Ministers’ Deputies

Annotated Agenda

CM/Del/OJ/OT(2003)827

———————————————

827th (DH) Meeting 11-12 February 2003

Annotated Agenda and Order of Business ⁽¹⁾

Public information version

——————————————

This document only takes into account the information available to the Secretariat on 20 December 2002

________________________

(1) Those items marked with an asterisk * were added after approval of the draft Agenda (Appendix 2 to the Volume of Decisions of the 764th meeting) in accordance with the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. 3

GENERAL QUESTIONS. 9

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS. 10

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES. 16

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION. 26

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTION (INDIVIDUAL MEASURES,
MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS) 49

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED.. 81

SECTION 6 - CASES AWAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION. 89

c. PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING (834th MEETING, 8-9 April 2003) 99

Additional documents

Addendum General Questions

Addendum 1 - Final Resolutions

Addendum 4 – Cases raising special questions

Addendum Preparation of the next DH meeting (834th meeting, 8-9 April 2003)

Appendix to the Draft Annotated Agenda and Order of Business of the 827th meeting

CM/Inf(2003)4

CM/Inf(2002)47-Add 2

INTRODUCTION

At the present Human Rights meeting, the Committee of Ministers, sitting at the level of the Ministers’ Deputies, will supervise the execution of some 3151 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):

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 settlements 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: 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.

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: 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.

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

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

Sub-section 3.2 – Decisions on just satisfaction

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

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

SECTION 4 – CASES RAISING SPECIAL QUESTIONS

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

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

 

Sub-section 4.1 – Supervision of individual measures only

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

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

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

Sub-section 4.3 – Special problems

This title groups together complex cases raising special problems.

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

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

SECTION 5 – SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

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

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

Sub-section 5.1 – Legislative and/or regulatory changes

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

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

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

Sub-section 5.3 – Publication / dissemination

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

The Deputies are invited to present all relevant information in writing to the Directorate General of Human Rights (Service for the execution of the judgments of the Court).

Sub-section 5.4 – Other measures

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

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

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

SECTION 6 – CASES WAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION 

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

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

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

GENERAL QUESTIONS

a.                Adoption of the Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

Action

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

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

Action

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

c.                Preparation of the next meeting (834th (8-9 April 2003)) see page 99

d.                Application of default interest in the supervision of the execution of the terms of friendly settlements

                   Addendum General Questions

Action

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of this item, in the light of the debate held at the 819th meeting.

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS

(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

(Addendum 1)

Action

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

                   SUB-SECTION 1.1 – LEADING CASES

- 1 case against Austria

H46-1           35115          Riepan, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

- 3 cases against Germany

H46-2677     23541          Garcia Alva, judgment of 13/02/01

H46-2678     24479          Lietzow, judgment of 13/02/01

H46-2679     25116          Schöps, judgment of 13/02/01

- 3 cases against Greece

H46-3           33170          Biba, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

H46-4           38194          Karakasis, judgment of 17/10/00, final on 17/01/01

H32-5           30175          S.A. « Avis Entreprises Hôtelières Touristiques and Industrielles Rurales »

- 1 case against Ireland

H46-6           33267          Croke, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01 - Friendly settlement

                   SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

- 2 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-8           29545          Devlin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-9           35685          Mills, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01

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

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-10         50516          Georgiadis, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 14/08/2002

- 4 cases against France

H46-11         41333          Brochu, judgment of 12/06/01, final on 12/09/01

H46-12         43713          Joly, judgment of 27/03/01, final on 27/06/01

H46-13         46693          Chapus, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

H46-14         42406          Vallar, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

- 1 case against Greece

H46-15         39442          Société Anonyme Sotiris and Nikos Koutras Attee, judgment of 16/11/00,

                                      final on 16/02/01

- 1 case against Italy

H46-16         29569          Buscemi, judgment of 16/09/99

- 10 cases against Portugal

H46-17         37010          Conde, judgment of 23/03/00, final on 23/06/00

H46-18         47459          Fernandes João, judgment of 18/04/2002, final on 18/07/2002

H46-19         36668          Fertiladour S.A., judgment of 18/05/00, final on 18/08/00

H46-20         42918          Nascimento, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-21         46462          Rego Chaves Fernandes, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

H46-2830     35593          Galinho Carvalho Matos, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

H46-2831     46464          Vaz Da Silva Girão, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

H46-2832     45725          Malveiro, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 12/06/02

H46-2833     45560          Guerreiro, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 30/04/02

H46-2834     42636          Bento Da Mota, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

- 1 case against Switzerland

H32-22         26452          D’Amico Heidi and Salvatore

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

- 1 case against Austria

H46-23         32097          Biegler Bau GesmbH, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Croatia

H46-24         53227          Majstorović, judgment of 06/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 3 cases against Greece

H46-25         53051          Livanos, judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-26         50529          Teka Ltd, judgment of 26/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-27         49222          Tiburzi, judgment of 25/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 29 cases against Italy

H46-28         44968          Amato Del Re, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-29         35797          Arrivabene, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-30         35795          Ferrari Barbara, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-31         42609          Fusco Fabrizio, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-32         42444          O.L.B., judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-33         40037          S.B., judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-34         40537          T., judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-35         44864          V.L. and others, judgment of 07/05/02, Friendly settlement

H46-36         32671          B. and F., judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-37         32541          Celona, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-38         31605          Colucci, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-39         33967          De Filippis, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-40         31480          Guglielmi II, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-41         37509          Pané P. and A., judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-42         31525          Pezza, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-43         39716          Stoppini, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-44         38656          Tiberio, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-45         30968          Barone Mario, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-46         32645          Castello, judgment of 04/10/01- Friendly settlement

H46-47         32404          Girolami Zurla, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-48         31916          Immobiliare Anba, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-49         31922          Micucci, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-50         33831          Musiani Dagnini, judgment of 04/10/01- Friendly settlement

H46-51         31929          Pini and Bini, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-52         31927          Serlenga, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-53         32650          Sit s.r.l., judgment of 04/10/01- Friendly settlement

H46-54         32648          Tentori Montalto, judgment of 04/10/01- Friendly settlement

H46-55         37007          Pittini, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-56         36010          Venturi, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-57         58964          K.K.C., judgment of 21/12/01 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Poland

H46-58         31387          Kliniecki, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01 – Friendly settlement

Sub-section 1.4

- 8 cases against Portugal

H46-59         48959          Azevedo Moreira, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-60         46772          Baptista Do Rosàrio, judgment of 04/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-61         45648          Caldeira and Gomes Faria, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-62         48960          Conceição Fernandes, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-63         47584          Martos Mellado Ribeiro, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-64         52772          Pereira Palmeira and Sales Palmeira, judgment of 04/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-65         46143          Sociedade Panificadora Bombarralense Lda., judgment of 14/02/02 –

                                      Friendly settlement

H46-66         48526          Viana Montenegro Carneiro, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES

Action

The Deputies are invited to procede to the 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 specificity 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 compensation agreed under a friendly settlement has been awarded to the applicants except in the following case: Sovtransavto Holding (reserved).

Section 2

- 3 cases against Austria

H46-67         33505          H.E., judgment of 11/07/2002, final on 06/11/2002[4]

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 28/06/1985 and ended on 24/05/1996 (almost 10 years and 11 months).

*H46-68        37093          Informationsverein Lentia, judgment of 28/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the fact that the applicant company was unable to obtain radio and television broadcasting licences, despite a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in this respect three years earlier, until 1/08/1996. On that date a judgment of the Constitutional Court liberalising the creation of radio and television stations and the new Act on cable and satellite broadcasting took effect (complaint under Article 10).

Following the European Court’s judgment of 24/11/93, the Committee of Ministers adopted Final Resolution (DH(98)142) summarising the measures taken by the Austrian authorities to avoid repetition of the violation found.

*H46-69        34994          Walter, judgment of 28/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint concerning a breach of his right of access to a court in the context of proceedings he sought to bring under Austrian media law. The applicant, who was in prison at the material time, maintained that he had been prevented from lodging an application to enforce the exercise of his right of reply to a press article in time because of an alleged delay by the prison authorities in posting a letter (complaint under Article 6§1).

- 1 case against Belgium

H46-70         37370          Stratégies and Communications and Dumoulin, judgment of 15/07/2002,

                                      final on 15/10/2002

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings which began on 24/04/1996, when the searches were carried out at the company’s head office and the applicant’s home and were still pending  (after 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 context, the European Court noted that the law of 12 March 1998 amending Article 136 of the Criminal Investigation Code entered into force on 2 October 1998. This law introduced a remedy under 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 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.

Possible individual and/or general measures: accelerate the proceedings; other measure (s) to be discussed at the meeting.

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-71         51591          Markass Car Hide Ltd, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 06/11/2002[5]

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings started on 05/05/1998 and finished on 11/05/2000 (2 years and 6 days).

Section 2

- 2 cases against Croatia

H46-72         62912          Benzan, judgment of 08/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant’s complaints that he had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions under which he was detained in the B wing of the Lepoglava State Prison which amounted to degrading treatment of the applicant (complaint under Article 3) and that that he had no remedy in this respect (complaint under Article 13). The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to respect of his correspondence in that he was prevented from contacting his lawyer (complaint under Article 8).

In June 2002 the applicant was moved to another cell in one of the renovated wings of the above-mentioned prison (see § 15 of the judgment). According to the friendly settlement concluded, the Croatian Government, in addition to payment of compensation, undertakes to renovate the B Wing of the Lepoglava State Prison before the end of September 2003.

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

H46-73         56773          Rajčević, judgment of 23/07/2002, final on 06/11/2002[6]

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started on 18/09/1992. However, the period which falls within the Court’s jurisdiction began on 06/11/1997, once the Convention had entered into force in respect of Croatia. The proceedings were concluded on 06/02/2002 (four years and three months).

- 4 cases against France

H46-74         38748          Immeubles Groupe Kosser, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant company’s right to a fair trial on account of the Government Commissioner’s presence in the deliberations of the trial bench in proceedings before the Conseil d’Etat (violation of Article 6§1).

The case presents similarities to the Kress case of 07/06/2001 – see Sections 3.a and 4.2 of this document.

H46-75         54210          Papon, judgment of 25/07/2002, final on 25/10/2002

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, in that the Cour de cassation found that his appeal on a point of law had lapsed, pursuant to Article 583 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was applicable at that time, because he had not surrendered to custody nor obtained dispensation from the obligation to do so. The European Court considered that making the admissibility of an appeal to the Cour de cassation conditional on the appellant’s surrendering to custody undermined his right of access to the juge de cassation and thus his right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1). This case is similar to the Khalfaoui case, which is in Section 6 as a result of measures taken, in particular the abrogation of Article 583 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Possible individual measure:  re-opening of the appeal on basis of Articles 626-1 to 626-7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure introduced by Law No.2000-516 of 15 June 2000.

Section 2

H46-76         42400          Seguin, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 06/11/2002[7]

The case concerns the excessive length of two sets of proceedings before administrative and civil courts, concerning a redundancy for economic reasons, ended by a judgment of the Court of Cassation on 21/01/1998 (12 years and 9 months).

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

H46-77         41358          Desmots, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 06/11/2002[8]

The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings before the administrative courts including the Conseil d’Etat: 8 years and 6 months (violation of Article 6§1).

It presents similarities to the cases of Beaume Marty & others which are in the process of being closed following the adoption of measures (See Section 6 of this document).

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

- 10 cases against Italy

H46-78         57574+        Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic, judgment of 08/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicants’ expulsion to Bosnia-Herzegovina in March 2000 (complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention).

According to the friendly settlement reached, the Italian 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. The Government has further undertaken to arrange for the children of school age to be allowed to attend school and for a sick child to receive the medical attention she needs.

Individual measures: information is expected on the compliance with the terms of the friendly settlement.

H46-79         36534          Osu, judgment of 11/07/2002, final on 11/10/2002

The case concerns the fact that the applicant could not challenge his conviction in absentia in 1989, his appeal having been rejected in 1996 as time-barred. The European Court found that the failure by the Italian Court of Cassation to apply Section 1 of Law 747/69 (concerning the suspension of time-limits in summer) without reason deprived the applicant of his right to access to a court (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and expelled in 1997 to the United Kingdom.

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

Section 2

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

*H46-80        34742          A.M.M., judgment of 28/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-81         36112          C. Srl, judgment of 07/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-82         38043          Ciccone, judgment of 07/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-83         33115          Fabbrini, judgment of 15/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-84        39451          Fiorentini Vizzini, judgment of 19/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-85         35001          Franceschetti, judgment of 07/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-86        57206          Virgulti, judgment of 28/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-87         36734          Visca, judgment of 07/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

These cases concern the prolonged impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to implement judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, 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, under Section 4.2 of this document.

- 2 cases against Poland

H46-88         55106          Górka, judgment of 05/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

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

H46-89         71891          Hałka and others, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002

The case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings (7 years and 3 months) relating to a claim for compensation for persecution suffered under the communist regime (violation of Article 6§1).

This case is similar to that of Kurzac against Poland (judgment of 22/02/2001).

Under the 1991 law, only the Warsaw Regional Court was competent to examine such claims. Legislative amendments were introduced in 1995 so that all regional courts became competent to examine claims for annulment of convictions and compensation for persecution under the communist regime.  However, claims submitted before that date remain with the Warsaw Regional Court where a special division was created in order to deal with this type of claims. 

Possible individual and/or general measures: Statistics are awaited concerning the time taken to deal with similar cases before the Warsaw regional Court.

- 2 cases against Portugal

H46-90         48187          Rosa Marques and others, judgment of 25/07/2002, final on 25/10/2002

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings started on 21 August 1990 and finished on 9 November 1998 (eight years and two months).

*H46-91        54483          Lógica - Móveis de Organização, Lda, judgment of 19/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

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

Section 2

- 1 case against Romania

H46-92         33358          Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002

The case concerns the Supreme Court’s annulment of a final court decision delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' titles to real estate. The Supreme Court intervened following application 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 security of legal transactions 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 real estate (violations of Article 6§1). Finally the European Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision had violated the applicants’ right to respect for their possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case present similarities to that of Brumarescu against Romania (judgments of 23/01/01 and 11/05/01) which will be examined at the 834th meeting (April 2003) for supervision of general measures.

- 2 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-93         41263          Konček, judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns first an administrative decision withdrawing the applicant’s driving licence following an accident. In this context, the applicant complained of the unfairness and the length of this procedure (complaint under Article 6§1) and the absence of an effective remedy (complaint under Article 13). Secondly, the case concerns the length of criminal proceedings subsequently brought against the applicant for having caused a road accident while drunk (complaint under Article 6§1).

H46-94         41384          Varga, judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint regarding the length of certain criminal proceedings and the absence of an effective remedy in this regard (complaint under Article 6§1).

- 1 case against Spain

H46-95         45238          Perote Pellon, judgment of 25/07/2002, final on 25/10/2002

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.

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

Section 2

- 21 cases against Turkey

H46-96         36971          Kuray, judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint concerning his prolonged detention (11 days) in police custody in 1996 before being brought before a magistrate (complaint under Article 5 § 3).

This case presents similarities to that of 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.

H46-97         25144+        Sadak Selim and others, judgment of 11/06/2002, final on 06/11/2002[9]

The case concerns the automatic lapse of the applicants’ parliamentary mandates following the dissolution of their political party (DEP) by the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 16/06/1994 on the grounds of comments made abroad by the former chairman of the party and a written statement issued by its central committee (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.1). The European Court considered that the definitive dissolution of the DEP with immediate effect and the automatic lapse of the applicants’ parliamentary mandates, was a disproportionate sanction incompatible with the very essence of the right to be elected. After constitutional amendments in 1995, only the parliamentarian whose words or deeds has caused the dissolution of a political party, loses his or her mandate (see § 37 of the judgment). The impact of these constitutional amendments on the applicants’ case remains to be clarified.

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

H46-98         27209+        Kiliç Özcan, judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

This case concerns the applicant’s complaints concerning a violation of his freedom of expression on account of his convictions between 1993 and 1994 by State Security Courts following the publication of certain articles and the State Security Courts’ lack of independence and impartiality (complaints under Articles 10 and 6§1).

The applicant was imprisoned and sentenced to pay fines for separatist propaganda and for defending illegal organisations under Article 16 of the Press Act No. 5680 and Articles 6 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law No. 3713.

According to the friendly settlement, the Turkish Government undertook to pay a sum of money to the applicant and to implement all necessary reform of domestic law and practice in order to bring the Turkish Law into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in the area of freedom of expression. Furthermore, the government undertook to adopt the individual measures set out in Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicant’s convictions. This case is comparable to the “freedom of expression” cases against Turkey under Section 4.2 of this annotated agenda and order of business.

H46-99         27602          Ekinci Ülkü, judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002

The case relates to killing of the applicant's husband in February 1994 near Ankara and to the authorities' failure to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death (violations of Articles 2 and 13).

Individual measures: The applicant argued that the above finding of violations imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to carry out a genuine and effective investigation into the circumstances of her husband's murder. The Court stated that it was for Turkey to take all measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible restore the applicant to his rights and for the Committee of Ministers, acting under Article 46, to supervise their execution (§179 of the judgment).

