeta and its wide dissemination with a view to ensuring that the competent authorities may comply therewith;

- payment of arrears because of the non-execution, as in the Burdov case, of domestic judgments ordering the payment of allowances for the victims of Chernobyl (a total of 284,6 million rubles were paid between January and October 2002);

- execution of 5128 other domestic judgments concerning the indexation of the allowances for the victims of Chernobyl and allocation of the necessary budgetary means (378,6 million rubles for 2002 and 260 million rubles for 2003) to social security bodies to allow them to meet the obligations arising from these judgments;

- Amendment of the Laws governing the mandatory social insurance of the professional accidents and professional diseases with a view to providing for a new system of indexation of allowances paid in accordance with these laws (the indexation will be henceforth based on the inflation rate used for calculation of the federal budget);

The Russian authorities furthermore indicated that the aforementioned system of allowances' indexation would be shortly made applicable to the allowances paid to Chernobyl victims. Specific legislation to that effect was to be submitted before Parliament by mid December 2002.

The Russian authorities were invited to provide the Secretariat with a copy of new provisions governing the indexation of the relevant social allowances. The particular importance of this legislation was again stressed (cf. letter of the Director General of Human Rights sent on 26/09/2002 to the Representative of the Russian Federation before the Court). It was also suggested that in tackling the problem of non-execution of domestic judgments the Russian authorities take into account the solutions adopted by other Contracting states which had been previously confronted with this problem (eg. the reinforcement of civil, administrative and criminal responsibility for non-execution of judgments, providing for a possibility of forcible execution of judgment against the State through seizure of property, etc.).

At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, no new information regarding the aforementioned issues, including the progress of the draft Law on the indexation of allowances for Chernobyl victims, was available.

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

H46-190 32106 Komanicky, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to fair trial during civil proceedings initiated after his dismissal from employment. 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, and thus did not satisfy the requirements of the principle of the equality of arms (violation of Article 6§1).

Possible individual measures: In a letter of 31/03/2003 addressed to the Committee of Ministers, the applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities, apart from paying the just satisfaction, had failed to take any action to remedy the consequences of the violation. In this context he claimed that the Constitutional Court had rejected a further application of his introduced after the delivery of the judgment of the European Court. The text of the Constitutional Court’s judgment was requested in order to examine all the circumstances of the case.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in Justičnà Revue No.11/2002. At the 819th meeting (February 2003), detailed information was requested concerning current procedures in Slovak courts, so as to check whether they prevent the problems raised by the judgment. Dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to civil courts is awaited.

- 33 cases against Turkey

H46-191 40035 Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00[12]

H46-192 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 concerning his compensation claim for two days’ detention, lodged in accordance with Law No. 466 on compensation for unlawful detention and arrest, and then on account of the non-communication of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s written opinion to the applicant during the appeal procedure before the Court of cassation (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures: By a letter of 15/01/2003, the Turkish authorities indicated that a new provision was added by Law No. 4778 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. Information is awaited on the measures envisaged in respect of the absence of an oral hearing during proceedings under Law No. 466. The judgment of the European Court has been published.

- 23 cases concerning freedom of expression

(CM/Inf(2000)28-rev 3 and Addendum, CM/Inf(2001)7, Interim Resolution

ResDH(2001)106)

Addendum 4 Volume II

H54-193 22678 Inçal, judgment of 09/06/98

H46-194 23462 Arslan, judgment of 08/07/99

*H46-224 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-195 23556 Ceylan, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-196 25067+ Erdoğdu and Ince, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-197 24919 Gerger, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-198 23168 Karataş, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-199 24246 Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-200 23500 Polat, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-208 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00

H46-201 24122 Sürek II, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-202 24762 Sürek IV, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-203 23927+ Sürek and Özdemir, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-204 22479 Öztürk, judgment of 28/09/99

H32-210 25658 Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolutions DH(99)560 and ResDH(2001)106

H46-209 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

*H46-225 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00

*H46-226 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-207 28496 E.K., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-205 29590 Yağmurdereli, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-206 33179 Karataş Seher, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

*H46-212 28493 Küçük Yalçın, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

*H46-211 24914 Öztürk Ayşe, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

Sub-section 4.2

These cases all relate to unjustified interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular because 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)[13].

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, to the extent that they have been 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 Addendum 4 Volume II), 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.

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.

As regards the restoration of the applicants’ civil and political rights: By letter of 27/05/2002, the Turkish authorities indicated that at least six applicants (Mr M.S. Okçuoğlu, Mr U. Erdoğdu, Mr S. Ince, Ms P. Şener, Mr K.T. Sürek, Mr Y. Özdemir) were no longer subject to restrictions of their rights and that eleven among the remaining applicants (Mr Ibrahim Aksoy, Mr Arslan, Mr Gerger, Mr Karataş, Mr A.Z. Okçuoğlu, Mr Polat, Mr Baskaya, Mr Aslantaş, Mr Ceylan, Mr Inçal, Mr Öztürk) could now avail themselves of the remedies normally provided for by Turkish law.

As regards the annulment of the convictions: By letters of 28/03/03 and 2/06/03, the Turkish authorities indicated that five applicants (Mr. Aslantas; Mr Ibrahim Aksoy; Mr Ceylan; Mr Ahmet Zeki Okçuoglu; Mr H. Karatas) had requested that their convictions be erased under Law No. 4809 and that in at least five other cases (Mr Gerger, Mr Kuçuk; Mr Öztürk; Ms Öztürk Ayse; Mr Polat) the criminal records of the applicants had already been erased. In the case of Mr Aslantas, the authorities indicated that the applicant’s criminal records had been erased on 25/03/03, 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 (Mr Arslan; Mr Ceylan; Ms E.K.; Mr Karatas; 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 10/03/03 on grounds that a new decision would not bring any benefit to the applicant. This decision was confirmed in appeal on 26/03/03.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: the question has been raised, since 1998, of the necessity to adapt Turkish law to the requirements of the Convention in order to avoid further violations similar to those found. In particular, the attention was 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 in 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(2000)28-rev. 3 for details). At the 834^th 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 most important judgments have been published in Turkish and some of them can be accessed through the Ministry of Justice website (http://www.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/aihmk.htm). Furthermore, at the 741^st meeting (February 2001), the Representative of Turkey 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. Additional information on a training programme aimed at raising the awareness of the judiciary of the requirements of the Convention was communicated in April 2001. In July 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 ECHR and the case law thereunder 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; and (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 respectively:

1) on 06/02/2002 (Law 4744), amending Articles 159 and 312 of the Criminal Code and Articles 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act No. 3713;

2) on 26/03/2002 (Law 4748, entered into force on 9/04/2002), amending inter alia the Press Law No. 5680;

3) on 03/08/2002 (Law 4709, entered into force on 9/08/2002), introducing inter alia further amendments to Article 159 of the Criminal Code and the Press law ;

4) on 02/01/2003 (Law 4778, entered into force on 11/01/2003), notably introducing the right for journalists not to reveal their sources;

5) on 23/01/2003 (Law 4793, entered into force on 4/02/2003) concerning individual measures aimed at reopening procedures found to be contrary to the Convention (see above).

Although these amendments are aimed at generally improving the situation of freedom of expression (in some cases, maximum penalties are lowered and the scope of the provisions restricted), 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 and 03/01/2003, the Turkish authorities provided examples of the case-law of the Court of Cassation and Security courts, concerning notably the application of the criterion of “threat to public order” in the application of Articles 312 of the Criminal Code, as revised in 2002. By letters of 16/12/2002 and 03/01/2003, the Turkish authorities provided examples of the case-law of the Court of Cassation and Security courts, concerning notably the application of the criterion of “threat to public order” in the application of Articles 312 of the Criminal Code, as revised in 2002. It appears from these examples that the new general criterion resembles that of “incitement to violence” used by the Court of Strasbourg and may thus prevent, as far as Article 312 is concerned, new violations of the Convention. The Turkish authorities expect that this change and case-law developments will also affect the interpretation of other relevant articles, notably in the Anti-terrorism law. Exemples of such developments are expected.

Sub-section 4.2

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

(Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106)

Addendum 4 Volume II

H46-215 32985 Altan, judgment of 14/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-217 35076 Erol Ali, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-219 25753 Özler, judgment of 11/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-220 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-216 27307 Bayrak Mehmet, judgment of 03/09/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-218 27209+ Kiliç Özcan, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

*H46-214 37721 Erkanlı, judgment of 13/02/03 - Friendly settlement

These cases all relate in particular to alleged unjustified interferences with 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 Article 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 Addendum 4 Volume II), in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicants’ conviction. These cases are comparable to the “freedom of expression” cases against Turkey under Section 4.2 of this annotated agenda and order of business.

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 2/06/2003, that the applicant’s criminal records in the case Erkanli had been erased, as a result of the application of Law No. 4809 (entered into force on 10/02/2003) on suspension of proceedings and sentences concerning crimes committed through the press which, under certain conditions, provides for the possibility to erase convictions related to freedom of expression and their consequences.

General Measures: see above (“freedom of expression” cases against Turkey).

*H46-213 27692+ Karakoç and others, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

Addendum 4 Volume II

This case concerns a disproportionate interference in the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of their conviction in 1994 under Article 8 of Anti-terror 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-terror 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.

Sub-section 4.2

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 raised by the European Court.

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-221 38719 D.P. and J.C, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03[14]

H46-222 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber[15]

H46-223 28957 Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber[16]

SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

- 1 case against Italy

H46-229 39221+ Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

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

Addendum 4

The case concerns two violations of Article 8 of the Convention related, on the one hand, to the continued placement, since 1997, of the two children of the first applicant (mother) in the “Forteto” community, after they had been taken into public care and, on the other hand, to the authorities’ failure to maintain the opportunities of the mother and her children to re-establish family bonds, through the organisation of regular contact visits. The Court notably considered the fact that certain “Forteto” leaders with serious previous convictions notably for ill-treatment and sexual abuse of handicapped people placed in the community (§§32-34) could still play an active role in bringing up the children (§§201-208); the fact that the implementation of the Youth Court’s decisions had been deflected from their intended purpose of allowing visits between the mother and the children to take place as a result of the attitude of the social services (§§178-179 & 213) and of some of the leaders of “Il Forteto” (§211), who had delayed or hindered the implementation of such decisions (§209) and exercised a mounting influence on the children aimed at distancing them from their mother (§210); the doubt about who really has effective care of the children (§211); the insufficient level of control on the social services and the “Forteto” (§§179-181 & §§212-216); the risk of long-term integration of the children into the “Forteto”, which – in the Court’s opinion - runs contrary to the objectives of a temporary placement and of the superior interest of the children (§§215-216).

Individual measures: on 30/10/2002, the Florence Court of Appeal decided that the issue of the temporary placement of the children in the “Forteto” community would be re-examined at the end of June 2003, in the light of a report to be presented by the social services before 05/06/2003 on developments of the relationship between the mother and her children. This re-examination should notably make it possible to assess whether the elements that had brought the European Court to find that the rights of the mother and of her children had been violated (see above) still exist and justify the transfer of the children elsewhere, as requested by the Public Prosecutor (see Addendum 4 which also contains the two Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH (2001)151 as well as the letter addressed to the Italian authorities on 08/07/2002). In connection with this decision, in May 2003 the applicant’s lawyer filed a complementary request to the Public Prosecutor, inviting the Court of Appeal to decide about the placement of the children before its expiry on 30/06/2003 and, in particular, to consider the possible placement of the children in an institution in Belgium, designated by the Belgian authorities. Furthermore, the applicant sent the Secretariat a videotape of the monthly meeting in September 2002 in which the children indicate inter alia that, contrary to the Youth Court orders of July 2001, they are still sleeping separately, each of them sharing his bedroom with a “foster parent”. According to the children, there is no traditional “family” within the community, as marriages are organised only with a view to having the right to obtain the placement of children in the “family”.

As regards the contacts between the mother and the children, the Youth Court found, in December 2000, that the social services were still continuing to delay and hamper the implementation of its decisions to organise such visits. Therefore, after three short visits in March-April 2001 (interrupted when Ms Scozzari moved to Belgium), on 17/07/2001 the Youth Court decided that a regular programme of visits should be set up, with the participation of an official of the social services, appointed among those having never previously intervened in the procedure. Following this decision, monthly visits have been taking place since December 2001, also thanks to the Belgian authorities’ undertaking to pay the travel expenses for Ms Scozzari and a qualified assistant. The question has been raised – both in the course of the discussions within the Committee of ministers and before the domestic courts – (see CM/Inf(2002)20) of whether such visits are organised in such a way to effectively allow a resumption of family relations, in conformity with the Youth Court’s decision and the Strasbourg Court’s judgment. By decision of 30/10/2002, the Florence Court of Appeal decided therefore that there should henceforth be three visits per month. The reports drawn up in April and May 2003 by the Italian and Belgian social services about the contact visits indicate some improvements in the relationship between the first applicant and the children.

Sub-section 4.3

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was translated and published in the legal review Rivista Internazionale dei Diritti dell’Uomo, No. 3/2000, p. 1015-1046.

With respect to awareness-raising measures, in May 2001, the Superior Judicial Council asked for the organisation of seminars, both at national and local level, to train magistrates of Youth Courts on the requirements of the Convention, as interpreted in the Strasbourg case-law in the field of family law. This project has not been followed up yet. Further measures aimed at raising the awareness of the social services of the same issues are being considered.

As regards the existence of an effective and regular supervision mechanism of the placement of children, in October 2002, the Italian Delegation informed the Secretariat of the adoption of a new law (No. 149/01) in 2001, amending and making more precise certain provisions on adoption and placement of children, including as regards controls. According to the Italian delegation this law also introduces regular control over institutions such as the “Forteto”. However in January 2003, the United Nations Committee on the rights of the child noted with concern that this law is not widely implemented in practice, that the period of stay under placement can be very long and that contact with the family is not always guaranteed. It particularly recommended Italy to ensure regular inspections of institutions by independent bodies and regular periodic reviews of placements. A draft law (No. 2517/C) aiming at centralising jurisdiction over issues concerning minors has also been under examination by Parliament since April 2002.

As regards the effectiveness of existing controls and the alleged links existing between the authorities in charge of children’s placement and the “Forteto” community, in June 2002 the Superior Judicial Council decided that the involvement in the co-operative community « Il Forteto » of two members of the Youth Court did not raise any incompatibility issue, as long as these persons had not taken part in the decisions concerning the placement of the applicant’s children in the « Forteto ».

As regards the question raised of how it happened that people convicted of sexual abuse and ill-treatment were still managing a community entrusted with the care of children, the Italian Delegation explained that these people had been granted a stay of execution; in any event, any ban would no longer be applicable, as the convictions occurred a long time ago. The Secretariat has inquired how situations such as this can be prevented in the future (see for details CM/Inf(2001)12, CM/Del/Act(2001)741).

- 2 cases against Turkey

H46-230 25781 Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber

CM/Inf(2003)14-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.

The Court held that there had been the following 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;

- 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.

Sub-section 4.3

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 Court also decided, unanimously, that the question of the possible application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision and adjourned consideration thereof.

The Deputies examined this case for the first time at their 760th meeting (July 2001) (see the records of the 760th meeting).

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:

- 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.

The Liechtenstein Delegation proposed that Delegations concentrate on some of the violations presented under the heading “Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus” specifically in the Karpas region, as well as the problem of the powers of the military courts presented under heading “Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus”. As indicated by the Chairman in his summing-up, the procedure adopted for the examination of this case should not prevent the Deputies from pursuing in parallel an examination of the other issues raised in the Court’s Judgment.

At the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Delegation of Turkey stated that it was in agreement with the approach suggested at the 764th meeting.

Sub-section 4.3

At the 792nd meeting, it was noted that a large number of Delegations considered that the question of missing persons should be examined as a matter of priority. At the same meeting the Delegation of Turkey gave a certain amount of information which was distributed at its request to all Delegations. The Delegation of Turkey particularly indicated that the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts no longer took place: judges who sit on courts which try civilians are chosen from amongst civilian judges by an independent body whose members themselves are civilians.

