Ministers' Deputies
Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2002)819 27 January 2003

Volume II – APPENDIX

————————————————


819th (DH) meeting, 3 and 5 December 2002

Appendix adopted

(Formal date of adoption: 17 December 2002)

————————————————

819th meeting (DH) – 3 and 5 December 2002

CONTENTS

APPENDIX Pages

APPENDIX 1 819th MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES
(Strasbourg, 3 and 5 December, DH)
ANNOTATED AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS 4

819th meeting (DH) – 3 and 5 December 2002

APPENDIX 1

819th METING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES
(Strasbourg, 3 and 5 December 2002 – DH)

ANNOTATED AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 66

GENERAL QUESTIONS 1212

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS 1313

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES 1818

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION 3434

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTION (INDIVIDUAL MEASURES, MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS) 5858

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED 9494

SECTION 6 - CASES WAITING FOR THE PRESENTATION OF A DRAFT RESOLUTION 106106

c. PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING (827th MEETING, 11-12 February 2003) 116116

Additional documents

Addendum General Questions

Addendum 1 - Final Resolutions

Addendum 4 (volumes 1 and 2) – Cases raising special questions

Addendum 5 - Supervision of general measures already announced

Addendum Preparation of the next DH meeting (827th meeting, 11-12 February 2003)

CM/Inf(2002)47 and Addendum

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 3186 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 2001¹. 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 32⁴ 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.

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

3.1.b: 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.

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

Sub-section 5.4 – Other measures
This sub-section includes cases which primarily imply other types of general measures, for example practical measures such as the construction of prison facilities, the recruitment of judges, police training, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

No discussion of these cases is envisaged: examination is in principle be resumed at the next Human Rights meeting.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

a. Adoption of the Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

Action

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

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

Action

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

c. Preparation of the next meeting (827th (11-12 February 2003)) see page 116

d. Procedure for supervising the adoption of individual measures, particularly in cases where national law does not provide a time-limit within which such measures have to be requested⁵

Action

The Deputies are invited to resume the examination of this point.

e. 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 comments they were invited to transmit to the Secretariat (see Addendum General Questions).

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS
(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

(Addendum 1)

Action

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

SUB-SECTION 1.1 – LEADING CASES

- 2 cases against Italy

H54-1 14967 Guerra and 39 others, judgment of 19/02/98
H32-2 14667 Cantafio

SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

No new case

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

- 1 case against France

H46-3 38437 Delgado, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 04/04/01

- 2 cases against Germany

H46-4 38073 H.T., judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02
H46-5 45181 Volkwein, judgment of 04/04/2002, final on 04/07/2002

- 1 case against Portugal

H46-6 43658 Sousa Miranda, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

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

- 1 case against Croatia

H46-2837 45435 Radoš and others (Gojko Mikecin) ⁶, judgment of 04/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against France

H46-2866 49352 Guelfucci, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Germany

H46-7 51342 Kalantari, judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02 – Striking out

- 2 cases against Greece

H46-2903 40428 Zohiou, judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/03/01
H46-2931 52538 Examiliotis, judgment of 18/04/02 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Italy

H46-2998 46535 Caruso Alfredo, judgment of 05/10/00

- 3 cases against Turkey

H46-3164 33369 Can, judgment of 05/12/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-3166 34591 Özçetin, judgment of 05/12/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-3167 33645 Polat Yuksel, judgment of 05/12/00 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-9 38550 Sawden, judgment of 12/03/02 – 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 has been 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 cases: Amrollahi, Motais de Narbonne (reserved in part), P.S., Koskinas, Katsaros (reserved), Carbone Biagio, Falcone Nicolò and Armstrong.

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

Section 2

- 2 cases against Austria

H46-10 38237 Sailer, judgment of 06/06/2002, final on 06/09/2002
H46-11 38275 W.F., judgment of 30/05/2002, final on 30/08/2002
(No debate envisaged)
These cases concern a violation of the applicants' right not to be tried or punished twice. The applicants, having been involved in traffic accidents, were first convicted in 1995 of driving under the influence of alcohol by the administrative authorities under the Road Traffic Act. They were then convicted again in respect of the same facts by the criminal the courts in 1996 and 1997 under the Penal Code (violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7) .
These cases present similarities to Gradinger against Austria (judgment of 23/10/1995) which was closed by a final resolution (DH (97) 501) following the adoption of general measures by the Austrian authorities.

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

H46-12 38361 Anguelova, judgment of 13/06/2002, final on 13/09/2002
The case concerns the death of the applicant's son, aged 17, as a result of injuries inflicted on him in January 1966 while in police custody on charges of theft (violations of Articles 2 and 3), the failure by the police to provide timely medical care during his detention (violation of Article 2) and the lack of effective investigation of his death by the Bulgarian authorities (violation of Articles 2 and 13). Finally, the European Court found that the detention of the applicant's son had been unlawful in that it was not based on a written order as required by domestic law and was not properly recorded in the police custody register (violation of Article 5§1).
The present case presents similarities to the Velikova case (judgment of 18/05/00) which is pending before the Committee of Ministers for supervision of general measures (834th meeting, (April 2003), Section 4.2).
Other possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-13 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).
Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-14 53594 Alithia Publishing Company, judgment of 11/07/2002, final on 11/10/2002
(No debate envisaged)
This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The period to be taken into consideration started on 1 January 1989 (the date upon which Cyprus recognised the right of individual application) and finished on 22 June 1999 (ten years, five months and twenty days).

Section 2

- 2 cases against Croatia

H46-15 53176 Mikulić, judgment of 07/02/2002, final on 04/09/2002⁷
The case concerns first, the excessive lengtht of proceedings to establish paternity brought by the applicant in January 1997 and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect. The proceedings had lasted 4 years and 2 months when the European Court rendered its judgment and was still pending before the Court of Appeal (violations of Article 6§1 and 13). Secondly, the case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to her private life in that the domestic courts were unable to pronounce on her action to establish paternity. The European Court found that the domestic courts had not been able to oblige the presumed father to submit to DNA testing and that there was no other alternative procedural means of deciding the matter of paternity swiftly. It therefore concluded that the applicable procedure did not establish a just balance between the applicant's right to put an end quickly to her uncertainty about her personal identity and her presumed father's right not to submit to DNA testing (violation of Article 8).
Possible individual and/or general measures: The Croatian authorities have indicated that the domestic proceedings ended by a final judgment rendered on 26/02/02. The European Court's judgment has already been translated and published on the Government Web site of the (http://www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html). Other measures will be discussed at the meeting.

H46-16 48771 Delić, judgment of 27/06/2002, final on 27/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the excessive length of 9 different sets of civil proceedings for recovery of debts ( eight of which are still pending at first instance or appeal) and the absence of an effective remedy in respect of the length of these proceedings (violations of Articles 6§1 and 13).
It presents similarities with the Horvat case (judgment of 26/07/2001), which is to be examined in section 4.2 of this annotated agenda and order of business.
Possible individual and/or general measures: accelerating domestic proceedings; the European Court's judgments have already been translated and published on the official web site of the Government www.vlada.hr/dokumenti.html.

- 1 case against Denmark

H46-17 56811 Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/2002, final on 11/10/2002
The case concerns an infringement of the applicant's right to respect for his family life. The applicant, an Iranian national, moved legally to Denmark in 1989 and married a Danish national. They have three children, all of Danish nationality, one of which is the issue of an earlier marriage of the applicant's wife. In 1997, the applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to three years' imprisonment followed by permanent expulsion from Denmark. The European Court considered that, given the applicant's significant family ties with Denmark and the fact that he had had no contact with his Iranian family since 1987, and taking into account that it was a practical impossibility for the applicant and his family to set up home elsewhere than in Denmark, the applicant's expulsion would have the effect of separating the family, and would thus be disproportionate to the aims pursued (violation of Article 8 if the decision to expel the applicant were implemented).
Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

- 1 case against Finland

H46-18 30013 Türkiye iş Bankasi, judgment of 18/06/2002, final on 18/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The period to be taken into consideration by the Court began on 10/05/90 - when the Convention entered into force with respect to Finland - to end on 17/05/95 (5 years and 7 days).
Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court.

- 12 cases against France

H46-19 51279 Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/2002, final on 25/09/2002
The case concerns the conviction in 1998 of the daily newspaper Le Monde, its director and a journalist for having published an article about an official report prepared at the request of the Commission of the European Communities on drug production and trafficking in Morocco which implicated the King of Morroco's entourage. The French courts found the applicants guilty of insulting a foreign Head of State, under Section 36 of the Law of 29/07/1881 on the Freedom of the Press, and condemned the applicants to pay a fine and publish the details of the conviction. Unlike the provisions covering defamation in ordinary law, the offence covered by Section 36 of this law does not permit “exceptio veritatis” defence. The Court considered therefore that, because of the special nature of the protection afforded by this provision, the existence of a misdemeanour of insulting foreign heads of state was liable to infringe freedom of expression without corresponding to a “pressing social need” sufficient to justify such a restriction (violation of Article 10).
Possible individual and/or general measures: publication; wide dissemination, with an information note, to criminal courts and the Court of Cassation; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-20 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002
The case concerns the compulsory purchase, in December 1982, of property belonging to the applicants, on grounds of public utility, in order to constitute land reserves for social housing. In 1989, since no works had been carried out, the applicants invoked Article L.12-6 of the Compulsory Purchase Code, which provides that, if an expropriated property is not put to its declared use within a time-limit of five years, the former owners may apply for its restitution. They applied for restitution of the property and subsequently, instead, for the payment of its up-to-date value, less the compulsory purchase compensation they had already received. The Court of Appeal found against the applicants in 1996. The European Court considered that the fact of keeping the property unused for 19 years had resulted in the accumulation of an appreciable capital gain of which the applicants had been unduly deprived since the fact of keeping the property in reserve was not based on any reason grounded in public utility. It therefore considered that the applicants had been subjected to an excessive burden as a result of the compulsory purchase (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the European Court's judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-21 53613 Goth, judgment of 16/05/2002, final on 16/08/2002
(No debate envisaged)
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 the 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 the very essence of his right of access to the juge de Cassation and thus his right to a fair trial (violation of article 6§1).

Section 2

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

H46-22 38396 Karatas and Sari, judgment of 16/05/2002, final on 16/08/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the violation of the applicants' right to a fair trial. By a default judgment of January 1997, a criminal court convicted the applicants, who had absconded, without allowing their lawyers to defend them. The European Court considered that the tribunal should have given the attending lawyers the opportunity to defend their clients' case (violation Article 6§3c)).
Possible individual measure: on the basis of Articles 489 and 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants could apply to have the judgment given by default set aside: the verdict would necessarily be quashed.

H46-23 41376 D.M., judgment of 27/06/2002, final on 27/09/2002
H46-24 43125 Delbec Annick No. 3, judgment of 18/06/2002, final on 18/09/2002⁸
H46-25 33395 L.R., judgment of 27/06/2002, final on 27/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The cases concern the length of time taken by civil courts (tribunaux de grande instance) to decide on urgent applications for immediate release from psychiatric hospital. These applications, introduced by the applicants between 1996 and 1998 lasted respectively one year and 20 days (the applicant having already been released after 3 months), slightly more than three months (the applicant having already been released after 1 month) and a little over six months (the applicant having already been released after 24 days) (violations of Article 5§4).
Possible general measure: dissemination of the European Court's judgments to the presidents of tribunaux de grande instance.

H46-26 33424 Nouhaud and others, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings brought in conjunction with proceedings before administrative courts: a total of almost ten years, including three years and nine months before the Conseil d'Etat (violation of article 6 § 1 in respect of the first two applicants). The case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of article 13 in respect of the first two applicants). In this respect the Court found that it was not until after 20/09/2001 (and thus after the facts of the present case) that appeal for compensation based on Article L 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation had acquired sufficient legal certainty to constitute a remedy for an alleged violation of the right to have a case judged within a reasonable time under the terms of Article 6§1(see the Court's decisions in the cases of Giummara and others (12/06/2001) and Mifsud (11/09/2002).

H46-27 51179 Solana, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 04/09/2002⁹
(No debate envisaged)
This case concerns the excessive length of two sets of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1). One set of proceedings, which began on 24/04/1991 and was still pending before the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal when the European Court rendered its judgment, had so far lasted 10 years and 9 months. The other, which began on 30/11/1989 and ended on 29/06/1999, had lasted almost 9 years and 7months.
Possible individual measure: Accelerate the proceedings pending before the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal.

Section 2

H46-28 51575 Baillard, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 04/09/2002¹⁰
(No debate envisaged)
This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts and the Conseil d'Etat. The proceedings, which began on 13/08/1991 and ended on 08/02/1998, lasted more than 7 years, five months of which 6 years and 5 months were before the Conseil d'Etat (violation of Article 6§1)
The case presents similarities to the Caillot case and other cases related to length of proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat (see sub-section 4.2 of this annotated agenda and order of business).

H46-29 44081 Perhirin and 29 others, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002¹¹
(No debat envisaged)
The case concerns the excessive length of two series of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts and the Conseil d'Etat. Given that the various proceedings began at different dates, the durations found by the European Court vary between 9 years, 4 months and over 6 years, 2 months for one series and between 5 years, 11 moths and nearly 4 years for the second (violation of Article 6§1).
This case presents similarities with that of Caillot and other cases of excessive length of proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat (see Section 4.2 of this annotated agenda and order of business).

*H46-30 45172 Fentati, judgment of 22/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (complaint under Article 6§1).

- 1 case against Germany

H46-31 33900 P.S., judgment of 20/12/2001, final on 04/09/2002¹²
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).
Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the judgment of the European Court; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 3 cases against Greece

H46-32 47760 Koskinas, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right of access to a court in that in 1996, the domestic courts rejected his action challenging his dismissal by the airline Olympic Airways (of which the state is the sole shareholder) on the grounds that, pursuant to chapter 10 §§ 5 and 8 of the company's employment regulations, they had no competence to examine the veracity of accusations brought against the applicant justifying his dismissal. The European Court found that he had therefore been unable to challenge these accusations (violation of Article 6§1).
Individual measures: The Directorate General of Human Rights received a letter (dated 10/11/2002) from the applicant's lawyer, informing it that the applicant had asked for the re-examination of his case by Olympic Airways and his re-employment in the post and grade he had before his dismissal. He considers that the re-examination of his case is the only means whereby Greece may comply with the Court's judgment. He notes however that Greek law does not provide any possibility of reopening civil judicial proceedings. This letter was communicated to the Delegation of Greece whose response is awaited.

Section 2

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

H46-33 51473 Katsaros, judgment of 06/06/2002, final on 06/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right of access to a court in that the authorities failed to comply within a reasonable time with judicial decisions revoking ipso jure an expropriation (judgment of the Court of Appeal of 1993) and inviting the administration to lift the restriction on the applicant's property rights (judgment of the Council of State of 1999) (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns an illegal interference with the applicant's property rights in that, despite the order revoking the expropriation and the decision modifying the alignment plan, finally carried out in 2001, the State deprived the applicant of the peaceful possession of his property by prohibiting him from using it (violation of Article 1 of Protocol n°1).
This case presents certain similarities with the Pialopoulos case (see CM/Del/OJ/OT(2002)803, 4.2) and the Hornsby case (judgment of 19/03/1997) closure of which is proposed following a number of general measures already adopted.
Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment to the competent administrative authorities, accompanied by a circular drawing their attention to the execution of the judicial decisions.

H46-34 55611 Xenopoulos, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 04/09/2002¹³
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the excessive length of two sets of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Council of State (social insurance rights). These proceedings ended in 1999. The first lasted 12 years and 5 months and the second 11 years and 8 months (violation of Article 6§1).
This case presents similarities with those of Pafitis (judgment of 26/02/98), Varipati (judgment of 26/10/99), etc., closure of which is proposed following a number of general measures already adopted.
General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr).

- 2 cases against Hungary

- Cases of length of civil proceedings
H46-35 42373 Bódine Bencze, judgment of 01/10/2002 – Striking out following a friendly
settlement
H46-36 43352 Kósa, judgment of 01/10/2002 - Striking out following a friendly settlement
(No debate envisaged)
These cases concern the length of certain civil proceedings (complaints under Article 6§1).

- 31 cases against Italy

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

H46-37 28724 Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/2002, final on 11/10/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the prolonged impossibility for the applicant, from 1987 to 1996, to obtain the assistance of the police in order to implement a judicial decision ordering his tenant's eviction, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions. As in the case of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99 (see section 4.2 of this document), the Court considered that such a delay in implementing a final judicial decision had deprived the applicant of his right of access to a tribunal (violation of Article 6).

Section 2

*H46-38 46079 Biffoni, judgment of 24/10/2001 - Friendly settlement
*H46-39 41624 Calvagno, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
*H46-40 31928 F. and F., judgment of 24/10/2001 - Friendly settlement
*H46-41 39690 Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
*H46-42 43986 Pugliese Rosalba, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
*H46-43 47895 Sartorelli, judgment of 24/10/2001 - Friendly settlement
(No debate envisaged)
These cases concern the prolonged impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to implement judicial decisions ordering their tenants' eviction, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6).
These cases are similar to the case of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99, under Section 4.2 of this document.

23 Italian cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings
(see Section 4.3, CM/Inf(2002)47) & Addendum 4, volume 1
(No debate envisaged)
a) 2 cases (see table a below) concerning the excessive length of proceedings before civil courts (violations of Article 6§1).
These cases are similar to among others, the Ceteroni case, judgment of 15/11/96.

b) 9 cases (see table b below) concerning the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights & obligations before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1).
All these cases are similar among others, the Abenavoli case, judgment of 2/09/97.

c) 12 cases (see table c below) concerning the excessive length of proceedings before the criminal courts (violations of Article 6§1).
All these cases are similar among others, the Ledonne I case, judgment of 12/05/98, final on 12/08/99. In the case of Nuvoli, the Court also found, as in the case of Selva (judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02) that no effective remedy was available to the applicant under domestic law to complain about the excessive length of proceedings (violation of Article 13). The “Pinto” Act, No. 89 of 2001, introducing such a possibility is not applicable to this case.

General measures (concerning all these 23 cases): The question of general measures required and under way was in particular dealt with in Interim Resolutions DH(97)336, DH(99)436, DH(99)437 & DH(2000)135. In the last-named Resolution, the Deputies decided among other things “to resume its consideration of the progress made, at least at yearly intervals, on the basis of a comprehensive report to be presented each year by the Italian authorities.” At the end of the examination of the first report presented by the Italian authorities (issued under the reference CM/Inf(2001)37), the Committee of Ministers took note of the progress made as well as of a certain number of pending issues in respect of which it was not possible, at that stage, to draw global & final conclusions. As the information concerning civil, labour and administrative justice seemed to be relatively encouraging, the Committee decided to resume consideration of these issues in December 2002, on the basis of the new annual report to be provided by the Italian authorities in October 2002 (see press releases of 3/10/01 & 21/02/02). As regards criminal justice, the Committee continued its examination in June and July 2002. Having found that the available information did not show any significant improvement in the effectiveness of criminal courts, the Committee invited the Italian authorities to provide the information requested, including in particular comparable and updated statistical data, at the latest in October 2002, before the continuation of the examination in December 2002 (see press release of 10/07/02), which will take place under Section 4.3 of this meeting. In view of this examination, the Italian authorities have submitted a new annual report (CM/Inf(2002)47). See also Section 4.3 of this document and Addendum 4, volume 1.

Individual measures (concerning all these 23 cases): the Italian authorities are 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, and to adopt appropriate measures in order to speed up these proceedings.

Section 2

Table a – civil proceedings

Table b – administrative proceedings

Table c – criminal proceedings

Section 2

*H46-67 36732 Pisano, judgment of 24/10/2002 – Striking-out - Grand Chamber
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the applicant's complaint concerning the fairness of certain criminal proceedings.
In 2001 the applicant was re-tried and acquitted, after the European Court had decided that his application was admissible. The Court accordingly decided to strike the case out of its list under Article 37(b) of the Convention, considering that the matter had been resolved as the applicant had been acquitted and could seek compensation under domestic law for the unfairness of his conviction. The Court furthermore awarded the applicant a sum for costs and expenses under Rule 44§4 of the Rules of Court.

