Ministers’ Deputies

Agenda

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2006)970 Public    21 July 2006

———————————————

970th meeting (DH), 4 July 2006

Annotated Agenda[1]

Public information version

——————————————

This document only takes into account the information available to the Secretariat on 12 June 206.

CONTENTS

GENERAL QUESTIONS. 4

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS. 6

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES. 11

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION. 50

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS (INDIVIDUAL MEASURES, MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS) 77

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED.. 137

SECTION 6 - CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION. 142

c. PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING (976th MEETING, 17-18 October 2006) 160

Additional documents

Addendum General Questions

Addendum 1 - Final Resolutions

Addendum 4 – Cases raising special questions

Addendum Preparation of the next DH meeting (976th meeting, 17-18 October 2006)

GENERAL QUESTIONS

a.                     Adoption of the 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, No. 13 and No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection
                        of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

No decision under this item.

c.                     Preparation of the next meeting (976th meeting (17-18 October 2006))

                       See Addendum Preparation of the next meeting

d.                    New working methods of the Deputies’ Human Rights meetings

                       CM/Inf/DH(2006)9-rev

e.                     Obligation of states to furnish all necessary facilities to the European Court in its investigations with a view to establishing the facts (Article 38 of the Convention)

            ResDH(2001)66

                        CM/Inf/DH(2006)20

*f                      Presentation of the priorities of the Finnish Chairmanship of the European Union

No decision under this item.

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS

(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.

Decision: The Deputies adopted final Resolutions ResDH(2006)46 to ResDH(2006)48 as they appear in the Volume of Resolutions in the cases appearing in Section 1.

                        SUB-SECTION 1.1 – LEADING CASES

- 1 case against Poland

30218/96           Nowicka, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 03/03/03

                       SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

                      

- 14 cases against Greece

                       - Cases of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

2895/03            Atmatzidi, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

47730/99          Entreprises Meton and Etep, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

37253/02          Giannakopoulou, judgment of 02/06/05, final on 02/09/05

1985/03            Grylli, judgment of 30/06/05, final on 30/09/05

28338/02          Jarnevic and Profit, judgment of 07/04/2005, final on 07/07/2005

9733/03            Kaggali, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

33194/02          Kokkini, judgment of 17/02/2005, final on 17/05/2005

43863/02          Kolybiri, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005

37249/02          Korre, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005

27302/03          Koutrouba, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005

43839/02          Panagakos, judgment of 09/06/05, final on 09/09/05

18375/03          Potiri, judgment of 23/06/05, final on 23/09/05

41621/02          Zafiropoulos, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/09/2005

38240/02          Zolotas, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

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

- 1 case against Hungary

60037/00           Németh, judgment of 13/01/04, final on 09/02/04

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

                        No new case

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES

This section lists the new judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights, (for further details, see the texts of the judgments on http://www.echr.coe.int).

Action

The Deputies are invited to take a decision to resume consideration of these cases following expiry of the date-limit set by the Court for payment of the just satisfaction or, depending on the requirements of the cases, on completion of bilateral consultations between the Secretariat and the delegations concerned.

Payment of just satisfaction

In all new cases in which states are obliged to pay a sum, whether granted by the Court or agreed to in friendly settlement, the authorities of the state concerned are invited to provide written confirmation of payment to the Secretariat.

In all these cases, just satisfaction or sums agreed under a friendly settlement has been awarded to the applicants except in the following cases:

47797/99+         Kehaya and others, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006 (Bulgaria)

70861/01           Mlynář, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 12/04/2006 (Czech Republic)

42191/02           R.R., judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 12/04/2006 (Italy)

73443/01+         Freimanis and Līdums, judgment of 09/02/2006, final on 09/05/2006 (Latvia)

9013/02            Świerzko, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006 (Poland)

66462/01           Bratchikova, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 12/04/06 (Russian Federation)

13886/02           Atanasovic and others, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 12/04/2006 (“the Former Yugoslov Republic of Macedonia”)

45403/99           Bişkin, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006 (Turkey)

49160/99           Mordeniz, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006 (Turkey)

52656/99           Akbaba, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006 (Turkey)

58397/00           Özsoy, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006 (Turkey)

13062/03           Kuzu, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006 (Turkey)

50037/99           Akkoç Talattin, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 12/04/2006 (Turkey)

52895/99           Reçber, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006 (Turkey)

66848/01           Yayan, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006 (Turkey)

General or individual measures

The general and/or individual measures required are currently under consideration in the context of bilateral consultations.

However, in all cases circulation of the text of the judgment to the competent authorities is required and delegations are invited to provide written confirmation of this.

Decision unless specified otherwhise: The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of these items at their 976th meeting (17-18 October 2006) (DH), on the basis of further information to be provided by the authorities of the respondent state concerning payment of the sums awarded or agreed in these cases.

- 3 cases against Austria

46389/99           Albert-Engelmann-Gesellschaft mbH, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

The case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant company’s freedom of expression in that it was convicted of defamation under section 111 § 1 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with section 6 of the Media Act for publishing an anonymous letter in its magazine in 1996. This letter criticised a Catholic priest for being highly placed in the hierarchy despite being disloyal to the Church and the Pope.

In proceedings brought by the priest in question, the applicant company was convicted in 1998 of defamation, the domestic court finding that the contents of the letter passed as factual statements but lacked sufficient basis in fact. The applicant company was ordered to pay compensation and all costs of the proceedings as well as to publish the judgment. Contrary to these findings, the European Court held that the statement at issue was a value judgment for which sufficient factual basis existed and which was not an excessive personal attack. Consequently, the interference complained of was not necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: The European Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction with regard to non-pecuniary damage and awarded just satisfaction for pecuniary damage in respect of the fine and the court costs paid.

Furthermore, the applicant may request reopening of the domestic criminal proceedings under section 363a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 

General measures: As with all judgments of the European Court against Austria concerning criminal law, the judgment was automatically transmitted to all presidents of all higher courts, to bring the judgment to the attention of all judicial authorities in their area of competence. Furthermore, judgments of the European Court are accessible to all judges and state attorneys through the internet database of the Austrian Federal Chancellery.

In this kind of cases, the Committee of Ministers has, in principle, acknowledged the direct effect of the Convention and its case-law in Austrian law (see Lingens judgment of 08/07/86, Resolution DH(87)2; Oberschlick judgment of 23/05/91, Resolution DH (93)60; Schwabe judgment of 28/08/92, Resolution DH(94)23). However, this direct effect did not prevent the violation of the Convention in the present case, involving a subtle assessment of Article 10 requirements. Meanwhile, Vienna Court of Appeal in March 2001 aquitted the Austrian political scientist Mr A. Pelinka in a partly similar context (Oberlandesgericht Wien 24 bs 244/00), holding the impugned value statement could not be regarded as excessive as it was supported by the relevant facts. Furthermore, the Austrian authorities informed the Secretariat in the case of Scharsach (section 6.2), that a seminar on Article 10 of the Convention, organised by the Independent Human rights centre Lüdwig Boltzmann Institut für Menschenrechte, would take place on 15/06/2005 at the Training Centre of the Higher Regional Court of Vienna and would be open to all judges and state attorneys dealing with media questions.

Complementary information would be helpful as to the impact of the seminar and notably a change of domestic courts’ practice as well as further training if envisaged and the publication of the European Court’s judgment.

7336/03            R.H., judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

The case concerns the fact that former Article 209 of the Austrian Criminal Code, in force at the material time, incriminated consensual male homosexual acts by adults with adolescents between the ages of fourteen and eighteen whereas consensual heterosexual or lesbian acts between adults and consenting persons aged fourteen or over were not criminalised.

The European Court found that Article 209, and the applicant’s sentencing in April 2002 under this Article to 9 months’ imprisonment (of which 6 months suspended on probation) constituted a discriminatory restriction of his right to private life (violation of Article 14 combined with Article 8).

Individual measures: According to Section 363a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended in 1996, the applicant may ask for the reopening of the proceedings in order to have the consequences of his conviction erased.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of L. and V. (judgment of 09/01/2003, final on 09/04/2003, Section 6.2). On 10/07/2002; subsequent to the facts of the present case, Article 209 of the Austrian Criminal Code was repealed, with effect from 14/08/2002. The new Article 207b of the Criminal Code penalises sexual acts between adults and adolescents in certain specific circumstances and is applicable irrespective of whether the sexual acts at issue are heterosexual, male homosexual or lesbian.

All judgments of the European Court against Austria concerning criminal cases are automatically transmitted to the competent Higher Regional Court with the request to inform all subordinate judicial authorities as appropriate. Furthermore, judgments of the European Court are accessible to all judges and state attorneys on the internal database of the Ministry of Justice.

Decision: The Deputies 1.             having noted the information provided by the delegation of the respondent state, instructed the Secretariat to consider the advisability of preparing a draft final resolution in this case; 2.             agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 976th meeting (17-18 October 2006) (DH).

76293/01           Brugger, judgment of 26/01/2006, final on 26/04/2006

The case concerns the fact that, in March 2001, the applicant was denied an oral hearing before the Administrative Court in the context of proceedings concerning an application under the Carinthian Environmental Protection Act for permission to build a tool-shed on his land (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The European Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction with regard to non-pecuniary damage. Article 45§1 of the Administrative Court Act 1985 provides the possibility to reopen proceedings upon request by one of the parties when the provisions concerning the right to be heard were not complied with and it is to be assumed that the judgment might  have been different. 

General measures: Following the legislative reform which entered into force on 01/09/1997, Article 39§2(6) of the Amended Administrative Court Act No. 88 of 13/08/1997 provides that the Administrative Court may decide not to hold a hearing where it is apparent to the Court “from the pleadings of the parties to the proceedings before it and from the files relating to earlier administrative proceedings that an oral hearing is not likely to clarify the case further and when this will not be contrary to Article 6 of the Convention" (see the case of Stallinger and Kuso (Resolution DH(97)405) and the case of Linsbod (Resolution DH(98)59). Unlike the cases of Bakker (Section 6.2) and Birnleitner (6.1), the facts of this case do not relate to a transitional period, as they occurred more than three years after the entry into force of the reformed law. In that way, the case is similar to the case of Schelling, in which the Austrian government has informed the Secretariat that the Administrative Court is to pay any just satisfaction awarded to the applicant out of its own budget, a measure which could contribute towards preventing new, similar violations. As with all judgments of the European Court against Austria concerning a violation at the level of the Administrative Court, the judgment was automatically transmitted to the Presidency of that Court. Furthermore, judgments of the European Court are accessible to all judges and state attorneys through the internal database of the Austrian Ministry of Justice. Information on publication of the European Court’s judgment is awaited.

- 8 cases against Bulgaria

46317/99           Ognyanova and Choban, judgment of 23/02/2006, final on 23/05/2006

43233/98           Osman, judgment of 16/02/2006, final on 16/05/2006

45500/99           Tzekov, judgment of 23/02/2006, final on 23/05/2006

The first of these cases concerns breaches of the right to life and of the prohibition of ill-treatment, since the authorities failed to account fully for the death in 1993of a relative of the applicants, as result of his fall from a third-floor window of the police station where he was being detained, or for the injuries he received during detention (violations of Articles 2 and 3).

The two other cases concern the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicants by police officers in 1995 and 1996, respectively during an attempt to evict the applicants from their house and during the applicants’ arrest (violations of Article 3). The European Court noted in particular in the case of Tzekov that the National Police Act provided for the use of a firearm by police officers in order to arrest an individual even in circumstances where such measure is not strictly necessary and proportionate.

All these cases also concern the lack of effective investigation by the Bulgarian authorities into this death and ill-treatment (violations of Articles 2 and 13 or 3).

The Ognyanova and Choban case also relates to the illegal detention of a relative of the applicants, since it was not clear which provisions of domestic law provided the basis for this person to be taken into custody (violation of Article 5§1).

Finally, the Osman case also concerns the illegal destruction of certain property of the applicants during an attempt to evict them (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 421§§1 and 2 and 422§1-4), the Prosecutor General is obliged to request the reopening of the proceedings following a judgment of the European Court within one month from the date upon which he took cognisance of it. Information is awaited in this respect. 

General measures:

            1) Violation of Articles 2, 3, 5§1, 13 and 1 of Protocol No.1: General measures adopted or under way within the framework of the Velikova and Anguelova cases (at the 976th meeting, October 2006), are also relevant to the present cases.

However, the authorities could consider sending the judgments of the European Court to the competent investigation organs in order to draw their attention to the deficiencies of the enquiries conducted in these cases. 

            2) Violation of Article 3 in the Tzekov case (insufficient nature of the legal framework for the use of firearms by police officers): this issue has been raised during the examination of the case of Nachova and others (976th meeting, October 2006).

44624/98           Prikyan and Angelova, judgment of 16/02/2006, final on 16/05/2006

The case relates to the lack of adversarial proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation concerning an action brought by the applicants in 1994 to recover possession of a flat (violation of Article 6§1). The applicants were deprived of an opportunity to submit their arguments on a matter that was decisive for the outcome of the proceedings, as the Supreme Court, sitting as final instance, determined that the period for adverse possession had lapsed in favour of the applicants’ opponents, without submitting this issue for discussion. 

Individual measures: The applicants may ask for the reopening of the proceedings on basis of Article 231§1, letter “z” of the Code of Civil Procedure.

General measures:

·         Present situation: The relevant procedural rules have been modified in 1998, subsequent to the facts in this case. At present, in cassation proceedings only observations raised by the parties are examined (Art. 218 letter “j” of the Code of Civil Procedure). Moreover, the European Court noted that at the material time the rules of procedure (which are still to force) authorised the Supreme Court of Cassation to reopen proceedings, to enable parties to submit and discuss observations raised ex officio (§§26 and 51 of the judgment).

Finally, it should be noted that the procedural rules concerning the examination of a civil case at first instance and appeal sufficiently guarantee respect of the parties’ right to examine and discuss all elements and observations submitted during proceedings.

·         Evaluation: In these circumstances, the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the relevant civil courts to enable them to take the Court’s considerations into account and to draw their attention to their obligations under the Convention appear to be sufficient measures for execution.

59491/00           UMO Ilinden and others, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

The case concerns the competent courts’ refusal to register the association Ilinden in 1998-99, based on insufficient grounds to justify such a radical measure (violation of Article 11).

The European Court noted in this respect that the alleged formal deficiencies in the registration documents or the supposed substantive divergences of Ilinden’s articles with the laws of the country did not constitute, in the circumstances of the case, sufficient reason to deny registration. As regards to the alleged dangers stemming from Ilinden’s goals and declarations, the Court considered that the refusal to register the association was not necessary to protect the territorial integrity of the country, the public order or the rights and freedoms of the majority of the population in the region in question. The Court reiterated in this respect that the fact that a group of persons calls for autonomy or even requests secession of part of the country’s territory – thus demanding fundamental constitutional and territorial changes – cannot automatically justify interferences in their rights under Article 11. Concerning the applicant organisation’s virulent style and its acerbic criticism of the authorities’ actions, the Court recalled that the freedom of expression protects not only “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as matter of indifference, but also those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. 

Individual measures: the European Court noted in its judgment that in 2002-2004 the competent courts once again refused to register the applicant association. These facts are the object of another application, currently pending before the Court. It should be noted also that in 2000 the Constitutional Court dissolved the political party Ilinden – Pirin, close to the applicant association, on grounds similar to those relied on by the courts in the present case (case of the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – Pirin and others, see below).

In these circumstances, it appears necessary rapidly to receive information on the present situation of the applicant association and in particular on the present possibility of registration.

General measures: the case presents similarities to four other cases relating to the right to freedom of assembly and association of Ilinden and its members (Stankov and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, judgment of 02/10/2001, final resolution ResDH(2004)78 ; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden - Pirin and others, judgment of 20/10/2005, Section 3A ; United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov, judgment of 20/10/2005, Section 3A and Ivanov and others, judgment of 24/11/2005, Section 3A).

The Bulgarian authorities have already been invited to provide information on additional measures envisaged or already adopted in view of enhancing the efficiency of the measures adopted in 2002-2004 following the Stankov judgment. 

In any event, it seems necessary to publish the judgment of the European Court and send it out to the relevant courts in order to allow them to take into account the considerations of the Court and to draw their attention to their obligations under the Convention.

The Secretariat will write to the Bulgarian authorities inviting them to present a plan of action for the execution of this judgment.

47797/99+         Kehaya and others, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006

The case concerns the failure by the Bulgarian courts to respect the final character of a judgment of 1996, ordering the restitution of certain plots of land to the applicants (violation of Article 6§1). In 2000, following proceedings brought by the local forest authority, the Supreme Court of Cassation reconsidered the issues determined in 1996 and found that the applicants were not legally entitled to the land in question.

The Supreme Court of Cassation found that the decision of 1996 did not have res judicata effects to the forest authority, as this decision was given in proceedings which were administrative by their nature, with the participation of the restitution commission. 

The case also concerns a breach to the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants’ property, as the Supreme Court of Cassation’s decision of 2000 had the effect of depriving them of their possession, in violation of the principle of legal certainty. Furthermore, one of the applicants was fined in 1997 for having used the land which belonged to him according to the decision of 1996 (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The question of the application of Article 41 has been reserved concerning the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the costs incurred for a valuation report.