At the 798th meeting, the discussions focused in particular on the situation of missing persons and the role played by the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP). Whilst the Turkish Delegation underlined the importance of the CMP, the contribution of Turkey to the work of the CMP and the necessity of reactivating it, several other delegations referred to the text of the Court’s judgment. In fact, in its judgment, the Court considers “that the respondent State’s procedural obligation at issue cannot be discharged through its contribution to the investigatory work of the CMP … (and) it notes 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”.

At the 810th meeting (October 2002) the Greek Delegation asked that special attention be given to the “living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus” at the 819th meeting.

At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the Committee decided to postpone the examination of the case to the 827th meeting (February 2003).

At the 827th meeting, the Committee requested that a Memorandum be prepared by the Secretariat for discussion at the 834th meeting (09-10/04/2003) summarising the information available so far and indicating those areas where information is still awaited. The Memorandum was issued under the reference CM/Inf(2003)14.

At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Deputies resumed their discussions on the questions of "missing persons" and of the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus and new information was submitted and discussed on the Military Court in particular.

Subsequently, on 28/05/2003, the Director General of human rights addressed a letter to the Turkish Permanent Representation, indicating the outstanding questions in respect of the military courts issue.

At the 841st meeting (June 2003), the Deputies resumed their discussions, mainly on the question of the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus. The Delegations concerned were invited by the Chairman to furnish copies of their interventions together with any other relevant information in respect to the above-mentioned issue to the Secretariat in order to allow the latter to update the Memorandum CM/Inf(2003)14. The Chairman also indicated that, at the 847th meeting (July 2003), discussions would focus on the living conditions of Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas region in northern Cyprus and that, at the 854th meeting (October 2003), all four categories would be on the agenda, although he intended to focus in particular on the questions of the military courts and of missing persons. He finally insisted on the importance of receiving relevant information in writing and in advance of the meeting.

On 27/06/03, the Secretariat received the text of the intervention of the Representative of Turkey at the 841st meeting but no other relevant additional information in respect of the living conditions of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, as requested by the Chairman at the 841st meeting, has been received.

Sub-section 4.3

H46-231 26308 Institut de Prêtres français and others, judgment of 14/12/00 – Friendly settlement

Addendum 4

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, the applicant 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.

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 and the Turkish authorities have been invited to take the necessary measures without further delay. In 2002, the Turkish Delegation indicated on numerous occasions that the above-mentioned problems were going to be solved, notably through a Decree by the Prime Minister and that the competent national authorities were engaged in negotiations with the applicant Institute in order to establish the division of rent between the State and the applicants. However, no conclusive result has been achieved.

In view of these persistent problems, it was decided at the 810th meeting (October 2002) that the Chairman-in-office of the Committee of Ministers write a letter to her Turkish counterpart with a view to conveying to him the Committee’s concern at the non-execution of the friendly settlement concluded in this case and to requesting a rapid solution to the problem. This letter was sent on 06/11/2002. By letter of 29/11/2002, the Minister of Foreign Affairs conveyed the Committee's concerns to the Prime Minister asking him to instruct the competent authorities urgently to implement the friendly settlement (see Addendum 4 of the 834th meeting).

During the examination of the case at the 819th meeting (December, 2002), the adoption of an Interim Resolution was suggested if no concrete and visible progress were achieved by February 2003.

At the 827th meeting (11-12 February 2003) the Committee was informed that the conditions of the usufruct had finally been settled and would soon be formally approved and registered by the Council of Ministers. It was again stressed that a final solution was urgent given that the friendly settlement concluded before the Court had remained unexecuted more than 2 years after the Court's judgment.

In April 2003 however, the applicants' representative indicated to the Secretariat that the conditions of usufruct were still waiting for the approval by the Minister of Finance and by the Council of State and that the time-frame for their final adoption and registration by the Council of Ministers therefore was very uncertain. Subsequently, the Secretariat was informed that the approval of the settlement by the Council of State was even not guaranteed.

At the 841st meeting (June 2003), as no further progress was reported by the Turkish authorities, the Deputies adopted the following decision:

The Deputies

1. recalled that on 6 November 2002, the President of the Committee of Ministers had already sent a letter to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs asking that Turkey comply with its obligations under the present judgment;

2. noted however the continuing failure to implement the friendly settlement reached before the Court practically two and a half years ago;

3. expressed their concern about this unprecedented situation;

4. invited the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to send another letter to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs in order to insist on the implementation without delay of this friendly settlement (…);

On 17/06/2003, the Chairman of the Committee accordingly sent a new letter to Mr Gül, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey (see Addendum 4). At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, Turkey's response to the Committee's decision and the Chairman’s letter was awaited.

Sub-section 4.3

- 1 case against Ukraine

H46-232 48553 Sovtransavto Holding, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 06/11/02

Addendum 4

The case concerns the failure to respect the applicant company’s right to a fair trial before an impartial and independent tribunal in respect of certain proceedings it conducted between 1997 and 2002 before the Ukrainian courts with a view to establishing the unlawfulness of domestic decisions which resulted in the depreciation of its shares in – and the ensuing loss of control over – a Ukrainian transport company (violation of Article 6§1).

The main deficiencies found by the Court consist of:

- repeated attempts by the President of Ukraine to influence domestic court decisions;

- application of "protest" procedure ("application for supervision") making it possible to quash final judicial decisions without any limitations;

- the refusal by courts to examine the arguments on the merits in a public hearing and the absence of adequate motivation of judicial decisions.

The Court concluded in addition that the manner in which the impugned proceedings were conducted and concluded had also violated the applicant company's right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: Given the extent of the violations found and their continuing negative effects on the applicant company, the Ukrainian authorities were invited to rapidly inform the Committee of Ministers of the measures adopted or envisaged to grant the applicant the appropriate redress. It was notably suggested that the reopening of the impugned proceedings may be an appropriate avenue to comply with the judgment, which does however not exclude other options (such as a friendly settlement, the revoking the impugned administrative decisions etc.). At the 834th (April 2003) and 841st (June 2003) meetings, the Ukrainian authorities confirmed that, further the applicant's request, the present case was being re-examined by the Supreme Court of Ukraine but no progress in the proceedings were reported. The authorities however indicated that the decision by the Supreme Court would be taken shortly.

General measures: At the 827th meeting (February 2003), it was noted that, in addition to some measures already adopted (eg. the abolition of the protest procedure, see below), the violations found in this case would call for a number further general measures.

- As regards the problem of the executive's repeated interferences of with judicial proceedings, the Ukrainian authorities were invited to revoke or quash all acts taken to that effect and adopt measures to prevent in future similar incidents as illegal and incompatible with the Convention. It was furthermore noted that legislative, regulatory or financial measures would be necessary to effectively ensure domestic courts independence and impartiality.

- As regards other problems highlighted by the Court in conducting of domestic proceedings (§§79 and 81 of the judgment), the authorities were also invited to address these issues to prevent new similar violations. In this context the need for wider dissemination of the judgment of the European Court and for in-service training of Ukrainian judges on the Convention and the Court's case-law was stressed.

On 21/03/2003, the Director General of Human Rights sent the Ukrainian authorities a letter containing more detailed explanations on possible individual and general measures to be adopted in response to the present judgment (see Addendum 4).

The following general measures have so far been reported by the Ukrainian authorities:

- the procedure for supervisory review (protest) was abolished in Ukrainian law with the judicial reform of 21 June 2001;

- the Law on the judiciary adopted in February 2002 set up the State Judicial Administration, a specialised institution independent from the executive with a view to management of the national judiciary; all Ukrainian courts are henceforth financed from the central budget; the budget assigned to the courts is administered by the country's supreme courts;

Sub-section 4.3

- as a result of in-service training of Ukrainian magistrates in the framework of the Council of Europe/European Union joint initiative, domestic courts apply the Convention more frequently (certain examples of the Constitutional Court's decisions referring to the Convention were submitted to the Secretariat);

- the European Court's judgment was translated and published on the Ministry of Justice's internet site and in the journal Case-law of the ECHR.

At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Deputies took note of this information and the Ukrainian authorities were invited to inform the Committee of other measures envisaged or being taken. Particular attention of the authorities was drawn to the issues raised in the letter of 21/03/2003 by the Director General of human rights, including the necessity of abolishing all acts (letters, resolutions, etc.) by which the executive interfered with the judiciary's independence, and to take the necessary measures at the highest level to prevent similar acts in future.

At the 841st meeting (June 2003), the Ukrainian Delegation recalled the general measures already adopted and added that the Presidency was preparing a draft circular drawing the attention of the executive authorities to the unlawfulness of any interference with the independence of the judiciary. This information was noted with interest inasmuch as it concerns one of the central problems raised by the case. It was furthermore noted that a widespread publication of the judgment together with the planned circular by the presidency in an official journal was of utmost importance for effective prevention of new, similar violations. It was also stressed that the above-mentioned magistrates' training programs, which have so far been financed by the Council of Europe, should be pursued by the Ukrainian authorities to ensure that the direct effect be granted to the Court's judgments.

It was finally agreed that the Secretariat will prepare for the 854th meeting (October 2003) a draft interim resolution, which would take stock of the measures adopted so far and point out the outstanding issues in the implementation of this judgment.

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

- 3 cases against Belgium

H46-233 34989 Goedhart, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-234 36449+ Stroek L. and C., judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-235 26103 Van Geyseghem, judgment of 21/01/99 – Grand Chamber

These three cases concern infringements of the applicants’ right to defend themselves through legal assistance of their own choosing at different stages of criminal proceedings (1st instance, appeal and “opposition” (appeal on specific grounds of non-representation)) the Courts seised refused, because of the applicants’ failure to appear, to hear their lawyers or to take into account the pleadings filed by them on the merits (violation of Article 6§1 combined with Article 6§3c)).

The cases of Stroek and Godhaert also concern an infringement of the right of access to a tribunal because of the decisions of the Cour de cassation declaring the applicants’ appeal on points of law inadmissible because they had not complied with warrants for their arrest (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Belgian authorities granted a pardon to Mr Stroek and Mr Goedhart which erased the consequences of their conviction, i. e. declared void the international arrest warrant taken out against them.

During the examination of these cases, the Representative of Belgium also indicated that a Bill on reopening of proceedings following a judgement of the European Court was being studied. The Secretariat is still expecting further information on this point.

General measures: the European Court’s judgment has been widely disseminated with a circular and the Cour de cassation quickly changed its case-law. A Bill modifying the Code of Criminal Procedure has been elaborated but could not be adopted before the dissolution of the legislative Chambers, at the end of April 2003.

- 1 case against Poland

H46-238 27785 Włoch, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 22/01/01[17]

SUB-SECTION 5.2 – CHANGES OF COURTS’ CASE-LAW OR OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE

- 1 case against Poland

H46-237 29692 R.D., judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

The case relates to a refusal by the Wrocław Court of Appeal to grant the applicant free legal assistance for an appeal on a point of law, thus preventing him from having his case brought and defended before the Court of Cassation (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3c).

General measures: The Ministry of Justice has sent circulars to the presidents of appeal courts drawing the attention of the judges to the European Court’s reasoning concerning conditions to the right of an accused to free legal assistance. Further information concerning the publication of the judgment of the European Court is awaited. The legislation currently in force, provided by the Polish authorities, seems to reflect adequately the requirements of the Convention here at issue. As the violation in this case was rather due to a problem of interpretation of domestic law and of the Convention’s requirements, the authorities were furthermore asked to provide new examples showing that domestic case-law effectively takes into account the European Court's judgments.

SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

- 2 cases against France

H46-239 46044 Lallement, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

This case concerns the inadequacy of the compensation paid to the applicant for the expropriation of part of his farm, although this expropriation affecting the viability of the remainder (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: the judgment on the merits of the European Court has been published on the web site Legifrance (www.legifrance.gouv.fr) and it has been commented on in the journal A.J.D.A. (Actualité juridique du Droit administratif), a periodical on administrative law and practice. Written confirmation of its dissemination is expected.

H46-240 36677 S.A. Dangeville, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. The company brought an action requesting the refund of the VAT which it had paid in respect of the financial year 1978 relying on a European Community Directive which entered into force on 01/01/78 which exonerated various business activities, including those carried out by the applicant company, from payment of the tax. This claim was dismissed not least on the ground that a directive could not be relied upon by an individual litigant against a provision of national law. The applicant lodged a second application, which was dismissed by a further judgment of the Conseil d’Etat, holding that the applicant could not seek to obtain, by way of an action for damages, satisfaction which had been refused in the tax proceedings in a decision which had become res judicata. The European Court noted that in both its applications the applicant was a creditor of the state on account of the VAT wrongly paid for 1978 and that in any event it had at least a legitimate expectation of being able to obtain a refund. The European Court found that the interference with the applicant company’s possessions did not satisfy the requirements of the general interest and that this interference was disproportionate because of its inability to enforce its debt against the State and the lack of domestic proceedings providing a sufficient remedy to protect its right to respect for enjoyment of its possessions, upset the fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official web site Legifrance (www.legifrance.gouv.fr). Confirmation of its dissemination to the competent authorities, also requested at the 827th meeting (February 2003), is still awaited.

- 1 case against Italy

H46-241 43269 Leoni, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 04/04/01

The case concerns the dismissal of an appeal on a point of law lodged by the applicant before the Italian Court of Cassation, to obtain compensation for damage resulting from the allegedly unfounded rejection of his application to be registered by the surveyors’ professional body. The European Court found that the dismissal of this application for being out of time – while the applicant had in fact respected the deadline – had infringed his right to of access to a tribunal (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: At the 757th meeting (June 2001) the Italian authorities were invited to ensure dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the Rome Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation.

SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

No new case

SECTION 6 - CASES AWAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION

Action

At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the Secretariat was preparing, in consultation with the Permanent Representations concerned, draft resolutions aiming at closing the examination of these cases. The Deputies are invited to postpone consideration of these cases to their next meeting.

Section 6

- 26 cases against Austria

*H46-227 34994 Walter, judgment of 28/11/02 – Friendly settlement

H32-243 17291 Hortolomei, Interim Resolution DH(99)28

H46-244 37950 Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

H46-245 38275 W.F., judgment of 30/05/02, final on 30/08/02

H32-246 26113 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H., Interim Resolution DH(98)378

H46-247 25878 Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00

H46-248 30428 Beer Gertrude, judgment of 06/02/01

H46-249 28501 Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-250 33501 Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-251 29477 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-252 34320 Freiheitliche Landesgruppe Burgenland, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-253 32899 Buchberger, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-254 33505 H.E., judgment of 11/07/02, final on 06/11/02

H46-255 49455 Gollner, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-256 38536 Schreder, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

H46-257 38237 Sailer, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts

H46-258 31266 G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-259 26297 G.S., judgment of 21/12/99

H46-260 35019 Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-261 37075 Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

H46-262 33915 Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01

- Freedom of expression

H46-263 29271 Dichand and others, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-264 26958 Jerusalem, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-265 34315 Krone Verlag Gmbh and Co. Kg., judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-266 28525 Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H54-267 15153 Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Berthold Gubi, judgment of

19/12/94

- 2 cases against Belgium

H54-268 17849 S.A. Pressos Compania Naviera and others, judgment of 20/11/95, Interim Resolution DH(99)724

H46-269 25357 Aerts, judgment of 30/07/98

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

H32-270 30381 Mironov, Interim Resolution DH(99)352

H46-271 32438 Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-272 29515 Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

Section 6

- 4 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-273 33071 Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-274 33644 Cesky, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00

H46-275 31315 Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00

H46-276 35848 Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

- 2 cases against Denmark

H46-277 48470 Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-278 56811 Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

- 8 cases against Finland

H46-279 31611 Nikula, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-280 49684 Hirvisaari, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-281 28856 Jokela, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 21/08/02

H46-282 31764 K.P., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 05/09/01

H46-283 29346 K.S., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-284 25702 K. and T., judgment of 12/07/01 – Grand Chamber

H46-285 30013 Türkiye iş Bankasi, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

H46-286 35999 Pietiläinen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 27/01/03

- 69 cases against France

H32-287 26242 Lemoine Pierre, Interim Resolution DH(99)353

H32-288 31409 Riccobono, Interim Resolution DH(99)557

H46-289 37786 Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

H46-290 24846 Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 – Grand

Chamber

H32-291 26984 Picard, Interim Resolution DH(99)30

H46-292 25803 Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-293 34406 Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-294 25088 Chassagnou and others, judgment of 29/04/99

H54-295 25017 Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

H32-296 27019 Slimane-Kaïd I

H54-297 23618 Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

H32-298 27413 Cazes, Interim Resolution DH(99)31

H46-299 25444 Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

H46-300 31819+ Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

*H46-301 42195 Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

H32-302 27659 Ferville, Interim Resolution DH(99)254

H32-303 28845 Venot, Interim Resolution DH(2000)19

H46-304 29507 Slimane-Kaïd II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00

H46-305 27362 Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

H54-306 14032 Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

H32-307 17572 A.C.