- 2 cases against the Netherlands

H46-68 34462 Wessels-Bergervoet, judgment of 04/06/2002, final on 04/09/2002 and of
12/11/2002 (Article 41) – Friendly settlement
The case concerns a decision in 1989 to grant the applicant an old age pension under the General Old Age Pension Act (Algemene Ouderdomswet). Her pension was however reduced as her entitlement to pension up to 1985 was linked to her husband's which had been reduced by 38% as he had not been fully insured under this Act, having worked and been insured abroad for 19 years. The similar reduction of the applicant's pension was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) in 1996, despite the fact that this kind of reduction did not apply to a man married to a woman who had worked abroad. Since 1 April 1985, married women have been entitled in their own right to a pension under the above mentioned Act, but the new law preserved the difference in treatment as regards the entitlement up to 1985. The European Court concluded that the above difference in treatment was not based on any objective and reasonable justification (violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention).
Possible individual and/or general measures: publication of the European Court's judgment and diffusion to all tribunals which may be faced with similar questions; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-69 34549 Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 14/08/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings before the Trade Association for the Timber and Furniture Industry and the Timber Wholesale Trade (Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Hout- en Meubelindustrie en Groothandel in Hout) and administrative tribunals, concerning a dispute over social security contributions which lasted from 1989 to 1996 (seven years and four days)(violation of Article 6§1).
The period at issue in these cases is covered by the measures adopted by the Netherlands authorities in the Schouten and Meldrum case (judgment of 9/12/1994 – Resolution DH(96)21).

- 8 cases against Poland

H46-70 34611 Dacewicz, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002
H46-71 33885 Kawka Eryk, judgment of 27/06/2002, final on 27/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The cases concern the violation of the applicants' right to be brought quickly before a judge following their arrest (violation of Article 5§3).
These cases present similarities to the case of Niedbała against Poland (judgment of 4 July 2000, Resolution ResDH(2002)124), which was closed taking into account the legislative and other measures adopted by Poland to prevent new, similar violations.

Section 2

H46-72 24244 Migoń, judgment of 25/06/2002, final on 25/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the unfairness of the judicial proceedings concerning the extension of the applicant's detention on remand between 1993 and 1995. This was due to the impossibility for the applicant and his lawyer to take part in the hearing and to have access to the case-file at certain stages of proceedings (violations of Article 5§4).
This case presents similarities to that of Włoch against Poland (judgment of 19 October 2000), which will be examined in Section 5.1 of the present annotated Agenda for supervision of the legislative and other general measures adopted to prevent similar violations.

H46-73 27715+ Berliński Roman and Sławomir, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns in particular the prosecutor's failure to deal with the applicants' request for free legal assistance at the first stage of criminal proceedings. The applicants were deprived of a lawyer for more than a year and were sentenced in 1996 to one and one-and-a-half years' imprisonment, suspended (violation of Articles 6§§1 and 3c).
Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment and its wide dissemination to all prosecutors.

- Cases of length of civil proceedings
(No debate envisaged)

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). They present similarities to the others relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/2001) for examination under sub-section 5.1 for supervision of general measures¹⁹.
Possible individual measure: Accelerate the pending proceedings at national level (Goc and Uthke cases).

- 5 cases against Portugal

- Cases of length of civil proceedings
H46-78 47833 Marques Francisco, judgment of 06/06/2002, final on 06/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings started on 11 July 1991 and finished on 15 November 2001 (ten years and four months).

Section 2

*H46-79 54073 Agostinho, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
*H46-80 50843+ Longotrans - Transportes Internacionais Lda, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
*H46-81 53793 Morais Sarmento, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
*H46-82 54449 Saraiva e Lei, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
(No debate envisaged)
These cases concern the length of certain civil proceedings (complaints under Article 6§1).

- 8 cases against Romania

H46-83 35831 Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002
H46-84 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002
H46-85 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002, rectified on 09/07/2002
H46-86 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002
H46-87 32925 Cretu, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002
H46-88 32943 Falcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002
H46-89 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002²⁰
H46-90 29407 Vasiliu, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002²¹
(No debate envisaged)
These cases concern the Supreme Court's annulment of final court decisions delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicants' titles to real estate. The Supreme Court intervened following applications for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of civil procedure, which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions. The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the 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 except in the Basacopol case in which this disposition had not been invoked). Finally the European Court found that the Supreme Court's decisions had violated the applicants' right to respect for their possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
These cases present similarities to that of Brumarescu against Romania (judgments of 23/01/01 and 11/05/01) which will be examined in Section 4.2 of this meeting for supervision of general measures.

- 1 case against the Russian federation

H46-91 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).
Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

H46-92 32106 Komanický, judgment of 04/06/2002, final on 04/09/2002²²
The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to fair trial during civil proceedings initiated after his dismissal from employment. The European Court concluded that the procedure followed in this case by the national courts did not enable the applicant to participate properly in the proceedings and to comment on all evidence adduced, and thus did not satisfy the requirements of the principle of the equality of arms (violation of Article 6§1).
Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the European Court's judgment to civil courts; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

- 1 case against Sweden

H46-93 30526 De Laczay Ervin and Olga, judgment of 24/09/2002 - Friendly settlement
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the length of civil proceedings (complaint under Article 6§1).

- 16 cases against Turkey

*H46-94 38578 Kaplan Süleyman, judgment of 10/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
*H46-95 33234 N.Ö, judgment of 17/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
(No debate envisaged)
These cases concern allegations of ill-treatment while the applicants were in police custody and, in the N. Ö. Case, the alleged murder of the applicant's husband in the course of operations conducted by security forces in 1993 and 1995 in Diyarbakır and Ankara respectively (complaints under Articles 2 and 3).
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.
The complaints and the governmental undertakings made 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 under subsection 4.2 of this annotated agenda for supervision of their implementation.

- Cases concerning the length of detention in custody
H46-96 29296 İğdeli, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
H46-97 34481 Filiz and Kalkan, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
These cases concern the applicants' prolonged detention in police custody in Istanbul and Izmir in 1995 and 1996 (respectively 7 and 8 days) (violation of Article 5 § 3).The İğdeli case also concerns the fact that the applicant could not speedily challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a judge as the length of this detention was in conformity with the legislation applicable at the time (violation of Article 5§4).
These cases present similarities to Sakık and others against Turkey (judgment of 26/11/1997) which was closed by a final resolution, ResDH(2002)110, following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

Section 2

- Cases against Turkey concerning freedom of expression
H46-98 33179 Karataş Seher, judgment of 09/07/2002, final on 09/10/2002
H46-99 29590 Yağmurdereli, judgment of 04/06/2002, final on 04/09/2002
Both cases concern violations of the applicants' freedom of expression on account of their conviction following respectively the publication of an article in the magazine of which Ms Karataş was editor and a speech given in 1991 by Mr Yağmurdereli. Ms Karataş was sentenced in 1995, under Article 312 of the Criminal Code, to a prison sentence later converted into a fine. Mr Yağmurdereli was sentenced in 1994 (confirmed in 1995 and 1997) under Article 8 of the Anti-Terror Law to 10 months' prison and a fine. In January 2001, in conformity with the laws 4454 and 4616 on conditional suspension of sentences, the prison sentence was suspended for three years and the applicant released. In both cases, the European Court concluded that these convictions were not necessary in a democratic society (violations of Article 10). In this respect, the cases are similar inter alia to the case of Inçal (judgment of 09/06/98).
The European Court also held in both cases that there had been violations of the applicants' right to a fair trial because of the presence of a military judge in the State Security Court which convicted them (violations of Article 6§1). As regards this last aspect, measures have already been adopted to prevent new violations (see Resolution DH(99)555 in the Çiraklar case).
Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court. In its Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106, the Committee of Ministers urged the Turkish authorities to take ad hoc measures allowing rapid and full erasure of the consequences of applicants' convictions contrary to the Convention in cases where the Court had found violations of Article 10. It furthermore encouraged the Turkish authorities to bring the comprehensive reforms planned to bring Turkish law into conformity with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention to a successful conclusion. It is proposed to resume the examination of the individual and general measures required in this kind of cases in February 2003.

- Cases relating to the administration's delay in payment of additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest
H46-100 20132 Bilgin Burhan, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
H46-101 20133 Bilgin Leyli, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
H46-102 20134 Bilgin Münir, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
H46-103 20136 Canlı, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
H46-104 20142 Günal Kazım, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
H46-105 20153 Şen Ismet, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
H46-106 20156 Şen Kemal, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
H46-107 20154 Şen Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
H46-108 20158 Taşdemir Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 20/06/2002, final on 20/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
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 delay 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).

*H46-109 30944 Öcal, judgment of 10/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the length of certain civil proceedings concerning the determination of the applicant's title to a piece of land (complaint under Article 6§1).
Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court.

Section 2

- 7 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-110 43290 McShane, judgment of 28/05/2002, final on 28/08/2002
The case concerns the death of the applicant's husband, following a collision involving a military vehicle during an operation by the security forces to contain a riot in Londonderry (July 1996). The Court found that the proceedings for investigating the death had shown the following shortcomings: the police officers investigating the incident were not sufficiently independent from the officers implicated in the incident; the police investigation was not expeditive enough; the soldier who fatally injured the applicant's husband could not be required to attend the inquest as a witness; the inquest procedure did not allow any verdict or findings which could play an effective role in securing a prosecution in respect of any criminal offence which may have been disclosed; the non-disclosure of witness statements and other relevant documents contributed to long adjournments in the proceedings; the inquest proceedings did not commence promptly (violations of Article 2 in its procedural obligation).
The case also concerns the Court's finding that there had been 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.
With respect to the violation of Article 2, the case presents similarities with those of McKerr, Shanaghan, Hugh Jordan and Kelly & others (judgments of 04/05/01) which are to be examined under Section 4.2 of this draft agenda and order of business.
Possible individual and/or general measures: to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-111 30668+ Wilson and the National Union of journalists; Palmer, Wyeth and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers; Doolan andt others, judgment of 02/07/2002, final on 02/10/2002
The case concerns the failure of the state in its positive obligation to secure the enjoyment of certain trade-union rights under Article 11, by permitting employers to use salary 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.
Possible individual and/or general measures: publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court; other measure(s) to be discussed at the meeting.

H46-112 56547 P., C. and S., judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002
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.
Possible individual and/or general measures: publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

Section 2

H46-113 48521 Armstrong, judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the use of listening devices hidden by the police at the home of one of the applicants' accomplices in order to record the applicant's conversations. The Court found that this interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life, which was not in accordance with the law, since in 1994-1995 there was no domestic law regulating the use of such devices by the police (violation of Article 8). The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).
General measures: The case presents similarities with those of Govell, Khan and P.G. & J.H (judgments of 18/05/98, 12/05/00 and 25/09/2001 respectively), which appear in Section 6, following the adoption of the Police Act 1997 and of the Regulation of Investigation Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Part II of the latter Act came into force on 25/09/00 and provides for the first time a statutory framework for the use of covert surveillance by a range of public authorities, including the police service. The installation of a covert listening device in residential premises is partly ruled by this Act (sections 26(3) and 32) and partly by the Police Act 1997. As regards the violation of Article 13, Part IV of the RIPA provides for independent oversight of police powers by a Chief Surveillance Commissioner and establishes an independent tribunal to consider complaints concerning the use of surveillance powers.

H46-114 37471 Faulkner William (No. 2), judgment of 04/06/2002, final on 04/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence in that the prison authorities failed to send on a letter he had addressed in 1996 to the Scottish Minister of State. The court found that this interference was neither provided for by law nor necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 8).

H46-115 65905 Rice, judgment of 01/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the applicant's complaint that as a widower he had been subject to discrimination on grounds of sex in that the social security benefit for widowed parents, the Widowed Mother's Allowance, was available only to women (complaint under Article 14 together with Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
The case present similarities with the Crossland, Cornwell and Leary cases (see Resolutions ResDH(2000)81, ResDH(2002)95 and ResDH(2002)96 respectively adopted in these cases).

H46-116 42007 Davies, judgment of 16/07/2002, final on 16/10/2002, rectified on 13/09/2002
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings concerning the disqualification of the applicant from a post in a company, which lasted almost 5 years and 6 months (violation of Article 6§1).
Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of European Court's judgment.

- 1 case against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

*H46-117 58185 Janeva, judgment of 03/10/2002 - Friendly settlement
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before labour courts (complaint under Article 6§1).

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION

Action

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

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

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

- 7 cases against Austria

H46-118 32636 A.T., judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002
H46-119 29271 Dichand and others, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02
H46-120 34320 Freiheitliche Landesgruppe Burgenland, judgment of 18/07/2002 –
Friendly settlement
H46-121 34315 Krone Verlag Gmbh and Co. Kg., judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02
H46-122 28525 Unabhängige Initiative Informationsvielfalt, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02
H46-124 50110 Maurer, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

- Default interest to be paid

H46-123 36075 Siegl, judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Belgium

- Default interest to be paid

H46-125 51564 Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/02

- 2 cases against Cyprus

H46-126 50516 Georgiadis, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 14/08/2002
H46-127 47293 Selim, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Finland

H46-128 28856 Jokela, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 21/08/2002

- 46 cases against France

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-129 38436 APBP, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002
H46-130 32911+ Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/2002 - Grand Chamber²³
H46-131 36515 Fretté, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02
H46-132 32872 Peltier, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 21/08/2002
H46-133 46044 Lallement, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002
H32-134 26242 Lemoine Pierre
H46-135 36677 SA Dangeville, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 16/07/2002
H46-136 37971 Sociétés Colas Est, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 16/07/2002
H46-137 41476 Laine, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02
H46-138 39278 Langlois, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02
H46-139 39626 Granata, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-140 47575 Marks and Ordinateur Express, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02
H32-141 29877 Pauchet and others - Interim Resolution DH(98)100

Section 3.a

H46-142 44952+ Van der Kar and Lissaur Van West, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-143 48215 Lutz, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002
H46-144 47007 Arnal, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-145 55672 Beaume Marty, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-146 46280 Benzi, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-147 49622 Goubert and Labbe, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-148 50996 Grand, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002
H46-149 42189 H.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02
H46-150 57753 C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-151 42588 Linard, judgment of 25/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-152 44485 Moullet, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002
H46-153 45573 Moyer, judgment of 25/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-154 41946+ Ribes J.M. and M.A., judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 07/08/2002
H46-155 51818 Société Comabat, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002
H46-156 56198 Société Industrielle d'Entretien and de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-157 54757 Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02²⁴
H46-158 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 14/08/2002²⁵
H46-159 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 10/07/2002²⁶²⁷
H46-160 42406 Vallar, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-161 44070 Beljanski, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02
H46-162 44797+ Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002

- Default interest to be paid

H32-163 31677 Watson John
H46-164 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01, final on 07/06/01
H46-165 40472 Tricard, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01
H46-166 42195 Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01
H46-167 41526 Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/11/00
H46-168 48167 Hababou, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/04/01
H46-169 44211 Lacombe, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01
H46-170 47631 Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01, final on 26/04/01
H46-171 39273 Vermeersch, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01
H32-172 39966 De Cantelar
H46-173 49342 Dunan, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement
H46-174 49350 Ivars, judgment of 30/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 9 cases against Greece

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-175 48392 Hatzitakis, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002
H46-176 48679 AEPI S.A., judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002
H46-177 46356 Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002
H46-178 49215 Angelopoulos, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002
H46-179 46806 Sakellaropoulos Yeoryios, judgment of 11/04/2002, final on 11/07/2002
H46-180 47891 Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 07/08/2002
H46-181 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

Section 3.a

- Default interest to be paid

H46-182 49282 Marinakos, judgment of 04/10/01 – Friendly settlement
H46-183 47020 Kolokitha, judgment of 07/06/01

- 548 cases against Italy

H46-184 51672 Selva, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02
H46-185 25639 F.L., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02
H46-186 47247 Mercuri, judgment of 11/04/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-187 41232 Quartucci, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-188 33202 Beyeler, judgments of 05/01/00 (merits) and of 28/05/02 (just satisfaction)
H46-189 30127 Sciortino, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 27/03/02
H46-190 39797 Guazzone, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Friendly settlement (rectified on 01/08/2002)
H46-191 35243 N. and D.A., judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-192 34714 Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-193 37248 Vietti, judgment of 18/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

- Civil courts²⁸
H46-194 52979 An.M., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-195 51671 Arrigoni, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-196 56084 At.M., judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02
H46-197 51678 Baioni and Badini, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-198 52987 Barone Antonio and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-199 52974 Beneventano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-200 51667 Bertot, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-201 52914 Bruno Paolo, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-202 56092 Calvagni and Formiconi, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-203 51696 Cappelletti and Dell'Agnese, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-204 52915 Cazzato, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-205 52970 Ciancetta and Mancini, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-206 56095 Colasanti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-207 56085 Cristina, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-208 52925 D'Alfonso, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-209 52921 Damiano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-210 52920 De Rosa la Francesco, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-211 52923 De Santis III, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-212 52968 Del Bono and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-213 56106 Dell'Aquila, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-214 52978 Di Niso, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-215 41740 Diebold, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-216 44519 E.M. II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-217 52972 Falzarano Carmine, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-218 52916 Ferrara Vincenza, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-219 52984 Ge.Im.A.S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-220 56099 Genovesi, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-221 44413 Guerrera Angelo Giuseppe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-222 51708 I.M., judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-223 52957 I.P.A. S.r.l., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-224 56088 IT.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

Section 3.a

H46-225 44396 Ital Union Servizi S.a.s. No. 1, judgment of 12/02/2002, final on 04/09/2002²⁹
H46-226 44913 Ital Union Servizi S.a.s. No. 2, judgment of 12/02/2002, final on 04/09/2002³⁰
H46-227 44914 Ital Union Servizi S.a.s. No. 3, judgment of 12/02/2002, final on 04/09/2002³¹
H46-228 52986 L.S., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-229 52958 Lombardo la Francesco, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-230 51668 Lopriore, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-231 52919 Luciani, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-232 51706 Mannari, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-233 47479 Mastromauro S.R.L., judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-234 52973 Mattaliano, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-235 56101 Mesiti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-236 52926 Mostacciuolo, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-237 56089 Murru V, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-238 56098 Pelagatti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-239 52976 Policriti and Gioffré, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-240 41803 Pupillo, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00; revised judgment on just satisfaction on 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02
H46-241 52971 R.L., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-242 52962 Raffio, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-243 52913 Rapisarda, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-244 44409 Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, rectified on 09/07/02
H46-245 51664 Rodolfi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-246 52969 Romano Almanio Antonio, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-247 51710 Rossi Gianbattista, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-248 52988 Rossi Maria Giovanna, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-249 51704 Rota Giacomo and Gianfranco, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-250 51705 Rota Roberto and Giuseppe, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H32-251 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673
H46-252 52977 Savona II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-253 52918 Scinto, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-254 52983 Seccia, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-255 52959 Sessa, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-256 52989 Sirufo, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-257 56093 Società Croce Gialla Romana S.a.s., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-258 51670 Sordelli and C. S.n.c., judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-259 51711 Spanu, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-260 56105 Spinelli, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-261 56094 Sposito, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-262 52990 Stabile, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-263 49314 Steiner and Hassid Steiner, judgment of 06/12/2001, final on 06/03/2002
H46-264 51673 Tiozzo Peschiero L. and L., judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-265 52967 Vaccarella, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-266 51707 Vanzetti, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-267 56086 Vazzana, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-268 52960 Ventrone, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-269 56096 Venturin, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-270 52965 Vetrone, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-271 52963 Zotti and Ferrara I, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-272 52964 Zotti and Ferrara II, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-273 52966 Zotti, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

Section 3.a

- Administrative courts³²
H46-274 56226 Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-275 56222 Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-276 56206 Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-277 56208 Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-278 56202 Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-279 56224 D'Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-280 56217 De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-281 56205 Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-282 56225 Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-283 56221 Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-284 56212 Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-285 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/2001, final on 06/03/2002
H46-286 56203 Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-287 44334 Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-288 56204 Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-289 56207 Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-290 56211 Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-291 56220 Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-292 56213 Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-293 56223 Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-294 56219 Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-295 56214 Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-296 56215 Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-297 56201 Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-298 56218 Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-299 44333 V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