Section 2

General measures: In its Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 the Committee took stock of the progress and pointed out a number of outstanding problems in the execution of some 40 judgments finding violations of the Convention by the Turkish security forces. As a result, Turkey has been invited to adopt further general measures to comply with these judgments. The Committee will be invited to resume consideration of these issues at the 834th meeting (8-9 April 2003).

H46-100       25656          Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/2002, final on 06/11/2002[10]

The case relates to the unacknowledged detention of the applicant's son and two brothers, in May 1994 in South-East Turkey, in the total absence of fundamental procedural safeguards (violation of Article 5) and to their disappearance and presumed death under the responsibility of the security forces (violations of Article 2 in respect of the three disappeared persons and of Article 3 in respect of the applicant). The case also concerns the destruction by the security forces of the applicant's and his relatives' homes and property (violations of Articles 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the applicant's complaints (violations of Article 2 due to serious deficiencies of the investigation into the applicant's relatives' disappearance and of Article 13, combined with Articles 2, 3, 5, and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The Court also found that the Turkish authorities hindered the exercise of the applicant's right to individual petition under the Convention (violation of Article 34).

Individual measures: The applicant asked the Court to oblige the respondent Government to undertake a serious investigation into the fate of the disappeared relatives of the applicant and to reconstruct their houses and the village of Caglayan so as to allow the applicant and his surviving relatives to return to their homes. The Court stated that it was for Turkey to take all measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible restore the applicant to his rights and for the Committee of Ministers, acting under Article 46, to supervise their execution (§451 of the judgment).

General measures: In its Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 the Committee took stock of the progress and pointed out a number of outstanding problems in the execution of some 40 judgments finding violations of the Convention by the Turkish security forces. As a result, Turkey has been invited to adopt further general measures to comply with these judgments. The Committee will be invited to resume consideration of these issues at the 834th meeting (8-9 April 2003).

                   -  8 Friendly settlement cases containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

H46-101       38588          Keçeci, judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-102      31137          Adalı, judgment of 12/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-103      31154          Şen Filiyet, judgment of 12/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-104      31153          Soğukpınar, judgment of 12/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-105       36189          Yakar, judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-106      22280          Demir Mahmut, arêt du 05/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-107       31890          Kınay M. and Kınay R., judgment of 26/11/2002 - Friendly settlement

*H46-108      31152          Yalçın Şaziment, judgment of 12/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

These cases concern in particular allegations of either ill-treatment during police custody or the killing of relatives of the applicants in the course of operations conducted by security forces or destruction of their properties between October 1988 and November 1996 in Istanbul, Diyarbakır, Ankara, Mus and Bingol  (complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

According to the friendly settlements, the Turkish Government, in addition to payment of compensation, undertakes notably 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.

Section 2

The complaints and the governmental undertakings in these cases present similarities with those made in a number of other friendly settlements relating to actions of the Turkish security forces, which will be re-examined at the 834th meeting (8-9 April 2003) for supervision of their implementation.

- 8 cases relating to delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest against Turkey

H46-109       19660          Çalkan Dudu, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 28/06/2002

H46-110       20140          Çelebi Mehmet n° 2, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 28/06/2002

H46-111       68117          Denli Nesibe, judgment of 23/07/2002, final on 23/10/2002

H46-112       20144          Kartal Adile, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 28/06/2002

H46-113       20152          Özen Mehmet, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 28/06/2002

H46-114       20151          Öztürk Ahmet, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 28/06/2002

H46-115       20155          Şen Aziz n° 2, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 28/06/2002

*H46-116      26543          Çallı, judgment of 12/12/2002 - Friendly settlement

These cases concern in particular the applicants’ complaints of breaches of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the administration’s delays in paying additional compensation awarded by domestic courts for expropriation of their property and due to the substantial difference between the default interest rate applicable at the time and the average rate of inflation in Turkey (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

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

- 1 case against Ukraine

H46-117      48553           Sovtransavto Holding, judgment of 25/07/2002, final on 06/11/2002[11]

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).

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

Section 2

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-118       36042          Willis, judgment of 11/06/2002, final on 11/09/2002

The case particularly concerns discrimination on grounds of sex against the applicant in that as a widower, he was denied the social security benefits for widowed parents: the Widowed Mother’s Allowance and the Widow’s Payment, as these benefits were only available to women (violation of 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.

- 1 case against Austria

H46-119       38275          W.F., judgment of 30/05/2002, final on 30/08/2002

- 1 case against Belgium

                   - Default interest to be paid

H46-120       51564          Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/02

- 33 cases against France

                   - Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-123       51279          Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/2002, final on 25/09/2002

H46-124       48161          Motais de Narbonne, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002

H46-125       53613          Goth, judgment of 16/05/2002, final on 16/08/2002

H46-126       32911+        Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/2002 - Grand Chamber

H46-127       37971          Sociétés Colas Est, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 16/07/2002

H46-128       41376          D.M., judgment of 27/06/2002, final on 27/09/2002

H46-129       43125          Delbec Annick n° 3, judgment of 18/06/2002, final on 18/09/2002[12]

H46-130       33395          L.R., judgment of 27/06/2002, final on 27/09/2002

H46-131       39626          Granata, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-132       38396          Karatas and Sari, judgment of 16/05/2002, final on 16/08/2002

H46-133       33424          Nouhaud and others, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-134       44952+        Van der Kar and Lissaur Van West, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-136       51575          Baillard, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 04/09/2002[13]

H46-137       48215          Lutz, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

H46-138       44081          Perhirin and 29 others, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002[14] [15]

H46-139       56198          Société Industrielle d’Entretien and de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02,

                                      final on 19/06/02

H46-140       51179          Solana, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 04/09/2002[16]

H46-141       44797+        Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

H46-142       45172          Fentati, judgment of 22/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

                   - Default interest to be paid

H46-143       33592          Baumann, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

H46-144       41476          Laine, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-145       40096          Versini, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46-146       41526          Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-147       44211          Lacombe, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-148       39273          Vermeersch, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

H46-149       48167          Hababou, judgment of 26/04/01- Friendly settlement

H32-150       39966          De Cantelar, Interim Resolution DH(2000)86

H46-151       42195          Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

H46-152       39594          Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber[17]

H46-153       40472          Tricard, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46-154       29731          Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

H46-155       47631          Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/04/01

H32-156       31677          Watson John, Interim Resolution DH(2000)20

- 10 cases against Greece

                   - Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-157       37095          Pialopoulos and others, judgments of 15/02/01, final on 27/06/02 and of 15/05/01, final on 06/11/02[18] (Article 41)[19]

*H46-158      47730          Entreprises Meton and Etep, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

                   - Default interest to be paid

H46-159       48392          Hatzitakis, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

H46-160       48679          AEPI S.A., judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

H46-161       46356          Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

H46-162       49215          Angelopoulos, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

H46-163       46806          Sakellaropoulos Yeoryios, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

H46-164       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

H46-165       49282          Marinakos, judgment of 04/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-166       47020          Kolokitha, judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against Hungary

H46-167       42373          Bódine Bencze, judgment of 01/10/2002 – Striking-out following a Friendly

                                      settlement

H46-168       43352          Kósa, judgment of 01/10/2002 – Striking-out follwong a Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

- 419 cases against Italy

                   - Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-169       36732          Pisano, judgment of 24/10/2002 – Striking-out - Grand Chamber

H46-170       33202          Beyeler, judgments of 05/01/00 (merits) and of 28/05/02 (just satisfaction)

H46-171       28724          Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/2002, final on 11/10/2002[20]

H46-172       46079          Biffoni, judgment of 24/10/2001 - Friendly settlement

H46-173       41624          Calvagno, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-174       31928          F. and F., judgment of 24/10/2001 - Friendly settlement

H46-175       39690          Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-176       43986          Pugliese Rosalba, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-177       47895          Sartorelli, judgment of 24/10/2001 - Friendly settlement

H46-178       34714          Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

- Civil courts[21]

H46-179       56084          At.M., judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-180       41740          Diebold, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-181       44413          Guerrera Angelo Giuseppe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-182       47479          Mastromauro S.R.L., judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-183       44409          Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, rectified on 09/07/02

H46-184       51664          Rodolfi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-185       30423          Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673

H46-186       51674          V.I., judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 04/09/2002[22]

- Administrative courts[23]

H46-187       56226          Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-188       44341          Cannone, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-189       44347          Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-190       44350          Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-191       56222          Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-192       56206          Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-193       56208          Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-194       56202          Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-195       56224          D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-196       56217          De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-197       44337          Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-198       56205          Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-199       56225          Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-200       56221          Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-201       56212          Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-202       44349          Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-203       44340          Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-204       56203          Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-205       44334          Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-206       56204          Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-207       56207          Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-208       56220          Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-209       38594          Mereu and S. Maria Navarrese, judgment of 13/06/2002, final on 13/09/2002

H46-210       56211          Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-211       44348          Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

Section 3.a

H46-212       44351          Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-213       56213          Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-214       56223          Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-215       56219          Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-216       56214          Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-217       56215          Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-218       56201          Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-219       56218          Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

- Court of Audit

H46-220       54282          Amici, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-221       54278          Leonardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-222       54312          Manna, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-223       54319          Sportola, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

- Labour courts[24]

H46-224       51031          Aceto and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-225       51089          Armellino Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-226       52824          Belviso and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-227       52804          Bianco Pellegrino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-228       52816          Biondi and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-229       51030          Biondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-230       52835          Cerbo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-231       52801          Ciarmoli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-232       52815          Cimmino and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-233       52807          Ciullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-234       52821          Colangelo Domenico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-235       51164          Crovella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-236       51163          D’Angelo Michele, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-237       51125          De Filippo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-238       51027          Del Vecchio Anna Rita, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-239       51155          Della Ratta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-240       52813          Di Meo and Masotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-241       52846          Di Meo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-242       51092          Di Mezza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-243       51156          Fasulo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, rectified on 12/09/2002

H46-244       51091          Ferrara Clementina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/2002

H46-245       52843          Franco and Basile, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-246       51161          Gagliardi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-247       52830          Giannotta and Iannella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-248       51094          Iacobucci and Lavorgna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-249       51170          Izzo Giovanni, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-250       52802          Lagozzino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-251       52812          Lavorgna and Iorio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-252       52822          Macolino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-253       52819          Mancino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-254       51169          Marotta Alberto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-255       51168          Martino Alfonso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-256       52827          Mastrocinque Mafalda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-257       51167          Matera Tommasina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-258       52845          Mazzarelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-259       52818          Meola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-260       52840          Mongillo Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-261       44428          Nardone Antonio, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

Section 3.a

H46-262       52832          Nero and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-263       51029          Ocone, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-264       51114          Paduano, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-265       52829          Pallotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-266       51023          Palmieri Maddalena, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, revised judgment of

                                      18/04/02, final on 18/07/02

H46-267       51022          Palmieri Mario Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-268       52841          Panza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-269       52837          Pascale and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-270       52842          Pascale Elda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-271       52826          Pascale Maria Annunziata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-272       51162          Pengue, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-273       52808          Perna Giuseppina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-274       52828          Petrillo and Petrucci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-275       51025          Petrillo Gino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-276       51024          Porto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-277       52825          Pucella and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-278       51126          Raccio Emilia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-279       51109          Restuccio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-280       52820          Riccardi Vicenzina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-281       52823          Romano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-282       52844          Romano Rosa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-283       52833          Santagata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-284       51165          Santina Pelosi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-285       40151          Sciarrotta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-286       52839          Tanzillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-287       52836          Tazza and Zullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-288       52810          Tazza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-289       52809          Truocchio Edmondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-290       51166          Truocchio Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-291       51124          Tudisco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-292       52817          Urbano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-293       51026          Uzzo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-294       52811          Villari, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-295       52847          Viscuso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-296       51028          Vitelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-297       52814          Zoccolillo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

H46-298       52800          Zuotto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

- Criminal proceedings[25]

H46-299       38576          Barattelli Carlo, judgment of 04/07/2002, final on 04/10/2002

H46-300       41863          Boldrin Stefano, judgment of 04/07/2002, final on 04/10/2002

H46-301       37249          Casadei Roberto, judgment of 04/07/2002, final on 04/10/2002

H46-302       35991          Del Federico Alberto, judgment of 04/07/2002, final on 04/10/2002

H46-303       42619          Di Vuono Bernardo, judgment of 04/07/2002, final on 04/10/2002

H46-304       44173          Mucciacciaro Raffaele, judgment of 04/07/2002, final on 04/10/2002

H46-305       42287          Pascazi Domenico, judgment of 04/07/2002, final on 04/10/2002

H46-306       43915          Rocci Luigi, judgment of 04/07/2002, final on 04/10/2002

H46-307       42291+        Tumbarello and Titone, judgment of 04/07/2002, final on 04/10/2002

H46-308       41424          Nuvoli, judgment of 16/05/2002, final on 16/08/2002

Section 3.a

- Criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages[26]

H46-309       46970          Contardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

                   - Default interest to be paid

H46-310       25639          F.L., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-311       30127          Sciortino, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46-312       39676          Rojas Morales, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-313       26772          Labita, judgment of 06/04/00, final on 06/04/00

H46-314       30882          Pellegrini Maria Grazia, judgment of 20/07/01, final on 20/10/01

H46-315       15918          Antonetto, judgment of 20/07/00, final on 20/10/00

H46-316       28168          Quadrelli, judgment of 11/01/00, final on 20/03/00

H46-317       33354          Lucà, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-318       26161          Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01[27]

H32-319       19734          F.S. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)209

H46-321       41852          Vaccaro, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-322       39221+        Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

                                      Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151[28]

- Civil courts[29]

H46-327       44481          A.C. VII, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-328       46515          Adriani, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-329       46964          Alpites S.P.A., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-330       47785          Angemi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-331       48412          Ar.M., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-332       46958          Ardemagni and Ripa, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-333       39900          Artuso Paolo, Interim Resolution DH(99)569

H32-334       39137          Avallone, Interim Resolution DH(99)475

H46-335       44511          Bellagamba, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-336       40977          Beltramo, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-337       44431          Beluzzi and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-338       39883          Bertozzi, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/04/00

H46-339       44442          Bevilacqua, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-340       36811          Bielectric S.R.L., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-341       44437          Bocca, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-342       39121          Bolla, Interim Resolution DH(99)480

H46-343       44457          Bonelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-344       44436          Buffalo s.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-345       46534          Burghesu, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-346       46980          C.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-347       35292          Calandrella F., P. and 2 others, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

H46-348       39881          Capodanno, judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/04/00

H46-349       45071          Capurro and Tosetti, judgment of 28/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-350       46526          Carboni, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-351       45859          Caruso Giuseppina, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-352       45861          Cavallaro, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-353       36620          Ceriello, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H46-354       46537          Cerulli and Zadra, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-355       45869          Chiappetta, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-356       46959          Circo and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

Section 3.a

H46-357       44504          Citterio and Angiolillo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-358       47779          Ciuffetti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-359       46532          Conte Gaspare and others, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-360       47774          Conti Giuliana, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-361       44385          Cornaglia, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-362       46527          Corsi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-363       35616          Coscia, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H46-364       46538          Costantini Francesco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-365       44500          Cova, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-366       45880          Cultraro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-367       46536          D.C. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-368       44513          D’Ammassa and Frezza, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, revised

                                      judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[30]

H46-369       45872          D’Annibale, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-370       40216          D’Arrigo and Garrozzo, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-371       52921          Damiano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-372       17482          D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28

H32-373       40566          De Cicco Concetta, Interim Resolution DH(98)405

H32-374       40580          De Lorenzi, Interim Resolution DH(99)588

H46-375       42520          De Simone Pasquale, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-376       39138          Di Fant I, Interim Resolution DH(99)488

H32-377       39139          Di Fant II, Interim Resolution DH(99)489

H46-378       46976          Di Motoli and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-379       46520          Dorigo Franco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-380       44480          E.G., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-381       44519          E.M. II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H32-382       39906          Emmebiemme S.r.l., Interim Resolution DH(99)592

H46-383       40982          Erdokovy, judgment of 01/02/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-384       46524+        F., T. and E., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-385       46533          F.L.S., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-386       39164          F.S.p.A. II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-387       46971          F.T., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-388       26012          Facciolini, Interim Resolution DH(96)648

H46-389       46968          Falconi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-390       52972          Falzarano Carmine, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-391       47781          Farinosi and Barattelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-392       45870          Ferrazzo and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-393       45868          Filippello Giorgio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-394       38145          Focardi and Conti, Interim Resolution DH(99)287

H46-395       46965          Franceschetti and Odorico, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-396       38118          Fraschetti, Interim Resolution DH(99)288

H46-397       44397          G.B. IV, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-398       37131          G.M.N., judgment of 02/11/99, final on 02/11/99

H32-399       38503          G.P. and 25 others, Interim Resolution DH(99)388

H46-400       46543          G.S. and L.M., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-401       47786          G.V. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-402       46963          Galiè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-403       46528          Giannalia, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-404       47773          Gianni, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-405       45860          Giuseppe Nicola and Luciano Caruso, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-406       40968          I.F., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-407       44418          I.P.E.A. S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-408       39116          I.R., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-409       44447          Ianniti and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

Section 3.a

H46-410       46516          Il Messaggero S.a.s. II, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-411       46517          Il Messaggero S.a.s. III, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-412       46518          Il Messaggero S.a.s. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-413       46519          Il Messaggero S.a.s. V, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-414       47777          Ilardi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-415       44508          Immobiliare Il Messaggero del geometra Antonio Iorillo, judgment of 25/10/01,

