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 1276 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		841	834	827	819	810	803	798	792	783	775	764
General Questions							-	-	-	1689	-	-
1.1		3	4	8	2	12	0	11	6	3	4	15
1.2		4	53	2	0	6	11	36	26	1	4	1
1.3		15	47	18	4	11	4	8	7	8	3	20
1.4		17	56	44	10	36	25	2	8	7	8	9
2		76	99	52	108	154	277	142	213	83	115	92
3.1.a		469	439	546	677	638	568	536	418	388	390	314
3.1.b		170	165	129	110	89	116	70	58	54	41	169
3.1.c		40	40	39	38	39	36	36	34	36	34	31
3.2		-	-	-	-	-	1	2	-	-	7	0
4.1		10	15	6	15	17	15	8	5	13	36	15
4.2		82	156	78	116	112	91	78	82	65	139	52
4.3		5	123	2174	2155	5	71	72	4	4	3	1463
5.1		39	33	25	32	21	13	12	17	18	17	21
5.2		-	1	0	1	-	0	0	-	-	0	0
5.3		4	7	5	11	7	16	3	1	10	7	14
5.4		-	0	0	0	-	0	0	-	-	0	0
6		372	355	406	377	318	351	324	317	336	299	173
Total of the cases on the Agenda[2]		1276	1479	3151	3186	1456	1595	1340	1196	2725	1107	2373
Total of final resolutions submitted		39	160	72	16	65	40	57	47	29	19	45
Total of new cases		76	99	52	108	154	277	142	213	83	115	92
Total of pending cases		3312	3380	3370	3327	3276	3187	2964	2958	2649	2624	2531

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 to all the authorities involved has been requested in all these cases.

SECTION 3 – JUST SATISFACTION

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

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

Sub-section 3.1 – control of payment:

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

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

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

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

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

Sub-section 3.2 – Decisions on just satisfaction

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

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

SECTION 4 – CASES RAISING SPECIAL QUESTIONS

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

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

Sub-section 4.1 – Supervision of individual measures only

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

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

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

Sub-section 4.3 – Special problems

This title groups together complex cases raising special problems.

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

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

SECTION 5 – SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

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

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

Sub-section 5.1 – Legislative and/or regulatory changes

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

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

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

Sub-section 5.3 – Publication / dissemination

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

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

Sub-section 5.4 – Other measures

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

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

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

SECTION 6 – CASES 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.

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.

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 (847th (8-9 July 2003)) see page 109

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

- 2 cases against France

H46-2 33933 Guisset, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/09/00

H32-3 31603 Hermant

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46-1078 41761 Scheele, judgment of 17/05/01, final on 17/08/01

SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

- 4 cases against France

H32-4 27518 A.S.

H32-5 35259 Nagler

H46-6 38687 Djaid, judgment of 29/09/99, final on 29/12/99

H32-7 26496 Société Fruehauf France

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

- 14 cases against France

H46-8 32872 Peltier, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 21/08/02

H46-9 46280 Benzi, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-10 38945 Francisco, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-11 49622 Goubert and Labbe, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-12 50996 Grand, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H46-13 42588 Linard, judgment of 25/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-14 44485 Moullet, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H46-15 45573 Moyer, judgment of 25/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-16 41946+ Ribes J.M. and M.A., judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-17 51818 Société Comabat, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H46-18 49342 Dunan, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-19 49350 Ivars, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-20 37257 Lucas, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

H46-21 32033 Thurin, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46-22 21156 G.J., judgment of 26/10/00

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

- 1 case against Austria

H46-917 36075 Siegl, judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against Hungary

H46-23 42373 Bódine Bencze, judgment of 01/10/02 – Striking-out following a friendly

settlement

H46-24 43352 Kósa, judgment of 01/10/02 – Striking-out following a friendly settlement

- 8 cases against Italy

H46-25 34742 A.M.M., judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-26 57206 Virgulti, judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-27 36112 C. Srl, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-28 38043 Ciccone, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-29 35001 Franceschetti, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-30 41624 Calvagno, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-31 33115 Fabbrini, judgment of 15/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-32 43986 Pugliese Rosalba, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46-33 45165 Matthies-Lenzen, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

H46-34 41263 Konček, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- 4 cases against Sweden

H46-1125 26978 Beck, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1126 28222 Muonio Saami Village, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1127 32531 Jakola, judgment of 06/03/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1128 30526 De Laczay Ervin and Olga, judgment of 24/09/02 - 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 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: Karagiannis and others (reserved), Nastou (reserved), Craxi II, Sałapa, Segal (reserved).

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

Section 2

- 1 case against Austria

*H46-35 36519 Petschar, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of certain proceedings related to civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts and the alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for her property in respect of the length of these proceedings (complaints under Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

- 1 case against Bulgaria

H46-36 38822 Shishkov, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to be brought promptly before a judge authorised by law to exercise judicial power from August 1997 to February 1998 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 (about seven months and three weeks) 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 lawyer did not have access to the case-file and the lack of clarity of the legal provisions, in force at the relevant time, which did not provide for a regular control of the detention (violation of Article 5§4).

The present case, apart from the point concerning the access to the case-file, 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.

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

- 1 case against Croatia

H46-37 58115 Čuljak and others, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

The case concerns the excessive length of three civil proceedings introduced in 1994 and 1997 and still pending before the court of first instance (violation of Article 6§1). When the European Court rendered its judgment, they had lasted respectively more than 8 years for the first two cases (the periods falling under the jurisdiction of the European Court being more than 5 years) and more than 5 years.

The second proceedings, concerning the seizure of a vehicle by the police, was stayed under the terms of the Law of 29/10/1999 which provides that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from acts of members of the Croatian army or police committed during the war in Croatia were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.

This case presents similarities to the Horvat group, to be examined in section 4.2 at this meeting apart from the issue concerning the stayed legislation.

Possible individual and/or general measures: acceleration of the three sets of proceedings pending before the court of first instance; publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to those authorities, which are concerned by the case; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

- 1 case against Estonia

H46-38 45771 Veeber Tiit (No. 2), judgment of 21/01/03, final on 21/04/03

The case concerns the sentencing of the applicant on charges of tax evasion, confirmed by the Supreme Court on the 8/04/1998 for acts committed between 1993 and 1996, under Article 148-1 §7 of the Penal Code which entered into force on 13/01/1995. The European Court found that the courts had retrospectively applied this provision to acts which previously did not constitute a criminal offence (violation of Article 7§1). It also noted that a considerable number of the acts of which the applicant was convicted had been committed exclusively before January 1995 and that the sentence imposed took into account the acts committed both before and after that date.

The applicant was sentenced to three years, six month’s imprisonment suspended for two years.

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.

- 10 cases against France

H46-39 46802 Mac Gee, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns an infringement of the principle of equality of arms and of the right to a fair trail during proceedings before the Criminal Chamber of the Cour de cassation (violation of Article 6§1) The Cour de cassation had ruled in 1998 on an appeal lodged by the applicant without communicating either the two parts of the report of the conseiller rapporteur or the conclusions of the Advocate General to the applicant or to his lawyer, neither of which could therefore answer them.

The applicant’s appeal has been rejected, so that the imposition of a 100 000 FRF fine and 6 months’ imprisonment suspended became final.

This case present similarities with that of Slimane-Kaïd II (judgment of 25/01/2000), which appears in Section 6 of the present agenda.

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.

H46-40 31520+ Richen and Gaucher, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the unfairness of certain proceedings before the Criminal chamber of the Cour de cassation. The applicants chose to defend themselves without being represented by a member of the Bar of the Cour de cassation. Consequently, they did not benefit from the practice – reserved to members of that Bar – according to which the content of the Advocate General’s submissions are transmitted to defendants’ counsel, who thus have the opportunity to reply in written form to the court when it is deliberating. Their right to adversarial proceedings was infringed (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicants’ appeals were rejected in 1995 and 1996 respectively. Accordingly the respective sentences to a 2 000 FRF fine and a 2-month driving-licence suspension and to a 2 200 FRF fine and a 2-week driving-licence suspension became final.

The case presents similarities to those of Voisine (judgment of 08/02/2000), in Section 6 of this agenda, and Meftah and others (judgment of 26/07/2002), in section 3.b of this agenda.

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

Section 2

H46-41 50528 Coste, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a court on account of the declaration by the Cour de Cassation in 1998, in application of former Article 583 of the Criminal Code of Procedure, that his appeal on points of law had lapsed because he had not obtained a dispensation from his obligation to surrender to custody, and had not so surrendered, before the examination of his appeal, because of an urgent hospitalisation (violation of article 6§1).

This case is similar to the Khalfaoui case (judgment of 14/12/1999), which is in Section 6 as a result of measures taken, in particular the abrogation of Article 583 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Law of 15/06/2000 on the presumption of innocence.

Possible individual measure: it is open to the applicant to ask for the re-opening of the appeal on the basis of Articles 626-1 to 626-7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

H46-42 43627 Molles, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 8/08/1991 and were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (more than eleven years before one single level of jurisdiction, notwithstanding the referral of the case to another jurisdiction; in particular the case has been pending more than eight years before the tribunal d’instance of Nyons, which finally held that it had no jurisdiction).

Possible individual or general measures: accelerate the proceedings.

H46-43 43722 Wiot, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 24/08/1992 and were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (almost ten years and four months).

Possible individual or general measures: acceleration of the proceedings; publication of the judgment of the European Court.

*H46-44 49613 Garon, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

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

H46-45 39282 Laidin Monique No. 2, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings before administrative courts, following psychiatric confinements (violation of article 6§1) brought between March 1988 and November 1990.

Lengths of proceedings	Cases pending
1^st proceeding: 7 years and 14 months (2 degrees), 5 years and 9 months of which before the Conseil d’Etat	No
2^nd proceeding: 8 years and 4 months (3 degrees), 5 years and 9 months of which before the Conseil d’Etat	No
3^rd proceeding: 4 years and 8 months (1 degree)	No
5^th proceeding: 4 years and 8 months (1 degree)	No

Section 2

The case also concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings introduced in June 1989 before the civil courts: more than 11 years and 4 months, for 3 degrees (violation article 6).

Furthermore the case concerns the fact that, when the application was made, no effective remedy was available in this respect either in administrative law (see in this regard the Lutz judgment of 26/03/2002 in Section 6 following provision of information confirming that an effective remedy now exists before administrative tribunals) or in civil law (on this point the European Court noted that application for compensation under Article L 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation had, since the facts at the origin of the present case, acquired sufficient legal certainty to be considered effective – see the Court’s decisions in Giummarra and others (12/06/2001) and Mifsud (11/09/2002)) (violations of Article 13).

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

H46-46 50368 Heidecker-Carpentier, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-47 48954 Traore, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

These cases concern the excessive length of certain sets of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1). In the Heidecker-Carpentier case, the proceedings started on 10/01/1990 and ended on 23/03/2000 (10 years, 2 months and 13 days, for one single instance). In the Traore case, the proceedings as a whole began on 09/09/1992 and were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (more than 9 years and 2 months).

Possible individual or general measures: acceleration of the proceedings which are still pending in the Traore case; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-48 42279 Diard, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the length of certain proceedings relating to civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (complaint under Article 6§1).

- 2 cases against Greece

H46-49 51354 Karagiannis and others, judgment of 16/01/03, final on 16/04/03

H46-50 51356 Nastou, judgment of 16/01/03, final on 16/04/03

The case of Karagiannis and others concerns interference in the applicants’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as a result of the occupation of their land by the Navy Fund in 1967 and the decision of 29/01/2001 granting compensation for the expropriation without taking into account the period of the occupation of their land (violations of Article 1 of Protocol n° 1).

The Nastou case concerns the lack of compensation for the expropriation of the applicants’ land in 1973 (violation of Article 1 of Protocol n° 1).

Both cases also concern the excessive length of proceedings concerning the recognition of the applicants’ ownership in the context of the expropriation of their land. The proceedings started in 1967 and in 1973 and had lasted respectively more than 35 and 29 years to date, including a period of more than 17 years after Greece had recognised the right of individual petition (violations of Article 6§1).

These cases present similarities in particular to the Tsirikakis case (judgment of 17/01/02), to be examined in Section 4.2 at this meeting and the cases of Yagtzilar (judgment of 06/12/01) and the Hatzitakis (judgment of 11/04/02), which were examined in Section 2 at the 810th meeting.

Possible individual and/or general measures: Acceleration of the proceedings pending before the Athens Superior Court; publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to civil courts and to the competent administrative authorities.

Section 2

- 1 case against Hungary

H46-51 43649 Hegedűs, judgment of 25/03/03 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings (complaint under Article 6§1).

- 29 cases against Italy

H46-52 34896 Craxi II, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

The case concerns the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in the Eni-Sai case, as a result of which in 1994 the applicant was sentenced in absentia to five years’ and six months’ imprisonment for corruption. His conviction in this case was based exclusively on statements made before the trial by four co-accused, the applicant not having been allowed to examine these statements or to have them examined, in conformity with the legislation in force at that time (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3d). This case presents similarities with the Paolo Dorigo case (Interim Resolutions DH(99)258 and (2002)30), which will be re-examined at the latest in October 2003.

Individual measures: The applicant died in January 2000, without serving the impugned sentence.

General measures: Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as modified in November 1999, gives Constitutional rank to a number of requirements contained in Article 6 of the Convention. This new constitutional provision has been implemented by Law No. 63 of 1/03/2001, which amends inter alia Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the law now in force, pre-trial statements made without respecting the adversarial principle by co-accused persons cannot be used in proceedings against a person without his consent (unless the judge establishes that the co-accused person’s refusal to be cross-questioned in the proceedings is the result of bribery or threats). This rule applies not only to statements made in the context of the same proceedings but also to those made in other proceedings.

*H46-53 40601 Guerrera and Fusco, judgment of 03/04/03

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain compensation proceedings for expropriation before the civil courts, which lasted more than 13 years from 1986 to 2000 for two degrees of instance (violation of Article 6§1).

The case is similar to, among others, the case of Ceteroni (judgment of 15/11/96), which will be re-examined at the latest in April 2004.

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 reexamine 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 July 2003 (see press releases of 05/12/02 and 13/02/03).

Section 2

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

H46-54 35550 Auditore, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-55 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-56 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-57 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-58 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-59 30883 Esposito Paola, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-60 34454 Fleres, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-61 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-62 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-63 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-64 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-65 32766 Immobiliare Sole Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-66 32391 M.C., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-67 31923 M.P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-68 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-69 32644 Sanella, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-70 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-71 33227 Scurci Chimenti, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-72 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-73 35006 Zazzeri, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-74 33909 Fiorani, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-75 33696 L. and P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

These cases mainly concern mainly the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions. The European Court concluded in the first 20 cases 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 these cases, the Court also concluded that, as a result of the legislation at issue, rendering eviction orders nugatory, the applicants had been deprived of their right to have their disputes decided by a court, contrary to the principle of the rule of law (violations of Article 6§1).

In the cases of Fiorani and L.P., the applicants only complained about the length of the eviction proceedings (respectively 8 years and 9 months, from 1987 to 1996, in the Fiorani case and 5 years, from 1991 to 1997, in the L. & P. case) and the Court concluded that it had been excessive (violations of Article 6§1).

All these cases are similar to the case of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99, which will be examined in July 2003 in the light of a draft interim resolution.

Possible 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 1996 and 2001, i.e. between 5 and 14 years after the eviction decisions had been issued.

General measures: During the examination of the above-mentioned case Immobiliare Saffi, 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, due to the lack of police forces available for this task and to the recurrent adoption of new legislation suspending evictions (for example, they are currently suspended until 30/06/2003). 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.

Section 2

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

*H46-76 35969 Giannatiempo, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-77 64450 Gianni Francesco, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-78 55674 Matta, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-79 43616 Tamma, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-80 54612 Zito and Corsi, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

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, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6§1).

These cases are similar to the case of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99, which will be examined in July 2003.

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-81 35731 Venema, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

The case concerns in particular a breach of the right of the applicants (parents and their daughter, a minor) to respect for their family life in that they were not involved in the decision-making process before the Child Welfare Board and the Juvenile Judge which led in 1995 to the adoption of provisional orders providing for the separation of the daughter from her parents and her being taken into public care and placed in a foster home on account of the mother’s alleged psychological problems which were not properly substantiated (Violation of Article 8).

After a separation of five months and eighteen days, the daughter was returned to her parents.

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

- 4 cases against Poland

H46-84 29537+ Radaj, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

H46-82 35489 Sałapa, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

(No debate envisaged)

These cases both concern the violation by prison authorities of the applicants’ right to respect for his correspondence with the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights (violations of Article 8). The European Court considered that the legislation applicable at the time of the facts did not set out sufficiently clearly the scope and modalities of exercise of the public authorities’ discretionary powers in this regard.

The Sałapa case also concerns the fact that upon his arrest the applicant was not brought before a judge or other officer exercising judicial power (violation of Article 5§3). The case further relates to the unfairness of the judicial proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the detention in that the law, as it stood at the relevant time, did not respect the principle of "equality of arms" between the prosecutor and the detained person (violation of Article 5§4).

These cases present similarities to the Niedbała case (judgment of 4/07/2000, Resolution ResDH(2002)124), which was closed on the basis of the legislative and other measures adopted by Poland to prevent new, similar violations.

Section 2

H46-83 30218 Nowicka, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 03/03/03

The case concerns the applicant’s detention on remand, who refused to submit to psychiatric examinations ordered by a court in the framework of a private prosecution for criminal libel against her, which started in 1994. The European Court considered that the applicant’s detention – on two occasions – was intended to ensure that she complied with her obligation under a judicial order, but that in view of the length of the detention (83 days in all) the public authorities had not respected the balance to be established between the importance of ensuring immediate compliance with this obligation and the right to freedom (violation of Article 5§1).

The case also relates to unjustified restrictions on family visits during the applicant’s detention (violation of Article 8).

Possible individual and/or general measures: publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgement to criminal courts and to competent medical authorities; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-85 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03[4]

(No debate envisaged)

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 13/06/1994 and were still pending before the appellate court when the European Court delivered its judgment (eight years and six months for two degrees of jurisdiction).

The case presents similarities to other cases relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings in Poland (e.g. Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/1998) for examination under sub-section 5.1 of the current meeting for supervision of general measures.

Possible individual or general measures: acceleration of the proceedings.

- 9 cases against Romania

H46-86 33353 Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-87 32936 Dragnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46-88 32977 Gavrus, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46-90 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46-91 36039 Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

H46-92 33355 Popescu Nata, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

H46-93 33631 Savulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-94 32927 Segal, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

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). 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).

General measures (No debate envisaged on this aspect): These cases present similarities to that of Brumărescu against Romania (judgments of 28/10/99 and 23/01/01) which has been 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

Possible individual measures: As far as the Nagy case is concerned, the measures capable of solving the conflict between the contradictory property titles are to be discussed at the meeting. On the one hand, the state obtained a property title based on the Supreme Court’s decision of 1995 (annulling the previous final decision which restored ownership of the apartment to the applicant) and obtained the right to note this title in the property register in February 1999. On the other hand, the applicant had bought the apartment from the state in 1975 (and is occupying it) and noted his right in the register in March 1999.

In addition, in the Savulescu case, domestic proceedings concerning claims and compensation are still pending.

H46-89 33176 Mosteanu and others, judgment of 26/11/02, rectified on 04/02/03, final on 26/02/03

This case involves an infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court, in that the Bucharest Court of Appeal and inferior courts had decided in 1995 that courts had no jurisdiction concerning the legality of the nationalisation of the applicants’ property in 1950 (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court indicated that this case is similar, as far as the right of access to a court is concerned, to the Brumărescu case (judgments of 28/10/99 et 23/01/01) which was examined in Section 4.2 of the 834th meeting (April 2003) for supervision of general measures. Changes made to the legislation and case-law (especially Article 6 of Law No 213/1998 and the judgment of 28 September 1998 of the full Supreme Court) recognise the right of access to a court for former owners of nationalised property. Nevertheless, the impact of Law No 10/2001 on this issue is not totally clear.

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

- 4 cases against the Slovak Republic

Affaires de durée de procédure civile

*H46-95 62171 Lancz, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-96 56452 Nezbeda, judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-97 65640 Rotrekl, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

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

H46-98 43377 Žiačik, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 20/12/1996 and ended on 30/01/2002 (five years, one month and ten days).

General measures have already been adopted to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and avoid new violations, particularly in the context of the examination of the Jóri case (Section 6).

Section 2

- 7 cases against Turkey

H46-99 25756 Dalkılıç, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the applicant’s prolonged detention in police custody in 1994 (15 days) and the impossibility for her to challenge promptly the lawfulness of her detention before a judge as the length of the detention was in conformity with the legislation applicable at the time and consequently the impossibility to obtain compensation in that respect (violation of Articles 5§3, 5§4 and 5§5).

The case presents similarities to Sakık and others against Turkey (judgment of 26/11/1997) which was closed by a final resolution, ResDH(2002)110, following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

*H46-100 24351 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03

(No debate envisaged)

The case relates to the applicant's brother's death as a result of torture inflicted on him in custody in 1990 in South-East Turkey by members of security forces and to the lack of effective investigation by the authorities into these events (violations of Articles 2, 3 and 13). The Court furthermore found that the Turkish Government had fallen short of their obligations to furnish all necessary facilities to the Commission and Court in their task of establishing the facts (violation of Article 38§1a, former Article 28§1a).

General measures: This case presents similarities to some 45 cases relating to the action of Turkish security forces in which the Committee has adopted two Interim Resolutions (DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98) summing up the progress achieved in the execution of the judgments and pointing out the outstanding issues. At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Committee re-examined the follow-up given to the judgments and its resolutions (see CM/Inf(2003)12 and CM/Inf(2003)12-Add). The Committee will resume consideration of these matters at its 854th meeting (October 2003).

Friendly settlement cases concerning action of the security forces and containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

*H46-101 28292 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-102 46649 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-103 28516 Macir, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-104 31865 O.O. and S.M., judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

*H46-105 28308 Yıldız Zeki, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern in particular allegations of ill-treatment during custody, the death of applicants’ relatives and the destruction of property in the course of operations conducted by security forces between November 1992 and October 1994 in Izmir, Adana,Tunceli, Muş and Şanlıurfa (complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13,14, 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1).