- Court of Audit
H46-300 54282 Amici, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-301 54316 Betti, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-302 54293 Chiappetta Domenico, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-303 54287 Ferrari Sergio, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-304 54278 Leonardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-305 54299 Libertini and Di Girolamo, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-306 54312 Manna, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-307 44359 Marrama, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-308 54318 Picano, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-309 54319 Sportola, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-310 54286 Strangi, judgment of 07/05/02 – Friendly settlement

- Labour courts³³
H46-311 51031 Aceto and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-312 51089 Armellino la Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-313 51093 Armellino Lucia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-314 52824 Belviso and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-315 56091 Bernardini, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-316 56103 Bevilacqua Giovanni, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-317 52804 Bianco Pellegrino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-318 52816 Biondi and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-319 51030 Biondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-320 51150 Calabrese, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-321 51134 Cardo Cristina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

Section 3.a

H46-322 51146 Cardo Elisa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-323 51127 Carolla, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-324 52835 Cerbo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-325 52801 Ciarmoli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-326 52815 Cimmino and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-327 51112 Circelli Maria Antonia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-328 52807 Ciullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-329 52821 Colangelo Domenico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-330 51116 Colella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-331 51147 Crisci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-332 51164 Crovella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-333 56104 Cullari, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-334 51149 Cuozzo Giovanna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-335 51154 Cuozzo la Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-336 51163 D'Angelo Michele, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-337 51125 De Filippo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-338 51098 De Rosa Giovanna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-339 51141 De Rosa Maria, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-340 51137 Del Grosso Nicola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-341 51160 Del Re, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-342 51027 Del Vecchio Anna Rita, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-343 51155 Della Ratta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-344 51129 Di Dio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-345 51131 Di Maria, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-346 52813 Di Meo and Masotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-347 52846 Di Meo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-348 51099 Di Meo Franca, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-349 51092 Di Mezza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-350 51157 Di Resta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-351 51143 Donato Pepe, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-352 51119 Esposito Lucia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-353 51145 Falluto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-354 51121 Falzarano Pasquale, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-355 51091 Ferrara Clementina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/2002
H46-356 51128 Ferrara Serafina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-357 51144 Fiorenza Carmine, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-358 51142 Formato, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-359 52843 Franco and Basile, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-360 52924 Frattini and others, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-361 51161 Gagliardi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-362 51103 Gattone and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-363 51135 Gaudino Palma, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-364 47186 Gentile Agostino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-365 52830 Giannotta and Iannella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-366 51148 Gisondi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-367 51159 Grasso Alfonsina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-368 51094 Iacobucci and Lavorgna, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-369 51153 Iannotta Antonietta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-370 51102 Iesce and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-371 51120 Izzo Antonio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-372 51170 Izzo Giovanni, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-373 51021 La Torella, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-374 52802 Lagozzino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-375 52812 Lavorgna and Iorio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-376 51140 Lombardi Emma, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-377 51100 Lombardi Gaetana, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

Section 3.a

H46-378 52822 Macolino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-379 52819 Mancino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-380 51169 Marotta Alberto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-381 51138 Marotta Arturo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-382 51168 Martino Alfonso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-383 52827 Mastrocinque Mafalda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-384 51167 Matera Tommasina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-385 51101 Maturo and Vegliante, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-386 52845 Mazzarelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-387 51130 Mazzone and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-388 51158 Meccariello, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-389 51118 Melillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-390 51677 Meneghini, judgment of 11/12/2001, final on 11/03/2002
H46-391 52818 Meola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-392 51133 Moffa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-393 52840 Mongillo Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-394 44428 Nardone Antonio, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-395 51136 Nazzaro, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-396 52832 Nero and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-397 51029 Ocone, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-398 51105 Pacifico, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-399 51114 Paduano, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-400 52829 Pallotta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-401 51023 Palmieri Maddalena, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-402 51022 Palmieri Mario la Francesco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-403 52841 Panza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-404 52837 Pascale and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-405 52842 Pascale Elda, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-406 52826 Pascale Maria Annunziata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-407 51111 Patuto Salvatore, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-408 51113 Pelosi Concetta, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-409 51162 Pengue, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-410 52808 Perna Giuseppina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-411 52828 Petrillo and Petrucci, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-412 51025 Petrillo Gino, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-413 51139 Pilla Addolorata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-414 51024 Porto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-415 52825 Pucella and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-416 51126 Raccio Emilia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-417 51109 Restuccio, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-418 51095 Riccardi Lucia, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-419 52820 Riccardi Vicenzina, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-420 51096 Riccio and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-421 51108 Rinaldi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-422 52823 Romano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-423 52844 Romano Rosa, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-424 51151 Ruggiero, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-425 52833 Santagata, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-426 51165 Santina Pelosi, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-427 51090 Scaccianemici, judgment of 28/02/02, final on28/05/02
H46-428 52982 Sciacchitano and Lo Sciuto, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-429 40151 Sciarrotta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02
H46-430 52917 Serino Antonella, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-431 52831 Simone and Pontillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-432 51115 Spagnoletti, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-433 52839 Tanzillo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

Section 3.a

H46-434 52836 Tazza and Zullo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-435 52810 Tazza, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-436 52922 Tommaso, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02
H46-437 51152 Tretola, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-438 52809 Truocchio Edmondo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-439 51166 Truocchio Mario, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-440 51124 Tudisco, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-441 51097 Uccellini and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-442 52817 Urbano and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-443 51026 Uzzo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-444 52811 Villari, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-445 52847 Viscuso, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-446 51028 Vitelli, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-447 51132 Zeolla, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-448 52814 Zoccolillo and others, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02
H46-449 52800 Zuotto, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02

- Criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages³⁴
H46-450 46970 Contardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

- Default interest to be paid

H46-451 39676 Rojas Morales, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-452 26772 Labita, judgment of 06/04/00, final on 06/04/00
H46-453 30882 Pellegrini Maria Grazia, judgment of 20/07/01, final on 20/10/01
H46-454 15918 Antonetto, judgment of 20/07/00, final on 20/10/00
H46-455 28168 Quadrelli, judgment of 11/01/00, final on 20/03/00
H46-456 33354 Lucà, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-457 26161 Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01
H32-458 19734 F.S. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)209
H46-459 28272 Ghidotti, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02
H46-460 41852 Vaccaro, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

- Civil courts³⁵
H46-461 44481 A.C. VII, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-462 46515 Adriani, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-463 46964 Alpites S.P.A., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-464 47785 Angemi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-465 48412 Ar.M., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02
H46-466 46958 Ardemagni and Ripa, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H32-467 39900 Artuso Paolo
H32-468 39137 Avallone
H46-469 44511 Bellagamba, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-470 40977 Beltramo, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-471 44431 Beluzzi and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-472 39883 Bertozzi, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/04/00
H46-473 44442 Bevilacqua, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-474 36811 Bielectric S.R.L., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-475 44437 Bocca, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H32-476 39121 Bolla
H46-477 44457 Bonelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-478 44436 Buffalo s.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-479 46534 Burghesu, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

Section 3.a

H46-480 46980 C.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H32-481 35292 Calandrella F., P. and 2 others
H46-482 39881 Capodanno, judgment of 05/04/00, final on 05/04/00
H46-483 45071 Capurro and Tosetti, judgment of 28/04/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-484 46526 Carboni, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-485 45859 Caruso Giuseppina, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-486 45861 Cavallaro, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-487 36620 Ceriello, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99
H46-488 46537 Cerulli and Zadra, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-489 45869 Chiappetta, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-490 46959 Circo and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-491 44504 Citterio and Angiolillo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-492 47779 Ciuffetti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-493 46532 Conte Gaspare and others, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-494 47774 Conti Giuliana, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-495 44385 Cornaglia, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-496 46527 Corsi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-497 35616 Coscia, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00
H46-498 46538 Costantini Francesco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-499 44500 Cova, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-500 45880 Cultraro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-501 46536 D.C. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-502 45872 D'Annibale, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H32-1442 17482 D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28
H46-503 40216 D'Arrigo and Garrozzo, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01
H32-504 40566 De Cicco Concetta
H32-505 40580 De Lorenzi
H46-506 42520 De Simone Pasquale, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H32-507 39138 Di Fant I
H32-508 39139 Di Fant II
H46-509 46976 Di Motoli and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-510 46520 Dorigo Franco, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-511 44480 E.G., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02
H32-512 39906 Emmebiemme S.r.l.
H46-513 40982 Erdokovy, judgment of 01/02/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-514 46524+ F., T. and E., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-515 46533 F.L.S., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-516 39164 F.S.p.A. II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-517 46971 F.T., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H32-518 26012 Facciolini
H46-519 46968 Falconi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-520 47781 Farinosi and Barattelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-521 45870 Ferrazzo and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-522 45868 Filippello Giorgio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H32-523 38145 Focardi and Conti
H46-524 46965 Franceschetti and Odorico, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H32-525 38118 Fraschetti
H46-526 44397 G.B. IV, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-527 37131 G.M.N., judgment of 02/11/99, final on 02/11/99
H32-528 38503 G.P. and 25 others
H46-529 46543 G.S. and L.M., judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-530 47786 G.V. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-531 46963 Galiè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-532 46528 Giannalia, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-533 47773 Gianni, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-534 45860 Giuseppe Nicola and Luciano Caruso, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-535 40968 I.F., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

Section 3.a

H46-536 44418 I.P.E.A. S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02
H46-537 39116 I.R., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00
H46-538 44447 Ianniti and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-539 46516 Il Messaggero S.a.s. II, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-540 46517 Il Messaggero S.a.s. III, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-541 46518 Il Messaggero S.a.s. IV, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-542 46519 Il Messaggero S.a.s. V, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-543 47777 Ilardi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-544 44508 Immobiliare Il Messaggero del geometra Antonio Iorillo, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02
H46-545 39894 Italiano, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00
H46-546 46530 Iulio, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-547 40924 L. S.r.l., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00
H46-548 46542 Lanino, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H32-549 31341 Lazzari and Scagnoli
H46-550 45853 Lo Cicero, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H32-551 40571 Lo Sardo
H46-552 46523 Lonardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-553 46962 Lucas International S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-554 44406 M. S.r.l., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-555 46961 Maletti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H32-821 28725 Manzi A., B. and L.
H46-556 44443 Marchi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-557 46957 Marcolongo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-558 44517 Mari and Mangini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-559 44422 Marzinotto, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-560 46966 Massaro, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-561 46979 Mastrantonio Francesca, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-562 44420 Mauri, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-563 46973 Morelli and Nerattini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-564 44490 Murgia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H32-565 39872 Nata
H46-566 46522 Nolla, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-567 44494 O.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-568 44468 P.B. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-569 40570 Padalino V. and G., judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00
H46-570 40952 Paderni II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement
H32-571 21707 Panissa, D., G. and A. Vittonetto
H32-572 39155 Perilli and Gigotti Micheli
H46-573 45070 Persichetti and C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-574 44380 Pettirossi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-575 28936 Piccinini II, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement
H32-576 39899 Pirilli
H46-577 45065 Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-578 46967 Procaccianti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-579 46969 Procopio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-580 44412 Quattrone Pasquale, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02
H46-581 38498 Rando, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00
H46-582 45058 Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-583 44465 Rigutto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-584 43098 Romano, judgment of 28/09/00
H32-585 35328 Roselli Italo II
H46-586 44479 Rosetti e Ciucci and C., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02
H46-587 44527 Rossana Ferrari, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-588 44472 Rossi Valeria, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-589 44461 Sacchi Roberto, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

Section 3.a

H46-822 38135 Sanna, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00
H46-590 44466 Santoro Valerio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-591 47780 Santorum, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-592 45854 Savino, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 04/04/01
H46-593 44419 Sbrojavacca Pietrobon, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-594 36621 Scalvini, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99
H46-595 44491 Sonego, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-596 44470 Spada, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-597 39705 Spurio II, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H32-598 39865 Staffolani
H46-599 44417 Tagliabue, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H32-600 38102 Talenti
H46-601 44486 Tebaldi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-602 44425 Tedesco Michele, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-603 46539 Tor Di Valle Costruzioni S.P.A. VII, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-604 45068 Toscano and others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-605 44488 Vecchi and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-606 44528 Vecchini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-607 44534 Venturini Alberto I, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H32-608 40586 Verini II
H46-609 40599 Vicari II, judgment of 15/02/00
H46-610 44395 Visentin, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-611 37166 Vitale and others, judgment of 02/11/99
H46-612 44445 W.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-613 44462 Zanasi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-614 37079 Zironi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

- Administrative courts³⁶
H46-615 41809 A.B. V, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-616 34437 Caliendo, judgment of 14/03/00, final on 14/03/00
H46-617 41817 Caliri, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-618 41807 Centioni and others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-619 41815 Monti Enrico, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-620 41810 Mosca, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-621 41813 Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-622 41816 Paradiso Antonio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-623 31631 Procaccini, judgment of 30/03/00, final on 30/03/00
H46-624 41814 Zeoli and 34 others, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 05/10/00

- Court of Audit
H46-625 41829 Campomizzi, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-626 41833 Cardillo, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00
H46-627 41821 Delicata, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-628 41823 Pascali and Conte, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-629 41831 Pio, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-630 41819 Quinci, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-631 41830 Raglione, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H32-632 39175 Sileo
H46-633 41820 Sinagoga, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00
H46-634 41837 Trotta, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00
H46-635 41841 Vay, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00
H46-636 41818 Vero, judgment of 28/04/00, final on 28/07/00

Section 3.a

- Labour courts³⁷
H46-637 40363 Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-638 43063 Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-639 43094 C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-640 42999 Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-641 43020 Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H32-642 36615 Cappello
H32-643 38095 Cardillo
H46-644 46521 Ciccardi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-645 42996 Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-646 44532 Colacrai, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 12/12/01
H46-647 43088 Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-648 43086 Cosimo Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-649 43087 Cosimo Rotondi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-650 43083 Simone D'Addona, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement
H46-651 43017 D'Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-652 43059 D'Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-653 43054 Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-654 43051 Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-655 43062 Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-656 46975 Di Gabriele, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-657 43030 Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-658 43022 Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-659 46978 F.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-660 43056 Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-661 43058 Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-662 45855 Fr.C., judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-663 43096 G.A. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-664 43093 G.P. VI, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-665 43075 Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-666 37170 Giampietro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-667 38975 Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-668 43050 Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-669 43074 Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-670 39124 Guagenti, judgment of 15/02/00, final on 15/02/00
H46-671 43072 Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-672 43091 Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-673 42998 Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-674 43101 Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-675 43021 Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-676 43067 Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-677 43065 Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-678 43102 Lepore T., Lepore M. and Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-679 43068 Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-680 43095 M.C. X, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-681 43010 Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H32-682 37160 Marsicovetere
H46-683 43000 Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-684 43018 Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-685 43069 Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-686 43057 Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-687 43064 Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-688 43100 Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-689 43076 P.T. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

Section 3.a

H46-690 43012 Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-691 43052 Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-692 43061 Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-693 43060 Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-694 43023 Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-695 46974 Risola, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-696 43019 Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-697 43055 Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-698 43099 Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-699 43085 Silvio Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-700 42997 Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-701 43084 Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-702 46960 Trimboli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-703 43016 Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-704 43070 Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-705 43109 Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-706 43015 Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-707 43066 Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

- Criminal courts³⁸
H46-708 38878 Ciacci, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-709 42351 Del Giudice, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 06/09/01
H46-710 45267 F.R. and 3 others, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01
H46-711 41603 G.B.Z., L.Z. and S.Z., judgment of 14/12/99, final on 15/02/00
H46-712 41094 Giannangeli, judgment of 05/07/01, final on 05/10/01
H46-713 32646 Guerresi, judgment of 24/04/01, final on 24/04/01
H46-714 41893 Martinez, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01
H46-715 44943 Orlandi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-716 29898 Patanè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-717 30132 Pepe Umberto, judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00
H32-718 36733 Perilli
H32-719 24170 Pesce Mario
H32-720 26806 U.O. I
H32-721 26781 U.O. II
H32-722 26782 U.O. III
H46-723 37118 Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement
H46-724 43199 Visintin, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-725 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00

- Criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages³⁹
H46-726 45856 Bacigalupi, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01
H46-727 45857 Comella and others, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-728 45858 Tesconi, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-729 48297 Butkevičius, judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002

Section 3.a

- 5 cases against Poland

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-730 33310 H.D., judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-731 29692+ R.D., judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02
H46-732 36250 Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01, final on 18/03/02
H46-733 34158 Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 27/03/02

- Default interest to be paid

H32-734 24559 Gibas

- 21 cases against Portugal

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-735 44872 Magalhães Pereira, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02
H46-736 48233 Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-737 48959 Azevedo Moreira, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-738 48752 Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-739 49020 F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-740 45560 Guerreiro, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 30/04/02
H46-741 45725 Malveiro, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 12/06/02
H46-742 49018 Marques Jorge Ribeiro, judgment of 04/04/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-743 43999 Martins Serra and Andrade Cancio, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02
H46-744 47584 Martos Mellado Ribeiro, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-745 52772 Pereira Palmeira and Sales Palmeira, judgment of 04/07/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-746 46462 Rego Chaves Fernandes, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002
H46-747 49118 SIB - Sociedade Imobiliária Da Benedita Lda, judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-748 44298 Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02
H46-749 46464 Vaz Da Silva Girão, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002
H46-750 48526 Viana Montenegro Carneiro, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-751 47460 Câmara Pestana, judgment of 16/05/2002, final on 16/08/2002

- Default interest to be paid

H46-752 46772 Baptista Do Rosàrio, judgment of 04/04/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-753 45648 Caldeira and Gomes Faria, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-754 48960 Conceição Fernandes, judgment of 20/12/01 – Friendly settlement
H46-755 46143 Sociedade Panificadora Bombarralense Lda., judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against Romania

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-756 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 21/08/2002⁴⁰

Section 3.a

- Default interest to be paid

H46-757 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01
(rectification) – Grand Chamber⁴¹

- 1 case against Slovenia

H46-758 42320 Belinger, judgment of 13/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 28 cases against Turkey

H46-759 36590 Göç Mehmet, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber
H46-760 32985 Altan, judgment of 14/05/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-761 27307 Bayrak Mehmet, judgment of 03/09/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-762 35076 Erol Ali, judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-763 26976+ Sürek Kamil Tekin V, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-766 28505 Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-767 29856 Özcan Mehmet, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement⁴²
H46-768 29289 Aydın Mehmet, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement⁴³
H46-769 30492 Erat and Sağlam, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement ⁴⁴
H46-770 31136 Önder Yalçın, judgment of 25/07/2002 - Friendly settlement⁴⁵
H46-773 30448 Önel Ahmet, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002
H46-774 31964 Özel Hacı, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002
H46-775 30447 Özel Hacı Osman, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002
H46-776 30948 Önel Mehmet, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002
H46-777 30446 Önel Temur, judgment of 23/05/2002, final on 23/08/2002
H46-778 27694 A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-779 38916 Atalağ, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-780 38915 Bayram Abdullah Naci, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-781 35867 Bayram and others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-782 37087 Bekmezci and others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-783 37414 Birsel and others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-784 35050 Karabıyık and others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-785 33419 Özdiler Hasan Doğan, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-786 33322 Özdiler and Bakan, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-787 35079 Özkan and others, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-788 35866 Ünlü Dudu, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-789 25753 Özler, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Friendly settlement

- Default interest to be paid

H46-790 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02

Section 3.a

- 5 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-791 24265 Devenney, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02
H46-792 46477 Edwards Paul and Audrey, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02
H46-793 25680 I., judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber
H46-794 28957 Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Grand Chamber
H46-795 40302 Matthews Michael, judgment of 15/07/2002 - 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

- 18 cases against France

H32-796 26984 Picard 31/01/99
H46-797 30979 Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00⁴⁶ 27/09/00
H46-798 38042 Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00⁴⁷ 28/09/00
H32-799 32510 Peter⁴⁸ 24/10/00
H32-800 25971 Proma di Franco Gianotti 14/05/00+02/01/01
H46-801 32033 Thurin, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01 28/05/01
H46-802 29731 Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01 13/08/01
H46-803 39066 Donnadieu, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01
H32-804 31409 Riccobono 26/09/01
H46-805 43713 Joly, judgment of 27/03/01, final on 27/06/01 27/09/01
H46-807 35683 Vaudelle, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 06/09/01 06/12/01
H46-808 41333 Brochu, judgment of 12/06/01, final on 12/09/01 12/12/01
H46-809 44451 A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 19/12/01
H46-810 40096 Versini, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01 10/01/02
H46-811 42211 Zannouti, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01 31/01/02
H46-812 44069 G.B. II, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02 02/04/02
H46-813 37794 Pannullo and Forte, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02 30/04/02
H46-814 33023 Meier, judgment of 07/02/02 – Friendly settlement 07/05/02