                                      final on 25/01/02

H46-416       39894          Italiano, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-417       46530          Iulio, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-418       40924          L. S.r.l., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-419       46542          Lanino, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H32-420       31341          Lazzari and Scagnoli, Interim Resolution DH(97)637

H46-421       45853          Lo Cicero, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-422       40571          Lo Sardo, Interim Resolution DH(99)606

H46-423       46523          Lonardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-424       46962          Lucas International S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-425       44406          M. S.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-426       46961          Maletti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-427       28725          Manzi A., B. and L., Interim Resolution DH(97)254

H46-428       44443          Marchi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-429       46957          Marcolongo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-430       44517          Mari and Mangini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-431       44422          Marzinotto, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-432       46966          Massaro, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-433       46979          Mastrantonio Francesca, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-434       44420          Mauri, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-435       46973          Morelli and Nerattini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-436       44490          Murgia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-437       39872          Nata, Interim Resolution DH(99)617

H46-438       46522          Nolla, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-439       44494          O.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-440       44468          P.B. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-441       40570          Padalino V. and G., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-442       40952          Paderni II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-443       21707          Panissa, D., G. and A. Vittonetto

H32-444       39155          Perilli and Gigotti Micheli, Interim Resolution DH(99)509

H46-445       45070          Persichetti and C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-446       44380          Pettirossi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-447       28936          Piccinini II, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-448       39899          Pirilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)623

H46-449       45065          Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-450       46967          Procaccianti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-451       46969          Procopio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-452       44412          Quattrone Pasquale, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-453       38498          Rando, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-454       45058          Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-455       44465          Rigutto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-456       43098          Romano, judgment of 28/09/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-457       35328          Roselli Italo II, Interim Resolution DH(98)440

H46-458       44479          Rosetti e Ciucci and C., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-459       44527          Rossana Ferrari, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-460       44472          Rossi Valeria, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-461       44461          Sacchi Roberto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-462       38135          Sanna, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H46-463       44466          Santoro Valerio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-464       47780          Santorum, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

Section 3.a

H46-465       45854          Savino, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-466       44419          Sbrojavacca Pietrobon, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-467       36621          Scalvini, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H46-468       44491          Sonego, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-469       44470          Spada, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-470       56094          Sposito, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-471       39705          Spurio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H32-472       39865          Staffolani, Interim Resolution DH(99)635

H46-473       44417          Tagliabue, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H32-474       38102          Talenti, Interim Resolution (2001)58

H46-475       44486          Tebaldi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-476       44425          Tedesco Michele, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-477       46539          Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.P.A. VII, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-478       45068          Toscano and others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-479       44488          Vecchi and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-480       44528          Vecchini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-481       44534          Venturini Alberto I, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-482       40586          Verini II, Interim Resolution DH(99)639

H46-483       40599          Vicari II, judgment of 15/02/00

H46-484       44395          Visentin, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-485       37166          Vitale and others, judgment of 02/11/99

H46-486       44445          W.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-487       44462          Zanasi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-488       37079          Zironi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

- Administrative courts[31]

H46-489       41809          A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-490       34437          Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00

H46-491       41817          Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-492       41807          Centioni and others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-493       41815          Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-494       41810          Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-495       41813          Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-496       41816          Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-497       31631          Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00

H46-498       41814          Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

- Court of Audit

H46-502       41823          Pascali and Conte, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-506       39175          Sileo, Interim Resolution DH(99)524

- Labour courts[32]

H46-511       40363          Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-512       43063          Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-513       43094          C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-514       42999          Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-515       43020          Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-516       36615          Cappello, Interim Resolution DH(99)212

H32-517       38095          Cardillo, Interim Resolution DH(99)317

H46-518       46521          Ciccardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-519       42996          Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-520       44532          Colacrai, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-521       43088          Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

H46-522       43086          Cosimo Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-523       43087          Cosimo Rotondi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-524       43083          D’Addona Simone, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-525       43017          D’Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-526       43059          D’Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-527       43054          Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-528       43051          Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-529       43062          Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-530       46975          Di Gabriele, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-531       43030          Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-532       43022          Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-533       46978          F.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-534       43056          Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-535       43058          Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-536       45855          Fr.C., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-537       43096          G.A. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-538       43093          G.P. VI, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-539       43075          Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-540       37170          Giampietro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-541       38975          Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-542       43050          Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-543       43074          Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-544       42998          Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-545       39124          Guagenti, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00

H46-546       43072          Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-547       43091          Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-548       43101          Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-549       43021          Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-550       43067          Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-551       43065          Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-552       43102          Lepore T., Lepore M. and Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-553       43068          Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-554       43095          M.C. X, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-555       43010          Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-556       37160          Marsicovetere, Interim Resolution DH(99)221

H46-557       43000          Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-558       43018          Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-559       43069          Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-560       43057          Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-561       43064          Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-562       43100          Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-563       43076          P.T. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-564       43012          Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-565       43052          Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-566       43061          Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-567       43060          Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-568       43023          Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-569       46974          Risola, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-570       43019          Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-571       43055          Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-572       43099          Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-573       43085          Silvio Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-574       42997          Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-575       43084          Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-576       46960          Trimboli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-577       43016          Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

H46-578       43070          Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-579       43109          Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-580       43015          Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-581       43066          Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

- Criminal courts[33]

H46-582      38878         Ciacci, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-583      42351         Del Giudice, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01

H46-584      45267         F.R. and 3 others, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-585      41603         G.B.Z., L.Z. and S.Z., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 15/02/00

H46-586      41094         Giannangeli, judgment of 05/07/01, final on 05/10/01

H46-587      32646         Guerresi, judgment of 24/04/01, final on 24/04/01

H46-588      41893         Martinez, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-589      23969         Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00

H46-590      44943         Orlandi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-591      29898         Patanè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-592      30132         Pepe Umberto, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

H32-593      36733         Perilli, Interim Resolution DH(99)427

H32-594      24170         Pesce Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)468

H46-595      37118         Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H32-596      26806         U.O. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)52

H32-597      26781         U.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)129

H32-598      26782         U.O. III, Interim Resolution DH(98)130

H46-599      43199         Visintin, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

- Criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages[34]

H46-600       45856          Bacigalupi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-601       45857          Comella and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-602       45858          Tesconi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-603       34462          Wessels-Bergervoet, judgment of 04/06/2002, final on 04/09/2002 and judgment of

                                      12/11/2002 (Article 41) – Friendly settlement

- 6 cases against Poland

                   - Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-604       34611          Dacewicz, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002

H46-605       33885          Kawka Eryk, judgment of 27/06/2002, final on 27/09/2002

H46-606       24244          Migoń, judgment of 25/06/2002, final on 25/09/2002[35]

H46-607       27715+        Berliński Roman and Sławomir, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002

H46-608       48684          Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02, défintif le 18/09/02[36]

                   - Default interest to be paid

H32-609       24559          Gibas, Interim Resolution DH(97)242

Section 3.a

- 12 cases against Portugal

                   - Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-610       54073          Agostinho, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-611       48233          Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-612       47460          Câmara Pestana, judgment of 16/05/2002, final on 16/08/2002

H46-613       48752          Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-614       49020          F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-615       50843+        Longotrans - Transportes Internacionais Lda, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-616       47833          Marques Francisco, judgment of 06/06/2002, final on 06/09/2002

H46-617       53793          Morais Sarmento, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-618       54449          Saraiva e Lei, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-619       49118          SIB - Sociedade Imobiliária Da Benedita Lda, judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-620       44298          Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

                   - Default interest to be paid

H46-621       43654          Pires, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

- 10 cases against Romania

                   - Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-622       35831          Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-623       34992          Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-624       33912          Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002,

                                      rectified on 09/07/2002

H46-625       29053          Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002

H46-626       32925          Cretu, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-627       32943          Falcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002

H46-628       29968          Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002[37]

H46-629       29407          Vasiliu, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002[38]

H46-630       32260          Surpaceanu Constantin andTraian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/2002,

                                      final on 21/08/2002

                   - Default interest to be paid

H46-631       28342          Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01

                                      (rectification) – Grand Chamber

- 1 case against Slovenia

H46-633       42320          Belinger, judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

- 17 cases against Turkey

                   - Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-635       38578          Kaplan Süleyman, judgment of 10/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-636       33234          N.Ö, judgment of 17/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-637       29296          İğdeli, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002

H46-638       34481          Filiz and Kalkan, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002

H46-639       33179          Karataş Seher, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002[39]

H46-640       29590          Yağmurdereli, judgment of 04/06/2002, final on 04/09/2002[40]

H46-641       27694          A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-642       38916          Atalağ, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-643       38915          Bayram Abdullah Naci, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-644       35867          Bayram and others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-649       37414          Birsel and others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-652       35050          Karabıyık and others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-656       33419          Özdiler Hasan Doğan, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-659       35079          Özkan and others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-664       35866          Ünlü Dudu, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-665       30944          Öcal, judgment of 10/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

                   - Default interest to be paid

H46-666       22876          Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02

- 9 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-667       43290          McShane, judgment of 28/05/2002, final on 28/08/2002[41]

H46-668       30668+        Wilson and the National Union of journalists; Palmer, Wyeth and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers; Doolan and others, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002[42]

H46-669       56547          P., C. and S., judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002[43]

H46-671       65905          Rice, judgment of 01/10/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-672       42007          Davies, judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002, rectified on 13/09/2002

H46-673       24265          Devenney, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-674       46477          Edwards Paul and Audrey, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02[44]

H46-675       25680          I., judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber[45]

H46-676       28957          Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber[46]

- 1 case against « the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”

H46-678       58185          Janeva, judgment of 03/10/2002 - 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

- 11 cases against France

H32-679       26984          Picard, Interim Resolution DH(99)30                                                    31/01/1999

H32-680       25971          Proma di Franco Gianotti, Interim Resolution DH(99)566        14/05/00+02/01/2001

H32-681       31409          Riccobono, Interim Resolution DH(99)557                                           26/09/2001

H46-682       35683          Vaudelle, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 06/09/01                                06/12/2001

H46-683       44451          A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01                                   19/12/2001

H32-684       26242          Lemoine Pierre, Interim Resolution DH(99)353                                      17/03/2002

H46-685       44069          G.B. II, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02                                   02/04/2002

H46-686       37794          Pannullo and Forte, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02                 30/04/2002

H46-687       33023          Meier, judgment of 07/02/02 – Friendly settlement                               07/05/2002

H46-689       44070          Beljanski, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02                               07/08/2002

H46-690       39278          Langlois, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02                                07/08/2002

- 31 cases against Italy

H46-691       20855          Esposito Luigi, judgment of 25/05/00 - Friendly settlement                   25/08/2000

H46-693       31260          Lamperi Balenci, judgment of 21/02/02 - Friendly settlement                 21/05/2002

H46-694       41232          Quartucci, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement                         28/06/2002

- Civil courts[47]

H46-700       44421          Galasso, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02                                25/04/2002

H46-701       44501          Il Messaggero S.A.S. VI, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02         25/04/2002

H46-707       51708          I.M., judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002                                11/06/2002

H46-708       51668          Lopriore, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002                         11/06/2002

H46-713       51672          Selva, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02                                    11/06/2002

H46-719       56101          Mesiti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02                                    12/08/2002

H46-721       56093          Società Croce Gialla Romana S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02,

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

- Administrative courts[48]

H46-726       44330          Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement           19/03/2001

H46-727       41806          Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01          27/08/2001

H46-728       41805          Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01                                  27/08/2001

H46-729       41804          Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01                                    27/08/2001

H46-730       35956          Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01                  27/08/2001

H46-731       44525          Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02                   25/04/2002

H46-732       44379          Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02                                  25/04/2002

H46-733       44343          Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02              25/04/2002

H46-734       44352          Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02             25/04/2002

H46-735       44345          Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02               25/04/2002

H46-737       44342          Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/2001, final on 06/03/2002                          06/06/2002

H46-738       44333          V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02                     12/08/2002

Section 3.b

- Labour courts[49]

H46-739       43097          Nicoli, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement                               22/09/2000

H46-741       52924          Frattini and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02,

                                      revised judgment of 26/11/2002, final on 26/02/2003[50]                          12/08/2002

- Court of Audit

H46-748       54307          Meleddu, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement                          21/05/2002

H46-749       54316          Betti, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement                                28/06/2002

H46-750       54293          Chiappetta Domenico, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement       28/06/2002

H46-751       54287          Ferrari Sergio, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement                   28/06/2002

H46-752       54299          Libertini and Di Girolamo, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement  28/06/2002

H46-753       44359          Marrama, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement                           28/06/2002

H46-754       54286          Strangi, judgment of 07/05/02 – Friendly settlement                             07/08/2002

- 6 cases against Poland

H46-755       26760          Werner, judgment of 15/11/01                                                             15/02/2002

H32-756       27506          Owczarzak, Interim Resolution DH(99)260                                            17/03/2002

H46-757       38328          Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02[51]                                   04/04/2002

H46-758       32499          Z.R., judgment of 15/01/02 – Friendly settlement                                 15/04/2002

H46-759       25196          Iwańczuk, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02                               15/05/2002

H46-760       34052          Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02                              15/05/2002

- 1 case against Portugal

H46-762       49018          Marques Jorge Ribeiro, judgment of 04/04/02 – Friendly settlement      04/07/2002

- 10 cases against Turkey

H54-763       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[52]                                                                         28/10/1998

H46-764       25723          Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00[53]                                                        15/09/2000

H46-765       27308          Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01                                04/07/2001

H46-766       34688          Akin, judgment of 12/04/01                                                                 12/07/2001

H46-767       19265          Atak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01                     30/07/2001

H46-768       19279          Göçmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01               30/07/2001

H46-769       19285          Karabulut Cemile and others, judgment of 30/01/01,

                                      final on 30/04/01                                                                                30/07/2001

H46-770       19303          Şen Celal and Keziban, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01           10/10/2001

H46-812       28505          Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement                                28/06/2002

H46-813       29856          Özcan Mehmet, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement                 09/07/2002

- 4 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-814       28883          McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01[54]                                   04/11/01

H46-815       37715          Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01[55]                             04/11/01

H46-816       24746          Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01[56]                           04/11/01

H46-817       30054          Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01[57]                      04/11/01

Table summarising the total number of cases by States

State	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum although payment due since more than 6 months	Payment after expiration of the time-limit set and no confirmation of payment of the default interest due
Austria	1
Belgium			1
Cyprus	1
Finland	1
France	20	12	14
Greece	1		8
Hungary	2
Italy	141	54	279
Macedonia	1
Netherlands	1
Poland	5	6	1
Portugal	11	2	1
Roumania	9		1
Slovakia	1
Slovénia	1
Turkey	32	51	1
United Kindom	11	4

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

up to 10 January 2003

(827th meeting, 11 and 12 February 2003, Sections 2, 3 and 4)

The information presented in the table below is the sole responsibility of the states concerned. Bearing in mind the date upon which this information was communicated to it, the Secretariat has not yet had the opportunity to check it. This will be done for the next meeting.

Liste d’affaires pour lesquelles des informations tardives sur le paiement de la satisfaction équitable ont été fournies jusqu’au 10 janvier 2003

(827e réunion, 11 et 12 février 2003, Rubriques 2, 3 et 4)

Les informations présentées dans le tableau ci-dessous relèvent de la seule responsabilité des Etats concernés. Compte tenu de la date de la transmission de ces informations, le Secrétariat n’a pas encore eu l’occasion de les vérifier. Cette vérification sera effectuée pour la prochaine réunion.