H54-308 25201 Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-309 34791 Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H54-310 24767 Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-311 31070 Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

Section 6

H32-312 20282 G.B. I

H32-313 23321 Delbec I, Interim Resolution DH(98)15

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-314 53118 Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-315 39066 Donnadieu, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-316 35589 Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-317 41943 L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-318 47575 Marks and Ordinateur Express, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H32-319 29877 Pauchet and others - Interim Resolution DH(98)100

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts

H54-320 36313 Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-321 36317 Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-322 32217 Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

H54-323 33441 Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

H46-324 48215 Lutz, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H46-325 57753 C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-326 40493 Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-327 47007 Arnal, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-328 51575 Baillard, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 04/09/02

H32-329 31842 Darmagnac Pierre V, Interim Resolution DH(98)388

H46-330 42189 H.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-331 44211 Lacombe, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-332 44617 Leray and others, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-333 43288 Mahieu, judgment of 19/06/01

H32-334 25309 Maljean, Interim Resolution DH(97)239

H46-335 46708 Zaheg, judgment of 9/02/02, final on 19/05/02

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Conseil d’Etat

H46-336 38249 Arvois, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

H46-337 28660 Ballestra, judgment of 12/12/00, final on 12/03/01

H46-338 33207 Blaisot C. and M., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-339 36932 Caillot, judgment of 04/06/99, final on 04/09/99

H46-340 42401 Camps, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 09/04/01

H46-341 54757 Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-342 41449 Durrand I, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-343 42038 Durrand II, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-344 30979 Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00

H46-345 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

H46-346 44066 Grass, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-347 41001 Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

H46-348 37387 Lambourdiere, judgment of 02/08/00, final on 02/11/00

H46-349 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 10/07/02

H32-350 32510 Peter, Interim Resolution DH(99)132

H46-351 33989 Thery, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-352 38042 Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

- Length of proceedings before the labour courts

H32-353 39966 De Cantelar, Interim Resolution DH(2000)86

H46-354 38398 Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

Section 6

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-355 33951 Caloc, judgment of 20/07/00

- 2 cases against Germany

H46-356 54999 Axen, Teubner and Jossifov, judgment of 27/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-357 33900 P.S., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 04/09/02

- 39 cases against Greece

H46-358 47734 Adamogiannis, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46-359 46356 Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H54-360 19233+ Tsirlis and Kouloumpas, judgment of 29/05/97

H54-361 24348 Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97

H54-362 23372+ Larissis and others, judgment of 24/02/98

H54-363 18748 Manoussakis and others, judgment of 25/09/96

H46-364 38178 Serif, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-365 34369 Thlimmenos, judgment of 06/04/00

H46-366 38703 Agoudimos and Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co., judgment of 28/06/01, final on

28/09/01

H46-367 37098 Antonakopoulos, Vortsela and Antonakopoulou, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 21/03/00

H54-368 21522 Georgiadis Anastasios, judgment of 29/05/97

H46-369 41209 Georgiadis Dimitrios, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H32-370 34373 Goutsos, Interim Resolution DH(99)558

H54-371 18357 Hornsby, judgment of 19/03/97

H46-372 31107 Iatridis, judgments of 25/03/99 and 19/10/00 (Article 41) – Grand Chamber

H46-373 53478 Sajtos, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H32-374 32397 Sinnesael, Interim Resolution DH(99)130

H46-375 28802 Tsavachidis, judgment of 21/01/99 - Friendly settlement

H46-376 43622 Malama, judgments of 01/03/01, final on 05/09/01 and of 18/04/02 (Article 41), final on 18/07/02

H46-377 25701 Former King of Greece, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini, judgments of 23/11/00 and of 28/11/02 (Article 41) - Grand Chamber

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-378 30342 Academy Trading Ltd and others, judgment of 04/04/00

H46-379 40434 Kosmopolis S. A., judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

H46-380 46380 LSI Information Technologies, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

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

H46-381 42079 E.H., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46-382 41459 Fatourou, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46-383 41867 Messochoritis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H54-384 20323 Pafitis and others, judgment of 26/02/98

H46-385 38971 Protopapa and Marangou, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-386 38704 Savvidou, judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

H32-387 34569 Société anonyme Dimitrios Koutsoumbos, société technique, commerciale and touristique, Interim Resolution DH(99)271

Section 6

H46-388 47891 Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-389 40437 Tsingour, judgment of 06/07/00, final on 06/10/00

H46-390 38459 Varipati, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/01/00

H46-391 55611 Xenopoulos, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 04/09/02

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-392 37439 Agga, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H54-393 19773 Philis 2, judgment of 27/06/97

H54-394 28523 Portington, judgment of 23/09/98

H32-395 32857 Stamoulakatos Nicholas I, Interim Resolution DH(99)49

H32-396 24453 Tarighi Wageh Dashti

- 10 cases against Italy

H46-399 41221 Troiani Marcello II, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 10/07/02

H32-400 27253 Biasetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)356

H46-401 44955 Mancini Vittorio and Luigi, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

H32-402 25650 Santandrea, Interim Resolution DH(99)357

H46-403 47247 Mercuri, judgment of 11/04/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-404 31227 Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

H32-405 16609 Intrieri, Interim Resolution DH(97)50

H54-406 14025 Zubani, judgments of 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

H46-407 34896 Craxi II, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

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

H46-408 41232 Quartucci, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-409 50108 Kulakova, judgment of 18/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 9 cases against Lithuania

H46-242 48297 Butkevičius, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H46-410 37975 Graužinis, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-411 36743 Grauslys, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-412 34578 Jėčius, judgment of 31/07/00

H46-413 47679 Stašaitis, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-414 42095 Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01

H46-415 44558 Valašinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-416 44800 Puzinas, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46-417 55479 Slezevicius, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

- 3 cases against Malta

H46-418 25642 Aquilina, judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-419 25644 T.W., judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-420 35892 Sabeur Ben Ali, judgment of 29/06/00, final on 29/09/00

Section 6

- 11 cases against the Netherlands

H46-421 32605 Rutten, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-422 25989 Van Vlimmeren and Van Ilverenbeek, judgment of 26/09/00

H46-423 31465 Sen, judgment of 21/12/01, final on 21/03/02

H32-424 14084 R.V. and others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

H46-425 28369 Camp and Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-426 29192 Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-427 31725 Köksal, judgment of 20/03/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-428 33258 Holder, judgment of 05/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-429 36499 Samy, judgment of 18/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-430 34549 Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

H46-431 26668 Visser, judgment of 14/02/02

- 8 cases against Poland

H46-432 34611 Dacewicz, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

H46-433 28358 Baranowski, judgment of 28/03/00

H46-434 31382 Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-435 38670 Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

H46-436 51669 Pałys, judgment of 11/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-437 25874 Kawka, judgment of 09/01/01

H46-438 33310 H.D., judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-439 24244 Migoń, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

- 6 cases against Portugal

*H46-228 49671 Ferreira da Nave, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46-440 29813+ Almeida Garret, Mascarenhas Falcao and others, judgments of 11/01/00 and

10/04/01

H46-441 37698 Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

H54-442 15777 Matos and Silva and 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

H46-443 33290 Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

*H46-444 53793 Morais Sarmento, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Romania

H32-445 32922 C.C.M.C., Interim Resolution DH(99)333

- 2 cases against San Marino

H46-446 24954 Tierce and others, judgment of 25/07/00

H46-447 35396 Stefanelli, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

- 16 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-448 24530 Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-449 29032 Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

H46-450 32686 Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

H46-451 41384 Varga, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

Section 6

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-452 34753 Jóri, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-453 40058 Gajdúšek, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-454 47804 Havala, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-455 39752 Matoušková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-456 48672 Nemec and others, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-457 40345 Stančiak, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H46-458 38794 J.K., judgment of 23/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-459 62171 Lancz, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-460 41783 Polovka, judgment of 21/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-461 46843 Remšíková, judgment of 17/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-462 65640 Rotrekl, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-463 43377 Žiačik, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

- 2 cases against Slovania

H46-464 29462 Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

H46-465 28400 Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

- 2 cases against Sweden

H46-466 38629 Lundevall, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-467 38978 Salomonsson, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

- 12 cases against Switzerland

H46-468 41202 Müller, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-469 27154 D.N., judgment of 29/03/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-470 33958 Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-471 27798 Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

H54-472 23224 Kopp, judgment of 25/03/98

H46-473 54273 Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

H46-474 37292 F.R., judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46-475 33499 Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-476 27426 G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-477 28256 M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H32-478 27613 P.B., Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)83

H54-479 19800 R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678

- 115 cases against Turkey

*H46-480 37087 Bekmezci and others, judgment of 27/06/22 - Friendly settlement, rectified on

19/09/02 and 03/04/03

H46-481 30944 Öcal, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-482 29295+ Ecer and Zeyrek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-483 34686 Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-484 29495 Erdemli, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/10/01

Section 6

H46-485 32983 Çavuşoğlu, judgment of 06/03/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-486 24932 Kaplan, judgment of 26/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-487 24669 Karataş and Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-488 31249 Gündüz and others, judgment of 14/11/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-489 25144 Sadak Selim and others, judgment of 11/06/02, final on 06/11/02

- Independence and impartiality of the State Security Courts

H46-490 29851 Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

- Action of the Turkish security forces

H46-491 31882 Çakmak, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-492 24947 Ekinci Lalihan, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-493 31849 İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-494 24937 Koç Fırat, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-495 24933 Kürküt, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-496 31733 Tuncay and Ozlem Kaya, judgment of 08/11/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-497 28505 Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-498 28011 Yeşiltepe, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

- Length of detention on remand / custody

H46-499 34481 Filiz and Kalkan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-500 31850 Günay and others, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-501 31877 Gündoğan Halil, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-502 29296 İğdeli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-503 29862 Bağci and Murğ, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-504 32450 Çaloğlu, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-505 31896 Değerli, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-506 29866+ Demir C., Demir M. and Gül, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-507 29883+ Fidan, Çağro and Özarslaner, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-508 31787 Göktaş and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-509 28013+ Karatepe and Kırt, judgment of 17/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-510 34499 Kortak, judgment of 31/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-511 36971 Kuray, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-512 31895 Morsümbül, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-513 30495 Mutlu and Yildiz, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-514 28014+ Okuyucu, Kara and Bilmen, judgment of 17/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-515 30453 Özata and others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-516 29425 Özçelik and others, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-517 36760 Şanlı and Erol, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-518 37191 Yildirim and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-519 34684 Yolcu, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-520 35980 Z.E., judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

- Delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46-521 19264 Aktaş and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H32-522 22907 Atatür A. and M., and Pamir, Interim Resolution DH(2000)84

H46-523 20132 Bilgin Burhan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-524 20133 Bilgin Leyli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-525 19267 Bilgin Mehmet and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-526 20134 Bilgin Münir, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-527 19268 Bilgin Saniye and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-528 19269 Bozkurt and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-529 19272 Çalkan and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

Section 6

H46-530 20136 Canlı, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-532 19273 Çapar, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-533 19274 Çelebi Hamdi, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-534 19275 Çelebi Yusuf, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-535 20139 Çelebi Mehmet No. 3, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-536 19276 Çiplak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-537 19277 Daniş, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-538 68117 Denli Nesibe, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 23/10/02

H46-539 19278 Erol, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-540 19280 Gökgöz, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-541 19281 Gökmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-542 20142 Günal Kazım, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-543 19270 Ilhan Buzcu and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-544 20143 İnce Fehmiye, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-545 19283 Işik Ayşe and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-546 19284 Işik Yilmaz and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-547 19286 Karabulut Sefer, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-548 19271 Nuriye Buzcu, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-549 30448 Önel Ahmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-550 30948 Önel Mehmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-551 30446 Önel Temur, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-552 30447 Özel Hacı Bayram, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-553 31964 Özel Hacı Osman, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-554 19287 Özen, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-555 19288 Öztekin, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-556 20153 Şen Ismet, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-557 20156 Şen Kemal, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-558 20154 Şen Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-559 20158 Taşdemir Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-560 38916 Atalağ, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-561 38915 Bayram Abdullah Naci, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-562 35867 Bayram and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-563 37414 Birsel and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-564 26543 Çallı, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-565 38931 İ.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-566 35050 Karabıyık and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-567 33322 Özdiler and Bakan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-568 33419 Özdiler Hasan Doğan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-569 35079 Özkan and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-570 35866 Ünlü Dudu, judgment of 27/06/202 - Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-571 31880 Adıyaman, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-572 32964 Akçam, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-573 33362 Akyazı, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-574 29280 Başpınar, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-575 29913 Binbir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-576 26480 Bürkev, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-577 29912 Çilengir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-578 32981 Dede and others, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-579 29699 Dinleten, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-580 31891 Genç, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-581 39428 İnan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-582 28291 Kanbur, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-583 32990 Karademir, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

Section 6

H46-584 32987 Keskin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-585 29360 Ketenoğlu Gülşen and Ketenoğlu Halil Yasin, judgment of 25/09/01,

final on 25/12/01

H46-586 29700 Metinoğlu, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-587 29701 Özcan Süleyman, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-588 31960 Pekdaş, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-589 31961 Şahin Metin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46-590 29702 Sarıtaç, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-591 29911 Uygur, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-592 31834 Yağız Hasan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-593 29703 Zülal, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-594 31312 Eğinlioğlu, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts

H46-595 29921 Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

- 21 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-596 36533 Atlan A. and T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H46-597 24265 Devenney, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-598 48521 Armstrong, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

H46-599 24724 T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-600 24888 V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-601 45276 Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H54-602 24839 Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

H32-603 27237 Govell, Interim Resolution DH(98)212

H32-604 26109 Santa Cruz Ruiz, Interim Resolution DH(99)

H54-605 24838 Steel, Lush, Needham, Polden and Cole, judgment of 23/09/98

H46-606 35394 Khan, judgment of 12/05/00, final on 05/10/00

H46-607 28901 Rowe and Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

H46-608 35718 Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

H46-609 33274 Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

H46-610 39360 S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H54-611 20605 Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Interim Resolution DH(1999)725

H46-612 36670 Duyonov and others, judgment of 02/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-613 32340 Curley, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-614 28945 T.P. and K.M., judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-615 44787 P.G. and J.H., judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46-616 37471 William Faulkner, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING
(854th MEETING, 7-8 October 2003)

(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.