- 34 cases against Italy

H46-815 20855 Esposito Luigi, judgment of 25/05/00 - Friendly settlement 25/08/00
H46-816 43269 Leoni, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 04/04/01 04/07/01
H46-817 35972 Grande Oriente D'Italia du Palazzo Giustiniani,
judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01 12/03/02
H46-818 31143 Indelicato, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 18/01/02 18/04/02
H46-819 31260 Lamperi Balenci, judgment of 21/02/02 - Friendly settlement 21/05/02

- Civil courts⁴⁹

H32-820 25249 Cazzorla and Gigante 25/09/96
H46-824 44375 Rocchi Roberto, judgment of 29/03/01 - Friendly settlement 29/07/01
H46-825 44524 Ragas, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02 23/04/02
H46-826 44513 D'Ammassa and Frezza, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02
H46-827 49372 De Pilla, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02
H46-828 44446 Di Girolamo and 6 others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02
H46-829 44421 Galasso, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02
H46-830 44501 Il Messaggero S.A.S. VI, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02

Section 3.b

- Administratives courts⁵⁰
H32-831 15800+ Perego and Romanet 12/04/93
H32-832 27189 Bevilacqua 21/10/97
H46-823 44330 Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement 19/03/01
H46-833 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01
H46-834 41806 Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01
H46-835 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01
H46-836 35956 Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/01
H46-837 44525 Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02
H46-838 44379 Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02
H46-839 44343 Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02
H46-840 44345 Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02
H46-841 44346 Venturini Alberto II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02
H46-842 44352 Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02

- Labour courts⁵¹
H46-844 43097 Nicoli, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement 22/09/00

- Court of Audit
H46-845 44365 Calvani, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01
H46-846 44370 D'Innella, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01
H46-847 44367 G.G. IV, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01
H46-848 44369 Pe.C., judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01
H46-849 44368 Sapia, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 21/02/01 21/05/01
H46-850 44362 Di Deco, judgment of 12/04/01 – Friendly settlement 12/07/01
H46-851 54307 Meleddu, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement 21/05/02

- 6 cases against Poland

H46-852 26760 Werner, judgment of 15/11/01 15/02/02
H32-853 27506 Owczarzak, Interim Resolution DH(99)260 17/03/02
H46-854 38328 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02 04/04/02
H46-855 32499 Z.R., judgment of 15/01/02 – Friendly settlement 15/04/02
H46-856 25196 Iwańczuk, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02 15/05/02
H46-857 34052 Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02 15/05/02

- 1 case against Portugal

H46-858 43654 Pires, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/02

- 47 cases against Turkey

H46-859 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00 15/09/00
H46-860 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01 04/07/01
H46-861 34688 Akin, judgment of 12/04/01 12/07/01
H46-862 19265 Atak and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/01
H46-863 19279 Göçmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01 30/07/01
H46-864 19285 Karabulut Cemile and others, judgment of 30/01/01,
final on 30/04/01 30/07/01
H46-865 19303 Şen Celal and Keziban, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01 10/10/01
H46-866 19661 Çalkan Gülnahar, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-867 19662 Çalkan Rabia, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01

Section 3.b

H46-868 19663 Çapar Ekrem, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-869 19664 Çelebi Hamdi, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-870 19665 Çalkan Seyfettin, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-871 19666 Çapar Nuri, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-872 19668 Dalgiç Hayrettin, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-873 19669 Dalgiç Necati, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-874 19670 Dişçi Dursun, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-875 19671 Dişçi Hasan, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-876 19672 Dişçi Osman, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-877 19673 Güneysu Davut, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-878 19674 Kartal Ali, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-879 19675 Koç Hasan, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-880 19676 Koçer Ayse, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-881 19678 Öztürk Ali, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-882 19679 Öztürk Gülfiye, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-883 19681 Öztürk Kamil, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-884 19682 Öztürk Muhsin, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-885 19683 Öztürk Mustafa, judgment of 05/06/01, final on 05/09/01 05/12/01
H46-886 19640 Akça Halim, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-887 19641 Akçay Mehmet, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-888 19642 Akkaya Ahmet, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-889 19643 Akkaya İbrahim, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-890 19644 Akkaya Mustafa, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-891 19645 Balci Hüseyin, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-892 19646 Balci Macit, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-893 19647 Baltekin Bilge, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-894 19648 Başar Halil, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-895 19649 Başar Talip, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-896 19650 Bilgin Ahmet, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-897 19651 Bilgin Mahmut, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-898 19652 Bilgin Mehmet II, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-899 19653 Bilgiç Yusuf, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-900 19654 Dinç Fethiye, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-901 19655 Dokel Ünzile, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-902 19656 Eğrikale Saadettin, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-903 19657 Erol Naside II, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-904 19658 Erol Recep, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02
H46-905 19659 Erol Sefer, judgment of 03/07/01, final on 03/10/01 03/01/02

- 4 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-906 28883 McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01⁵² 04/11/01
H46-907 37715 Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01⁵³ 04/11/01
H46-908 24746 Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01⁵⁴ 04/11/01
H46-909 30054 Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01⁵⁵ 04/11/01

Table summarising the total number of cases by States

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

H46-910 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 5/04/2001).
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 783^rd 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 792^nd meeting (16, 17 and 19 (3 p.m.) April 2002). Having not found an agreement, the Deputies decided to reconsider the matter at their 798^th (June 2002), 803^rd (July 2002), 810^th (October 2002) and 819^th (December 2002) 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).

H46-911 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 775^th 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 783^rd 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 792^nd meeting (16, 17 and 19 (3 p.m.) April 2002). Having not found an agreement, the Deputies decided to reconsider the matter at their 798^th (June 2002), 803^rd (July 2002), 810^th (October 2002) and 819^th (December 2002) 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).

- 36 cases against Turkey

H46-912 28635+ Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01
H46-913 30947 Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement
H46-914 26093+ B.T. and others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement
H46-915 28340 Büyükdağ, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01
H46-916 25182+ Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01
H46-917 25724 Cihan, judgment of 30/01/01 – Friendly settlement
H46-918 31963 Özel and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H46-919 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00
H46-920 27697+ Yaşar and others, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01
H46-921 19310 Yilmaz Hamit, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01
H46-922 19308 Yilmaz Zekeriya, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01
In these cases the applicants and/or the Secretariat have identified various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems concern mostly more or less substantial shortfalls in payment, due among other things to currency conversion 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.

H54-923 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98
H54-924 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96
H54-925 23178 Aydin, judgment of 25/09/97
H54-926 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98
H54-927 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98
H54-928 22495 Yaşa, judgment of 02/09/98
H46-929 23657 Çakici, judgment of 08/07/99
H46-930 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99
H46-931 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00
H46-932 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00
H46-933 22492 Kiliç, judgment of 28/03/00
H46-934 20764 Ertak Ismail, judgment of 09/05/00
H46-935 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00
H46-936 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber
H46-937 22277 Ilhan Nasir, judgment of 27/06/00
H32-938 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar
H32-939 25658 Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolution DH(99)560 of 08/10/99
H46-940 22947+ Akkoç Nebahat, judgment of 10/10/00
H46-941 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00
H46-942 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00

Section 3.c

H46-943 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00
H46-944 25801 Dulaş Zubeyde, judgment of 30/01/01
H46-945 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01
H46-946 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01
H46-947 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01
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 time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, the confirmation of payments was awaited.
The 15 other cases are still outstanding at the moment because, according to the information available, the shortfalls recognized by the Turkish authorities are lower than the sums due under the judgments of the Court.
The Secretariat continues its contacts with the authorities to provide some elements which would accelerate the payments in accordance 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 ONLY⁵⁸

- 2 cases against France

H46-949 37565 Sapl, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02
The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1). When the Court issued its judgment, the case had lasted 9 years, 4 months, from July 1992 to April 1998, and was still pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal of Lyon.
Possible individual measures: Accelerate the proceedings before the Administrative Court of appeal of Lyon.

H46-951 47160 Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01
The case concerns the sentencing of the applicant, a Moroccan national, to permanent exclusion from French territory even though the offences he committed cannot be considered particularly serious, and given that the applicant has strong links with France but none with Morocco except for the mere fact of nationality (violation of Article 8).
Individual measures: The French authorities have indicated that the applicant had been placed on a compulsory residence order) by decision of 03/07/01. The applicant's lawyer has lodged an application for rescission of the exclusion order (precondition for the delivery of a residence permit). A letter dated 28/08/02 was sent to the Delegation regarding the individual measures to be taken in favor of the applicant. The Delegation and the Secretariat remain in contact by correspondence concerning the development of this case.

- 1 case against Germany

H46-952 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 February 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 May 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.
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.

- 2 cases against Greece

H54-957 24348 Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97
H54-958 23372+ Larissis and others, judgment of 24/02/98
These cases concern various criminal convictions imposed on the applicants in violation of the Convention (violations of Articles 9 or 10).
Individual measures: the necessity to strike these convictions from the applicants' criminal records has repeatedly been pointed out before the Committee of Ministers. Following the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits the reopening of national proceedings following violations found by the European Court (Article 525§5 as amended by Article 11 of Act No. 2865/19/12/2000), the Greek authorities indicated that the striking out of these convictions from the applicants' criminal records could only be possible in future through re-opening the criminal proceedings in question. A request could be formulated for this purpose by the applicants as well as by the prosecutor. In the present cases, the possibility of reopening is being examined by the prosecutor. Further information is awaited.

Sub-section 4.1

- 2 cases against Poland

H46-961 29455 Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 12/12/01
H46-962 35843 Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00, final on 14/03/01
These two cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, apparently still pending before domestic courts (violations of Article 6§1).
Individual measures: At the 757th (June 2001) and 783rd (February 2002) meetings, the Polish authorities were invited to take measures with a view to accelerating the impugned proceedings. On 22/04/2002, the Secretariat received a letter from the applicant in the Pogorzelec case complaining that the proceedings in his case were still pending at the domestic level. At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda no information with regard to the present state of the impugned proceedings was available.

- 5 cases against Portugal

H46-966 35593 Galinho Carvalho Matos, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns the excessive length of certain compensation proceedings before civil courts. The case was still pending before the Almada Court when the European Court issued its judgment and had already lasted seven years and six months, from 18 May 1992 to November 1999 (violation of Article 6§1).
Individual measures: Accelerating the proceedings still pending before the Almada Court.

H46-963 37010 Conde, judgment of 23/03/00, final on 23/06/00
H46-964 47459 Fernandes João, judgment of 18/04/2002, final on 18/07/2002
H46-965 36668 Fertiladour S.A., judgment of 18/05/00, final on 18/08/00
H46-967 42918 Nascimento, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01
(No debate envisaged)
These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings (4 years and 7 months, still pending before the Court of Portimão when the European Court delivered its judgment in the first case; 9 years and 9months, still pending before the Loures Court when the European Court delivered its judgment in the second case; more than 13 years, still pending before the Court of Mangualde when the European Court issued its judgment in the third case; 14 years and 7 months, still pending before the court of appeal of Porto when the Court issued its judgment in the fourth case) (violations of Article 6§1).
Individual measures: The Committee has asked whether the proceedings are still pending before the Courts of Portimão, Loures, Mangualde and Porto.

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H54-968 19187 Saunders, judgment of 17/12/96, Interim Resolution DH(2000)27
H46-969 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. They request the Committee to adjourn the examination of their cases until these domestic proceedings have concluded.

Sub-section 4.1

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 798^th 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.
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.
General measures: The legislative amendments announced in Interim Resolution DH(2000)27 have been adopted.

H46-970 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).
The case presents similarities to that of Rowe and Davis against the United Kingdom (judgment of 16/02/2000), closure of which is proposed following the adoption of general measures by the United Kingdom.
Individual measures: At the 775^th 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. Information on this issue is awaited.

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

- 2 cases against Austria

H46-973 38536 Schreder, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02⁵⁹

H46-974 32899 Buchberger, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02
The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to respect for her family life in that, in 1994, during appeal proceedings, the Regional Court transferred custody of her sons to the Youth Welfare Office, relying on fresh evidence which had not been communicated to the applicant, depriving her of the possibility to react to it and have a sufficient involvement in the decision-making process (violation of Article 8). This fact also constitutes a violation of the principle of equality of arms (violation of Article 6§1).
Individual measures: In a letter dated 10/07/2002, the Government indicated to the Directorate General of Human Rights that the judicial decision concerning the transfer of the children's custody to the Youth Welfare Office was not subject to revision. However, if there are new facts, the applicant may seize the court to request a new decision.
General measures: The Government stated in the same letter that the principle of equality of arms is fully implemented in proceedings concerning the custody of children which are conducted on a non-contentious basis.

- 2 cases against Cyprus

H46-975 30873 Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00
Addendum 4, Volume 1
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 (see Addendum 4, volume 1).
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 (see Addendum 4, volume 1).

Sub-section 4.2

The Committee has asked, whether, as far as the violation of Article 13 is concerned and in the light of §§71 and 99 of the Court's judgment, the Cypriot authorities envisage 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 819^th meeting.

H46-976 25316+ Denizci and others, judgment of 23/05/01, final on 23/08/01
Addendum 4, volume 1
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).
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 (see Addendum 4, volume 1).
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.

- 4 cases against Croatia

H46-977 54727 Cerin, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02
H46-978 52634 Futterer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02
H46-979 51585 Horvat, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01
H46-980 49706 Rajak, judgment of 28/06/01, final on 12/12/01
These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings which lasted more than 17, 11, 6 and 25 years respectively. The Court's jurisdiction, 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). When the Court delivered its judgments, the cases were still pending at first instance.
The Horvat case also concerns 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 have been ended by a final judgment of 25/09/2002 of the Rijeka County Court. In the other cases the proceedings are still pending. Further information is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

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 of wide distribution, such as the bulletin of the Association of Croatian Judges, Sudac (“The judge”), N° 5/2001, Informator, No. 5022/20/09/2002 and Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu (Collection works of the Faculty of Law in Zagreb), N° 3-4 2002 (accompanied by comments).
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. It introduced a new Section 59(a), which subsequently became Section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court. This Section 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 Jeftić, Plaftak and others, Nogolica and Slaviček, (Applications Nos. 57576/00, 76687/01, 77784/01 and 20862/02 respectively), the Court found that this new Section provided an effective remedy in respect of complaints concerning excessive length of proceedings.
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 (adjudication of cases by a single judge as a general rule, limitation of the ex officio conduct of the evidence procedure, obligation to present evidence and facts at preliminary hearings, principle of perpetuation of jurisdiction, limitation of the competence of the court of appeal to decide only on the questions raised by the appeal, stricter conditions for the use of extraordinary legal remedies). It also aims to prevent the abuse of procedural rights and strengthen procedural discipline (broader imposition of fines for procedural abuses, imposition of costs and expenses on the basis of the culpability principle without right to appeal, delivery of judgments by default when defendants do not respond to the complaint within the time-limit). The courts' comments on this draft are currently being studied by the Ministry of Justice. Further information concerning progress with this draft is awaited.

- 1 case against the Czech Republic

H46-981 33071 Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber
The case concerns an infringement of the applicant's right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal in the context of certain proceedings for recovery of possessions (violation of Article 6§1).
General measures: At the 783rd meeting (March 2002) the Czech authorities were invited to give information concerning the amendment of Article 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning the public nature of hearings before land boards. Information concerning the publication of the judgment of the European Court is also excepted.

- 25 cases against France

H46-982 34000 DuRoy and Malaurie, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01
The case concerns an infringement of the freedom of expression of the applicants, who are journalists, because of their conviction on 1996, for crime of “publishing information regarding civil action in criminal proceedings” based on Article 2 of the Law dated 2 july 1931 (Violation of Article 10).
Individual measures: No step to collect the applicants' fine has been taken. Information concerning the possibility of erasing the convictions from the applicants' criminal records is awaited.
General measures: a change in the law is anticipated. In the meantime, the Cour de cassation has, in judgments dated on 16/01/2001 and 27/03/2001, set aside the application of Article 2 of the Law of 2 July 1931, which is considered contrary to Article 10 of the Convention.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-984 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 concerning the running and the workload of commissions responsible for consolidating parcels of land.

H46-985 39288 Association Ekin, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01
The case concerns an infringement of the freedom of expression of the applicant (a Basque association) in that Section 14 of the Law of 29 July 1881as amended, which empowers the Minister of the Interior to ban the publication of a foreign publication, was applied to one of its books (violation of article 10). The case also concerns the length (9 years, 1 month, 5 days) of the civil proceedings before administrative courts aiming at quashing the Minister of the Interior's decree (violation of Article 6§1).
Individual measures: by a judgement of the Conseil d'Etat dated 9 July 1997, the Minister of the Interior's decree banning the publication was quashed.
General measures: By a letter dated 13 June 2002, the Delegation indicated that the judgment of the European Court had been widely publicised in public administration journals and that since the Court judgment, no more individual decisions had been taken concerning a foreign publication. A legislative change to Article 14 of the Law of 29^th July 1881 is anticipated.

H46-986 24846+ Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 – Grand
Chamber
The case concerns the violation of the applicants' right to a fair trial on account of the adoption of an Act determining the mode of calculation of an allowance to be paid to staff of social security offices of the départements of Haut-Rhin, Bas-Rhin and Moselle, whereas judicial proceedings regarding the same question were still pending (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns the length of certain of these proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).
Special measures: In reply to a question from the Secretariat, the French Delegation indicated, in July 2000, that the people who had instituted legal proceedings by the time the Act had been passed had lodged an application for compensation to the Secrétariat général du Gouvernement, and that this application was rejected. By a letter dated 13 June 2002, the delegation indicated that the rejection pronounced by the Administrative Tribunal of Strasbourg was based on the fact that the application should have been introduced before the social security authorities (caisses de sécurité sociale). The proceedings are still pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal and information is awaited concerning their outcome.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-992 29507 Slimane-Kaid II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00⁶⁰
The case concerns an infringement of the principle of equality of arms and of the right to a fair trail during proceedings before the Criminal Chamber of the Cour de cassation (violation of Article 6§1) in that it ruled on an appeal lodged by the applicant without communicating either the report of the conseiller rapporteur or the conclusions of the Advocate General to the applicant or to his lawyer, neither of which could therefore answer them.
Individual measures: It is recalled that the applicant has the possibility, under Articles 626-1 to 626-7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to ask for the re-examination of his case.
General measures: The issue regarding the communication of the conseiller rapporteur's report has been raised and a letter recalling that general measures are expected in this case was sent to the Representation on 9 August 2000. The Delegation indicated in December 2000 that thought was being given to this subject within the Cour de cassation. Information concerning the measures taken is awaited.

H46-993 27362 Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00
H46-130 32911+ Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/2002 - Grand Chamber⁶¹
These cases concern the unfairness of certain proceedings before the Cour de cassation. The applicants chose to defend themselves rather than be represented by a member of the Cour de cassation Bar. Consequently, they did not benefit from the practice – reserved to members of the Cour de cassation Bar – according to which the content of the Advocate General's submissions are transmitted to defendants' counsel, assuming they are members of the Cour de cassation bar, who thus have the opportunity to reply in written form to the court when it is deliberating. Given the nature of the submissions in this case and of what was at stake for the applicants in the proceedings, their right to adversarial proceedings was infringed (violation of Article 6§1).
General measures: The publication of the judgment of the European Court and its dissemination to civil courts are awaited. The Secretariat has suggested that measures should be taken in order to permit applicants who have chosen, as authorised by domestic law, to defend themselves without assistance, to obtain the content of the conclusions of the Advocate General and to have the opportunity to reply in written form to the court when it is deliberating. Information on measures to be adopted by the authorities are awaited.