Item / Point	State / Etat	Application / Requête	Case/ Affaire	Section / Rubrique	Judgment of / Arrêt du	Final on / Définitif le
H46-67	A	33505	H.E.	2	11/07/02	06/11/02
H46-71	CY	51591	Markass Car Hire Ltd.	2	02/07/02	06/11/02
H46-95	SP	45238	Perote Pellon	2	25/07/02	25/10/02
H46-97	TR	25144	Sadak Selim and others / et autres	2	11/06/02	6/11//02
H46-121	CY	53594	Alithia Publising Company	3.a	11/07/02	11/10/02
H46-122	FIN	30013	Türkiye iş Bankasi	3.a	18/06/02	18/09/02
H46-135	F	47007	Arnal	3.a	19/03/02	19/06/02
H46-320	I	28272	Ghidotti	3.a	21/02/02	21/05/02
H46-632	SK	32106	Komanický	3.a	04/06/02	04/09/02
H46-634	TR	29289	Aydın Mehmet	3.a	16/07/02	16/07/02
H46-645	TR	37087	Bekmezci and others / et autres	3.a	27/06/02	27/06/02
H46-646	TR	20132	Bilgin Burhan	3.a	20/06/02	20/09/02
H46-647	TR	20133	Bilgin Leyli	3.a	20/06/02	20/09/02
H46-648	TR	20134	Bilgin Münir	3.a	20/06/02	20/09/02
H46-650	TR	20136	Canlı	3.a	20/06/02	20/09/02
H46-651	TR	20142	Günal Kazım	3.a	20/06/02	20/09/02
H46-653	TR	30448	Önel Ahmet	3.a	23/05/02	23/08/02
H46-654	TR	30948	Önel Mehmet	3.a	23/05/02	23/08/02
H46-655	TR	30446	Önel Temur	3.a	23/05/02	23/08/02
H46-657	TR	30447	Özel Hacı Bayram	3.a	23/05/02	23/08/02
H46-658	TR	31964	Özel Hacı Osman	3.a	23/05/02	23/08/02
H46-660	TR	20153	Şen Ismet	3.a	20/06/02	20/09/02
H46-661	TR	20156	Şen Kemal	3.a	20/06/02	20/09/02
H46-662	TR	20154	Şen Mahmut	3.a	20/06/02	20/09/02
H46-663	TR	20158	Taşdemir Mehmet (n° 2)	3.a	20/06/02	20/09/02
H46-670	UK	37471	Faulkner William (n° 2)	3.a	04/06/02	04/09/02
H46-677	UK	40302	Matthews Michael	3.a	15/07/02	15/07/02
H32-688	F	29877	Pauchet and others / et autres	3.b	28/02/98	28/02/98
H46-692	I	31143	Indelicato	3.b	18/10/01	18/01/02
H46-695	I	47247	Mercuri	3.b	11/04/02	11/04/02
H32-696	I	25249	Cazzorla & Gigante	3.b	16/02/96	16/02/96
H46-698	I	49372	De Pilla	3.b	25/10/01	25/01/02
H46-699	I	44446	Di Girolamo and others / et autres	3.b	25/10/01	25/01/02
H46-702	I	49314	Steiner & Hassid Steiner	3.b	06/12/01	06/03/02
H46-703	I	51671	Arrigoni	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-704	I	51678	Baioni & Badini	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-705	I	51667	Bertot	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-706	I	51696	Cappelletti & Dell'Agnese	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-709	I	51706	Mannari	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-710	I	51704	Rota Giacomo & Gianfranco	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-711	I	51705	Rota Roberto & Giuseppe	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-712	I	51710	Rossi Gianbattista	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-714	I	51670	Sordelli & C. S.n.c.	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-715	I	51711	Spanu	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-716	I	51673	Tiozzo Peschiero L. & L.	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-717	I	51707	Vanzetti	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-718	I	41803	Pupillo	3.b	18/12/01	18/03/02[58]
H32-724	I	15800	Perego & Romanet	3.b	12/01/94	12/01/94
H32-725	I	27189	Bevilacqua	3.b	21/07/97	21/07/97
H46-736	I	44346	Venturini Alberto II	3.b	25/10/01	25/01/02
H46-740	I	51677	Meneghini	3.b	11/12/01	11/03/02
H46-761	P	43999	Martins Serra & Andrade Cancio	3.b	06/12/01	06/03/02
H46-771	TR	19661	Çalkan Gülnahar	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-772	TR	19662	Çalkan Rabia	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-773	TR	19663	Çapar Ekrem	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-774	TR	19664	Çelebi Hamdi	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-775	TR	19665	Çalkan Seyfettin	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-776	TR	19666	Çapar Nuri	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-777	TR	19668	Dalgiç Hayrettin	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-778	TR	19669	Dalgiç Necati	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-779	TR	19670	Dişçi Dursun	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-780	TR	19671	Dişçi Hasan	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-781	TR	19672	Dişçi Osman	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-782	TR	19673	Güneysu Davut	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-783	TR	19674	Kartal Ali	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-784	TR	19675	Koç Hasan	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-785	TR	19676	Koçer Ayse	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-786	TR	19678	Öztürk Ali	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-787	TR	19679	Öztürk Gülfiye	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-788	TR	19681	Öztürk Kamil	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-789	TR	19682	Öztürk Muhsin	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-790	TR	19683	Öztürk Mustafa	3.b	05/06/01	05/09/01
H46-791	TR	19640	Akça Halim	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-792	TR	19641	Akçay Mehmet	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-793	TR	19642	Akkaya Ahmet	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-794	TR	19643	Akkaya İbrahim	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-795	TR	19644	Akkaya Mustafa	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-796	TR	19645	Balci Hüseyin	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-797	TR	19646	Balci Macit	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-798	TR	19647	Baltekin Bilge	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-799	TR	19648	Başar Halil	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-800	TR	19649	Başar Talip	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-801	TR	19650	Bilgin Ahmet	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-802	TR	19651	Bilgin Mahmut	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-803	TR	19652	Bilgin Mehmet II	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-804	TR	19653	Bilgiç Yusuf	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-805	TR	19654	Dinç Fethiye	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-806	TR	19655	Dokel Ünzile	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-807	TR	19656	Eğrikale Saadettin	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-808	TR	19657	Erol Naside II	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-809	TR	19658	Erol Recep	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-810	TR	19659	Erol Sefer	3.b	03/07/01	03/10/01
H46-811	TR	30492	Erat & Sağlam	3.b	26/03/02	26/03/02
H46-640	TR	29590	Yağmurdereli	3.a + 4.2	04/06/02	04/09/02

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)

- 2 cases against Italy

H46-818       53708          Mas A. and 207 others, judgment of 07/06/01 – Friendly settlement

                                      Addendum General Questions

The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings brought by haemophiliacs seeking compensation for damages suffered following blood transfusions infected with various viruses (complaints under Article 6§1). The proceedings in the present case are the same as those challenged in the cases A.B., E.F. and C.C. (Application No. 37874+, Interim Resolution DH(98)392), M.A. and 81 others (Application No. 44814+, Friendly settlement of 30/11/2000) and M.L. & 46 others (Application No. 53705, Friendly settlement of 05/04/2001).

Payment problems: The Court struck this case out of its list on the basis of a friendly settlement agreed between the parties according to which the Italian Government offered to pay to each of the 208 applicants certain sums, ranging from 5 000 000 Italian lire to 73 300 000 Italian lire (for a global sum of 9 687 800 000 Italian lire – see the detailed list available at the Registry of the Court) for non-pecuniary damages as well as, to all the applicants, the global sum of 80 000 000 Italian lire for costs and expenses. The payment took place between 5 and 9 November 2001, i.e. more than two months after the expiry of the time-limit set, namely the 7 September 2001. The payment of costs and expenses as well as of default interests due has not yet been made. A letter recalling the Committee of Ministers’ principles on payment of default interests was addressed to the Italian authorities on 30 January 2002.

Subsequently however, at the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the question of the application of default interests in the supervision of the execution of friendly settlements was raised in other cases; the Deputies instructed therefore the Secretariat to prepare a document summarising the considerations to be taken into account concerning this issue and agreed to resume its consideration at their 792nd meeting (16, 17 and 19 (3 p.m.) April 2002). Having not found an agreement, the Deputies decided to reconsider the matter at their 798th (June 2002), 803rd (July 2002), 810th (October 2002), 819th (December 2002) and 827th (February 2003) meetings (DH) in the light of written contributions that the Delegations would send to the Secretariat (see General Questions, item e. and Addendum General Questions).

H46-819       53705          M.L. and 46 others, judgment of 05/04/01 – Friendly settlement

                                      Addendum General Questions

The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings brought by haemophiliacs seeking compensation for damages suffered following blood transfusions infected with various viruses (complaints under Article 6§1). The proceedings in the present case are the same as those challenged in the cases A.B., E.F. and C.C. (Application No. 37874+, Interim Resolution DH(98)392), M.A. and 81 others (Application No. 44814+, Friendly settlement of 30/11/2000) and Mas. A. & 207 others (Application No. 53708, Friendly settlement of 07/06/2001).

Payment problems: The Court struck this case out of its list on the basis of a friendly settlement agreed between the parties according to which the Italian Government offered to pay to each of the 47 applicants certain sums, ranging from 15 000 000 Italian lire to 75 000 000 Italian lire (for a global sum of 1 910 000 000 Italian lire – see the detailed list available at the Registry of the Court) for non-pecuniary damages as well as, to all the applicants, the global sum of 20 000 000 Italian lire for costs and expenses. Although the Government had undertaken to pay these sums before 5 July 2001, the payment of costs and expenses has not yet been made, while the other sums were in fact paid between 11 and 13 September 2001, i.e. with a delay of more than two months. The Italian authorities have argued that no default interest is due because the friendly settlement did not include any clause on the subject: the applicants’ counsel has accordingly invited the Committee of Ministers to express its views on the lawfulness of such a position. At the 775th meeting (December 2001), it was recalled that, according to the practice of the Committee of Ministers, the payment of default interest was due whenever the payment took place more than three months after the date at which the judgment became final. This also applies to friendly settlements, unless the parties have explicitly agreed different terms. A letter recalling these principles was addressed to the Italian authorities on 30 January 2002.

Section 3.c

Subsequently however, at the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the question of the application of default interests in the supervision of the execution of friendly settlements was raised in other cases; the Deputies instructed therefore the Secretariat to prepare a document summarising the considerations to be taken into account concerning this issue and agreed to resume its consideration at their 792nd meeting (16, 17 and 19 (3 p.m.) April 2002). Having not found an agreement, the Deputies decided to reconsider the matter at their 798th (June 2002), 803rd (July 2002), 810th (October 2002), 819th (December 2002) and 827th (February 2003) meetings (DH) in the light of written contributions that the Delegations would send to the Secretariat (see General Questions, item e. and Addendum General Questions).

- 37 cases against Turkey

H46-820       28635+        Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01[59]

H46-821       30947          Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-822       26093+        B.T. and others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-823       28340          Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-824       25182+        Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01

H46-825       25724          Cihan, judgment of 30/01/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-826       31963          Özel and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-827       26680          Şener, judgment of 18/07/00[60]

H46-828       27697+        Yaşar and others, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46-829       19310          Yilmaz Hamit, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-830       19308          Yilmaz Zekeriya, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-831       26976+        Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement[61]

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.

H54-832       22729          Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-833       21893          Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-834       23178          Aydin, judgment of 25/09/97, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-835       24276          Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-836       23818          Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-837       22495          Yaşa, judgment of 02/09/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-838       23657          Çakici, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-839       23763          Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-840       23144          Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106[62]

H46-841       22535          Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-842       22492          Kiliç, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-843       20764          Ertak Ismail, judgment of 09/05/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-844       23531          Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

Section 3.c

H46-845       21986          Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-846       22277          Ilhan Nasir, judgment of 27/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H32-847       23179+        Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin et Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H32-848       25658          Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolutions DH(99)560 and ResDH(2001)106[63]

H46-849       22947+        Akkoç Nebahat, judgment of 10/10/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-850       24396          Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-851       23819          Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-852       22676          Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-853       25801          Dulaş Zubeyde, judgment of 30/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-854       22493          Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-855       24490          Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-856       23954          Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

In these 25 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. The total shortfall claimed by the applicants in these 25 cases amounts to more than 250 000 pounds sterling (including default interest).

During the examination of these cases in the Committee of Ministers, some concerns have been expressed about the comprehensive and persistent shortfalls in payment of just satisfaction and Turkey has been invited to remedy this problem urgently.

Following a bilateral meeting held in Strasbourg on 18/02/2002 between the Secretariat and a delegation from Ankara, the Turkish authorities’ presented in April 2002 their own calculations in each of the outstanding cases. In many cases the shortfalls acknowledged by the authorities coincide with the figures submitted by the applicants (including the default interest and restitution of a stamp duty erroneously deducted from the payments). However, in some of the cases the calculations differ notably as the payment was not effectuated as prescribed by the Court as regards the place and/or the currency of payment.

On 07/06/2002, the applicants’ representatives responded to the Governments’ calculations by maintaining and further substantiating the sums claimed.

Having examined the parties’ communications, the Secretariat has sent on 14/11/2002 a letter to the Turkish authorities inviting them to proceed to pay the 10 cases in which the shortfalls acknowledged by the authorities correspond to the sums dues. At the 819th meeting (December 2002) the Turkish authorities announced that they would pay these sums shortly. However, no confirmation of payment has so far been received.

As regards the 15 other cases, the shortfalls acknowledged by the Turkish authorities are lower than the actual shortfalls found with reference to the sums granted under the Court's judgments. The Secretariat remains in contact with the Turkish authorities to provide them with the necessary details allowing the payment in conformity with the judgments.

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[64]

- 1 case against France

H46-857       57753          C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

The case relates to the excessive length of compensation proceedings before administrative courts, introduced by the first applicant, her parents and her brother, the first applicant having discovered after a blood transfusion that she had been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus and with the hepatitis C virus (violation of Article 6§1). These proceedings, which began on 23 March 1998, were still pending when the European Court rendered its judgment having at that date lasted more than 3 years, 10 months.

Individual measures: accelerating the proceedings.

- 1 case against Germany

H46-858       46544          Kutzner, judgment of 26/02/2002, final on 10/07/2002

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 six and four 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, an expert was appointed to examine whether and under what circumstances the children could be returned to their biological family without risk. The expert was to begin work in December 2002. Information awaited.

General measures: 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.

- 1 case against Italy

H46-883      37119          N.F., judgment of 02/08/2001, final on 12/12/2001[65]

The case notably concerns an unlawful interference with the freedom of association of the applicant, a judge, on account of a disciplinary sanction imposed on him in 1994 because of his belonging to a Masonic association. The Court considered that the sanction was not “foreseeable” or “prescribed by the law” because the provisions at its basis (namely, Article 18 of Royal Decree No. 511 of 31/05/1946 combined with a 1990 directive of the Supreme Judicial Board) were not clear enough (violation of Article 11).

A new directive, clearly establishing the incompatibility of membership of Masonic associations with the exercise of judicial functions was issued in 1993 (when the procedure against the applicant had already started). The applicant indicated his wish that the disciplinary proceedings be reviewed and drew attention to Article 37§6 of the 1946 Decree, which may allow for such a revision (see §42 of the judgment).

Individual measures: Information is expected on the follow-up given by the Supreme Judicial Board (C.S.M.) to the applicant’s request for revision of the impugned disciplinary procedure.

General measures: the Italian authorities indicated that the judgment would be published in Quaderni, the legal journal of the Supreme Judicial Board (C.S.M.)

Sub-section 4.1

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H54-859       19187          Saunders, judgment of 17/12/96, Interim Resolution DH(2000)27

H46-860       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 recently encountered in the proceedings they have 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.

However, while their case was pending before the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords held in another case concerning a situation which had not been brought before the European Court, that the right to rely on Convention rights in any legal proceedings guaranteed by the Human Rights Act did not have retroactive effect (i.e. before 02/10/2000). In a subsequent judgment, also adopted while the proceedings before the Court of Appeal in the present cases were pending, the House of Lords reached the opposite conclusion but found that, in the interest of judicial certainty, the erroneous construction in its first judgment should not be overturned.

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 11/02/2002, the Court of Appeal certified that the appeal raised a point of law of general public importance, namely whether the House of Lords decision not to give retroactive effect to the Human Rights Act also covers the situation where the United Kingdom is under the obligation by virtue of Article 46 of the Convention to abide by the European Court’s judgment. On 09/03/2002, the House of Lords granted leave to appeal. The applicants indicate that the case is listed for hearing on 09/10/2002.

At the 798th meeting (June 2002) the Representative of the United Kingdom objected to the applicants’ request for an adjournment, referring notably 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 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.

Sub-section 4.1

At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Deputies decided 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 individual measures to be taken, in the light of the outcome of the proceedings pending before the House of Lords.

At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the United Kingdom Delegation informed the Deputies that the House of Lords had not granted the re-opening of the proceedings. It was noted that if the House of Lords had reconsidered the question of the applicants’ guilt in the light of the violations of their right to a fair trial, the decision would appear acceptable. However the House of Lords’ reasoning would have to be examined before reaching a conclusion. The Deputies accordingly decided to resume consideration of the cases at the present meeting. Having examined the judgment of the House of Lords (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd021114/lyons-1.htm, copies available to delegations on request) the Secretariat finds that the House of Lords appears to have rejected the appeal solely on the basis of the law as it stood without taking into account the violations of Article 6 of the Convention. The question of individual measures would thus remain outstanding.

The House of Lords in its judgment of 14/11/2002 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 under compulsory 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 of Lords found that Parliament had no intention to give retroactive effect either to the Act of 1999 or to the Human Rights Act 1998 (see § 18, 63, 81, 98 of the judgment). Besides, 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 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 applicants have requested the Committee of Ministers to invite the United Kingdom to indicate what measures it intends to take to achieve, as far as possible, restitutio in integrum in their cases.

General measures: The legislative amendments announced in Interim Resolution DH(2000)27 have been adopted.

H46-861       36533          Atlan A. and T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

The case concerns the absence of a fair trial in that, in criminal proceedings against the applicants, the prosecution repeatedly denied the existence of evidence pertinent to a central issue of the defence and, without the knowledge or approval of the judge, decided that this evidence should not be disclosed to the judge or to the defence (violation of Article 6§1).

In 1991, the applicants were convicted of importing cocaine and sentenced to 18 and 13 years’ imprisonment respectively. The second applicant died in 1998.

The case presents similarities to that of Rowe and Davis against the United Kingdom (judgment of 16/02/2000), which was transferred to Section 6 following the adoption of general and individual measures (reopening of proceedings, quashing convictions) by the United Kingdom.

Individual measures: At the 775th meeting (November 2001) the Government was asked whether this case would be reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Board as in the Rowe and Davis case. At the 819th meeting (December 2002), the United Kingdom Delegation indicated that the Board did not allow the surviving applicant to have his conviction reviewed before the competent court of appeal. The text of the Board’s decision was requested in order to assess the reasoning used and whether the merits of the case were taken into account.

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

- 1 case against Austria

H46-862       32636          A.T., judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

The case concerns the lack of a public hearing in two sets of proceedings concerning the applicant’s compensation claims under the Media Act following the publication of statements against him in the weekly publication News (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in ÖIMR-Newsletter 2002/No.2. At the 810th meeting (October 2002), information was requested on the measures envisaged in respect of the lack of a public hearing during the proceedings under the Media Act.