General measures: The European Court noted in its judgment that according to the case-law prevalent at the material time, judgments concerning restitution of agricultural land (under the Agricultural Land Act of 1991) do not have res judicata effects. The contrary was stated in a decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 2003 (decision 1021/2003, see §45 of the judgment of the European Court). 

• Information required: on the present practice followed by the Bulgarian courts as regards this question and, if appropriate, on the measures envisaged to guarantee that disputes decided by final decisions given in the framework of land restitution proceedings are not reconsidered as regards the same parties (the state should be considered as one party, even if it is represented by different authorities).

In any event, it seems necessary to publish the judgment of the European Court and send it out to the relevant courts in order to allow them to take into account the considerations of the Court and to draw their attention to their obligations under the Convention.

The Secretariat will write to the Bulgarian authorities inviting them to present, if necessary, a plan of action for the execution of this judgment.

41211/98           Iovchev, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

59913/00           Vasilev, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

These cases concern the excessive length of the applicants' pre-trial detention between 1995 and 2001, in view of the insufficient reasons to justify it and in view of the fact that “special diligence” was not displayed in the conduct of the proceedings in the Vasilev case (violations of Article 5§3). The European Court noted in the Vasilev case that the authorities repeatedly applied legal provisions and practice according to which remand in custody was imposed and maintained automatically whenever the charges concerned a serious crime, even after the 2000 reform of pre-trial detention. 

The Iovchev case also concerns a violation of the applicant's right to be brought before a judge promptly after his arrest (violation of Article 5§3).

The Vasilev case also relates to the lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention, the competent court having refused to examine the applicant's requests for bail even though that he remained in detention (violation of Article 5§4). This violation was also due to the application by the competent courts – again even after the reform 2000 – of a practice limiting the scope of the review of detention in cases concerning serious offences.

The Iovchev case also concerns the degrading conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Plovdiv Investigation Service and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 3 and 13). 

Finally, the cases concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants between 1995 and 1996 (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicants have been released. The European Court has granted just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage they suffered on account of the violations.

Information is awaited on the state of criminal proceedings, and, where appropriate, on their acceleration.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 5§§3 and 4: These cases present similarities to those of Assenov (judgment of 28/10/1998) and Nikolova (judgment of 25/03/1999) closed by Resolutions ResDH(2000)109 and ResDH(2000)110, following a legislative reform of criminal procedure which took effect from 01/01/2000.

As regards the application of former provisions and practice, even after the reform of 2000, the European Court noted in the Vasilev case that pursuant to a finding of divergent interpretations of the new legislation by the courts, in 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation delivered an interpretative judgment clarifying the grounds for pre-trial detention and the scope of review of its lawfulness (decision No. 1/2002 of 25/06/2002). According to this judgment, which is compulsorily binding on courts, the new provisions of the 2000 Code of Criminal Procedure excludes any possibility of mandatory detention.

In all cases, the authorities must establish existence of a reasonable suspicion against the accused and of a real danger of his absconding or committing an offence. This decision also provides that the review of the lawfulness of detention must deal with all relevant aspects including, if appropriate, the amount of bail.   

            2) Violation of Article 3: The Iovchev case presents similarities to that of Kehayov, scheduled for examination at the 982nd meeting (December 2006).

            3) Violation of Article 13: Given that this violation was mainly due to the authorities’ unduly formalistic approach to applying the State Responsibility for Damage Act (according to this approach non-pecuniary damage could only be proved through formal evidence, such as witness testimony) and to the excessive length of the proceedings in application of this Act in the applicant’s case, the publication and the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment in the Iovchev case to the competent courts appear to be sufficient for execution.

Information required concerning measures related to the violation of Article 13. Examples showing the change in the case-law concerning this legislation in similar cases would be appreciated.

            4) Violations of Article 6§1: These cases present similarities to that of Kitov, scheduled for examination at the 982nd meeting (December 2006).

- 7 cases against Cyprus

                        - Cases of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

Application	Case	Duration of proceedings	Courts involved	State of proceedings
6470/02	Cichowicz, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006	+5 years and 5 months	Paphos District Court	Closed
35128/02	Clerides and Kynigos, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006	+12 years	Nicosia District Court; Supreme Court	Closed
2647/02	Josephides, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006	+12 years and 5 months	Paphos District Court; Supreme Court	Closed
20429/02	Papakokkinou, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006	12 years and 10 months	Paphos District Court; Supreme Court	Closed
20435/02	Paroutis, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006	8 years and 9 days	Limassol District Court; Supreme Court	Closed
21322/02	Tsaggaris, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006	+14 years and 3 months	Limassol District Court; Supreme Court	Closed
38775/02	Waldner, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006	+13 years and 8 months	Paphos District Court; Supreme Court	Closed

These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings, brought between 1989 and 2003; two of them concern also the lack of an effective domestic remedy (violations of Articles 6§1 and 13).

Individual measures: None: proceedings closed in all cases.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 6§: These cases present similarities to that of Gregoriou (judgment of 25/03/03), Section 6.2. In the context of that case, the Cypriot authorities informed the Committee of regulatory measures (in particular a series of circulars issued by the Supreme Court from 1995 to 2003) adopted to prevent similar violations, and indicated that in 2005 the average length of proceedings before District Courts and the Supreme Court was 2½ years.

Information is awaited on further general measures adopted or envisaged by the Cyprus.

            2) Violations of Article 13:

Information is awaited on general measures adopted or envisaged for an effective domestic remedy in cases of excessively lengthy proceedings, in accordance with the Court’s judgments. The authorities’ attention is also drawn to Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies and to measures adopted by other countries confronted with similar problems (see e.g. Final Resolutions ResDH(2005)60 on Horvat and 9 other cases against Croatia; ResDH(2005)67 on Jóri and 18 other cases against the Slovak Republic).

Decision: The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of these items at a forthcoming meeting, not later than six months hence, on the basis of further information to be provided by the authorities of the respondent state concerning the general measures proposed to prevent new, similar violations.

- 5 cases against the Czech Republic

                        - Cases of length of civil proceedings

Application	Case	Length of the proceedings at the date of the judgment of the European Court	Case pending at the date of the judgment of the European Court	Proceedings began
30276/03	Dušek, judgment of 14/02/2006, final on 14/05/2006	7 years and 9 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)	Yes.	1998
28009/03	Havlíčková, judgment of 14/02/2006, final on 14/05/2006	13 years and 10 months (one deree of jurisdiction)	Yes.	1992 (when the Convention entered into force)
70861/01	Mlynář, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 12/04/2006	5 years and 9 months (4 degrees of jurisdiction)	No.	1994
15377/02	Polach, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 12/04/2006	9 years and 6 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction, of which 2 first ones twice)	No.	1992 (when the Convention entered into force)
21377/02	Skoma, spol. s r.o., judgment of 14/02/2006, final on 14/05/2006	1) 7 years and almost 10 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction, both intervening more than once) 2) 11 years and 2 months (2 degrees of jurisdiction)	1) No. 2) Yes.	1) 1994 2) 1994

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

Individual measures:

Information is awaited in the Skoma, spol. s r.o., Havlíčková and Dušek cases, on the state of the proceedings and on the measures taken or envisaged for their acceleration, if still pending.

General measures: These cases present similarities to those of Bořánková and Hartman (judgments of 07/01/2003 and 10/07/2003, scheduled for examination at the 982nd meeting, December 2006), in which the Czech authorities have already adopted and are currently adopting measures concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings and the lack of effective remedy.

- 4 cases against Finland

35083/97           Goussev and Marenk, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

36404/97           Soini and others, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

These cases concern an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression (violations of Article 10).

The applicants were young people who demonstrated against the department store Oy Stockmann Ab for selling fur coats, and in 1995 organised a sit-in on its premises in Helsinki. Around the same time pamphlets and posters appeared criticising the fur trade in general and Stockmann in particular. In 1996 Stockmann requested a pre-trial investigation on the suspicion of a public defamation. The applicants’ homes were searched and pamphlets and other written material seized. The searches were carried out on a basis other than that of suspicion of public defamation.  

The European Court observed that the relationship between the Coercive Measures Act and the Freedom of the Press Act was problematic since it was not clear whether material could be seized on suspicion of defamation during a search based on other grounds. The European Court found that the law, as it then stood, did not provide the necessary foreseeability and the interference to the applicants’ rights was therefore not prescribed by law.

Individual measures: The applicants were acquitted. Furthermore, the European Court has awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. No further individual measure thus seems necessary.

General measures: The Freedom of the Press Act was repealed by the Act on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in Mass Media which entered into force on 01/01/2004. The new Act served to clarify the relation between legislative provisions on publications and the Coercive Measures Act.

The Court’s judgment has been published in the judicial database FINLEX (www.finlex.fi).

14724/02           Hagert, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

This case concerns excessive length of several sets of proceedings before civil courts. Proceedings lasted altogether 6 years and 8 months (1995-2001) (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that there were delays in the proceedings before the District Court.

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: This case presents similarities to the Kangasluoma case (judgment of 20/01/2004, scheduled for the 982nd meeting (December 2006), in which the Finnish authorities are currently adopting measures concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings and the lack of effective remedy.

60790/00           Lönnholtz, judgment of 25/04/2006 - Friendly settlement

This case concerns the length of private prosecution proceedings brought by the applicants against certain District Court judges in 1992 (complaint under Article 6§1).

- 10 cases against France

50278/99           Aoulmi, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

This case concerns a hindrance of the effective exercise of the applicant’s right of individual petition (violation of Article 34). In 1999, seised of a request concerning alleged violations of Articles 3 and 8 if the applicant were deported to Algeria, the Court indicated interim measures to the respondent state under Rule 39, to the effect that it would be desirable to refrain from deporting the applicant until the competent Chamber had given its decision. The respondent state did not comply with these measures. Thus, the European Court held that the applicant’s removal to Algeria had hampered the examination of his complaints and had ultimately prevented the Court from affording him the necessary protection from any potential violations of the Convention. However, the Court said that there had been no violation of Articles 3 and 8.

Individual measures: The European Court has awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

General measures: The Secretariat will shortly write to the French authorities, inviting them to submit an action plan with a view to the execution of this judgment and in particular to make sure that in the future, measures indicated under Rule 39 be followed. 

51431/99           Aristimuño Mendizabal, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

This case concerns an breach of the right to private and family life of the applicant, a Spanish national, on account of the period of more than 14 years taken by the French authorities to issue her a residence permit, placing her in a precarious and uncertain situation, even though according to national law and in particular Community law she should had been issued with a residence permit promptly (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: In December 2003, the applicant was issued with a ten-year residence permit (carte de séjour). Furthermore the European Court granted her 50 000 euros in respect of all heads of damage taken together.

General measures:

• Information expected: on measures taken or envisaged in order to avoid a new, similar violation.

• Additional measure required: As the time taken to issue the residence permit had not been in accordance with the “law”, it would in particular appear necessary to transmit this judgment to the relevant authorities, so that they take it into account in the future.

58675/00           Martinie, judgment of 12/04/2006 - Grand Chamber

This case concerns the violations of the right to a fair trial of the applicant, a former accountant in the Bayonne Lycée and the French Federation of Basque Pelota (CNEA), a body which had no separate legal personality and was attached to the school’s budget. In October 1997, the Aquitaine Regional Audit Office considered that the applicant owed the school a sum corresponding to the payments he had made as the school’s public accountant between 1989 and 1993 to the CNEA’s director and himself, acting as its secretary general. At appeal, by its judgment of 20/10/1998, the Court of Audit reduced that amount to FRF 191 900. In October 1999, the applicant’s appeal on points of law lodged before the Conseil d’Etat was declared inadmissible.

The European Court found two violations of Article 6§1 as regards the proceedings before the Audit Court, since the applicant could not request a public hearing before this court and there was an imbalance detrimental to him due to the Prosecutor’s position in these proceedings.

Moreover, the European Court found a violation of Article 6§1 because of the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the bench of the Conseil d’Etat, and confirmed its case-law in the Kress judgment (judgment of 07/06/2001, Grand Chamber).

Individual measures: On 17/06/2001, the Minister of Finance granted the applicant partial remission of the surcharge levied by the Court of Audit, in the sum of 21 053,91 euros, with 762,25 euros thus remaining payable by him (§ 12 of the judgment). Before the European Court, the applicant claimed reimbursement of that sum plus statutory interest as well as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

The European Court considered it could not speculate as to the outcome of the proceedings had there not been a breach and rejected the applicant’s claims for compensation for pecuniary damage. As to the non-pecuniary damage, it found it was sufficiently made good by its finding of the violation.

•           Information is awaited on the applicant’s current situation.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 6§1 during the proceedings before the Audit Court:

As proceedings before regional audit offices are conducted in camera, the European Court considers it essential that public accountants are able to request a public hearing before the Court of Audit in appeals against first-instance judgment levying a surcharge against them.

The European Court was critical of the Prosecutor’s position in the impugned proceedings: as a matter of fact, although not regarded as a “party”, the Prosecutor was present at the hearing, was informed beforehand of the reporting judge’s point of view, heard the latter’s submissions, fully participated in the proceedings and could express his own point of view orally without being contradicted by the accountant. That imbalance was accentuated by the fact that the hearing was not public and therefore conducted in the absence of any scrutiny either by the accountant concerned or by the public.

•           Information is awaited: on the general measures already taken or envisaged in order to prevent new, similar violations.

            2) Violation of Article 6§1 due to the Government Commissioner’s participation in the deliberations of the bench of the Conseil d’Etat: This case present similarities to that of Kress (judgment of 07/06/2001, Grand Chamber) and other similar cases, which will be examined at the 982nd meeting (December 2006). In this context it should be reminded that in its Martinie judgment, the Grand Chamber clarified its previous case-law, pointing out “first of all that, although in the operative provisions (point 2) of the Kress judgment it held that there had been a breach of Article 6§1 of the Convention on account of the Government Commissioner's ‘participation’ in the deliberations of the Conseil d'Etat, in the main body of the judgment both that term (see paragraphs 80 and 87) and the term 'presence' are used (title 4 and paragraphs 82, 84 and 85), or, alternatively, the terms 'assistance', 'assists' or 'attends the deliberations (see paragraphs 77, 79, 81, 85 and 86). Nevertheless, it is clear from the facts of the case, the arguments submitted by the parties and the reasons given in the Court's judgment, together with the operative part of the judgment, that the Kress judgment uses these terms as synonyms, and that the mere presence of the Government Commissioner at the deliberations, be it 'active or 'passive', is deemed to be a violation.”

•           Information awaited, in the light of these clarifications, information is required on additional measures taken or envisaged by the French authorities, besides that already taken in the Kress case, to ensure that Government Commissioners no longer attend the deliberations of the Conseil d'Etat.

The Secretariat will shortly write to the French authorities with a view to presenting a possible action plan for the execution of this judgment.

76093/01           Barbier, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

This case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was deprived of his right of access to a court (violation of Article 6§1) as a result of two specific circumstances: first, as a result of certain failures on the part of the administration at Reims Prison where the applicant was detained, his appeal against his conviction was declared inadmissible, the prison service having failed to transmit his notice of appeal in due time to the prison’s registry. Secondly, there had been no adversarial proceedings at the hearing before the Court of Cassation at which the applicant’s appeal was declared inadmissible, although this would have been necessary: according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant may only be heard on the designation of the Court of appeal, not on the admissibility of the appeal.

Individual measures: The applicant may apply for the re-opening of his appeal under Articles L 626-1 ff of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The European Court has awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 6§1 because of the failures on the part of the prison service: The European Court, noting that in this case the procedure for lodging appeals relied merely on a practice, referred in particular to certain material problems: the absence at the prison in question of rules concerning such procedures, and times at which the registry is manned (§§ 28-30 of the judgment).

Information awaited: on measures taken or envisaged to remedy these failures.

            2) Violation of Article 6§1 due to the lack of adversarial proceedings: The Court noted in particular (§ 31) that “the applicant, in his capacity as appellant against a conviction handed down by an assize court, had only been able to submit observations on the choice of assize court of appeal (Article 380‑14 of the Code of criminal proceedings) and not on the admissibility of the appeal (Article 380-15 of the Code of criminal proceedings)”.

• Information awaited: on measures taken or envisaged to allow adversarial proceedings at the hearings before the Court of cassation in similar situations in the future.

67881/01           Gruais and Bousquet, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

This case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The Court of cassation held in 2000 that the applicants' appeals on points of law were inadmissible because they had been lodged after the time-limit. It had based its decision on the date of service as endorsed on the judgment and not the date on which the notice had actually been posted, as recorded by the postmark.

The date endorsed on the judgment by the registry had not corresponded to the actual date of dispatch and this had had the effect of reducing the period of time that the applicants should have been given to lodge their appeal. Since it was a particularly short period (five clear days, or six days at most), its reduction by one half in the present case had resulted in a particularly restrictive limitation of the actual time-limit for appeal.