- Cases of length of proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat
H46-994 36932 Caillot, judgment of 04/06/99, final on 04/09/99
H46-995 38249 Arvois, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00
H46-996 28660 Ballestra, judgment of 12/12/00, final on 12/03/01
H46-997 33207 Blaisot C. and M., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00
H46-998 42401 Camps, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 09/04/01
H46-157 54757 Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02⁶²
H46-989 41449 Durrand I, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02
H46-990 42038 Durrand II, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02
H46-999 38945 Francisco, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02
H46-797 30979 Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00⁶³
H46-158 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/2002, final on 14/08/2002⁶⁴
H46-1000 44066 Grass, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01
H46-1001 41001 Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00
H46-1002 37387 Lambourdiere, judgment of 02/08/00, final on 02/11/00

Sub-section 4.2

H46-159 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/2002, final on 10/07/2002⁶⁵⁶⁶
H32-799 32510 Peter⁶⁷
H46-1003 33989 Thery, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00
H46-798 38042 Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00⁶⁸
These cases concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts and particularly before the Conseil d'Etat (violations of Articon 6§1).
General measures: the Committee of Ministers is regularly called upon to examine cases of length of proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat. The Vice-President of the Conseil d'Etat himself confirmed the problems of this court. He declared at the Plenary General Assembly in June 1999 that the average time for judging a case was more than three years and that this situation “could not be tolerated for long by [his] fellow citizens”. The French authorities were asked whether they were contemplating measures in favour of the Conseil d'Etat and whether the plan to reinforce administrative courts, described in Resolution DH(95)254 (adopted in the case of Beaumartin against France) had been carried out.
The Delegation of France sent a memorandum to the Secretariat summing up the main measures taken to reduce the length of proceedings before administrative courts. This document contains information on the increase of personnel and material resources for administrative courts as well as procedural reforms aiming at accelerating the judgment of applications. However this memorandum does not specify whether particular measures have been taken recently, or will be taken in the near future, in favour of the Conseil d'Etat. By letter of 28/08/2000, the Delegation was requested to provide further information.
In June 2002, the Delegation transmitted part of the Conseil d'Etat's activity report for 2001. It contains some encouraging indications (slight decrease of the number of cases and of the average length of proceedings) but also some showing that the problem of length of proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat still exists. The report identifies the causes of some of the delays and recommends solutions. The report could usefully serve as a basis for the French authorities' reflexions on possible general measures.

- 4 cases against Greece

H46-1004 40907 Dougoz, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01
The case concerns the conditions of the applicant's detention in 1997, in the Alexandras Police Headquarters and the Drapetzona detention centre, which in the European Court's view amounted to degrading treatment (violation of article 3). The case also concerns the fact that the applicant's detention pending expulsion was not in accordance with a procedure “prescribed by law” within the meaning of the Court's case-law (violation of Article 5§1). Finally, the case concerns the fact that the domestic legal system did not afford the applicant an opportunity to have the lawfulness of his detention pending expulsion determined by a national court (violation of Article 5§4).
General measures: The judgment of the European Court was translated, published on the official internet site of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to the Police General Directorates.
As to the violation of Article 3, the improvements carried out as regards the conditions of detention in Alexandras and in Drapetzona, and the measures still to be taken are set out in the last report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), published on 13/09/2001, following its visit to these centres in 1999, as well as in the Government's reply (see CM/Del/OJ/OT(2001)775, section 4.2). In order to remedy overcrowding, three new detention centres for aliens are already in service and another is under construction. A project to construct or renovate centres in all Police Directorates is under way. New legislation has been adopted stating that aliens must be detained in specific places in police stations, operating under specific terms and that detention pending

Sub-section 4.2

expulsion of aliens by administrative order must not last more than three months (Articles 44§3 & 48 of the Act 2910/02/05/2001). As regards, in particular, the situation in Alexandras and in Drapetzona, the Government indicates in a document dated 27/02/2002, that the number of persons detained rarely exceeds the total capacity and that the recommendations of the CPT concerning hygiene and cleanliness rules, ventilation, etc. (see § 59 of the judgment and §§ 19-20 of the report) are met. Information is awaited concerning the possibility of a regime of activities in the existing centres and the timetable of construction of specific centres for the detention of aliens.
As regards the violation of Article 5§§1&4, the Government indicates that Article 44§8 of Act 2910/02/05/2001 authorises the Ministers of Internal Affaires, of Justice, of Public Order and of Foreign Affairs to adopt a rule concerning the execution of expulsions ordered by courts. A copy of the text of these rules is awaited.

H46-1005 28524 Peers, judgment of 19/04/01
The case concerns the conditions of the applicant's detention in 1994, in Koridallos prison, which amounted to degrading treatment in the Court's view (violation of article 3). The case also concerns the opening by the prison administration of letters addressed to him by the Secretariat of the former European Commission of Human Rights, a measure considered by the Court as unnecessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 8).
General measures: The judgment of the European Court was translated, published on the official internet site of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to prisons.
As regards the violation of Article 3, the Government indicated that, following the facts of the present case, Greece adopted new legislation (Acts n° 2298/04/04/1995, n° 2408/04/06/1996 and n° 2776/24/12/1999) aimed at the improvement of prison policy and of the conditions of detention (for the details see CM/Del/OJ/OT(2001)775, 4.2, p. 78).
As regards the situation in Koridallos prison, the improvements carried out and the measures still to be taken are described in the last report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), published on 13.09.2001, following its visit to Koridallos in 1999, as well as in the Government's reply. The CPT found that the situation had improved. It noted however, that nothing had changed in the segregation unit of D wing which is concerned in this case (for the details see CM/Del/OJ/OT(2001)775, 4.2, p. 78). The Government replied that, in order to remedy the problem of overcrowding, a new programme concerning the construction of ten new prisons and two centres for drug-addicted detainees was under way. In addition, two new units of modern construction were ready in the prisons of Nafplion and Mandarino (p. 111-112 of the reply). Information concerning the timetable of this project and the improvement in the segregation unit of D wing is awaited.
As regards the violation of Article 8, the Greek representation indicated to the Committee of Ministers, during the 757th meeting (04-05/12/2001), that Article 19 §§ 1, 2 of the Constitution (as amended in April 2001) authorises the legislator to establish an independent authority competent to ensure the respect of correspondence and that Article 53 of the Act n° 2776/1999 provides particularly for the protection of this right of prisoners. Further information on these issues is awaited.

H46-1006 44584 Tsironis, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02
The case concerns a disproportionate limitation on the applicant's right of access to a court in that the national courts dismissed as out of time his application for annulment of the sale by auction of his land, requested by a creditor bank, although the notification of the act deciding the sale was void (violation of Article 6§1). This situation and the fact that the applicant had only recently come to an agreement with the bank, constitute a disproportionate deprivation of his property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
General measures: The judgment was published on the official internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to civil courts. At the 798^th meeting (June 2002), the Government was asked whether it envisaged legislative measures to ensure that the respect of the time-limit for annulment of a sale by auction (Article 934 of the Code of civil procedure) requires that the injured party has effectively been informed about the act deciding the sale so that he can challenge it.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1007 47730 Entreprises Meton and Etep, judgment of 21/03/2002, final on 21/06/2002
The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (more than 9 years, of which 5 years for the hearing of three witnesses). When the European Court delivered its judgment the proceedings were still pending before the court of first instance.
The case presents similarities, in particular, to those of Academy Trading Ltd (judgment of 04/04/2000) and LSI Information Technologies (judgment of 20/12/01) which appear in section 6 following a number of general measures already adopted.
General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published on the official Internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr) and disseminated to civil courts. At the 810^th meeting (October 2002), the Government was requested to provide information about the measures envisaged in order to ensure a reasonable length of evidence proceedings. Information on this issue is awaited.

- 2 cases against Ireland

H46-1008 36887 Quinn, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01
H46-1009 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 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.
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.
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.

- 14 cases against Italy

H32-1010 26426 S.B.F. S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(97)599
The case concerns the right of access to a court in order to obtain an adjudication of culpable bankruptcy. According to Italian law, adjudication must take place within one year from the cessation of the debtor's activities. As the competent court (special bankruptcy section) did not give its ruling within the deadline, the applicant company lost the opportunity to recover its financial claims by judicial means (violation of Article 6§1).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: The confirmation of the publication of the report of the former European Commission is awaited. At the 732nd meeting (December 2000), the Government indicated that a legislative reform was under way. At the 803rd meeting (July 2002), they were of the opinion that the measures adopted in order to prevent violations of excessive length of proceedings were sufficient and that no other measure was required. However, it was indicated to the Government that, in the present case, the non-respect of the legal deadline in the bankruptcy proceedings had deprived the applicant company of its right of access to justice. Therefore, the Government was invited to provide information about the measures envisaged in order to ensure the effectiveness of the legal system.

H32-1011 26774 A.D., Interim Resolution DH(98)208
The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings against the applicant, (11 years and 9 months from 1982 to 1994) (violation of Article 6§1). The Commission and the Committee of Ministers also concluded that the prolonged seizure of the applicant's fees resulting from the length of such proceedings as well as the retention of a large sum, exceeding the actual debt of the applicant after the execution of the sentence had taken place, had infringed the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
General measures: The Commission's report was transmitted to the judicial authority concerned and it was also published in the revue Documenti di Giustizia , n° 4, 2000.
With reference to paragraph 33 of the Commission's report, indicating that the Milan Appeal Court had omitted to decide on the applicant's request to recover the contested sums, the Director General of human rights asked, in a letter of 03/12/1998, upon what legal basis the seizure had been upheld after the execution of the sentence. At the 732nd meeting (December 2000), the Government was invited to provide information on this issue and on the possibility, according to Italian law, for an automatically lifting judicial seizures when such measures were no longer necessary. At the 803rd meeting (July 2002), the Government expressed the opinion that it was not the legislation itself but its application in the present case which was at the origin of the violation and that no legislative measures were required. However, The Secretariat indicated that measures needed to be taken in order to ensure the effectiveness of the legal system.
As regards the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, the general measures are examined in the group of cases concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings which appears in Section 4.3.

H46-1012 37119 N.F., judgment of 02/08/2001, final on 12/12/2001⁶⁹
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 affiliation 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 review of the C.S.M.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1013 31127 E.P. III, judgment of 16/11/99: decision of 11/07/00, revised judgment
(Article 41) of 03/05/01
The case concerns the total and irreversible interruption of contact between the applicant and her daughter from 1988 onwards. The child, who was then seven years old and had lived until then in Greece with her mother, was removed from the mother's care a few days after her arrival Italy, as the applicant presented psychological problems that could impair her daughter's development. From then on, all contact between the applicant and her daughter was denied and the latter was first placed in public care and then declared available for adoption in 1989. The Court found that the national authorities had failed to take all necessary steps to ensure that the chances of the applicant and her daughter re-establishing their relationship should not be definitively compromised (violation of Article 8). Moreover, the Court found that the overall length of the proceedings, namely seven years, had been excessive, account being taken of the “particular dispatch” required in matters concerning children's custody (violation of Article 6§1). The applicant died in 1999.
General measures: the necessity was raised of taking the appropriate measures to ensure that the Italian judiciary and administrative authorities take into account the critical remarks made by the European Court in this case as well as in the Scozzari case (judgment of 13/07/00 – see Section 4.3 of this document), which also concerns malfunctions occurring when children are taken into public care in Italy. In this perspective, the publication of the judgment was requested as well as other awareness-raising measures. As regards in particular the violation of Article 6 found in this case, it should be recalled that it is linked to the more general problem of the functioning of the Italian judicial system (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)135 and Section 4.3 of this document). Information has been requested about any special measures taken to ensure that cases requiring prompt settlement, like this one, are dealt with more rapidly. The Italian delegation informed the Committee that a draft law (No. 2517/C) had been introduced before Parliament in April 2002, aiming at centralising jurisdiction over family and children's issues in special judicial sections in order to increase both the quality and the rapidity of decisions in this field.

H32-1015 23924 C.A.R. srl, Interim Resolution DH(98)154
The case concerns the fact that, between 1991 and 1994, the applicant company, despite a final court decision ordering the eviction of the tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent, was unable to obtain police assistance through the Prefect to secure the eviction of a group of Somali refugees illegally occupying its buildings. 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 June 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 and that the violation was due to the absence of compensation for the prejudice suffered in terms of both unpaid rent and damage to the property, in connection with the refugee's occupation of the property until the administrative authorities had found them alternative accommodation.
General measures: At the 741^st meeting it was indicated that general measures should be defined not least in the light of the judgment that the Court of Appeal of Rome would adopt in the proceedings brought by the applicant company in order to obtain compensation from the State for the damage caused by the failure by the forces of order to assist. At first instance (1996), the action was rejected because Italian law did not establish a right to obtain compensation in case of non-execution of a judgment on grounds of public interest.

Italian cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants
H46-1018 22774 Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber
H32-1022 20177 Aldini, Interim Resolution DH(97)413
H46-1014 22534 A.O., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00
H46-1019 22671 G.L. IV, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00
H46-1017 21463 Lunari, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01
H46-1021 24650 P.M., judgment of 11/01/01, final on 12/09/01

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1020 15919 Palumbo Edoardo, judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01
H46-1016 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 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).
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 June 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 775^th 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.

H46-1023 25498 Messina Antonio 2, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00
The case relates to the monitoring of the applicant's correspondence during his detention (violation of Article 8) as well as 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). In a previous judgment of 26 February 1993, the European Court had already found inter alia a violation of Mr Messina's right to respect of his correspondence during his detention (see Resolution DH(94)62).
As regards the violation of Article 8, this case is similar to the cases of Diana and Domenichini (judgments of 1996).
As regards available remedies to check the lawfulness of the imposed restrictions, the Court found that appeals to the Sentence Execution Courts were not an effective remedy on account of the systematic non-respect by these courts of legal deadlines for decision.
General measures: As regards the effectiveness of remedies to check the lawfulness of restrictions imposed on prisoners, the Italian authorities informed the Secretariat, by letter of 4 December 2000, that the judgment of the European Court had been translated, published in the legal journal 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). The Secretariat would like to know the result of these reflections. The issue of the legislative measures needed to solve the problem related to the monitoring of the correspondence will be re-examined in February 2003 (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178).

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-960 47698+ Birutis and others, judgment of 28/03/2002, final on 28/06/2002
The case concerns a violation of the applicants' right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings conducted in 1997 before the Kaunas Regional Court, in that the applicants were convicted either solely or partially on the basis of anonymous testimony without the opportunity to question the witnesses or to have them questioned (violation of Article 6§1 and §3d). As a result, the first and second applicants were sentenced to 10 years' and the third applicant to 6 years' imprisonment.

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: The Lithuanian authorities have indicated to the Committee that the criminal proceedings challenged by the European Court's judgment had been reopened. By decision of 27 June 2002, the Supreme Court quashed the final decision by which the applicants were convicted and sent the case back for re-examination at appeal.
General measures: Articles 267§5 and 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenged both by the present judgment and by a previous decision of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, were first amended on 23/01/2001. Subsequently, in the framework of a broader legislative reform, Parliament adopted on 14/03/2002 a new Code of Criminal Procedure which will enter into force in 2003. According to the authorities, the new provisions concerning witnesses take full account of both aforementioned judgments. A copy of these provisions was requested for examination. The Lithuanian authorities also indicated that the judgment would be published shortly (in Lithuanian translation) in the Bulletin of the European Court's judgments.

- 1 case against Moldova

H46-1025 45701 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others, judgment of 13/12/01,
final on 27/03/02
Addendum 4, volume 1
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 July 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 July 2002) in accordance with the Moldovan law on Religious Denominations, as amended by the Law No.1220-XV of 12 July 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.
At the 806^th 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 June 2002 (this decision appears in Addendum 4, volume 1) 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 for the 819th meeting (3-4 December 2002) with details concerning possible effects of the above-mentioned texts on the applicant church's situation, 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 9 July 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 July 2002. The relevant provisions (articles 9, 14, 49 and 52) of the Law, as amended, appear in Addendum 4, volume 1.

Sub-section 4.2

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, volume 1).
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 806^th 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, which is expected by November 2002.

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-1027 26668 Visser, judgment of 14/02/02
The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial, notably before the Court of Appeal of The Hague which sentenced him in September 1993 to a year's imprisonment, using as evidence, among others, a statement taken from an anonymous witness (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3d).
The case presents similarities to the case Van Mechelen & others (judgment of 23/04/1997) against the Netherlands (Resolution DH(99)124).
Individual measures: Information has been requested on the latest situation of the applicant, and in particular on whether he is still suffering the consequences of the conviction imposed following an unfair trial.
General measures: At the 792^nd meeting it was indicated that the publication of the judgment would be useful. Information on this is awaited.

- 9 cases against Poland

H46-1031 25792 Trzaska, judgment of 11/07/00
H46-1028 33492 Jabłoński, judgment of 21/12/00
H46-1030 33079 Szeloch, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01
H46-1029 34097 Kreps, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01
H46-1032 27504 Iłowiecki, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02
These cases concern the excessive length of the applicants' detention on remand given that the grounds relied upon by the domestic courts in support of the detention could not be deemed, as required by the European Court's case-law, “relevant and sufficient” and since “special diligence” was not displayed in the conduct of the proceedings (violations of Article 5§3). The cases also concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicants (violations of Article 6§1).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: The first three judgments of the European Court were published in the Bulletin of the Council of Europe Information Centre and disseminated to the competent authorities. Circulars are being prepared drawing the attention of courts and public prosecutors to the reasoning needed for decisions prolonging detention on remand. Copies of these circulars are awaited. Furthermore, information is awaited about other measures already adopted by the Government following the entry into force on 01/09/1998 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure.
The cases present similarities with a number of other cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings, pending before the Committee of Ministers for control of general measures (see notably Podbielski, Styranowski, judgments of 30/10/1998 and Kudła, judgment of 26/10/2000 (see below)).

H46-3185 34049 Zwierzynski, judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01
The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, lodged by the Treasury and aimed at acquiring property which had been returned by judicial decision to the applicant: when the Court delivered its judgment, the case was still pending before the Lomza district Court and had already lasted, within the meaning of the Convention, 8 years and 1 month (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions because of the proceedings lodged by the State, without any reason of “public interest”, which have resulted in the postponement of the effective restitution of the property to the applicant (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
Individual measures: the Lomza district Court delivered its judgment on 21/09/2001 and dismissed the Treasury action for acquisition by usurpation; the Treasury appealed against the court's decision, but only on the issue of court costs. Information concerning the outcome of these proceedings is expected.
General measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court translated into Polish is under way. The judgment was communicated to the Ministry of Justice for dissemination to courts, and to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for dissemination notably to the police. Information concerning the publication of the judgment in Polish is awaited.

H46-1033 30210 Kudła, judgment of 26/10/00 - Grand Chamber
The case concerns, inter alia, the excessive length (2 years, 4 months) of the applicant's detention on remand on charges of fraud and forgery (violation of Article 5§3) and the excessive length (7 years, 5 months) of the related criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The case furthermore concerns the lack of effective remedies to enforce, at national level, the applicant's right to a hearing “within a reasonable time” (violation of Article 13).
General measures: During the first examination of the case (732nd meeting, December 2000), the Committee noted the breadth of the scope of this judgment: for the first time the Court had applied Article 13 of the Convention in order to affirm that contracting States must provide effective domestic remedies so as to resolve the problem of excessive length of proceedings. The Committee also took note of the fact that the remedies required in this regard by Article 13 could be both compensatory and preventive (§159 of the judgment). It was suggested that general consideration be given to this topic, notably within the CDDH and its expert sub-committees, in order to facilitate the search for suitable solutions in member states. The Committee nonetheless considered that this general consideration must not be allowed to prejudice the Committee's supervision of measures that Poland will adopt to comply with the Kudła judgment in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention.
At the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Representative of Poland informed the Committee of the progress made in adoption of general measures. He referred in particular to:
- a number of improvements of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in a draft law which has already been submitted to Parliament;
- a draft law prepared by a group of experts which provides mainly for compensatory but also for some preventive remedies against the excessive length of judicial proceedings (the draft is still being considered by the Government);
- a new decision of the Constitutional Court of 18/12/2001, which might open a way to civil claims against State officials on the grounds of excessive length of judicial proceedings.