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

H46-863       50963          Al-Nashif and others, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002

The case concerns the deportation of the first applicant, a stateless person, to Syria on 4 July 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.

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).

H46-864       38361          Anguelova, judgment of 13/06/2002, final on 13/09/2002[66]

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against Cyprus

H46-865       30873          Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00

The case mainly concerns the inhuman treatment inflicted upon the applicant by state officials during his arrest before being admitted to hospital in Larnaca (violation of Article 3) and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). On 01/12/1995, the Attorney General filed at the Nicosia District Court a nolle prosequi in the applicant’s case, in accordance with Article 113.2 of the Constitution. The applicant was released on the same day. On 04/12/1995, the Nicosia District Court discharged the applicant.

Individual measures: The applicant’s lawyer sent a letter to the Secretariat on 19/04/2001 raising several questions about the need to adopt individual measures in this case. In May 2001 the Secretariat forwarded a copy of the letter to the Cypriot authorities. The latter confirmed that they were presently examining the measures that might need to be taken in respect of this case and indicated that the Secretariat would be kept informed in written form of any development in this field.

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

General measures: As in the Denizci & others case, also examined under section 4.2, the Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all institutions concerned (judicial and also police/security forces, Attorney General’s Office, Ombudsman, Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior have requested that appropriate instructions be prepared and distributed to all state officials in order to avoid any future cases of ill-treatment. Instructions prepared by the Attorney General have also been distributed to all authorities concerned. Finally, the judgment has received extensive media coverage in Cyprus. Information about its publication has been requested.

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

The Committee has asked, whether, as far as the violation of Article 13 is concerned and in the light of §§71 and 99 of the Court’s judgment, the Cypriot authorities envisage the adoption of specific measures in order to guarantee that similar violations do not recur.

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

At the time of preparing this document, no information had been received by the Secretariat.

H46-866       25316+        Denizci and others, judgment of 23/05/01, final on 23/08/01

The case concerns in particular the fact that the applicants (and in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were subjected to ill-treatment considered inhuman by the European Court (violation of Article 3), that they have been victims of unlawful arrest and detention (violation of Article 5§1) and that they have been subjected to restrictions on their freedom of movement (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

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

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: The Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all institutions concerned (judicial and also the police force/security forces, the Attorney General’s Office, the Ombudsman, the Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior have requested that appropriate instructions be prepared and distributed to all State officials in order to avoid any future cases of ill-treatment. Instructions prepared by the Attorney General have also been distributed to all authorities concerned. Finally, the judgment has received extensive media coverage in Cyprus. Exact references as to its publication and the dissemination have been requested. The Cypriot authorities have transmitted to the Secretariat, in written form, details of the above-mentioned information in Greek.

Furthermore, sections 242-243 of the Criminal Code and related parts of the code of criminal proceedings were already amended taking into account the findings of the European Court. However, further legislative measures are envisaged. An English summary was also transmitted to the Secretariat on 04/10/2002.

On 30 October 2002, a bilateral meeting took place between the Cypriot Delegation and the Secretariat. At the meeting, the Secretariat has identified the issues for which clarifications are needed, and has requested to have this, if possible, in time for the examination of the Egmez and Denizci cases at the 819th meeting.

At the time of preparing this document, no information had been received by the Secretariat.

- 5 cases against Croatia

H46-867       54727          Cerin, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-868       52634          Futterer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-869       51585          Horvat, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-870       49706          Rajak, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-871       48771          Delić, judgment of 27/06/2002, final on 27/09/2002

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, which lasted more than 17, 11, 6 and 25 years respectively concerning the first four cases and the Court’s jurisdiction for these cases, taking into account the date of Croatia’s accession to the Convention, extends respectively to 3 years and 11 months; 3 years and 10 months; 3 years and 8 months, and 3 years and 7 months (violations of Article 6§1).

The Delić case concerns several sets of proceedings, most of which have lasted about nine years, of which a period of about 4 years and 6 months falls to be examined by the Court, except a set of proceedings which lasted almost 6 years (of which a period of 1 year, 11 months and 10 days falls to be examined by the Court) and another set which lasted almost 8 years (of which a period of 3 years, 10 months and 12 days falls to be examined by the Court).

The Horvat and the Delic 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 (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: In the Rajak case the proceedings were ended by a final judgment of 25/09/2002. In the other cases, the proceedings are still pending and further information is awaited.

General measures: The 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. Section 63 of the Constitutional Act, introduced by this act, provides inter alia that the Constitutional Court must examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted, in cases where a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant’s rights and obligations, or a criminal charge against him. If the Constitutional Court finds the complaint well-founded it must set a time-limit for deciding the case on the merits and it shall also award compensation for the excessive length of proceedings. In the Radoš case (judgment of 07/11/2002) and in the admissibility decisions in the cases of Jeftić, Plaftak and others, Nogolica and Slaviček, (Applications Nos. 57576/00, 76687/01, 77784/01 and 20862/02 respectively), the European Court found that this new Section provided an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning excessive length of proceedings.

Sub-section 4.2

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.

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 the Parliament for adoption. Further information on the progress of this draft is awaited.

- 1 case against Finland

H46-872       28856          Jokela, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 21/08/2002

The case concerns an infringement to the applicants’ general right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. A piece of land owned by the spouse and father of the applicants (since deceased) was subject to expropriation. The market value of the land for the expropriation compensation was fixed at 7,50 Finnish Marks per square meter, despite the applicants’ contestations. However, when assessing the inheritance tax to be paid by the applicants for the land at issue, its market value was fixed at 20 Finnish Marks per square meter. The Court considered that the applicants could legitimately expect a reasonably consistent approach from the relevant authorities and the courts in determining the market value of the land or, in the absence of such consistency, an adequate explanation for the different valuations. In this case, there was neither consistency nor explanation for the lack of it (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: The Finnish authorities have been invited to provide information on their thinking concerning the adequate explanation of how such differences in estimating the market value of land can arise and what measures they envisage in order to avoid them.

- 4 cases against France

H46-152       39594          Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber[67]

H46-873       38436          APBP, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

                                      Addendum 4

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 to influence their outcome.” (see § 85 of the Kress judgment).

The Kress case also concerns the excessive length (10 years, 1 month, 8 days) of the proceedings before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures adopted: the French delegation had sent to the Secretariat a copy of the memorandum addressed to Government Commissioners by the Président de la section du contentieux of the Conseil d’Etat (see Addendum 4), in which it is in particular explained that they may continue to attend deliberations on condition that they do not take the initiative of speaking during the deliberations. The Secretariat considers that this interpretation does not take fully into account the reasoning of the Court (see §§ 81 to 85 of the Kress judgment), and does not prevent new, similar violations.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-874       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 summonsed 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. Following the memorandum presented in the Kress case (q.v., Section 4.2), information concerning concrete measures adopted by the Conseil d’Etat with regard to litigants in person are awaited.

H46-875       36436          Piron, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations regarding consolidation of parcels of land, before administrative courts. When the Court issued its judgment, these proceedings had already lasted, for the purposes of the Convention, 26 years, 5 months and were still pending (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, as she had been deprived of a part of her property in consequence of the same proceedings, without obtaining adequate compensation (i.e. for being deprived of her property and for damages resulting from the length of this privation) within a reasonable time (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: It has been suggested, since the first examination of the case at the 749th meeting (April 2001), that a particular attention be paid to closing the case at national level (the proceedings lasted 26 years and 5 months for the purposes of the Convention, but actually more than 35 years). At the 764th meeting (September 2001), the Representative of France stated that the case was pending before the Conseil d’Etat. The judgment of the European Court recalls that it was for national tribunals to evaluate the material damage. By a letter dated 13/06/2002, the Representative of France stated that the case was still pending before the Conseil d’Etat because the applicant was not satisfied with the sum proposed by the competent authority (Commission d’aménagement foncier).

General measures: Information has been requested, most recently at the 819th meeting, concerning the running and the workload of commissions responsible for consolidating parcels of land. This information is awaited.

- 1 case against Germany

H46-876       33900          P.S., judgment of 20/12/2001, final on 04/09/2002[68]

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that he was unable to question or to have questioned the principal prosecution witness. The applicant was convicted on 10 January 1994 of a sexual offence against a child and sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment suspended (violation of Article 6§3d taken in conjunction with Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The German authorities were asked whether it would be possible to mention the conclusion of the judgment of the European Court in the applicant’s criminal record.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been disseminated to the judicial authorities concerned; publication of the judgment still to be confirmed.

- 1 case against Greece

H46-877       47541          Vasilopoulou, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02[69]

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against Ireland

H46-880       36887          Quinn, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-881       34720          Heaney and McGuinness, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

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

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

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

General measures: the Irish authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that under the Good Friday Peace Agreement of 10 April 1998, reforms of the Offences against the State Act 1939 are envisaged. In this respect the Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has established a committee to examine all aspects of the 1939 Acts and to report to the Minister with recommendations for reform. The final report of the Review Group on the 1939 Offences Against the State Act was submitted to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law reform at the beginning of 2002. A copy of the Report was submitted to the Secretariat in August 2002. In Chapter VIII of the Report (pp 183 to 212), the problems raised under the Quinn and Heaney & McGuinness cases have been extensively examined by the committee, which has recommended, inter alia, that section 52 of the 1939 Act and section 2 of the 1972 Act (having amended the 1939 Act) the be repealed. The Committee of Ministers has asked to be kept informed of any development in this field, in particular whether following the recommendations of the review committee, the Irish authorities envisaged the introduction of amendments to the existing legislation. Finally, the judgments of the European Court are now accessible on the Irish Courts Service website (www.courts.ie) and are also available in legal libraries.

- 17 cases against Italy

H46-882       35972          Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani, judgment of 02/08/01,

                                      final on 12/12/01[70]

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

General measures: the attention of the Italian authorities was drawn to the need to modify or abrogate Article 5§2, point (e) of Marches Regional Law No. 34/1996. The question was also raised of whether similar provisions existed in other regional laws. The Italian authorities were furthermore invited to ensure the publication of the judgment of the European Court.

Sub-section 4.2

H32-884       23924          C.A.R. srl, Interim Resolution DH(98)154

The case concerns the fact that the applicant company was unable, for a three-year period between 1991 and 1994, to secure the eviction of tenants for non-payment of rent despite the fact that it had obtained a court order to that effect. The Prefect of Latium refused to provide police assistance to evict a group of Somali refugees illegally occupying buildings belonging to the applicant company. It also concerns the absence of compensation from the State for the financial damage the applicant company suffered as a result of the authorities’ inaction.

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

General measures: Information has been requested with regard to the general measures envisaged in order to ensure a right to compensation in cases similar to that of C.A.R., notably in the light of the decision of the Rome Court of Appeal of 16/05/2000, rejecting the applicant’s request for reparation of the prejudice suffered. At the 819th meeting, a copy of this judgment was requested.

H32-885       22716          P.G. II, Interim Resolutions DH(97)18 and ResDH(2002)58

                                      Addendum 4

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 accordingly 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 changes 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 case P.G. II to the President of a Commission set up to draft new bankruptcy legislation, pointing out the necessity of incorporating in the draft provisions that will allow Italy to comply with its obligations resulting from the Committee of Ministers’ decision in this case. An Interim Resolution, ResDH(2002)58 (see Addendum 4) was adopted in April 2002, inviting the Italian authorities to adopt without further delay the necessary measures in order to prevent new similar violations. At that occasion, the Committee of Ministers decided to resume consideration of this issue once the new legislation was 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

                   - Cases against Italy concerning the monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence

H54-886       15211          Diana Calogero, judgment of 15/11/96, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

H54-887       15943          Domenichini, judgment of 15/11/96, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

H46-888       39920          Di Giovine, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-889       25498          Messina Antonio 2, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

H46-318       26161          Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01[71]

H46-890       31543          Rinzivillo, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

                                      Addendum 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sub-section 4.2

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

H46-891       22774          Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber

H32-892       20177          Aldini, Interim Resolution DH(97)413

H46-893       22534          A.O., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00

H46-894       22671          G.L. IV, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46-895       21463          Lunari, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-896       24650          P.M., judgment of 11/01/01, final on 12/09/01

H46-897       15919          Palumbo Edoardo, judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-898       23424          Tanganelli, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

These cases mainly concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions. The European Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the protection of the applicants’ right of property and the requirements of the general interest (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In some of these cases, the Court also concluded that, as a result of the legislation at issue, rendering eviction orders nugatory, the applicants had been deprived of their right to have their disputes decided by a court, contrary to the principle of the rule of law (violation of Article 6§1). All the applicants recovered their apartments between 1992 and 2000, i.e. between 5 and 16 years after the eviction decisions had been issued.

75 further cases similar to these, having led to the conclusion of friendly settlements, have been examined to date by the Committee of Ministers.

General measures: A new law was adopted in December 1998 (Law No. 431/98 “Regulations concerning the renting and the repossession of housing”), which sets – inter alia – the conditions, modalities and deadlines for the enforcement of eviction decisions. The Director General of human rights asked, as early as September 1999, to have information with regard to the concrete measures adopted to implement this legislation as well as some data confirming the effectiveness of the new measures.

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.

At the 775th bis meeting (January 2002), the Representative of Italy indicated that some implementation problems still existed in practice, notably in some major towns, but were on their way to being solved. However, in August 2002 a new law (No. 185/02) suspended the implementation of eviction orders until 30/06/2003.

In addition, the Immobiliare Saffi judgment has been published in the legal journal Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, No. 1/2000, P. 252-265.

- 1 case against Moldova

H46-900       45701          Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others, judgment of 13/12/01,

                                      final on 27/03/02[72]

                                      Addendum 4

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: On 31/07/2002, the Government's agent indicated to the Secretariat that the competent authorities had recognised the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia (recognition certificate No.1651 of 30/07/2002) in accordance with the Moldovan law on Religious Denominations, as amended on 12/07/2002 (see below). This recognition would appear to erase the consequences of the violation of the Convention in the present case, as regards in particular the legal personality of the Church and, consequently, its right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions.

Sub-section 4.2

At the 806th meeting (September 2002), the Representative of Moldova stated that the Church would be able – like other religious communities – to participate in the procedures defined by a Governmental decision of 10/06/2002 (this decision appears in Addendum 4) with a view to recognition of its property. Confirmation in this respect has been requested in writing.

Subsequently, the applicants contacted the Secretariat alleging problems with regard to their property claims. They furthermore challenged the Government's decree of 26/09/2001, which states that Metropolitan Church of Moldova is a legal successor of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, and certain new provisions of the Criminal Code relating to illegal occupation of religious buildings.

In view of these allegations, the Moldovan delegation was requested at the 810th meeting (October 2002) to provide the Secretariat in writing with clarifications concerning the articulation of the above-mentioned texts and their practical impact on the applicant church, notably with regard to enjoyment of its property rights. At the time of issuing the present annotated agenda, the Secretariat had not yet received these clarifications.

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. The relevant provisions (articles 9, 14, 49 and 52) of the Law, as amended, appear in Addendum 4.

The new provisions (Article 14) provide among other things that religious denominations are free to organise themselves and can function after depositing a declaration and their statutes with the competent authority, which will register the denomination in question in the State Register of Religious Denominations within 30 days following the deposit. Such recognition can be declared void though judicial proceedings in case of violation of the conditions provided for in Article 9 (§3). The latter prohibits religious denominations from conducting activities which undermine the independence, sovereignty, integrity and security of the Republic of Moldova, as well as the Constitution and the legislation in force, or to undertake actions connected with political activities.

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) has been in existence since June 2000 in the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Addendum 4).

Following the adoption of the new law, the attention of the Moldovan authorities was drawn to the fact that the requirement of proportionality embodied in the Convention did not appear to be included in articles 9§3 and 14 which set out the conditions under which the Moldovan authorities can cancel the recognition of a religion. It was furthermore noted that the new law was not absolutely clear and detailed with regard to the right of a religious community to take judicial proceedings against the authorities' decision to cancel the recognition of this religion. This lack of clarity could prejudice the effective judicial control required by Article 13 and, consequently, the effective prevention of new violations similar to those found in the present case. This analysis was shared by the independent experts who had been mandated, upon the request of the Moldovan authorities and within the framework of the Targeted Co-operation Programme to assist in the implementation of commitments, to assess the compatibility of the new Law on Religious Denominations (as amended) with Council of Europe standards, notably the ECHR.

During the consideration of this case at the 806th meeting (September 2002), the Representative of Moldova indicated that, following the aforementioned expert examination, the Minister of Justice had set up a working party to draw up an entirely new version of the law which would remedy the aforementioned problems. At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Representative of Moldova stated that the work on the new draft law was progressing and that a copy of the draft would be submitted to the Secretariat as soon as it is finalised.

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against the Russian federation

H46-902       59498          Burdov, judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002[73]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Russian authorities furthermore indicated that the aforementioned system of allowances' indexation would be shortly made applicable to the allowances paid to Chernobyl victims. Specific legislation to that effect was to be submitted before Parliament by mid December 2002. The final adoption of the latter legislation has not yet been confirmed.

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

Following the debate, satisfaction was expressed in the Committee on account of the speedy and positive response given by the Russian Federation to the Burdov judgment, consisting inter alia in the enforcement of over 5000 outstanding domestic court decisions similar to the one here at issue and the current adoption of other comprehensive general measures to prevent similar violations.