According to the friendly settlements, the Turkish Government, in addition to payment of compensation, undertakes among other things to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all the necessary measures – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – to ensure that the right to life and the prohibition of such forms of ill-treatment are respected in the future. The Government also referred to the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of execution of other similar judgments.

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

Section 2

- 2 cases against Ukraine

*H46-106 39042 Kuznetsov, judgment of 29/04/03

*H46-107 38812 Poltoratskiy, judgment of 29/04/03

The cases concern the poor conditions of the applicants' detention between 1996 and 2000 on the “death row” of the Ivano-Frankivsk prison, found by the European Court to amount to degrading treatment, due in particular to the prolonged confinement of the applicants in very restricted living space without natural light and the virtual impossibility of any activity or human contact (violations of Article 3). The cases also concern the failure to carry out an effective official investigation into allegations of assaults by prison authorities (violations of Article 3). The Court also found that the Ukrainian authorities' interferences with the applicants' rights to private and family life and to freedom of thought were not in accordance with the law as their detention was governed until 1999 by an internal instruction inaccessible to public (violations of Articles 8 and 9).

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

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-108 53236 Waite, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

The case concerns the fact that the applicant, who had been released on licence from detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure in 1994, had had no possibility to challenge the lawfulness of his re-detention in that he had not had an oral hearing before the Parole Board in September 1997 when he was re-imprisoned (violation of Article 5§4).The case also concerns the impossibility for applicant to obtain compensation for this violation under domestic law (violation of Article 5§5).

The applicant was freed again in 1998 but once more recalled to prison in 1999 following his arrest for possession of drugs.

As regards Article 5§4, this case presents similarities to Hussain and Singh (judgments of 21/02/1996) against the United Kingdom which were closed by final resolutions, DH(98)149 and DH(98)150 respectively.

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

H46-109 49771 Jordan Stephen No. 2, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (almost 4 years and 8 months), brought against the applicant in 1995 before a court-martial (violation of Article 6§1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to relevant domestic authorities and courts, possibly accompanied by an explanatory circular letter to avoid new, similar violations; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-110 65334 Atkinson, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that as a widower he had been subject to discrimination on grounds of sex in that the social security benefit for widowed parents, the Widowed Mother’s Allowance, was available only to women (complaint under Article 14 together with Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case present similarities with the Crossland, Cornwell and Leary cases (see Resolutions ResDH(2000)81, ResDH(2002)95 and ResDH(2002)96 respectively adopted in these cases).

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION

Action

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

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

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

- 2 cases against Austria

H46-111 34994 Walter, judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-112 37295 Yildiz M., G. and Y., judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

- 9 cases against Belgium

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-113 32576 Wynen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-114 49797 De Plaen, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[5]

H46-115 49522 Dooms and others, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[6]

H46-116 49546 Lefebvre, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[7]

H46-117 49794 Oval S.P.R.L., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[8]

H46-118 49495 S.A. Sitram, judgment of15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[9]

H46-119 49497 Teret, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03 – Striking-out

H46-120 37370 Stratégies and Communications and Dumoulin, judgment of 15/07/02, final on 15/10/02[10]

- Default interest to be paid

H46-121 51564 Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/02

- 1 case against Croatia

H46-122 45435 Radoš and 4 others, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03[11]

- 4 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-123 47273 Běleš and others, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-124 46129 Zvolský and Zvolská, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-125 36548 Pincová and Pinc, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-126 36541 Bucheň, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

Section 3.a

- 1 case against Estonia

H46-127 37571 Veeber, No. 1, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

- 37 cases against France

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-129 49544 Butel, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-131 54210 Papon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

H46-132 42400 Seguin, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 06/11/02[12]

H46-133 51279 Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02[13]

H46-134 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

H46-135 38396 Karatas and Sari, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

H46-136 33424 Nouhaud and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-137 41358 Desmots, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 06/11/02[14]

H46-138 51179 Solana, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 04/09/02[15]

H46-139 45172 Fentati, judgment of 22/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-140 41376 D.M., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02[16]

H46-141 43125 Delbec Annick No. 3, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02[17]

H46-142 33395 L.R., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02[18]

H46-143 43191 Laidin, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03[19]

- Default interest to be paid

H46-585 44797+ Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02[20]

H32-144 25971 Proma di Franco Gianotti, Interim Resolution DH(99)566

H46-145 37971 Sociétés Colas Est, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-146 44952+ Van der Kar and Lissaur Van West, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-147 39278 Langlois, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-148 33592 Baumann, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

H46-149 41476 Laine, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-150 40096 Versini, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46-151 41526 Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-152 39273 Vermeersch, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

H46-153 48167 Hababou, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-154 42195 Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

H46-155 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber[21]

H46-156 40472 Tricard, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46-157 29731 Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

Section 3.a

H46-158 47631 Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/04/01

H32-159 31677 Watson John, Interim Resolution DH(2000)20

H46-160 44070 Beljanski, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-161 44069 G.B. II, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

H46-162 53613 Goth, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

H46-163 33023 Meier, judgment of 07/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-164 35683 Vaudelle, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 06/09/01

H46-165 37794 Pannullo and Forte, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

- 12 cases against Greece

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-166 61351 Mentis, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-167 62530 Vitaliotou, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-168 37095 Pialopoulos and others, judgments of 15/02/01, final on 15/05/01 and of 27/06/02, final on 06/11/02[22] (Article 41)

- Default interest to be paid

H46-169 47730 Entreprises Meton and Etep, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-170 48392 Hatzitakis, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-171 48679 AEPI S.A., judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-172 46356 Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-173 49215 Angelopoulos, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-174 46806 Sakellaropoulos Yeoryios, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-175 46352 Logothetis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01 and judgment of 18/04/02 (Article 41), final on 18/07/02

H46-176 49282 Marinakos, judgment of 04/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-177 47020 Kolokitha, judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

- 345 cases against Italy

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-178 57574+ Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement[23]

H46-179 36732 Pisano, judgment of 24/10/02 – Striking-out - Grand Chamber

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

H46-180 34819 Cau, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-181 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-182 32589 D.V. II, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-183 32577 Folli Carè, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-184 32006 Gnecchi and Barigazzi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-185 32392 L. and P., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-186 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-187 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-188 31129 Merico, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-189 30530 Rossi Luciano, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-190 31223 T.C.U., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-191 33252 Tona, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

Section 3.a

H46-192 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-193 30972 V.T., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-194 53231 Bologna, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-195 35997 Candela, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-196 37888 Cecchi Ida, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-197 34435 Di Tullio, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-198 60660 Ferretti Maria Grazia, judgment of 06/03/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-199 39451 Fiorentini Vizzini, judgment of 19/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-200 42414 G.G. V, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-201 39690 Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-202 57636 Gramiccia, judgment of 06/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-203 55673 Savarese, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-204 36734 Visca, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- Civil courts

H46-205 56084 At.M., judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-206 52975 Gucci, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02, revised judgment on 01/10/02,

final on 01/01/03

- Administrative courts

H46-207 44341 Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-208 44347 Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-209 44350 Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-210 44337 Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-211 44349 Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-212 44340 Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-213 38594 Mereu and S. Maria Navarrese, judgment of 13/06/02, final on 13/09/02

H46-214 44348 Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-215 44351 Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

- Criminal proceedings

H46-216 38576 Barattelli Carlo, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-217 41863 Boldrin Stefano, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-218 37249 Casadei Roberto, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-219 35991 Del Federico Alberto, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-220 42619 Di Vuono Bernardo, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-221 43621 F.M., judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

H46-222 44173 Mucciacciaro Raffaele, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-223 42287 Pascazi Domenico, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-224 45789 Pugliese Massimo, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

H46-225 43915 Rocci Luigi, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-226 42291+ Tumbarello and Titone, judgment of 04/07/02, final on 04/10/02

H46-227 41424 Nuvoli, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

- Labour courts

H46-228 51127 Carolla, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised judgment on 28/11/02,

final on 28/02/03

H46-229 51156 Fasulo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, rectified 12/09/02

H46-230 51103 Gattone and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised judgment on

03/10/02, final on 03/01/03

H46-231 51090 Scaccianemici, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised judgment on

03/10/02, final on 03/01/03

H46-232 52831 Simone and Pontillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised judgment on

03/10/02, final on 03/01/03

H46-233 44416 Viola, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, revised judgment on 07/11/02,

final on 07/02/03

Section 3.a

- Default interest to be paid

H46-234 31260 Lamperi Balenci, judgment of 21/02/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-235 28724 Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

H46-236 25639 F.L., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-237 26772 Labita, judgment of 06/04/00, final on 06/04/00

H46-238 30882 Pellegrini Maria Grazia, judgment of 20/07/01, final on 20/10/01

H46-239 15918 Antonetto, judgment of 20/07/00, final on 20/10/00

H46-240 28168 Quadrelli, judgment of 11/01/00, final on 20/03/00

H46-241 33354 Lucà, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-242 26161 Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

H46-243 19734 F.S. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)209

H46-244 41852 Vaccaro, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-245 39221+ Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

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

H46-246 31143 Indelicato, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 18/01/02

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

H46-247 46079 Biffoni, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-248 31928 F. and F., judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-249 47895 Sartorelli, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

- Civil courts

H46-250 44481 A.C. VII, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-251 46515 Adriani, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-252 46964 Alpites S.P.A., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-253 47785 Angemi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-254 48412 Ar.M., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-255 46958 Ardemagni and Ripa, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-256 39900 Artuso Paolo, Interim Resolution DH(99)569

H32-257 39137 Avallone, Interim Resolution DH(99)475

H46-258 44511 Bellagamba, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-259 40977 Beltramo, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-260 44431 Beluzzi and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-261 39883 Bertozzi, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/04/00

H46-262 44442 Bevilacqua, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-263 36811 Bielectric S.R.L., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-264 44437 Bocca, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-265 39121 Bolla, Interim Resolution DH(99)480

H46-266 44457 Bonelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-267 44436 Buffalo s.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-268 46534 Burghesu, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-269 46980 C.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-270 35292 Calandrella F., P. and 2 others, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

H46-271 39881 Capodanno, judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/04/00

H46-272 45071 Capurro and Tosetti, judgment of 28/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-273 46526 Carboni, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-274 45859 Caruso Giuseppina, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-275 45861 Cavallaro, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-276 36620 Ceriello, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H46-277 46537 Cerulli and Zadra, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-278 45869 Chiappetta, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-279 46959 Circo and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-280 44504 Citterio and Angiolillo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

Section 3.a

H46-281 47779 Ciuffetti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-282 46532 Conte Gaspare and others, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-283 40979 Conte Riccardo II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-284 47774 Conti Giuliana, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-285 44385 Cornaglia, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-286 46527 Corsi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-287 35616 Coscia, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H46-288 46538 Costantini Francesco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-289 44500 Cova, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-290 45880 Cultraro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-291 46536 D.C. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-292 40954 D’Alessandro, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-293 44513 D’Ammassa and Frezza, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, revised judgment

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

H46-294 45872 D’Annibale, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-295 17482 D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28

H46-296 40216 D’Arrigo and Garrozzo, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-297 52921 Damiano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-298 40566 De Cicco Concetta, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

H32-299 40580 De Lorenzi, Interim Resolution DH(99)588

H46-300 49372 De Pilla, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-301 42520 De Simone Pasquale, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-302 39138 Di Fant I, Interim Resolution DH(99)488

H32-303 39139 Di Fant II, Interim Resolution DH(99)489

H46-304 44446 Di Girolamo and 6 others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-305 46976 Di Motoli and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-306 46520 Dorigo Franco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-307 44480 E.G., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-308 44519 E.M. II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-309 39906 Emmebiemme S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(99)592

H46-310 40982 Erdokovy, judgment of 01/02/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-311 46524+ F., T. and E., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-312 46533 F.L.S., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-313 39164 F.S.p.A. II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-314 46971 F.T., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-315 26012 Facciolini, Interim Resolution DH(96)648

H46-316 46968 Falconi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-317 52972 Falzarano Carmine, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-318 47781 Farinosi and Barattelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-319 45870 Ferrazzo and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-320 45868 Filippello Giorgio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-321 38145 Focardi and Conti, Interim Resolution DH(99)287

H46-322 46965 Franceschetti and Odorico, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-323 38118 Fraschetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)288

H46-324 44397 G.B. IV, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-325 37131 G.M.N., judgment of 02/11/99, final on 02/11/99

H32-326 38503 G.P. and 25 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)388

H46-327 46543 G.S. and L.M., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-328 47786 G.V. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-329 46963 Galiè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-330 46528 Giannalia, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-331 47773 Gianni, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-332 45860 Giuseppe Nicola and Luciano Caruso, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-333 40968 I.F., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-334 44418 I.P.E.A. S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

Section 3.a

H46-335 39116 I.R., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-336 44447 Ianniti and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-337 46516 Il Messaggero S.a.s. II, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-338 46517 Il Messaggero S.a.s. III, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-339 46518 Il Messaggero S.a.s. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-340 46519 Il Messaggero S.a.s. V, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-341 47777 Ilardi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-342 44508 Immobiliare Il Messaggero del geometra Antonio Iorillo, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-343 46530 Iulio, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-344 40924 L. S.r.l., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-345 46542 Lanino, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-346 31341 Lazzari and Scagnoli, Interim Resolution DH(97)637

H46-347 45853 Lo Cicero, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-348 40571 Lo Sardo, Interim Resolution DH(99)606

H46-349 46523 Lonardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-350 46962 Lucas International S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-351 44406 M. S.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-352 46961 Maletti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-353 40978 Mantini, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-354 28725 Manzi A., B. and L., Interim Resolution DH(97)254

H46-355 40956 Marchetti, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-356 44443 Marchi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-357 46957 Marcolongo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-358 44517 Mari and Mangini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-359 44422 Marzinotto, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-360 46966 Massaro, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-361 46979 Mastrantonio Francesca, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-362 44420 Mauri, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-363 46973 Morelli and Nerattini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-364 44490 Murgia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-365 39872 Nata, Interim Resolution DH(99)617

H46-366 46522 Nolla, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-367 44494 O.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-368 44468 P.B. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-369 40570 Padalino V. and G., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-370 40952 Paderni II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-371 21707 Panissa, D., G. and A. Vittonetto

H32-372 39155 Perilli and Gigotti Micheli, Interim Resolution DH(99)509

H46-373 45070 Persichetti and C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-374 44380 Pettirossi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-375 28936 Piccinini II, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-376 39899 Pirilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)623

H46-377 45065 Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-378 46967 Procaccianti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-379 46969 Procopio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-380 44412 Quattrone Pasquale, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-381 45058 Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-382 44465 Rigutto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-383 43098 Romano, judgment of 28/09/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-384 35328 Roselli Italo II, Interim Resolution DH(98)440

H46-385 44479 Rosetti e Ciucci and C., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-386 44527 Rossana Ferrari, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-387 44472 Rossi Valeria, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-388 44461 Sacchi Roberto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

Section 3.a

H46-389 38135 Sanna, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H46-390 44466 Santoro Valerio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-391 47780 Santorum, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-392 45854 Savino, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-393 44419 Sbrojavacca Pietrobon, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-394 36621 Scalvini, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H46-395 44491 Sonego, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-396 44470 Spada, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-397 56094 Sposito, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-398 39705 Spurio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-399 39865 Staffolani, Interim Resolution DH(99)635

H46-400 44417 Tagliabue, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-401 38102 Talenti, Interim Resolution (2001)58

H46-402 44486 Tebaldi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-403 44425 Tedesco Michele, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-404 46539 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.P.A. VII, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-405 45068 Toscano and others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-406 44488 Vecchi and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-407 44528 Vecchini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-408 44534 Venturini Alberto I, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-409 40586 Verini II, Interim Resolution DH(99)639

H46-410 40599 Vicari II, judgment of 15/02/00

H46-411 44395 Visentin, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-412 37166 Vitale and others, judgment of 02/11/99

H46-413 44445 W.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-414 44462 Zanasi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-415 37079 Zironi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

- Administrative courts

H46-416 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-417 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

H46-418 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-419 41807 Centioni and others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-420 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-421 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-422 41813 Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-423 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-424 41812 Piccirillo Aldo, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-425 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

H46-426 41814 Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

- Court of Audit

H46-427 41823 Pascali and Conte, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-428 39175 Sileo, Interim Resolution DH(99)524

- Labour courts

H46-429 40363 Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-430 43063 Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-431 40975 Bucci, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-432 43094 C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-433 42999 Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-434 43020 Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-435 36615 Cappello, Interim Resolution DH(99)212

H32-436 38095 Cardillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)317

H46-437 46521 Ciccardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

Section 3.a

H46-438 42996 Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-439 44532 Colacrai, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-440 43088 Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-441 43086 Cosimo Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-442 43087 Cosimo Rotondi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-443 43083 D’Addona Simone, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-444 43017 D’Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-445 43059 D’Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-446 40960 Dattilo, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-447 43054 Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-448 43051 Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-449 43062 Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-450 46975 Di Gabriele, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-451 43030 Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-452 43022 Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-453 46978 F.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-454 45855 Fr.C., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-455 43056 Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-456 43058 Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-457 43096 G.A. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-458 43093 G.P. VI, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-459 43075 Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-460 37170 Giampietro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-461 38975 Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-462 43050 Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-463 43074 Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-464 39124 Guagenti, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-465 43072 Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-466 43091 Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-467 42998 Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-468 43101 Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-469 43021 Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-470 43067 Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-471 43065 Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-472 43102 Lepore T., Lepore M. and Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-473 43068 Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-474 43095 M.C. X, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-475 43010 Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-476 37160 Marsicovetere, Interim Resolution DH(99)221

H46-477 43000 Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-478 43018 Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-479 43069 Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-480 43057 Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-481 43064 Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-482 43100 Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-483 43076 P.T. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-484 43012 Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-485 43052 Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-486 43061 Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-487 43060 Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-488 43023 Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-489 46974 Risola, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-490 43019 Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-491 43055 Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-492 43099 Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

H46-493 43085 Silvio Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-494 42997 Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-495 43084 Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-496 46960 Trimboli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-497 43016 Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-498 43070 Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-499 43109 Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-500 43015 Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-501 43066 Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

- Criminal courts

H46-502 38878 Ciacci, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-503 42351 Del Giudice, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01

H46-504 45267 F.R. and 3 others, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-505 41603 G.B.Z., L.Z. and S.Z., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 15/02/00

H46-506 41094 Giannangeli, judgment of 05/07/01, final on 05/10/01

H46-507 32646 Guerresi, judgment of 24/04/01, final on 24/04/01

H46-508 41893 Martinez, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-509 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00[24]

H46-510 44943 Orlandi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-511 29898 Patanè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-512 30132 Pepe Umberto, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

H32-513 36733 Perilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)427

H32-514 24170 Pesce Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)468

H46-515 37118 Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-516 26806 U.O. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)52

H32-517 26781 U.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)129

H32-518 26782 U.O. III, Interim Resolution DH(98)130

H46-519 43199 Visintin, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

- Criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

H46-520 45856 Bacigalupi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-521 45857 Comella and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-522 45858 Tesconi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-523 58442 Lavents, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-524 34462 Wessels-Bergervoet, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02 and judgment of 12/11/02 (Article 41) – Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

- 9 cases against Poland

H46-525 26761 Płoski, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-526 33885 Kawka Eryk, judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

H46-527 55106 Górka, judgment of 05/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-528 37443 Lisiak, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03[25]

H46-529 71891 Hałka and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02[26]

H46-530 40330 Piechota, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03[27]

H46-531 37645 Sawicka, judgment of 01/10/02, final on 01/01/03[28]

H46-532 48684 Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02[29]

H46-533 65660 W.Z., judgment of 24/10/02, final on 24/01/03[30]

- 7 cases against Portugal

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-534 38830 Czekalla, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-535 49671 Ferreira da Nave, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46-536 48956 Gil Leal Pereira, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

H46-537 49279 Koncept-Conselho em Comunicação e Sensibilização de Públicos, Lda, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

H46-538 50843+ Longotrans - Transportes Internacionais Lda, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-539 53793 Morais Sarmento, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-540 48187 Rosa Marques and others, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

- 13 cases against Romania

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-541 35831 Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-542 33627 Baragan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-543 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-544 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02, rectified on 09/07/02

H46-545 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

H46-546 32925 Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02, rectified on 27/05/03

H46-547 29769 Curutiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03, rectified on 27/05/03

H46-548 32943 Falcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02, rectified on 27/05/03

H46-549 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02[31]

H46-550 30698 Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-551 33358 Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02, rectified on 27/05/03

H46-552 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02,

final on 21/08/02

Section 3.a

- Default interest to be paid

H46-553 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01

(rectification) – Grand Chamber

- 3 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-554 47804 Havala, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-555 39752 Matoušková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-556 41783 Polovka, judgment of 21/01/03 - Friendly settlement

- 12 cases against Turkey

H46-557 27692+ Karakoç and others, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

H46-558 42739 Özel Yaşar, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46-559 28002 Tamer, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-560 24737+ Satık, Camlı, Satık and Maraşlı, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-561 37087 Bekmezci and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement, rectified on

19/09/02 and 03/04/03

H46-562 28493 Küçük Yalçın, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

H46-563 24914 Öztürk Ayşe, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

H46-564 37721 Erkanlı, judgment of 13/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-565 32574 Algür, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-566 37088 Özkur and Göksungur, judgment of 04/03/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-567 29864 H.K. and others, judgment of 14/01/03 - Friendly settlement

- Default interest to be paid

H46-568 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

- 11 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-569 33218 E. and others, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 10/01/03[32] [33]

H46-570 44652 Beckles, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-571 32771 Cuscani, judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

H46-572 48539 Allan, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-573 47114 Taylor-Sabori, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-574 42116 Somjee, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

H46-575 36042 Willis, judgment of 11/06/02, final on 11/09/02

H46-576 42007 Davies, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02, rectified on 13/09/02

H46-577 46477 Edwards Paul and Audrey, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46-578 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber

H46-579 28957 Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber

- 1 case against the « former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia »

H46-580 58185 Janeva, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

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

SATISFACTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT

EXPIRED MORE THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

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

Expiry date

of the time-limit set

- 5 cases against France

H46-581 44451 A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 19/12/2001

H46-582 39626 Granata, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02 19/09/2002

H46-583 56198 Société Industrielle d’Entretien and de Service (Sies),

judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02 19/09/2002

H46-584 32911+ Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/02 - Grand Chamber 26/10/2002

H46-130 38748 Immeubles Groupe Kosser, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02[34] 21/09/2002

- 141 cases against Italy

H46-586 20855 Esposito Luigi, judgment of 25/05/00 - Friendly settlement 25/08/2000

H46-587 33202 Beyeler, judgments of 05/01/00 (merits) and du 28/05/02 (Article 41) 28/08/2002

H46-588 34714 Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement 18/10/2002

- Civil courts

H46-589 44421 Galasso, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-590 44501 Il Messaggero S.A.S. VI, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-591 51708 I.M., judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

H46-592 51668 Lopriore, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

H46-593 51672 Selva, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

H46-594 41803 Pupillo, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00; judgment revised

on just satisfaction of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02 18/06/2002

H46-595 44409 Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02,

rectified 04/07/02 04/07/2002

H46-596 56101 Mesiti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

H46-597 56093 Società Croce Gialla Romana S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02,

final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

H46-598 51664 Rodolfi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-599 41740 Diebold, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-600 44413 Guerrera Angelo Giuseppe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-601 47479 Mastromauro S.R.L., judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H32-602 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673 22/10/2002

- Administrative courts

H46-603 44330 Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement 19/03/2001

H46-604 41806 Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-605 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-606 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-607 35956 Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-608 44525 Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

Section 3.b

H46-609 44379 Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-610 44343 Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-611 44352 Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-612 44345 Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-613 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02 06/06/2002

H46-614 44333 V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

H46-615 56226 Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-616 56222 Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-617 56206 Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-618 56208 Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-619 56202 Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-620 56224 D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-621 56217 De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-622 56205 Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-623 56225 Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-624 56221 Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-625 56212 Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-626 56203 Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-627 56204 Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-628 56207 Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-629 56220 Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-630 56211 Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-631 56213 Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-632 56223 Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-633 56219 Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-634 56214 Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-635 56215 Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-636 56201 Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-637 56218 Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-638 44334 Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

- Labour courts

H46-639 43097 Nicoli, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement 22/09/2000

H46-640 52924 Frattini and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02,

judgment revised on 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03[35] 12/08/2002

H46-641 51031 Aceto and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-642 51089 Armellino Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-643 52824 Belviso and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-644 52804 Bianco Pellegrino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-645 52816 Biondi and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-646 51030 Biondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-647 52835 Cerbo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-648 52801 Ciarmoli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-649 52815 Cimmino and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-650 52807 Ciullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-651 52821 Colangelo Domenico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-652 51164 Crovella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-653 51163 D’Angelo Michele, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-654 51125 De Filippo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-655 51027 Del Vecchio Anna Rita, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-656 51155 Della Ratta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-657 52813 Di Meo and Masotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

Section 3.b

H46-658 52846 Di Meo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-659 51092 Di Mezza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-660 51091 Ferrara Clementina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-661 52843 Franco and Basile, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-662 51161 Gagliardi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-663 52830 Giannotta and Iannella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-664 51094 Iacobucci and Lavorgna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-665 51170 Izzo Giovanni, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-666 52802 Lagozzino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-667 52812 Lavorgna and Iorio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-668 52822 Macolino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-669 52819 Mancino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-670 51169 Marotta Alberto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-671 51168 Martino Alfonso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-672 52827 Mastrocinque Mafalda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-673 51167 Matera Tommasina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-674 52845 Mazzarelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-675 52818 Meola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-676 52840 Mongillo Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-677 44428 Nardone Antonio, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/08/2002

H46-678 52832 Nero and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-679 51029 Ocone, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-680 51114 Paduano, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-681 52829 Pallotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-682 51022 Palmieri Mario Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-683 52841 Panza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-684 52837 Pascale and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-685 52842 Pascale Elda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-686 52826 Pascale Maria Annunziata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-687 51162 Pengue, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-688 52808 Perna Giuseppina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-689 52828 Petrillo and Petrucci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-690 51025 Petrillo Gino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-691 51024 Porto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-692 52825 Pucella and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-693 51126 Raccio Emilia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-694 51109 Restuccio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-695 52820 Riccardi Vicenzina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-696 52823 Romano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-697 52844 Romano Rosa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-698 52833 Santagata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-699 51165 Santina Pelosi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-700 40151 Sciarrotta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/08/2002

H46-701 52839 Tanzillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-702 52836 Tazza and Zullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-703 52810 Tazza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-704 52809 Truocchio Edmondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-705 51166 Truocchio Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-706 51124 Tudisco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-707 52817 Urbano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-708 51026 Uzzo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-709 52811 Villari, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-710 52847 Viscuso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-711 51028 Vitelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

Section 3.b

H46-712 52814 Zoccolillo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-713 52800 Zuotto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02 28/08/2002

H46-714 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

- Court of Audit

H46-715 54307 Meleddu, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement 21/05/2002

H46-716 54316 Betti, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-717 54293 Chiappetta Domenico, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-718 54287 Ferrari Sergio, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-719 54299 Libertini and Di Girolamo, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-720 44359 Marrama, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-721 54286 Strangi, judgment of 07/05/02 – Friendly settlement 07/08/2002

H46-722 54282 Amici, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-723 54278 Leonardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-724 54312 Manna, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-725 54319 Sportola, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

- Criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

H46-726 46970 Contardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

- 4 cases against Poland

H32-727 27506 Owczarzak, Interim Resolution DH(99)260 17/03/2002

H46-728 38328 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02[36] 04/04/2002

H46-729 32499 Z.R., judgment of 15/01/02 – Friendly settlement 15/04/2002

H46-730 34052 Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02[37] 15/05/2002

- 4 cases against Portugal

H46-731 44298 Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02 14/08/2002

H46-732 49020 F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement 16/08/2002

H46-733 48233 Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement 30/08/2002

H46-734 48752 Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement 30/08/2002

- 16 cases against Turkey

H54-735 15318 Loizidou, judgment of 18/12/96 (merits) and 28/07/98 (just satisfaction)

- Interim Resolutions DH(99)680, DH(2000)105

and ResDH(2001)80 [38] 28/10/1998

H46-736 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00 15/09/2000

H46-737 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01 10/04/2001

H46-738 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01 04/07/2001

H46-739 34688 Akin, judgment of 12/04/01 12/07/2001

- Delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46-740 19265 Atak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

H46-741 19279 Göçmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

Section 3.b

H46-742 19285 Karabulut Cemile and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/2001

H46-743 19303 Şen Celal and Keziban, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01 10/10/2001

H46-744 27694 A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-745 19660 Çalkan Dudu, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-746 20140 Çelebi Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-747 20144 Kartal Adile, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-748 20152 Özen Mehmet, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-749 20151 Öztürk Ahmet, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-750 20155 Şen Aziz No. 2, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

3.c EXAMINATION OF SPECIAL PAYMENT PROBLEMS (FOR EXAMPLE THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE APPLICANT, DISPUTES REGARDING THE EXACT AMOUNT PAID AS A RESULT OF EXCHANGE RATE PROBLEMS OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES)

Question of payment of default interest because of late payment of sums under friendly settlements

- 2 cases against Italy[39]

H46-751 53708 Mas A. and 207 others, judgment of 07/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-752 53705 M.L. and 46 others, judgment of 05/04/01 – Friendly settlement

Item to be prepared by the GR-H (general principle of default interest)

(see Addendum General Questions for the synopsis of the first meeting of the

GR-H on this issue)

Other payment problems

- 38 cases against Turkey

H46-753 30947 Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-754 26093+ B.T. and others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-755 28340 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-756 25182+ Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01

H46-757 25724 Cihan, judgment of 30/01/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-758 31963 Özel and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-759 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00

H46-760 27697+ Yaşar and others, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46-761 19310 Yilmaz Hamit, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-762 19308 Yilmaz Zekeriya, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-763 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/02 - Friendly settlement

In these cases the applicants and/or the Secretariat have identified various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems concern mostly more or less substantial shortfalls in payment, due among other things to currency conversion and/or delays in payment (default interest).

The Turkish authorities have undertaken to examine these problems with a view to settling the outstanding amounts due in accordance with the Court’s judgments. Information is awaited on the progress made to that effect.

H54-764 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-765 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-766 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and

ResDH(2002)98

H54-767 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-768 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-769 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

H46-770 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-771 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-772 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H32-773 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

Section 3.c

H46-774 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-775 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-776 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-777 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-778 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-779 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

In these cases, the applicants, their representatives and the Secretariat have raised various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems concern mostly more or less substantial shortfalls in payment.

During the examination of these cases in the Committee of Ministers, some concerns have been expressed about the comprehensive et persistent shortfalls in payment of just satisfaction et Turkey has been invited to remedy this problem urgently.

Following a bilateral meeting held in Strasbourg on 18/02/2002 between the Secretariat and a Delegation from Ankara, the Turkish authorities’ presented in April 2002 their own calculations in each of the outsteting cases. In many cases the shortfalls acknowledged by the authorities coincide with the figures submitted by the applicants (including the default interest et restitution of a stamp duty erroneously deducted from the payments). However, in some of the cases the calculations differ notably as the payment was not effectuated as prescribed by the Court as regards the place et/or the currency of payment.

On 07/06/2002, the applicants’ representatives responded to the Governments’ calculations by maintaining et further substantiating the sums claimed.

Between November 2002 and May 2003 the Secretariat, having examined the parties’ communications, has sent letters to the Turkish authorities concerning 20 cases giving the necessary details to facilitate payment in conformity with the judgments.

At the time of issuing of the present Annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the applicants’ representatives have informed the Secretariat about the full payment of the shortfall in 9 cases (see list above).

The confirmation of payment is still awaited in 11 other cases, in which the shortfall is clearly established.

Finally, the 5 cases in bold are still outstanding because the Secretariat does not possess sufficient information to establish exactly the sums that remain due. These cases will be addressed in future contacts between the parties and the Secretariat.

Theses 9 cases having been paid, the Secretariat proposes to postpone them to the 854th meeting (7 and 8 October 2003):

H46-780 23657 Çakici, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-781 20764 Ertak Ismail, judgment of 09/05/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H32-782 25658 Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolutions DH(99)560 and ResDH(2001)106

H46-783 22492 Kiliç, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-784 22947+ Akkoç Nebahat, judgment of 10/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-785 25801 Dulaş Zubeyde, judgment of 30/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H54-786 23178 Aydin, judgment of 25/09/97, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-787 22495 Yaşa, judgment of 02/09/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-788 22277 Ilhan Nasir, judgment of 27/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-789 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02[40]

H46-790 25656 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/02[41] [42]

Table summarising the total number of cases by States

State	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum (3.a capital sums)	Payment after expiration of the time-limit set and no confirmation of payment of the default interest due (3.a default interest)	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum although payment due since more than 6 months (3.b)	Special payment problems (3.c)
Austria	2	-	-	-
Belgium	8	1	-	-
Croatia	1	-	-	-
Czech Republic	4	-	-	-
Estonia	1	-	-	-
France	15	22	5	-
Greece	3	9		-
Italy	56	289	141	2
Latvia	1	-	-	-
The Netherlands	1	-	-	-
Poland	9	-	4	-
Portugal	7	-	4	-
Romania	12	1	-	-
The Slovak Republic	3	-	-	-
Turkey	11	1	16	29
The United-Kingdom	11	-	-	-
The “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”	1	-	-	-

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTION
(INDIVIDUAL MEASURES, MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS)

(See Addendum 4 for part or all these cases)

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise the progress made in the adoption of the implementing measures in the following cases raising several problems. Supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will be issued in Addendum 4. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these items on a case-by-case basis.

SUB-SECTION 4.1 – SUPERVISION OF INDIVIDUAL MEASURES ONLY[43]

- 1 case against France

H46-791 47160 Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

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).

- 1 case against Germany

H46-792 46544 Kutzner, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 10/07/02

The case concerns in particular the fact that decisions of German courts withdrawing the applicants’ parental authority in respect of their two daughters constituted interference in their right to respect for their family life (violation of Article 8). On 12/02/1997, the guardianship tribunal decided provisionally to withdraw the applicants' rights to choose where the children lived and to make decisions concerning the need for medical measures. At that time, the children were 6 and 4 years old. On 27/05/1997, the tribunal entirely withdrew the applicants' parental authority over their two children.

Individual measures: the German Government has informed the Committee that they are currently considering possible individual measures. The local authority convened a meeting on 08/08/2002 inviting the administration, the guardian, the parents, legal counsellors and human rights NGOs involved in this case. Furthermore, on 19/11/2002, the competent court appointed two psychological experts to examine whether and under what circumstances the children could be returned to their natural family without risk. The experts began work on 22/01/2003. On 11/03/03 a meeting took place at the Bersenbrücke Court. At that meeting, the experts asked for increased contacts between the parents and their children, pending the outcome of the final study. Further information in this respect is awaited.

General measures (No debate envisaged): the judgment of the European Court has been published in the Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (Volume 2002, pp. 244-251) and transmitted to all authorities concerned.

- 2 cases against Italy

H46-178 57574+ Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement[44]

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 Government has undertaken, in addition to the payment of certain sums to the applicants and to their lawyer, to revoke the deportation orders, to permit the applicants to enter Italy with their families and to issue them with residence permits on humanitarian grounds. Pending the finding of long-term accommodation for the applicants, the Government has undertaken to provide them with temporary accommodation. The Government has further undertaken to arrange for the children of school age to attend school and for a sick child to receive the medical attention she needs.

Sub-section 4.1

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. The deportation orders were revoked on 18/10/2002 and the applicants’ names removed from the “Schengen” database. All but two applicants re-entered Italy on 13 and 15/11/02, their travel being paid by the Italian authorities who also accepted to extend the time-frame agreed in the friendly settlement for the return of the two missing applicants. The applicants currently in Italy have been granted – on 25/11/02, 30/11/02 and 9/12/02 – residence permits on humanitarian grounds, valid for one year, allowing them to work and study in Italy. Some applicants have already been accommodated in an equipped camp where they already had some family and negotiations are under way to find suitable accommodation for two other families which are, for the time being, in a hotel at the state’s expense. Confirmation of payment to the three missing applicants is expected as well as information on the situation of two who have not re-entered Italy yet and on the execution of the undertakings made concerning the schooling and medical care of the children.

H54-793 12151 F.C.B., judgment of 28/08/91, Resolution DH(93)6 and Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)30[45]

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-834 47698 Birutis and others, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02[46]

- 2 cases against Portugal

H46-794 47460 Câmara Pestana, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings began on 29/06/1992 and were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court when the European Court delivered its judgment (9 years, 10 months).

Individual measures: Accelerating the proceedings, still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.

H46-795 43999 Martins Serra and Andrade Cancio, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

(No debate envisaged)

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 13/07/1992 and were still pending before the Court of Appeal of Oporto when the Court issued its judgment (9 years and 4 months).

Individual measures: Accelerating the proceedings, which are still pending before the Appeal Court of Oporto.

- 1 case against Turkey

H46-796 29900+ Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59

Addendum 4

The case concerns the violation of the right to a fair trial in proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court, which sentenced the four applicants, members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, to 15 years’ imprisonment in December 1994.

Sub-section 4.1

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.

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 are presently pending before the Court and have not yet been decided.

Sub-section 4.1

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 a first public hearing of the case was held by the same court on 28/03/2003. However, the applicants' request for suspension of the execution of the original prison sentence pending new trial was refused without motivation (see §3 of decision of 28/02/2003, Addendum 4), and the applicants thus remained in prison.

While welcoming the entry into force of the new Law and the reopening of the criminal proceedings in the applicants' case, regrets were expressed in the Committee at the fact that the execution of the original prison sentence was not suspended, although it had been imposed in an unfair trial impugned by the European Court. Some delegations stated that this situation was not in accordance with the European Court's judgment and that additional action by the Turkish authorities was therefore needed to put an end to all negative effects on the applicants of the violations found. The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this issue at the present meeting).

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". The Committee has not yet replied to this question.

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 4.1

- 2 cases against the United Kingdom

H54-797 19187 Saunders, judgment of 17/12/96, Interim Resolution DH(2000)27

H46-798 29522+ I.J.L., G.M.R. and A.K.P., judgment of 19/09/00

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right not to incriminate themselves and thus their right to a fair trial in that, at their trials, the prosecution made use of statements given earlier, under legal compulsion and in different proceedings, to Department of Trade and Industry Inspectors (violations of Article 6§1). After the Deputies had decided, on the basis of the information available at the time, to mandate the Secretariat to draft a resolution with a view to closing the examination of the first case, a complaint dated 15/04/2002 was received from the applicants to the effect that they have so far been unable to obtain redress.

Individual measures: The applicants complain in particular of certain obstacles encountered in the proceedings they had engaged in order to have their convictions re-examined and overturned following the European Court’s judgments. In support of their request, the applicants make a number of points, including the following:

Following the European Court’s judgments, their case was referred to the Court of Appeal for new examination by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as the latter had found that there was a real possibility that the Court of Appeal might not uphold the convictions because of the decisions of the European Court. In its decision of 21/12/2001, the Court of Appeal notably indicated that “…if we concluded that we were bound to give effect to the Strasbourg Court’s decision that the trial was unfair by examining anew the safety of the convictions, we would not uphold the convictions on the basis that they are safe in any event.” (§47).However the Court of Appeal did not find itself so bound under Article 46 of the Convention (especially §§50‑53). Neither did it uphold any other ground of appeal. Accordingly, it concluded that the convictions were safe and dismissed the appeal (§86). The applicants sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords. On 09/03/2002, the House of Lords granted leave to appeal.

In its judgment of 14/11/2002 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd021114/lyons-1.htm), the House of Lords notably concluded that courts were obliged to examine the safety of convictions according to the law as it stood at the time of the trial (see §§ 16,17,18, 29, 34, 59, 82, 96, 100 of the judgment). At the time of the trial, Section 434(5) of the Companies Act 1985 admitted answers given undercompulsory questioning as evidence although this was later found by the European Court in the present cases to violate Article 6 of the Convention. This provision was changed by Parliament by the 1999 Act which came into force on 14/04/2000. However,*the House recalled that it was established in the cases of R v Lambert(2001) 3 WLR 206 and R v Kansal (no.2)(2002) 2 AC 69 that a person who had been convicted at a trial which took place before the entry into force of the Human Rights Act (namely 2/10/2000) could not rely on the rights given by that Act in appeal against a conviction even if lodged after that date(see §§ 12, 18, 25, 61, 99 of the judgment).Finally, the House held that the domestic law of the UK did not permit the quashing of the convictions by reason only of the admission of the evidence in question (see §108 of the judgment) and unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by the applicants.

The position of the UK authorities was summarised by the Representative of the United Kingdom at the 798th meeting (June 2002), referring in particular to the following considerations: the authorities have done all that was required by the Court’s judgment (payment of just satisfaction and legislative reform to prevent recurrence of the violations found). Even if reopening of proceedings is a desirable measure in certain circumstances, the Convention does not require such a measure in all circumstances, and in particular not in respect of cases such as the applicants’. No question had indeed been raised before in these cases regarding any necessity of reopening the proceedings. Moreover, a requirement to reopen or to quash the applicants’ convictions could risk opening the floodgates to reopening requests in respect of cases in which there had been, or might have been, a violation of a Convention right at trial many years ago, something that would risk undermining the “controlled introduction” of the Convention rights into domestic law achieved

Sub-section 4.1

through the Human Rights Act. Furthermore, the adjournment request appeared primarily to be an attempt to bolster the arguments run domestically. If the appeal failed, this might, however, possibly give raise to an allegation of a fresh violation of the Convention. Such a complaint should, however, be pursued through the ordinary procedure before the European Court. In conclusion the Representative urged the Committee to agree to the closure of the cases.

At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Deputies decided, in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, not to close the cases but to pursue their examination and to resume consideration of the discussion at their 819th meeting (December 2002) with a view to examining the question of individual measures in the light of the outcome of the proceedings before the House of Lords.

At the 827th meeting (February 2003) the UK Delegation reiterated that the United Kingdom had complied with the requirements of the judgments and proposed to close these cases. The Secretariat recalled that other member states have given retroactive effect to their legislation on reopening when this has been necessary to solve pending cases. The UK Delegation was asked to comment on their position in writing and in particular to develop the reasons why a reopening would not be necessary under the Convention so as to facilitate the further discussions of the Committee on the issue.

In a letter of 03/04/2003, the applicants asked the Committee of Ministers to invite the United Kingdom to indicate what measures it intends to take in order that the consequences of the violations be erased as far as possible. Finally, they proposed that a full pardon be granted to each applicant if a reopening were to be impracticable.

The applicants have also presented an application to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the positions adopted by the United Kingdom authorities amount to violations of the Convention.

General measures: The legislative amendments announced in Interim Resolution DH(2000)27 have been adopted.

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

- 4 cases against Austria

H46-799 32899 Buchberger, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her family life in that, in 1994, during appeal proceedings, the Regional Court transferred custody of her sons to the Youth Welfare Office, relying on fresh evidence which had not been communicated to the applicant, depriving her of the opportunity to react to it and have a sufficient involvement in the decision-making process (violation of Article 8). This fact also constitutes a violation of the principle of equality of arms (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: In their letter dated 10/07/2002, the Government indicated to the Directorate General of Human Rights that the judicial decision concerning the transfer of the children’s custody to the Youth Welfare Office was not subject to revision. However, if new facts were to arise, the applicant could seise the court and request a new decision.

General measures: The Government provided to the Secretariat several decisions of the Supreme Court to illustrate its constant jurisprudence according to which the principle of equality of arms is fully implemented, even in proceedings conducted on a non-adversarial basis. These documents are currently being examined by the Secretariat.