Sub-section 4.2

During the last examination of the case at the 798th meeting (June 2002), the Polish Delegation confirmed that the aforementioned draft legislation was under consideration by the Ministry of justice or by Parliament but had not yet been enacted. Copies of the drafts and the information concerning possible effect of the above-mentioned decision by the Polish Constitutional Court have been requested. At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, the Secretariat had not yet received this information.

H46-1035 28249 Kreuz, judgment of 19/06/01
The case concerns a disproportionate restriction of the right of access to a court due to the dismissal of the applicant's action for damages on the grounds that he had been unable to pay in advance court fees which were equivalent to the average annual salary in Poland (violation of Article 6§1).
General measures: At the 764th meeting (October 2001), the Representative of Poland recalled that the present judgment poses a problem of access to justice and stated that the Ministry of Justice would attentively study the general measures to be adopted to remedy the shortcomings highlighted by the European Court. During the debate, it was noted that in addition to the ongoing reflection, it would be appropriate from the outset to ensure publication and a wide dissemination of the judgment by a circular to domestic courts in order to draw their attention to §33 of the judgment which indicates the position adopted by the Polish Supreme Court, to §§ 52-57 which sum up the principles set out in the European Court's case-law, and finally to §§ 63-67 revealing the errors which were made by the domestic courts in this case. The Representative of Poland stated in response that the judgment had already been translated and that its publication was being envisaged. At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, no new information on general measures was available.

H46-1036 26229 Gaweda, judgment of 14/03/02
The case relates to the Polish courts' refusal to register the names of the applicant's two new periodicals on the basis of provisions of the Press Act of 26 January 1984 and of the Ordinance of the Minister of Justice on the register of periodicals. These provisions did not meet the Convention's requirements of clarity and predictability and allowed too wide a discretion on the part of the authorities (violation of Article 10).
Individual measures: At the 798th meeting (June 2002), the Polish Delegation stated that there should at present be no obstacle to the registration of the periodicals concerned.
General measures: At the same meeting, the Polish Delegation stated that the Ministry of Justice was considering possibilities of amending the regulations governing the registration of periodicals and that it would later provide the Committee with more details on this matter. During the debate, it was furthermore noted that some changes to the above-mentioned regulations had already been introduced subsequent to the facts of the present case and the Polish authorities were invited to provide a copy of the provisions currently in force. Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to Polish courts were furthermore requested.

- 6 cases against Romania

H46-1038 28871 Constantinescu, judgment of 27/06/00
The case relates to the applicant's conviction for defamation. He was the president of a teachers' trade union and was prosecuted following the publication in the press of comments he had made regarding internal disputes in the union and the functioning of the judicial system. He had referred to three members of the previous trade-union leadership who had refused to return money belonging to the union after the election of new leaders, as “receivers of stolen goods”. The union had in addition lodged a criminal complaint against these persons. After having been acquitted by the first-instance court, the applicant was convicted, upon appeal, on the grounds that he had had the intention of being defamatory, without having the opportunity to give evidence and defend his case before the court which convicted him (violation of article 6§1).

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: At the 721^st meeting (September 2000), the Romanian Delegation indicated that periodic meetings between the Government's agent and the Presidents of Appeal courts, relating to the judgment delivered by the Court, had been established and that within the framework of the training of judges, a course on the “Court's case-law” had been introduced. The Secretariat is awaiting written confirmation of these measures. It sent a letter, dated 07/11/2000, to the Delegation giving some reflections on the measures which the authorities could take in order to conform to the judgment and awaits comments from the Delegation. At the 757^th and 775^th meetings (June and December 2001), the Secretariat recalled that it was still awaiting an answer or comments of the Delegation.

H46-1039 28341 Rotaru, judgment of 04/05/00 – Grand Chamber
The case concerns a breach of the applicant's right to respect for his private life on account of the holding and use by the Romanian Intelligence Service of a file containing personal information (violation of Article 8). The case also concerns an infringement of his right to an effective remedy before a national authority that could rule on his application to have the file amended or destroyed (violation of Article 13). Lastly, the case concerns a breach of the applicant's right to a fair trial on account of the Court of Appeal's failure to consider the claim for damages and costs (violation of Article 6§1).
Individual measures: The erroneous indications included in the file that the Romanian Intelligence Service may hold on the applicant should be deleted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Bucharest dated 25/11/1997 (see §24 of the Judgment of the European Court) should be mentioned in the file of the person bearing the same name as the applicant and on the applicant's file if it exists.
General measures:
. The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published in the official gazette.
. The attention of the Delegation has been drawn to the fact that the European Court's conclusions in this case mean that Law, No. 14/1992 on the organisation and operation of the Romanian Intelligence Service, will have to be amended. The Delegation indicated, during the first examination of the case in October 2000, that a Bill on the protection of data of personal character was being examined. A letter recalling in detail the afore-mentioned measures was sent to the Representation of Romania on 6 November 2000. At the 775 bis meeting (January 2002), the Romanian Delegation indicated that amendments to law No.14/1992 were envisaged. Information is awaited concerning the possible application of this law to the applicant.

H46-1040 28114 Dalban, judgment of 28/09/99 - Grand Chamber
The case concerns the applicant's conviction for criminal libel in 1994, under Article 206 of the Criminal Code, for having published articles in which he exposed a series of frauds allegedly committed by a senior official and a member of parliament. The Court found a disproportionate interference with the applicant's freedom of expression on account of the fact that, although Article 207 of the Romanian Criminal Code admits the adduction of evidence supporting the truthfulness of the declaration at issue when it has been made in order to protect a legitimate interest, the Romanian courts had not allowed the applicant to prove the truth of his allegations (violation of Article 10).
General measures: Since December 1999, the attention of the Romanian authorities has been drawn to the problems posed not least by Section 206 of the Criminal Code regarding freedom of expression, and the question was raised of the state of advancement of reforms envisaged in this field. The Delegation of Romania indicated at first that a broad reform of the Criminal Code was under way and promised in June 2001 that the relevant draft legislation would be transmitted to the Secretariat, who has however not received them yet. Subsequently, in May 2002, certain provisions of the Criminal Code concerning defamation were modified by emergency order, subject to Parliamentary ratification. According to available information, these amendments would increase the severity of the penalties provided in defamation cases, without modifying the substantive provisions. Information is therefore awaited about new reforms bringing Romanian law on defamation into conformity with the case-law of the European Court.
Furthermore, the Delegation has indicated that the Dalban judgment had been translated and sent out to Presidents of Courts of Appeal and that the case had been discussed in 1999 and 2000 at a seminar organised in by the Romanian Judges' Association, a meeting of the Presidents of Courts of Appeal and a meeting of the Romanian Journalists' Association. Information on the developments of the Romanian Courts' case-law is expected.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1041 29411 Anghelescu, judgment of 09/04/2002, final on 09/07/2002
H46-757 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and of 11/05/01
(rectification) – Grand Chamber⁷⁰
H46-756 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/2002, final on 21/08/2002⁷¹
The cases concern the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice set aside final and irreversible decisions of a court of first instance, in breach of the right to a fair hearing (violations of Article 6§1). The court of first instance had found that the nationalisation of property belonging to the applicants' houses was in breach of Decrees No. 92/1950 on nationalisation or No. 223/1974 (on confiscation) and ordered the return of the property to the applicants. The cases also concern the right of access to a court in that the Supreme Court, in the same decisions, held that it was not for the courts but for the executive or the legislature to deal with the manner in which Decree No. 92/1950 should be applied (violations of Article 6§1). Lastly, the cases concern a breach of the applicants' right to enjoyment of their properties (violations of article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
General measures:
- The translation of new Section 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by a Government Ordinance in 2000 has been sent to the Secretariat. The first sub-paragraph of section 330, on the basis of which the court decision in favour of the applicant was quashed, remains unchanged: “The Procurator General may, of his own motion or on an application by the Minister of Justice, apply to the Supreme Court of Justice for any final judicial decision to be quashed on any of the following grounds: 1.  that the court in question has exceeded its jurisdiction; (…)”. Only the deadline for invoking this paragraph has been modified: from 1 year to 6 months from the date on which the judicial decision becomes final.
- Considering the discretion given to the Procurator General in interpreting this section and in particular its first paragraph, information on the field of application of former Section 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure, preferably with examples of the use of this article, has been requested.
- The Romanian Delegation has given the Secretariat a copy of the “Law on the rules governing real property improperly seized between 6 March 1945 and 22 December 1989”.
- At the time of issuing the present annotated agenda, the information requested at the 792nd meeting concerning the field of application of article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure was awaited.
Individual measure and just satisfaction:
- Concerning Mr. Brumărescu, the Romanian authorities have restored the building at issue, apart from the flat occupied by Mr Mirescu, which has been valued at USD 42 000 by the Court. The applicant having refused to accept this sum, it has been placed on an account in the Treasury of the Municipality of Bucharest and can be paid as soon as the applicant asks for it. The other sums awarded by the Court in respect of non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses were paid with 4 days' delay. Concerning Mr Anghelescu, the Secretariat indicated at the 810th meeting (October 2002) that measures should be taken to accelerate the proceedings aimed at revoking his title to property, still pending at national level. Information in this respect is expected.

- 1 case against the Russian Federation

H46-1042 59498 Burdov, judgment of 07/05/2002, final on 04/09/2002⁷²
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 5 March 2001.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: During the first examination of the case (810th meeting, October, 2002), the Russian authorities pointed out a certain number of measures adopted or under way, which relate in particular to the:
- 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;
- introduction of amendments to the legislation governing the payment of social benefits in order to provide for a system of indexation of the allowances for the victims of Chernobyl;
The Deputies took note of this information and agreed to resume detailed consideration of the execution of the judgment at their 819th meeting. During the debate, focus was put in particular on the urgency of the efficient general measures in view of the extent of the problem at the basis of this and numerous other cases pending before the Court. The particular importance of the legislative measures to ensure effective indexation of the allowances in question was also stressed. It was furthermore recalled that these aspects had been addressed specifically in the letter of the Director General of Human Rights sent on 26/09/2002 to the Representative of the Russian Federation before the Court.

- 30 cases against Turkey

H46-1043 40035 Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00
This case concerns the decision to deport the applicant to Iran, where, she maintains, she runs the risk of being stoned to death or flogged, these being the penalties prescribed by Iranian law as punishment for adultery. She lodged an asylum application which was rejected, on the grounds that it had been submitted out of the 5-day time-limit as from her arrival in Turkey. She was later granted refugee status by the UNHCR but her appeals against the deportation order and to obtain a stay of execution were nevertheless rejected by the Administrative Court. The European Court holds that there would be a real risk of the applicant being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 if she were to be deported (violation of Article 3 if the decision to deport the applicant to Iran were implemented). Her failure to comply with the 5-day time-limit denied her any scrutiny of the factual basis of her fears: the Administrative Court limited itself to the issue of the formal legality of the deportation order. There was no assessment by the domestic authorities of the risk claimed by the applicant and the refusal to consider her asylum request was not open to appeal. Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur, the notion of an effective remedy requires independent and rigorous scrutiny and the possibility of suspending the implementation of the measure impugned, which was not the case (violation of Article 13).
General measures: The judgment has been translated and published, but a circular for the attention of the administrative authorities and courts is still awaited.
The Delegation transmitted to the Secretariat the regulations on asylum seekers, as modified in 1998 (the five-day period in which to lodge an appeal has been increased to ten days). The Delegation also sent a letter dated 13/11/02 in which it indicated notably that it would be appropriate to apply to the Jabari case the same parameters as those applied in the Kalantari v. Germany judgment, i.e. no particular supervision by the Committee.
However, the Secretariat must underline that the Kalantari judgment was a striking-out calling for no supervision by the Committee except the payment of costs and expenses, because the Court had found that it was not necessary to continue examination of the case, the national authorities having already taken measures to annul the expulsion order prior to its judgment. As regards the violation of Article 13, details of the guarantees offered by appeals before first-degree administrative courts and before the Council of State, are awaited. In particular, do these appeals have suspensive effect? Information concerning the standard used to evaluate whether or not a person should be expelled would be useful, Article 3 of Convention having to be taken into account.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1045 34382 Denmark against Turkey, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement
The Danish Government complained of ill treatment suffered by Mr Kemal Koç, a Danish national, during his detention in Turkey from 8 to 16 August 1996. In addition, the Danish Government asked the Convention's organs to examine whether the interrogation techniques allegedly applied to Mr Koç were applied in Turkey as a widespread practice.
The Court took note of a friendly settlement reached between the parties according to which the respondent Government has agreed to pay the applicant Government an amount of 450 000 Danish crowns which includes legal expenses connected with the case. The amount has been paid.
The Government of Denmark and the Government of Turkey made a joint statement, which appears in §21 of the judgment. The Government of Denmark indicated in particular that it would make a significant financial contribution to the Council of Europe's project aimed at re-organizing the content of police training.
This project started on 11/02/2002 (with a pilot course for the “training of the trainers”) and should be assessed for the first time at the beginning of June. At the 798th meeting (June 2002) the delegations informed the Committee of Ministers about the implementation of the project. A meeting between the governments and the Steering Committee of the Joint programme was organised on 18/10/2002. Information is awaited.

- Friendly settlement cases containing undertakings of the Turkish Government
H46-1046 24940 Acar, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1047 32598 Akbay, judgment of 04/10/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1044 37453 Akman, judgment of 26/06/01 – Striking-out
H46-1048 24935 Avcı, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1049 28293+ Aydın K., C. Aydin and S. Aydin and others, judgment of 10/07/01 –
Friendly settlement
H46-756 29289 Aydın Mehmet, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement⁷³
H46-1050 24946 Boğ, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1051 24938 Boğa, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1052 24934 Değer, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1053 24990 Demir, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1054 24939 Doğan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1055 31246 Ercan, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-764 26337 Erdoğan Mahmut, judgment of 20/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-1056 30953+ I.I., I.S., K.E., and A.O., judgment of 06/11/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1057 24945 Kemal Güngü, judgment of 18/12/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1058 24944 Kızılgedik, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-770 31136 Önder Yalçın, judgment of 25/07/2002 - Friendly settlement⁷⁴
H46-1059 24936 Orak Adnan, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1060 27735 Oral and others, judgment of 28/03/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-1061 31883 Özbey, judgment of 31/01/02 - Friendly settlement
H46-1062 24942+ Parlak, Aktürk and Tay, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1063 29359 Saki, judgment of 30/10/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-1064 24991 Şenses, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement
H46-765 22281 Yaşa Sıddık, judgment of 27/06/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-771 32979 Yıldız Özgür, judgment of 16/07/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-767 29856 Özcan Mehmet, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement⁷⁵

Sub-section 4.2

H46-769 30492 Erat and Sağlam, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement⁷⁶
H46-772 27532 Z.Y., judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement
These cases mainly concern alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8,13, 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol 1 in the period between May 1991 and September 1995 connected with the disappearance of applicants' relatives and the destruction of properties during certain operations conducted by the security forces, the ill-treatment inflicted on applicants during police custody and their prolonged detention without being presented promptly to a judge.
According to the friendly settlements, the Turkish Government, in addition to payment of just satisfaction, 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, that all the deprivations of liberty are fully recorded by the authorities and that effective investigations into alleged disappearances are carried out in accordance with their obligations under the Convention. In some cases, the Government referred in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the Declaration agreed on in Application no. 34382/97 (Denmark v. Turkey, see Subsection 4.2 of the present annotated agenda) and reiterate their resolve to give effect to those commitments.
General Measures: The general measures here at issue were summed up in the Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98 which was adopted at 803rd DH meeting (July 2002). Subsequently, the Turkish Delegation furnished new information on the improvement of the rights of suspects and the confidentiality of medical examinations during their detention, as well as activities for awareness-raising of security forces, prosecutors and judges. The follow-up to the above-mentioned Interim Resolution will be re-examined at the 834^th DH meeting (April 2003).

- 13 cases against the United Kingdom

H32-2800 23496 Quinn, Résolutions intérimaires DH(98)214 and ResDH(2002)85
H32-2801 22384 Murray Kevin, Résolutions intérimaires DH(98)156 and ResDH(2002)85
H46-2802 28135 Magee, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)085
H54-2803 18731 Murray John, judgment of 08/02/96, Résolutions intérimaires DH(2000)26 and ResDH(2002)85
H46-2804 36408 Averill, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)85
Addendum 4, volume 1
These cases concern the right to silence, the right not to incriminate oneself and the denial of access to legal advice during the first 48 hours of detention (24 hours in the Averill case), in combination with the provisions in national law whereby the choice of the accused to remain silent could result in the court's or jury's drawing unfavourable conclusions (violations of Article 6§3c alone or combined with Article 6§1).
General measures: a number of interim measures have been taken since the adoption of the judgments by the European Court and of decisions by the Committee of Ministers in these cases to avoid putting suspects in the situations impugned by the European Court and the Committee of Ministers. Legislative reforms are also under way. Interim Resolution DH(2000)26 was adopted in the Murray John case at the 695th meeting (February 2000) summarising all the measures taken and envisaged by the United Kingdom authorities in order to implement the Court's judgment.
At the 798th meeting (June 2002) the Deputies adopted a second interim resolution, ResDH(2002)85, concerning all the above cases, in which, among other things, they strongly encouraged the United Kingdom authorities to take all necessary measures to ensure the rapid entry into force of the amendments to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. The Interim Resolutions DH(2000)26 and DH(2002)85 are included in Addendum 4, volume 1 to this annotated agenda and order of business.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1065 33394 Price, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01
The case concerns degrading treatment suffered by the applicant, a four-limb-deficient thalidomide victim dependent on a wheelchair, during her custody and imprisonment due to detention conditions which were inadequate in view of the applicant's special needs (violation of Article 3).
General measures: At the 775^th meeting (December 2001), it was indicated that publication and wide dissemination of the judgment by circular to domestic courts and prison authorities would be useful. Confirmation is awaited in this respect. The Government was also asked to provide information about other measures envisaged to satisfy the needs of disabled persons in detention.

H46-1066 40787 Hirst, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01
The case concerns the applicant's complaint that he could not obtain a review by a court of the lawfulness of his continued detention (once his tariff had expired) “at Her Majesty's pleasure” (violation of Article 5§4). The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on 11 February 1980 and the tariff period of 15 years expired on 25 June 1994.
The case presents similarities to those of Hussain, Singh, A.T. and Oldham against the United Kingdom (see resolutions DH(98)149, DH(98)150, DH(98)202 and ResDH(2001)160 respectively).
Individual measures: Information has been requested as to whether the panel of the Parole Board met, as scheduled, on 2 February 2002, and, if so, the decision adopted.
General measures: the Committee has asked for statistics/information on the number of life prisoners who have had their cases reviewed more than one year after the entry into force of the new legislation (Crime Sentence Act 1997). Exact references concerning publication of the judgment of the European Court (Times Law Report) have been requested.

H46-906 28883 McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01⁷⁷
H46-907 37715 Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01⁷⁸
H46-908 24746 Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01⁷⁹
H46-909 30054 Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01⁸⁰
Addendum 4, volume 1
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.
General measures: Representatives of the United Kingdom and the Secretariat have maintained various contacts in order to discuss the Government's preliminary position in respect of the measures that need to be adopted.
The publication of the judgments of the European Court and dissemination to police officers / security officers and judicial authorities concerned are still to be confirmed. Copies of the judgments have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to all coroners in Northern Ireland.

Sub-section 4.2

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 Deputies decided to continue this examination at the present meeting. The main document is included in Addendum 4, volume 1 and the appendix (300 pages) to the document can be obtained from the Secretariat in the original language.

H46-1067 24833 Matthews, judgment of 18/02/99, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)79
The case concerns the non-respect of the right to participate in elections to choose the legislature in that no election to the European Parliament was organised in Gibraltar (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).
General measures: the Government of the United Kingdom has informed the Committee of Ministers about its efforts within the European Union to find a satisfactory solution to this case. The Government's priority remains to secure the agreement of its EU partners to the enfranchisement of Gibraltar through a change to the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections to the European Parliament. The United Kingdom is committed to achieving enfranchisement for Gibraltar for the 2004 European Parliament elections. However, it appears that, at the European Union level, the dossier currently remains blocked and, consequently, the United Kingdom has not ruled out any option available in order to fulfil the Court's judgment. The Committee of Ministers has asked to be kept informed of any development in this field.
The case has received extensive newspaper coverage and, it has been published, notably in the Human Rights Report, Human Rights Digest and other legal journals. Full details of the publication have been requested.
In June 2001, at the 792^nd meeting, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)79 urging the United Kingdom to take the necessary measures to secure the rights in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of elections to the European Parliament in Gibraltar.