It was recalled that the Committee had considered from the outset that the present judgment was among those which warranted the Committee's special attention given the large number of similar complaints which could be lodged with the Court. It was therefore stressed that the rapid and efficient execution of such judgments under the Committee's supervision was of the utmost importance to prevent repetitive complaints.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-903       47095          Kalashnikov, judgment of 15/07/2002, final on 15/10/2002

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.

- 28 cases against Turkey

H46-904       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).

Sub-section 4.2

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 13 of the ECHR 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 ECHR, 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.

H46-905       36590          Göç Mehmet, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the breach of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, first on account of the absence of an oral hearing in the domestic proceedings concerning his compensation claim for two days’ detention, lodged in accordance with Law No. 466 (on compensation for unlawful detention and arrest), and of the non-communication of the Principal Public Prosecutor’s written opinion to the applicant during the appeal procedure before the Court of cassation (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures: By a letter of 15/01/2003, the Turkish authorities indicated that a new provision was added by Law No. 4778 to Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring notification of written opinions of the Principal Public Prosecutor to parties by the competent chamber of the Court of cassation. Information is awaited on the measures envisaged in respect of absence of an oral hearing during proceedings under Law No. 466. The publication of the judgment of the European Court has been requested.

                   - 21 cases of freedom of expression

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

                   ResDH(2001)106)

                   Addendum 4

H54-906       22678          Inçal, judgment of 09/06/98

H46-907       23462          Arslan, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-908       23536+        Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-909       23556          Ceylan, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-910       25067+        Erdoğdu and Ince, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-911       24919          Gerger, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-912       23168          Karataş, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-913       24246          Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-914       23500          Polat, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-827       26680          Şener, judgment of 18/07/00[74]

H46-915       24122          Sürek II, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-916       24762          Sürek IV, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-917       23927+        Sürek and Özdemir, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-918       22479          Öztürk, judgment of 28/09/99

H32-848       25658          Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolution DH(99)560[75]

H46-840       23144          Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00,[76]

H46-764       25723          Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00[77]

Sub-section 4.2

H46-820       28635+        Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01[78]

H46-919       28496          E.K., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-640       29590          Yağmurdereli, judgment of 04/06/2002, final on 04/09/2002[79]

H46-639       33179          Karataş Seher, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002[80]

These cases all relate to unjustified interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular because of their conviction by State Security Courts following the publication of articles and books or the preparation of messages addressed to a public audience. In the Özgür Gündem case, the Court also concluded that the search operation conducted in the applicant newspaper’s premises had not been necessary in a democratic society and that the respondent Government had failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect the applicant newspaper in the exercise of its freedom of expression (violation of Article 10)[81].

Individual measures: since June 1998 it has in particular been repeatedly stressed in the Committee that the applicants’ convictions found to be contrary to Article 10 must be erased from the applicants’ criminal records and that the applicants’ civil and political rights, to the extent that they have been restricted as a result of the convictions, must be restored. The Turkish authorities indicated that this result could be achieved by introducing in the code of criminal procedure the possibility of reopening proceedings found to be contrary to the Convention. Although this amendment was announced in September 1999 and the Committee of Ministers had constantly stressed its urgency, in March 2001 the Turkish authorities indicated that its adoption was only scheduled for 2003-2004[82]. Pending this reform, on 23 July 2001, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 (appended to Addendum 4), which, among other things, “urges the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to take ad hoc measures allowing the consequences of the applicants’ convictions contrary to the Convention in the above mentioned cases to be rapidly and fully erased”.

Updated information on the current situation of the applicants and on the concrete follow-up given to Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 as well as on the possible implications of the amendment of Article 87 of the Constitution (as regards pardons and amnesties) have been requested. By letter of 27/05/2002, the Turkish authorities indicated that six applicants (Mr M.S. Okçuoğlu, Mr U. Erdoğdu, Mr S. Ince, Ms P. Şener, Mr K.T. Sürek, Mr Y. Özdemir) were no longer subject to restrictions of their rights and that eleven among the remaining applicants (Mr Ibrahim Aksoy, Mr Arslan, Mr Gerger, Mr Karataş, Mr A.Z. Okçuoğlu, Mr Polat, Mr Baskaya, Mr Aslantaş, Mr Ceylan, Mr Inçal, Mr Öztürk) could now avail themselves of the remedies normally provided for by Turkish law. On 03/08/2002, the Turkish Parliament adopted provisions allowing for the reopening of civil and criminal proceedings found to be contrary to the Convention (Act No. 4709). These provisions however did not apply to these cases, as their scope was limited to European Court judgments on applications brought after 09/08/2003. An amendment, extending reopening possibilities, within one year, to court judgments already finalised has just been adopted by the Turkish Parliament.

General measures: the question has been raised, since 1998, of the necessity to adapt Turkish law to the requirements of the Convention in order to avoid further violations similar to those found (see CM/Inf(2000)28-rev. 3 for details). As a preliminary measure, the most important judgments have been published in Turkish and some of them can be accessed through the Ministry of Justice website (http://www.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/aihmk.htm). Furthermore, at the 741st meeting (February 2001), the Representative of Turkey indicated that an information note would be sent to judges and public prosecutors in order to raise their awareness of the requirements of the Convention. A copy of this note has been requested. Additional information on a training programme aimed at raising the awareness of the judiciary of the requirements of the Convention was communicated in April 2001.

Sub-section 4.2

In March 2001, the Turkish authorities presented the National Programme containing information on the reforms planned for the “short term” and the “medium term” (respectively 2002 and 2003-2004). Subsequently, on 03/10/2001, a number of constitutional amendments, concerning inter alia the provisions on freedom of expression and information, were adopted and are directly applicable. Since then, a series of packages of laws have been adopted respectively on 06/02/2002, 26/03/2002, 03/08/2002 and 02/01/2003, amending notably Articles 159 and 312 of the Criminal Code, Articles 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 3713), the Press Act (No. 5680), the Political Parties Act (No. 2820) and the Broadcasting Act (No. 3984). Although these amendments are aimed at generally improving the situation of freedom of expression (in some cases, maximum penalties are lowered and the scope of the provisions restricted), they do not seem to solve all the problems raised by the Court’s judgments. Additional information has accordingly been requested on a number of points, including: the way Turkish Courts apply the criterion of “incitement to violence” after the legislative reforms; the introduction of a general criterion of truth and public interest; the review of minimum penalties in crimes related to freedom of expression; the amendment or abrogation to Article 6 of the Anti-Terrorism law; the adoption of specific measures aimed at ensuring the protection of freedom of expression. Finally, at the 792nd meeting, the Turkish authorities were invited to clarify the expected impact of the reforms on freedom of expression in Turkey. By letters of 16/12/2002 and 03/01/2003, the Turkish authorities provided examples of the case-law of the Court of Cassation and Security courts, concerning the application of Articles 312 and 159 of the Criminal Code, after the entry into force of the abovementioned reforms.

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

                   (Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

                   Addendum 4

H46-920       32985          Altan, judgment of 14/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-921       35076          Erol Ali, judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-922       25753          Özler, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-831       26976+        Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement[83]

H46-923       27307          Bayrak Mehmet, judgment of 03/09/2002 - Friendly settlement

These cases all relate in particular to alleged unjustified interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression, on account of their conviction by State Security Courts following public speeches or the publication of articles and books (complaints under Article 10 and 6§1).

The Court took note of the friendly settlements reached between the parties. The Turkish Government undertook to pay a sum of money to the applicants, to implement all necessary reform of domestic law and practice in order to bring the Turkish Law into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in the area of freedom of expression and to adopt the individual measures set out in Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106, adopted on 23/07/2001(appended to Addendum 4), in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicants’ conviction. These cases are comparable to the 21 “freedom of expression” cases against Turkey under Section 4.2 of this annotated agenda and order of business.

Individual Measures: information is expected on the current situation of the applicants as well as on the measures envisaged, in conformity with the undertakings included in the friendly settlements, in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicants’ conviction.

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

Sub-section 4.2

- 11 cases against the United Kingdom

H54-924       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 paragraph 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-pounds (37 million Euro) three-year programme to support parents though 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 November 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.

H46-668       30668+        Wilson and the National Union of journalists; Palmer, Wyeth and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers; Doolan and others, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002[84]

The case concerns the failure of the state in its positive obligation to secure the enjoyment of the 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.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: in order to prevent similar violations, the United Kingdom Delegation was asked to provide information as to whether there have been any changes to the UK trade union legislation since the 1993 Act and if not, what changes are envisaged.

H46-669       56547          P., C. and S., judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002[85]

The case concerns measures taken by the local authority of the United Kingdom to protect the applicants’ second child from her mother, previously convicted in the United States, on the basis of medical expertise, of having ill-treated her first child. The European Court found that the applicants had not had effective access to a Court and that the measures had been unfair in that the applicants had had no legal representation in proceedings brought by the local authority in applying for a care order (proceedings started on 02/02/1999) and an order freeing for adoption (proceedings started on 15/03/1999) (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court also found breaches in the applicants’ right to family life due to the removal of the baby from her mother at birth and to the fact that the above-mentioned proceedings prevented the applicants from being involved in decisions to protect their family interests (violations of Article 8). The applicants’ daughter was finally given to adoption on 27/03/2000.

Individual measures: in the light of the violations found in this case, the Committee has asked whether the United Kingdom authorities are envisaging the adoption of any measures.

General measures: the Committee has asked for copies of the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption Act 1976 to be sent to the Secretariat. The publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court have also been requested.

H46-674       46477          Edwards Paul and Audrey, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02[86]

The case concerns a breach of the positive obligation imposed on the national authorities to protect the life of the applicants’ son, who was killed while in custody by another detainee, considered dangerous, who shared the same cell (November 1994). The case also concerns inefficacity of the inquiry into the death of the applicants’ son as it was not possible to oblige prison staff to give evidence and because the applicants were not sufficiently associated with the investigation procedure (violations of Article 2). Finally, it concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The United Kingdom Delegation has informed the Committee that Mr and Mrs Edwards have now written to the minister to accept his offer of a further investigation into a number of complaints against the Prison Service that they regard as outstanding. The investigation, which will be conducted by a Senior Investigating Officer reporting to the Director General of the Prison Service, will begin early this year and prison staff will be required to co-operate. The Committee has asked to be informed of the outcome of this investigation.

General measures: The Delegation indicated that, as far as the particular violations found in this case, the Prison Service had changed its practice and procedure in order to avoid situations of a similar type.

The Committee has asked to be kept informed of the changes introduced in the practice and procedures of the Prison Service. In respect of Article 13, it has requested clarifications on the type of remedies available.

Publication of the European Court’s judgment and dissemination to the authorities concerned has also been requested.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-675       25680          I., judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber[87]

H46-676       28957          Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber[88]

These cases concern, in particular, the state’s failure to comply with its positive obligation to ensure the right of the applicants (post-operative, male-to-female transsexuals) to respect for their private life, in particular due to the lack of legal recognition given to their gender re-assignment (violations of Article 8) as well as the impossibility for them to marry a person of the sex opposite to their re-assigned gender (violations of Article 12).

General/individual measures: the United Kingdom authorities have informed the Committee that the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Transsexual People was reconvened to consider the position of transsexual people in general and, since the European Court’s judgments in these cases, has been considering how to implement them. However, the Government was not yet in a position to indicate what measures might be taken as a result of this process. Lastly, the judgments of the European Court have been published in “Sweet & Maxwell” at (2002) 35 EHRR 447.

The Committee has asked whether, pending the adoption of any general measure, the United Kingdom authorities envisage the adoption of any individual measure in these cases.

                   - Cases concerning the security forces

H46-814       28883          McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01[89]

H46-815       37715          Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01[90]

H46-816       24746          Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01[91]

H46-817       30054          Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01[92]

H46-667       43290          McShane, judgment of 28/05/2002, final on 28/08/2002[93]

                                      CM/Inf(2003)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 (violation 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.

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.

Sub-section 4.2

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 September 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, is presented in document CM/Inf(2003)4.

                   SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

- 2175 cases against Italy

H46-322       39221+        Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

                                      Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151, CM/Inf(2001)12 and CM/Inf(2002)20[94]

                                      Addendum 4

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

Individual measures: on 12/12/2002, the Florence Court of Appeal decided that the issue of the temporary placement of the children in the “Forteto” community will be re-examined at the end of June 2003, in the light of a report to be presented by the social services before 05/06/2003 on developments of the relationship between the mother and her children. This re-examination should notably make it possible to assess whether the elements that had brought the European Court to find that the rights of the mother and of her children had been violated (see above) still exist and justify the transfer of the children elsewhere, as requested by the Public Prosecutor (see also, in Addendum 4, the two Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH (2001)151 as well as the letter addressed to the Italian authorities on 08/07/2002). Furthermore, the applicant sent to Secretariat a videotape from the monthly meeting in September 2002 in which the children indicate inter alia that, contrary to the Youth Court orders of July 2001, they are still sleeping separately, each of them sharing his bedroom with a “foster parent”. According to the children, there is no traditional “family”  within the community, as marriages are organised only with a view to having the right to obtain the placement of children in the “family”.

As regards the contacts between the mother and the children, the Youth Court found, in December 2000, that the social services were still continuing to delay and hamper the implementation of its decisions to organise such visits. Therefore, after three short visits in March-April 2001 (interrupted when Ms Scozzari moved to Belgium), on 17/07/2001 the Youth Court decided that a regular programme of visits should be set up, with the participation of an official of the social services, appointed among those having never previously intervened in the procedure. Following this decision, monthly visits have been taking place since December 2001, also thanks to the Belgian authorities’ undertaking to pay the travel expenses for Ms Scozzari and a qualified assistant. The question has been raised – both in the course of the discussions within the Committee of ministers and before the domestic courts – (see CM/Inf(2002)20) of whether such visits are organised in such a way to effectively allow a resumption of family relations, in conformity with the Youth Court’s decision and the Strasbourg Court’s judgment. By decision of 12/12/2002, the Florence Court of Appeal decided therefore that there should henceforth be three visits per month.

Sub-section 4.3

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

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

As regards the existence of an effective and regular supervision mechanism of the placement of children, in October 2002, the Italian Delegation informed the Secretariat of the adoption of a new law (No. 149/01) in 2001, amending and making more precise certain provisions on adoption and placement of children, including as regards controls. According to the Italian delegation this law introduces regular control also over institutions such as the “Forteto”. A draft law (No. 2517/C) aiming at centralising jurisdiction over issues concerning minors has also been under examination by Parliament since April 2002.

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

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

- 2174 cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings

                   (see also, for more detailed information, CM/Inf(98)29, CM/Inf(98)40, CM/Inf(99)37,

                   CM/Inf(2000)40, CM/Inf(2000)40-Add, CM/Inf(2001)37 and CM/Inf(2002)47

                   and Addendum and Addendum 2 ; Interim Resolutions DH(97)336, DH(99)436, DH(99)437

                   and ResDH(2000)135)[95]

                   Addendum 4, Appendix to this draft Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

In all the 2174 cases against Italy listed in the Appendix to the present document, violations of Article 6§1 were found on account of the excessive length of civil proceedings (1565 cases), execution proceedings (7 cases), labour proceedings (363 cases), administrative proceedings (117 cases), criminal proceedings (118 cases) and criminal proceedings combined with proceedings for damages (4 cases). 182 similar cases concluded by friendly settlements have been examined by the Committee of Ministers up to now (including 20 concerning civil proceedings, 126 labour proceedings, 6 administrative proceedings and 30 criminal proceedings).

General measures: Following the numerous and continuous findings of violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, comprehensive reforms of the Italian judicial system have been under way since the end of the eighties and notably since the Committee of Ministers found, in 1997 (cf. Interim Resolution DH(97)336), that the previously enacted measures had been ineffective. These measures however have not so far solved the problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Italy.

The new general measures required and under way in the fields of civil and administrative justice were presented in Interim Resolutions DH(99)436 and DH(99)437. Subsequently, the examination was also extended to criminal justice.

A first assessment was made in October 2000 and was presented in Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)135. In this resolution, the Committee of Ministers, considering the size of the problem, 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”.

Sub-section 4.3

The first annual report, provided by the Italian authorities (covering mainly the year 2000 and up to 2001 for criminal proceedings, issued as public document CM/Inf(2001)37), was examined by the Committee at its 764th, 775th and 803rd meetings (October 2001, February and July 2002).

The Committee concluded that the data was relatively encouraging as regards the overall reform of civil and administrative proceedings. With respect to criminal proceedings, the Committee took note of the entry into force of some important legislative reforms and other draft reforms, but regretted that the statistics available did not show any significant progress in the efficiency of criminal justice. Finally, it requested details on some other questions (see the press releases issued after the above-mentioned meetings and reproduced in CM/Inf(2002)47-Add and Addendum 2).

In December 2002, the Committee of Ministers held a preliminary examination of the second annual report provided by the Italian authorities, including statistical data on civil and criminal justice up to the end of 2001. It decided to resume consideration of the application of the measures in February 2003. Complementary information is in particular awaited about some issues detailed in a letter sent to the Italian authorities by the Director of Human Rights (see Addendum 4). New statistical data on civil and criminal justice in 2001 was sent on 19/12/02. More recent data concerning the year beginning 01/07/2001 was subsequently published in Italy on the occasion opening of the judicial year in January 2003.