847th meeting (DH) – 8 and 9 July 2003

APPENDIX 2

847th MEETING (DH) 8 and 9 July 2003

854th meeting DH (7-8 October 2003)
Preliminary list of items for consideration

——————————————

The draft annotated Agenda and Order of Business will be issued on 24 September 2003.
The classification of the cases in sections is at this stage purely on an indicative basis.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. 90

GENERAL QUESTIONS. 96

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS. 97

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES. 102

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION. 108

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTION (INDIVIDUAL MEASURES,
MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS) 132

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED.. 149

SECTION 6 - CASES AWAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION. 155

PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING (863rd MEETING, 2-3 December 2003) 166

Additional documents

Addendum General Questions

Addendum 1 - Final Resolutions

Addendum 4 – Cases raising special questions

Addendum Preparation of the next DH meeting (863rd meeting, 2-3 December 2003)

INTRODUCTION

At the present Human Rights meeting, the Committee of Ministers, sitting at the level of the Ministers’ Deputies, will supervise the execution of some .. 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[18]. 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		854	847	841	834	827	819	810	803	798	792	783
General Questions									-	-	-	1689
1.1			2	3	4	8	2	12	0	11	6	3
1.2			5	4	53	2	0	6	11	36	26	1
1.3			8	15	47	18	4	11	4	8	7	8
1.4			10	17	56	44	10	36	25	2	8	7
2			98	76	99	52	108	154	277	142	213	83
3.1.a			0	469	439	546	677	638	568	536	418	388
3.1.b			0	170	165	129	110	89	116	70	58	54
3.1.c			0	40	40	39	38	39	36	36	34	36
3.2			0	-	-	-	-	-	1	2	-	-
4.1			4	10	15	6	15	17	15	8	5	13
4.2			101	82	156	78	116	112	91	78	82	65
4.3			4	5	123	2174	2155	5	71	72	4	4
5.1			4	39	33	25	32	21	13	12	17	18
5.2			1	-	1	0	1	-	0	0	-	-
5.3			3	4	7	5	11	7	16	3	1	10
5.4			0	-	0	0	0	-	0	0	-	-
6			375	372	355	406	377	318	351	324	317	336
Total of the cases on the Agenda[19]			615	1276	1479	3151	3186	1456	1595	1340	1196	2725
Total of final resolutions submitted			25	39	160	72	16	65	40	57	47	29
Total of new cases			98	76	99	52	108	154	277	142	213	83
Total of pending cases			3352	3312	3380	3370	3327	3276	3187	2964	2958	2649

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[20] and 54 for cases decided before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11).

Sub-section 1.1. - Leading cases

Sub-section 1.2 – Cases concerning problems already solved

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

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

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.

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.

Sub-section 3.1 – control of payment:

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.

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 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)

Sub-section 4.1 – Supervision of individual measures only

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

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.

SECTION 5 – SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

Sub-section 5.1 – Legislative and/or regulatory changes

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

Sub-section 5.3 – Publication / dissemination

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

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 WAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION

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

No discussion of these cases is envisaged: examination is in principle be resumed at the next Human Rights meeting.

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.

Action

c. Preparation of the next meeting (863rd (2-3 December 2003)) see page 166

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

- 2 cases against Sweden

H46- 38629 Lundevall, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46- 38978 Salomonsson, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

No new case

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

No new case

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

No new case

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES

This list has been revised and updated to take account of the new final judgments rendered by the Court as well as those resulting from its recent decisions in respect of requests for referral to the Grand Chamber. Items added since the publication of the Addendum Preparation of the next meeting are indicated by an asterisk (*).

Cases which are still not final at the time of publishing this document but which could be in time for the 854th meeting appear on a grey background.

Action

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

INDIVIDUAL AND/OR GENERAL MEASURES

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: ...

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

Section 2

- 3 cases against Austria

H46- 36812+ Sylvester, judgment of 24/04/2003, final on 24/07/2003

H46- 43454 Bakker, judgment of 10/04/2003, final on 10/07/2003

H46- 35021+ Kolb and others, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

- 2 cases against Belgium

Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46- 52229 Gillet, judgment of 24/04/2003, final on 24/07/2003

H46- 50859 Willekens, judgment of 24/04/2003, final on 24/07/2003

- 1 case against Bulgaria

H46- 37104 Kitov, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

- 1 case against Croatia

H46- 47863 Šoć, judgment of 09/05/2003, final on 09/08/2003

- 1 case against Cyprus

*H46- 62242 Gregoriou, judgment of 25/03/2003, final on 09/07/2003

- 17 cases against France

H46- 44962 Yvon, judgment of 24/04/2003, final on 24/07/2003

*H46- 49198 Schiettecatte, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 09/07/2003

H46- 49533 Barrillot, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46- 44482 Hutt-Clauss, judgment of 10/04/2003, final on 10/07/2003

H46- 50267 Kornblum, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

H46- 48566 Richart-Luna, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

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

*H46- 56927 Appietto, judgment of 25/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

*H46- 54367 Bufferne, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

H46- 62274 Jarlan, judgment of 15/04/2003, final on 15/07/2003

H46- 55926 Loyen and others, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

H46- 46096 Mocie, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

H46- 46659 Verreries de Biot S.A., judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

Section 2

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

H46- 50975 Jarreau, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

H46- 50331 Julien Ferdinand, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

H46- 42277 Jussy, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

H46- 50342 Sanglier, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

H46- 53584 Verhaeghe, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

- 3 cases against Germany

*H46- 31871 Sommerfeld, judgment of 08/07/2003 - Grand Chamber

H46- 52853 Yilmaz Saldiray, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

*H46- 30943 Sahin, judgment of 08/07/2003 - Grand Chamber

- 10 cases against Greece

H46- 54589 Anagnostopoulos, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

H46- 41666 Kyrtatos, judgment of 22/05/2003, final on 22/08/2003

H46- 64825 Halatas, judgment of 26/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 55828 Satka and others, judgment of 27/03/2003, final on 27/06/2003

H46- 46372 Papastavrou, judgment of 10/04/2003, final on 10/07/2003

H46- 59506 Papageorgiou Georgios, judgment of 09/05/2003, final on 09/08/2003

H46- 56599 Ipsilanti, judgment of 06/03/2003, final on 06/06/2003

H46- 53401 Konti-Arvaniti, judgment of 10/04/2003, final on 10/07/2003

*H46- 52903 Dactylidi, judgment of 27/03/2003, final on 09/07/2003

H46- 56625 Koumoutsea, judgment of 06/03/2003, final on 06/06/2003

- 2 cases against Hungary

H46- 42961 Simkó, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

*H46- 36186 Tímár, judgment of 25/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

- 1 case against Iceland

H46- 39731 Sigurđsson, judgment of 10/04/2003, final on 10/07/2003

- 25 cases against Italy

H46- 52763 Covezzi and Morselli, judgment of 09/05/2003, final on 09/08/2003

Section 2

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

H46- 38011 Aponte, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 34999 C. Spa, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

H46- 45006 Capurso, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

H46- 48842 Carbone Anna, judgment of 22/05/2003, final on 22/08/2003

H46- 37117 De Benedittis, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 41427 Del Beato, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

H46- 48145 Fabi, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 39735 Fegatelli, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

*H46- 43580 G.G., judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 09/07/2003

H46- 41610 L.M. VII, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

H46- 36149 Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 42343 Malescia, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

H46- 58191 Mottola, judgment of 22/05/2003, final on 22/08/2003

H46- 35024 Nigiotti and Mori, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 34998 P.M. II, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 37008 Pannocchia, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 46161 Pepe Giuseppa, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 59539 Pulcini, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 36249 Rosa Massimo, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

H46- 48730 Voglino, judgment of 22/05/2003, final on 22/08/2003

H46- 36377 Zannetti, judgment of 17/04/2003, final on 17/07/2003

*H46- 48728 Blasetti, judgment of 03/07/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46- 60662 Nuti, judgment of 03/07/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46- 60661 Rogai, judgment of 03/07/2003 - Friendly settlement

- 5 cases against Portugal

H46- 50775 Sousa Marinho and Marinho Meireles Pinto, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

H46- 54704 Ferreira Pinto, judgment of 26/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46- 54926 Costa Ribeiro, judgment of 30/04/2003, final on 30/07/2003

H46- 53997 Dias da Silva and Ribeiro Martins, judgment of 27/03/2003, final on 27/06/2003

H46- 53534 Esteves, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

- 18 cases against Poland

H46- 43425 Skałka, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

H46- 31583 Klamecki No. 2, judgment of 03/04/2003, final on 03/07/2003

Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46- 46034 Gryziecka and Gryziecki, judgment of 06/05/2003, final on 06/08/2003

H46- 40887 Maliszewski, judgment of 06/05/2003, final on 06/08/2003

H46- 52168 Majkrzyk, judgment of 06/05/2003, final on 06/08/2003

H46- 49349 Sobierajska-Nierzwicka, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

H46- 74816 Orzeł, judgment of 25/03/2003, final on 25/06/2003

Section 2

H46- 51429 Paśnicki, judgment of 06/05/2003, final on 06/08/2003

H46- 39619 Piłka Andrzej and Barbara, judgment of 06/05/2003, final on 06/08/2003

H46- 77597 R.O., judgment of 25/03/2003, final on 25/06/2003

*H46- 40694 Sobański, judgment of 21/01/2003, revised on 23/01/2003, final on 09/07/2003

*H46- 58780 Dragan, judgment of 15/07/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46- 45957 Pawlinkowska, judgment of 08/07/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 6901 Sagan, judgment of 24/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 67162 Skóra, judgment of 01/07/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 61888 Wysocka-Cysarz, judgment of 01/07/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46- 53551 Godlewski, judgment of 08/07/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46- 64120 Niziuk, judgment of 15/07/2003 - Friendly settlement

- 5 cases against Romania

H46- 42930 Crişan, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

H46- 31804 Chiriacescu, judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

H46- 32915 Ghitescu, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

H46- 31172 Popa and others, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

H46- 31551 Stoicescu, judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

- 3 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46- 57983 Slovák, judgment of 08/04/2003, final on 08/07/2003

H46- 65567 Piskura, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

H46- 53372 D.K., judgment of 06/05/2003, final on 06/08/2003

- 1 case against Spain

H46- 56673 Iglesias Gil and A.U.I., judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

- 8 cases against Turkey

H46- 27244 Tepe İsak, judgment of 09/05/2003, définitif 19/08/2003

H46- 30502 Yiltaş Yıldız Turistik Tesisleri A.Ş., judgment of 24/04/2003, final on 24/07/2003

*H46- 20652 Djavit An, judgment of 20/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

*H46- 37021 Avcı Zeynep, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 09/07/2003

H46- 37094 Hattatoğlu, judgment of 26/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 32270 Doğan Ülkü and others, judgment of 19/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 29863 Barut, judgment of 24/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 27696 Yalçın Halit, judgment of 24/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

Section 2

- 4 cases against Ukraine

H46- 41220 Aliev, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

H46- 40679 Dankevich, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

H46- 39483 Nazarenko, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

H46- 41707 Khokhlich, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46- 50390 McGlinchey and others, judgment of 29/04/2003, final on 29/07/2003

H46- 50015 Hewitson, judgment of 27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003

*H46- 36022 Hatton and others, judgment of 08/07/2003 - Grand Chamber

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION

Action

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

- 4 cases against Austria

H46- 36519 Petschar, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 36757 Jakupovic, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 06/05/2003

H46- 39392+ L. and V., judgment of 09/01/2003, final on 09/04/2003

H46- 45330+ S.L., judgment of 09/01/2003, final on 09/04/2003

- 10 cases against Belgium

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46- 49497 Teret, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03 - Striking-out

H46- 50567 Immo Fond’Roy S.A., judgment of 22/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

- Length of civil proceedings[21]

H46- 50855 Dautel, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

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

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

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

H46- 50624 Gökce and others, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

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

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

- Default interest to be paid

H46- 51564 Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/02[22]

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

H46- 38822 Shishkov, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46- 38884 Nikolov, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

- 1 case against Croatia

H46- 58115 Čuljak and others, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

Sub-section 3.a

- 5 cases against the Czech Republic

H46- 46129 Zvolský and Zvolská, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46- 47273 Běleš and others, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46- 36548 Pincová and Pinc, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46- 36541 Bucheň, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46- 41486 Bořánková, judgment of 07/01/2003, final on 21/05/2003

- 1 case against Estonia

H46- 45771 Veeber Tiit (No. 2), judgment of 21/01/03, final on 21/04/03

- 2 cases against Finland

H46- 27824 Posti and Rahko, judgment of 24/09/2002, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 42059 Eerola, judgment of 06/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

- 50 cases against France

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46- 67263 Mouisel, judgment of 14/11/2002, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 48221 Berger, judgment of 03/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 49636 Chevrol, judgment of 13/02/2003, final on 13/05/2003

H46- 44565 Theraube, judgment of 10/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003[23]

H46- 36378 Bertuzzi, judgment of 13/02/2003, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 43716 Susini and others, judgment of 03/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 54596 Epoux Goletto, judgment of 04/02/2003, final on 04/05/2003

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

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

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

H46- 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgments of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02 and 27/05/2003,

final on 27/08/2003[24]

H46- 42405 C.D., judgment of 07/01/2003, final on 21/05/2003

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

H46- 43722 Wiot, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

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

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

H46- 39282 Laidin Monique No. 2, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

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

- Length of proceedings before the administrative courts[25]

H46- 58600 Benhaim, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

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

H46- 46215 Faivre, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46- 50368 Heidecker-Carpentier, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46- 43969 Kroliczek, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 21/05/03

Sub-section 3.a

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

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

H46- 51066 Raitiere, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

H46- 43719 Scotti, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46- 48954 Traore, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46- 52116 Vieziez, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 21/05/03, rectified on 08/07/2003

- Default interest to be paid

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

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

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

H46- 53613 Goth, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

H46- 44069 G.B. II, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

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

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

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

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

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

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

H46- 44070 Beljanski, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

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

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

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

H46- 44952+ Van der Kar and Lissaur Van West, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

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

H46- 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber[26]

- Length of proceedings before the administrative courts[27]

H46- 56198 Société Industrielle d’Entretien et de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

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

H46- 39273 Vermeersch, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

- 4 cases against Germany

H46-54 45835 Hesse-Anger, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 21/05/2003

H46-52 44324 Kind, judgment of 20/02/2003, final on 20/05/2003

H46-53 39547 Niederböster, judgment of 27/02/2003, final on 27/05/2003

H46-55 38365 Thieme, judgment of 17/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

- 9 cases against Greece

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46- 50824 Azas, judgment of 19/09/2002, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 47541 Vasilopoulou, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02 and judgment of 26/09/02

(Article 41), final on 21/05/03

H46- 52464 Papadopoulos Georgios, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 52488 Papadopoulos Ioannis, judgment of 09/01/2003, final on 21/05/2003

Sub-section 3.a

H46- 55753 Papazafiris, judgment of 23/01/2003, final on 23/04/2003

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

H46- 62530 Vitaliotou, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

- Default interest to be paid

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

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

- 349 cases against Italy

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46- 57574+ Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement[28]

H46- 40877 Cordova Agostino No. 1, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

H46- 45649 Cordova Agostino No. 2, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

- Failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants [29]

H46- 35550 Auditore, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46- 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46- 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46- 34819 Cau, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

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

H46- 30883 Esposito Paola, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46- 33909 Fiorani, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46- 34454 Fleres, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46- 32577 Folli Carè, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

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

H46- 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/2003, final on 27/05/2003

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

H46- 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46- 32006 Gnecchi and Barigazzi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46- 32766 Immobiliare Sole Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46- 32392 L. and P., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

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

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

H46- 32391 M.C. XI, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46- 31923 M.P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

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

H46- 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46- 31129 Merico, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 30530 Rossi Luciano, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 32644 Sanella, judgment of 19/12/202, final on 19/03/03

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

H46- 33227 Scurci Chimenti, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

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

H46- 33252 Tona, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

Sub-section 3.a

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

H46- 30972 V.T., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 35006 Zazzeri, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46- 62135 Attene, judgment of 22/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

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

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

H46- 48840 Carloni Tarli, judgment of 30/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