Individual measures: The proceedings at issue were to contest the lawfulness of criminal actions brought against the applicants. It does not appear from the judgment whether or not they are closed as a whole. Information would be useful in this respect as well as, if need be, on how the applicants may ask for the consequences of the European Court's judgment to be remedied. In this context, it may be noted that, before the European Court the applicants asked for compensation for the loss of the possibility of winning their appeal, but the Court held that it could not speculate as to the outcome of the proceedings had the violation not taken place and thus granted just satisfaction solely in respect of non-pecuniary damage (and costs and expenses).

General measures: The Court noted the government’s statement that the circumstances of the case (discrepancy between the date endorsed on the judgment and the actual date of dispatch) were “extremely rare” (§29). Thus the violation appears to be the consequence of a material error. In this context, the observations of the authorities would be useful on the necessity to adopt general measures. In any case, it appears relevant that the judgment be disseminated to the relevant authorities.

65823/01+         Golinelli and Freymuth, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 12/04/2006

61059/00           Gouget and others, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

These cases concern the unfairness of certain proceedings before the criminal chamber of the Cour de cassation (violations of Article 6§1) in 1999 and 2000. According to the European Court's judgment, these violations were due to:

- failure to communicate the report of the reporting judge to the applicant, whereas this report had been submitted to the advocate-general (case of Gouget and others);

- failure to communicate the advocate-general's conclusions to the applicant who consequently had no opportunity to reply to them, the applicants not being represented by a member of the Court de cassation Bar (both cases);

- the advocate-general's presence at the Court's deliberations, which is, in itself, incompatible with Article 6§1 (case of Gouget and others).

Individual measures: following the proceedings at issue, the applicants were convicted. They may apply for the re-opening of their appeals under Articles L 626-1 ff of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

General measures: - concerning the failure to communicate the report of the reporting judge: these cases present similarities to those of Reinhardt and Slimane-Kaïd (22921/93, Resolution DH(98)306) and Slimane-Kaïd No. 2 (29507/95, in Section 6.2 following measures taken by the respondent state). Pursuant to the measures taken, the report of the reporting judge (a document establishing the question of law raised by the case) is now communicated, together with the file, to both the public prosecutor and the parties; but his opinion on the decision to be adopted and the draft judgments he proposes for the deliberations of the Cour de cassation are communicated to neither.

- concerning the lack of communication of the sense of the advocate-general's conclusions to the applicant, these cases present similarities to those of Voisine (27362/95) and Meftah and others (32911/96), in Section 6.2 following the measures taken by the respondent state. All parties to proceedings before the Cour de cassation, whether or not they are represented by a member of the Cour de cassation Bar, are now informed before the hearing of the general tenor of the advocate-general's conclusions. They may reply to the oral opinion and conclusions of the advocate-general through a written note, either produced before the hearing or sent to the court during its deliberations.

- concerning the presence of the advocate-general at the deliberations of the Cour de cassation: these cases present similarities to that of Fontaine and Bertin (Section 3.b), in which the examination of general measures has been closed in view of the measures adopted by the respondent state. Hearings have been re-organised into a first, public part, during which the reports of the members of the Court and the opinions and submissions of the advocates-general are developed, followed by a second, non-public part, during which the Court deliberates. As a consequence, advocates-general no longer attend the deliberations.

- Cases concerning the excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect

32929/02           Barillon, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

22897/02           Barillon No. 2, judgment of 09/02/2006, final on 09/05/2006

60495/00           Dukmedjian, judgment of 31/01/2006, final on 01/05/2006

These cases concern the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations or the determination of criminal charges before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1). Proceedings began respectively in 1999 (more than 3 years and 4 months for one degree of jurisdiction), 1997 (more than 6 years and 10 months for three degrees of jurisdiction) and 1984 (15 years and 9 months for four degrees of jurisdiction).

The two Barillon cases also concern the absence of an effective remedy in relation to the length of the proceedings (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 6§1: these cases present similarities to that of Sapl (judgment of 18/12/2001) and other cases of length of proceedings before administrative courts, closed by Resolution ResDH(2005)63 following the measures announced by the respondent state, in particular Law No. 2002-1138 of 09/09/2002, providing inter alia recruitment of staff, the creation of new courts and budgetary resources and procedural measures to enable administrative courts both to reduce their backlogs more quickly and reduce the flow of incoming cases.

            2) Violations of Article 13: it is recalled that in the case of Broca and Texier-Micault (judgment of 21/10/2003) the European Court found that a remedy now exists in French law whereby complaint may be made against the excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts, but that applicants could not be required to exhaust it in the framework of applications lodged before 01/01/2003 (as in these cases).

- 2 cases against Greece

2531/02            Athanasiou and others, judgment of 09/02/2006, final on 09/05/2006

The case concerns the partial expropriation of the four applicants’ land in 1997 and the construction of a two-track railway line and a railway bridge nearby, which resulted in a substantial devaluation of the remaining, unexpropriated parts of the applicants’ land. The European Court found that the Court of Cassation in June 2001 had failed to maintain the necessary balance between public interest and the applicants’ right to protection of their property by not compensating the applicants for this devaluation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction covering their pecuniary damage. In addition, three of the applicants have been awarded compensation by domestic courts for the fact that they can no longer build on the unexpropriated part of the land following its division. No further measure appears necessary.

General measures: The case presents similarities to the Ouzounoglou case, in the Tsirikakis group (12 cases concerning various violations related to land expropriation proceedings, Section 4.1), in the context of which Greece has adopted a series of legislative, jurisprudential and other measures.

It should be particularly noted that in its  judgment No. 31/2005, the Court of Cassation has now established in its case-law (with an express reference to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) that following a land expropriation, the individual affected has a right to compensation covering not only the devaluation of his or her property proportionate to the reduction in size but also any other potential damage that may be entailed for the individual's property by the public work finally carried out (see also §18 of present judgment).

Decision: The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 976th meeting (17‑18 October 2006) (DH), on the basis of further information to be provided by the authorities of the respondent state concerning payment of the sums awarded in this case and to join it, at the same meeting, with the case of Tsirikakis, to supervise the general measures proposed to prevent new, similar violations.

17965/03           Tzaggaraki and others, judgment of 26/01/2006, final on 26/04/2006

The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts. Proceedings began in November 1991 and ended in May 2002 (more than 10 years for 3 degrees of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None: proceedings closed. The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

General measures: Greece has adopted a number of legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before administrative courts (see Final Resolution DH(2005)65 on Pafitis and others against Greece and 14 other cases, adopted on 18/07/2005).

Additional problems in this field have been highlighted in more recent judgments (e.g. Manios judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004, Section 4.2, 966th meeting, June 2006, Volume I) and are being addressed by the Greek authorities under the Committee’s supervision. In this context, information is awaited on the progress of the draft Bill on the Administrative Law Code aimed at accelerating administrative court proceedings (mentioned in the Justice Ministry's letter of 30/09/2004) and on any other specific measures envisaged to accelerate proceedings in administrative courts and to create an effective domestic remedy for this kind of violations.

Decision: The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 976th meeting (17‑18 October 2006) (DH), on the basis of further information to be provided by the authorities of the respondent state concerning payment of the sums awarded in this case and to join it, subsequently, with the case of Manios, to supervise the general measures proposed to prevent new, similar violations.

- 3 cases against Hungary

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

4825/02            Korga, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 12/04/2006

13323/02           Majercsik, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 12/04/2006

16348/02           Szoboszlay, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 12/04/2006

These cases concern the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations, some before labour courts (violations of Article 6§1).

Proceedings began between 1990 and 1995 and ended between 2001 and 2002.

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: These cases present similarities to those in the Tímár group which will be proposed for examination at the 982nd meeting (December 2006).

Decision: The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of these items at their 976th meeting (17‑18 October 2006) (DH), on the basis of further information to be provided by the authorities of the respondent state concerning payment of the sums awarded in these cases and to join them, subsequently, with the case of Tímár, to supervise the general measures proposed to prevent new, similar violations.

- 5 cases against Italy

23053/02           Ielo, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 12/04/2006

The case concerns a lack of access to a tribunal as, between 1995 and 2001, the applicant had been unable to bring libel proceedings against a parliamentarian protected by parliamentary privilege.

The European Court found that whilst parliamentary privilege has a legitimate aim, it had been applied in a disproportionate manner in this case, the statements at issue not being strictly connected to the conduct of parliamentary business and the applicant having no other possibility to ensure protection of his rights (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

General measures: This case presents similarities to that of Cordova in Section 6.2 following a change of the case-law of the Italian Constitutional Court in 1998, subsequent to the facts of this case. According to the new case-law, the scope of parliamentary privilege may no longer be extended to acts and statements which are not connected with parliamentary business. However, in this case, taking account of the different interpretations of the notion of parliamentary business by the European Court and the Italian Constitutional Court, the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment is expected.

42191/02           R.R., judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 12/04/2006

The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings brought in absentia against the applicant, who was suspected of having breached his obligation to pay maintenance for his family. The judicial authorities considered that the applicant, who had moved abroad and could no longer be found, had voluntarily forfeited his right to take part in the proceedings. The proceedings resulted in the applicant's conviction and sentence to 6 months' imprisonment suspended and a fine. The judgment became final in April 2002.

The European Court found that it had not been established that the applicant had wilfully fled from justice or unequivocally renounced his right to a hearing; and had had no opportunity to obtain a fresh examination of the rights or wrongs of the accusations made against him (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual and general measures:

            1) The unfairness of the proceedings: Italy adopted Law No. 60/2005 amending Article 175 of the CCP so as to reinforce the guarantees of notifications in in absentia proceedings. Under the new law, the deadline for appealing against a judgment pronounced in absentia may be re-opened simply at the request of the person concerned. There is one exception to this rule, where the accused has had “effective knowledge” of the proceedings against him or of the judgment but has wilfully decided not to appear or to appeal. Moreover, the basic deadline has been increased from 10 to 30 days counting from the date upon which the accused is delivered to the Italian authorities. Reading of the law suggests that the burden of proving that an accused had “effective knowledge” of proceedings and has wilfully declined to appear, lies with the authorities.

Evaluation: Present Italian legislation seems to be sufficient to resolve the general problems posed by this case, but courts will have to interpret the new law in accordance with the requirements of the Convention.

Additional measure required: Courts' attention should accordingly be drawn to the problem at the basis of the violation found in this case, either by publishing the European court's judgment in an appropriate way or by including it in seminars for judicial personnel.

            2) The question of reopening: It should be noted that the new law providing the possibility of applying for extension of the deadline for appealing against an in absentia conviction is not applicable to the applicant. The European court recalled its case-law to the effect that, when it concludes that an applicant has been convicted in circumstances violating his right to participate, the most appropriate form of redress in principle would be to hold a new trial or to reopen the proceedings promptly (§76). Italian law does not yet permit reopening proceedings following a violation of the Convention, but there have been some recent attempts to bring about such reopening by jurisprudential means (see the Dorigo and F.C.B. cases in Sections 4.3 and 4.2 respectively). 

The question of outstanding individual measures will be raised bilaterally with the Italian delegation.

It is recalled that the general problem posed by the absence of legislation in Italy providing reopening of criminal proceedings found to have violated the Convention is under examination in certain other cases (Dorigo, F.C.B., Bracci, Sejdovic).

                        - Cases concerning constructive expropriation

69907/01           Prenna and others, judgment of 09/02/2006, final on 09/05/2006

14793/02           Sciarotta and others, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006

77822/01           Serilli, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

All these cases concern the de facto expropriation of land belonging to the applicants following their emergency occupation, subsequently prolonged, by the public authorities. The lawfulness of such expropriation could not be tested because there was no formal need of transfer of the property and on account of the slowness of subsequent court proceedings. The European Court found this situation to be incompatible with the exercise of the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Since the 1970s, Italian local authorities have been occupying and on an emergency basis without issuing expropriation orders. Courts confronted with this situation have developed the case-law rule of “indirect expropriation”, according to which public authorities may acquire title to the land at issue without formal expropriation if, following the expropriation and irrespective of the lawfulness of same, public works have been carried out on the property.

This jurisprudence was acknowledged and modified by a number of laws of which the most recent was the “Compendium on public utility expropriation”.

In its earliest judgments in 2000 (see Belvedere Alberghiera and Carbonara and Ventura, Section 4.2) the European court found that the doctrine of “indirect expropriation” failed to offer sufficient legal certainty. In this respect it noted certain contradictory applications of the doctrine in Italian case-law. The Court further noted that indirect expropriation enabled the administration to set aside the ordinary rules of expropriation with the attendant risk of unpredictable or arbitrary results for the citizen. Indirect expropriation makes it possible to occupy land and bring about irreversible changes to it without a deed of transfer. Consequently, the only possible measure of legalisation is a finding of illegality by a court in the absence of a formal declaration by the public authority. Such a finding required proceedings, which must be brought by the victim and which will probably last a very long time.

The European Court also found that indirect expropriation made it possible for the public authority to occupy and transform property without paying compensation at the time. Such compensation must be claimed by the victim, within five years. But the right to such compensation may be declared time-barred as the court fixes the starting point for the five-year period retroactively, thus making any hope of compensation pointless (see judgment in Carbonara and Ventura, §71).

Individual measures: Pending the proceedings on the issue of just satisfaction (so far reserved by the Court), the Italian authorities are invited urgently to find the adequate means to erase the continuing effects of the violations found in the present cases in respect of the applicant. Identification of individual measures may be part of the solution of the general problem (see below) as it requires the setting up of an effective domestic system to secure the return of property expropriated de facto and/or to pay adequate compensation in respect of expropriation or damages.

General measures: see the case of Belvedere Alberghiera S.R.L. and other similar cases, Section 4.2.

- 1 case against Latvia

73443/01+         Freimanis and Līdums, judgment of 09/02/2006, final on 09/05/2006

The case concerns criminal proceedings concerning the activities of the applicants, a former chairman of largest Latvian bank (Banka Baltija) and one of its directors, as well as the Chairman of the Board of this bank who was an applicant in an earlier case (see the Lavents case, Section 6.2). 

The European Court found the following shortcomings:

- the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand (3 years, 3 months and 3 days) without proper grounds (violation of Article 5§3),

- the lack of effective judicial supervision of the applicants’ detention on remand, given the unlawfulness of the composition of the court in question and the fact that it was not impartial (violation of Article 5§4),

- the excessive length of the criminal proceedings (for the first applicant almost 8 years, still pending at appeal; for the second applicant about 7 years and 10 months) (violation of Article 6§1), and

- a violation of the presumption of innocence due to the statements made by the judge (violation of Article 6§2).

Individual measures:

•           Situation of the applicants: following the judgment of the European Court in the Lavents case, on 13/02/2003 the Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Riga Regional Court of 28/12/2001 and referred the case back to that court for re-examination with a new bench of judges. The applicants were released on 27/01/2003 and 28/12/2001 respectively. The Riga Regional Court delivered a new judgment on 06/05/2005 against which the applicants lodged an appeal on 16/05/2005.

•           Information awaited: on the state of these proceedings and on the measures taken or envisaged for their acceleration, if needed.

General measures: This case presents similarities to the Lavents case in which the Latvian authorities have adopted the following measures:

            1) Violation of Articles 5§3 and 5§4 (excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand and lack of effective judicial control):

•           Legislative measure: A new Law on Criminal Procedure entered into force on 01/10/2005, introducing a post of investigative judge whose main function is to supervise the observance of human rights in criminal proceedings. The judge decides on the application and extension of certain means of restraint (detention, house arrest, placement in an institution) as well as on complaints related to other means of restraint (e.g. restraint order, bail, conditions of police supervision). The new law also imposes several time-limits for pre-trial detention.

•           Training and awareness raising measures: Issues relating to human rights in detention are included in the training programme for judges and prosecutors. Moreover, a research paper concerning the recent case-law concerning detention issues has been distributed to all participants in training. In May 2003, the Human Rights Institute of the University of Latvia organised a seminar on detention issues for judges, prosecutors, practicing lawyers, government and parliament representatives.

            2) Violation of Article 6§1: There does not seem to be a systemic problem of excessive length of criminal proceedings in Latvia. 

            3) Violation of Article 6§2: The violation found in the proceedings in question seems to be an isolated incident in respect of which the publication and dissemination of the judgment constitute a sufficient measure to prevent new, similar violations. The judgment in the Lavents case has already been published and disseminated to judges and prosecutors. The Latvian translation of the present judgment was also published in the official periodical Latvijas Vēstnesis on 14/02/2006, No. 26(3394) (www.vestnesis.lv) and on the website of the Government Agent (www.mkparstavis.am.gov.lv).

- 2 cases against Malta

26111/02           Mizzi, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006

The case concerns the dismissal by the Constitutional Court of the applicant's claim introduced in 1997 challenging the legal presumption of his paternity in respect of his wife's daughter born in 1967.

The applicant who had stopped living with his wife before the birth of the child was legally separated from his wife in 1968 and the marriage was annulled in 1972. Until 1990, the applicant was prevented from bringing such a claim since Articles 70 and 73 of the Maltese Civil Code permitted the denial of paternity only in cases of adultery and where the birth had been concealed, which was not the case. After an amendment of Article 70 § 1 (d) in 1990 further evidence, including genetic tests, was admitted, provided the claim would be brought within 3 months after birth (Art. 73). This time-limit was raised to 6 months in 1993. Thus the applicant was barred at the material time from using this remedy.