This information confirms that the progress observed at the previous examination is slowing down:

-             Concerning civil jurisdictions, the backlog has been reduced by 8% before courts of first instance, but is increasing before both justices of peace (+10%) and courts of appeal (between +26,5% and +30,5%). Thus the number of pending civil cases has remained stable overall at first-instance level since 1996 (about 3 300 000 cases) and at appeal level (244 000 cases) in comparison with 2001. The evolution concerning duration is difficult to evaluate because the data available is conflicting.

-             Concerning the criminal jurisdictions, the backlog has increased by 3,8% (from 5 500 000 to more than 5 700 000 cases) and the average overall length of proceedings – from the preliminary inquiry to the appeal – has increased from 1490 to 1509 days.

-             The situation before the Court of cassation has been worsening, the average length increased from 836 to 994 days for civil proceedings and from 192 to 219 days for criminal proceedings. Its backlog has also increased by 23% for civil proceedings and 4% for criminal proceedings.

-             In view of the present results, it appears unlikely that the Sezioni stralcio could complete the 238 793 cases pending for more than 7 years on 30/06/02 (between 1/06/02 and 30/06/02, they had completed 108 970 cases) before the time-limit expected by the Committee of Ministers, i.e. November 2003.

The Committee of Ministers is awaiting information on the situation of administrative justice since 2000.

On the state of legislative reform, the report mentions some 290 new measures envisaged, including notably those relating to the reform of the criminal code and of the codes of criminal and civil procedure. In this connection, the Secretariat asked for information concerning the integration of the new measures in the overall reform project aimed at reducing the length of proceedings and also information concerning the expected impact of these measures.

Concerning judicial organisation and resources, progress appears to have been made in the computerisation of courts, although the programme is at present held up, not least for lack of funding. It will be interesting to know the progress achieved in recruiting 1000 new judges and the time-frame for their effectively taking up their duties.

Progress appears to have been made in the adoption of awareness-raising measures of the Italian judicial operators. In addition, the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Council is expected on the proposal to extend to all Italian courts the measures, concerning the internal organisation of the judicial work, successfully tested in Turin and aimed at speeding up the management of the oldest cases (“Strasbourg programme”).

Sub-section 4.3

As regards national remedies, the Italian authorities indicated that they were planning to modify the “Pinto Act”, which allows victims of excessive length of proceedings the possibility to obtain not only compensation before domestic courts, but also the acceleration of pending proceedings.

Moreover, in a judgment of June 2002 concerning the application of this law, the Italian Court of cassation concluded that the reasonable length of proceedings is not a fundamental, personal right guaranteed by the Italian Constitution.

(See also, for detailed information on the measures enacted or planned by the Italian authorities, Memorandum CM/Inf(98)29 of 28 August 1998, CM/Inf(98)40 of 27 October 1998, CM/Inf(99)37 of 6/07/1999, Memorandum CM/Inf(2000)40 and CM/Inf(2000)40-Add as well as Addendum 4 to this Annotated Agenda and order of business, the second Italian annual report CM/Inf(2002)47 and the Secretariat addendum (CM/Inf(2002)47-Add and Addendum 2).

Individual measures: the Italian authorities have been invited to provide information on the cases indicated as still pending at domestic level at the time the violation was found by the European Court of Human Rights, and to adopt appropriate measures in order to speed up these proceedings. According to the information provided, only around a third of the proceedings examined by the Committee of Ministers would still be pending before the domestic courts today, while roughly half of them were pending when the violation of the Convention was found. In addition, the pending cases having led to a conviction by the Court are now brought to the attention of the competent domestic courts and receive, where possible, accelerated treatment.

- 4 cases against Turkey

H46-2523     25781          Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber

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.

Sub-section 4.3

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 recognized;

-           a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them;

-           a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment;

-           a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home;

-            a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities, as a matter of practice, with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus

-           a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) on account of the legislative practice of authorizing 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 consider 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 has been distributed at its request, to all Delegations. The Delegation of Turkey notably 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 civilian judges by an independent body whose members themselves are civilians.

Sub-section 4.3

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 present meeting.

H54-763       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[96]

                                      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.

Just satisfaction: 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.

Payment not taking place the Committee adopted on 26/06/2001 a new Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)80 in which it recalled its previous Interim Resolutions and stated:

“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;

Sub-section 4.3

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.

The Deputies 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 organisation 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 merits of 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) and 819th (December 2002) meetings no new information regarding the payment was available.

The texts of the Interim Resolutions adopted in this case appear in Addendum 4.

H46-2524     26308          Institut de Prêtres français and others, judgment of 14/12/00 – Friendly settlement

                                      Addendum 4

The case concerns a Turkish judicial decision of 1993 annulling the applicant Institute’s property entitlement to a plot of land on the grounds that, by letting part of this land to a private company, the applicant Institute was no longer eligible for special treatment as a non-profit body (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9). The parties concluded a friendly settlement according to which the Government undertook the following obligations:

- The Treasury and the Directorate General of Foundations recognise the right to usufruct to the benefit of the priests representing the applicant Institute. This right to usufruct shall comprise the full use and enjoyment of the land and the buildings thereon and the right to rent the land for profit-making purposes in order to meet its needs;

- The two above-mentioned state authorities agree to undertake the formalities necessary to register their respective declarations in the land register with a view to renewing the life tenancy in favour of the priests who will replace the current usufructuary;

- The Directorate General of Foundations waives its claim to USD 41,670 owed by the applicant Institute in rent collected over the five years since its property title was annulled.

In October 2001, the applicant Institute indicated to the Secretariat that the Government had still not complied with the terms of the friendly settlement. The applicant thus requested that the appropriate action be taken without further delay by the authorities and that in particular:

- the Government should give instruction for registering in the land register the right to usufruct to the benefit of the current representative of the Church, Father Alain Fontaine;

- the Government should ensure that the General Directorate of Foundations immediately ceases the collection of the rents and recognises the applicant’s right to usufruct;

- the Treasury should withdraw its claim for compensation for illegal occupation of the plot.

Sub-section 4.3

The necessity of an urgent solution to these issues 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).

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 time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, i.e. more than 2 years after the Court's judgment, no new information regarding its execution was available.

H46-2525     29900+        Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01

                                      Addendum 4

The case concerns the violation of the right to a fair trial in proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court, which sentenced the four applicants, members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, to 15 years’ imprisonment in December 1994.

The violations found are the following:

- lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court (violation of Article 6§1 - see §40 of the judgment);

- lack of timely information about the legal redefinition of the accusation brought against the applicants and lack of sufficient time and facilities to prepare the applicants’ defence (violation of Article 6§3 a and b taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§57-59 of the judgment);

- impossibility to examine or to have examined the witnesses who testified against the applicants (violation of Article 6§3d taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§67-68 of the judgment).

Having found these violations, the Court did not consider it necessary to decide separately the applicants’ complaints under Articles 10, 11 and 14.

Individual measures:

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.

Sub-section 4.3

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.

Adoption of new legislation: At the 819th meeting (December, 2002) the Turkish authorities announced that the draft provisions which would allow the reopening of proceedings in the present case had been included in the complementary reform package presented to the Prime Minister. The question of adoption of a new Interim Resolution was thus not pursued by the Committee. Instead, it welcomed the new information and "expressed confidence that Turkey would ensure that the new legislation is adopted rapidly, and immediately applied to the applicants’ case in the light of the gravity of their situation".

On 23/01/2003, the Grand National Assembly adopted the provisions 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 (see Addendum 4). The provisions however exclude re-opening for all cases which are presently pending before the Court and have not yet been decided. The Law still has to be approved by the President.

On 27/01/2003, the Turkish Prime-Minister Abdullah Gül confirmed before the Parliamentary Assembly that, in accordance with this law, a new trial could now be granted to the four applicants. Information on the re-opening of the case before domestic courts is awaited.

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.

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.

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

- 4 cases against Belgium

H46-2526     34989          Goedhart, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-2527     36449+        Stroek L. and C., judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-2529     26103          Van Geyseghem, judgment of 21/01/99 – Grand Chamber

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

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

Possible individual measures: The authorities granted a pardon to Mr Stroek and Mr Goedhart which erased the consequences of their conviction, i.e. declared void the international arrest warrant taken out against them. Following the 798th meeting (June 2002) the Belgian authorities sent the Secretariat a draft law, which had been adopted by the Belgian House of Representatives on 16/05/02, inserting a new Article 442bis in the Code of Criminal Investigation. Information is awaited on this subject.

During the examination of these cases, the Representative of Belgium also indicated that a Bill on reopening of proceedings following a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights was being studied.

General measures: the European Court’s judgment has been widely disseminated with a circular and the Cour de cassation quickly changed its case-law. A Bill modifying the Code of Criminal Procedure was transmitted for opinion to the Conseil d’Etat on 14/09/2001. Information is awaited on this subject.

H54-2528     25357          Aerts, judgment of 30/07/98

The case concerns the lawfulness and the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the psychiatric wing of an ordinary prison for seven months pending his transfer to a social protection centre, the applicant’s right of access to a tribunal with the power to determine the lawfulness of that detention and his right to legal aid (violations of Article 5§1e) and Article 6§1).

General measures: the Belgian authorities indicated that ad hoc measures had been taken in order to increase the number of places available in social protection centres, thus reducing delays in transferring prisoners to about 2 months. Moreover, the judgment was published in several legal journals. Further information has been requested concerning measures envisaged to prevent new violations as regards the granting of legal aid and access to the Cour de cassation. In this connection, at the 732nd meeting (December 2000), the Representative of Belgium indicated that a draft law was being prepared and would be transmitted to the Secretariat. At the 775th and 798th meetings (December 2001 and June 2002), the Representative of Belgium stated that the draft law was being examined by the State Council. The attention of the Belgian authorities has been drawn to the recent case-law of the European Court, providing further indications on the requirements of the Convention as regards the granting of legal aid in cassation proceedings (cf. judgments Del Sol and Essaadi against France of 26/02/2002)

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-899       46726          Podkolzina, judgment of 09/04/02, final on 09/07/02

The case relates to a violation of the right of the applicant, a Latvian national belonging to a Russian-speaking minority, to present her candidature at the elections to the Parliament in October 1998, in that she was struck off the electoral lists on the ground of insufficient knowledge of the Latvian language. The European Court took the view that, in subjecting the applicant to an additional language test with a fundamentally different procedure from normal, the administrative and judicial authorities had effectively imposed upon her a procedure which did not comply with the conditions of fairness and legal certainty. It also considered that the Riga Regional Court had deliberately decided not to put right the violation committed, as it had chosen to regard the results of the second test, held according to a procedure presenting no basic guarantees of fairness, as irrefutable (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

Sub-section 5.1

General measures: At the 810th meeting, the Representative of Latvia stated inter alia that following the European Court's judgment, the Laws on parliamentary and municipal elections were amended on 09/05/2002. As a result, the provisions requiring higher proficiency in Latvian language for all persons running for parliamentary election were deleted. The judgment of the European Court was furthermore published in the Official Gazette of 21/05/2002. The Latvian authorities' attention was drawn in particular to § 37 of the judgment which highlights the refusal by the Riga Regional Court to review the lawfulness of decisions taken by administrative authorities. The Latvian authorities were thus invited to consider measures to prevent similar problems in the future. In this context, examples demonstrating the direct effect of the European Court's judgments in domestic court case-law have been requested.

- 20 cases against Poland

H46-901       29692+        R.D., judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

The case relates to a refusal by the Wrocław Court of Appeal to grant the applicant free legal assistance for cassation proceedings which prevented him from having his case brought to and defended in the Court of cassation (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3c).

General measures: At the 798th meeting (June 2002), the Representative of Poland stated that the Ministry of Justice was drawing up new legislation which would allow individuals easier access to the legal aid. He added that the judgment of the European Court had been translated and sent to the Ministry of Justice for publication and dissemination to domestic courts. The Polish authorities were invited to provide the text of current legislation governing legal aid and a copy of the new draft provisions once they are finalised. They were also requested to provide new examples of domestic case-law showing that the latter effectively takes into account the European Court's judgments.

H46-2530     27785          Włoch, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 22/01/01

H46-606       24244          Migoń, judgment of 25/06/2002, final on 25/09/2002[97]

These cases concern the unfairness of judicial proceedings brought between 1993 and 1995 by the applicants, persons detained on remand at that time, in order to regain their freedom. This was due to the facts that the applicants' lawyers could not participate at all the judicial hearings and that they could not have access to the case-files at certain stages of the proceedings (violations of Article 5§4).

General measures: At the 749th meeting (April 2001), the Representative of Poland indicated that, subsequent to the impugned facts, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been modified so as to prevent new similar violations of the Convention and that the Ministry of Justice was preparing a circular to courts with a view to drawing their attention to the Włoch judgment and to the rules currently in force. He stated that copies of this circular and of the new legal provisions would be sent to the Secretariat. The Polish Delegation confirmed this information at the 798th (June 2002) and 819th (September 2002) meetings. However, none of the above-mentioned texts have so far been received at the Secretariat.

Sub-section 5.1

                   - Cases of length of civil proceedings[98]

H54-2531     27916          Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98

H54-2532     28616          Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98

H46-757       38328          Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02[99]

H46-2533     27918          C., judgment of 03/05/01

H46-2534     48001          Goc, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-2535     29695          Gronuś, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

H46-2536     29691          Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-2537     43779          Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02, final on 15/04/02

H46-2538     35843          Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00, final on 14/03/01

H46-2539     36250          Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-2540     29455          Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-2541     25693+        Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 26/01/01

H46-2542     40835          Szaparo, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-608       48684          Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02, défintif le 18/09/02[100]

H46-2543     32734          Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/09/01

H46-2544     33082          Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00, final on 22/01/01

H46-2545     34158          Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 27/03/02

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

                   No new case

                   SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

- 2 cases against France

H46-2546     46044          Lallement, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002

The case concerns the fact that the applicant was deprived of his property as a result of an expropriation carried out in the public interest. The European Court took the view first that, given the specific nature of the applicant’s situation (in particular the scattered nature of his land and his agricultural specialisation) the compensation awarded was not proportionate to the value of the property expropriated since it did not specifically cover the loss of the applicant’s “working tool” and secondly that the relevant articles of the Code on expropriation proposed no effective remedy to the situation called into question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Just satisfaction: The European Court decided that Article 41 concerning pecuniary damage in respect of the loss of the applicants’ source of income is not ready for decision.

General measures: Written confirmation that the judgment of the European Court has been published is awaited.

H46-2547     36677          SA Dangeville, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 16/07/2002

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

General measures: The written confirmation of the judgment’s publication is awaited.

- 1 case against Greece

H46-157       37095          Pialopoulos and others, judgment on 15/02/01, final on 27/06/02 and on 15/05/01, final on 06/11/2002[101] (Article 41)[102]

The case concerns an unjustified restriction of the applicants’ right to use their property, due to a series of building prohibitions imposed by the administrative authorities and attempted expropriations decided upon by these authorities without prior compensation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The case also concerns the fact that the administration failed to comply with a judgment of a court of appeal declaring revoked ipso jure one of the expropriations on the grounds that the compensation was not paid within the time-limit provided for by law (violation of Article 6§1).

In this last-mentioned respect, the case presents similarities in particular to the Hornsby case (judgment of 19/03/1997) closure of which is proposed following a number of general measures adopted by the Greek authorities.

Sub-section 5.3

Individual measures: At the 760th meeting (July 2001), the Greek authorities were asked to inform the Committee of Ministers about the measures envisaged for the official annulment of the impugned expropriation (§ 69 of the judgment of the European Court), as well as about the settlement of the present situation of the applicants’ property. Following the 803rd meeting, a copy of the revocation of the expropriation dated 7 July 2002, was transmitted to the Secretariat by the authorities.

General measures: The wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the competent administrative authorities would be useful.

- 1 case against Italy

H46-2548     43269          Leoni, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 04/04/01[103]

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

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

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-2549     48297          Butkevičius, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the detention on remand of the applicant, a member of Parliament and Minister of Defence at the time, in the absence of judicial orders (violation of article 5§1 for the periods from 30/11/1997 to 08/12/997 and from 31/12/1997 to 08/01/1998). It also concerns the fact that the applicant had no opportunity to contest the lawfulness of his detention on remand (violation of article 5§4) and the breach of the presumption of innocence in respect of the applicant by the statements of the President of the Parliament which prejudged the assessment of the facts by the judicial authorities (violation of Article 6§2).

General measures: Given the violation of the presumption of innocence found in this case, it was requested, at the 810th meeting (September 2002), that the judgment of the European Court be published and disseminated to Parliament and to the public prosecutor's office with an express reference to the Court's conclusions on the ground of Article 6§2.

With regard to the violations of Article 5, this case presents similarities to the case of Ječius against Lithuania (judgment of 31/07/2000), in which Lithuania has already adopted inter alia legislative amendments to prevent new, similar violations (a draft final Resolution is being prepared).

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

- 23 cases against Austtia

H46-2550     36075          Siegl, judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-2551     29271          Dichand and others, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-2552     34315          Krone Verlag Gmbh and Co. Kg., judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-2553     28525          Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-2554     37075          Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

H46-2555     27783          T., judgment of 14/11/00

H46-2556     31266          G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-2557     26297          G.S., judgment of 21/12/99

H46-2558     35019          Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-2559     33915          Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01

H32-2560     17291          Hortolomei

H46-2561     37950          Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

H46-2562     26958          Jerusalem, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H54-2563     15153          Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Berthold Gubi,

                                      judgment of 19/12/94

H32-2564     26113          Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H.