H46- 57636 Gramiccia, judgment of 06/02/03 - Friendly settlement

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

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

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

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

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

- Length of civil proceedings

H46- 40601 Guerrera and Fusco, judgment of 03/04/03

H46- 52975 Gucci, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02, revised judgment on 01/10/02,

final on 01/01/03

- Default interest to be paid

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

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

H46- 26772 Labita, judgment of 06/04/00, final on 06/04/00

H46- 30882 Pellegrini Maria Grazia, judgment of 20/07/01, final on 20/10/01

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

H46- 28168 Quadrelli, judgment of 11/01/00, final on 20/03/00

H46- 33354 Lucà, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32- 19734 F.S. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)209

H46- 41852 Vaccaro, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 31143 Indelicato, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 18/01/02

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

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

Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151[30]

- Failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

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

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

H46- 39451 Fiorentini Vizzini, judgment of 19/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 39690 Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

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

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

- Length of civil proceedings

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

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

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

Sub-section 3.a

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

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

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

H32- 39900 Artuso Paolo, Interim Resolution DH(99)569

H32- 39137 Avallone, Interim Resolution DH(99)475

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

H46- 40977 Beltramo, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46- 44431 Beluzzi and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 39883 Bertozzi, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/04/00

H46- 44442 Bevilacqua, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 36811 Bielectric S.R.L., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 44437 Bocca, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

H46- 44457 Bonelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46- 44436 Buffalo s.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 46534 Burghesu, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

H32- 35292 Calandrella F., P. and 2 others, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

H46- 39881 Capodanno, judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/04/00

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

H46- 46526 Carboni, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 45859 Caruso Giuseppina, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46- 45861 Cavallaro, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46- 36620 Ceriello, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H46- 46537 Cerulli and Zadra, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 45869 Chiappetta, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

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

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

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

H46- 46532 Conte Gaspare and others, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

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

H46- 44385 Cornaglia, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 46527 Corsi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

H46- 46538 Costantini Francesco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

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

H46- 46536 D.C. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

H46- 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- 45872 D’Annibale, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

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

H46- 40216 D’Arrigo and Garrozzo, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46- 52921 Damiano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32- 40566 De Cicco Concetta, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

H32- 40580 De Lorenzi, Interim Resolution DH(99)588

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

H46- 42520 De Simone Pasquale, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

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

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

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

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

Sub-section 3.a

H46- 46520 Dorigo Franco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

H46- 44519 E.M. II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32- 39906 Emmebiemme S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(99)592

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

H46- 46524+ F., T. and E., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 46533 F.L.S., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 39164 F.S.p.A. II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

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

H32- 26012 Facciolini, Interim Resolution DH(96)648

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

H46- 52972 Falzarano Carmine, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

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

H46- 45870 Ferrazzo and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46- 45868 Filippello Giorgio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32- 38145 Focardi and Conti, Interim Resolution DH(99)287

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

H32- 38118 Fraschetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)288

H46- 44397 G.B. IV, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 37131 G.M.N., judgment of 02/11/99, final on 02/11/99

H32- 38503 G.P. and 25 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)388

H46- 46543 G.S. and L.M., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

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

H46- 46528 Giannalia, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

H46- 45860 Giuseppe Nicola and Luciano Caruso, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46- 40968 I.F., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

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

H46- 39116 I.R., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46- 44447 Ianniti and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 46516 Il Messaggero S.a.s. II, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 46517 Il Messaggero S.a.s. III, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 46518 Il Messaggero S.a.s. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 46519 Il Messaggero S.a.s. V, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

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

H46- 44508 Immobiliare Il Messaggero del geometra Antonio Iorillo, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46- 46530 Iulio, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 40924 L. S.r.l., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46- 46542 Lanino, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32- 31341 Lazzari and Scagnoli, Interim Resolution DH(97)637

H46- 45853 Lo Cicero, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

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

H46- 46523 Lonardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

H46- 44406 M. S.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

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

H32- 28725 Manzi A., B. and L., Interim Resolution DH(97)254

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

H46- 44443 Marchi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

Sub-section 3.a

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

H46- 44422 Marzinotto, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

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

H46- 44420 Mauri, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

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

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

H46- 46522 Nolla, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

H46- 44468 P.B. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46- 40570 Padalino V. and G., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

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

H32- 21707 Panissa, D., G. and A. Vittonetto

H32- 39155 Perilli and Gigotti Micheli, Interim Resolution DH(99)509

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

H46- 44380 Pettirossi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

H32- 39899 Pirilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)623

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

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

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

H46- 44412 Quattrone Pasquale, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

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

H46- 44465 Rigutto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

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

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

H32- 35328 Roselli Italo II, Interim Resolution DH(98)440

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

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

H46- 44472 Rossi Valeria, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46- 44461 Sacchi Roberto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46- 38135 Sanna, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H46- 44466 Santoro Valerio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

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

H46- 45854 Savino, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46- 44419 Sbrojavacca Pietrobon, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

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

H46- 44470 Spada, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

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

H46- 39705 Spurio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32- 39865 Staffolani, Interim Resolution DH(99)635

H46- 44417 Tagliabue, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32- 38102 Talenti, Interim Resolution DH(2001)58

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

H46- 44425 Tedesco Michele, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 46539 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.P.A. VII, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

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

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

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

H32- 40586 Verini II, Interim Resolution DH(99)639

H46- 40599 Vicari II, judgment of 15/02/00

Sub-section 3.a

H46- 44395 Visentin, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 37166 Vitale and others, judgment of 02/11/99

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

H46- 44462 Zanasi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46- 37079 Zironi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

- Length of the proceedings before administrative courts[31]

H46- 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46- 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

H46- 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

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

H46- 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46- 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

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

H46- 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

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

H46- 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

H46- 41814 Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

- Length of the proceedings before the Court of Audit

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

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

- Length of the proceedings before the labour courts

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

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

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

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

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

H32- 36615 Cappello, Interim Resolution DH(99)212

H32- 38095 Cardillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)317

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

H46- 46521 Ciccardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H46- 45855 Fr.C., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

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

H46- 51156 Fasulo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, rectified on 12/09/2002

Sub-section 3.a

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

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

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

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

H46- 37170 Giampietro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

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

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

H46- 39124 Guagenti, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H32- 37160 Marsicovetere, Interim Resolution DH(99)221

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46- 38878 Ciacci, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46- 42351 Del Giudice, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01

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

H46- 41603 G.B.Z., L.Z. and S.Z., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 15/02/00

H46- 41094 Giannangeli, judgment of 05/07/01, final on 05/10/01

H46- 32646 Guerresi, judgment of 24/04/01, final on 24/04/01

Sub-section 3.a

H46- 41893 Martinez, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46- 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00

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

H46- 29898 Patanè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46- 30132 Pepe Umberto, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

H32- 36733 Perilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)427

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

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

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

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

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

H46- 43199 Visintin, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

- Length of criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

H46- 45856 Bacigalupi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46- 45857 Comella and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46- 45858 Tesconi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

- 1 case against Latvia

H46- 58442 Lavents, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46- 51773 Schaal, judgment of 18/02/2003, final on 18/05/2003

- 5 cases against the Netherlands

H46- 35731 Venema, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46- 34462 Wessels-Bergervoet, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02 and judgment of 12/11/02 (Article 41) – Friendly settlement

H46- 52750 Lorsé and others, judgment of 04/02/2003, final on 04/05/2003

H46- 50901 Van der Ven, judgment of 04/02/2003, final on 04/05/2003

H46- 51392 Göçer, judgment of 03/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

- 2 cases against Norway

H46- 29327 O., judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

H46- 56568 Y., judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

- 7 cases against Poland

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46- 30218 Nowicka, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 03/03/03

H46- 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03[32]

Sub-section 3.a

H46- 34049 Zwierzynski, judgments of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 and of 02/07/2002, final on 24/06/2003[33]

H46- 33870 Fuchs, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

H46- 38665 Bukovski, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03, rectified on 10/07/2003[34]

H46- 37437 Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03[35]

- Default interest to be paid

H32- 27506 Owczarzak, Interim Resolution DH(99)260

- 10 cases against Portugal

- Just satisfaction to be paid

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

H46- 52657 Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/2003, final on 27/05/2003

H46- 53937 Ferreira Alves, Limited, judgment of 27/02/2003, final on 27/05/2003

H46- 51806 Figueiredo Simões, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

H46- 48956 Gil Leal Pereira, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

H46- 49279 Koncept-Conselho em Comunicação e Sensibilização de Públicos, Lda, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

H46- 52412 Marques Nunes, judgment of 20/02/2003, final on 20/05/2003

- Default interest to be paid

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

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

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

- 17 cases against Romania

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46- 33627 Baragan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03[36]

H46- 33353 Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03[37]

H46- 29769 Curutiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03[38]

H46- 32936 Dragnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[39]

H46- 32977 Gavrus, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[40]

H46- 31678 Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003[41]

Sub-section 3.a

H46- 29973 Golea, judgment of 17/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003[42]

H46- 31736 Grigore, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003[43]

H46- 30698 Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03[44]

H46- 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[45]

H46- 36039 Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03[46]

H46- 33355 Popescu Nata, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03[47]

H46- 33631 Savulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03[48]

H46- 31680 State and others, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003[49]

H46- 32269 Tărbăşanu, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003[50]

H46- 33176 Mosteanu and others, judgment of 26/11/02, rectified on 04/02/03, final on 26/02/03

- Default interest to be paid

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

(rectification) – Grand Chamber[51]

- 1 case against the Russian federation

H46- 63486 Posokhov, judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

- 8 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46- 47227 Baková, judgment of 12/11/2002, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 41784 A.B., judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

H46- 44965 Molnárová and Kochanová, judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

H46- 54822 Micovčin, judgment of 27/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 56452 Nezbeda, judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 63999 Rusnáková, judgment of 27/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 62191 Sisák, judgment of 27/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 57985 Slovák II, judgment of 03/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Spain

H46- 58496 Prado Bugallo, judgment of 18/02/2003, final on 18/05/2003

- 2 cases against Sweden

H46- 34619 Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/2002, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 36985 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic, judgment of 23/07/2002, final on 21/05/2003

Sub-section 3.a

- 20 cases against Turkey

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46- 24351 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03[52]

H46- 25141 Dicle pour le Parti de la Démocratie (DEP), judgment of 10/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003[53]

H46- 40153+ Çetin and others, judgment of 13/02/2003, final on 13/05/2003

H46- 26546 Acar Ahmet, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

- Independence and impartiality of the State security courts

H46- 41316 Atça and others, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 06/05/2003

H46- 39324 Demirel, judgment of 28/01/2003, final on 28/04/2003

H46- 43818 N.K., judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003, rectified on 18/02/2003

H46- 59659 Özdemir Tekin, judgment of 06/02/2003, final on 06/05/2003

- Friendly settlements concerning actions of the security forces and containing undertakings of the Turkish Government [54]

H46- 28292 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31845 Dilek Kemal, judgment of 17/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 46649 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 28516 Macir, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 28504 Merinç, judgment of 17/06/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31865 O.O. and S.M., judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 37049 Yaman Mehmet, judgment of 22/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46- 28308 Yıldız Zeki, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

- Cases concerning freedom of expression[55]

H46- 27214 C.S.Y., judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

H46- 32455 Zarakolu, judgment of 27/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

- Default interest to be paid

H46- 25656 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/02[56]

H46- 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99[57]

- 2 cases against Ukraine

H46- 39042 Kuznetsov, judgment of 29/04/03

H46- 38812 Poltoratskiy, judgment of 29/04/03

- 8 cases against the United Kingdom

H46- 53236 Waite, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

H46- 49771 Jordan Stephen No. 2, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

H46- 65334 Atkinson, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 3.a

H46- 44652 Beckles, judgment of 08/10/02, final on 08/01/03

H46- 48539 Allan, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46- 50272 Hutchison Reid, judgment of 20/02/2003, final on 20/05/2003

H46- 44647 Peck, judgment of 28/01/2003, final on 28/04/2003

H46- 44808 Mitchell and Holloway, judgment of 17/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003[58]

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

- 13 cases against France

H46- 44451 A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01[59] 19/12/2001

H46- 39626 Granata, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02 19/09/2002

H46- 44797+ Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02 21/09/2002

H46- 38748 Immeubles Groupe Kosser, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02[60] 21/09/2002

H46- 32911+ Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/02 - Grand Chamber 26/10/2002

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

H46- 51279 Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02 25/12/2002

H46- 41376 D.M., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02 27/12/2002

H46- 33395 L.R., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02 27/12/2002

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

27/05/2003, final on 27/08/2003 [61] 02/01/2003

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

H46- 45172 Fentati, judgment of 22/10/02 - Friendly settlement 22/01/2003

H46- 54210 Papon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02 25/01/2003

- 150 cases against Italy

H46- 20855 Esposito Luigi, judgment of 25/05/00 - Friendly settlement 25/08/2000

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

H46- 34714 Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement 18/10/2002

H46- 36732 Pisano, judgment of 24/10/02 - Radiation - Grand Chamber 24/01/2003

- Length of civil proceedings

H46- 44421 Galasso, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46- 51708 I.M., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

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

H46- 51672 Selva, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

H46- 41803 Pupillo, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00; revised

judgment on just satisfaction of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02 18/06/2002

H46- 56101 Mesiti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

H46- 56093 Società Croce Gialla Romana S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02,

final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

H46- 51664 Rodolfi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46- 41740 Diebold, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46- 44413 Guerrera Angelo Giuseppe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 47479 Mastromauro S.R.L., judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H32- 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673[62] 22/10/2002

H46- 56084 At.M., judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02 07/11/2002

Sub-section 3.b

- Length of proceedings before administrative courts [63]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Length of proceedings before labour courts

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

H46- 51031 Aceto and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51089 Armellino Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52824 Belviso and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52804 Bianco Pellegrino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

Sub-section 3.b

H46- 52816 Biondi and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51030 Biondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52835 Cerbo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52801 Ciarmoli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52815 Cimmino and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52807 Ciullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52821 Colangelo Domenico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51164 Crovella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51163 D’Angelo Michele, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51125 De Filippo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51027 Del Vecchio Anna Rita, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51155 Della Ratta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52813 Di Meo and Masotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52846 Di Meo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51092 Di Mezza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51091 Ferrara Clementina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52843 Franco and Basile, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52924 Frattini and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02,

judgment revised of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[64] 12/08/2002

H46- 51161 Gagliardi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52830 Giannotta and Iannella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51094 Iacobucci and Lavorgna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51170 Izzo Giovanni, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52802 Lagozzino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52812 Lavorgna and Iorio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52822 Macolino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52819 Mancino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51169 Marotta Alberto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51168 Martino Alfonso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52827 Mastrocinque Mafalda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51167 Matera Tommasina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52845 Mazzarelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52818 Meola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52840 Mongillo Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 44428 Nardone Antonio, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52832 Nero and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51029 Ocone, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51114 Paduano, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52829 Pallotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51022 Palmieri Mario Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52841 Panza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52837 Pascale and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52842 Pascale Elda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52826 Pascale Maria Annunziata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51162 Pengue, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52808 Perna Giuseppina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52828 Petrillo and Petrucci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51025 Petrillo Gino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51024 Porto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52825 Pucella and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

Sub-section 3.b

H46- 51126 Raccio Emilia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51109 Restuccio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52820 Riccardi Vicenzina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52823 Romano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52844 Romano Rosa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52833 Santagata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51165 Santina Pelosi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

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

H46- 52839 Tanzillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52836 Tazza and Zullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52810 Tazza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52809 Truocchio Edmondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51166 Truocchio Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51124 Tudisco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52817 Urbano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51026 Uzzo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52811 Villari, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52847 Viscuso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51028 Vitelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52814 Zoccolillo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 52800 Zuotto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46- 51023 Palmieri Maddalena, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02,

judgment revised on 18/04/02, final on 18/07/02 18/10/2002

- Length of the proceedings before the Court of Audit

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

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

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

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

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

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

H46- 54286 Strangi, judgment of 07/05/02 – Friendly settlement 07/08/2002

H46- 54282 Amici, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46- 54278 Leonardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46- 54312 Manna, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46- 54319 Sportola, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46- 41424 Nuvoli, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02 16/11/2002