Despite these legal limitations, the Civil Court in 1997 nonetheless accepted the applicant’s request based on DNA tests establishing that he was not the child's father, holding that Maltese law violated Article 8 of the Convention. This judgment was quashed by the Constitutional Court.

The European Court found that the fact that the applicant had no practical possibility of contesting his paternity from the day of the child’s birth was a breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court (violation of Article 6§1).

The Court further found that the respondent state had failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s legitimate interest of having a judicial ruling over his presumed paternity and the protection of legal certainty and of the interests of the other people involved in his case (violation of Article 8). In addition, this action was subject to a strict time-limit which did not apply to other interested parties (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 6§1 and 8).

Individual measures:

Information is required on whether the applicant may request new paternity proceedings (reopening) under Art. 811 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, which makes it possible to correct the “wrong application of the law”.

General measures:

•           Information is awaited on measures envisaged or taken to prevent new similar violations, notably to ensure that applicants contesting their paternity are not subject to a more rigid provision than other interested parties who are subject to no time-limits at all and that time limits imposed meet the requirements of the Convention. In this context, the experience gained in the very similar case of Shofman against the Russian Federation (judgment of 24/11/2005, Section 4.1) might be taken into account: in that case the Court ruled that a time limit of one year after birth violates Article 8 and noted that the new Family Code in force since 1996 sets no time limit. The Secretariat will shortly write to the Maltese authorities with a view to establishing a plan of action for the implementation of the present judgment.

All judgments of the European Court against Malta are publicly available via the website of the Ministry of Justice and Home affairs (www.mjha.gov.mt/ministry/links.html) which provides for a direct link to the Court’s website.

•           Information is required on the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment.

34539/02           Debono, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006

The case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings for compensation before the appeal court. The applicant complained of damage sustained as a result of the seepage of sewage into his property as a result of an alleged leak from the public drainage system. Proceedings were initiated in July 200 and ended in May 2003 (2 years, 9 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The proceedings are closed.

General measures: All judgments of the European Court against Malta are publicly available via the website of the Ministry of Justice and Home affairs (www.mjha.gov.mt/ministry/links.html) which provides for a direct link to the Court’s website. Information on the dissemination of the judgment is awaited.

- 1 case against Moldova

28793/02           Christian Democratic People’s Party, judgment of 14/02/2006, final on 14/05/2006

The case concerns a temporary ban of a political party represented in Parliament. In December 2001, the applicant party informed the Chişinău Municipal Council of its intention to organise, on 9/01/2002, a rally with its voters in he front of the seat of the government. The topic of the meeting was the government’s intention to introduce the compulsory study of Russian in the school. The applicant party relied on Article 22 of the Law on the status of members of parliament, which in the applicant’s view imposed no obligation on members of parliament to seek prior authorisation for such meetings. However, on 3/01/2002 the Municipal Council classified the gathering as a “demonstration” within the meaning of the Assemblies Law and authorised the applicant to hold it elsewhere without giving reasons. Nevertheless, the applicant party held several gatherings in the front of the seat of the government in January 2002. It informed the Municipal Council in advance of every gathering but without seeking authorisation in accordance with the Assemblies Law.

On 18/01/ 2002, the Ministry of Justice, having sent an official warning letter four days earlier, imposed a one-month ban on the party’s activities by virtue of Article 29 of the Law on parties and other socio-political organisations. On 24/01/2002 the party challenged this decision but their action was dismissed by a final judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice on 17/05/2002. Following an inquiry by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe under Article 52 of the Convention, the ban was lifted on 8/02/2002, but the decision of 18/01/2002 was not set aside.

In its judgment, the European Court noted that reasons given for the temporary ban on the party’s activities (lack of authorisation for the applicant’s party gatherings in accordance with the Assemblies Law, presence of children at the gatherings and calls for violence allegedly contained in some statements made at the gatherings) were neither relevant nor sufficient and the ban was thus not necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 11).

The European Court also noted, without however finding it necessary to decide on this issue, that the failure to inform the party in the warning letter of 14/01/2002 of all the acts imputed to it might be in itself a sufficient basis for the conclusion that the impugned measures were not “prescribed by law”.

Individual measures: The temporary ban on the CDPP’s activities was lifted on 8/02/2002.

Information expected: Confirmation is expected that the party does not suffer from any negative consequences of the impugned decision.

General measures: The European Court noted problems of interpretation and application of the legislation concerning gatherings, in particular the relationship between the Law on the status of members of parliament and the Assemblies Law.

Measures expected: the authorities are invited to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations resulting from erroneous interpretation of permissible grounds for banning political parties. As a first step, the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment among the relevant authorities and domestic courts is expected, possibly together with circulars or explanatory notes stressing the problems identified by the European Court.

- 9 cases against Poland

48140/99           Teltronic-Catv, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

This case concerns a violation of the applicant company’s right of access to a court following courts’ refusal in 1997 to exempt it from the fees for filing a claim resulting from the non-payment of an invoice by a customer (violation of Article 6§1). In a final decision of 31/07/1998, the Katowice Appeal Court upheld the dismissal of the applicant company’s request for exemption, on the ground that its net profit and the value of its assets were sufficiently high.

The European Court concluded that the judicial authorities had failed to secure a proper balance between the interest of the state in collecting court fees and the interests of the applicants in vindicating their claims through the courts. The imposition of court fees on the applicant company constituted a disproportionate restriction on its right of access to a court.

Individual measures: Following the Katowice Appeal Court’s decision of 31/07/1998, the applicant company’s statement of claim was returned and had no legal effect. The European Court dismissed the applicant company’s claim concerning pecuniary damage and granted it just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

Information is expected on the applicant company’s current situation.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of Kreuz (judgment of 19/06/01) (Section 6.2), in which general measures have already been taken, and in particular the Ministry of Justice has sent circulars to Presidents of courts of appeal drawing the attention of the judges to the European Court's reasoning in this case.

Moreover, on 25/07/2005, the Diet adopted a new Act on court costs in civil cases. It entered into force on 2/03/2006, and brings together in a single text questions of general principle related to the imposition of costs, their amount and procedures for exemption, these questions having previously been determined by different sets of rules (in particular the 1967 Act on court costs and the Civil Code). It provides fixed amounts for costs in most court proceedings; previously, the general rule was that costs should be proportional. In addition, it simplifies the calculation of proportional costs, which remain applicable in most disputes over assets. At present, proportional costs are equivalent to 5% of the value of the asset in dispute, with a minimum of 30 PLN and a maximum of 100 000 PLN.

The new law also lays down the rules for exemption from costs. Parties to a dispute may be exempted, in whole or in part, by the judge if they make a declaration to the effect that they could not pay them without risking their living or that of their family. Such declaration must be accompanied by a detailed statement of their financial situation. In any event, they must pay the minimum charge of 30 PLN.

The possibility of exemption is available equally to physical and legal persons as well as organisational entities without legal personality.

49034/99           Czech, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 12/04/2006

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

In January 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings to obtain reinstatement in his position in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland. The judicial proceedings terminated in February 1999 with the second instance judgment (nearly 5 years and 1 month).

Individual measures: None. Domestic proceedings terminated.

General measures: This case presents similarities to other cases concerning the excessive length of proceedings before labour courts (inter alia Lipowicz against Poland, judgment of 19/10/2004), which will be examined at the 976th meeting (October 2006).

Decision: The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 976th meeting (17‑18 October 2006) (DH), on the basis of further information to be provided by the authorities of the respondent state concerning payment of the sums awarded in this case and to join it, at the same meeting, with the case of Lipowicz, to supervise the general measures proposed to prevent new, similar violations.

                        - Cases of length of civil proceedings

Application	Case	Length of the proceedings at the date of the judgment of the European Court	Case still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment	Proceedings began
13026/02	Kaczmarczyk, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006	More than 12 years (out of which 8 years and 2 months fell under the jurisdiction of the European Court), before 3 degrees of jurisdiction	no	1989
12888/02	Kranc, judgment of 31/01/2006, final on 31/04/2006	More than 13 years (out of which 8 years and 2 months fell under the jurisdiction of the European Court), before 4 degrees of jurisdiction	no	1988
75888/01	Kreuz No 3, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006	Nearly 8 years and 6 months (out of which 7 years and 4 months fell under the jurisdiction of the European Court), before 6 degrees of jurisdiction	no	1992

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

Individual measures: None. All domestic proceedings terminated.

General measures: These cases present similarities to other cases concerning the length of civil proceedings (inter alia Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/1998), which will be examined at the 976th Meeting (October 2006).

Decision: The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of these items at their 976th meeting (17‑18 October 2006) (DH), on the basis of further information to be provided by the authorities of the respondent state concerning payment of the sums awarded in these cases and to join them, at the same meeting, with the group of cases Podbielski, to supervise the general measures proposed to prevent new, similar violations.

36431/03           Skowroński, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

This case concerns the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative bodies (violation of Article 6§1).

In April 1999, the applicant lodged by the starosta, first-degree administrative body, an application for compensation following an administrative decision restricting his right of ownership of a plot of land due to the construction of a gas pipeline. During these proceedings the voivod of Wrocław twice annulled the starosta‘s decisions and the appeal lodged by the applicant at the Supreme Court against the administrative bodies’ inactivity was to no avail. The proceedings were still pending before the starosta when the European Court delivered its judgment (more than 6 years and 7 months).

Individual measures: Information expected on the state of proceedings and if appropriate on measures taken for their acceleration.

General measures: This case presents similarities with that of Fuchs (judgment of 11/02/03), which will be examined at the 976th meeting (October 2006).

                        - Cases of length of detention on remand

38227/02           Harazin, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

9013/02            Świerzko, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

These cases concern the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand between 1999 and 2003, given that the grounds relied upon by the domestic courts in support of the detention could not be deemed, as required by the case-law of the European Court, “relevant and sufficient” and since “special diligence” was not displayed in the conduct of the proceedings (violations of Article 5§3).

Moreover, in the first case, the European Court also found that due to substantial delays which occurred before the opening of the applicant’s trial, the authorities did not display “special diligence” in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

In the first case, the applicant was detained for more than 2 years and 8 months and in the second case, for more than 3 years and 2 months.

Individual measures: None. The applicants’ detention was ended respectively in March 2003 and July 2002. In the Harazin case, the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. In the Świerzko case, the European Court concluded that the finding of the violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

General measures: These cases present similarities to the Trzaska group cases (inter alia Trzaska against Poland, judgment of 11/07/2000, final on 11/10/2000), which will be examined at the 976th meeting (October 2006).

Decision: The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of these items at their 976th meeting (17‑18 October 2006) (DH), on the basis of further information to be provided by the authorities of the respondent state concerning payment of the sums awarded in these cases if needed, and to join them, at the same meeting, with the group of cases Trzaska, to supervise the general measures proposed to prevent new, similar violations.

34090/96           W.B., judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to be brought promptly before a judge following his detention on remand (violation of Article 5§3). Between October 1995 and January 1996, the applicant was detained for nearly three months on the basis of a public prosecutor's decisions.

The European Court found that a prosecutor did not offer the necessary guarantees of independence and impartiality because the prosecution authorities not only belonged to the executive branch of the state but also concurrently performed investigative and prosecution functions in criminal proceedings and were a party to such proceedings. Moreover, the fact that the prosecutors in addition acted as guardian of the public interest could not by itself confer on them the status of “officer(s) authorised by law to exercise judicial power”.

Individual measures: None. Since 30/01/1996 the applicant has been detained on the basis of judicial decisions. The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of Niedbała (judgment of 04/07/2000), closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)124, following a legislative reform of criminal procedures which took effect from 01/09/1998.

- 1 case against Portugal

14886/03           Monteiro da Cruz, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

The case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings which the applicant joined as an auxiliary (assistente) to the public prosecutor (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings lasted 8 years, 10 months.

Individual measures: None: proceedings closed.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of Oliveira Modesto and other similar cases (Section 4.2).

In these cases, the Committee is supervising the adoption by the Portuguese authorities of general measures to remedy the problem of excessive length of proceedings.

- 3 cases against Romania

62710/00           Lungoci, judgment of 26/01/2006, final on 26/04/2006

This case concerns the Romanian courts’ failure in 1999 to take into account a final judgment of 28/03/97 acknowledging the applicant’s property title to some flats which had been nationalised in 1950. As a result, the applicant’s action to recover possession of the property, brought on the basis of the 1997 judgment, was dismissed on the grounds that the issue had already been determined in previous proceedings in 1994, without explaining why the judgment of 1997 did not constitute a new element to be considered.

The European Court accordingly concluded that the applicant’s right of access to a court had been violated (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Court indicated (§§55-56 of the judgment) that the most appropriate way to redress the applicant’s situation would be to reopen the contested proceedings, as provided by Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Confirmation is expected that this remedy is available to the applicant.

General Measures: It needs to be clarified whether this violation was exceptional in character or whether measures, in particular as regards the case-law, should be envisaged with a view to preventing new, similar violations. In this perspective, the Secretariat will contact the Romanian authorities concerning the preparation of an action plan, if need be. Furthermore, in order to raise the awareness of the Romanian courts of the Convention’s requirements as they result from this judgment, its publication and dissemination with a circular are expected.

4596/03            Porteanu, judgment of 16/02/2006, final on 16/05/2006

The case concerns the fact that the applicant could not recover an apartment nationalised in 1950 in application of Decree No. 92/1950. On 15/10/1997 the applicant brought an action to recover the possession of a house in Bucharest. In a final judgement dated 25/11/1997 the Bucharest Court of First Instance found that the nationalisation had been illegal and ordered that the property be restored. However, the state had already sold a part of the property (one flat) to its occupants in February 1997. The applicant’s attempts to have the contract of sale rescinded failed. In a judgement of 25/09/2002 the Bucharest Court of Appeal noted that the applicant’s title to the property was indisputable but decided that the family occupying the flat, who had purchased it in good faith, was entitled to keep it. The applicant’s request for compensation for the sale of the flat in question, filed on 23/01/2002 on the basis of Law No. 10/2001, remained without reply on the date of the judgment of the European Court. The European Court considered that the deprivation of the applicant’s property, combined with the total absence of compensation, had imposed a disproportionate and excessive burden on her which was incompatible with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: Under Article 41 of the Convention, the European Court held that the defendant state must return the property at issue to the applicant within three months of the date on which the judgment became final. Failing that, the government would have to pay her, within the same time-limit, a sum of 60,000 euros for pecuniary damages (which corresponds to the market value of the apartment).

General measures: The case presents similarities to the Strain case (examined in the Section 4.2 during the 966th meeting, June 2006). The European Court noted that Law No. 247/2005, enacted on 22/07/2005, amending Law No. 10/2001, granted persons in the same situation as the applicant, at least in theory, a right to compensation equalling the market value of assets which could not be restored. However, the European Court also noted that the new legislation did not, at the time of the judgement, result in an actual award of compensation. In addition, it did not take account of the damage sustained prior to the law’s entry into force by persons who had been deprived of their property in this way as a result of the long period when no compensation was available.

Information is awaited on the results of the application of this law and possible measures envisaged to remedy the shortcomings identified by the European Court.

56489/00           Mocanu, judgment of 24/05/2006 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant’s complaints concerning alleged ill-treatment while in police custody and failure to carry out an effective investigation (complaints under Article 3).

The applicant further complained that correspondence addressed to him by the European Court had been opened and that the authorities had refused to supply stamps for his correspondence (complaints under Articles 8, 34 and 13).

- 13 cases against the Russian Federation

77617/01           Mikheyev, judgment of 26/01/2006, final on 26/04/2006

The case concerns torture inflicted on the applicant while in custody at the Leninskiy police station on 19/09/1998 by several police officers, with the aim of extracting a confession that he had committed the offences of which he was suspected and which proved to be nonexistent. As a result of severe physical and mental suffering sustained, the applicant attempted suicide resulting in a general and permanent physical disability (violation of Article 3).

The European Court found that the domestic investigation into the applicant’s allegations of torture had been closed and then re-opened more than 15 times during 7 years and had very serious shortcomings, such as omissions to question witnesses, delay in carrying out a number of important procedural steps (forensic examinations, confrontation of the police officers involved with the applicant, etc), lack of independence of the officials responsible for the investigation from those allegedly involved in the ill-treatment. On 30/11/2005 when the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod found two police officers guilty of abuse of official powers associated with the use of violence and sentenced them to four years’ imprisonment with a subsequent three years’ prohibition on serving in law-enforcement agencies. However, the domestic court did not examine the abovementioned flaws in the investigation and no redress was provided to the applicant. Accordingly the European Court found that the investigation had not been adequate or sufficiently effective (procedural violation of Article 3) and that the applicant was deprived of an effective remedy, including a claim of compensation (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: Information is awaited on whether the decision of 30/11/2005 has become final and on measures taken in respect of other officials allegedly involved in the events at issue (see in particular §68 of the judgment).