H46-2565     25878          Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00

H46-2566     30428          Beer Gertrude, judgment of 06/02/01

H46-2567     33382          Fischer Joseph, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-2568     28501          Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-2569     33501          Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-2570     32381          Baischer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-2571     29477          Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-2572     34320          Freiheitliche Landesgruppe Burgenland, judgment of 18/07/2002 – Friendly

                                      settlement

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

H32-2573     30381          Mironov - Interim Resolution DH(99)352

H46-2574     32438          Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against Cyprus

H46-2575     29515          Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

H46-2576     47293          Selim, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 3 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-2577     33644          Cesky, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00

H46-2578     31315          Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00

H46-2579     35848          Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

- 2 cases against Denmark

H46-2580     48470          Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-2581     56811          Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/2002, final on 11/10/2002

- 1 case against Finland

H46-2582     25651          L., judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

Section 6

- 94 cases against France

H46-2583     38945          Francisco, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-2584     42189          H.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-2585     55672          Beaume Marty, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-2586     46280          Benzi, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-2587     49622          Goubert and Labbe, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-2588     50996          Grand, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

H46-2589     44485          Moullet, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

H46-2590     41946+        Ribes J.M. and M.A., judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 07/08/2002

H46-2591     51818          Société Comabat, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

H46-2592     32872          Peltier, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 21/08/2002

H46-2593     34791          Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-2594     31070          Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

H46-2595     29507          Slimane-Kaïd II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00[104]

H46-2596     31819+        Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H32-2597     27659          Ferville

H32-2598     28845          Venot

H46-2599     34553          Dulaurans, judgment of 21/03/00

H32-2600     33656          Lemoine Daniel

H32-2601     17572          A.C.

H54-2602     25201          Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

H54-2603     24767          Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

H54-2604     14032          Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

H46-2605     25444          Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

H46-2606     27362          Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

H32-2607     27413          Cazes

H46-2608     25803          Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-2609     34406          Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-2610     25088          Chassagnou and others, judgment of 29/04/99

H54-2611     25017          Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

H32-2612     27019          Slimane-Kaïd I

H54-2613     23618          Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

H32-2614     24263          Areno

H46-2615     37786          Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

H32-2616     23438          Elbialy

H32-2617     22578          G.N. II

H46-2618     39779+        Gombert and Gochgarian, judgment of 13/02/201, final on 13/05/01

H54-2619     28213          I.A., judgment of 23/09/98

H32-2620     18847          J-P.DV

H32-2621     15091          L.D.

H32-2622     21911          Lanza

H32-2623     17831          Morganti

H54-2624     21802          Muller, judgment of 17/03/97

H46-2625     38781          P.B., judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

H46-2626     34947          Richet, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

H32-2627     24245          Touihri

H46-2628     42211          Zannouti, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

H46-2629     38687          Djaid, judgment of 29/09/99, final on 29/12/99

H46-2630     49342          Dunan, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2631     49350          Ivars, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2632     39066          Donnadieu, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-2633     33933          Guisset, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/09/00

H32-2634     31603          Hermant

Section 6

H46-2635     35589          Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-2636     41943          L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-2637     47575          Marks and Ordinateur Express, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H32-2638     26496          Société Fruehauf France

H46-2639     36932          Caillot, judgment of 04/06/99, final on 04/09/99

H46-2640     38249          Arvois, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

H46-2641     28660          Ballestra, judgment of 12/12/00, final on 12/03/01

H46-2642     33207          Blaisot C. and M., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-2643     42401          Camps, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 09/04/01

H46-2644     54757          Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-2645     41449          Durrand I, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-2646     42038          Durrand II, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-2647     30979          Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00

H46-2648     48205+        Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 14/08/2002

H46-2649     44066          Grass, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-2650     41001          Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

H46-2651     37387          Lambourdiere, judgment of 02/08/00, final on 02/11/00

H46-2652     39996          Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 10/07/2002[105]

H32-2653     32510          Peter

H46-2654     33989          Thery, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-2655     38042          Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-2656     53118          Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H32-2657     31842          Darmagnac Pierre V

H46-2658     40493          Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-2659     44617          Leray and others, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-2660     42588          Linard, judgment of 25/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-2661     43288          Mahieu, judgment of 19/06/01

H32-2662     25309          Maljean

H46-2663     45573          Moyer, judgment of 25/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-2664     37565          Sapl, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-2665     46708          Zaheg, judgment of 9/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H54-2666     36313          Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-2667     36317          Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-2668     32217          Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

H54-2669     33441          Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

H32-2670     27518          A.S.

H46-2671     47194          Leboeuf, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-2672     38398          Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

H46-2673     44791          Marcel, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

H32-2674     35259          Nagler

H46-2675     37257          Lucas, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

H46-2676     32033          Thurin, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

Section 6

- 37 cases against Greece

H46-2           38703          Agoudimos and Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co., judgment of 28/06/01,

                                      final on 28/09/01

H46-878       55611          Xenopoulos, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 04/09/2002[106]

H46-879       47891          Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 07/08/2002

H46-2680     42079          E.H., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H32-2681     32397          Sinnesael, Interim Resolution DH(99)130

H54-2682     21522          Georgiadis Anastasios, judgment of 29/05/97

H46-2683     53478          Sajtos, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

H32-2684     34373          Goutsos, Interim Resolution DH(99)558

H46-2685     47734          Adamogiannis, judgment of 14/03/2002, final on 14/06/2002

H46-2686     38178          Serif, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H54-2687     18748          Manoussakis and others, judgment of 25/09/96

H46-2688     40434          Kosmopolis S. A., judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

H46-2689     30342          Academy Trading Ltd and others, judgment of 04/04/00

H54-2690     28523          Portington, judgment of 23/09/98

H46-2691     38971          Protopapa and Marangou, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-2692     40437          Tsingour, judgment of 06/07/00, final on 06/10/00

H46-2693     41459          Fatourou, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H54-2694     20323          Pafitis and others, judgment of 26/02/98

H46-2695     38459          Varipati, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/01/00

H32-2696     34569          Société anonyme Dimitrios Koutsoumbos, société technique,

                                      commerciale and touristique

H32-2697     32857          Stamoulakatos Nicholas I

H46-2698     37439          Agga, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H54-2699     19773          Philis 2, judgment of 27/06/97

H54-2700     18357          Hornsby, judgment of 19/03/97

H46-2701     37098          Antonakopoulos, Vortsela and Antonakopoulou, judgment of 14/12/99,

                                      final on 21/03/00

H46-2702     31107          Iatridis, judgments of 25/03/99 and 19/10/00 (Article 41) – Grand Chamber

H46-2703     41209          Georgiadis Dimitrios, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-2704     28802          Tsavachidis, judgment of 21/01/99

H54-2705     19233+        Tsirlis and Kouloumpas, judgment of 29/05/97

H46-2706     43597          Dionyssios Petrotos, judgment of 29/02/00 –Friendly settlement

H46-2707     34369          Thlimmenos, judgment of 06/04/00

H46-2708     38704          Savvidou, judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

H46-2709     41867          Messochoritis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H32-2710     24453          Tarighi Wageh Dashti

H46-2711     46380          LSI Information Technologies, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H54-2712     24348          Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97

H54-2713     23372+        Larissis and others, judgment of 24/02/98

- 2 cases against Hungary

H46-2714     32396          Magyar, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-2715     38937          Erdős, judgment of 09/04/2002, final on 09/07/2002

- 112 cases against Italy

H46-323       33966          Bastreghi, judgment of 03/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-324       32363          Bertini, judgment of 03/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-325       37242          Caramanti, judgment of 03/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-326       31259          Rizzi, judgment of 03/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-697       44375          Rocchi Roberto, judgment of 29/03/01 - Friendly settlement

Section 6

H46-747       44362          Di Deco, judgment of 12/04/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-499       41829          Campomizzi, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-500       41833          Cardillo, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00

H46-501       41821          Delicata, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-503       41831          Pio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-504       41819          Quinci, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-505       41830          Raglione, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-507       41820          Sinagoga, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00

H46-508       41837          Trotta, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

H46-509       41841          Vay, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00

H46-510       41818          Vero, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00

H46-742       44365          Calvani, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-743       44370          D’Innella, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-744       44367          G.G. IV, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-745       44369          Pe.C., judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-746       44368          Sapia, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01

H46-2716     35243          N. and D.A., judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-2717     37248          Vietti, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-2718     37019          A.M., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-2719     31227          Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

H54-2720     14025          Zubani, judgments of 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

H32-2721     16609          Intrieri

H32-2722     27253          Biasetti

H46-2723     44955          Mancini Vittorio and Luigi, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

H32-2724     25650          Santandrea

H46-2725     41221          Troiani Marcello, judgment of 06/12/2001, final on 10/07/2002

H46-2726     40979          Conte Riccardo II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2727     40954          D’Alessandro, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2728     44814+        M.A. and 81 others, judgment of 30/11/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2729     40978          Mantini, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2730     40956          Marchetti, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2731     44344          Marcotrigiano, judgment of 19/12/00

H46-2732     41812          Piccirillo Aldo, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2733     43077          A.S. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2734     43092          Ascierto Pietro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2735     43048          Bernardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2736     43005          Bianchi Michele, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2737     38973          Borrillo, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-2738     40975          Bucci, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2739     43082          C.S., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2740     43081          C.T., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2741     43073          Camerlengo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2742     43007          Capasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2743     43008          Catillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2744     43107          Circelli Maria Carmela, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2745     42989          Costantini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2746     40960          Dattilo, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2747     43014          D’Errico, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2748     43044          De Cicco Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2749     43003          De Fiore, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2750     43013          De Nunzio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2751     42992          Del Grosso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2752     43047          Del Vecchio Edvige, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2753     43009          Di Biase Maria, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2754     42991          Falzarano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2755     43045          Forgione, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2756     43049          Fusco Adelia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

Section 6

H46-2757     43104          Galietti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2758     43002          Giorgio Nicola, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2759     43103          Lombardi Gianfranco and 7 others, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2760     43105          Intorcia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2761     43006          La Vista, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2762     43080          M.A.P., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2763     42990          Manganiello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2764     40722          Marotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2765     42988          Marucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2766     42994          Mascolo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2767     43046          Masella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2768     43001          Masuccio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2769     42995          Mirra, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2770     43071          Narciso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2771     43079          P.C. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2772     43089          Pellegrino Rossi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2773     43090          Perugini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2774     43106          Rossi Lina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2775     43108          Selvaggio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2776     43004          Verzino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2777     43078          Z., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2778     54288          Andreozzi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2779     54297          Aniceto, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2780     54309          Carretta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2781     54313          Castiello, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2782     54292          Cerasomma, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2783     54291          Caproni, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2784     54290+        D'Agostino Francesco, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2785     44401          Fermi and others, judgment of 06/11/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2786     54280          Giordano, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2787     54302          Incollingo, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2788     54301          Jaculli, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2789     54294          Fiore Mario, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2790     54296          Manera, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2791     54306          Masia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2792     54308          Mignanelli, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2793     54318          Picano, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2794     54279          Prete, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2795     54314          Quacquarelli, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2796     54284          Radicchi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2797     54298          Sabetta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2798     54311          Soave, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2799     54303          Spatrisano, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2800     54305          Tamburrini, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2801     54285          Tatangelo, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2802     54315          Tortolani, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2803     54295          Trovato, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2804     54317          Zullo Rocco, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

H46-2805     38415          C.M.F., judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-2806     39797          Guazzone, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Friendly settlement (rectified on 01/08/2002)

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-2807     50108          Kulakova, judgment of 18/10/01 – Friendly settlement

Section 6

- 7 cases against Lithuania

H46-2808     37975          Graužinis, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-2809     36743          Grauslys, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-2810     34578          Jėčius, judgment of 31/07/00

H46-2811     47679          Stašaitis, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

H46-2812     42095          Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01

H46-2813     44558          Valašinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-2814     44800          Puzinas, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

- 3 cases against Luxembourg

H46-7          41761          Scheele, judgment of 17/05/01, final on 17/08/01

H46-2815     21156          G.J., judgment of 26/10/00

H46-2816     45165          Matthies-Lenzen, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- 7 cases against the Netherlands

H32-2817     14084          R.V. and others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

H46-2818     28369          Camp and Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-2819     29192          Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-2820     31725          Köksal, judgment of 20/03/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2821     33258          Holder, judgment of 05/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2822     36499          Samy, judgment of 18/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-2823     34549          Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 14/08/2002

- 6 cases against Poland

H46-2824     28358          Baranowski, judgment of 28/03/00

H46-2825     31382          Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-2826     38670          Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

H46-2827     51669          Pałys, judgment of 11/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2828     25874          Kawka, judgment of 09/01/01

H46-2829     33310          H.D., judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 4 cases against Portugal

H46-2835     37698          Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

H46-2836     37528          Martins and Garcia Alves, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H54-2837     15777          Matos and Silva and 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

H46-2838     33290          Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

- 1 case against Romania

H32-2839     32922          C.C.M.C.

- 7 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-2840     34753          Jóri, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-2841     40345          Stančiak, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H46-2842     29032          Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

H46-2843     32686          Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

H46-2844     46843          Remšíková, judgment of 17/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2845     24530          Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-2846     38794          J.K., judgment of 23/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

Section 6

- 2 cases against Slovenia

H46-2847     29462          Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

H46-2848     28400          Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

- 4 cases against Sweden

H46-2849     26978          Beck, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2850     28222          Muonio Saami Village, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2851     32531          Jakola, judgment of 06/03/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2852     30526          De Laczay Ervin and Olga, judgment of 24/09/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 12 cases against Switzerland

H46-2853     27154          D.N., judgment of 29/03/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-2854     33958          Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-2855     27798          Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

H54-2856     23224          Kopp, judgment of 25/03/98

H46-2857     54273          Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

H46-2858     24699          VGT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46-2859     37292          F.R., judgment of 28/06/01, final on 28/09/01

H46-2860     33499          Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-2861     27426          G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-2862     28256          M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H32-2863     27613          P.B.

H54-2864     19800          R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678

- 59 cases against Turkey

H46-2865     33322          Özdiler and Bakan, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

H46-2866     29495          Erdemli, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/10/01

H46-2867     29295+        Ecer and Zeyrek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-2868     31850          Günay and others, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-2869     34686          Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2870     29851          Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H46-2871     32983          Çavuşoğlu, judgment of 06/03/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2872     24947          Ekinci Lalihan, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2873     31849          İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2874     24669          Karataş and Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-2875     24937          Koç Fırat, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2876     24933          Kürküt, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2877     31733          Tuncay and Ozlem Kaya, judgment of 08/11/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2878     28011          Yeşiltepe, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2879     35980          Z.E., judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2880     29862          Bağci and Murğ, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2881     31882          Çakmak, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2882     32450          Çaloğlu, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2883     31896          Değerli, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2884     29866+        Demir C., Demir M. and Gül, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2885     29883+        Fidan, Çağro and Özarslaner, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2886     31787          Göktaş and others, judgment of 25/09/01

H46-2887     31249          Gündüz and others, judgment of 14/11/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2888     24932          Kaplan, judgment of 26/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-2889     28013+        Karatepi and Kirt, judgment of 17/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2890     34499          Kortak, judgment of 31/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2891     31895          Morsümbül, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

Section 6

H46-2892     30495          Mutlu and Yildiz, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2893     28014+        Okuyucu, Kara and Bilmen, judgment of 17/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2894     30453          Özata and others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2895     29425          Özçelik and others, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2896     36760          Şanlı and Erol, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-2897     37191          Yildirim and others, judgment of 25/09/01

H46-2898     34684          Yolcu, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-2899     19264          Aktaş and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H32-2900     22907          Atatür A. and M., and Pamir

H46-2901     19266          Baltekin, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2902     19267          Bilgin Mehmet and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2903     19268          Bilgin Saniye and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2904     19269          Bozkurt and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2905     19272          Çalkan and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2906     19273          Çapar, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2907     19274          Çelebi Hamdi, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2908     19275          Çelebi Yusuf, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2909     19276          Çiplak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2910     19277          Daniş, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2911     19278          Erol, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2912     19280          Gökgöz, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2913     19281          Gökmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2914     38931          İ.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-2915     19270          Ilhan Buzcu and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2916     19283          Işik Ayşe and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2917     19284          Işik Yilmaz and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2918     19286          Karabulut Sefer, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2919     19271          Nuriye Buzcu, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2920     19287          Özen, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2921     19288          Öztekin, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-2922     31312          Eğinlioğlu, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-2923     29921          Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

- 15 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-2924     48521          Armstrong, judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002

H46-2925     24724          T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-2926     24888          V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-2927     45276          Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H54-2928     24839          Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

H32-2929     27237          Govell

H32-2930     26109          Santa Cruz Ruiz

H54-2931     24838          Steel, Lush, Needham, Polden and Cole, judgment of 23/09/98

H46-2932     35394          Khan, judgment of 12/05/00, final on 05/10/00

H46-2933     28901          Rowe and Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

H46-2934     35718          Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

H46-2935     33274          Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

H46-2936     39360          S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H54-2937     20605          Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Interim Resolution DH(1999)725

H46-2938     36670          Duyonov and others, judgment of 02/10/01 – Friendly settlement

c. PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING
(834th MEETING, 8-9 April 2003)

(See Addendum “Preparation of the next meeting”

to the present annotated agenda and order of business)

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.