H46-800 50110 Maurer, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-801 35673 Schweighofer and others, judgment of 09/10/01, final on 09/01/02

The cases concern the excessive length of several criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). In the Maurer case, the proceedings started in 1994 and lasted almost 5 years. In the Schweighofer case, the proceedings against the applicants were brought between 1985 and 1988 and lasted between 8 years and 11 years, out of which the preliminary investigations lasted between 1 year and 4 years.

General measures: At the 792nd meeting (April 2002), the Secretariat indicated that a constant, even if reduced, number of cases concerning excessive length of Austrian criminal proceedings was being examined by the Committee of Ministers each year. At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Austrian Delegation indicated that reforms of the law on criminal procedure were under examination by the Government. More information on this issue is awaited.

It may be noted that the European Court found that Austrian Law affords the possibility to request the acceleration of criminal proceedings (Section 91 of the Courts Act), but that this provision does not apply to delays caused by the Public Prosecutor.

The Austrian delegation subsequently sent the Secretariat additional information. At the time of issuing the presente annotated agenda and order of business, this information was being analysed by the Secretariat.

H46-802 24430 Lanz, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 31/04/02

The case concerns an interference with the applicant’s defence rights in that his contacts with his defence counsel during his detention on remand had taken place under the surveillance of the Investigating Judge (violation of Article 6§3b and c). It also concerns a breach of the principle of equality of arms in that the prosecution’s observations concerning the applicant’s request to be freed from detention on remand (made in November 1991), and concerning his plea of nullity and his appeal (made in 1993) had not been communicated to him (violation of Articles 5§4 and 6§1).

As regards the violations of Articles 5§4 and 6§1, the case presents similarities to that of Bulut (judgment of 22/02/1996) closed by Resolution DH(97)500 following a legislative amendment providing that communication of the observations may be dispensed with only if the prosecutor supports the accused or if the appeal of the accused is upheld in full by the tribunal.

General measures: The publication of the judgment and its wide dissemination to the criminal courts would be useful. At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Austrian Delegation indicated that legislative amendments were being prepared designed to remedy the violation of the Convention found by the Court. The Secretariat is waiting for written information concerning this reform.

Sub-section 4.2

- 10 cases against Belgium

H46-120 37370 Stratégies and Communications and Dumoulin, judgment of 15/07/02, final on 15/10/02[47]

The case concerns the length of criminal proceedings (investigation) which began on 24/04/1996, when searches were carried out at the company’s head office and the applicant’s home. The case was still in the hands of the investigating judge and had lasted 6 years and 2 months when the European Court rendered its judgment (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

In this respect, the European Court noted that the Law of 12/03/1998, which had entered into force on 02/10/1998 and amended Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code, introduced a remedy in domestic law making it possible to complain about the length of a criminal investigation. However, the Court noted that Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code raised issues in the domestic law which had not yet been resolved. Consequently, the Court found that Article 136 had not acquired sufficient legal certainty to constitute a remedy under the terms of Article 13 of the Convention.

Individual measure: Accelerate the proceedings pending.

General measures: As regards §55 of the judgment of the European Court, information is awaited concerning the measures taken in order to ensure that Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code acquires sufficient legal certainty to constitute a remedy under the terms of Article 13 of the Convention.

Cases concerning the length of civil proceedings

These cases (see table below) concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The European Court recalled that the chronic overload of one court (the Brussels Court of Appeal) did not provide a valid justification for the length of the proceedings.

Individual measures: information is awaited concerning the acceleration of the pending proceedings (De Plaen, Lefebvre, Oval S.P.R.L. and S.A. Sitram).

General measures: information is awaited concerning the publication of the most pertinent judgments of the European Court.

By a letter of 14/04/2003, the Belgian Delegation informed the Secretariat of the “measures taken by the Belgium Government in order to reduce the judicial backlog” by the law of 09/07/1997, which also provided the creation of supplementary chambers in charge of dealing with the backlog before the court of appeal of Brussels. The Belgian authorities also reported that the Council of Ministers of 17/03/2000, approved a Bill aimed at increasing the number of additional judges for the Brussels Appeal Court from 25 to 50. A law of 29/11/2001, set up a body of provisional advisors to absorb the backlog before appeal courts.

Sub-section 4.2

Item	Application	Case	Length of proceedings	Case pending
H46-803	50615	Boca, judgment of 15/12/02, final on 15/02/03	2 years and 3 months (summary proceedings: two degrees of instance)	No
H46-114	49797	De Plaen[48], judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03	Nearly 10 years and 10 months (two degrees of instance)	Yes
H46-115	49522	Dooms and others[49], judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03	More than 8 years and 1 month (the first seven applicants) ; 5 years and 5 months (the other nine applicants) (two degrees of instance)	No
H46-804	50566	Kenes, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03	More than 13 years (two degrees of instance)	No
H46-116	49546	Lefebvre[50], judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03	More than 8 years and 11 months (two degreesof instance)	Yes
H46-805	49332	Oren & Shoshan, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03	More than 8 years and 1 months (two degrees of instance)	No
H46-117	49794	Oval S.P.R.L.[51], judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03	More than 9 years and 8 months (two degrees of instance)	Yes
H46-806	50172	Randaxhe, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03	More than 8 years and 10 months (two degrees of instance)	No
H46-118	49495	S.A. Sitram[52], judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03	More than 6 years and 7 months (two degrees of instance)	Yes

- 1 case against Bulgaria

H46-807 50963 Al-Nashif and others, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

The case concerns the deportation of the first applicant, a stateless person, to Syria on 4/07/1999. The European Court considered that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to family life inasmuch as the applicable legal provisions did not give sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, the first applicant having been deported on the basis of considerations of national security exclusively within the discretionary power of the Minister of the Interior (violation of Article 8). The Court further found that the applicants had not had access to an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). The case finally concerns the fact that the first applicant had, under the applicable law, been given no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of his detention while awaiting deportation (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures: By letter of 02/12/2002, the applicant's lawyer indicated that he had introduced an application to reopen the judicial proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court with a view to lifting the ban on his entry to Bulgaria. At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the Bulgarian authorities were invited to keep the Committee informed of the outcome of these proceedings and of other possible measures taken to erase the consequences for the applicant of the violations found by the Court.

At the hearing held on 17/12/2002, the Supreme Administrative Court acknowledged that a judgment of the European Court constituted new evidence in the case. By decision of 08/05/2003 (No. 4332), the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the impugned judicial decisions on the ground of the European Court's judgment and referred the applicant's complaint back to the Sofia City Court for new examination.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the attention of the Bulgarian authorities was drawn to a number of problems in the legislation and regulations which were the basis of the violations found by the European Court in the present case (see notably Articles 46 and 47 of the Aliens Law). Particular attention was drawn to the fact that Bulgarian law does not provide for judicial review of the lawfulness of aliens' detention in case of their expulsion on the grounds of national security (cf. Court's finding under Article 5§4). The Bulgarian authorities have thus been invited to bring the domestic law in line with the Convention so as effectively to prevent new violations similar to those found in the present judgment. It was suggested that the experience of other countries which had been confronted with similar problems in the past be taken into account in planning and adopting the general measures in this case (eg. Chahal against the United Kingdom, judgment of 15/11/1996, Resolution ResDH(2001)119).

At the 827th meeting (February 2003), the Delegation informed the Committee that the Bulgarian authorities were carefully considering the above-mentioned issues. It added that the translation of the judgment of the European Court into Bulgarian had already been made. Information concerning other general measures envisaged and/or adopted in response to the judgment is awaited.

- 9 cases against Croatia

H46-808 53176 Mikulić, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 04/09/02[53]

The case concerns the inefficiency of the proceedings in an action to establish paternity brought in 1997 by the applicant, born in 1996, and her mother. No measures existed under Croatian law to compel the alleged father to comply with a court order to submit to DNA testing; nor was there moreover any direct provision governing the consequences of such non-compliance or other alternative means enabling an independent authority to determine the paternity claim promptly (violation of Article 8).

When the European Court delivered its judgment the proceedings were pending before the Appellate Court of Zagreb and had lasted about 5 years, of which about 4 years and two months come under the jurisdiction of the Court (violation of Article 6§1). The applicant had no effective remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings (violation of article 13). In this respect, the Court had already held that section 59(4) of the Constitutional Court Act of 1999 does not represent an effective remedy in respect of the length of civil proceedings.

Individual measures: The Croatian authorities have indicated that the domestic proceedings were ended by a final judgment rendered on 26/02/2002.

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 8, during the last examination of the case (819th meeting, December 2002), the Croatian Delegation indicated that a draft Law on Marriage, Family and Extramarital Communities, which aims at remedying the problems indicated above, had been sent to the Parliament for adoption. More information concerning the parliamentary proceedings is awaited.

As regards the violation of Articles 6 and 13, the case presents similarities to the Horvat group, which is examined in section 4.2 at this meeting.

The European Court’s judgment has already been translated and published on the Internet Web site of the Government (http://www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html).

H46-809 48778 Kutić, judgment of 01/03/02, final on 01/06/02

The case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court in order to obtain a determination of their civil claims for damages resulting from terrorist acts. In fact, in 1996, even before the first-instance court decision, legislation was adopted ordering that all proceedings of this kind were to be stayed until new provisions were enacted to regulate the matter. When the European Court delivered its judgment, more than 4 years had elapsed and no new legislation has been passed in the meantime (violation of Article 6§1).

Sub-section 4.2

Individual and general measures: The judgment was translated and published on the official Internet site of the Government (www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html) and disseminated to the courts of the country. At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Croatian Delegation indicated that the government had abandoned the project on global compensation for damages resulting from terrorist acts but others measures were being examined. Further information on this issue is awaited.

Cases concerning length of proceedings

H46-810 54727 Cerin, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-811 52634 Futterer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-812 51585 Horvat, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-813 49706 Rajak, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-814 48771 Delić, judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

H46-122 45435 Radoš and 4 others, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03[54]

H46-936 56773 Rajčević, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 06/11/02[55]

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, which began between 1975 and 1995 and lasted between 3 and 25 years[56] (violations of Article 6§1).

The Horvat, Delić and Radoš and others cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law since the formal institution of proceedings upon a complaint lodged with the Constitutional Court depended on the discretion of the latter (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures: In the Rajčević and Rajak case the proceedings were ended by a final judgment of 06/02/2002 and 25/09/2002. In the other cases, the proceedings are still pending and further information is awaited.

General measures: The five judgments of the European Court have already been translated, and disseminated to domestic courts. They have also been published on the official Internet site of the Government www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html and in legal journals.

As regards the violation of Article 13, a new Act amending the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court entered into force on 15/03/2002. In the case of Radoš and others and in the admissibility decisions in the cases of Slaviček (decision of 04/07/2002), Nogolica (decision of 05/09/2002), Plaftak and others (decision of 03/10/2002), Jeftić (decision of 03/10/2002) and Sahini (decision of 11/10/2002), the European Court found that the new Section 63 of this law provided an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning excessive length of proceedings. It should be noted that in the Šoć case, judgment of 09/05/2003 (not final), the Court considered that this provision does not represent an effective remedy in respect of the length of civil proceedings that had already come to an end.

As regards the violation of Article 6§1, a reform of the Act on Civil Procedure is under way. The relevant draft law sets out to reconstruct the system on new principles, but also aims to prevent the abuse of procedural rights and strengthen procedural discipline. The courts’ comments on this draft have been studied by the Ministry of Justice. The draft law has been sent to Parliament for adoption. Further information on the progress of this draft is awaited.

The Croatian Government adopted the “Strategy for the Reform of the Judicial System”, a document setting the short-term and long-term objectives for overall judicial reform. The Strategy is intended to be implemented before the end of 2007.

Sub-section 4.2

- 1 case against the CzechRepublic

H46-815 33071 Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to a public audience before an independent and impartial tribunal during a procedure for restitution of property (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: at the 783rd meeting (March 2002) the Czech authorities were invited to provide information on measures taken. By a letter of 12/06/2002, the Czech authorities informed the Secretariat that the Constitutional Court, by judgment n° 276/2001, abrogated, with effect from 31 December 2002, the whole contents of the fifth book of the Code of Civil Procedure on administrative justice, in particular because of insufficient respect of the Czech Republic’s commitments under Article 6§1 of the Convention as regards administrative justice. A law n° 150/2002 on the Code of Administrative Justice, which entered into force on 01/01/2003, has replaced the whole of the fifth book of the Code of Civil Proceedings. Articles 49 and 51 of this new law guarantee the holding of public hearings when administrative decisions are subject to judicial examination. The new legislation provides that a tribunal must convene a public hearing to decide on the merits, unless all parties to the proceedings decide otherwise.

- 13 cases against France

H32-816 33656 Lemoine Daniel

This case concerns the impossibility for the applicant to contest before a court a decision discharging him from his post in 1988, on grounds of physical unfitness; this resulted from the fact that a non-judicial organ, a commission instituted by the French railway company (Société nationale des chemins de fer - S.N.C.F.), had exclusive jurisdiction in this field (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations – about four years and five months from 1989 to 1996 (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Following the finding of a violation in this case, the applicant has started new proceedings before the civil courts, with a view first to annulling the decision to lay him off and securing re-employment in the S.N.C.F. and secondly to have an expert opinion on his state of health. According to information submitted by the applicant, the hearing before the Rennes Court of Appeal is scheduled on 02/12/2003.

General measures: By letter dated 18/04/2000, the French authorities indicated that, by decision of 15/03/1999, the Minister of Transport modified Article 15 of the S.N.C.F. regulation concerning occupational health and the organisation of the occupational health service. Henceforth, Article 15 b) provides that “(…) in the specific case of disagreement, where an agent contests a decision taken by the company occupational health officer declaring him/her unfit for his/her job, the agent can seise the Transport labour inspector, who will take a decision, upon consultation with the Transport occupational health officer”. Information is expected on further general measures which might be envisaged by the French authorities to complete the legal framework on this issue and bring it fully in conformity with the Convention.

As far as the length of the proceedings is concerned, general measures have been adopted in the framework of the execution of the Hermant case (application No. 31603, Interim Resolution DH(2000)87), under section 1.1 of this Annotated Agenda and order of business.

H46-817 34000 DuRoy and Malaurie, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

The case concerns an infringement of the freedom of expression of the applicants, who are journalists, because of their conviction in 1996 for the crime of “publishing information regarding civil action in criminal proceedings” based on Article 2 of the Law of 2/07/1931 (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: No step to collect the applicants’ fine has been taken. Following the 819th meeting (December 2002), the French authorities informed the Secretariat, by a letter of 05/12/2002, that M. Du Roy’s conviction of had been erased from his criminal record by effect of the amnesty law. Information is awaited concerning the erasing of the conviction from M. Malaurie’s criminal record.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: Following the 819th meeting (December 2002), the French authorities informed the Secretariat, by a letter of 05/12/2002, that the number of convictions registered on criminal records concerning offences covered by Article 2 of the Law of 02/07/1931 had been reduced between 2000 and 2001 from 17 to 5. Furthermore, the Cour de cassation has, in two judgments dated 16/01/2001 and 27/03/2001, set aside the application of Article 2 of the Law of 02/07/1931, which is considered to be contrary to Article 10 of the Convention. Finally, the Cour de cassation has proposed in its annual report for 2000, the abrogation of Article 2 of the above-mentioned law.

Consequently, information regarding changes in the law is awaited.

H46-818 39288 Association Ekin, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01

The case concerns an infringement of the freedom of expression of the applicant (a Basque association) in that Section 14 of the Law of 29/07/1881 as amended, which empowers the Minister of the Interior under certaine conditions to ban the publication of foreign publications, was applied to one of its books in 1988 (violation of Article 10). The case also concerns the length (9 years, 1 month, 5 days) of the proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts aimed at quashing the Minister of the Interior’s decree (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measure: by a judgment of the Conseil d’Etat dated 09/071997, the Minister of the Interior’s decree banning the publication was quashed.

General measures: By a letter dated 13/06/2002, the French Delegation indicated that the judgment of the European Court had been widely publicised in public administration journals and that since the Court’s judgment, no more individual decision had been taken concerning foreign publications. By a letter dated 05/12/2002, the French authorities announced that a decision of the Chambre de l’instruction of the Court of Appeal of Limoges, dated 06/06/2002, taking into account the judgment of the European Court, had annulled the proceedings concerning the distribution of banned newspapers, insofar as the administrative Court of Appeal of Paris had previously annulled a prefect’s order based on Article 14 of the Law of 29 July 1881, considered contrary to Article 10 of the Convention. Furthermore, the French authorities informed the Secretariat that the control of foreign publications is no longer undertaken on the basis of Article 14 of the Law of 29/07/1881.

Whilst awaiting the legislative change of this article, information is anticipated on the means by which the prefects will be informed of the evolution of the case-law and the necessity to take it into account in the exercise of their police powers.

H46-585 44797+ Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02[57]

This case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). These proceedings, which began on 19 May 1988 and ended on 31 March 2000, lasted more than 11 years and 10 months.

General measures: information is awaited concerning measures envisaged to solve the problem of excessive length of criminal proceedings.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-155 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber[58]

H46-819 38436 APBP, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-130 38748 Immeubles Groupe Kosser, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02[59]

These cases concern infringements of the right to a fair trial on account of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the trial bench in proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat (violations of Article 6§1). The Government Commissioner actually takes no part in voting within the trial bench, as he has already expressed his submissions on the case orally during the hearing. He attends the deliberations and answers, if necessary, any question which might be put to him. On this point, the Court considered that the advantage for the bench of this purely technical assistance by the Government Commissioner in the deliberations “is to be weighed against the higher interest of the litigant, who must have a guarantee that the Government Commissioner cannot, through his presence influence their outcome.” (see § 85 of the Kress judgment).

The Kress case also concerns the excessive length (10 years, 1 month, 8 days) of the proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: A Memorandum will be prepared by the Secretariat and distributed under the reference CM/Inf(2003)23.

H46-820 36515 Fretté, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

The case concerns the unfairness of certain proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat. According to the practice in force at the time of the facts, the applicant, who was not represented, was not summoned to the hearing; he did not have the opportunity to be informed of the submissions of the Government Commissioner and therefore could not answer them. He was thus denied a fair hearing of his case in adversarial proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: Since 01/01/2001, all parties have been notified of hearing dates. Information concerning the measures concretely adopted by the Conseil d’Etat towards applicants not represented by a lawyer is awaited.

H46-140 41376 D.M., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02[60]

H46-141 43125 Delbec Annick No. 3, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02[61]

H46-142 33395 L.R., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02[62]

H46-143 43191 Laidin, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03[63]

The cases concern the length of time taken by civil courts (tribunaux de grande instance) to decide on urgent applications for immediate release from psychiatric hospital. The first three cases concern applications introduced by the applicants between 1996 and 1998 lasted respectively one year and 20 days (the applicant having already been released after 3 months), slightly more than three months (the applicant having already been released after 1 month) and a little over six months (the applicant having already been released after 24 days). Concerning the fourth case, the applicant was released after more than 5 weeks (violations of Article 5§4).

General measures: Information is awaited concerning measures envisaged to reduce the period of the examination, by the presidents of tribunaux de grande instance and other competent authorities, of applications for immediate release from psychiatric hospital.

Information is also awaited concerning the dissemination of the European Court’s judgments to presidents of tribunaux de grande instance.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-133 51279 Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02[64]

The case concerns the conviction in 1998 of the daily newspaper Le Monde, its director and a journalist for having published an article about an official report prepared at the request of the Commission of the European Communities on drug production and trafficking in Morocco which implicated the King of Morocco’s entourage. The French courts found the applicants guilty of insulting a foreign Head of State, under Section 36 of the Law of 29/07/1881 on the Freedom of the Press, and condemned the applicants to pay a fine and publish the details of the conviction. Unlike the provisions covering defamation in ordinary law, the offence covered by Section 36 of this law does not permit “exceptio veritatis” defence. The European Court therefore considered that, because of the special nature of the protection afforded by this provision, the existence of a misdemeanour of insulting foreign heads of state was liable to infringe freedom of expression without corresponding to a “pressing social need” sufficient to justify such a restriction (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: The question was raised, at the 819th meeting (December 2002), of the need to erase any consequences for the applicants of the conviction. In this context, attention was drawn to the fact that the applicants may request the reopening of the proceedings before domestic courts.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published and commented in several French legal journals; the confirmation of its dissemination, with an information note, to criminal courts and the Court of Cassation is expected.

A draft law abrogating Article 36 of the Law of 29/07/1881 has been pending before Parliament since March 2001: the time-frame for its adoption is unknown. The French authorities, referring to a judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal of 03/07/2002 indicated in December 2002 that they considered that Article 36 was already falling into disuse. However, although this judgment resulted in the defendants’ acquittal, the French court did not allow them to prove the truth of their allegations and reaffirmed the compatibility of Article 36 with the requirements of a democratic society, which is contrary to the Strasbourg case-law.

Information is therefore expected on measures envisaged to bring French law into conformity with the Convention.