H54-1069 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 possible legislative changes over and above the Human Rights Act, the Secretariat has 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 the above-mentioned 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.
In the Government's view, the availability of the Human Rights Act will however suffice to prevent the recurrence of a breach of the kind found by the Court in this case. At the 775th meeting (December 2001) the United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee that, finally, no further legislative changes will be introduced. The question has been raised as to how parents, in the absence of a clear legislative change, are supposed to know that domestic courts will now interpret the existing legislation in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Further information on this point has been requested.

SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

- 2151 cases against Italy

H46-1071 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
Addendum 4, volume 1
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).
Just satisfaction: The payment of the default interests due to Ms Scozzari's lawyer and to the children has not been confirmed yet.
Individual measures: The temporary placement of the children in the “Forteto” community was confirmed by the Florence Youth Court, on 18/09/2000, until the end of the school-year 2000-2001 and then extended, on 17/07/2001, for a maximum (renewable) duration of three years. The first applicant has appealed against this decision: the proceedings are currently pending and a new decision is expected soon. Other proceedings, also concerning the placement of the children, are pending at first instance. These proceedings might allow the judicial authorities to assess the present situation of the children in the light of the elements which led the European Court to find that the rights of the mother and of her children had been violated (see above).
In fact, in spite of the adoption of two Interim resolutions by the Committee of Ministers respectively in May and October 2001 (ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151, see Addendum 4, volume 1), so far the judicial decisions confirming the continuation of the placement of the children in the “Forteto” have failed to consider these elements and to either take remedial actions (such as the transferral of the children elsewhere) or explain why they no longer constitute a risk that the violations found by the Court are continuing or might be repeated. A letter, recalling the results expected, both as regards individual and general measures, was addressed to the Italian authorities on 08/07/2002, who replied on 30 September 2002. In the meantime, the Public Prosecutor notably requested the Court of Appeal to replace the current guardian of the children, to place the latter in a real family, out of the “Forteto” but within the same territory and to increase the efforts of the local services aimed at restoring the links between the mother and the children. 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”.

Sub-section 4.3

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. In the framework of the pending appeal proceedings, the Appeal Court, on 08/02/2002, decided that an expert psychological report should be established on this issue. This report was presented on 31/07/2002 and the Appeal Court examined its conclusions on 25/09/2002.
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, the Italian Delegation presented information on two reports of the Tuscany regional council on the “Forteto” in May 2001 and February 2002, as well as a guardianship judge's report established following an inspection in December 2001. At the 792^nd meeting (April 2002), the Italian Delegation explained however that these were ad hoc reports: regular inspections are only required when children are formally placed in an institution. Such controls would not be foreseen in case of placement with individual families, even if these belong to a community, such as in this case. At the 798^th meeting (June 2002), the attention of the Italian delegation was drawn to the need to fill this legal gap. Subsequently, 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, the attention of the Committee of Ministers was drawn to certain alleged links existing between the authorities in charge of children's placement and the “Forteto” community (for instance, it appears from public documents that the guardian of the children and some members of the Youth Court are members of the “Forteto” foundation; moreover, the latter participates together with the public authorities and the social services in the management of a centre assisting the tribunal in the placement of children, the centre being hosted by the community itself). In the light of this, information was requested by the Committee of Ministers on measures envisaged to ensure that the authorities involved in the implementation and supervision of placements of children enjoy the necessary independence from 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. Furthermore, these people would only be involved nowadays in the commercial activities of the Forteto and not in those related to children, according to the Italian Delegation. 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).

Sub-section 4.3

- 2150 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 Addendum Revised, CM/Inf(2001)37 and CM/Inf(2002)47 and Addendum ; Interim Resolutions DH(97)336, DH(99)436, DH(99)437 and ResDH(2000)135)⁸¹
Addendum 4, volume 1
In all the 2150 cases against Italy listed in the Addendum 4, volume 1, violations of Article 6§1 were found on account of the excessive length of civil proceedings (1562 cases), execution proceedings (7 cases), administrative proceedings (108 cases) labour proceedings (363 cases), criminal proceedings (106 cases) and criminal proceedings combined with proceedings for damages (4 cases).
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”.
The first annual report, provided by the Italian authorities (covering mainly the year 2000 (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 reached the following conclusions (the press releases issued after the above-mentioned meetings are reproduced in CM/Inf(2002)47 Addendum):
· As regards the global reform of civil and administrative proceedings, the information contained in the report appeared relatively encouraging;
· As regards criminal proceedings, the Committee took note of the entry into force of certain important legislative reforms as well as of certain other draft reforms; it requested details on the expected impact of these measures on the length of proceedings but regretted the fact that the statistics available did not make it possible to conclude that there had been any significant progress in the efficiency of the criminal justice;
· As regards in particular the resources and internal organisation of tribunals, the Italian authorities were invited to indicate in detail whether the measures mentioned in the report concerned both criminal and civil jurisdictions and what measures were planned to fill the posts of justices of the peace still vacant (around 50% of the total number of posts);
· As regards the oldest cases (those already pending in 1995) the Committee took note of the special measures taken (Sezioni stralcio);
· As regards the question of domestic remedies the Committee expressed its perplexity at the facts that the “Pinto Act” allowed compensation of victims of excessively long proceedings but did not provide any possibility of accelerating proceedings and that the application of this Act posed a risk of aggravating the backlog of the appeal courts.
In view of these findings, the Committee decided to resume consideration of the issue in December 2002, on the basis of a new annual report including comparable and updated statistical data, notably on criminal justice.
The new annual report (CM/Inf(2002)47 adds data for 2001 so that the Committee now has such data for both civil and criminal proceedings. It adds no information on administrative justice or on the situation before the Sezioni stralcio after 2000.

Sub-section 4.3

In the light of the information available the Secretariat has made the following preliminary observations:
· As regards civil proceedings, the report tends to indicate that the progress earlier observed slowed down between 2000 and 2001, even reversing into a deterioration as regards certain courts and procedures: the length of proceedings before justices of peace has increased (+13%); this is also the case before courts of appeal (most importantly an increase of +108% in labour law proceedings). In particular, it appears that the average cumulative length of civil proceedings from first to last instance has increased since 2000 by more than three months (respectively 1970 and 2067 days, including around 800 days – i.e. more than two years – on average before the Court of cassation only);
· As regards criminal proceedings, no new statistics are presented in comparison with those presented in July 2002 and the conclusions reached on the basis of the first annual report remain unchanged. Of concern is notably the fact that the average length of proceedings before the Court of cassation doubled between 1996 and 2001 (from 135 to 234/272 days on average);
· As regards the ongoing legislative reforms, the report mentions some twenty new measures envisaged, including notably the reform of the criminal code and of the codes of criminal and civil procedure. Progress appears to have been made in the computerisation of the courts, although the programme is at present blocked not least because of lack of funding. Progress has also been made in the adoption of awareness-raising measures for the legal community. 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 judicial work which were successfully tested in Turin and aimed at speeding up the handling of the oldest cases (“Strasbourg programme”);
· As regards national remedies, the Italian authorities indicate that they are planning to modify the “Pinto Act” to ensure that victims of violations may not only get compensation before the domestic courts, but also a possibility of obtaining the acceleration of pending procedures.
(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 Addendum revised as well as Addendum 4, volume 1 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 Addendum).
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

H46-2768 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;

Sub-section 4.3

- a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in that the silence of the Turkish authorities in the face of the real concerns of the relatives attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.
Home and property of displaced persons
- a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) concerning the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus;
- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights;
- a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the failure to provide to Greek Cypriots not residing in northern Cyprus any remedies to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in Karpas region of northern Cyprus
- a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life;
- a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship;
- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not 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 760^th meeting (July 2001) (see the records of the 760^th meeting).
During the second examination of the case at the 764^th 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 760^th 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.

Sub-section 4.3

At the 783^rd meeting (February 2002), the Delegation of Turkey stated that it was in agreement with the approach suggested at the 764^th meeting.
At the 792^nd 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.
At the 798^th 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.

H54-2769 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
Addendum 4, volume 1
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 749^th 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;

Sub-section 4.3

Stressing that acceptance of the Convention, including the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and the binding nature of its judgments, has become a requirement for membership of the organisation;
Stressing that the Convention is a system for the collective enforcement of the rights protected therein,
Declares the Committee's resolve to ensure, with all means available to the organization, Turkey's compliance with its obligations under this judgment,
Calls upon the authorities of the member States to take such action as they deem appropriate to this end.”
When the Deputies examined the matter at their 783^rd meeting (February 2002), the Turkish Delegation reiterated the proposal made at the 749^th 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 792^nd 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 796^th meeting (May 2002) and the examination was postponed to the 798^th DH meeting (June 2002). The Chairman indicated that he would in the meantime continue his consultations with interested Delegations. At the 798^th (June 2002) and 803^rd (July 2002) and 810 (October 2002) meetings no new information regarding the payment was available.
The texts of the Interim Resolutions adopted in this case appear in Addendum 4, volume 1.

H46-2770 26308 Institut de Prêtres français and others, judgment of 14/12/00 – Friendly settlement
Addendum 4, volume 2
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. The Turkish Delegation indicated at each of these meetings that the above-mentioned problems were going to be solved, notably through a Decree by the Prime Minister. During the two last examinations of the case (798^th meeting, June 2002 and 803^rd meeting, July) the Turkish Delegation stated that the 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, these negotiations have so far led to no conclusive result and the friendly settlement still remains unexecuted by the Government (more than a year and a half since the Court's judgment).
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 6/11/2002 (see Addendum 4, volume 2). At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, the Secretariat had not yet received an answer to this letter and no new information regarding the execution of the friendly settlement was available.

H46-2771 29900+ Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01
Addendum 4, volume 2
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 764^th 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 DH(2001)106 on the individual measures in cases concerning freedom of expression in Turkey).
The Turkish authorities initially informed the Committee (at the 775^th 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 783^rd meeting (February 2002), the Turkish Delegation indicated that preparation of the draft law in question had been adjourned but that the Turkish authorities were continuing to seek ways to adopt the necessary individual measures in the present case. Many delegations expressed their disappointment at the fact that the new legislation, which was of such urgency for the execution of the present judgment, had been adjourned and deplored the fact that no specific measure had yet been taken in respect of the applicants. Some delegations furthermore stressed that the execution of the judgment was being attentively observed by the Parliamentary Assembly (cf. AS(2002)CR2) and outside the Council of Europe, notably by the European Union.
Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59: At the 794^th 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;

Sub-section 4.3

-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 798^th (June 2002) and 803^rd (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 807^th meting (September 2002), the Representative of Turkey presented the reforms adopted by the Parliament on 3 August 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 will be applicable only to new cases lodged with the European Court after their entry into force, i.e. after 3 August 2003). The necessity for urgent action to grant the applicants the appropriate redress has been accordingly strongly reiterated.
Draft New Interim Resolution: At the 810th meeting (October 2002), as no concrete action in this respect have been reported, the Secretariat was mandated to prepare a new draft Interim Resolution for the 819th meeting of the Deputies (3-5 December 2002). At the time of issuing the present annotated agenda, the Secretariat had not received any new information concerning the granting to the applicants of appropriate redress for the violations found. The aforementioned draft Interim Resolution appears in Addendum 4, volume 2 to the present annotated agenda.
Chairman's Replies to the Parliamentary Assembly: In replying to the parliamentary questions at the 3rd part session of the Parliamentary Assembly (25/06/2002), the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers notably recalled the Turkish Government's undertaking made a long time ago to introduce judicial means for reopening domestic proceedings found to have violated the Convention and the fact that this undertaking had not been met. She undertook to raise the matter personally with the Turkish Foreign Minister (see AS(2002)CR18). In her communication given at the Assembly's 4th part session (24/09/2002), the Chairman stated that the Sadak and others judgment was the first question that she raised with the Turkish Foreign Minister during their informal meeting in New York on 11 September 2002. The Turkish Minister made it clear that he grasped the full importance of the question, and promised to think it over and take it up with the relevant authorities.
Decisions by the Parliamentary Assembly: At its 4th part session (23/09/2002) the Parliamentary Assembly held a debate and adopted a Resolution and a Recommendation on the implementation of the Court's judgments by Turkey. The relevant parts of the texts adopted read as follows:
Resolution 1297(2002):
"10. The Assembly deeply regrets that the new legislation on reopening of proceedings adopted by Turkey in August 2002 expressly excludes any possibility of complying with the Court's judgment in the Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Dogan case, so that the four applicants will continue to serve their 15 year prison sentences imposed following an unfair trial. It strongly supports the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights' demand to urgently remedy the applicants' situation either by making this new legislation immediately applicable to all pending cases or by adopting ad hoc measures in the applicants' favour. In case the applicants' situation is not rectified, the Assembly will consider the consequences of such a refusal at its session in April 2003."
Recommendation 1576(2002):
"1. The Assembly (…) urges the Committee of Ministers to take all necessary measures to ensure the execution of the Court's decisions without delay, notably by ensuring that the recent legislation of reopening of proceedings enters immediately into force and is made applicable to all cases pending before the Committee of Ministers for control of execution under Article 46 of the Convention;
(…)
5. Finally, with respect to the Sakak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan case, the Assembly referring to its Resolution 1297 (2002) and to Turkey's obligation under the Convention to take concrete measures to remedy the consequences of the violation found by the Court, urges the Committee of Ministers to use all means at its disposal to ensure compliance with the judgment without further delay."

Sub-section 4.3

General measures:
Information has been requested with regard to the measures the Turkish authorities envisage with a view to preventing new, similar violations. 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

- 5 cases against Austria

H46-2772 33730 Weixelbraun, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02
H54-2773 20602 Szücs, judgment of 24/11/97
H46-2774 28923 Lamanna, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01
H54-2775 21835 Werner, judgment of 24/11/97
H46-2776 28389 Asan Rushiti, judgment of 21/03/00, final on 21/06/00
These cases concern the lack of public hearing and of any public pronouncement of the decisions in proceedings concerning the applicants' compensation claims in respect of their detention on remand (violations of Article 6§1). The Asan Rushiti case also concerns a violation of the presumption of innocence in these proceedings (violation of Article 6§2). The Lamanna and Weixelbraun cases only concern the violation of Article 6§2.
General measures: the judgments of the European Court in the cases of Szücs, Werner and Lamanna have been published in the newsletter of the Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte and the Österreichische Juristen-Zeitung. The Austrian authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the case-law of the Supreme Court has been developed taking into account the judgments of the European Court. Furthermore, changes were introduced to the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2000. Finally, the Committee has also been informed that an amendment of the 1969 Compensation (Criminal Proceedings) Act (see § 19 of the Court's judgment) is under examination. The Committee has asked to be kept informed of any development in this field.

- 4 cases against Belgium

H46-2777 34989 Goedhart, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01⁸²
H46-2778 36449+ Stroek, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01⁸³
H54-2779 25357 Aerts, judgment of 30/07/98⁸⁴
H46-2780 26103 Van Geyseghem, judgment of 21/01/99⁸⁵

- 3 cases against Bulgaria

H46-2781 40061 M.S., judgment of 04/07/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-2782 31365 Varbanov, judgment of 05/10/00
These cases concern the applicants' unlawful detention in psychiatric hospitals, in that their detention were ordered by prosecutors on the basis of an unpublished instruction by the Chief Public Prosecutor (Guidelines No. 295/85) without seeking prior medical opinion on the applicants' state of mental health (violation of or complaint under Article 5§1). The Varbanov case also concerns the fact that the applicant had no opportunity to bring judicial proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§4).
General measures: The Varbanov judgment was communicated to the Ministry of Health and to the Congress of Bulgarian Psychiatrists in November 2000 and will be published (in Bulgarian translation) in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice. The judgment was also brought to the attention of the expert group working on a new bill on public health (see below). At the 732nd meeting (December 2000), the attention of the Bulgarian authorities was drawn to the fact that the violations found in the Varbanov case were due mostly to shortcomings in the legislation. First, there was no legislation or regulation providing the necessity to obtain a medical opinion before or, in case of urgent arrest, immediately after a prosecutor's order to detain a person for compulsory medical examination (cf. the requirements of Article 5 in § 47 of the judgment). Furthermore, the law does not allow the detainee (cf. § 32 of the judgment) to challenge the prosecutor's order to detain

Sub-section 5.1

him for a compulsory medical examination before a judge. At the 775th bis meeting (8 January 2002), the Bulgarian Delegation indicated that the bill on public health, which aims at remedying the problems indicated above, would soon be put on the agenda of Parliament. The Delegation subsequently indicated that another bill on mental health was being prepared to grant adequate safeguards to mentally ill persons (notably a preliminary medical examination and judicial review). Copies of these bills have been requested. At the time of issuing the present annotated agenda, the Secretariat had not yet received the texts in question.

H46-2783 30985 Hassan and Tchaouch, judgment of 26/10/00 - Grand Chamber
The case concerns the State's arbitrary interference in the internal organisation of a divided Muslim community, due to the replacement of its recognised leadership and to subsequent refusals to register Mr Hassan as the new, legitimate leader of a faction of the Muslim community. This interference was based on legal provisions which did not meet the required standards of clarity and predictability and allowed unfettered discretion to the executive (violation of Article 9). The case also concerns the fact that the Supreme Court did not examine the lawfulness of the Government's decree (R 12) violating freedom of religion and the repeated refusal of the Bulgarian Council of Ministers to comply with the Supreme Court's judgments quashing the refusal to register the new leadership of the community (violation of Article 13).
General measures: in view of §§85-86 of the judgment of the European Court, the Bulgarian authorities have been invited to consider general measures to bring the Religious Denominations Act of 1949 into conformity with the requirements of clarity and predictability required by Article 9 of the Convention (cf. §§84-85 of the judgment). Moreover, attention has been drawn to the problem of the absence of effective judicial supervision of executive decisions (see §§100-101 of the judgment). Accordingly, the Bulgarian authorities have also been requested to consider both interim and long-term measures to ensure a substantial and effective judicial supervision of the decisions taken by the executive.
In 2000, the National Assembly adopted on first reading a new draft Religious Denomination Act. According to the Council of Europe's expert opinion provided in February 2001, the new Bill contains certain improvements when compared to the existing law. However, the opinion also highlights a number of outstanding problems as regards the compatibility of the Bill with Article 9 of the Convention; it was noted in particular that the Bill still grants too much discretion to the authorities in regulating the freedom of religion.
During the last examination of the case (798th meeting, June 2002), the Bulgarian delegation confirmed that the Parliamentary Committee which was mandated to prepare a new draft law, was duly aware of both the European Court's judgment and the Council of Europe expert opinions. The Delegation furthermore indicated that three possible bills on religious denominations, which were introduced before this Parliamentary Committee, should be shortly consolidated in a single Bill to be submitted to Parliament. At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda, no new information regarding the progress of the parliamentary proceedings had been made available to the Secretariat.

- 2 cases against Finland

H46-2785 29346 K.S., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 12/12/01⁸⁶
H46-2786 31764 K.P., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 05/09/01⁸⁷
These two cases concern infringements of the right to a fair trial in proceedings instigated by the applicants to obtain certain social allowances. The Insurance Court dismissed the applicants' claims on the basis of opinions which were not communicated to the applicants, who were therefore unable to answer them (violation of Article 6§1).
General measures: At the 775th and 792nd DH meetings (December 2001 and April 2002) the Delegation of Finland indicated that the judgments would soon be published, and that from now on the applicant's opinion in this type of case would be requested. Written information on these measures is awaited.

Sub-section 5.1

- 3 cases against Lithuania

H46-2787 42095 Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01
This case concerns the lack of objective impartiality of the Supreme Court in criminal proceedings against the applicant, in that the President of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court had nominated the judge rapporteur and the members of the chamber set up to examine an appeal on points of law he had himself lodged aiming to set aside a judgment on appeal and to confirm the applicant's conviction at first instance (violation of Article 6§1).
General measures: By a letter dated 15/10/02, the Lithuanian Delegation indicated that the draft of the new Code of Criminal Procedure will no longer contain any provision enabling a judge to combine several functions. The Code should come into force in the first half of 2003.