- Length of criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

H46- 46970 Contardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

- 2 cases against Portugal

H46- 48233 Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement 30/08/2002

H46- 48187 Rosa Marques and others, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02 25/01/2003

Sub-section 3.b

- 9 cases against Romania[65]

H46- 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

rectified on 09/07/02 09/10/2002

H46- 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02,

final on 21/08/02 21/11/2002

H46- 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02 04/12/2002

H46- 35831 Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46- 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46- 32925 Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2002

H46- 32943 Falcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2002

H46- 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

H46- 33358 Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

- 17 cases against Turkey

H54- 15318 Loizidou, judgments of 18/12/96 (merits) and 28/07/98 (just satisfaction) -

Interim Resolutions DH(99)680, DH(2000)105 and

ResDH(2001)80[66] 28/10/1998

H46- 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00[67] 15/09/2000

H46- 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01[68] 10/04/2001

H46- 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01[69] 04/07/2001

H46- 34688 Akin, judgment of 12/04/01 12/07/2001

- Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46- 19265 Atak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

H46- 19279 Göçmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

H46- 19285 Karabulut Cemile and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

H46- 19303 Şen Celal and Keziban, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01 10/10/2001

H46- 27694 A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46- 37087 Bekmezci and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement,

rectified ons 19/09/02 and 03/04/03 27/09/2002

H46- 19660 Çalkan Dudu, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46- 20140 Çelebi Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46- 20144 Kartal Adile, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46- 20152 Özen Mehmet, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46- 20151 Öztürk Ahmet, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46- 20155 Şen Aziz No. 2, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46- 46477 Edwards Paul and Audrey, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02[70] 14/09/2002

H46- 42007 Davies, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02, rectified on 13/09/02 13/12/2002

H46- 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber[71] 11/10/2002

Sub-section 3.b

- 1 case against « the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia »

H46- 58185 Janeva, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement 03/02/2003

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)

- 29 cases against Turkey

H46- 30947 Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement

H46- 26093+ B.T. and others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement

H46- 28340 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01[72]

H46- 25182+ Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01

H46- 25724 Cihan, judgment of 30/01/01 – Friendly settlement

H46- 31963 Özel and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 27697+ Yaşar and others, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46- 19310 Yilmaz Hamit, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46- 19308 Yilmaz Zekeriya, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

- Action of the Turkish security forces [73]

H54- 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54- 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54- 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54- 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46- 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H32- 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46- 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 20764 Ertak Ismail, judgment of 09/05/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

- Cases concerning freedom of expression [74]

H46- 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

H46- 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00

H46- 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02[75]

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)

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

SUB-SECTION 4.1 – SUPERVISION OF INDIVIDUAL MEASURES ONLY[76]

- 1 case against Austria

H46- 37295 Yildiz M., G. and Y., judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

- 2 cases against Cyprus

H46- 30873 Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00

CM/Inf(2003)30

H46- 25316 Denizci and others, judgment of 23/05/01, final on 23/08/01

CM/Inf(2003)30

- 1 case against France

H46- 47160 Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

- 1 case against Germany

H46- 46544 Kutzner, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 10/07/02

- 1 case against Greece

H46- 50776+ Agga No. 2, judgment of 17/10/2002, final on 17/01/2003

- 2 cases against Italy

H46- 41879 Saggio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46- 57574+ Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement[77]

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46- 41510 Jasiūnienė, judgment of 06/03/2003, final on 06/06/2003

- 1 case against Malta

H46- 55263 Kadem, judgment of 09/01/2003, final on 09/04/2003

- 1 case against Poland

H46- 43786 Szymikowska and Szymikowski, judgment of 06/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 4.1

- 1 case against Turkey

H46- 29900+ Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59

SUB-SECTION 4.2 – INDIVIDUAL MEASURES AND/OR GENERAL PROBLEMS

- 1 case against Austria

H46- 32636 A.T., judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

- 14 cases against Belgium

H46- 32576 Wynen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46- 37370 Stratégies et Communications et Dumoulin, judgment of 15/07/02, final on 15/10/02

H46- 51564 Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/02[78]

Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46- 50615 Boca, judgment of 15/12/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 50855 Dautel, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003[79]

H46- 49797 De Plaen, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[80]

H46- 49522 Dooms and others, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[81]

H46- 50624 Gökce and others, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003[82]

H46- 50566 Kenes, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 49546 Lefebvre, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[83]

H46- 49332 Oren and Shoshan, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 49794 Oval S.P.R.L., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[84]

H46- 50172 Randaxhe, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 49495 S.A. Sitram, judgment of15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[85]

- 4 cases against Bulgaria

H46- 50963 Al-Nashif and others, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 33977 Ilijkov, judgment of 26/07/01

H46- 41488 Velikova, judgment of 18/05/00, final on 04/10/00

H46- 38361 Anguelova, judgment of 13/06/2002, final on 13/09/2002

- 8 cases against Croatia

H46- 62912 Benzan, judgment of 08/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46- 54727 Cerin, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46- 52634 Futterer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46- 51585 Horvat, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

Sub-section 4.2

H46- 49706 Rajak, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 12/12/01

H46- 48771 Delić, judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

H46- 45435 Radoš and 4 others, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46- 56773 Rajčević, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 06/11/02

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46- 44730 Serghides and Christoforou, judgment of 05/11/2002, final on 05/02/2003

- 2 cases against Germany

H46- 37928 Stambuk, judgment of 17/10/2002, final on 17/01/2003

H46- 37568 Böhmer, judgment of 03/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

- 1 case against Estonia

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

- 25 cases against France

H46- 36436 Piron, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H32- 33656 Lemoine Daniel, Interim Resolution DH(2000)16

H46- 40472 Tricard, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46- 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber[86]

H46- 38436 APBP, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46- 38748 Immeubles Groupe Kosser, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02[87]

H46- 44565 Theraube, judgment of 10/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003[88]

H46- 36515 Fretté, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts

H46- 37565 Sapl, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46- 44451 A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01[89]

H46- 58600 Benhaim, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03[90]

H46- 49544 Butel, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46- 41358 Desmots, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 06/11/02[91]

Sub-section 4.2

H46- 46215 Faivre, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03[92]

H46- 50368 Heidecker-Carpentier, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03[93]

H46- 43969 Kroliczek, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 21/05/03[94]

H46- 44964 Louerat, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03[95]

H46- 60545 Perhirin, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 21/05/03[96]

H46- 51066 Raitiere, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03[97]

H46- 43719 Scotti, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03[98]

H46- 56198 Société Industrielle d’Entretien et de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02[99]

H46- 51179 Solana, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 04/09/02[100]

H46- 48954 Traore, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03[101]

H46- 39273 Vermeersch, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01[102]

H46- 52116 Vieziez, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 21/05/03[103]

- 1 case against Greece

H46- 46355 Tsirikakis, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 10/07/02 and of 23/01/2003, final on 09/07/2003 (Article 41)

- 48 cases against Italy

H46- 37119 N.F., judgment of 02/08/2001, final on 12/12/2001

H32- 33286 Dorigo Paolo, Interim Resolutions DH(99)258 and ResDH(2002)30

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

H46- 22774 Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99

H46- 22534 A.O., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00

H32- 20177 Aldini, Interim Resolution DH(97)413

H46- 35550 Auditore, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[104]

H46- 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[105]

H46- 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[106]

H46- 34819 Cau, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[107]

H46- 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[108]

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

Sub-section 4.2

H46- 32589 D.V. II, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[109]

H46- 30883 Esposito Paola, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[110]

H46- 33909 Fiorani, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[111]

H46- 34454 Fleres, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[112]

H46- 32577 Folli Carè, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[113]

H46- 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[114]

H46- 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03[115]

H46- 22671 G.L. IV, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46- 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[116]

H46- 28272 Ghidotti, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46- 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[117]

H46- 32006 Gnecchi and Barigazzi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[118]

H46- 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[119]

H46- 32766 Immobiliare Sole Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[120]

H46- 32392 L. and P., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[121]

H46- 33696 L. and P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[122]

H46- 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[123]

H46- 21463 Lunari, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46- 32391 M.C. XI, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[124]

H46- 31923 M.P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[125]

H46- 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[126]

H46- 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[127]

H46- 31129 Merico, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[128]

H46- 24650 P.M., judgment of 11/01/01, final on 5/09/01

H46- 15919 Palumbo, judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46- 30530 Rossi Luciano, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[129]

H46- 32644 Sanella, judgment of 19/12/202, final on 19/03/03[130]

H46- 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[131]

H46- 33227 Scurci Chimenti, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[132]

Sub-section 4.2

H46- 31223 T.C.U., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46- 23424 Tanganelli, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46- 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[133]

H46- 33252 Tona, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[134]

H46- 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[135]

H46- 30972 V.T., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[136]

H46- 35006 Zazzeri, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[137]

- 1 case against Norway

H46- 30287 Hammern, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003

- 16 cases against Poland

H46- 26229 Gaweda, judgment of 14/03/02

H46- 28249 Kreuz, judgment of 19/06/01

H46- 26760 Werner, judgment of 15/11/01

H46- 26761 Płoski, judgment of 12/11/2002, final on 12/02/2003

H46- 25196 Iwanczuk, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46- 34049 Zwierzynski, judgments of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 and of 02/07/2002, final on 24/06/2003[138]

H46- 30210 Kudła, judgment of 26/10/00 - Grand Chamber

Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46- 25792 Trzaska, judgment of 11/07/00

H46- 28358 Baranowski, judgment of 28/03/00

H46- 33492 Jabłoński, judgment of 21/12/00

H46- 33079 Szeloch, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46- 34097 Kreps, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46- 27504 Iłowiecki, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

H46- 37443 Lisiak, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46- 34052 Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

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

- 30 cases against Romania

H54- 27273 Petra, judgment of 23/09/98

H46- 28341 Rotaru, judgment of 04/05/00 - Grand Chamber

H46- 28114 Dalban, judgment of 28/09/99 - Grand Chamber

Sub-section 4.2

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

(rectification) – Grand Chamber[139]

H46- 29411 Anghelescu, judgment of 09/04/02, final on 09/07/02

H46- 35831 Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02[140]

H46- 33627 Baragan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03[141]

H46- 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02[142]

H46- 33353 Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03[143]

H46- 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

rectified on 09/07/02[144]

H46- 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02[145]

H46- 32925 Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02[146]

H46- 29769 Curutiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03[147]

H46- 32936 Dragnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[148]

H46- 32943 Falcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02[149]

H46- 32977 Gavrus, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[150]

H46- 31678 Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003[151]

H46- 29973 Golea, judgment of 17/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003[152]

H46- 31736 Grigore, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003[153]

H46- 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02[154]

H46- 30698 Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03[155]

H46- 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[156]

H46- 33358 Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02[157]

H46- 36039 Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03[158]

H46- 33355 Popescu Nata, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03[159]

H46- 33631 Savulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03[160]

H46- 31680 State and others, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003[161]

H46- 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02,

final on 21/08/02[162]

H46- 32269 Tărbăşanu, judgment of 11/02/2003, final on 11/05/2003[163]

H46- 29407 Vasiliu, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002

Sub-section 4.2

- 3 cases against Switzerland

H46- 26899 H.B., judgment of 05/04/01, final on 05/07/01

H54- 20919 E.L., R.L. and O.-L., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)111

H54- 19958 A.P., M.P. and T.P., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)110

- 135 cases against Turkey

H46- 34382 Denmark, judgment of 05/04/00- Friendly settlement

H46- 40035 Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00

- Action of the Turkish security forces

H54- 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98[164]

H46- 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98[165]

H46- 22947+ Akkoç Nebahat, judgment of 10/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54- 21987 Aksoy, judgment of 18/12/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46- 24351 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03[166]

H46- 32574 Algür, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46- 22279 Altay, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 25657 Avşar, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 27/03/2000

H54- 23178 Aydin, judgment of 25/09/97, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46- 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98[167]

H46- 25659 Bilgin İrfan, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [168]

H46- 28340 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01[169]

H46- 23657 Çakici, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H32- 22677 Çetin, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46- 25704 Çiçek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 05/09/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01[170]

H46- 20869 Dikme, judgment of 11/07/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 25801 Dulaş Zubeyde, judgment of 30/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 27602 Ekinci Ülkü, judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002

H46- 20764 Ertak Ismail, judgment of 09/05/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98[171]

H54- 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98 [172]

H46- 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [173]

H54- 21593 Güleç, judgment of 27/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46- 22277 Ilhan Nasir, judgment of 27/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54- 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98[174]

Sub-section 4.2

H46- 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98[175]

H46- 22492 Kiliç, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54- 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98[176]

H54- 23186 Menteş, Turhallı M. and S, and Uvat, judgment of 28/11/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)434

H46- 21594 Oğur, judgment of 20/05/99 - Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 31889 Orak Abdurrahman, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

H46- 25656 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/02[177]

H46- 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98[178]

H46- 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98[179]

H46- 31866 Satık and others, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54- 23184 Selçuk and Asker, judgment of 24/04/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46- 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02[180]

H46- 26129 Tanlı, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01, rectified on 28/04/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46- 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98[181]

H46- 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98[182]

H54- 22496 Tekin, judgment of 09/06/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46- 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 [183]

H46- 32357 Veznedaroğlu Sevtap, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 18/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54- 22495 Yaşa, judgment of 02/09/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H32- 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98 [184]

- Friendly settlement concerning Actions of the Turkish security forces containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

CM/Inf(2003)12

H46- 24940 Acar, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31137 Adalı, judgment of 12/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 32598 Akbay, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 37453 Akman, judgment of 26/06/01, final on 25/10/2001 - Striking-out

H46- 28292 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[185]

H46- 24935 Avcı, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 28293 Aydın K., C. Aydin and S. Aydin and others, judgment of 10/07/01- Friendly settlement

H46- 29289 Aydın Mehmet, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 24946 Boğ, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 24938 Boğa, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 24934 Değer, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 24990 Demir, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 22280 Demir Mahmut, judgment of 05/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 4.2

H46- 31845 Dilek Kemal, judgment of 17/06/2003 - Friendly settlement[186]

H46- 24939 Doğan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31246 Ercan, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 26337 Erdoğan Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 30492 Erat and Sağlam, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46- 46649 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[187]

H46- 24945 Güngü Kemal, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 29864 H.K. and others, judgment of 14/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 30953 I.I., I.S., K.E., and A.O., judgment of 06/11/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 38588 Keçeci, judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 38578 Kaplan Süleyman, judgment of 10/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31890 Kınay M. and Kınay R., judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 24944 Kızılgedik, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 28516 Macir, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[188]

H46- 28504 Merinç, judgment of 17/06/2003 - Friendly settlement[189]

H46- 33234 N.Ö, judgment of 17/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31865 O.O. and S.M., judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement[190]

H46- 31136 Önder Yalçın, judgment of 25/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 24936 Orak Adnan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 27735 Oral and others, judgment of 28/03/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31883 Özbey, judgment of 31/01/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 29856 Özcan Mehmet, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H46- 37088 Özkur and Göksungur, judgment of 04/03/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 24942 Parlak, Aktürk and Tay, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 29359 Saki, judgment of 30/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31154 Şen Filiyet, judgment of 12/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 24991 Şenses, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31153 Soğukpınar, judgment of 12/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 36189 Yakar, judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31152 Yalçın Şaziment, judgment of 12/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46- 37049 Yaman Mehmet, judgment of 22/05/2003 - Friendly settlement[191]

H46- 22281 Yaşa Sıddık, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 32979 Yıldız Özgür, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 28308 Yıldız Zeki, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement[192]

H46- 27532 Z.Y., judgment of 09/04/02 - Friendly settlement

- Cases concerning dissolution of political parties

H46- 25141 Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP), judgment of 10/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003[193]