General measures: It appears that the judgment requires important general measures to prevent new, similar violations. When adopting these measures, the Russian authorities may wish to take into account the comprehensive measures taken and/or envisaged in other countries to prevent similar violations by the security forces (see, in particular, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434, DH(2002)98 and ResDH(2005)43 concerning the action of the security forces in Turkey, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)20 concerning the action of the security forces in Northern Ireland and Final Resolutions ResDH(94)34 in the case Tomasi against France and ResDH(2006)13 in the cases Egmez and Denizci against Cyprus).

            1) Procedural safeguards in police custody: It appears that the violations were due to the lack of certain procedural safeguards in the Russian legislation at the material time. The new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force in July 2002. It is necessary to assess to what extent the current procedures as amended by this Code and their implementation comply with the detailed requirements of the Convention, which were violated in the present case. Information would be therefore helpful in this respect, notably on the following issues:

-               while in custody, to what extent an individual will be allowed to have contacts with the outside world, e.g. his lawyer or his relatives?

-               what actions may be taken by the outside persons if the ill-treatment is alleged?

-               what are the prosecutors’ duties in respect of persons in custody (do they have an obligation to visit persons in custody, how often, does a special report have to be drawn up)?

-               is a person subjected to a medical examination at the time of his arrest?

-               does the Russian law provide for a video recording of custodial questioning of suspects?

            2) The effectiveness of investigation: It results from the judgment that the shortcomings of the investigation pointed out by the Court were mostly due to the lack of independence of the investigating authorities from the officials allegedly involved in the ill-treatment. Therefore, it would be helpful to receive information on the following issues:

-           What bodies are responsible for the investigation of abuses committed by police officers and what are the guarantees of the investigative authorities' independence and impartiality from a hierarchical, institutional and practical point of view? And in particular

-               What are the investigation powers and means of Prosecutors General vis-à-vis the police?

-               How is the competent investigating authority determined so as to guarantee its independence (e.g. the investigators are called in from another jurisdiction)?

-               Is there an independent investigating body within the police and/or Prosecutor General office to investigate cases of alleged abuses committed by police officers (a kind of internal affairs division)?

-               What is the victim’s involvement in the proceedings (right to be heard, right to have reasons for non-prosecution, right to challenge such decisions before the courts)?

The authorities may also wish to illustrate their answers with recent specific examples and statistics, if there is any.

            3) Awareness raising and training: Given the particular importance of this type of violations, the authorities are invited to take appropriate measures to mainstream human rights training into initial and in‑service training of members of the police, judges and prosecutors. In the process of adopting these measures, the Russian authorities are invited to follow the Committee’s Recommendation (2004)4 of 12 May  2004 on the ECHR and professional training.

            4) Compensation of victims: The government indicated before the European Court that Russian law provided for the strict liability of the state, i.e. notwithstanding the identification and/or conviction of the perpetrators, in relation to unlawful actions of investigating authorities, prosecutors and courts (Article 1070 of the Civil Code). Clarifications are required on whether this Article offers those in the applicant’s position a possibility to obtain compensation pending investigation. Examples of relevant case-law would be helpful.

            5) Dissemination and publication of the judgment: Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment to all competent authorities are required together with circular letters and detailed instructions to be issued by higher hierarchical authorities, in particular by the Ministry of Interior and by the Prosecutor General, to explain to all subordinates the obligations flowing from the judgment and their effects on the day-to-day practice. An explanatory note from the Supreme Court to all lower courts would also be useful.

The Secretariat will shortly write to the Russian authorities with regard to a plan of action to be established for implementation of the present judgment.

6847/02            Khudoyorov, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 12/04/2006

The case concerns a number of violations in connection with the applicant’s detention at the facility N°OD‑1/Т-2 in Vladimir in 1999-2004.

The European Court considered that the poor conditions of the applicant’s detention went beyond the threshold tolerated by Article 3, due in particular to the lack of space, poor sanitary conditions, combined with the length of his detention in such conditions (violation of Article 3). The Court also found that the conditions of the applicant’s transport between the facility and the courthouse, a trip of 20 hours undertaken 200 times in 4 years, amounted to the treatment incompatible with Article 3.

The Court further considered that the applicant’s detention from 8/08/2001 to 9/01/2002 and from 13/03/2002 to 4/12/2002 was unlawful due to the shortcomings of judicial decisions ordering the detention. It found among other things:

-           a failure to indicate any legal grounds and any time-limit in the decision which quashed the initial detention order and confirmed the applicant’s detention;

-           a lack of sufficient protection from arbitrariness since the detention orders were delivered with retrospective effect and beyond the time-limits provided for detention “pending investigation” by domestic law;

-           finally, no sufficiently clear basis in Russian legislation for detention during the period when the investigation was already over and the trial had not yet begun (violations of Article 5§1).

The Court further considered that by failing to address concrete facts or consider alternative “preventive measures” and by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, the authorities prolonged the applicant’s detention on grounds which cannot be regarded as “relevant and sufficient”. Moreover, the authorities failed to display “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (violation of Article 5§3).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention and the insufficient scope of its examination (violation of Article 5§4).

Finally, the Court found that the length of the proceedings, which lasted 6 years and 2 months, did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicant was released on 28/05/2004. All charges against him have been dismissed and the criminal proceedings discontinued.

General measures:

            1) Conditions of detention: The case presents similarities to the Kalashnikov group of cases (see Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)123 of 04/06/2003) in which the Committee will resume its examination of the general measures taken by the Russian authorities at its 982nd meeting (December 2006).

            2) Conditions of transport to court: The European Court noted that while the individual compartments in the prison van would not appear to be in breach of the CPT’s standards, it was used by the authorities in an inappropriate way, e.g. two men for one seat. Moreover, on those days the applicant received no food and missed outdoor exercise. Therefore, the authorities may wish to issue appropriate instructions to all penitentiary authorities setting up clear rules of transport of prisoners and drawing their attention to the Convention’s requirements and the CPT’s standards referred to by the European Court in its judgment (§ 117). Information in this respect is awaited.

            3) Violation of Article 5§1: The new Code of Criminal Procedure, in force since July 2002, imposes a clear obligation to give adequate reasons for detention on remand. The European Court noted that many of the violations occurred in breach of domestic law, particularly the new Code. The Russian authorities therefore are invited to consider the necessary measures to ensure the proper application of the domestic provisions and of the Convention’s detailed requirements in this respect, possibly by issuing new guidelines by the Plenum of the Supreme Court and by improving in-service training of judges, prosecutors and heads of detention centres. In this context, the strengthening of their disciplinary and professional responsibility might also be considered.

As regards the specific problem of what should happen to a detained person once the maximum time-limits for detention on remand pending investigation have expired, but the case is still not ready to be sent for trial, clarifications in this respect would be helpful.

As regards the lack of a clear provision in Russian law governing the situation of detainees after their case has been sent for trial, the authorities are invited to introduce appropriate provisions into criminal legislation to ensure that any extension of detention must be on the basis of a court decision based on legitimate reasons for continued detention.

The Secretariat will shortly write to the Russian authorities inviting them to present a plan of action in this respect.

            4) Violations of Article 5§§ 3 and 4 and Article 6§1: The case presents similarities to the Klyakhin group of case in which the Committee will resume its examination of the general measures to prevent new similar violations on the basis of an action plan to be presented by the authorities at its 976th meeting (October 2006).

66543/01           Vasilyev, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 12/04/2006

The case concerns violations of the applicant’s right to a court in that, in 2000, the Presidium of Orenburg Regional Court quashed final judicial decision in the applicants' favour concerning the increase of his old-age pension, following application for supervisory review (nadzor) lodged by the its President under Articles 319 and 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure then in force. These provisions gave the state’s officials discretionary powers to challenge final court decisions at any moment. The European Court found that the use of supervisory review infringed the principle of legal certainty and thus the applicants' right to a court (violation of Article 6§1).

The Court further considered that the review of the final decision had resulted in the applicant’s being deprived of his right to receive a retirement pension at a rate set by a final court decision (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court granted the applicant the just satisfaction taking into account the sum he would have received had the reduction of the pension not been backdated. Clarifications concerning his current situation would be useful so as to determine whether any specific individual measure is necessary.

General measures: This case presents similarities with the Ryabykh case in which the Committee will in due course resume its supervision of the adoption of the necessary general measures (the progress achieved so far and outstanding issues are summarised in the Interim Resolution ResDH(2006)1, CM/Inf/DH(2005)20).

•           Additional measures required: Publication and dissemination of the judgments of the European Court to all competent authorities are requested.

The case also presents similarities with the Pravednaya case in which information has been requested, in particular on the “individual pensioner coefficient” currently applicable to calculating individual pensions in similar cases.

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments

Applications	Cases	Dates of domestic judgments	Outcome of the enforcement of domestic judgments
3504/02	Bogdanov, judgment of 09/02/06, final on 09/05/06	14/09/1998	Not enforced
66462/01	Bratchikova, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 12/04/06	28/01/2000	Enforced
36407/02	Igusheva, judgment of 09/02/06, final on 09/05/06	15/02/2002	Enforced
24659/03	Ivannikova, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 12/04/06	17/12/1999	Enforced
13995/02	Kazartseva and others, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 12/04/06, rectified on 23/05/2006	17/12/1999 29/03/2000 09/11/2000	Enforced Enforced Enforced
27295/03	Korchagina and others, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 12/04/06	20/12/1999 12/09/2000 23/05/2000 17/12/1999 28/03/2000 23/05/2000	All enforced
33264/02	Levin, judgment of 02/02/05, final on 02/05/06	20/01/2000 as upheld on 6/04/2000	Enforced
39866/02	Shestopalova and others, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 12/04/06	Considerable number of judgments	All enforced
24651/03	Tolokonnikova, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 12/04/06	25/02/2000	Enforced
1144/03	Zaugolnova, judgment of 15/12/05, final on 12/04/06, rectified on 30/03/2006	10/04/2002 as upheld on 5/06/2002	Enforced

These cases concern violations of the applicants' right to a court due to the administration's failure to enforce final judicial decisions granting the applicants' claims for: (a) welfare payments for children in Voronezh, (b) damages for wrongful conviction and unlawful detention (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Levin case particularly concerns the failure by the Russian social authorities to execute final judicial decision ordering them to pay compensation for damage to the applicant’s health sustained during emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear plant.

Individual measures: In the Bogdanov case, the Court found that the respondent state must secure the enforcement of the domestic courts’ judgment within 3 months from the date on which the European Court’s judgment become final.

General measures: The cases present similarities to those of the Timofeyev group, in which the Committee will resume its examination of the general measures envisaged by the Russian authorities for the implementation of the European Court's judgments relating to the non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions on the basis of the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat, CM/Inf/H(2006)19 revised (976th meeting, October 2006).

- 3 cases against the Slovak Republic

                        - Cases of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

1395/02            Bernát, judgment of 31/01/2006, final on 01/05/2006

73233/01           Šebeková and Horvatovičová, judgment of 14/02/2006, final on 14/05/2006

67026/01           Šima, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006

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

The proceedings began in 1994 and ended between 2001 and 2002. The Šima case also relates to the lack of an effective remedy to expedite the proceedings or provide the applicant with adequate redress for delays incurred (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: General measures have already been adopted to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and avoid new violations, particularly in the context of the examination of the Jóri case (judgment of 09/11/2000) closed by Resolution ResDH(2005)67 (Act No. 501/2001 which reduces the number of cases in which second-instance courts are competent at first instance and aims to accelerate the gathering of evidence; Act No. 385/2000 which regulates the civil and disciplinary liability of judges for unjustified delays in their cases; Amendment of 2001 to the Constitution which provides a constitutional petition for complaints of violations of human rights protected by international treaties). 

- 1 case against Switzerland

41773/98           Scavuzzo-Hager and others, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006

The case concerns the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the death of P., a relative of the applicants who died in police custody in July 1994 from complications brought on by an overdose of cocaine taken before his arrest (violation of Article 2).

The European Court in particular found that the authorities failed to ask the experts to determine whether the force used by police, though not lethal in itself, nevertheless caused or at least hastened P’s death. Furthermore, the precise method by which P. was restrained had not established, the two police officers who had arrested him never having been questioned (see §83 of the judgment). In addition, the requirement of the investigators’ hierarchical, institutional and practical independence was not met as the same two police officers who arrested the deceased conducted the initial phase of the investigations into his death (§ 82).

Individual measures: In accordance with the Committee of Ministers’ well-established practice, the respondent state has a continuing obligation to conduct effective investigations, a fortiori in case of a finding of a violation of Article 2 (see in particular Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)20 in the case of McKerr and others against the United Kingdom). Information is thus awaited on any measures taken or envisaged to remedy the violation found, possibly through a new investigation.

General measures:

Information is awaited on measures envisaged or taken to ensure that investigations in such cases meet the Convention’s requirements (see in particular  §82-85 of the judgment) and also on the possibilities of providing effective remedies in the light of Recommendation Rec(2004) 6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies. In this context the experience gained in similar cases concerning the independence of investigations into the acts of police forces (for example case of McKerr and others against the UK, see above) could be taken into account. At the outset, information would be helpful on dissemination and publication of the European Court’s judgment to all authorities responsible for investigations. The Secretariat will shortly write to the Swiss authorities with a view to establishing a plan of action for the implementation of the judgment.

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

13886/02           Atanasovic and others, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 12/04/2006

This case concerns the excessive length of enforcement proceedings before the Kumanovo Municipal Court. Proceedings began in March 1991 and were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (violation of Article 6§1).

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

Individual measures: Information is awaited on urgent measures required to accelerate the proceedings pending since March 1991.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 6§1: The case presents similarities to that of Janeva (friendly settlement, judgment of 03/10/02), now in Section 3. Information is awaited on measures adopted or envisaged by the respondent state.

            2) Violation of Article 13:

Information is awaited on general measures adopted or envisaged for an effective domestic remedy in cases of excessively lengthy proceedings, in accordance with the Court’s judgment. The authorities’ attention is also drawn to the CM Recommendation Rec(2004)6 to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies and to measures adopted by other countries confronted with similar problems (see e.g. Final Resolutions ResDH(2005)60 on Horvat and 9 other cases against Croatia; .ResDH(2005)67 on Jóri and 18 other cases against the Slovak Republic).

- 48 cases against Turkey

46347/99           Xenides-Arestis, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

The case concerns the fact that the applicant is denied the right to respect for her home (situated in Famagusta), which she has been unable to gain access to, use or enjoy since 1974 (continuing violation of Article 8). The case also concerns the fact that the applicant is denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of her property and any compensation for the interference with her property rights (continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

Individual and general measures: The European Court has reserved judgment as regards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, pending settlement of this question in the context of measures to be taken by the respondent state. The Court found that the violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 1 Protocol No. 1 originates in a widespread problem affecting large numbers of people and makes reference to the large number of similar cases currently pending before it. The Court therefore considered “that the respondent State must introduce a remedy, which secures genuinely effective redress for the Convention violations identified in the instant judgment in relation to the present applicant as well as in respect of all similar applications pending before the Court, in accordance with the principles for the protection of the rights laid down in Articles 8 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 and in line with its admissibility decision of 14 March 2005.” The Court further stated that such a remedy should be available within three months from the date on which the present judgment would be delivered, that is 22/03/2006, and that redress should occur three months thereafter, that is 22/06/2006. In a letter of 23/06/2006, the applicant has indicated that “the Turkish Government has failed to provide redress to the applicant as directed in the […] judgment. It continues to refuse to allow unrestricted access, use and enjoyment to the applicant’s home and property in the fenced up area of Famagusta.”

Information awaited: as to the state of progress of the procedure before the Court. Information is also awaited on the remedy introduced by the respondent state and on the current state of progress with regard to redress.

45403/99           Bişkin, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

The case concerns the absence of an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of a relative of the applicants’ by persons unknown after having been abducted in the south east of Turkey in 1996.

The European Court found that the investigation carried out by the authorities shed no light on the substance of the case; in particular the competent public prosecutor did not take statements from certain eye-witnesses until after the European Curt had communicated the case to the respondent government (violation of Article 2).

The case also concerns the absence of any effective means whereby the applicants might complain of these matters (violation of Article 13).

General measures: This case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (see 966th meeting, June 2006, Section 4.3, Volume I) (see also, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 adopted at the 928th meeting (June 2005) which takes stock of the measures already taken and points out the outstanding issues to be resolved).

57778/00           Eren Aydın and others, judgment of 21/02/2006, final on 21/05/2006

The case concerns the absence of an effective investigation and the lack of an effective remedy relating to the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives in the south east of Turkey in 1997. The European Court found in particular that the investigation carried out by national authorities has been pending for more than eight years without any results (violations of Articles 2 and 13). 

General measures: This case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (see 966th meeting, June 2006, Section 4.3, Volume I) (see also, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 adopted at the 928th meeting (June 2005) which takes stock of the measures already taken and points out the outstanding issues to be resolved).

49160/99           Mordeniz, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

The case concerns the absence of an effective investigation and the lack of an effective remedy relating to the circumstances surrounding the disappearance and subsequent death of the applicant’s parents in the south east of Turkey in 1996. The European Court found in particular that the investigation carried out by the Turkish authorities was ineffective in that the inquiries were directed solely against the possible involvement of illegal organisations. Furthermore, as the investigation had been conducted in conjunction with an investigation into a separate offence, it had not been coordinated or centralised and had been incomplete (violations of Articles 2 and 13). 