H46-2788 44558 Valašinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01
This case concerns among other things the degrading treatment to which the applicant was subjected as well as an infringement of his right to respect for his correspondence. The Court considered that the body-search performed on the applicant, in detention in May 1998, had showed a clear lack of respect for the applicant, and in effect diminished his human dignity (violation of Article 3). The Court also found that the control of the applicant's correspondence with the organs of the Convention had amounted to an unjustified interference with the right to respect for correspondence (violation of Article 8).
The applicant was released following a presidential pardon.  
General measures: By a letter dated 14/10/03, the Lithuanian Delegation indicated that some modifications had already been adopted: detainees' correspondence will no longer be censored unless so decided by a court or the prosecutor, but never correspondence with the Convention's institutions. Furthermore, the conditions of the search of detainees are now regulated. The Prison Code which contains these provisions will be replaced by a new Code of enforcement of sentences, which should come into force in the first half of 2003. It has been indicated that it could be useful to disseminate the judgment of the European Court, notably to prison authorities.

H46-1024 44800 Puzinas, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02
(No debate envisaged)
The case concerns unjustified censorship by prison authorities of the applicant's correspondence (violation of Article 8) and presents similarities to the case of Valašinas against Lithuania (judgment of 24/07/01), in which the necessary general measures are being adopted by the Lithuanian authorities (see above).

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46-2789 38432 Thoma, judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01
This case concerns the fact that, in convicting the applicant, a journalist, of a breach of his obligation to provide bona fide information to the public, the competent domestic judges only had regard to the quotation by the applicant of a litigious passage of an article written by a fellow journalist and found, solely on this basis, that the applicant had adopted the allegation contained in the quoted text (corruption of an identifiable category of civil servants), on the ground that he had failed formally to distance himself from it. The European Court considered that requiring journalists to distance themselves systematically and formally from the content of a quotation that might insult or damage the reputation of a third party was not reconcilable with the press's role of providing information on current events, opinions and ideas and therefore that the applicant's conviction was disproportionate to the aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others (violation of Article 10).
General measures: The Luxembourg Delegation has sent the Secretariat a draft law on freedom of expression in the media and will communicate the date of adoption of this law. The European Court's judgment has been disseminated to the relevant authorities and confirmation of its publication is awaited.

Sub-section 5.1

- 9 cases against Poland

H46-1034 27785 Włoch, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 22/01/01
The case concerns the unfairness of the judicial proceedings concerning the suit brought by the applicant, who was detained on remand, in order to regain his freedom. This was due to the facts that the applicant's lawyers could not be present throughout the hearing and that he could not have access to the case-file at certain stages of proceedings (violations of Article 5§4).
General measures: At the 749th meeting (April 2001), the Representative of Poland indicated that, subsequent to the facts of the present case, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been modified so as to prevent 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 present 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 latter has not yet received these texts.

H46-2790 27918 C., judgment of 03/05/01⁸⁸
H46-2791 29691 Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01⁸⁹
H46-2792 43779 Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02, final on 15/04/02⁹⁰
H54-2793 27916 Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98⁹¹
H54-2794 28616 Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98⁹²
H46-2795 25693+ Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 26/01/01⁹³
H46-2796 33082 Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00, final on 22/01/01⁹⁴
H46-2797 32734 Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/09/01⁹⁵

- 1 case against Romania

H54-2798 27273 Petra, judgment of 23/09/98
The case concerns the opening and delaying of the applicant's correspondence with the former European Commission of Human Rights and, in this respect, the latitude which the relevant law leaves to the national authorities to effect such acts (violation of article 8). It also relates to the fact that in his correspondence with the Commission, the applicant suffered hindrance in the exercise of his individual right of petition in the form of illegitimate and unacceptable pressure from the prison authorities (violation of former article 25).
General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in the official gazette and the Romanian Delegation has transmitted a copy of a circular addressed to prison administrations concerning the right to respect of prisoners' correspondence. The Secretariat is awaiting information about legislative measures concerning the “execution of sentences of imprisonment”, and especially about the provisions relating to prisoners' correspondence. At the 721st meeting, the Romanian Delegation indicated that the bill in question had been tabled but that the legislative modification had already been made by way of an order. At the 749th meeting, the Delegation stated that the “package” of bills, including one concerning the correspondence of detainees relevant to this case, had been withdrawn for examination by the new government. They will probably be presented for adoption later on. Information on these various points is awaited.
Restricted information: At the 764^th meeting (October 2001), the Deputies asked the Secretariat to prepare a draft interim resolution, but at the 775^th meeting (January 2002), the Romanian Delegation asked for a postponement, explaining that information would be provided very shortly.

Sub-section 5.1

- 1 case against Switzerland

H54-2799 19800 R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678
The case concerns the fact that the applicant could not obtain a review of the lawfulness of his detention pending trial because he was successively transferred from one canton to another, so that the courts of the transferring canton no longer had jurisdiction to decide the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§4).
General measures: On 08/10/1999, the Deputies adopted Interim Resolution DH(99)678 summarising all measures taken and envisaged and agreed to resume consideration of this case once the legislative reforms were completed or at the latest in autumn 2001. At the 792^nd meeting (April 2002), the Swiss Delegation indicated that the draft reform would be submitted to the Parliament in 2004. However, they added that the direct effect of the Convention and the Court's case-law was sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future.

- 1 case against Turkey

H54-2807 18954 Zana, judgment of 25/11/97
The case concerns in particular the fact that the applicant could not appear in person at the hearing before the Court of Appeal which handed down his definitive prison sentence, and the excessive length of the relevant criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).
General measures: The necessity to clarify the effect of Article 226§4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was at the origin of the violation of the right to a fair trial, was raised. In 1998, the Turkish authorities prepared a bill amending this provision. The new provision of the Code (Article 194) will allow a judge not to summon an accused to a hearing only if the latter agrees not to attend. According to the information provided by the Turkish delegation at the 760^th meeting (July 2001), the draft law was being examined by parliament. At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Turkish Delegation specified that the above-mentioned amendment was envisaged as a part of a broader reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure which should be adopted following the general elections of 3 November 2002.

- 2 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-2805 25594 Hashman and Harrup, judgment of 25/11/99 – Grand Chamber
The case concerns a “binding-over” order, imposed on the applicants for having disrupted a fox hunt, not to breach peace or behave contra bonos mores in the future, although their behaviour did not constitute any breach of peace. The Court considered that the binding-over order, based on the notion of “behaviour contra bonos mores”, did not comply with the Convention requirement that it be “prescribed by law” (violation of Article 10).
General measures: The United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that they remained committed to undertaking a full review of the law relating to binding over and, at the 775^th bis meeting (January 2002) they announced that a consultation document was being prepared to that effect and might be issued in October 2002. In the interim, the Crown Prosecution Service Casework Bulletin No. 6 of 2000 gave guidance to prosecutors that they should not ask a court to consider a binding-over order unless there is evidence of past conduct which, if repeated, is likely to cause a breach of the peace. The guidance also suggested that courts could be encouraged to ensure that the behaviour to be avoided was made quite clear in the order. In July 2002, the question was raised of whether any example of change in the case-law was already available as a result of these measures. Moreover, the judgment of the European Court had been published in several legal journals (inter alia: The Times Law Report, 1.10.98; European Human Rights Review, 1999, issue 1; Criminal Law Review, 1999, pp. 451-452).

Sub-section 5.1

H46-2806 26494 J.T., judgment of 30/03/00 - Friendly settlement
The Court took note of a friendly settlement reached between the government and the applicant, who was involuntarily detained in a psychiatric institution until 1996, and who complained of the legislation under which she was unable to obtain the change of the person appointed “nearest relative”, in her case, her mother with whom she was in conflict (complaint under Article 8).
General measures: The Government has undertaken to modify the legislation involved in this case so as to allow committed psychiatric patients to contest the status of "nearest relative" before a court if the patient submits reasonable objections to a person acting in such capacity. In addition, it would be provided that certain persons could be excluded from acting in the capacity of "nearest relative". The draft amendment containing these provisions has been transmitted to the Secretariat which is awaiting confirmation of the adoption of these measures. The judgment of the European Court has been published, but confirmation of the details of this publication is also awaited.
The government has also paid the applicant 500 pounds sterling as well as a sum corresponding to the reasonable costs she incurred at national level, but the date of the payment has not yet been confirmed.

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

- 1 case against France

H46-806 33592 Baumann, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01
The case concerns an infringement of the applicant's right of access to a court in order to obtain recognition of his right of property with respect to possessions seized and then confiscated by decision of a court (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant's right to liberty of movement, due to the seizure and then confiscation of his passport (violation of Article 2 Protocol No. 4).
Individual measure: Following the judgment of the European Court, which is directly applicable, the applicant has the possibility to lodge a request for restitution of his effects based on Articles 710 and 711 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
General measures: The European Court's judgment has been sent to all Attorneys General of courts of appeal. Confirmation of publication is awaited. The issue concerning practical use of the right of appeal provided for in article 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains to be examined. The dissemination of the judgement to examining magistrates is also expected. In addition, information is awaited concerning precisely how the appeal provided in Article 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised (this information was requested at the first consideration of the case).

SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION
(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

- 1 case against Austria

H46-2808 32381 Baischer, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02
The case concerns the absence of a public hearing in administrative criminal proceedings conducted in 1994 before an Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) against the applicant for an administrative offence under the Motor Vehicles Act (Kraftfahrgesetz) (violation of Article 6§1).
General measures: At the 798^th meeting, the Government was invited to publish the European Court's judgment and disseminate it to Independent Administrative Panels.

- 1 case against Finland

H46-2809 25702 K. and T., judgment of 12/07/01 – Grand Chamber
This case concerns in particular the authorities' failure to respect the applicants' right to family life, first on account of the emergency care order concerning one of the applicants' daughters and secondly on account of the failure to take proper steps to reunite the applicants' family (violations of Article 8).
General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been widely disseminated to all relevant authorities. It has been suggested that it would be useful to issue a circular underlining §§ 168, 178 and 179 of the judgment and the alternative measures which could have been taken. Confirmation of the publication is awaited.

- 3 cases against France

H32-987 23321 Delbec I, Interim Resolution DH(98)15
The case concerns the infringement of the applicant's right to her private life, in that she was deprived of her right to visit her children and was unable to obtain a review of her visiting rights because of the prefect's refusal to disclose the address of her ex-husband (violation of Article 8).
General measures: Dissemination of the former European Commission's report to préfectures, together with a letter explaining how this case was solved (giving the applicant the references of a lawyer representing the ex-husband) was requested at the 798th meeting (June 2002). Information is still awaited.

H46-2810 33951 Caloc, judgment of 20/07/00
The case concerns in particular the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages (7 years) (violation of Article 6§1).
General measures: By a letter dated 11/06/2002, the French Delegation informed the Secretariat that the judgment of the European Court had been transmitted on 16/05/2002, to the General Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Fort-de-France for dissemination.

H32-2811 20282 G.B. I
The case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant's confinement to a mental hospital as well as the excessive length of subsequent criminal proceedings (violations of Articles 5§1 and 6§1).
General measures: The Secretariat is awaiting confirmation of the publication of the Commission's report in a medical journal and/or the confirmation of its broad dissemination, with a circular letter, in medical circles. By letter of 19/02/2001, the French Delegation informed the Secretariat that the Ministry of Health had undertaken to disseminate the Commission's report to the professionals concerned.

Sub-section 5.3

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-2812 55479 Slezevicius, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02
The case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (more than 4 years and 2 months) against the applicant in connection with allegations of financial impropriety amounting to abuse of office whilst Prime Minister (violation of Article 6§1).
General measures: The judgment of the European Court was translated and published in the second edition of the Collection of the European Court of Human Right's judgments in cases against the Lithuanian Republic (01/01/2001- 01/01/2002). The need for a wide dissemination of the judgment, notably to prosecutors, was mentioned at the 792^nd meeting (April 2002) in order to avoid new, similar violations. Information is awaited on the progress made to that effect.

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-1026 32605 Rutten, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01
The case concerns the fact that the decision to prolong the applicant's confinement to a secure institution was given after the expiry of the time-limit provided for by national law and more than one month after the expiry of the initial confinement order. Moreover, it took the Court of Appeal more than three months to rule on the applicant's subsequent appeal against this decision. According to domestic law, a confinement order remains in force as long as no final decision on a request for its prolongation has been taken. The European Court found that the lawfulness of the applicant's detention was not decided “speedily” (violation of Article 5§4).
General measures: At the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Government was invited to publish and disseminate the judgment of the European Court to the Arnhem Court of Appeal, to regional courts and to public prosecutors. The confirmation of the publication and dissemination is awaited.

- 1 case against Portugal

H46-2814 29813+ Almeida Garret, Mascarenhas Falcao and others, arrêts du 11/01/00 and 10/04/01
The applicants complained in particular of a breach of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the absence of any final compensation for the nationalisation and expropriation of their land (violation of Article 1, Protocol No. 1).
Individual measures: the Portuguese Government informed the Committee by a letter of 22 February 2002 of the payment of the final compensation after 24 years of national proceedings.
General measures: the Portuguese Government has informed the Committee that the judgment of the European Court has been circulated to all authorities concerned and that its publication is envisaged in the near future in a journal of comparative law. Precise details as to the date and the scope of the publication have been requested.

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-2816 32340 Curley, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00
The case concerns the absence of a timely review by a court of the lawfulness of the applicant's continued detention “at Her Majesty's pleasure” after expiry of the tariff (violation of Article 5§4) and the fact that the applicant could not obtain compensation for that breach (violation of Article 5§5).
General Measures: With regard to the violation of Article 5§4, measures have already been adopted (see Resolutions DH(98)149 and DH(98)150 in the cases of Hussain and Singh respectively). With regard to the violation of Article 5§5, the Secretariat has received confirmation from the United Kingdom authorities that the applicant, if he so wishes, could lodge an application for compensation following the mechanisms provided for by the Human Rights Act. The publication of the judgment of the European Court has been requested.

Sub-section 5.3

H46-1068 29392 Z. and others, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber
The case concerns, in particular, the failure of local authorities to fulfill their obligation to protect the applicants (minors at the time) from inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by their parents (violation of Article 3) and the fact that they had no effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).
General measures: the Government was invited to publish the European Court's judgment and disseminate it to all authorities directly concerned. The confirmation of publication and dissemination is awaited. The United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the legislation in question (Child Care Act 1980) has been replaced by the Children Act 1989, which came into force on 14/10/1991. As regards specifically the violation of Article 13, the Government was invited to clarify whether the Human Rights Act (HRA) provided a legal basis for damages claims, given that the domestic legal system did not establish liability of local authorities for damages in similar cases. The Government is of the opinion that this question is dealt with in Section 8 (4) of the HRA, which states that, in determining whether to make an award and if so the amount of it, domestic courts must take into account the principles applied by the European Court under Article 41 of the Convention. According to the Government this provision meets the above-mentioned concern.

H46-1070 28945 T.P. and K.M., judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber
The case concerns a breach of the applicants' right to respect for family life, in that the first applicant was deprived of adequate involvement in the decision-making process concerning the care of her daughter (the second applicant), as a result of the local authority's failure to submit a video document to the competent national court in order to determine whether to disclose it to the first applicant. This interference was considered by the Court as “not necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 8). It also concerns the fact that the applicants did not have available to them an appropriate means for obtaining a determination of their allegations that the local authority breached their right to respect for family life and the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation for the consequent damage (violation of Article 13).
General measures: At the 760th meeting (June 2001), the Government was invited to publish the European Court's judgment and disseminate it to local authorities and the courts competent to examine cases of this kind. The confirmation of the publication and dissemination is awaited.
At the same meeting, the Government indicated that the Human Rights Act (HRA) could provide a sufficient remedy to the violations found (for details see CM/Del/OJ/OT(2001)775, section 4.2). As regards specifically the violation of Article 13, the Government was invited to clarify whether the HRA provided a legal basis for damages claims, given that the domestic legal system did not establish liability of the local authorities for damages in similar cases. The Government is of the opinion that this question is dealt with in Section 8 (4) of the HRA, which states that, in determining whether to make an award and if so the amount of it, the domestic courts must take into account the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 41 of the Convention. According to the Government this provision meets the above-mentioned concern.

SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

No new case

SECTION 6 - CASES WAITING 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

- 19 cases against Austria

H46-971 37075 Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02
H46-972 35019 Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02
H46-2817 33382 Fischer Joseph, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02
H46-2818 33501 Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01
H46-2819 29477 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00
H46-2820 30428 Beer Gertrude, judgment of 06/02/01
H46-2821 27783 T., judgment of 14/11/00
H46-2822 25878 Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00
H54-2823 15153 Vereinigung Demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Berthold Gubi,
judgment of 19/12/94
H32-2824 26113 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H.
H46-2825 28501 Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00
H46-2826 35115 Riepan, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01
H46-2827 37950 Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01
H46-2828 26958 Jerusalem, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01
H32-2829 17291 Hortolomei
H46-2830 32097 Biegler Bau GesmbH, judgment of 11/07/2002 - Friendly settlement
H46-2831 31266 G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01
H46-2832 26297 G.S., judgment of 21/12/99
H46-2833 33915 Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

H32-2834 30381 Mironov - Interim Resolution DH(99)352
H46-2835 32438 Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-2784 29515 Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

- 1 case against Croatia

H46-3836 53227 Majstorović, judgment of 06/06/2002 - Friendly settlement

- 3 cases against the Czeck Republic

H46-2838 33644 Cesky, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00
H46-2839 31315 Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00
H46-2840 35848 Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

- 1 case against Denmark

H46-2841 48470 Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Finland

H46-2842 25651 L., judgment of 27/04/00, final on 27/07/00

- 57 cases against France

H46-948 34791 Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00
H46-950 35589 Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01
H46-983 41943 L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

Section 6

H46-988 53118 Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-991 46708 Zaheg, judgment of 9/02/02, final on 19/05/02
H46-2843 31070 Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00
H54-2844 21802 Muller, judgment of 17/03/97
H32-2845 24263 Areno
H46-2846 37786 Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00
H32-2847 23438 Elbialy
H32-2848 22578 G.N. II
H46-2849 39779+ Gombert and Gochgarian, judgment of 13/02/201, final on 13/05/01
H54-2850 28213 I.A., judgment of 23/09/98
H32-2851 18847 J-P.DV
H32-2852 15091 L.D.
H32-2853 21911 Lanza
H32-2854 17831 Morganti
H46-2855 38781 P.B., judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00
H46-2856 34947 Richet, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01
H32-2857 24245 Touihri
H46-2858 46693 Chapus, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01
H46-2859 38398 Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01
H46-2860 47194 Leboeuf, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement
H46-2861 44791 Marcel, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement
H32-2862 27518 A.S.
H32-2863 35259 Nagler
H32-2864 31603 Hermant
H46-2865 38687 Djaid, judgment of 29/09/99, final on 29/12/99
H32-2867 31842 Darmagnac Pierre V
H46-2868 40493 Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00
H46-2869 43288 Mahieu, judgment of 19/06/01
H32-2870 25309 Maljean
H54-2871 36313 Henra, judgment of 29/04/98
H54-2872 36317 Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98
H54-2873 32217 Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98
H54-2874 33441 Richard, judgment of 22/04/98
H46-2875 25803 Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber
H46-2876 33933 Guisset, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/09/00
H32-2877 26496 Société Fruehauf la France
H46-2878 31819+ Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01
H46-2879 34553 Dulaurans, judgment of 21/03/00
H32-2880 27659 Ferville
H32-2881 28845 Venot
H32-2882 33656 Lemoine Daniel
H32-2883 17572 A.C.
H54-2884 25201 Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98
H54-2885 24767 Omar, judgment of 29/07/98
H54-2886 14032 Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93
H46-2887 25444 Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99
H32-2888 27413 Cazes
H46-2889 34406 Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00
H46-2890 25088 Chassagnou and others, judgment of 29/04/99
H54-2891 25017 Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97
H32-2892 27019 Slimane-Kaïd I
H54-2893 23618 Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98
H46-2894 37257 Lucas, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01
H46-2895 44617 Leray and others, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02