- 6 cases against Greece

H46-821 44584 Tsironis, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02

The case concerns a disproportionate limitation on the applicant’s right of access to a court in that the national courts, applying the relevant provisions of the Code of civil procedure, dismissed as out of time his application for annulment of the sale by auction of his land, requested by a creditor bank, although they had admitted that the notification to the applicant of the act deciding the sale was void (violation of Article 6§1). Indeed, the notification had been done as to a person whose address is unknown, even though the applicant had given the police the written proofs necessary to establish of a new identity card, including his new address. Moreover, the European Court found that in the circumstances of the case, the way in which the creditor bank proceeded so as to accelerate the recovery of its debt (it has asked for the sale by auction of the field, even though an agreement as to the settlement of the debt, from which it resulted that the applicant could reasonably believe that the debt was not outstanding, had been reached shortly beforehand), combined with the court’s decision to dismiss as out of time the applicant’s appeal, even if the latter had no means to react against this situation, infringed the fair balance to be established between the protection of his right to a peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and the requirements of the general interest (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published on the official internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to civil courts. At the 798th meeting (June 2002), the Government was asked whether it envisaged legislative measures to ensure that the respect of the time-limit for annulment of a sale by auction (Article 934 of the Code of civil procedure) requires that the injured party has effectively been informed about the act deciding the sale so that he can challenge it. Greece considers that the case is an individual case which will not happen again. The Secretariat thinks that, in addition to the publication and the dissemination of the judgment, other general measures are required to prevent other similar violations.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-822 47760 Koskinas, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that in 1996, the domestic courts rejected his action challenging his dismissal by the airline Olympic Airways (of which the state is the sole shareholder) on the grounds that, pursuant to chapter 10 §§ 5 and 8 of the company’s employment regulations, they had no competence to examine the veracity of accusations brought against the applicant justifying his dismissal. The European Court found that he had therefore been unable to challenge these accusations (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Greek Delegation has sent the Secretariat its Government’s answer as to the applicant’s lawyer’s letter, according to which the applicant had asked for the re-examination of his case by Olympic Airways and his re-engagement at a grade and salary similar to those he enjoyed before his dismissal. According to his lawyer, the re-examination of his case is the only means whereby Greece may comply with the Court’s judgment, although he notes that Greek law does not provide any possibility of reopening civil judicial proceedings. The Government confirms this latter point and is of the opinion that no issue concerning the review of the applicant’s case arises. In any case, the Secretariat notes that at the material time Olympic Airways had deposited a sum of money corresponding to the highest amount which could legally be attributed by the firm as a redundancy payment in a bank account for the applicant. Consequently, possible new national proceedings could not lead to the granting of a more substantial sum of money than the sum placed at the applicant’s disposal.

General measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to civil courts were asked for. Furthermore, information is awaited concerning other measures the Government envisages.

H46-823 46355 Tsirikakis, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 10/07/02[65]

The case concerns the excessive length (more than 13 years and 3 months) of civil proceedings which began in 1988 concerning judicial recognition of the applicants’ ownership in the context of the expropriation of a part of a small island. When the Court delivered its judgment, the case was still pending before the Court of Cassation (violation of Article 6§1). On 24/12/1998 the applicants finally withdrew the compulsory-purchase compensation which had been placed on deposit for them on 04/11/1983.

The case also concerns the protracted uncertainty experienced by the applicants about both the amount of compensation fixed, which had seriously depreciated by the passage of time, and the fate of the unexpropriated part of their land, given that the state, contesting their ownership, had declared the whole island to be public property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Concerning the violation of Article 6§1, this case presents particular similarities to that of Academy Trading Ltd and others (judgment of 04/04/2000), under Section 6 of the present annotated agenda and order of business.

Individual measures: information regarding the state of the proceedings before national courts is awaited.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has already been published on the official web site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). Its wide dissemination to civil courts and to the competent administrative authorities is awaited. The Government has recalled that a new code of expropriation had been adopted; additional information explaining how these new legislative measures will guarantee that no similar violation will be found in the future, is also awaited.

H46-824 40907 Dougoz, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

The case concerns the conditions of the applicant’s detention in 1997, in the Alexandras Police Headquarters and the Drapetzona detention centre, which in the European Court’s view amounted to degrading treatment (violation of article 3). The case also concerns the fact that the applicant’s detention pending expulsion was not in accordance with a procedure “prescribed by law” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (violation of Article 5§1). Finally, the case concerns the fact that the domestic legal system did not afford the applicant an opportunity to have the lawfulness of his detention pending expulsion determined by a national court (violation of Article 5§4).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been translated, published on the official internet site of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to the Police General Directorates.

As to the violation of Article 3, the improvements carried out as regards the conditions of detention in Alexandras and in Drapetzona and the measures still to be taken are set out in the latest report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), published on 20/11/2002, following its visit to these centres in 2001, as well as in the Government’s reply. Information has also been sent by the Greek Delegation after the last examination of the case, at the 819th meeting (December 2002). In order to remedy the overcrowding, three new detention centres for aliens were already in service. More buildings have been bought or are being built to this end. A project to build or renovate centres in all police directorates is also under way. Furthermore, legislation has been adopted providing that aliens must be detained in specific places in police stations, operating under specific terms and that detention pending expulsion of aliens by administrative order must not last more than three months (Articles 44§3 and 48 of the Act 2910/02/05/2001). As regards, in particular, the situation in Alexandras and in Drapetzona, the Government indicates in a document dated 27/02/2002, that the number of detainees rarely exceeds the total capacity and that the recommendations of the CPT concerning hygiene and cleanliness rules, ventilation, etc. are met. However, form the CPT’s report it appears that it noted during its visit that if the conditions of detention were generally acceptable for short periods of detention at the police headquarters of Athens, this was not true in Drapetzona, notably as regards the lack of hygiene and the absence of various equipment.

As regards the violation of Articles 5§1 and 5§44, the Secretariat has been informed of the adoption of legislative measures, which are being analysed.

H46-825 28524 Peers, judgment of 19/04/01

The case concerns the conditions of the applicant’s detention in 1994, in Koridallos prison, which amounted to degrading treatment in the European Court’s view (violation of article 3). The case also concerns the opening by the prison administration of letters addressed to him by the Secretariat of the former European Commission of Human Rights, a measure considered by the Court as unnecessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 8).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been translated, published on the official internet site of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to prisons.

As regards the violation of Article 3, the Government has indicated that, subsequent to the facts of the present case, Greece adopted new legislation (Acts n° 2298/04/04/1995, n° 2408/04/06/1996 and n° 2776/24/12/1999) aimed at improving prison policy and detention conditions (for the details see CM/Del/OJ/OT(2001)775, Section 4.2, p. 78).

As regards the situation in Koridallos prison, the improvements carried out and the measures still to be taken are described in the latest report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), published on 20/11/2002, following its visit to Koridallos in 2001, as well as in the Government’s reply. The CPT noted progress made both generally and in the Koridallos prison (particularly the refurbishment of the sections of the building which had not yet been renovated at the time of CPT’s previous visit). But the efforts must not be relaxed, as the problem of prison overcrowding still exists, not least in Koridallos prison.

As regards the violation of Article 8, the Greek Delegation indicated to the Committee of Ministers, at the 757th meeting (December 2001), that Article 19 §§ 1, 2 of the Constitution (as amended in April 2001) authorises the legislator to establish an independent authority competent to ensure the respect of correspondence and that Article 53 of Act n° 2776/1999 provides particularly for the protection of this right of prisoners. The Secretariat has received a copy of a law published on 27/02/2003 and is examining it.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-826 38460 Platakou, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 06/09/01[66]

The case concerns three violations of the Convention:

- A disproportionate constraint upon the applicant’s right of access to a court, in that her request to have the amount of compensation for her expropriated property finally fixed was declared inadmissible by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that she had failed to comply with the time-limit set by law, even though this failure was the result of an error by the official bailiff. Furthermore, although the applicant subsequently submitted a special request to two different courts, neither examined the merits of her complaint concerning this error (violation of Article 6§1).

- A breach of the principle of equality of arms in that the applicant could not benefit from the provision providing for the suspension in favour of the State of all judicial time-limits during the period of the judicial vacations (violation of Article 6§1).

- A lack of a reasonable relationship between the compensation determined by the domestic courts and the value of the applicant’s property (violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1).

General measures: The judgment was published in Greek on the official Internet site of the State Legal Council www.nsk.gr and in Nomiko Vima, 2001, p. 765 and disseminated to all courts and to the Orders of official bailiffs. Following the European Court’s judgment, the Court of Cassation in plenary decided in another case (concerning a situation which had not been brought before the European Court), that the longer suspension of all judicial time-limits during the period of the judicial vacations provided only in favour of the state by Article 11 of the decree of 26.06/10.07/1944, violated the principle of equality of arms as established in the Constitution (Article 4§1) and the Convention (Article 6§1). For this reason, relying on the European Court’s judgment in the present case, it extended the suspension period provided for individuals to the same length and found that their appeal was not out of time. Nevertheless, the impugned provision (Article 11 of the decree of 26.06/10.07/1944) remains in force. Thus legislative measures are remain to be adopted.

- 1 case against Ireland

H46-827 39474 D.G., judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

The case concerns the fact that the applicant, at the time a minor suffering from severe personality disorders and consequently a risk to himself and to others, was placed from 27 June to 28 July 1997 in a penal institution ill-suited to fulfil his constitutional rights (violation of Article 5§5d). It also relates to the fact that he was unable to obtain compensation in respect of this detention, since it was imposed in conformity with national law (violation of Article 5§5).

General measures: The Irish authorities have in particular indicated that significant funding has been invested in recent years in the development of special residential services for non-offending children in need of special care or protection. The number of high support and special care places has increased from 17 in 1996 to a current total of over 90 places. An additional 41 places were being introduced on a phased basis for autumn 2002.

Furthermore, the Children Act 2001 provides inter alia for the amendment of the Child Care Act 1991 and in Part 3 imposes statutory duties on health boards in relation to children in need of special care or protection. Part 2 of the Act establishes the Family Welfare Conference on a statutory basis. Part 11 provides for the establishment of a Special Residential Services Board to co-ordinate special residential services. The Board has been operating on an administrative basis since April 2002.

The Cabinet Committee on Children at its meeting on 26/03/2002 approved proposals to begin implementing the Children Act 2001 on a phased basis. Work on the regulations to bring Parts 2, 3 and 11 of the Act into effect is progressing with a view to their introduction before the end of the year.

The Committee has asked to be kept informed of any development in this field. Furthermore, it has asked whether the Portrane Unit has finally been built and is operating as from October 2001 (as requested by the High Court’s decision of 27/06/1997). It has also requested whether the Irish authorities envisage the introduction of an enforceable right to compensation for situations similar to those found in the present case.

Lastly, information concerning the publication of the European Court’s judgment is still awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

- 6 cases against Italy

H32-828 26426 S.B.F. S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(97)599

The case concerns the right of access to a court in order to obtain an adjudication of culpable bankruptcy. According to Italian law, adjudication must take place within one year from the cessation of the debtor’s activities. As the competent court (special bankruptcy section) did not give its ruling within the deadline, the applicant company lost the opportunity to recover its financial claims by judicial means (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: The confirmation of the publication of the Commission’s report is awaited.

At the 732nd meeting (December 2000), the Government indicated that a legislative reform was under way. At the 803rd meeting (July 2002), they were of the opinion that the measures adopted in order to prevent violations of excessive length of proceedings were sufficient and that no other measure was required. However, it was indicated to the Government that, in the present case, the non-respect of the legal deadline in the bankruptcy proceedings had deprived the applicant company of its right of access to justice. By a letter of 06/02/2003, the Government informed the Secretariat that a Bill (S/1243) to amend Royal Decree No. 267/42 on the bankruptcy law was presented in March 2002 and assigned to the Senate Justice Committee. To date, the Bill has not been debated.

*H32-829 22716 P.G. II, Interim Resolutions DH(97)18 and ResDH(2002)58

The case concerns the impossibility in Italian law to rehabilitate a person declared bankrupt before a minimum 5-year term has expired. The applicant was thus refused an earlier rehabilitation, in spite of the fact that he had been declared bankrupt while he was a minor and de facto had no appointed guardian or legal representative (violation of Article 8).

General measures: The need for legislative change has been raised since 1998: it has been suggested that the law should be made more flexible to allow for exceptions, subject to judicial supervision, in cases such as this. By letter of 26/06/2000, the Italian Delegation informed the Secretariat that the period of incapacity imposed on bankrupts would probably be modified, in the context of an envisaged reform of the bankruptcy law. The attention of the Italian authorities was drawn, however, to the fact that it was not the length of the period of incapacity that was at issue in this case, but the rigidity of the system, leaving no discretion to authorise derogation in special circumstances. In addition, the publication of the Commission’s report was requested, but has not yet been confirmed. By letter of 18/02/2002, the Italian authorities indicated that, in January 2002, the Legislative Office of the Italian Ministry of Justice had transmitted the decision in the P.G. II case to the President of a Commission set up to draft new bankruptcy legislation, pointing out the need to incorporate provisions in the draft which will allow Italy to comply with its obligations resulting from the Committee of Ministers’ decision in this case. An Interim Resolution, ResDH(2002)58 was adopted in April 2002, inviting the Italian authorities to adopt the necessary measures without further delay in order to prevent new, similar violations. On that occasion, the Committee of Ministers decided to resume consideration of this issue once the new legislation had been adopted or, at the latest, at its first meeting in 2003. A Bill (S/1243) aimed at amending Royal Decree No. 267/42 on the bankruptcy law was presented in March 2002 and assigned to the Senate Justice Committee, but it has not been debated yet.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-830 31127 E.P. III, judgment of 16/11/99, judgment revised (Article 41) on 03/05/01

The case concerns the total and irreversible interruption of contact between the applicant and her daughter from 1988 onwards. The child, who was then seven years old and had lived until then in Greece with her mother, was removed from the mother’s care a few days after her arrival Italy, as the applicant presented psychological problems that could impair her daughter’s development. From then on, all contact between the applicant and her daughter was denied and the latter was first placed in public care and then declared available for adoption in 1989. The European Court found that the national authorities had failed to take all necessary steps to ensure that the chances of the applicant and her daughter re-establishing their relationship should not be definitively compromised (violation of Article 8). Moreover, the Court found that the overall length of the proceedings, namely seven years, had been excessive, account being taken of the “particular dispatch” required in matters concerning children’s custody (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant died in 1999.

General measures: Mention has been made of the need for appropriate measures to ensure that the Italian judiciary and administrative authorities take into account the critical remarks made by the European Court in this case as well as in the Scozzari case (judgment of 13/07/00), which also concerns malfunctions occurring when children are taken into public care in Italy. In this perspective, the publication of the judgment was requested as well as other awareness-raising measures. As regards in particular the violation of Article 6 found in this case, it should be recalled that it is linked to the more general problem of the functioning of the Italian judicial system (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)135). Information has been requested about any special measures taken to ensure that cases requiring prompt settlement, like this one, are dealt with more rapidly. The Italian Delegation has informed the Committee that a draft law (No. 2517/C) was introduced before Parliament in April 2002, aiming at centralising jurisdiction over family and children’s issues in special judicial sections in order to increase both the quality and the rapidity of decisions in this field.

H32-831 26774 A.D., Interim Resolution DH(98)208[67]

H46-509 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00[68]

The case concerns the breach of the applicant’s right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. He had been convicted in 1990 to 3 years’ imprisonment for a rape of a young mentally handicapped girl without having being informed about the changes in the charge as regards the time and place of the crime and thus without having had the possibility to defend himself effectively (violation of article 6§§1 and 3a and b). The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant finished serving his sentence in 1994.

Individual measures: By a letter dated 01/06/2001, the Italian Delegation indicated that the European Court’s judgment had been mentioned in the applicant’s “dossier de l’exécution” and that the authorities were examining the possibility of a legislative or statutory modification which would allow for also including a mention of the Court’s judgment in the criminal record. Information is expected in this respect.

General measures: The legislation currently in force explicitly provides for the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The confirmation of the publication of the judgment of the European Court is awaited. The measures concerning the length of criminal proceedings will be examined in April 2004.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-832 39676 Rojas Morales, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings against the applicant, which resulted in his being sentenced, in May 1996, to 20 years’ imprisonment and to pay a fine for drug dealing. The European Court found that the applicant’s fears concerning the impartiality of the tribunal were objectively justified by the fact that two of the judges who convicted him had already assessed the applicant’s responsibility in a previous judgment against one of the applicant’s co-defendants, on the basis of the same facts (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: According to the information given by the lawyer, the applicant has been transferred to Chile to complete his sentence. However, it would be appropriate to mention the Court’s judgment in his criminal record. By a letter dated 01/06/2001, the Italian Delegation indicated that the authorities were examining the possibility of a legislative or statutory modification which would allow for the mention of the Court’s judgments in criminal records. Information is expected in this respect.

General measures: By a judgment of October 1996 (n. 371), the Italian Constitutional Court declared the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure at issue unconstitutional, insofar as they did not provide the incapacity of a judge who had participated in other proceedings arising from the same facts against others persons in which the position of the accused has been take into account and evaluated. The judgment of the European Court has been translated into Italian and sent out to the criminal courts and the publication is in progress.

- 1 case against Liechtenstein

H46-833 28396 Wille, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression on the grounds that the Head of State of Liechtenstein, His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II, informed him, in a letter of 27/02/1995, that he would not appoint him to public office on account of certain constitutional views the applicant had expressed (violation of Article 10). He further complained that he had had no remedy to defend his reputation and to seek protection of his personal rights (violation of Article 13).

General measures: 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 Liechtenstein has accepted the jurisprudence of the Court (LGBl.1997 No. 173 and 174 and LGBl. 1998 No. 20) and that, consequently, State Courts apply the case-law of the European Court directly. Furthermore, his authorities are presently considering which legislative measures should be adopted in the light of the judgment of the European Court, in particular those concerning the violation of Article 13 of the Convention. In this respect, the Representative of Liechtenstein informed the Committee (at the 834th meeting - April 2003), that a draft law concerning amendments to the State Courts was presently before Parliament. After expiry of the agreed date-limit, the Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein supplied the relevant information to the Secretariat.

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

- 11 cases against Poland

H46-835 26229 Gaweda, judgment of 14/03/02

The case relates to the Polish courts’ refusals to register the names of the applicant’s two new periodicals on the basis of provisions of the Press Act of 26/01/1984 and of the Ordinance of the Minister of Justice on the register of periodicals. The Court found that these provisions did not meet the Convention’s requirements of clarity and predictability and allowed too wide a discretion on the part of the authorities (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: At the 798th meeting (June 2002), the Polish delegation stated that there should now be no obstacle to the registration of the periodicals concerned.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: At the same meeting, the Polish Delegation stated that the Ministry of Justice was considering the possibilities of amending the regulations governing the registration of periodicals and that it would later provide the Committee with more details on this matter. It was furthermore noted that some changes to the above-mentioned regulations had already been introduced subsequent to the facts of the present case and the Polish authorities were invited to provide a copy of the provisions currently in force. The Ministry of Justice has informed presidents of appeal courts of the European Court’s judgment. Confirmation of the publication of the judgment is awaited.

H46-836 28249 Kreuz, judgment of 19/06/01

The case concerns a disproportionate restriction of the right of access to a court due to the dismissal of the applicant’s action for damages on the grounds that he had been unable to pay in advance court fees which were equivalent to the average annual salary in Poland (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: At the 764th meeting (October 2001), the Representative of Poland recalled that this judgment posed a problem of access to justice and stated that the Ministry of Justice would attentively study the general measures to be adopted to remedy the shortcomings highlighted by the European Court. The Ministry of Justice has sent circulars to the presidents of appeal courts drawing their attention of the judges to the European Court’s reasoning concerning the errors which were made by the domestic courts in this case. Information concerning the publication of the judgment of the European Court and the other envisaged measures is awaited.

H46-837 26760 Werner, judgment of 15/11/01

The case relates to the lack of impartiality of the Koszalin District Court and to the unfairness of proceedings before it since the judge, who requested the applicant's dismissal from the function as judicial liquidator of a company, sat on the bench of the court during in camera proceedings inaccessible to the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: A new Bankruptcy and Remedial Law was adopted on 28/02/2003. Pursuant to Article 170, Section 1, the decision of the insolvency judge to dismiss a judicial liquidator or administrator requires a justification. Under Article 172, Section 1, this decision is subject to appeal and may be examined in a hearing. The judge who took the contested decision shall not sit on the bench considering the complaint (Art. 150). Pursuant to Article 229, matters concerning bankruptcy proceedings not addressed in this law shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure whose provisions provide the necessary guarantees (Articles 15‑505). Copies of the relevant texts of this new legislation have been requested.

The judgment of the European Court has already been translated, and disseminated to the courts dealing with liquidation proceedings. Further information concerning publication is awaited.

Cases concerning the length of criminal proceedings

H46-838 25792 Trzaska, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-839 33492 Jabłoński, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-840 33079 Szeloch, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-841 34097 Kreps, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-842 27504 Iłowiecki, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

H46-528 37443 Lisiak, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03[69]

H46-730 34052 Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02[70]

These cases, except the Lisiak case, concern the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand between 1991 and 1997, given that the grounds relied upon by the domestic courts in support of the detention could not be deemed, as required by the European Court’s case-law, “relevant and sufficient” and since “special diligence” was not displayed in the conduct of the proceedings (violations of Article 5§3).

Sub-section 4.2

The Trzaska, Jabłonski and Iłowiecki cases also concern the domestic courts' failure to examine the applicants’ requests for release promptly. In the Trzaska case the European Court also found that the proceedings to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand were not adversarial (violations of Article 5§4).

All the cases also concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicants (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings has been requested in the Lisiak, Ilowiecki and Olstowski cases, which are still pending at national level. Information concerning the state of these proceedings is awaited.

General measures: As regards the violations of Articles 5§3 and 5§4: The Ministry of Justice has sent circulars, drawing the attention of courts and public prosecutors to the reasoning required for decisions prolonging detention on remand. The three first judgments of the European Court were published in the Bulletin of the Council of Europe Information Centre and disseminated to the competent authorities. Additional information is awaited about other measures already adopted by the Government following the entry into force on 01/09/1998 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure as well as a copy of the relevant new provisions.

As regards the violations of Article 6§1: The cases present similarities with a number of other cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings pending before the Committee of Ministers for supervision of general measures (see in particular the cases of Podbielski, Styranowski and Kudła, which are examined in sections 5.1 and 4.2).

H46-843 30210 Kudła, judgment of 26/10/00 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns, inter alia, the excessive length (2 years, 4 months) of the applicant’s detention on remand on charges of fraud and forgery (violation of Article 5§3) and the excessive length (7 years, 5 months) of the related criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The case furthermore concerns the lack of effective remedies to enforce, at national level, the applicant’s right to a hearing “within a reasonable time” (violation of Article 13).

General measures: During the first examination of the case (732nd meeting, December 2000), the Committee noted the breadth of the scope of this judgment: for the first time the Court had applied Article 13 of the Convention in order to affirm that contracting States must provide effective domestic remedies so as to resolve the problem of excessive length of proceedings. The Committee also took note of the fact that the remedies required in this regard by Article 13 could be both compensatory and preventive (§159 of the judgment). It was suggested that general consideration be given to this topic, notably within the CDDH and its expert sub-committees, in order to facilitate the search for suitable solutions in member states. The Committee nonetheless considered that this general consideration must not be allowed to prejudice the Committee’s supervision of measures that Poland will adopt to comply with the Kudła judgment in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention.