H46- 23885 Freedom and Democracy Party (ÖZDEP), judgment of 08/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H54- 19392 United Communist party of Turkey and others, judgment of 30/01/98

H54- 21237 Socialist Party and others, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolution DH(99)245

H46- 22723 Yazar, Karataş, Aksoy and le Parti du travail du peuple (HEP), judgment of 09/04/02

CM/Inf(98)48)

Sub-section 4.2

- Cases concerning freedom of expression

(CM/Inf(2000)28-rev 3 and Addendum, CM/Inf(2001)7, Interim Resolution

ResDH(2001)106)

H46- 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01[194]

H46- 23462 Arslan, judgment of 08/07/99

H32- 25658 Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolutions DH(99)560 and ResDH(2001)106

H46- 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99[195]

H46- 27214 C.S.Y., judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003[196]

H46- 23556 Ceylan, judgment of 08/07/99

H46- 28496 E.K., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00[197]

H46- 25067+ Erdoğdu and Ince, judgment of 08/07/99

H46- 24919 Gerger, judgment of 08/07/99

H46- 27215+ Gökçeli Yaşar Kemal, judgment of 04/03/2003, final on 04/06/2003

H54- 22678 Inçal, judgment of 09/06/98

H46- 27692+ Karakoç and others, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

H46- 23168 Karataş, judgment of 08/07/99

H46- 33179 Karataş Seher, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46- 28493 Küçük Yalçın, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

H46- 24246 Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46- 22479 Öztürk, judgment of 28/09/99

H46- 23500 Polat, judgment of 08/07/99

H46- 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00[198]

H46- 24122 Sürek II, judgment of 08/07/99

H46- 24762 Sürek IV, judgment of 08/07/99

H46- 23927+ Sürek and Özdemir, judgment of 08/07/99

H46- 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106[199]

H46- 24914 Öztürk Ayşe, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

H46- 29590 Yağmurdereli, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

- Friendly settlements in cases concerning freedom and expression containing undertakings from the Turkish Government

Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

H46- 32985 Altan, judgment of 14/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 27307 Bayrak Mehmet, judgment of 03/09/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 37721 Erkanlı, judgment of 13/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 35076 Erol Ali, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 27209+ Kiliç Özcan, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 25753 Özler, judgment of 11/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement[200]

H46- 32455 Zarakolu, judgment of 27/05/2003 - Friendly settlement[201]

Sub-section 4.2

- 19 cases against the United Kingdom

H46- 28212 Benjamin and Wilson, judgment of 26/09/2002, final on 26/12/002

H46- 38784 Morris, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46- 35605 Kingsley, judgment of 28/05/02 - Grand Chamber

H46- 35765 A.D.T., judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

H46- 32771 Cuscani, judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

H46- 47114 Taylor-Sabori, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46- 39846 Brennan, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

H46- 56547 P., C. and S., judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002

H46- 46477 Edwards Paul and Audrey, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02[202]

H46- 38719 D.P. and J.C, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46- 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber[203]

H46- 28957 Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber

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

H46- 50034 Obasa, judgment of 16/01/2003, final on 16/04/2003

H46- 42116 Somjee, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

- Action of the security forces in the United-Kingdom

H46- 43290 McShane, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

H46- 28883 McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46- 37715 Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46- 24746 Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46- 30054 Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

CM/Inf(2003)4-Rev

SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

- 119 cases against Italy

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

Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151 [204]

Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts[205]

H46- 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

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

H32- 29171 Abbate Giovani, Interim Resolution DH(97)367

H54- 25587 Abenavoli, judgment of 02/09/97

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

H32- 26863 Almanno, Interim Resolution DH(96)611

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

H32- 25579 B.Q., Interim Resolution DH(96)213

H32- 26864 Bacci Roberto Maria, Interim Resolution DH(96)612

H32- 25585 Bagnoli and Mazzone G., A. and M., Interim Resolution DH(96)214

H32- 34878 Barcellona, Interim Resolution DH(99)202

H32- 35343 Bertozzi, Vorrasi, Ciarmoli and Forgione, Interim Resolution DH(99)642

H32- 27189 Bevilacqua, Interim Resolution DH(97)524

H46- 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

H46- 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

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

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

H32- 19977 Carriero, Interim Resolution DH(96)26

H32- 31628 Catania, Interim Resolution DH(99)414

H32- 25576 Cavaliero s.n.c., Interim Resolution DH(96)215

H32- 34882 Cecamore, Interim Resolution DH(99)203

H46- 44332 Cecchini, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

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

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

H32- 29170 Cerruto, Interim Resolution DH(97)368

H32- 29125 Chierici B. and E., Interim Resolution DH(97)331

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

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

H46- 41811 Comitini, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

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

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

H32- 27494 Corona Vincenzo, Interim Resolution DH(97)020

H32- 25577 Cosma, Interim Resolution DH(96)216

H32- 25588 D.M. II, Interim Resolution DH(96)217

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

H32- 27996+ D'Amico and Altobelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)130

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

H54- 25574 De Santa, judgment of 02/09/97

H32- 20359 Della Sala Raffaele, Interim Resolution DH(96)614

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

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

Sub-section 4.3

H32- 14147+ Di Bonaventura

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

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

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

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

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

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

H32- 30600 G. D.P., Interim Resolution DH(97)525

H32- 25584 G.L.C., Interim Resolution DH(96)218

H32- 31622 G.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(97)654

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

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

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

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

H32- 25580 Giorgini, Interim Resolution DH(96)219

H54- 25586 Lapalorcia, judgment of 02/09/97

H32- 25581 Latini, Interim Resolution DH(96)220

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

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

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

H32- 15080 Magnaghi, Interim Resolution DH(96)379

H32- 27994+ Manzini and Benet, Interim Resolution DH(97)129

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

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

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

H32- 38149 Mazzone G. and E. I, Interim Resolution DH(99)306

H32- 38150 Mazzone G. and E. II, Interim Resolution DH(99)307

H46- 33804 Mennitto, judgment of 05/10/00

H32- 25589 Mentastro, Interim Resolution DH(96)221

H46- 38594 Mereu and S. Maria Navarrese, judgment of 13/06/02, final on 13/09/02

H46- 44338 Miele, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46- 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H32- 17814 Mori Puddu, Interim Resolution DH(97)177

H46- 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H32- 38526 Murgo M, O, and S. and Giannone, Interim Resolution DH(99)415

H32- 30322 Nani, Interim Resolution DH(98)193

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

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

H54- 25839 Nicodemo, judgment of 02/09/97

H46- 44335 O., judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32- 18908 P.P. III, Interim Resolution DH(97)111

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

H32- 35950+ Paglietti and 126 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)99

H46- 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H32- 15800+ Perego and Romanet

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

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

H32- 34880 Polto Miranda, Interim Resolution DH(99)204

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

H46- 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

H32- 27493 Recinelli, Interim Resolution DH(97)21

H32- 27999+ Recinelli and Corona, Interim Resolution DH(97)132

Sub-section 4.3

H32- 27997 Ridolfi, Interim Resolution DH(97)131

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

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

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

H32- 26865+ Rubbo and others, Interim Resolution DH(96)613

H32- 34881 Ruocco, Interim Resolution DH(99)643

H32- 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673

H32- 25582 Sansoni, Interim Resolution DH(96)222

H32- 31625 Santoro Claudio, Interim Resolution DH(97)655

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

H32- 29672 Scopelliti II, Interim Resolution DH(97)469

H32- 27484+ Serino and others, Interim Resolution DH(97)133

H32- 25450 Spera Michele, Interim Resolution DH(97)372

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

H32- 34283 Stampacchia, Interim Resolution DH(98)272

H32- 25583 Stracuzzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)241

H32- 25578 Turrina and Scattolini, Interim Resolution DH(96)223

H32- 31620 U. P., Interim Resolution DH(97)656

H32- 38152 Ullo, Interim Resolution DH(99)308

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

H46- 44346 Venturini Alberto II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32- 29301 Vitali II, Interim Resolution DH(97)332

H32- 29302 Vitali III, Interim Resolution DH(97)333

H32- 39170 Zappalà, Interim Resolution DH(99)523

H46- 41814 Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

- 2 cases against Turkey

H54- 15318 Loizidou, judgments of 18/12/96 (merits) and 28/07/98 (just satisfaction) - Interim Resolutions DH(99)680, DH(2000)105 and ResDH(2001)80[206]

H46- 25781 Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber

CM/Inf(2003)14-Rev

- 1 case against Ukraine

H46- 48553 Sovtransavto Holding, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 06/11/02

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46- 29392 Z. and others, judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

H46- 33218 E. and others, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 10/01/03

H54- 25599 A., judgment of 23/09/98

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

(See Addendum 5 for part or all these cases)

Action

SUB-SECTION 5.1 – LEGISLATIVE AND/OR REGULATORY CHANGES

- 1 case against France

H46- 34000 DuRoy and Malaurie, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

- 1 case against Liechtenstein

H46- 28396 Wille, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

- 1 case against Moldova

H46- 45701 Eglise Métropolitaine de Bessarabie and others, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 27/03/02

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46- 37328 A.B., judgment of 29/01/02, final on 29/04/02

- 27 cases against Poland

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H54- 27916 Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98

H54- 28616 Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98

H46- 38328 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

H46- 38665 Bukovski, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03[207]

H46- 27918 C., judgment of 03/05/01

H32- 24559 Gibas, Interim Resolution DH(97)242

H46- 48001 Goc, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46- 29695 Gronuś, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

H46- 71891 Hałka and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

H46- 29691 Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46- 52518 Koral, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 21/05/03

H46- 37437 Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03[208]

H46- 43779 Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02, final on 15/04/02

H46- 35843 Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00, final on 14/03/01

H46- 36250 Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01, final on 18/03/02

H46- 40330 Piechota, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46- 29455 Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 12/12/01

H46- 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03[209]

H46- 37645 Sawicka, judgment of 01/10/02, final on 01/01/03

H46- 25693+ Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 26/01/01

H46- 40835 Szaparo, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46- 48684 Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

H46- 39505 W.M., judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

H46- 65660 W.Z., judgment of 24/10/02, final on 24/01/03

H46- 32734 Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/09/01

H46- 33082 Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00, final on 22/01/01

H46- 34158 Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 27/03/02

Sub-section 5.1

- 1 case against Romania

H54-1133 27053 Vasilescu, judgment of 22/05/98, Interim Resolution DH(99)676

- 1 case against Switzerland

H46-967 31827 J.B., judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01

- 7 cases against the United Kingdom

H54- 22520 Johnson Stanley, judgment of 24/10/97

H46- 30308 Faulkner Ian, judgment of 30/11/99 - Friendly settlement

H32- 23496 Quinn, Interim Resolutions DH(98)214 and ResDH(2002)85

H32- 22384 Murray Kevin, Interim Resolutions DH (98)156 and ResDH(2002)85

H46- 28135 Magee, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)85

H54- 18731 Murray John, judgment of 08/02/96, Interim Resolutions DH(2000)26, ResDH(2002)85

H46- 36408 Averill, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)85

SUB-SECTION 5.2 – CHANGES OF COURTS’ CASE-LAW OR OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE

- 1 case against France

H46- 33592 Baumann, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

- 2 cases against France

H46- 42400 Seguin, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 06/11/02

H46- 49857 Ottomani, judgment of 15/10/2002, final on 15/01/2003

- 1 case against Germany

H46- 34045 Hoffmann, judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02

- 2 cases against Italy

H46- 30127 Sciortino, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46- 36534 Osu, judgment of 11/07/2002, final on 11/10/2002

- 1 case against Poland

H46- 27715+ Berliński Roman and Sławomir, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002

- 1 case against Portugal

H46- 44872 Magalhaes Pereira, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

- 1 case against Slovenia

H46- 42320 Belinger, judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46- 39197 Foley, judgment of 22/10/2002, final on 22/01/2003

H46- 44808 Mitchell and Holloway, judgment of 17/12/2002, final on 21/05/2003[210]

H46- 39393 M.G., judgment of 24/09/2002, final on 24/12/2002

SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

No new case

SECTION 6 - CASES AWAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION

Action

Section 6

- 26 cases against Austria

H46- 34994 Walter, judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H32- 17291 Hortolomei, Interim Resolution DH(99)28

H46- 37950 Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

H46- 38237 Sailer, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

H46- 38275 W.F., judgment of 30/05/02, final on 30/08/02

H32- 26113 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H., Interim Resolution DH(98)378

H46- 25878 Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00

H46- 30428 Beer Gertrude, judgment of 06/02/01

H46- 28501 Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00

H46- 33501 Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46- 29477 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

H46- 32899 Buchberger, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

- Length of civil proceedings

H46- 49455 Gollner, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46- 33505 H.E., judgment of 11/07/02, final on 06/11/02

H46- 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- 31266 G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46- 26297 G.S., judgment of 21/12/99

H46- 35019 Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46- 37075 Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

H46- 33915 Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01

- Freedom of expression

H46- 29271 Dichand and others, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46- 34320 Freiheitliche Landesgruppe Burgenland, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 26958 Jerusalem, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 34315 Krone Verlag Gmbh and Co. Kg., judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46- 28525 Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H54- 15153 Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Berthold Gubi, judgment of 19/12/94

- 2 cases against Belgium

H54- 17849 S.A. Pressos Compania Naviera and others, judgment of 20/11/95, Interim Resolution DH(99)724

H54- 25357 Aerts, judgment of 30/07/98

- 3 cases against Bulgaria

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

H46- 32438 Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 29221 Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

Section 6

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-272 29515 Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

- 4 cases against the Czech Republic

H46- 33071 Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber

H46- 33644 Cesky, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00

H46- 31315 Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00

H46- 35848 Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

- 2 cases against Denmark

H46- 48470 Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46- 56811 Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

- 8 cases against Finland

H46- 31611 Nikula, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46- 49684 Hirvisaari, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46- 28856 Jokela, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 21/08/02

H46- 31764 K.P., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 05/09/01

H46- 29346 K.S., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 12/12/01

H46- 25702 K. and T., judgment of 12/07/01 – Grand Chamber

H46- 30013 Türkiye iş Bankasi, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

H46- 35999 Pietiläinen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 27/01/03

- 72 cases against France

H32- 26242 Lemoine Pierre, Interim Resolution DH(99)353

H32- 31409 Riccobono, Interim Resolution DH(99)557

H46- 37786 Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

H46- 24846 Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

H32- 26984 Picard, Interim Resolution DH(99)30

H46- 25803 Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber

H46- 34406 Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46- 25088 Chassagnou and others, judgment of 29/04/99

H54- 25017 Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

H32- 27019 Slimane-Kaïd I

H54- 23618 Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

H32- 27413 Cazes, Interim Resolution DH(99)31

H46- 25444 Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

H46- 31819+ Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46- 42195 Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

H32- 27659 Ferville, Interim Resolution DH(99)254

H32- 28845 Venot, Interim Resolution DH(2000)19

H46- 29507 Slimane-Kaïd II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00

H46- 27362 Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

H54- 14032 Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

H32- 17572 A.C.