General measures: This case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (see 966th meeting, June 2006, Section 4.3, Volume I) (see also, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 adopted at the 928th meeting (June 2005) which takes stock of the measures already taken and points out the outstanding issues to be resolved).

46747/99           Akdoğdu, judgment of 18/10/2005, final on 12/04/2006

The case concerns the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant’s son while in pre-trial custody in Ankara in 1997. Shortly afterwards, he committed suicide in his cell.

The European Court found the government responsible for the injuries sustained by the applicant’s son (violation of Article 3).

General measures: This case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (see 966th meeting, June 2006, Section 4.3, Volume I) (see also Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 adopted at the 928th meeting (June 2005) which takes stock of the measures already taken and points out the outstanding issues to be resolved).

49391/99           Güler Irfan, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

The case concerns the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant when being arrested during a rally which led to a confrontation with police in Izmir in 1995. The accused police officers were later acquitted. The European Court found that the extent and severity of the applicant’s injuries could not have been consistent with the use by the police of only such force as was rendered necessary by his conduct (violation of Article 3).

The case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy in this respect. The Court considered that the investigation conducted by the Turkish authorities could not be regarded as effective as a result of their failure in searching for and identifying the police officers who had struck the applicant during the events or those who had subsequently taken him away from the scene (violations of Articles 3 and 13). 

General measures: This case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (see 966th meeting, June 2006, Section 4.3, Volume I) (see also Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 adopted at the 928th meeting (June 2005) which takes stock of the measures already taken and points out the outstanding issues to be resolved).

69912/01           Yavuz Nazif, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006

The case concerns inhuman treatment of the applicant while in police custody in Ankara in 1996. The European Court found that the government had failed to provide any plausible explanation for the bruises identified on the applicant’s body (violation of Article 3).

The Court further found that the administrative, disciplinary and criminal investigations into the allegations of ill-treatment could not be considered (violation of Article 13). 

General measures: This case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (see 966th meeting, June 2006, Section 4.3, Volume I) (see also Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 adopted at the 928th meeting (June 2005) which takes stock of the measures already taken and points out the outstanding issues to be resolved).

67137/01           Yavuz, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

The case concerns the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant while she was in police custody in Istanbul in 1997. The police officers initially charged were later acquitted for lack of evidence.

The European Court found that the authorities were responsible for the injuries sustained by the applicant (violation of Article 3).

The European Court also concluded that the investigation and subsequent proceedings brought against the police officers were not effective, in particular because the applicant was not allowed to identify the alleged perpetrators (violation of Article 13). 

General measures: This case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (see 966th meeting, June 2006, Section 4.3, Volume I) (see also Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 adopted at the 928th meeting (June 2005) which takes stock of the measures already taken and points out the outstanding issues to be resolved).

39437/98           Ülke, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

The case concerns the degrading treatment of the applicant as a result of his repeated convictions and imprisonment for having refused to perform military service (violation of Article 3).

The applicant was called up in August 1995, but refused to do his military service on the ground that he had firm pacifist convictions, and he burned his call-up papers in public at a press conference. In January 1997 the applicant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine.  Between March 1997 and November 1998 the applicant was convicted on eight occasions of “persistent disobedience” on account of his refusal to wear military uniform. During that period he was also convicted on two occasions of desertion, because he had failed to rejoin his regiment. In total, the applicant served 701 days of imprisonment.

The European Court first noted that on each occasion the applicant was freed having serving his sentence, he was once again sentenced and imprisoned for refusing to perform his military service and to wear his uniform. If the applicant persists in refusing to perform his compulsory military service, he has to live the rest of his life with the risk of being sent to prison.

The Court further noted that there was no specific provision in Turkish law governing the sanctions for those who refused to perform military service on conscientious or religious grounds. The only relevant applicable rules were provisions of the Military Criminal Code, which made any refusal to obey the orders of a superior an offence. In the Court's opinion, that legal framework was evidently not sufficient to provide an appropriate means of dealing with situations arising from the refusal to perform military service on account of one's beliefs. The numerous prosecutions already brought against the applicant and the possibility that he is liable to prosecution for the rest of his life amounted almost to “civil death” which was incompatible with the punishment regime of a democratic society within the meaning of Article 3.

Individual measures: The applicant is at present in hiding and is wanted by the security forces for execution of his sentence. He has no official address and has broken off all contacts with the administrative authorities.

In response to the specific measures requested by the applicant, the European Court indicated that it was primarily for the state concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention.

Information is therefore awaited on the measures taken or envisaged by the Turkish authorities to ensure that the consequences of the violation found by the Court are remedied for the applicant urgently.

General measures:

Information is awaited on the measures taken or envisaged by the Turkish authorities concerning the legal framework governing the situation of those who refuse to perform military service on conscientious or religious grounds. Information is also awaited on the publication and dissemination of the judgment to the relevant authorities, including the General Staff.

The Secretariat will write to the Turkish authorities inviting them to present an action plan for the execution of this judgment.

75946/01           Doğan Halis, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006

62226/00           Işik Mehmet Fehmi, judgment of 21/02/2006, final on 21/05/2006

These cases concern the breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the non-communication to the applicants of the written opinion submitted by the Principal Public Prosecutor to the Court of Cassation on the merits (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures: A new provision was added by Law No. 4778 of January 2003 to Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring notification of written opinions of the Principal Public Prosecutor to parties by the competent chamber of the Court of Cassation. This provision was subsequently included in Article 297 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure adopted on 17/12/2004, which entered into force on 01/06/2005.

42572/98           İmret, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

This case concerns the length of the applicant’s detention in police custody for seven days (violation of Article 5 § 3) before being brought before a judge. The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security court which tried and convicted him (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicant was convicted in December 1998 to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. It appears that he was released in September 2002.

General measures:

            1)         Violation of Article 5§3: the case presents similarities to that of Sakık and Others against Turkey (judgment of 26/11/1997) which was closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)110, following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

            2)         Violation of Article 6§ 1: the case presents similarities to that of Çıraklar against Turkey (judgment of 28/10/1998) which was closed by Final Resolution DH(99)555, following the legislative and constitutional amendments changing the composition of state security courts and ending the functions of military judges and military prosecutors in these courts. On 07/05/2004, the Parliament approved a constitutional amendment abolishing state security courts.

                        - Cases concerning independence and impartiality of state security courts

52656/99           Akbaba, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

57345/00           Budak and others, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

58058/00           Kezer and others, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

58397/00           Özsoy, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

41968/98           Sekin Duran, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

45907/99           Tanrıkolu and others, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 12/04/2006

47628/99           Yurtsever, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

These cases concern the violation of the applicants' right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the state security courts which tried and convicted them (violations of Article 6§1). The case of Sekin also concerns the length of the applicant’s detention in police custody for six days and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§§3 and 4).

Individual measures: These cases present similarities to those scheduled for examination in Section 4.1 (See Volume I).The European Court considered that where an individual has been convicted by a court which did not meet the Convention requirements of independence and impartiality, a retrial or a reopening of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation. However, the applicants cannot obtain the reopening of proceedings because the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure on reopening do not apply in the applicants’ cases (see the similar cases in Section 4.1 for the measures expected to be taken).

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 6 §1: these cases present similarities to that of Çıraklar against Turkey (judgment of 28/10/1998) which was closed by Final Resolution DH(99)555, following the legislative and constitutional amendments changing the composition of state security courts and ending the functions of military judges and military prosecutors in these courts. On 07/05/2004, the Parliament approved a constitutional amendment abolishing state security courts.

            2) Violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4: the case of Sekin presents similarities to that of Sakık and Others against Turkey (judgment of 26/11/1997) which was closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)110, following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

                        - Cases concerning freedom of expression – emergency rule

50693/99           Doğan Halis and others, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

57225/00           Tüzel, judgment of 21/02/2006, final on 21/05/2006

These cases concern unjustified interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression on account of bans imposed in 1999, under article 11 e) of Law No. 2935 on the state of emergency, concerning the distribution of a newspaper in the Doğan case and of political posters in the Tüzel case. According to Article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 285 declaring the state of emergency, no administrative decision taken by the governor of a region under the state of emergency rule was subject to judicial review.

In both cases, the Court concluded that this absence of any judicial scrutiny of the governor’s banning orders had violated the applicants’ right to freedom of expression as well as their right to effective remedies (Violations of Articles 10 and 13).

Individual measures: The applicants are not suffering any consequences of the violations found. The European Court has awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

General measures: These cases are similar to that of Çetin and others (40153/98, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03), during the examination of which the Turkish authorities informed the Secretariat that Legislative Decree No. 285 declaring the state of emergency, had been cancelled in November 2002. Since the decree is no longer in force, there is no risk of similar violations occurring, as he current legislation provides judicial remedies.

53919/00           Karakoç Refik, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

This case concerns an unjustified interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant – the former leader of a dissolved party - on account of his conviction in 1998 by a state security court following a public speech and distribution of leaflets dealing with Kurdish issues (conviction under former Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Law). Although the execution of the sentence (imprisonment and a fine) was suspended, the Court considered that the applicant had suffered a disproportionate interference with his freedom of expression (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: Following the abrogation of Article 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 3713 on 19/07/2003 any information on criminal records was erased ex officio by the General Directorate of Judicial Records and Statistics of Ministry of Justice (in conformity with Article 8 of the Law on Criminal Records, as amended by Law No. 4778 of 2/01/2003).

As a result of the abrogation of Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Law and of the erasure of the applicant’s conviction from his criminal record, the attendant restrictions on civil and political rights are also automatically lifted. Furthermore, erasure of convictions, including all their consequences is possible under certain conditions in cases related to freedom of expression in general following the entry into force on 10/02/2003 of Law No. 4809 on suspension of proceedings and sentences concerning crimes committed through the press.

General measures: the case presents similarities to the group of cases concerning violations of freedom of expression (in Section 4.2, Volume I, at the 966th meeting; see also ResDH(2004)38 and CM/Inf(2003)43). 

56566/00           Kaplan Yaşar, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

This case concerns an unjustified interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant, a journalist, in that charges were brought against him in 1998, under Article 95 of the military criminal code, for having published articles which were considered by the military court to undermine soldiers’ trust in their hierarchy. Given the high level of protection to be given to political expressions and the fact that the applicant’s articles did not insult or criticise any specific person, the Court concluded that the criminal action against the applicant had been a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression, the more so since he was also subjected to 42 days’ pre-trial detention (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: By virtue of Law No. 4454 on the suspension of procedures and execution of sentences related to crimes committed through the press, which entered into force on 3/09/99, the applicant’s conviction was set aside on 31/12/2003. Any other consequence of the violation is covered by the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court.

General measures: The case presents some similarity with other cases against Turkey concerning violations of freedom of expression (see the Inçal group of cases, 966th meeting (June 2006) Section 4.2 Volume I). It is, however, the first case dealing with the interpretation of the military criminal code.

Expected measures: The European Court’s judgment should be translated, published and brought to the attention of military courts in order to raise their awareness of the requirements of the Convention regarding freedom of expression. The authorities are also invited to provide information on measures to prevent new similar violations. In this connection, the Secretariat will contact the Turkish authorities with a view to establishing a draft action plan for the execution of this case.

13062/03           Kuzu, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006

The case concerns the failure by the Diyarbakır Municipality to pay a sum of compensation awarded by the national court to the applicant’s husband on account of his redundancy. The applicant’s husband died after the proceedings had been concluded.

The European Court noted that the judgment in favour of the applicant’s husband had remained unenforced for more than six years. The Court reiterated that it was not open to a state authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt and that there could be no justification for a substantial delay in paying compensation to an applicant (violation of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: Information is awaited as to whether the domestic judicial decision has been enforced. The European Court did not award any just satisfaction since the applicant submitted no claim in this respect.

General measures: This case presents similarities to the case of Tütüncü and others which is examined at this meeting (see Section 4.1)

39081/97           Bora and others, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

The case concerns the applicants’ prolonged detention in police custody for ten days (violation of Article 5§3). The case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of this detention (Article 5§4)

General measures: This case presents similarities to that of Sakık and others against Turkey (judgment of 26/11/1997) which was closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)110, following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

78027/01           Karagöz Emrullah, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 12/04/2006

The case concerns the detention of the applicant, who was returned to Gendarmerie premises in Diyarbakır for further questioning (for more than 40 days in November 2001) while he was detained on remand. The European Court found that the applicant’s detention under Decree-Law No. 430 on additional measures to be taken in the region covered by the state of emergency circumvented all effective judicial supervision and thus also the law on detention on remand (violation of Article 5§1 (c)).

The case also concerns the absence of a remedy whereby the applicant might challenge his being taken into custody (violation of Article 5§4).

General measures: In November 2002 the state of emergency was lifted in all regions in Turkey. Consequently, Decree-Law No. 430 is no longer in force.

41973/98           Berk, judgment of 20/04/2006 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicants’ complaints of the excessive length of police custody and absence of a remedy in this respect. The Government undertook the payment of a sum of 5 000 euros to the applicants.

21768/02           Selçuk Vehbi, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

The case concerns the excessively long detention on remand of the applicant (sixteen years old at the material time). The applicant, who was charged with robbery, was detained on remand in December 2001 and was released during his trial in May 2002.

The European Court observed that the national court had refused to release the applicant for more than four months while the proceedings were pending despite the fact that the applicant’s lawyer, referring to Article 5 of the Convention and invoking Article 37 (b) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, requested his release on the ground that he was a minor. The Court further found that the judicial decisions, being worded in a general way, such as “taking into account the nature of the crime and the state of evidence” did not sufficiently specify the reasons justifying the applicants’ detention (violation of Article 5§3).

Individual measures: The applicant is no longer on remand.

General measures: At the outset, the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, in particular to criminal courts, appear necessary.

Information is also awaited as to whether criminal proceedings against minors fall under the jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts or whether the Turkish authorities have taken or envisage measures to ensure that minors are tried by special courts. Lastly, information is awaited as to whether Turkish law provides sufficient safeguards to ensure that minors are only remanded in custody as a measure of last resort and for the shortest time.

The Secretariat has written to the Turkish authorities with a view to presenting an action plan for the execution of this judgment.  

                        - Cases of length of criminal proceedings and detention on remand

25324/02           Taciroğlu, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

42554/98+         Tekin and Baltaş, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006

46412/99           Yaşar Mahmut, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

These cases concern the applicants’ excessively long detention on remand (ten years and three months in the case of Taciroğlu; seven years and eight months in the case of Tekin; six years and eight months in the case of Baltaş and six years and three months in the case of Yaşar). In this respect, the European Court found that the relevant judicial decisions, in only using general wording, such as “taking into account the nature of the crime and the state of evidence” did not provide sufficient information as to the reasons justifying the applicants’ being kept in detention (violations of Article 5§3).

The case of Tekin and Baltaş also concerns the lack of an effective remedy for the length of the applicants’ detention on remand (violation of Article 5§4).

The cases of Yaşar and Tekin and Baltaş also concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings before state security courts (violations of Article 6§1). In the case of Yaşar the proceedings started in June 1994 and ended in December 2003. In the case of Tekin the proceedings started in September 1992 and ended in May 2002. In the case of Baltaş the proceedings started in September 1992 and ended in February 2003.

The case of Tekin and Baltaş also concerns the breach of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the non-communication to the applicants of the written opinion submitted by the Principal Public Prosecutor to the Court of Cassation on the merits (violation of Article 6§1).

Lastly, the case of Yaşar concerns the lack of effective remedy for the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The applicant’s conviction in the case of Taciroğlu was quashed by a decision of the Court of Cassation of April 2005. Copies of the decisions of domestic courts ordering the applicant’s detention on remand are expected. The applicant is thus again detained on remand. The applicant in the case of Yaşar was convicted in December 2002.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 5§§3 and 4:These cases present similarities to the group of cases examined at the 960th meeting (March 2006), the Demirel group, where the Committee is expecting information concerning the change of practice of domestic courts, which are expected to apply the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in line with the requirements of the Convention and the European Court’s case‑law.

            2) Violation of Article 6§1 in the cases of Yaşar and Tekin and Baltaş: these cases are similar to the Ormancı group (see 966th meeting, June 2006, Section 5.1, Volume I). For this group, the Committee is expecting information on the adoption of draft laws which are destined to prevent lengthy proceedings as well as on the introduction of effective domestic remedies in this respect. As far as the violation of Article 6§1 on account of the non-communication of the Public Prosecutor’s written observations, a new provision was added by Law No. 4778 of January 2003 to Article 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring notification of written opinions of the Principal Public Prosecutor to parties by the competent chamber of the Court of Cassation. This provision was subsequently included in Article 297 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure adopted on 17/12/2004, which entered into force on 01/06/2005.

            3) Violation of Article 13 in the case of Yaşar: the case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (see, Volume I, Section 4.3 at the 966th meeting), (see, in this connection also Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43 adopted at the 928th meeting (June 2005) which takes stock of the measures already taken and points out the outstanding issues to be resolved).