At the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Representative of Poland informed the Committee of the progress made in adoption of general measures. He referred in particular to:

- a number of improvements of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in a draft law which has already been submitted to Parliament;

- a draft law prepared by a group of experts which provides mainly for compensatory but also for some preventive remedies against the excessive length of judicial proceedings (the draft is still being considered by the Government);

- a new decision of the Constitutional Court of 18/12/2001, which might open a way to civil claims against State officials on the grounds of excessive length of judicial proceedings.

Copies of these texts have been requested and are still awaited. At the 798th (June 2002) and 819th (December 2002) meetings, it was stated that work on the new draft law was continuing and that no other information was available.

Sub-section 4.2

By letter of 07/02/2003, the Polish Delegation informed the Secretariat that following extensive consultations between the competent authorities at the national level, the draft law mentioned above had not been approved, particularly given the serious risk of overburdening of domestic courts with new complaints. As a result, the Civil Law Codification Committee had been mandated to prepare a new draft law. A preliminary working version of a new draft, which provides for both compensatory and preventive remedies, was submitted to the Secretariat on 10/04/2003 and informal consultations with the Polish Delegation took place shortly after this date. Information regarding further progress of the draft law and other possible general measures adopted or envisaged is awaited.

As regards the detention on remand and the length of the criminal proceedings, this case presents similarities to the cases of Trzaska and others.

- 2 cases against Romania

H46-844 31679 Ignaccolo-Zenide, judgment of 25/01/00

This case deals with the failure of the Romanian authorities to take adequate and sufficient measures in order to enforce a court injunction (issued in December 1994 based on the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction) requiring the applicant’s children to be returned to her (violation of Article 8). In spite of this finding of a violation, court decisions affording visitation rights to the applicant were not enforced due to the fact that the father of the children refused to abide by them and appealed them before the superior courts, obtaining their suspension.

In September 2002, the younger daughter of the applicant reached her majority.

General measures: At the 749th meeting (April 2001), the Romanian Delegation stated that a “package” of bills, including one concerning custody relevant to this case, had been withdrawn for examination by the new government. They would probably be presented for adoption later. At the 764th meeting (October 2001), the Delegation indicated that the legislation on custody was being modified so as to avoid findings of new violations of this kind. Further information with regard to these modifications is expected. The judgment of the European Court has been published and the Romanian authorities have indicated that the judgment has been disseminated (together with a circular underlining the provisions of the Hague Convention) to civil courts, competent ministries and the social services. Details of these measures are awaited.

Following the failure of the Romanian courts to give real effect to the judgment of the Court, attention has been drawn to the necessity of a careful review of the system for enforcing custody and visiting rights, in particular when these result from the application of the Hague Convention.

H46-845 28871 Constantinescu, judgment of 27/06/00

The case relates to the applicant’s criminal conviction (in 1994) for defamation. After having been acquitted by the first-instance court, the applicant was convicted upon appeal by a court that was entitled to make a “thorough assessment of the question of his guilt or innocence”, without having the opportunity to give evidence and defend his case before the court which convicted him (violation of article 6§1).

Following an extraordinary appeal, he was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Justice on 04/02/2000.

General measures: At the 721st meeting (October 2000), the Romanian Delegation indicated that periodic meetings between the Government’s agent and the Presidents of Appeal courts relating to the judgments delivered by the European Court, had been established and further that a course on the “Court’s case-law” had been introduced into the training of judges. Written confirmation of these measures is awaited.

The Secretariat sent a letter dated 07/11/2000 to the Delegation giving some reflections on the measures which the authorities could take in order to conform to the judgment. At the 757th, 775th and 819th meetings (June 2001, January 2002 and December 2002), it was recalled that the Secretariat was waiting for an answer or for comments from the Delegation. At the same time, according to the information available, the draft law for the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure currently being examined by the Romanian Parliament does not seem to concern the provisions dealt with by the Court’s judgment.

Sub-section 4.2

- 1 case against the Russian Federation

H46-846 47095 Kalashnikov, judgment of 15/07/02, final on 15/10/02

Addendum 4

The case concerns the poor conditions of the applicant's pre-trial detention between 1995 and 2000 which was found by the European Court to amount to degrading treatment, due in particular to severe prison overcrowding and an unsanitary environment; and its detrimental effect on the applicant's health and well-being, combined with the length of the period during which the applicant was detained in these conditions (violation of Article 3). The case also concerns the excessive length of this detention (1 year, 2 months falling within the Court's jurisdiction - violation of Article 5§3) and the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant (1 year, 10 months falling within the Court's jurisdiction - violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: During the first examination of the case at the 819th meeting (December 2002), the Russian delegation stated that a number of improvements had been and continued to be made as regards the conditions of pre-trial detention in the Russian Federation. They indicated in particular that:

- from October 2001 to October 2002 the overcrowding of pre-trial detention facilities has largely decreased, mostly through reducing the overall number of detainees (from 199 000 to 137 000) as a result of the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure on 01/07/2002;

- in 2002 some 838 new places were created in pre-trial detention facilities;

- the number of persons committed to detention on remand per month has decreased from 10 000 in 2001 to 3 700 in September-October 2002

- as a result of the above measures, the living space per detainee was increased to 3,46 m². In 26 of 89 Russian regions the number of persons held in pre-trial detention does not exceed the limits set for detention facilities.

The Russian Delegation furthermore indicated that the Ministry of Justice had published in its professional review in November 2002 those extracts from the CPT reports which concern the detention facilities placed under the responsibility of this Ministry (including pre-trial detention facilities).

As regards the excessive length of pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings, the Russian authorities indicated that the new Code of Criminal Procedure is instrumental in preventing new, similar violations as it imposes stricter time-limits on investigation and trial. Following the Kalashnikov judgment, a circular letter was sent by the Vice-Chairman of the Supreme Court to all Russian courts requiring strict compliance with the time-limits.

The European Court's judgment furthermore was published in the daily Rossijskaia Gazeta (17 and 19 October 2002) and in many other Russian legal journals.

The Deputies took note of the information provided and the Russian authorities were invited to keep the Committee informed of further measures adopted to prevent fresh violations of the Convention, in particular with regard to the conditions of pre-trial detention.

At the 827th meeting (February 2003), the Russian Delegation again referred to the aforementioned measures and confirmed the authorities' resolve to continue to improve the conditions of detention, as demonstrated by statements of the Russian Minister of Justice during his recent visit to the Council of Europe (9-10 December 2002). The Russian authorities were requested to keep the Committee informed of further measures adopted, in particular in the regions where detention facilities remain overcrowded. It was also suggested that the Committee adopt an Interim Resolution to take stock of all measures adopted and envisaged, and to provide for a time-frame for supervision of the outstanding questions. At the present meeting, the Delegates are thus invited to examine, with a view to its adoption, a draft Interim Resolution prepared by the Secretariat in collaboration with the Russian Delegation (see Addendum 4).

Sub-section 4.2

- 1 case against Spain

*H46-849 45238 Perote Pellon, judgment of 25 July 2002

The case concerns the lack of objective impartiality of a military court in that two of the judges sitting on the court which judged the applicant, the president and the rapporteur, had been involved in several investigatory procedures including the confirmation of the applicant’s indictment at appeal, the extension of his detention on remand and the rejection of his súplica appeal against this decision (violation of Article 6§1).

A chamber of the central military court, in a judgment dated 09/07/1997, sentenced the applicant to 7 years’ imprisonment for the crime of revealing secrets or information concerning national security or defence and cashiered him from the army. On 15/04/1999 he was released on parole having served three quarters of his sentence.

Individual measures: clarification has been sought concerning the possibility for the applicant to apply for the reopening of the impugned proceedings before the domestic courts.

General measures: information was requested at the 827th meeting (February 2003) concerning the legislation in force and the current judicial practice. Subsequently, the Spanish authorities informed the Committee that a reform of Military Courts was envisaged and submitted information which was being examined by the Secretariat when this document was issued.

Furthermore, the European Court’s judgment has been widely covered by the media, its publication in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice is under way and a translation has been transmitted to all competent constitutional and judicial authorities, i.e.: the President of the Constitutional Court, the President of the General Judiciary Council and the Supreme Court, the President of the 5th Chamber of the Supreme Court, the President of the Central Military Court and Central Military Judge No. 1.

- 1 case against Turkey

H46-851 40035 Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00

This case concerns the deportation of the applicant to Iran, where, she maintained, she would have run the risk of being flogged or stoned to death, these being the penalties prescribed by Iranian law as punishment for adultery. Her asylum application was rejected by the Police, on the grounds that it had been submitted out of the 5-day time-limit as from her arrival in Turkey. However, she was later granted refugee status by the UNHCR. Seised by the applicant, the Administrative Court, which limited itself to the issue of the formal legality of the refusal because the application had been submitted out of time, nevertheless concluded that the decision of the police was not clearly unlawful and that its implementation would not have resulted for the applicant in damage which would have been impossible to compensate. The European Court considered that there would have been a real risk of the applicant being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if she had been returned to Iran (violation of article 3 if deportation order executed). The Court also decided that no effective remedy had been granted to the applicant: there was no assessment made by the national authorities of the risk the applicant claimed to run; the judicial control by the Council of State was too limited to constitute an effective remedy and that no possibility of suspending the implementation of the execution had existed (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: Following the judgment of the European Court, the applicant was granted a Turkish residence permit. She obtained a Canadian visa in September 2001.

General measures: The regulations on asylum seekers was modified in 1998 to increase the five-day period in which appeals against political asylum rejection may be lodged, to ten days. Moreover, the judgment of the European Court has been translated and published. Explanations concerning how Turkish Law guarantees respect of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention were requested. Concerning the violation of Article 13, reference has been made to the possibility of suspending the implementation of a deportation order, in particular if it is clearly unlawful (Article 125 of the Constitution of Turkey). The question of the effectiveness of this rule and its application, in the light of the requirements of Article 13 of the Convention, has also been raised. Information is also awaited concerning the guarantees offered to ensure that in all appeals – even those submitted out of time – against a measure of removal involving a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, an examination of the substance of the case is actually carried out.

Sub-section 4.2

- 14 cases against United Kingdom

H46-852 29392 Z. and others, judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber[71]

H46-853 40787 Hirst, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he could not obtain a review by a court of the lawfulness of his continued detention (once his tariff had expired) “at Her Majesty’s pleasure” (violation of Article 5§4).

The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on 11/02/1980 and the tariff period of 15 years expired on 25/06/1994.

The case presents similarities to those of Hussain, Singh, A.T. and Oldham against the United Kingdom (see resolutions DH(98)149, DH(98)150, DH(98)202 and ResDH(2001)160 respectively).

Individual measures: The United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee that the panel of the Parole Board met on 03/10/2002 (20 months after the last review – 02/02/2000) and recommended to grant the applicant open prison conditions. The Committee has asked to be kept informed whether the Prison Services have accepted the recommendation and, if so, for the date from which the applicant has benefited from open prison conditions.

General measures: In the absence of statistics/information on the number of life prisoners who have had their cases reviewed more than one year after the entry into force of the new legislation (Crime Sentence Act 1997) and noting that in the Hirst case the Parole Board took 20 months to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, it has been asked whether the United Kingdom authorities would consider drafting a circular addressed to the bodies concerned (mainly the Parole Board), informing them of the case-law of the European Court in this field (review by a court of the lawfulness of his continued detention should take place at intervals of not more than one year).

Exact references concerning publication of the judgment of the European Court (Times Law Report) have been requested.

H46-854 24833 Matthews, judgment of 18/02/99,Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)79

The case concerns the non-respect of the right to participate in elections to choose the legislature in that no election to the European Parliament was organised in Gibraltar (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: the Government of the United Kingdom has informed the Committee of Ministers of the government’s efforts within the European Union to find a satisfactory solution to this case. The Government’s priority remains to secure the agreement of its EU partners to the enfranchisement of Gibraltar through a change to the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections to the European Parliament. The United Kingdom is committed to achieving enfranchisement for Gibraltar for the 2004 European Parliament elections.

At the 819th meeting (December 2002) the United Kingdom Delegation informed the Committee that they introduced the European Parliament (Representation) Bill into the House of Commons on 21/11/2002 (the text and explanatory notes can be found at www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk). As well as establishing a mechanism to alter the number of United Kingdom MEPs following enlargement, the Bill also provides for Gibraltar’s EP enfranchisement.

Sub-section 4.2

The basic legislative approach is that Gibraltar should be treated as part of one of the English or Welsh electoral regions for the purposes of EP elections. All United Kingdom electoral law applicable to EP elections will also apply to Gibraltar. The Bill also requires the Electoral Commission to (a) consult the Governor of Gibraltar and the Chief Minister, and then (b) make a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor as to which constituency Gibraltar should be included in.

The United Kingdom is aiming for Royal Assent by April/May 2003, so that necessary secondary legislation can be in place by autumn 2003.

The Committee has asked to be kept informed of any development in this field.

The case has received extensive newspaper coverage and, it has been published, notably in the Human Rights Report, Human Rights Digest and other legal journals. Full details of publication have been requested.

H46-855 30668 Wilson & the National Union of Journalists, Palmer, Wyeth & the National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport workers, Doolan and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

The case concerns the failure of the state in its positive obligation to secure the enjoyment of rights under Article 11, by permitting employers to use financial incentives to induce employees to surrender important union rights (violation of Article 11). The individual applicants refused to sign new, individual contracts of employment offering a wage increase in return for renouncing the right to be represented by their trade unions. As a consequence their salaries fell below those of their colleagues who had signed individual contracts.

General measures: In a letter of 17/02/2003, the United Kingdom Delegation informed the Secretariat that certain changes should be made to relevant laws (Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992 and Employment Relations Act 1999) in order to remedy the breach found in this case and that the competent authority (The Department of Trade and Industry) was intending to consult widely on the necessary changes to legislation with a view to introducing bills in the next Parliamentary session. Written confirmation of the dissemination of the judgment of the European Court is awaited.

H46-856 33394 Price, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

The case concerns degrading treatment suffered by the applicant, a four-limb-deficient thalidomide victim dependent on a wheelchair, during her custody and imprisonment in January 1995 due to detention conditions which were inadequate in view of the applicant's special needs (violation of Article 3).

General measures: At the 819th meeting (December 2002) the United Kingdom Delegation informed the Committee that the judgment of the European Court had been published and disseminated to the relevant domestic authorities. The Delegation indicated that there had been considerable progress in providing services for disabled persons following the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and that the Prison Service envisaged measures including the removal of physical barriers from premises by October 2004. A copy of the text of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and information on projects carried out to satisfy the special needs of disabled persons, either in police custody or in prison, were requested at the same meeting.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-857 46295 Stafford, judgment of 28/05/02 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the “lawfulness” of the applicant’s detention, given that following his release on licence after the serving of the “tariff” imposed to him in 1967 under a mandatory life sentence for murder, the Secretary of State decided in 1997 to continue his detention on grounds unrelated to his original murder conviction (violation of Article 5§1). The case also concerns the fact that the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention was not reviewed by a body with a power to release or under a procedure offering the necessary judicial safeguards, since the Parole Board did not satisfy these requirements (violation of Article 5§4).

The applicant was released by the Secretary of State on 22/12/1998 (§27 of the judgment).

General measures: At the 803rd meeting (July 2002) attention was drawn to the development in the case-law of the European Court on the issue and it was indicated that the case raised problems of principle concerning the powers of the Secretary of State. Information on the measures envisaged was requested in that respect.

Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the Secretary of State, to the Parole Board and to criminal courts was also requested at the same meeting.

H46-858 37555 O'Hara, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

The case concerns the fact that the applicant (a suspected terrorist) was detained in 1985 for six days and thirteen hours before being finally released without charge (violation of Article 5§3). In addition, his compensation claim was rejected definitively in 1996, as his detention was in accordance with domestic law and no enforceable right to compensation existed in relation to his complaint under Article 5§3 (violation of Article 5§5).

The case presents similarities with that of Brogan and others (Resolution DH(90)23).

General measures: The publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the Secretary of State and to all civil courts were requested.

As regards the violation of Article 5§3, the Representative of the United Kingdom recalled that the derogation of 23/12/1988 according to Article 15 of the Convention was withdrawn on 26/02/2001. Furthermore, Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides that a person who has been arrested upon reasonable suspicion of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, can be detained for up 48 hours and thereafter, where a judicial authority extends the detention period, for up to a further 5 days. The judicial authority will extend detention only to the point strictly necessary for the completion of investigations and enquiries or to preserve relevant evidence in order to decide whether criminal proceedings should be instituted. The person detained should be given a written notice of the application for such an extension and the opportunity to make oral or written representations and to be legally represented at the hearing.

As regards the violation of Article 5§5, the Government was asked to provide information concerning the exercise, under the domestic law, of an enforceable right to compensation for excessive length of detention. Information on this issue is awaited.

H46-859 39846 Brennan, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

The case concerns a breach of the applicant’s defence rights due to the presence of a police officer during his first consultation with his solicitor in 1990, without any compelling reason for the imposition of this restriction. The applicant was thus deprived of effective legal advice (violation of Article 6§3 (c) in conjunction with Article 6§1).The European Court indicated that the consultation, potentially of great importance to the applicant’s defence at trial, was the first occasion for him to seek advice from his lawyer as to whether he should answer some particular questions by the police or risk inferences being drawn against him later in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (see § 61 of the judgment).

The applicant’s lawyer was never permitted to be present at any of the applicant’s interviews by police

(see § 16 of the judgment).

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the United Kingdom Delegation was requested to provide information about the possibility of reopening of the domestic proceedings if this were requested by the applicant, under sections 9-12 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Information in that respect is awaited.

General measures: At the same meeting, it was indicated that the publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the competent police services would be useful. Information was also requested about the measures envisaged in order to ensure confidentiality during communication of detainees with their defence counsel. This information is also awaited.

H46-860 27229 Keenan, judgment of 03/04/01

The case concerns in particular the inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicant’s son due to the conditions of his detention (violation of Article 3). The case also concerns the absence of effective remedies enabling the applicant’s son to contest the disciplinary sanctions to which he was subjected or available to the applicant herself, following her son’s suicide (violation of Article 13).

General measures: The United Kingdom authorities have informed the Committee that they are presently considering which measures should be envisaged in order to avoid repetition of the violation found. Among other measures, extensive changes to the Prison Service’s Discipline Manual might be introduced. The prison complaints procedures have since been the subject of a major review with new procedures phased in from late 2001 to early 2002. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the judgment of the European Court has received widespread publication in legal journals. The Committee has asked whether, pending the adoption of any specific measures, a circular could be addressed to prison officers in order to draw their attention to the Keenan judgment. It has also asked to be kept informed of any developments in respect of the changes to be introduced in the Prison Service’s discipline manual. A copy of the reformed procedures has been requested together with exact references concerning publication.

Action of the security forces of the United Kingdom

H46-861 43290 McShane, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

H46-862 28883 McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46-863 37715 Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46-864 24746 Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

H46-865 30054 Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

CM/Inf(2003)4-Rev

Addendum 4

These cases concern the death of applicants’ next-of-kin during police detention or security forces operations. In this respect, the Court mainly found the following shortcomings in the proceedings for investigating the use of lethal force by police officers/ security forces (violations of Article 2): lack of independence of the investigating police officers from the security forces/police officers involved in the events; lack of public scrutiny and information to the victims’ families concerning the reasons for decisions not to prosecute any soldier / police officer; the inquest procedure did not allow for any verdict or findings which could play an effective role in securing a prosecution in respect of any criminal offence which might have been disclosed; the soldiers / police officers who shot the deceased could not be required to attend the inquest as witnesses; the non-disclosure of witness statements prior to the witnesses’ appearance at the inquest prejudiced the ability of the applicants to participate in the inquest and contributed to long adjournments in the proceedings; the inquest proceedings did not commence promptly and were not pursued with reasonable expedition.

The McShane case also concerns the finding by the Court of a failure by the respondent state to comply with its obligations under Article 34, in that the police had – albeit unsuccessfully – brought disciplinary proceedings against the solicitor who represented the applicant in national proceedings for having disclosed certain witness statements to the applicant’s legal representatives before the European Court.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: Representatives of the United Kingdom and the Secretariat have maintained various contacts in order to discuss the Government’s preliminary position in respect of the measures that need to be adopted. The publication of the judgments of the European Court and dissemination to police officers / security officers and judicial authorities concerned are still to be confirmed. Copies of the judgments have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to all coroners in Northern Ireland.

On 25/09/2002, consultations took place between the Secretariat and representatives of the United Kingdom authorities regarding the measures to be taken. On 07/10/2002, following these consultations, the United Kingdom authorities submitted to the Committee of Ministers a document containing a package of measures (either already adopted or for adoption) with a view to avoiding the repetition of the violations found in these cases. A preliminary examination of this information was made at the 810th meeting (October 2002). The main document was included in Addendum 4, volume 1 of the 819th meeting and the appendix (300 pages) to the document can be obtained from the Secretariat in the original language.

The examination of this document and other relevant information was pursued at the 819th meeting (December 2002) at the close of which the Secretariat was requested to prepare a memorandum summarising the information available. Subsequently, additional information has been received, notably from the applicants’ representatives and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The memorandum, including the additional information submitted, had been distributed under the reference CM/Inf(2003)4.

At the 827th meeting (11-12/02/2003), the Committee decided to resume consideration of the examination of the information contained in the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat at its 834th meeting (09‑10/04/2003). Subsequently, the Secretariat has received further information from the United Kingdom authorities. The information has been included in a revised version of the Memorandum (CM/Inf(2003)4 Revised).

At the 834th meeting (April 2003) several Delegations took the floor to insist on the need to have information in response to the questions raised in the Memorandum. However, it was agreed that the outcome of the proceedings in the Middleton case was important for further discussion of some of the issues covered in the Memorandum.