Section 6

H54- 25201 Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

H46- 34791 Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H54- 24767 Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

H46- 31070 Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

H32- 20282 G.B. I

H32- 23321 Delbec I, Interim Resolution DH(98)15

- Length of civil proceedings

H46- 53118 Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46- 39066 Donnadieu, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 35589 Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46- 41943 L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 47575 Marks and Ordinateur Express, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H32- 29877 Pauchet and others - Interim Resolution DH(98)100

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

H54- 36313 Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

H54- 36317 Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

H54- 32217 Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

H54- 33441 Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

H46- 48215 Lutz, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H46- 47007 Arnal, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46- 51575 Baillard, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 04/09/02

H32- 31842 Darmagnac Pierre V, Interim Resolution DH(98)388

H46- 42189 H.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 40493 Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46- 42276 Julien Lucien, judgment of 14/11/2002, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 57753 C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46- 44211 Lacombe, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46- 44617 Leray and others, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46- 43288 Mahieu, judgment of 19/06/01

H32- 25309 Maljean, Interim Resolution DH(97)239

H46- 46708 Zaheg, judgment of 9/02/02, final on 19/05/02

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Conseil d’Etat

H46- 38249 Arvois, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

H46- 28660 Ballestra, judgment of 12/12/00, final on 12/03/01

H46- 33207 Blaisot C. and M., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46- 36932 Caillot, judgment of 04/06/99, final on 04/09/99

H46- 42401 Camps, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 09/04/01

H46- 54757 Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46- 41449 Durrand I, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46- 42038 Durrand II, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46- 30979 Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00

H46- 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

H46- 44066 Grass, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46- 41001 Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

H46- 37387 Lambourdiere, judgment of 02/08/00, final on 02/11/00

H46- 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 10/07/02

H32- 32510 Peter, Interim Resolution DH(99)132

H46- 33989 Thery, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46- 38042 Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

Section 6

- Length of proceedings before the labour courts

H32- 39966 De Cantelar, Interim Resolution DH(2000)86

H46- 38398 Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

H46- 47194 Leboeuf, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46- 44791 Marcel, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46- 33951 Caloc, judgment of 20/07/00

- 2 cases against Germany

H46- 54999 Axen, Teubner and Jossifov, judgment of 27/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 33900 P.S., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 04/09/02

- 39 cases against Greece

H46- 47734 Adamogiannis, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46- 46356 Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H54- 19233+ Tsirlis and Kouloumpas, judgment of 29/05/97

H54- 24348 Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97

H54- 23372+ Larissis and others, judgment of 24/02/98

H54- 18748 Manoussakis and others, judgment of 25/09/96

H46- 38178 Serif, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46- 34369 Thlimmenos, judgment of 06/04/00

H46- 38703 Agoudimos and Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co., judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46- 37098 Antonakopoulos, Vortsela and Antonakopoulou, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 21/03/00

H54- 21522 Georgiadis Anastasios, judgment of 29/05/97

H46- 41209 Georgiadis Dimitrios, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H32- 34373 Goutsos, Interim Resolution DH(99)558

H54- 18357 Hornsby, judgment of 19/03/97

H46- 31107 Iatridis, arrêts des 25/03/99 and 19/10/00 (Article 41) – Grand Chamber

H46- 53478 Sajtos, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H32- 32397 Sinnesael, Interim Resolution DH(99)130

H46- 28802 Tsavachidis, judgment of 21/01/99 - Friendly settlement

H46- 43622 Malama, judgments of 01/03/01, final on 05/09/01 and du 18/04/02 (Article 41), final on 18/07/02

H46- 25701 Former King of Greece, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini, judgments of 23/11/00 and of 28/11/02 (Article 41) - Grand Chamber

- Length of civil proceedings

H46- 30342 Academy Trading Ltd and others, judgment of 04/04/00

H46- 40434 Kosmopolis S. A., judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

H46- 46380 LSI Information Technologies, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

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

H46- 42079 E.H., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46- 41459 Fatourou, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46- 41867 Messochoritis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H54- 20323 Pafitis and others, judgment of 26/02/98

H46- 38971 Protopapa and Marangou, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

Section 6

H46- 38704 Savvidou, judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

H32- 34569 Société anonyme Dimitrios Koutsoumbos, société technique, commerciale and touristique, Interim Resolution DH(99)271

H46- 47891 Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46- 40437 Tsingour, judgment of 06/07/00, final on 06/10/00

H46- 38459 Varipati, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/01/00

H46- 55611 Xenopoulos, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 04/09/02

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46- 37439 Agga, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H54- 19773 Philis 2, judgment of 27/06/97

H54- 28523 Portington, judgment of 23/09/98

H32- 32857 Stamoulakatos Nicholas I, Interim Resolution DH(99)49

H32- 24453 Tarighi Wageh Dashti

- 11 cases against Italy

H46- 33993 Messina No. 3, judgment of 24/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003

H46- 41221 Troiani Marcello II, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 10/07/02

H32- 27253 Biasetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)356

H46- 44955 Mancini Vittorio and Luigi, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

H32- 25650 Santandrea, Interim Resolution DH(99)357

H46- 47247 Mercuri, judgment of 11/04/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31227 Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

H32- 16609 Intrieri, Interim Resolution DH(97)50

H54- 14025 Zubani, arrêts des 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

H46- 34896 Craxi II, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

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

H46- 41232 Quartucci, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Latvia

H46- 50108 Kulakova, judgment of 18/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 10 cases against Lithuania

H46- 48297 Butkevičius, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H46- 37975 Graužinis, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46- 36743 Grauslys, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46- 34578 Jėčius, judgment of 31/07/00

H46- 47679 Stašaitis, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46- 42095 Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01

H46- 44558 Valašinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46- 44800 Puzinas, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46- 55479 Slezevicius, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46- 47698 Birutis and others, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

Section 6

- 3 cases against Malta

H46- 25642 Aquilina, judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46- 25644 T.W., judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46- 35892 Sabeur Ben Ali, judgment of 29/06/00, final on 29/09/00

- 11 cases against the Netherlands

H46- 32605 Rutten, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46- 25989 Van Vlimmeren and Van Ilverenbeek, judgment of 26/09/00

H46- 31465 Sen, judgment of 21/12/01, final on 21/03/02

H32- 14084 R.V. and others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

H46- 28369 Camp and Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

H46- 29192 Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

H46- 31725 Köksal, judgment of 20/03/01 – Friendly settlement

H46- 33258 Holder, judgment of 05/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46- 36499 Samy, judgment of 18/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 34549 Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

H46- 26668 Visser, judgment of 14/02/02

- 11 cases against Poland

H46- 34611 Dacewicz, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

H46- 31382 Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46- 38670 Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

H46- 25874 Kawka, judgment of 09/01/01

H46- 33310 H.D., judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 24244 Migoń, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

H46- 32499 Z.R., judgment of 15/01/02 – Friendly settlement

H46- 33885 Kawka Eryk, judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

H46- 55106 Górka, judgment of 05/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 51669 Pałys, judgment of 11/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46- 67165 Sędek, judgment of 06/05/2003 - Friendly settlement

- 6 cases against Portugal

H46- 49671 Ferreira da Nave, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46- 29813+ Almeida Garret, Mascarenhas Falcao and others, judgments of 11/01/00

and 10/04/01

H46- 37698 Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

H54- 15777 Matos and Silva and 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

H46- 33290 Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

H46- 53793 Morais Sarmento, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Romania

H32- 32922 C.C.M.C., Interim Resolution DH(99)333

- 2 cases against San Marino

H46- 24954 Tierce and others, judgment of 25/07/00

H46- 35396 Stefanelli, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

Section 6

- 16 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46- 24530 Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

H46- 29032 Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

H46- 32686 Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

H46- 41384 Varga, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- Length of civil proceedings

H46- 34753 Jóri, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46- 40058 Gajdúšek, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46- 47804 Havala, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46- 39752 Matoušková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46- 48672 Nemec and others, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46- 40345 Stančiak, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H46- 38794 J.K., judgment of 23/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 62171 Lancz, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 41783 Polovka, judgment of 21/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 46843 Remšíková, judgment of 17/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 65640 Rotrekl, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46- 43377 Žiačik, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

- 2 cases against Slovenia

H46- 29462 Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

H46- 28400 Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

- 12 cases against Switzerland

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

H46- 33958 Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46- 27798 Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

H54- 23224 Kopp, judgment of 25/03/98

H46- 54273 Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

H46- 37292 F.R., judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46- 33499 Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46- 27426 G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46- 28256 M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46- 27154 D.N., judgment of 29/03/01 - Grand Chamber

H32- 27613 P.B., Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)83

H54- 19800 R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678

- 119 cases against Turkey

H46- 30944 Öcal, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 29295+ Ecer and Zeyrek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46- 34686 Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 29495 Erdemli, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/10/01

Section 6

H46- 32983 Çavuşoğlu, judgment of 06/03/01 - Friendly settlement

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

H46- 24669 Karataş and Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46- 31249 Gündüz and others, judgment of 14/11/01 – Friendly settlement

H46- 25144 Sadak Selim and others, judgment of 11/06/02, final on 06/11/02

- Independence and impartiality of the State security courts

H46- 42739 Özel Yaşar, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46- 29851 Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

- Action of the Turkish security forces

H46- 31882 Çakmak, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

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

H46- 31849 İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

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

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

H46- 31733 Tuncay and Ozlem Kaya, judgment of 08/11/01 - Friendly settlement

H46- 28505 Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46- 28011 Yeşiltepe, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

- Length of the detention on remand / on custody

H46- 34481 Filiz and Kalkan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 31850 Günay and others, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46- 31877 Gündoğan Halil, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46- 29296 İğdeli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H46- 36971 Kuray, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H46- 34684 Yolcu, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

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

H46- 25756 Dalkılıç, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

H46- 24737+ Satık, Camlı, Satık and Maraşlı, judgment of 22/10/2002, final on 22/01/2003

- Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46- 19264 Aktaş and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H32- 22907 Atatür A. and M., and Pamir, Interim Resolution DH(2000)84

H46- 19266 Baltekin Rıza, judgment of 30/01/2001, final on 30/04/2001

H46- 20132 Bilgin Burhan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 20133 Bilgin Leyli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 19267 Bilgin Mehmet and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 20134 Bilgin Münir, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 19268 Bilgin Saniye and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

Section 6

H46- 19269 Bozkurt and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19272 Çalkan and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 20136 Canlı, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 19273 Çapar, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19274 Çelebi Hamdi, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19275 Çelebi Yusuf, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 20139 Çelebi Mehmet No. 3, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46- 19276 Çiplak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19277 Daniş, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 68117 Denli Nesibe, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 23/10/02

H46- 19278 Erol, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19280 Gökgöz, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19281 Gökmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 20142 Günal Kazım, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 19270 Ilhan Buzcu and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 20143 İnce Fehmiye, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46- 19283 Işik Ayşe and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19284 Işik Yilmaz and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19286 Karabulut Sefer, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19271 Nuriye Buzcu, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 30448 Önel Ahmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46- 30948 Önel Mehmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46- 30446 Önel Temur, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46- 30447 Özel Hacı Bayram, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46- 31964 Özel Hacı Osman, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46- 19287 Özen, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 19288 Öztekin, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46- 20153 Şen Ismet, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 20156 Şen Kemal, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 20154 Şen Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 20158 Taşdemir Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46- 38916 Atalağ, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 38915 Bayram Abdullah Naci, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 35867 Bayram and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 37414 Birsel and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 26543 Çallı, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 38931 İ.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46- 35050 Karabıyık and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 33322 Özdiler and Bakan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 33419 Özdiler Hasan Doğan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 35079 Özkan and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46- 35866 Ünlü Dudu, judgment of 27/06/202 - Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46- 31880 Adıyaman, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 32964 Akçam, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 33362 Akyazı, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 29280 Başpınar, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 29913 Binbir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 26480 Bürkev, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 29912 Çilengir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 32981 Dede and others, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46- 29699 Dinleten, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

Section 6

H46- 31891 Genç, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 39428 İnan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 28291 Kanbur, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 32990 Karademir, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 32987 Keskin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 29360 Ketenoğlu Gülşen and Ketenoğlu Halil Yasin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46- 29700 Metinoğlu, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 29701 Özcan Süleyman, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 31960 Pekdaş, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 31961 Şahin Metin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46- 29702 Sarıtaç, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 28002 Tamer, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46- 29911 Uygur, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 31834 Yağız Hasan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46- 29703 Zülal, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46- 31312 Eğinlioğlu, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement

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

H46- 29921 Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

- 21 cases against the United Kingdom

H46- 36533 Atlan A. and T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H46- 24265 Devenney, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46- 48521 Armstrong, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

H46- 24724 T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46- 24888 V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46- 45276 Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H54- 24839 Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

H32- 27237 Govell, Interim Resolution DH(98)212

H32- 26109 Santa Cruz Ruiz, Interim Resolution DH(99)

H54- 24838 Steel, Lush, Needham, Polden and Cole, judgment of 23/09/98

H46- 35394 Khan, judgment of 12/05/00, final on 05/10/00

H46- 28901 Rowe and Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

H46- 35718 Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

H46- 33274 Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

H46- 39360 S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H54- 20605 Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Interim Resolution DH(1999)725

H46- 36670 Duyonov and others, judgment of 02/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46- 32340 Curley, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46- 28945 T.P. and K.M., judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

H46- 44787 P.G. and J.H., judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46- 37471 William Faulkner, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING
(863rd MEETING, 2-3 December 2003)

(See Addendum Preparation of the next meeting)

Action

[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] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2.

[5] Nine years and eight months of which elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

[6] Five years and seven months of which elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

[7] Nine years and seven months of which elapsed since Poland recognised the right of individual application.

[8] Confirmation of payment of costs and expenses / Confirmation du paiement des frais et dépens.

[9] Inclusion of cases in this Section does not exclude the possibility that general measures may be examined at subsequent meetings.

[10] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) (DH).

[11] This case also appears in section 2.

[12] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) (DH).

[13] 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).

[14] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) (DH) in order to examine it together with similar cases.

[15] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) (DH).

[16] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) (DH).

[17] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003) (DH) in order to examine it together with the group of Trzaska and others cases.

[18] 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).

[19] Certain cases may be registered in two different sections.

[20] 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).

[21] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[22] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[23] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[24] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b for one part of the just satisfaction.

[25] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[26] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[27] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[28] This case also appears in sub-section 4.1

[29] These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.2

[30] This case also appears in sub-section 4.3

[31] These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.3

[32] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[33] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[34] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[35] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[36] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[37] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[38] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[39] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[40] This case also appears 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

[43] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[44] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[45] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[46] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[47] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[48] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[49] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[50] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[51] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[52] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[53] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[54] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[55] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[56] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[57] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[58] This case also appears in sub-section 5.3

[59] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[60] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[61] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a, for one part of the just satisfaction.

[62] This case also appears in sub-section 4.3

[63] These cases, except the friendly settlements, also appear in sub-section 4.3

[64] The time-limit of 12/08/2002 only applies to the following applicants: Gennaro Frattini, Mario Marra, Pasquale Mele and Elia Longobardo. For Mr. Lombardo’s heirs, the time-limit for payment has expired on 26/05/2003.

[65] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[66] This case also appears in sub-section 4.3

[67] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[68] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[69] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[70] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[71] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[72] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[73] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[74] These cases also appear in sub-section 4.2

[75] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[76] Inclusion of cases in this Section does not exclude the possibility that general measures may be examined at subsequent meetings.

[77] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[78] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[79] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[80] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[81] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[82] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[83] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[84] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[85] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[86] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[87] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[88] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[89] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[90] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[91] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[92] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[93] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[94] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[95] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[96] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[97] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[98] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[99] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[100] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[101] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[102] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[103] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[104] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[105] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[106] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[107] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[108] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[109] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[110] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[111] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[112] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[113] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[114] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[115] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[116] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[117] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[118] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[119] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[120] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[121] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[122] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[123] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[124] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[125] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[126] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[127] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[128] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[129] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[130] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[131] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[132] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[133] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[134] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[135] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[136] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[137] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[138] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[139] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[140] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[141] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[142] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[143] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[144] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[145] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[146] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[147] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[148] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[149] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[150] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[151] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[152] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[153] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[154] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[155] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[156] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[157] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[158] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[159] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[160] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[161] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[162] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[163] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[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

[167] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[168] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[169] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[170] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[171] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[172] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[173] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[174] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[175] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[176] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[177] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[178] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[179] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[180] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[181] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[182] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[183] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[184] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[185] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[186] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[187] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[188] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[189] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[190] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[191] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[192] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[193] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[194] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[195] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[196] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[197] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b

[198] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[199] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[200] This case also appears in sub-section 3.c

[201] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[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.a

[205] The cases in bold also appear in Section 3

[206] This case also appears in sub-section 3.b.

[207] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[208] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[209] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a

[210] This case also appears in sub-section 3.a