                        - Cases of length of judicial proceedings

a. Cases before civil courts

33379/02           Tosun Ezel, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

54673/00           Öztürk Latif Fuat and Others, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

b. Cases before administrative courts

4520/02            Kartal Hayrettin, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 12/04/2006

62838/00           Yiğit İsmail, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 12/04/2006

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

Individual measures: The proceedings in the Öztürk and Kartal cases have been closed. Those in the Tosun case have been pending for over 31 years, while those in the Yiğit case have been pending for more than nine years and six months. Information is awaited on the measures envisaged in order to ensure that the rapid closure of the proceedings in the cases of Tosun and Yiğit. 

General measures: These cases are similar to the Ormancı group (see, 966th meeting, June 2006, Section 5.1, Volume I). For this group, the Committee is expecting information on the adoption of draft laws which are destined to prevent lengthy proceedings as well as on the introduction of effective domestic remedies in this respect.

- Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

53796/00           Acar and others, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

50037/99           Akkoç Talattin, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 12/04/2006

52642/99           Balcı and others, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006

67586/01           Deligöz, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

44295/98           Genç Yusuf, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006

59774/00           Kaba and Güven, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006

44000/98           Kuzu and others, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006, rectified on 23/05/2006

67585/01           Kelali and others, judgment of 24/01/2006, final on 24/04/2006

52895/99           Reçber, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

14796/03           Yalçinkaya, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

74532/01           Yatır, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006

66848/01           Yayan, judgment of 02/02/2006, final on 02/05/2006

74530/01           Yıldız Muharrem Aslan, judgment of 07/02/2006, final on 07/05/2006

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the administration's delay in paying additional compensation for expropriation of their property and the difference between the default interest rate applicable at the time to the debts owed to the state and the average rate of inflation in Turkey (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The pecuniary prejudice suffered by the applicants was remedied by the European Court through the grant of just satisfaction (except in the cases of Akkoç, Reçber and Yayan where the applicants did not submit their claims for just satisfaction). Thus no individual measure would appear to be necessary.

General measures: 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).

- 18 cases against Ukraine

53500/99           Zherdin, judgment of 21/02/2006, final on 21/05/2006

The case concerns the quashing of court judgments given in the applicant’s favour, following a supervisory review (protest) initiated by the President of the Donetsk Regional Court. The European Court found that quashing of this judgement, which was final and binding and was, moreover, enforced on 30/11/2000 infringed the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Once the judgment was annulled, the case was remitted for reconsideration to the Kramatorsk City Court. Information required on the applicant’s current situation and possible interim measures.

General measures: The case presents similarities to the Sovtransavto Holding case (966th meeting, June 2006, Section 4.3, Volume I) in which the Committee is supervising the adoption of general measures.

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments

Application	Cases	Date of domestic judgments	Outcome of the enforcement of domestic judgments
23778/03	Dunda, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006	23/07/2002	Partially unenforced
27370/03+	Gordeyevy and Gurbik, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006	17/08/2000 28/09/2001	Enforced Unenforced
10174/02	Khanenko, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 12/04/2006	16/02/2000 21/11/2000	Clarifications requested
1858/03	Konyukhov, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006	18/06/2002	Unenforced
12170/03	Koshchavets, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006	30/01/2002	Enforced
21726/03	Kotelnikova, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006	09/11/2000	Enforced
6028/02	Malinovskiy, judgment of 31/01/2006, final on 01/05/2006	10/01/2000	Enforced
26907/03	Patrino, judgment of 10/01/2006, final on 10/04/2006	25/04/2001 25/12/2002	Enforced
25664/02	Ratnikov, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006	12/04/2001	Enforced
6237/04	Savenko, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006	26/09/2002	Enforced
10614/02	Shiker, judgment of 31/01/2006, final on 01/05/2006	24/04/1998	Enforced
30177/02	Tribunskiy, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006	18/12/2000	Enforced
44221/04	Ushachov, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 12/04/2006	22/04/2002 22/04/2002	Unenforced
22214/02	Vodopyanovy, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006	01/08/2000 13/02/2001	Enforced Enforced
8794/04	Volkov, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006	10/05/2002 16/07/2003	Enforced Enforced
17686/04	Voykina, judgment of 17/01/2006, final on 17/04/2006	13/06/2000	Partially unenforced

These cases concern violations of the applicants' right to effective judicial protection due to the failure or substantial delay by the administration in execution of final judicial decisions delivered in the applicants' favour and mainly concerning salary arrears and other payments (violations of Article 6§1).

In some of these cases the European Court also found consequent violations of the applicant's right to the respect for their property (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and/or of Article 13 due to the lack of an effective remedy to expedite the proceedings or to provide the applicants with adequate redress for delays incurred.

Individual measures: In the cases mentioned in bold in the table above, the Court found that the respondent state must secure the enforcement of the domestic courts' judgments within 3 months from the date on which the European Court's judgments become final. In addition, clarification is awaited in the Khanenko case.

General measures: These cases are similar to the ones in the Zhovner group of cases (Section 4.2), in which the Committee is supervising the adoption of comprehensive general measures.

11336/02           Yurtayev, judgment of 31/01/2006, final on 01/05/2006

This case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant on 27/02/1998. They lasted 3 years, 3 months for two degrees of jurisdiction both of which considered the case on three occasions (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None: proceedings closed.

General measures: The case presents similarities to the Merit group of cases (966th meeting, June 2006, Section 4.2, Volume I) in which the Committee is supervising the adoption of general measures.

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

61604/00+         Oliver and Britten, judgment of 25/04/2006 - Friendly settlement

These cases concern complaints by the applicants, widowers with children, that they were not entitled to benefits available to widows on the ground that only women were entitled to such benefits under the arrangements applicable prior to April 2001 (complaints under Articles 8, 14 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

60933/00           Cole, judgment of 23/05/2006 - Friendly settlement

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.

Decision unless specified otherwise: The Deputies decided to resume consideration of the following cases at their 976th meeting (17- 18 October 2006) (DH) for supervision of payment of the just satisfaction or, at the latest, within six months providing that proof of the payment of the just satisfaction has been received before the deadline for transmission of new information for the preparation of the meeting.

- 1 case against Albania

                        - Default interest due

54268/00           Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k., judgment of 18/11/2005, final on 30/03/2005

- 3 cases against Austria

5263/03            Wolfmeyer, judgment of 26/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005

76809/01           Baumann Ulrike, judgment of 07/10/2004, final on 07/01/2005, revised on 09/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

69162/01           Geyer, judgment of 07/07/2005, final on 07/10/2005

- 2 cases against Belgium

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

46046/99           Marien, judgment of 03/11/2005, final on 03/02/2006

2527/02            Panier, judgment of 30/03/2006 - Friendly settlement

- 9 cases against Bulgaria

44079/98           United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006

59489/00           United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden - Pirin and others, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

46336/99           Ivanov and others, judgment of 24/11/2005, final on 24/02/2006

50411/99           Todorov Roumen, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

52389/99           Hristov Emil, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

49429/99           Capital Bank AD, judgment of 24/11/2005, final on 24/02/2006

45980/99           Kostov, judgment of 03/11/2005, final on 03/02/2006

44241/98           Nedyalkov, judgment of 03/11/2005, final on 03/02/2006

48137/99           Popov, judgment of 01/12/2005, final on 01/03/2006

- 12 cases against the Czech Republic

64935/01           Chmelíř, judgment of 07/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005

6019/03            Zemanová, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

57246/00           Vejmola, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

73116/01           Mařík, judgment of 12/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005

- Cases of length of judicial proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

35883/02           Fáber, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 30/11/2005

35888/02           Nemeth, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

27911/02           Slezák and others, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

29054/03           Tetourová, judgment of 27/09/2005, final on 27/12/2005

14044/04           Thon, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

70847/01           Volf, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

65291/01           Vrábel and Ďurica, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

8768/03            Zouhar, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

- 1 case against Denmark

25907/02           Topp, judgment of 29/11/2005 - Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against Estonia

13249/02           Taal, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

64812/01           Alver, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

- 3 cases against Finland

39481/98+         Mild and Virtanen, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

- Cases of length of judicial proceedings

27744/95           T. and others, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

66899/01           Ruoho, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

- 47 cases against France

                       - Just satisfaction due

1513/03            Draon, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber

11810/03           Maurice, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber

54968/00           Paturel, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

68673/01           Mathieu, judgment of 27/10/2005, final on 27/01/2006

45338/99           Authouart, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

71244/01           Bozon, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

61328/00           De Sousa, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

69507/01           Fernandez-Rodriguez, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

4069/02            Géniteau No. 2, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

77655/01           Relais du Min S.ar.l., judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

73316/01           Siliadin, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

61104/00           Quillevere, judgment of 27/10/2005 - Friendly settlement

65399/01+         Clinique des Acacias and others, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006

75833/01           Schemkamper, judgment of 18/10/2005, final on 18/01/2006

65935/01           M.B., judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

57470/00           Ouattara Amadou, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 30/11/2005

42272/98           Potier, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

- Case of length of proceedings concerning civil rights or obligations before administrative courts

77098/01           Desrues, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

                       - Default interest due

39594/98           Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber

59480/00           Harizi, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005

49572/99           Geniteau, judgment of 07/12/2004, final on 07/03/2005

49451/99           Blondet, judgment of 05/10/2004, final on 05/01/2005

68864/01           Merger and Cros, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 22/03/2005

25971/94           Proma di Franco Gianotti, Interim Resolution DH(99)566

29731/96           Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

37794/97           Pannullo and Forte, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

37786/97           Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

52206/99           Mokrani, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

58148/00           Société Plon, judgment of 18/05/2004, final on 18/08/2004

59765/00           Carabasse, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005

63059/00           Lafaysse, judgment of 12/10/2004, final on 12/01/2005

56588/00           Chesnay, judgment of 12/10/2004, final on 12/01/2005

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

44081/98           Perhirin and 29 others, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 04/09/02, revised on 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

56198/00          Société Industrielle d’Entretien and de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

73804/01           Storck, judgment of 14/09/2004, final on 14/12/2004

71377/01           Watt, judgment of 28/09/2004, final on 28/12/2004

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

52189/99           Mouesca, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings combined with civil action for damages

42270/98           Frangy, judgment of 01/02/2005, final on 01/05/2005

69258/01           Quemar, judgment of 01/02/2005, final on 01/05/2005

- Friendly settlements

33023/96           Meier, judgment of 07/02/02 – Friendly settlement

45172/99           Fentati, judgment of 22/10/02 - Friendly settlement

49613/99           Garon, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

41526/98           Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00 - Friendly settlement

42279/98           Diard, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

47631/99           Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

53607/99           Cohen and Smadja, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

43543/98           Loyen René, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against Georgia

2507/03            “Amat-G“ Ltd and Mebaghishvili, judgment of 27/09/2005, final on 15/02/2006

28537/02           “Iza” Ltd and Makrakhidze, judgment of 27/09/2005, final on 27/12/2005

- 1 case against Georgia and the Russian Federation

36378/02           Chamaïev and 12 others, judgment of 12/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005

- 5 cases against Greece

                       - Just satisfaction due

15250/02           Bekos and Koutropoulos, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

75898/01           Ioannidou-Mouzaka, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005[3]

32259/02           Iera Moni Profitou Iliou Thiras, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006[4]

                        - Default interest due

43837/02           Castren-Niniou, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005[5]

72081/01           Mavroudis, judgment of 22/09/2005, final on 22/12/2005[6]

- 9 cases against Hungary

21742/02           Miklós, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

6437/02            Nagy, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

- Cases of length of judicial proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations

4417/02            Kálnási G. and G., judgment of 27/09/2005, final on 15/02/2006

458/03              Kántor, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

6444/02+          Kármán, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

13318/02           Kárpáti, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

30330/02           Mezei, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

28441/02           Szikora, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

35701/04           Tóth, Magyar and Tóthné, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

- 1 case against Ireland

18273/04          Barry, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006

- 132 cases against Italy

                       - Just satisfaction due

42644/02           Picaro, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

77986/01           Forte, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006

36813/97           Scordino No. 1, judgment of 29/03/2006 - Grand Chamber[7]

- Cases of length of judicial proceedings

64890/01           Apicella, judgment of 29/03/2006 - Grand Chamber

64886/01           Cocchiarella, judgment of 29/03/2006 - Grand Chamber

64705/01           Mostacciuolo Giuseppe No. 1, judgment of 29/03/2006 - Grand Chamber

65102/01           Mostacciuolo Giuseppe No. 2, judgment of 29/03/2006 - Grand Chamber

64699/01           Musci, judgment of 29/03/2006 - Grand Chamber

65075/01           Procaccini Giuseppina and Orestina, judgment of 29/03/2006 - Grand Chamber

62361/00           Riccardi Pizzati, judgment of judgment of 29/03/2006 - Grand Chamber

64897/01           Zullo Ernestina, judgment of du 29/03/2006 - Grand Chamber

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

68008/01           Frateschi, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 08/03/2006

67911/01           Molteni and Ghisi, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

69834/01           Sciortino Giovanna, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

68706/01           Stornelli and 3 others, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

70585/01           Cecere Enrico, judgment of 24/11/2005 - Friendly settlement

15491/02           Comellini, judgment of 09/02/2006 - Friendly settlement

17644/03           De Luca Otello, judgment of 09/02/2006 - Friendly settlement

                        - Default interest due

55984/00           Goffi, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 06/07/2005

39221/98+         Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber - Résolutions intérimaires ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151

15918/89           Antonetto, judgment of 20/07/00, final on 20/10/00

36732/97           Pisano, judgment of 24/10/02 - Striking-out - Grand Chamber

37710/97           Elia S.r.l., judgment of 02/08/2001, final on 02/11/2001 and of 22/07/2004, final on 22/10/2004

25337/94           Craxi No. 2, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

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

38011/97           Aponte, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

59636/00           Calvo, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

28724/95           Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

55161/00           Cima, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

34658/97           E.P. No. 4, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

33696/96           L. and P. No. 2, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

32542/96           L.B. No. 3, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

36149/97           Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

64663/01           Lo Tufo, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

17482/90           D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28

44446/98           Di Girolamo and 6 others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

44409/98           Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, rectified on 04/07/02

44505/98           Shipcare S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

24170/94           Pesce Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)468

- Friendly settlements

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

46079/99           Biffoni, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

35997/97           Candela, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

48840/99           Carloni Tarli, judgment of 30/05/03 - Friendly settlement

31928/96           F. and F., judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

60660/00           Ferretti Maria Grazia, judgment of 06/03/03 - Friendly settlement

39451/98           Fiorentini Vizzini, judgment of 19/12/02 - Friendly settlement

42414/98           G.G. No. 5, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

39690/98           Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

63600/00           Notargiacomo, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

60662/00           Nuti, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

47895/99           Sartorelli, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

55673/00           Savarese, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

34714/97           Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement

36734/97           Visca, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

45071/98           Capurro and Tosetti, judgment of 28/04/00 - Friendly settlement

40979/98           Conte Riccardo No. 2, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

40954/98           D’Alessandro, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

40982/98           Erdokovy, judgment of 01/02/00 - Friendly settlement

53705/00           M.L. and 46 others, judgment of 05/04/01 – Friendly settlement

40978/98           Mantini, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

40956/98           Marchetti, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

53708/00           Mas A. and 207 others, judgment of 07/06/01 – Friendly settlement

40952/98           Paderni No. 2, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

45070/98           Persichetti and C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

28936/95           Piccinini No. 2, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

45065/98           Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

45058/98           Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

43098/98           Romano, judgment of 28/09/00 - Friendly settlement

45068/98           Toscano and others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

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

41807/98           Centioni and others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

41813/98           Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

41812/98           Piccirillo Aldo, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

37118/97           Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

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

40363/98           Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43063/98           Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

40975/98           Bucci, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

43094/98           C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

42999/98           Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43085/98           Cesare Silvio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43086/98           Cesare Cosimo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43020/98           Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

42996/98           Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43088/98           Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43083/98           D’Addona Simone, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

43017/98           D’Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43059/98           D’Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

40960/98           Dattilo, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

43054/98           Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43051/98           Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43062/98           Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43030/98           Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43022/98           Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43056/98           Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43058/98           Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43096/98           G.A. No. 4, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43093/98           G.P. No. 6, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43075/98           Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

38975/97           Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43050/98           Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43074/98           Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43072/98           Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43091/98           Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

42998/98           Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43101/98           Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43021/98           Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43067/98           Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43065/98           Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43102/98           Lepore T., Lepore M. and Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

43068/98           Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43095/98           M.C. No. 10, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43010/98           Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43000/98           Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43018/98           Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43069/98           Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43057/98           Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43064/98           Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43100/98           Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43076/98           P.T. No. 2, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43012/98           Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43052/98           Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43061/98           Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43060/98           Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43023/98           Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43087/98           Rotondi Cosimo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43019/98           Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43055/98           Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43099/98           Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

42997/98           Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43084/98           Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43016/98           Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43070/98           Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43109/98           Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43015/98           Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

43066/98           Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

- 5 cases against Moldova

35207/03           Ostrovar, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 15/02/2006

40663/98           Asito, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

19960/04           Popov No. 2, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

31530/03           Baibarac, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006

11039/02           Savitchi, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

- 5 cases against the Netherlands

24919/03           Mathew, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 15/02/2006

60665/00           Tuquabo-Tekle and others, judgment of 01/12/2005, final on 01/03/2006[8]

54789/00           Bocos-Cuesta, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006