After the expiry of the time-limit set to submit new information, the delegation of the United Kingdom sent the Secretariat additional information (see Addendum 4) which is currently being analysed by the Secretariat.

SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

- 3 cases against Turkey

H46-866 25781 Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber

CM/Inf(2003)14

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.

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;

Sub-section 4.3

- 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.

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 is included in document 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 Security Forces Courts in particular.

Sub-section 4.3

H46-867 26308 Institut de Prêtres français and others, judgment of 14/12/00 – Friendly settlement

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. Consequently, at the 834th meeting (April 2003), it was agreed that the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers would send a new letter to the Turkish authorities if they do not settle this case by June 2003. At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, no information showing progress in this case at the national level was available.

H54-735 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 [72]

Addendum 4

At the present stage of the examination of the case the Deputies have decided to concentrate on the question of payment of the just satisfaction awarded in the last-mentioned judgment on account of the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of certain properties located in the Northern part of Cyprus (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The Court specified that payment was to take place within 3 months, i.e. before 28/10/1998.

Sub-section 4.3

As Turkey did not pay the just satisfaction awarded, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the Icelandic Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 22/06/1999 wrote to his Turkish counterpart expressing the Committee’s concern regarding the failure to execute the judgment.

Payment still not taking place, the Committee adopted, on 06/10/1999, Interim Resolution DH(99)680, strongly urging Turkey to review its position and to pay the just satisfaction awarded. As payment still remained outstanding, the Chairman of the Committee, the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote a new letter on 04/04/2000 to his Turkish counterpart reiterating the Committee’s expectation that Turkey ensure payment in the near future.

The reply of the Turkish Ministers of Foreign Affairs indicated that Turkey did not consider itself to have either the competence or the jurisdiction to execute the Court’s judgment.

On 12/07/2000, the Deputies, in response, adopted a new Interim Resolution DH(2000)105, declaring that the refusal of Turkey to execute the judgment of the Court demonstrates a manifest disregard for its international obligations, both as a High Contracting Party to the Convention and as a member State of the Council of Europe and insisted strongly, in view of the gravity of the matter, that Turkey comply fully and without any further delay with the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment of 28/07/1998.

At the 749th meeting (April 2001) the Turkish Delegation presented a payment proposal subjected, however, to conditions deemed unacceptable by the other Delegations.

In the continued absence of payment, the Committee adopted on 26/06/2001 a new Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)80 in which it recalled its previous Interim Resolutions and stated that:

“Very deeply deploring the fact that, to date, Turkey has still not complied with its obligations under this judgment;

Stressing that every member State of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

Stressing that acceptance of the Convention, including the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and the binding nature of its judgments, has become a requirement for membership of the organisation;

Stressing that the Convention is a system for the collective enforcement of the rights protected therein,

Declares the Committee’s resolve to ensure, with all means available to the organization, Turkey’s compliance with its obligations under this judgment,

Calls upon the authorities of the member States to take such action as they deem appropriate to this end.”

When the Deputies examined the matter at their 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Turkish Delegation reiterated the proposal made at the 749th meeting. Recalling that the conditions attaching to this proposal were unacceptable, several delegations presented proposals in order to make possible progress on the payment question.

At the 792nd meeting (April 2002), different proposals regarding payment of the sums awarded were discussed. The proposals examined were mainly based on the idea of a payment to the Council of Europe, which should forward the sums, including default interest, to the applicant. The Delegations of Greece and Cyprus objected to such a payment method as it would not correspond to the Court’s judgment, which ordered payment to the applicant. Several Delegations asked Turkey to provide further clarifications as to the exact content of its own payment proposal.

The Chairman also presented to the Deputies a letter from the applicant in which she expressed her frustration and anguish about Turkey’s unwillingness to comply with the judgment and asked to be authorised to address the Committee in person at a forthcoming meeting. A short discussion followed indicating that the Deputies were not inclined to grant the request. A negative reply has subsequently been sent by the Chair to the applicant.

For procedural reasons, the case could not be examined at the 796th meeting (May 2002) and the examination was postponed to the 798th DH meeting (June 2002). The Chairman indicated that he would in the meantime continue his consultations with interested Delegations. At the 798th (June 2002) and 803rd (July 2002), 810th (October 2002), 819th (December 2002) and 827th meeting (February 2003) meetings no information regarding the payment was available. At the last-mentioned 827th meeting, considerable concern was expressed regarding this situation and it was decided to resume consideration of the case at the 832nd meeting (19 March 2003), also bearing in mind the fact that the Committee of Ministers intended adopting its reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1576 (2002) on the execution of Court judgments by Turkey in time for the Assembly’s next part-Session (31 March - 4 April 2003).

Sub-section 4.3

At the 832nd meeting, a declaration made by the European Union concerning this case received broad support from delegations. At the same meeting, the Turkish Delegation made a statement. These statements are reproduced in Addendum 4.

Following a comprehensive debate, the Deputies agreed to reply to Recommendation 1576 that the Turkish authorities had indicated at recent Committee of Ministers’ meetings their determination to comply with the Court’s judgment of 28 July 1998 and that it expected to receive shortly information on concrete steps to this effect. At the 834th meeting (9-10 April 2003) Delegations insisted on the importance attaching to the Turkish authorities providing for the 841st meeting (3-4 June 2003) a clear, concrete and positive proposal, in line with the judgment, concerning the payment of the just satisfaction.

Restricted information: Recalling member states’ collective responsibility, the Chairman interpreted the outcome of the debate as a unanimous call by delegations that Turkey should make a clear, concrete and positive proposal, in line with the judgment, concerning payment of the just satisfaction for the 841st meeting in June. This proposal should be submitted in time to be considered by delegations and by the Secretariat before the meeting. The Turkish delegation had taken careful note of what had been said and undertaken to report it to its authorities.

Between now and the 841st meeting, the Secretariat was furthermore invited to begin work, if appropriate depending on the content of the information to be supplied by the Turkish Delegation and in time for the next meeting, on drafting a possible fourth interim resolution which would renew the Committee’s insistence on payment and indicate the measures contemplated in case of non-payment.

He also noted the proposal made by certain delegations to accept, if necessary, a method of payment along the lines of that proposed earlier by Turkey. These Delegations invited the Turkish authorities to restate this proposal, but without the elements which had been found unacceptable by the Committee.

He reminded Turkey that in all objectivity this case had remained on the Committee of Ministers’ agenda much too long and insisted on the importance and urgency of taking effective action.’

- 1 case against Ukraine

H46-868 48553 Sovtransavto Holding, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 06/11/02[73]

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).

Sub-section 4.3

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 meeting (April 2003), the Ukrainian authorities confirmed that the present case had been restored to the list of the Supreme Court of Ukraine but that no progress in the proceedings were reported.

General measures: At the 827th meeting (February 2003), it was noted that the violations found in this case would call for a number 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.

- Concerning supervisory review (protest), it was recalled that this procedure had been abolished in the Ukrainian law since June 2001 and the authorities were requested to provide the Secretariat with all legal texts which introduced this important change in civil, criminal and commercial procedure.

- As finally 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;

- 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.

Sub-section 4.3

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H54-869 25599 A., judgment of 23/09/98

The case concerns the failure of the state to protect the applicant from ill-treatment (1993-1994) by his step-father (violation of Article 3).

General measures: Newspaper coverage has been extensive. The publication of the European Court’s judgment in a legal journal is still to be confirmed.

As regards the legislative change which the United Kingdom authorities had undertaken to have adopted (see §24 of the judgment), the Secretariat received a copy of the Consultation Paper on the Physical Punishment of Children prepared by the United Kingdom authorities. Answers to the questions raised in this paper were ready by mid-2001. It was indicated that the answers should be the basis for further discussions on possible legislative changes to be introduced.

Subsequently, at the 775th meeting (December 2001) the United Kingdom authorities indicated that the Human Rights Act would suffice to prevent the recurrence of a breach of the kind found by the Court in this case so that no special legislative change is necessary. However, this new approach raised the question as to how parents, in the absence of a clear legislative change, would be made aware of the new standard.

At the 819th meeting (December 2002) the United Kingdom Representative responded that ministers have asked the Attorney General to continue his review of the use of the “reasonable chastisement” defence. His report of May 2002 suggested that it was indeed being used reasonably. Furthermore steps had been taken to support families through promoting positive parenting, such as an HM Treasury announcement of a 25 million-pound (37 million-euro) three-year programme to support parents through the voluntary sector.

The National Family and Parenting Institute, which is government-funded, has launched a video and leaflet “From Breakfast to Bedtime”. This provides tips for parents on how to cope with “meltdown moments” with toddlers. Both parents and professionals have received it very well and NFPI is having to produce additional copies to meet demand. It deliberately avoids any mention of smacking since preliminary research with parents found that the positive parenting messages were much better received on their own.

Ministers are aware that the smacking rules are different in Wales and Scotland where there is a total ban on childminders using corporal punishment, and are listening carefully to what others are saying on these issues. The Government will be reviewing the National Standards this year and this will be the opportunity for making any changes.

In view of recent case-law evidencing a continuing high degree of tolerance in respect of what violence constitutes “reasonable chastisement” (discussed in particular at the Seminar organised in Strasbourg on 21‑22/11/2002) and the Government’s undertaking before the Court, several Delegations and the Secretariat expressed that, apart from the measures already announced, legislative changes would be needed in this case.

The Committee has asked to be kept informed of any new development in particular as regards legislative change.

At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Committee asked the Secretariat to prepare a Memorandum containing the information received so far in the case.

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

- 7 cases against Austria

H46-870 33730 Weixelbraun, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H54-871 20602 Szücs, judgment of 24/11/97

H46-872 28923 Lamanna, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H54-873 21835 Werner, judgment of 24/11/97

H46-874 28389 Asan Rushiti, judgment of 21/03/00, final on 21/06/00

H46-875 35437 Demir, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-876 38549 Vostic, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

These cases concern the lack of public hearing and of any public pronouncement of the decisions in proceedings concerning the applicants’ compensation claims in respect of their detention on remand (violations of Article 6§1). The Asan Rushiti case also concerns a violation of the presumption of innocence in these proceedings (violation of Article 6§2). The Demir, Lamanna, Vostic and Weixelbraun cases only concern the violation of Article 6§2.

General measures: the judgments of the European Court in the cases of Szücs, Werner and Lamanna have been published in the newsletter of the Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte and the Österreichische Juristen-Zeitung. The Austrian authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the case-law of the Supreme Court has been developed taking into account the judgments of the European Court. Furthermore, changes were introduced into the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2000. Finally, the Committee has also been informed that an amendment of the 1969 Compensation (Criminal Proceedings) Act (see § 19 of the Court’s judgment) is under examination. The Committee has asked to be kept informed of any development in this field.

- 3 cases against Bulgaria

H46-877 30985 Hassan and Tchaouch, judgment of 26/10/00- Grand Chamber

The case concerns the State’s arbitrary interference in the internal organisation of a divided Muslim community, due to the replacement of its recognised leadership and to subsequent refusals to register Mr. Hassan as the new, legitimate leader of a faction of the Muslim community. This interference was based on legal provisions which did not meet the required standards of clarity and predictability and allowed unfettered discretion to the executive (violation of Article 9). The case also concerns the fact that the Supreme Court did not examine the lawfulness of the Government’s decree (R-12) violating freedom of religion and the repeated refusal of the Bulgarian Council of Ministers to comply with the Supreme Court’s judgments quashing the refusal to register the new leadership of the community (violation of Article 13).

General measures: in view of §§85-86 of the judgment of the European Court, the Bulgarian authorities have been invited to consider general measures to bring the Religious Denominations Act of 1949 into conformity with the requirements of clarity and predictability required by Article 9 of the Convention (cf. §§84-85 of the judgment). Moreover, attention has been drawn to the problem of the absence of effective judicial supervision of executive decisions (see §§100-101 of the judgment). Accordingly, the Bulgarian authorities have also been requested to consider both interim and long-term measures to ensure a substantial and effective judicial supervision of the decisions taken by the executive.

In 2000, the National Assembly adopted on first reading a new draft Religious Denomination Act. According to the Council of Europe’s expert opinion provided in February 2001, the new Bill contains certain improvements when compared to the existing law. However, the opinion also highlights a number of outstanding problems as regards the compatibility of the Bill with Article 9 of the Convention; it was noted in particular that the Bill still grants too much discretion to the authorities in regulating the freedom of religion.

During the last examination of the case (819th meeting, December 2002), the Bulgarian Delegation confirmed that the draft law had been sent to the Parliament for adoption. The Secretariat requested a copy of the draft law to study.

A new law on registration of religious organisations known as the Confessions Act was promulgated on 29/12/2002. A copy of the law together with any other relevant information concerning general measures is awaited.

Sub-section 5.1

H46-878 40061 M.S., judgment of 04/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-879 31365 Varbanov, judgment of 05/10/00

These cases concern the applicants' unlawful detention in psychiatric hospitals, in that their detention were ordered by prosecutors on the basis of an unpublished instruction by the Chief Public Prosecutor (Guidelines No. 295/85) without seeking prior medical opinion on the applicants' state of mental health (violation of or complaint under Article 5§1). The Varbanov case also concerns the fact that the applicant had no opportunity to bring judicial proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§4).

General measures: The Varbanov judgment was communicated to the Ministry of Health and to the Congress of Bulgarian Psychiatrists in November 2000 and will be published (in Bulgarian translation) in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice. The judgment was also brought to the attention of the expert group working on a new Bill on public health (see below).

At the 732nd meeting (December 2000), the attention of the Bulgarian authorities was drawn to the fact that the violations found in the Varbanov case were due mostly to shortcomings in the legislation. First, there was no legislation or regulation providing the necessity to obtain a medical opinion before or, in case of urgent arrest, immediately after a prosecutor’s order to detain a person for compulsory medical examination (cf. the requirements of Article 5 in § 47 of the judgment). Furthermore, the law does not allow the detainee (cf. §32 of the judgment) to challenge the prosecutor’s order to detain him for a compulsory medical examination before a judge.

At the 775th bis meeting (January 2002), the Bulgarian Delegation indicated that the Bill on public health, which aims at remedying the problems indicated above, would soon be put on the agenda of Parliament. The Delegation subsequently indicated that another Bill on mental health was being prepared to grant adequate safeguards to mentally ill persons (notably a preliminary medical examination and judicial review). Copies of these bills have been requested.

At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the Bulgarian Delegation indicated that the Bill on public health had been sent to the ministries concerned for opinion before being placed on the agenda of Parliament. However, at the time of issuing the present annotated agenda, the Secretariat had still not received the texts in question.

- 1 case against France

H46-880 37565 Sapl, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1). When the Court issued its judgment, the case had lasted 9 years and 4 months, from July 1992 to April 1998, and was still pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal of Lyon.

Possible individual measures: Accelerate the proceedings before the Administrative Court of Appeal of Lyon. Information is awaited.

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46-881 38432 Thoma, judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

This case concerns the fact that, in convicting the applicant, a journalist, of a breach of his obligation to provide bona fide information to the public, the competent domestic judges only had regard to the quotation by the applicant of a litigious passage of an article written by a fellow journalist and found solely on this basis that the applicant had adopted the allegation contained in the quoted text (corruption of an identifiable category of civil servants), on the ground that he had failed formally to distance himself from it. The European Court considered that requiring journalists to distance themselves systematically and formally from the content of a quotation that might insult or damage the reputation of a third party was not reconcilable with the press’s role of providing information on current events, opinions and ideas and therefore that the applicant’s conviction was disproportionate to the aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others (violation of Article 10).

Sub-section 5.1

General measures: The Luxembourg Delegation has sent the Secretariat a draft law on freedom of expression in the media and will communicate the date of adoption of this law. A conference principally concerning this draft law was organised during the Luxembourg’s Chairmanship, on 30/09 and 01/10/2002. Moreover, the European Court’s judgment has been disseminated to the relevant authorities and its publication has been confirmed.

- 1 case against Moldova

*H46-882 45701 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 27/03/02[74]

The case concerns the failure of the Government to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. The Court concluded that this non-recognition constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion and that this interference, although pursuing a legitimate aim, was not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus not justified under the Convention (violation of Article 9). The Court also concluded that the applicants did not enjoy an effective remedy in respect of their claims at domestic level (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: Following the Court's judgment, the Moldovan authorities recognised and registered the applicant Church on 30/07/2002 in accordance with the Moldovan Law on Religious Denominations, as amended on 12/07/2002. The Church has thus acquired legal personality thus opening the possibility for it to claim property entitlement.

Since the registration of the Church, the procedure for the registration by the Department for Religious Denominations of the Church’s sub-divisions (parishes, rectories, monasteries etc.) has been initiated. This procedure is governed by the current Law on Religious Denominations and provisional Regulations adopted in October 1994. The same procedure applies to all religious denominations. According to the information provided by the Moldovan authorities in February 2003, 11 parishes, a monastery and 4 rectories had so far been registered within the applicant Church. The latter disposed at the time of more than 120 rectories with almost 160 priests.

General measures: The Moldovan authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the original version of the judgment of the European Court and its official translation into Moldovan were published on 09/07/2002 in the Official Journal of Moldova (Monitorul Oficial, n°100).

The Moldovan authorities also indicated that the Moldovan legislation on religious denominations was amended by Law n°1220-XV which entered into force on 12/07/2002.

Article 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been amended so as to allow the reopening of domestic civil proceedings following violations of the Convention found by the European Court. The Moldovan authorities moreover recalled that a similar provision (Article 369/2, 1i) had been in existence since June 2000 in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

These amendments to the law on religious denominations were however found to be insufficient to prevent new, similar violations (Articles 9§3 and 14 did not reflect the requirement of proportionality inherent to the Convention, lack of clarity on the right a religious community to take judicial proceedings against the authorities' decision to cancel its recognition, etc).

A new draft law was accordingly submitted in March 2003 to the Secretariat. The result of the preliminary examination is, however, that the draft does not solve all outstanding problems which had already been identified in the law currently in force. This analysis was shared by the independent experts mandated by the Council of Europe to conduct a broader legal expertise on the draft at the request of the Moldovan authorities. This expertise was transmitted to the Moldovan authorities on 17/04/2003 together with a suggestion that a follow-up meeting on the expert study be held in Chişinau in good time before the adoption of the draft law by Parliament. At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, the Moldovan authorities had not yet replied to this proposal.

Sub-section 5.1

- 23 cases against Poland

Cases concerning the length of civil proceedings[75]

H54-883 27916 Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98

H54-884 28616 Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98

H46-728 38328 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02[76]

H46-885 27918 C., judgment of 03/05/01

H32-886 24559 Gibas, Interim Resolution DH(97)242

H46-887 48001 Goc, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-888 29695 Gronuś, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

H46-529 71891 Hałka and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02[77]

H46-889 29691 Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-890 43779 Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02, final on 15/04/02

H46-891 35843 Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00, final on 14/03/01

H46-892 36250 Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-530 40330 Piechota, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03[78]

H46-893 29455 Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-85 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03[79]

H46-531 37645 Sawicka, judgment of 01/10/02, final on 01/01/03[80]

H46-894 25693+ Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 26/01/01

H46-895 40835 Szaparo, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-532 48684 Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02[81]

H46-533 65660 W.Z., judgment of 24/10/02, final on 24/01/03[82]

H46-896 32734 Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/09/01

H46-897 33082 Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00, final on 22/01/01

H46-898 34158 Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 27/03/02

- 1 case against Turkey

H54-899 18954 Zana, judgment of 25/11/97

The case concerns in particular the fact that the applicant could not appear in person at the hearing before the Court of Appeal which handed down his definitive prison sentence, and the excessive length of the relevant criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures: The necessity to clarify the effect of Article 226§4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was at the origin of the violation of the right to a fair trial, was raised. In 1998, the Turkish authorities prepared a bill amending this provision. The new provision of the Code (Article 194) will allow a judge not to summon an accused to a hearing only if the latter agrees not to attend. According to the information provided by the Turkish delegation at the 760th meeting (July 2001), the draft law was being examined by parliament. At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Turkish Delegation specified that the above-mentioned amendment was envisaged as a part of a broader reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure which should be adopted following the general elections of 03/11/2002. At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the Delegation indicated that the aforementioned reform would be adopted in the near future with the forthcoming package of reforms pending before Parliament. The text of the new provision and the confirmation of its final adoption are still awaited.

Sub-section 5.1

- 2 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-900 25594 Hashman and Harrup, judgment of 25/11/99 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns a “binding-over” order imposed on the applicants for having disrupted a fox hunt, not to breach peace or behave contra bonos mores in the future, although their behaviour did not constitute any breach of peace. The European Court considered that the binding-over order, based on the notion of “behaviour contra bonos mores”, did not comply with the Convention requirement that it be “prescribed by law” (violation of Article 10).

General measures: The United Kingdom authorities have informed the Committee that they remained committed to undertaking a full review of the law relating to binding over and, at the 775th bis meeting (January 2002) they announced that a consultation document was being prepared to that effect and might be issued in October 2002. In the interim, the Crown Prosecution Service Casework Bulletin No. 6 of 2000 gave guidance to prosecutors to the effect that they should not ask a court to consider a binding-over order unless there is evidence of past conduct which, if repeated, is likely to cause a breach of the peace. The guidance also suggested that courts could be encouraged to ensure that the behaviour to be avoided was made quite clear in the order. In July 2002, the question was raised of whether any example of change in the case-law was already available as a result of these measures. Moreover, the judgment of the European Court had been published in several legal journals (inter alia: The Times Law Report, 1.10.98; European Human Rights Review, 1999, issue 1; Criminal Law Review, 1999, pp. 451-452).

H46-901 26494 J.T., judgment of 30/03/00 - Friendly settlement

The Court took note of a friendly settlement reached between the government and the applicant, who was involuntarily detained in a psychiatric institution until 1996, and who complained of the legislation under which she was unable to change the person appointed “nearest relative” – in her case her mother with whom she was in conflict (complaint under Article 8).

General measures: The government has undertaken to modify the legislation involved in this case so as to allow committed psychiatric patients to contest the status of "nearest relative" before a court if the patient submits reasonable objections to a person acting in such capacity. In addition, it would be provided that certain persons could be excluded from acting in the capacity of "nearest relative". The draft amendment containing these provisions was sent on 19/07/2002 to the Secretariat, which is awaiting confirmation of the adoption of these measures. The judgment of the European Court has been published, but confirmation of the details of this publication is also awaited.

The government has also paid to the applicant 500 pounds sterling plus a sum corresponding to the reasonable costs she incurred at national level, but the date of the payment has not yet been confirmed.

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

No new case

SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

- 2 cases against France

H32-902 20282 G.B. I

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s confinement to a mental hospital as well as the excessive length of subsequent criminal proceedings (violations of Articles 5§1 and 6§1).

General measures: The Secretariat is awaiting confirmation of the publication of the report of the former European Commission of Human Rights in a medical journal and/or the confirmation of its broad dissemination, with a circular letter, in medical circles. By letter of 19/02/2001, the French Delegation informed the Secretariat that the Ministryof Health had undertaken to disseminate the Commission’s report to the professionals concerned.

H32-903 23321 Delbec I, Interim Resolution DH(98)15

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s right to her private life, in that she was deprived of her right to visit her children and was unable to obtain a review of her visiting rights because of the prefect’s refusal to disclose the address of her ex-husband (violation of Article 8).

General measures: Dissemination of the former European Commission’s report to préfectures, together with a letter explaining how this case was solved (giving the applicant the references of a lawyer representing the ex-husband) was requested at the 798th meeting (June 2002). Information is still awaited.

- 1 case against Finland

H46-904 25702 K. and T., judgment of 12/07/01 – Grand Chamber

This case concerns in particular the authorities’ failure to respect the applicants’ right to family life, first on account of the emergency care order concerning one of the first applicant’s daughters and secondly on account of the failure to take proper steps to reunite the applicants’ family (violations of Article 8).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been widely disseminated to all relevant authorities. The judgment has been published in the Finlex database and a separate press statement was released on the day of its pronouncement. It has been suggested that it would be useful to issue a circular underlining §§ 168, 178 and 179 of the judgment and the alternative measures which could have been taken. The Finnish Delegation had announced in February 2002 that such a circular letter to the civil jurisdictions and social authorities was being prepared.

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-905 39393 M.G., judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02[83]

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

- 27 cases against Austria

H46-1 30428 Beer Gertrude, judgment of 06/02/01

H46-906 37093 Informationsverein Lentia II, judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-907 38275 W.F., judgment of 30/05/02, final on 30/08/02

H46-908 38536 Schreder, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

H46-909 29271 Dichand and others, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-910 49455 Gollner, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-911 26958 Jerusalem, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-912 34315 Krone Verlag Gmbh and Co. Kg., judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-913 34320 Freiheitliche Landesgruppe Burgenland, judgment of 18/07/02 – Friendly

settlement

H46-914 28525 Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H54-915 15153 Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Berthold Gubi, judgment of

19/12/94

H32-916 26113 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H.

H46-918 33505 H.E., judgment of 11/07/02, final on 06/11/02[84]

H46-919 37075 Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

H46-920 31266 G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-921 26297 G.S., judgment of 21/12/99

H46-922 35019 Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-923 33915 Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01

H32-924 17291 Hortolomei

H46-925 37950 Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

H46-926 25878 Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00

H46-927 33382 Fischer Joseph, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-928 28501 Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-929 33501 Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-930 32381 Baischer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-931 29477 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-932 38237 Sailer, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

- 1 case against Belgium

H54-933 17849 S.A. Pressos Compania Naviera and others, judgment of 20/11/95

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

H32-934 30381 Mironov - Interim Resolution DH(99)352

H46-935 32438 Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-937 29515 Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

- 3 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-938 33644 Cesky, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00

H46-939 31315 Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00

H46-940 35848 Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

Section 6

- 2 cases against Denmark

H46-941 48470 Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-942 56811 Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

- 7 cases against Finland

H46-128 35999 Pietiläinen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 27/01/03

H46-943 31611 Nikula, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-944 49684 Hirvisaari, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-945 28856 Jokela, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 21/08/02

H46-946 30013 Türkiye iş Bankasi, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

H46-947 31764 K.P., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 05/09/01[85]

H46-948 29346 K.S., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 12/12/01[86]

- 68 cases against France

H46-949 33951 Caloc, judgment of 20/07/00

*H32-950 26242 Lemoine Pierre, Interim Resolution DH(99)353

H32-951 31409 Riccobono, Interim Resolution DH(99)557

H46-952 37786 Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

H46-953 24846 Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 – Grand

Chamber

H46-954 48215 Lutz, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H32-955 26984 Picard, Interim Resolution DH(99)30

H46-956 25803 Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-957 34406 Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-958 25088 Chassagnou and others, judgment of 29/04/99

H54-959 25017 Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

H32-960 27019 Slimane-Kaïd I

H54-961 23618 Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

H32-962 27413 Cazes

H46-963 25444 Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

H46-964 31819+ Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H32-965 27659 Ferville

H32-966 28845 Venot

H46-967 29507 Slimane-Kaïd II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00[87]

H46-968 27362 Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

H54-969 14032 Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

H32-970 17572 A.C.

H54-971 25201 Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-972 34791 Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H54-973 24767 Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-974 31070 Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-975 53118 Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-976 39066 Donnadieu, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-977 35589 Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-978 41943 L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-979 47575 Marks and Ordinateur Express, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H32-980 29877 Pauchet and others - Interim Resolution DH(98)100

Section 6

- Length of proceedings before the administrative courts

H54-981 36313 Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-982 36317 Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-983 32217 Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

H54-984 33441 Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

H46-985 57753 C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-986 40493 Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-987 47007 Arnal, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-988 51575 Baillard, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 04/09/02[88]

H32-989 31842 Darmagnac Pierre V

H46-990 42189 H.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-991 44211 Lacombe, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-992 44617 Leray and others, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-993 43288 Mahieu, judgment of 19/06/01

H32-994 25309 Maljean

H46-995 46708 Zaheg, judgment of 9/02/02, final on 19/05/02

- Length of proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat

H46-996 38249 Arvois, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

H46-997 28660 Ballestra, judgment of 12/12/00, final on 12/03/01

H46-998 33207 Blaisot C. and M., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-999 36932 Caillot, judgment of 04/06/99, final on 04/09/99

H46-1000 42401 Camps, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 09/04/01

H46-1001 54757 Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-1002 41449 Durrand I, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-1003 42038 Durrand II, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-1004 30979 Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00

H46-1005 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

H46-1006 44066 Grass, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-1007 41001 Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

H46-1008 37387 Lambourdiere, judgment of 02/08/00, final on 02/11/00

H46-1009 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 10/07/02[89]

H32-1010 32510 Peter

H46-1011 33989 Thery, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-1012 38042 Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

- Length of proceedings before the labour courts

H32-1013 39966 De Cantelar, Interim Resolution DH(2000)86

H46-1014 47194 Leboeuf, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1015 38398 Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

H46-1016 44791 Marcel, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

- 2 case against Germany

H46-1017 45448 Becker, judgment of 16/09/02, final on 26/12/02

H46-1018 54999 Axen, Teubner and Jossifov, judgment of 27/02/03 - Friendly settlement

Section 6

- 39 cases against Greece

H54-1019 19233+ Tsirlis and Kouloumpas, judgment of 29/05/97

H54-1020 24348 Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97

H54-1021 23372+ Larissis and others, judgment of 24/02/98

H54-1022 18748 Manoussakis and others, judgment of 25/09/96

H46-1023 38178 Serif, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-1024 34369 Thlimmenos, judgment of 06/04/00

H46-1025 38703 Agoudimos and Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co., judgment of 28/06/01, final on

28/09/01

H46-1026 37098 Antonakopoulos, Vortsela and Antonakopoulou, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 21/03/00

H46-1027 43597 Dionyssios Petrotos, judgment of 29/02/00 – Friendly settlement

H54-1028 21522 Georgiadis Anastasios, judgment of 29/05/97

H46-1029 41209 Georgiadis Dimitrios, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H32-1030 34373 Goutsos, Interim Resolution DH(99)558

H54-1031 18357 Hornsby, judgment of 19/03/97

H46-1032 31107 Iatridis, judgments of 25/03/99 and of 19/10/00 (Article 41) – Grand Chamber

H46-1033 53478 Sajtos, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-1034 38704 Savvidou, judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

H32-1035 32397 Sinnesael, Interim Resolution DH(99)130

H46-1036 28802 Tsavachidis, judgment of 21/01/99

H46-1037 43622 Malama, Judgments of 01/03/01, final on 05/09/01[90] and of 18/04/02 (Article 41), final on 18/07/02

H46-1038 25701 Ex-roi de Grèce, Princesse Irene and Princesse Ekaterini, judgments of 23/11/00 and of 28/11/02 (Article 41) - Grand Chamber

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-1039 30342 Academy Trading Ltd and others, judgment of 04/04/00

H46-1040 40434 Kosmopolis S. A., judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

H46-1041 46380 LSI Information Technologies, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

- Length of proceedings before administrative courts

H46-1042 42079 E.H., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46-1043 41459 Fatourou, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46-1044 41867 Messochoritis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H54-1045 20323 Pafitis and others, judgment of 26/02/98

H46-1046 38971 Protopapa and Marangou, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H32-1047 34569 Société anonyme Dimitrios Koutsoumbos, société technique, commerciale and touristique

H46-1048 47891 Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-1049 40437 Tsingour, judgment of 06/07/00, final on 06/10/00

H46-1050 38459 Varipati, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/01/00

H46-1051 55611 Xenopoulos, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 04/09/02[91]

- Court of Audit

H46-1052 47734 Adamogiannis, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-1053 37439 Agga, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H54-1054 19773 Philis 2, judgment of 27/06/97

H54-1055 28523 Portington, judgment of 23/09/98

H32-1056 32857 Stamoulakatos Nicholas I

H32-1057 24453 Tarighi Wageh Dashti

Section 6

- 2 cases against Hungary

H46-1058 32396 Magyar, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-1059 38937 Erdős, judgment of 09/04/02, final on 09/07/02

- 9 cases against Italy

H46-1060 41232 Quartucci, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1061 41221 Troiani Marcello II, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 10/07/02

H32-1062 27253 Biasetti

H46-1063 44955 Mancini Vittorio and Luigi, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

H32-1064 25650 Santandrea

H46-1065 47247 Mercuri, judgment of 11/04/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1066 31227 Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

H32-1067 16609 Intrieri

H54-1068 14025 Zubani, judgments of 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-1069 50108 Kulakova, judgment of 18/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 8 cases against Lithuania

H46-1070 37975 Graužinis, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-1071 36743 Grauslys, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-1072 34578 Jėčius, judgment of 31/07/00

H46-1073 47679 Stašaitis, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-1074 42095 Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01

H46-1075 44558 Valašinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-1076 44800 Puzinas, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46-1077 55479 Slezevicius, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

- 3 cases against Malta

H46-1079 25642 Aquilina, judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1080 25644 T.W., judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1081 35892 Sabeur Ben Ali, judgment of 29/06/00, final on 29/09/00

- 11 cases against the Netherlands

H46-1082 32605 Rutten, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-1083 25989 Van Vlimmeren and Van Ilverenbeek, judgment of 26/09/00

H46-1084 31465 Sen, judgment of 21/12/01, final on 21/03/02

H32-1085 14084 R.V. and others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

H46-1086 28369 Camp and Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-1087 29192 Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-1088 31725 Köksal, judgment of 20/03/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1089 33258 Holder, judgment of 05/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1090 36499 Samy, judgment of 18/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1091 34549 Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

H46-1092 26668 Visser, judgment of 14/02/02

Section 6

- 7 cases against Poland

H46-1093 34611 Dacewicz, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

H46-1094 28358 Baranowski, judgment of 28/03/00

H46-1095 31382 Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-1096 38670 Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

H46-1097 51669 Pałys, judgment of 11/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1098 25874 Kawka, judgment of 09/01/01

H46-1099 33310 H.D., judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

- 12 cases against Portugal

H46-1100 29813+ Almeida Garret, Mascarenhas Falcao and others, judgments of 11/01/00 and

10/04/01

H46-1101 43654 Pires, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1102 47833 Marques Francisco, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

H46-1103 49018 Marques Jorge Ribeiro, judgment of 04/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1104 37698 Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

H46-1105 37528 Martins and Garcia Alves, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H54-1106 15777 Matos and Silva and 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

H46-1107 33290 Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

H46-1108 49118 SIB - Sociedade Imobiliária Da Benedita Lda, judgment of 16/05/02

- Friendly settlement

H46-1109 54073 Agostinho, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1110 54483 Lógica - Móveis de Organização, Lda, judgment of 19/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1111 54449 Saraiva e Lei, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Romania

H32-1112 32922 C.C.M.C., Interim Resolution DH(99)333

- 2 cases against San Marino

H46-847 24954 Tierce and others, judgment of 25/07/00

H46-848 35396 Stefanelli, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

- 10 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-1113 34753 Jóri, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-1114 40058 Gajdúšek, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-1115 48672 Nemec and others, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-1116 40345 Stančiak, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H46-1117 29032 Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

H46-1118 32686 Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

H46-1119 46843 Remšíková, judgment of 17/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1120 24530 Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-1121 38794 J.K., judgment of 23/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1122 41384 Varga, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against Slovenia

H46-1123 29462 Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

H46-1124 28400 Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

- 2 cases against Sweden

H46-1129 38629 Lundevall, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-1130 38978 Salomonsson, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

Section 6

- 13 cases against Switzerland

H46-1131 41202 Müller, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-1132 27154 D.N., judgment of 29/03/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-1133 33958 Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1134 27798 Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

H54-1135 23224 Kopp, judgment of 25/03/98

H46-1136 54273 Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

H46-1137 24699 VGT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46-1138 37292 F.R., judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46-1139 33499 Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-1140 27426 G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-1141 28256 M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H32-1142 27613 P.B., Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)83

H54-1143 19800 R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678

- 114 cases against Turkey

H46-1144 29296 İğdeli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1145 36971 Kuray, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1146 30944 Öcal, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1147 28505 Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1148 29921 Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

H46-1149 31312 Eğinlioğlu, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1150 29851 Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H46-1151 29295+ Ecer and Zeyrek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-1152 34686 Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1153 29495 Erdemli, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/10/01

H46-1154 35980 Z.E., judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1155 31882 Çakmak, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1156 24947 Ekinci Lalihan, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1157 31849 İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1158 24937 Koç Fırat, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1159 24933 Kürküt, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1160 31733 Tuncay and Ozlem Kaya, judgment of 08/11/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1161 28011 Yeşiltepe, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1162 32983 Çavuşoğlu, judgment of 06/03/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1163 31249 Gündüz and others, judgment of 14/11/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1164 24932 Kaplan, judgment of 26/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1165 24669 Karataş and Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

- Length of detention on remand

H46-1166 29862 Bağci and Murğ, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1167 32450 Çaloğlu, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1168 31896 Değerli, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1169 29866+ Demir C., Demir M. and Gül, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1170 29883+ Fidan, Çağro and Özarslaner, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1171 34481 Filiz and Kalkan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1172 31787 Göktaş and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1173 31850 Günay and others, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-1174 31877 Gündoğan Halil, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-1175 28013+ Karatepe and Kırt, judgment of 17/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1176 34499 Kortak, judgment of 31/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1177 31895 Morsümbül, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

Section 6

H46-1178 30495 Mutlu and Yildiz, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1179 28014+ Okuyucu, Kara and Bilmen, judgment of 17/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1180 30453 Özata and others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1181 29425 Özçelik and others, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1182 36760 Şanlı and Erol, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1183 37191 Yildirim and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1184 34684 Yolcu, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- Delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46-1185 19264 Aktaş and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1186 38916 Atalağ, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H32-1187 22907 Atatür A. and M., and Pamir

H46-1188 38915 Bayram Abdullah Naci, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1189 35867 Bayram and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1190 20132 Bilgin Burhan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1191 20133 Bilgin Leyli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1192 19267 Bilgin Mehmet and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1193 20134 Bilgin Münir, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1194 19268 Bilgin Saniye and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1195 37414 Birsel and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1196 19269 Bozkurt and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1197 19272 Çalkan and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1198 26543 Çallı, judgment of 12/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1199 20136 Canlı, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1200 19666 Çapar Nuri, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01

H46-1201 19273 Çapar, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1202 19274 Çelebi Hamdi, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1203 19275 Çelebi Yusuf, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1204 20139 Çelebi Mehmet No. 3, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-1205 19276 Çiplak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1206 19277 Daniş, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1207 68117 Denli Nesibe, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 23/10/02

H46-1208 19278 Erol, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1209 19280 Gökgöz, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1210 19281 Gökmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1211 20142 Günal Kazım, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1212 19270 Ilhan Buzcu and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1213 20143 İnce Fehmiye, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-1214 19283 Işik Ayşe and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1215 19284 Işik Yilmaz and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1216 35050 Karabıyık and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1217 19286 Karabulut Sefer, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1218 19271 Nuriye Buzcu, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1219 30448 Önel Ahmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-1220 30948 Önel Mehmet, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-1221 30446 Önel Temur, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-1222 33419 Özdiler Hasan Doğan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1223 30447 Özel Hacı Bayram, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-1224 31964 Özel Hacı Osman, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-1225 19287 Özen, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1226 35079 Özkan and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1227 19288 Öztekin, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-1228 20153 Şen Ismet, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1229 20156 Şen Kemal, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1230 20154 Şen Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

Section 6

H46-1231 20158 Taşdemir Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1232 35866 Ünlü Dudu, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1233 38931 İ.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1234 33322 Özdiler and Bakan, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement

- Cases concerning the length of criminal proceedings

H46-1235 31880 Adıyaman, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1236 32964 Akçam, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1237 33362 Akyazı, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1238 29280 Başpınar, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1239 29913 Binbir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1240 26480 Bürkev, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1241 29912 Çilengir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1242 32981 Dede and others, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-1243 29699 Dinleten, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1244 31891 Genç, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1245 39428 İnan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1246 28291 Kanbur, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1247 32990 Karademir, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1248 32987 Keskin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1249 29360 Ketenoğlu Gülşen and Ketenoğlu Halil Yasin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on

25/12/01

H46-1250 29700 Metinoğlu, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1251 29701 Özcan Süleyman, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1252 31960 Pekdaş, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1253 31961 Şahin Metin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46-1254 29702 Sarıtaç, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1255 29911 Uygur, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1256 31834 Yağız Hasan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1257 29703 Zülal, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

- 23 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-1258 36533 Atlan A. and T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H46-1259 48535+ Beck, Copp and Bazeley, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-1260 43208+ Perkins and R., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-1261 65905 Rice, judgment of 01/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1262 24265 Devenney, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-1263 48521 Armstrong, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

H46-1264 24724 T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1265 24888 V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1266 45276 Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H54-1267 24839 Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

H32-1268 27237 Govell

H32-1269 26109 Santa Cruz Ruiz

H54-1270 24838 Steel, Lush, Needham, Polden and Cole, judgment of 23/09/98

H46-1271 35394 Khan, judgment of 12/05/00, final on 05/10/00

H46-1272 28901 Rowe and Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

H46-1273 35718 Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

H46-1274 33274 Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

H46-1275 39360 S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H54-1276 20605 Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Interim Resolution DH(1999)725

H46-1277 36670 Duyonov and others, judgment of 02/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1278 32340 Curley, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-1279 28945 T.P. & K.M., judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-1280 44787 P.G. and J.H., judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

c. PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING
(847th MEETING, 8-9 July 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.

[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 N° 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 5.1

[5] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[6] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[7] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[8] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[9] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[10] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[11] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[12] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[13] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[14] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[15] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[16] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[17] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[18] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[19] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[20] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[21] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[22] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[23] This case also appears in sub-section 4.1

[24] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[25] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[26] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[27] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[28] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[29] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[30] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[31] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[32] At that date, the parties notified the Court that they would not seise the Grand Chamber.

[33] This case having being paid, it will be examined at the 847th meeting (8-9 July 2003) under sub-section 4.2

[34] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[35] 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 not expired (26/05/2003).

[36] This case also appears in sub-section 5.1

[37] This case also appears in sub-section 4.2

[38] This case also appears in sub-section 4.3

[39] The Secretariat proposes to postpone these two cases pending the GR-H’s conclusions.

[40] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 847th meeting (8-9 July 2003)

[41] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[42] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 847th meeting (8-9 July 2003)

[43] Inclusion of cases in this Section does not exclude the possibility that general measures may be examined at subsequent meetings.

[44] This case also appears in section 3.a

[45] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to a forthcoming meeting.

[46] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 847th meeting (8-9 July 2003)

[47] This case also appears in section 3.a

[48] This case also appears in section 3.a

[49] This case also appears in section 3.a

[50] This case also appears in section 3.a

[51] This case also appears in section 3.a

[52] This case also appears in section 3.a

[53] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[54] This case also appears in section 3.a

[55] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[56] The Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 05/11/1997

[57] This case also appears in section 3.a

[58] This case also appears in section 3.a

[59] This case also appears in section 3.b

[60] This case also appears in section 3.a

[61] This case also appears in section 3.a

[62] This case also appears in section 3.a

[63] This case also appears in section 3.a

[64] This case also appears in section 3.a

[65] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[66] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[67] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of this case at the latest in April 2004 in order to examine it together with the other cases of excessive length of criminal proceedings.

[68] This case also appears in section 3.a

[69] This case also appears in section 3.a

[70] This case also appears in section 3.b

[71] The Secretariat proposes to postpone examination of this case to the 847st meeting (8-9 July 2003) in order to examine it with together similar other cases.

[72] This case also appears in section 3.b

[73] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[74] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[75] The Secretariat proposes to postpone the examination of these cases at the 847th meeting (8-9 July 2003).

[76] This case also appears in section 3.b

[77] This case also appears in section 3.a

[78] This case also appears in section 3.a

[79] This case also appears in section 2

[80] This case also appears in section 3.a

[81] This case also appears in section 3.a

[82] This case also appears in section 3.a

[83] The Secretariat proposes to postpone this case to the 854th meeting (7-8 October 2003).

[84] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[85] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[86] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[87] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[88] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[89] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[90] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.

[91] Date of the dismissal of the request for a re-hearing before the Grand Chamber.