62015/00           Schenkel, judgment of 27/10/2005, final on 27/01/2006

25149/03           Van Houten, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005 - Striking-out

- 15 cases against Poland

73547/01           Jedamski and Jedamska, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

71731/01           Kniat, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

39199/98           Podbielski and PPU Polpure, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

37444/97           Bagiński, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

- Cases of monitoring of the correspondence

20841/02           Drozdowski, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

63905/00           Wasilewski, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

- Cases of length of detention on remand

75112/01           Czarnecki, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

10268/03           Kankowski, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

31575/03           Kozłowski, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

44722/98           Łatasiewicz, judgment of 23/06/2005, final on 23/09/2005

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

55233/00           Wojda, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

47627/99           Badowski, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

52690/99           Majewski, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

64204/01           Majewski and others, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

- Case of length of proceedings concerning civil rights or obligations before administrative courts

49961/99           Bogucki, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006

- 12 cases against Portugal

                        - Just satisfaction due

30533/03           Carvalho Acabado, judgment of 18/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006[9]

64330/01           Antunes Rocha, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005

15996/02           Magalhães Pereira No. 2, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

9388/02            Cruz da Silva Coelho, judgment of 13/12/2005, Friendly settlement

                        - Default interest due

69338/01           Calheiros Lopes and others, judgment of 07/06/2005, final on 07/09/2005

53468/99           Mora Do Vale and others, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

- Cases of length of judicial proceedings[10]

52662/99           Jorge Nina Jorge and others, judgment of 19/02/04, final on 19/05/04

52657/99           Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

44298/98           Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

- Friendly settlements

48233/99           Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

48752/99           Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

49020/99           F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

- 24 cases against Romania

                        - Just satisfaction due

7893/02            Ghibuşi, judgment of 23/06/2005, final on 12/10/2005

57001/00           Străin and others, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

2911/02            Popescu Mihai-Iulian, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005

746/02              Tacea, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005

22687/03           SC Maşinexportimport Industrial Group SA, judgment of 01/12/2005, final on 01/03/2006

77364/01           Ilişescu and Chiforec, judgment of 01/12/2005, final on 01/03/2006

35671/97          Lindner and Hammermayer, judgment of 06/04/2006 - Grand Chamber - Friendly settlement[11]

30324/96           Smoleanu, judgment of 06/04/2006 - Grand Chamber - Friendly settlement[12]

31549/96           Popovici and Dumitrescu, judgment of 06/04/2006 - Grand Chamber - Friendly settlement[13]

38608/97          Ionescu, judgment of 02/11/2004, final on 02/02/2005 and of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006

41138/98+         Moldovan and others, judgment No. 2, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005[14]

73970/01           Sacaleanu, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005[15]

60957/00           Velcea, judgment of 22/12/2005 - Friendly settlement

23878/02           Strungariu, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings[16]

77517/01+         Stoianova and Nedelcu, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005

78048/01           Tudorache, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005

                        - Default interest due

34647/97           Ruianu, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

54062/00           Androne, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 06/06/2005

- Cases concerning the annulment of final court decisions relating to property ownership

35831/97           Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

28342/95           Brumărescu, arrêts du 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01 (rectification) – Grand Chamber

31804/96           Chiriacescu, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

32925/96           Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

33355/96           Popescu Nasta, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

31680/96           State and others, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

- 21 cases against the Russian Federation

                        - Just satisfaction due

74826/01           Shofman, judgment of 24/11/2005, final on 24/02/2006[17]

71933/01           Gartukayev, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006[18]

55762/00+         Timishev, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006[19]

5140/02            Fedotov, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

53203/99           Vanyan, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006

77785/01           Znamenskaya, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 12/10/2005

- Cases concerning the quashing of final judgments through the supervisory review procedure

63973/00           Androsov, judgment of 06/10/05, final on 15/02/06[20]

69341/01           Romanov Yuriy, judgment of 25/10/05, final on 15/02/06[21]

73203/01           Smarygin, judgment of 01/12/05, final on 01/03/06[22]

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments

24654/03           Bobrova, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 17/02/06

40642/02           Denisenkov, judgment of 22/09/05, final on 15/02/06

24657/03           Gerasimenko, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 17/021/06

22534/02           Mikhaylova and others, judgment of 17/11/05, final on 17/02/06

7363/04            Mikryukov, judgment of 08/12/05, final on 08/03/06

23405/03           Reynbakh, judgment of 29/09/05, final on 29/12/05

7237/03            Valentina Vasilyeva, judgment of 17/11/2005, final on 17/02/2006

- Cases of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

14983/04           Rybakov, judgment of 22/12/05, final on 22/03/06

33914/12           Skorobogatova, judgment of 01/12/2005, final on 01/03/2006

20496/04           Tusashvili, judgment of 15/12/05, final on 15/03/06

                        - Default interest due

65659/01           Presidential Party of Mordovia, judgment of 05/10/2004, final on 05/01/2005, rectified on 31/03/2005

- Case concerning poor conditions of detention

62208/00           Labzov, judgment of 16/06/05, final on 16/09/05

- 4 cases against the Slovak Republic

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

3661/04            Gábriška, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

53363/99           Vanek, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 28/02/2006

                        - Default interest due

48814/99           Zuzčák and Zuzčáková, judgment of 13/07/04, final on 13/07/2004

- Friendly settlement

54822/00           Micovčin, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against Spain

                        - Default interest due

58438/00           Martínez Sala and others, judgment of 02/11/2004, final on 02/02/2005

66990/01           Soto Sanchez, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

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

                        - Default interest due

- Friendly settlement

58185/00           Janeva, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

- 70 cases against Turkey

                       - Just satisfaction due

36150/02           Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006[23]

29871/96           İletmiş, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

29986/96           A.D., judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

42208/02+         Ayçoban and others, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

32456/96           Dindar, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

26050/04           Gürbüz, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006[24]

24040/04           Kuruçay, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006[25]

7454/04            Uyan, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006[26]

22913/04           Yıldız Tekin, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006[27]

40530/98           Aydoğan, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

23188/02           Tendik and others, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

57908/00           Aslan Dürdane and Aslan Selvihan, judgment of 10/01/2006 - Friendly settlement

497/02              Çıtıkbel, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

- Cases concerning independence and impartiality of state security courts[28]

55954/00           Akar and Beçet, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

59640/00           Çiftçi Evrim, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

62017/00           Doğru, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006

57343/00           Hatun and others, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006,
rectified on 01/12/2005

63357/00           Öncü and others, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

62877/00           Taş Dede, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006

57344/00           Yağiz and others, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

57172/00           Yılmaz and Durç, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

- Cases concerning freedom of expression

63739/00           Aydın Abdullah No. 2, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006

54916/00           Bakır, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

64609/01           Çamlıbel, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

42779/98           Çetin Vedat, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

40987/98           Korkmaz No. 1, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

42589/98           Korkmaz No. 2, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

42590/98           Korkmaz No. 3, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

29365/95           Öztürk Ünsal, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

42605/98           Şahin Fikret, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

56004/00           Küçük Yalçın No. 2, judgment of 02/03/2006 - Friendly settlement

- Case concerning the ineffectiveness of domestic proceedings brought following ill-treatment inflicted by members of the security forces

40262/98           H.Y. and Hü.Y., judgment of 06/10/2005, final on 06/01/2006

- Cases concerning the actions of Turkish security forces

28299/95           Haran Nesibe, judgment of 06/10/2005, final on 06/01/2006

32444/96           Kanlıbaş, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 08/03/2006

37038/97           Kurt Nuri, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

42593/98           Memiş, judgment of 21/02/2006, rectified on 30/05/2006 - Friendly settlement

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings and of detention on remand

14899/03           Çiçekler, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

71517/01           Gezici and İpek, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006

- Cases of length of judicial proceedings

50165/99           Doğan Ali Rıza, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

70829/01           Gabay, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

31132/96           Döleneken, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

- Cases of length of detention in custody

64741/01           Bulduş, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

30498/96           H.E., judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

30497/96           I.B., judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

7035/02            Küçük Mehmet Mübarek, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

31734/96           Pütün, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

46281/99           Sincar and others, judgment of 02/02/2006 - Friendly settlement

29918/96+         Tanrıkulu and others, judgment of 06/10/2005, final on 06/01/2006

- Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

67240/01           Aşga, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

67249/01           Ekin and others, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006,
rectified on 10/05/2006

44766/98+         Kanioğlu and others, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

67252/01           Keltaş, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006, rectified on 10/05/2006

42708/98           Özer and others, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

67140/01           Şaşmaz and others, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

72520/01           Şimşek, judgment of 22/12/2005, final on 22/03/2006

70289/01           Yayla, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

                        - Default interest due

49164/99           Kılıç Ayşe, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

47165/99           Özkan Fadime, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

60847/00           Saçık, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

- Case concerning the independence and impartiality of state security courts [29]

42552/98           Yılmaz Mehmet Bülent and Yılmaz Şahin, judgment of 07/10/2004, final on 07/01/2005

- Case concerning the ineffectiveness of domestic proceedings brought following ill-treatment inflicted by members of the security forces

34592/97           Ağdaş, judgment of 27/07/2004, final on 27/10/2004

- Case concerning the actions of Turkish security forces and the failure to furnish all necessary facilities to the European Court in its investigations with a view to establishing the facts

24351/94           Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03

- Cases concerning the actions of Turkish security forces

32572/96+         Aydın and Yunus, judgment of 22/06/2004, final on 22/09/2004, rectified on 03/02/2005

22876/93           Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02

29422/95           Tepe Ayşe, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

34506/97           Türkoğlu, judgment of 17/03/2005, final on 17/06/2005

- Case concerning freedom of expression

27528/95           Kızılyaprak, judgment of 02/10/03, final on 02/01/04

- Case of length of detention in custody

25142/94+         Sadak Selim, judgment of 08/04/04

- Case concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

38883/97           H.B. and others, judgment of 27/05/2004, final on 27/08/2004

- Friendly settlement

46649/99           Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

- 96 cases against Ukraine

                        - Just satisfaction due

34056/02           Gongadze, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006[30]

72713/01          Ukrainian Media Group, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 12/10/2005, rectified on 16/06/2005

65518/01           Salov, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

61406/00           Gurepka, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

72269/01           Strizhak, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

63134/00           Kechko, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

14183/03           Antonenkov and others, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

- Cases concerning the quashing of final judgments through the supervisory review procedure

62608/00           Agrotehservis, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

74104/01           Ivanova, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

63158/00           Timotiyevich, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

- Cases of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

22431/02           Baglay, judgment of 08/11/05, final on 08/02/06

56918/00           Leshchenko and Tolyupa, judgment of 08/11/05, final on 08/02/06

70767/01           Pavlyulynets, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

36655/02           Smirnova, judgment of 08/11/05, défintif le 08/02/06

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments[31]

10558/03           Anatskiy, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

22597/02           Antonovskyi, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

1093/02            Belanova, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

20837/02           Belitskiy, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

19603/03           Bezugly, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

5788/02            Bitkivska, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

3446/03            Bozhko, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

22098/02           Bukhovets, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

26892/03           Buza, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

7302/03            Cheremskoy, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

37296/03           Cherginets, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

11324/02           Chernobryvko, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

15366/03           Chernyayev, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

22219/02           Drobotyuk, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

71186/01           Fuklev, judgment of 07/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

4629/03            Garkusha, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

24596/02           Gavrilenko, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

18949/03           Gayday, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

3216/02            Golovin, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

41125/02           Gouzovskiy, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

18858/03+         Grachevy and others, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

17303/03           Ilchenko, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

23390/02+         Ishcenko and others, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

12884/02           Karpova, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

22289/02           Kasperovich, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

29872/02           Kim, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

17304/03           Kosareva, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

29459/03+         Kosarevskaya and others, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

43593/02           Kotlyarov, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

27349/03           Kozhanova, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

22246/02           Krutko, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

27347/02           Kucherenko, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006

41030/02           Kurshatsova, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

39164/02           Kuzmenkov, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

70898/01           Lupandin, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 15/02/2006

22972/02           Lyutykh, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

24626/03           Melnikova, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

44379/02           Mikheyeva, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

32551/03+         Miroshnichenko and Grabovskaya, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

29420/03           Miroshnichenko, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

68897/01           Molchan, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

10072/03           Morkotun, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

22993/02           Nikishin, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

18378/03           Nosal, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

5384/03            Oleynik and Baybarza, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

5578/03            Ovcharenko, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

20473/02           Pastukhov, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

5497/02            Piskunov, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

39496/02           Polonets, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

5596/03            Romanchenko, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

11412/02           Rudenko, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

3445/03            Ryabich, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

26996/03           Rybak, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

1805/03+          Ryzhenkov and Zaytsev, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

25463/03           Semenov, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

10905/03           Shevchenko, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

10336/02           Shevelev, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

19158/02           Sidenko, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

27282/03           Sivokoz, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

41152/98           Skubenko, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

32547/03           Solovyeva, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

59312/00           Svintitskiy and Goncharov, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

4773/02            Sychev, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

20625/02           Tambovtsev, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

70297/01           Terem Ltd, Chechetkin and Olius, judgment of 18/10/2005, final on 18/01/2006

19844/02           Toropov, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

58312/00           Trykhlib, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

14612/03           Tsanga, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

22766/02           Verkeyenko, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

42318/02           Vigovskyy, judgment of 20/12/2005, final on 20/03/2006

16881/03           Vishnevskaya, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

2518/03            Vladimirskiy, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

2442/03            Yukin, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

17015/03           Zakharov, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

10231/02           Zamula and others, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

7884/03            Zhurba, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

11421/03           Zolotukhin, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

29570/02           Zyts, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

                        - Default interest due

41220/98           Aliev, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

47148/99           Novoseletskiy, judgment of 22/02/2005, final on 22/05/2005

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments [32]

67647/01           Bakay and others, judgment of 09/11/2004, final on 09/02/2005

35091/02+         Mykhaylenky and others, judgment of 30/11/04, final on 06/06/05

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

- Just satisfaction due

71841/01           Yetkinsekerci, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006

*                       *                      *

- 1 case against Denmark

52562/99+         Sørensen and Rasmussen, judgment of 11/01/2006 - Grand Chamber

- 1 case against Greece

74989/01           Ouranio Toxo and others, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

*                       *                      *

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

                       - Just satisfaction due

65575/01           Hornáček, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

- 1 case against Turkey

- Case concerning the actions of Turkish security forces and the failure to furnish all necessary facilities to the European Court in its investigations with a view to establishing the facts

27309/95           Dizman, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

                        - Just satisfaction due

74025/01          Hirst No. 2, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber

*                       *                      *

- 2 cases against France

55929/00           Loyen Marie-Louise and others, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 05/10/2005

68397/01           Maisons traditionnelles, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

*                       *                      *

- 2 cases against the Russian Federation

31008/02           Fedorov and Fedorova, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 13/01/2006

63993/00           Romanov, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

*                       *                      *

- 3 cases against Turkey

26972/95           Dündar, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

27526/95           Günaydın Vedat and Şahin, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006

33420/96+         Kaya Belkıza and others, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

*                       *                      *

- 6 cases against Turkey

46454/99           Ceylan No. 2, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

47796/99           Erol Ali No. 2, judgment of 27/10/2005, final on 27/01/2006

48387/99           Kaya Haydar, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

49564/99           Keskin Emire Eren, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

55391/00           Özçelik Osman and others, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

56362/00           Yüksel (Geyik), judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

- 3 cases against France

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

26160/02           Alagia and Nusbaum, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

55763/00           Conus, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

35009/02           Maillard, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

- 5 cases against Greece

- Just satisfaction due

2507/02            Kurti, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

35765/03           Proïos, judgment of 24/11/05, final on 24/02/06

- Cases of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

23025/03           Dimitrakopoulou, judgment of 08/12/05, final on 08/03/06

8838/03            Drakidou, judgment of 10/11/05, final on 10/02/06

19010/03           IIiopoulou, judgment of 08/12/05, final on 08/03/06

- 19 cases against Turkey

19578/02           Özata Zahide Songül, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006

                        - Just satisfaction due

4080/02            Dağ and Yaşar, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

35832/97           IPSD and others, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

60261/00           Çalışlar, judgment of 17/01/2005, Friendly settlement

45050/98           Akat, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

43974/98           Bulğa and others, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

43672/98           Ertaş Aydın and others, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

- Cases of length of detention in custody

77111/01           Ataoğlu, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006, rectified on 01/06/2006

51479/99           Çelik and Yıldız, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006

74411/01           Daş, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

41136/98           Kılıçoğlu, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

16608/02           Tunç Fatma, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

- Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

57642/00           Alataş and Kalkan, judgment of 11/10/2005, final on 11/01/2006

47574/99           Çoruh, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

44713/98           Derilgen and others, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

42913/98           S.S. Özulaş Yapı Kooperatifi, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

38861/03           Uludağ Suzi, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

44763/98           Yaşar and others, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006

88/02                Yılmaz Cevdet and Hatice, judgment of 20/09/2005, final on 20/12/2005

*                       *                      *

- 1 case against Portugal

75088/01           Urbino Rodrigues, judgment of 29/11/2005, final on 01/03/2006

*                       *                      *

- 2 cases against Turkey

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings and of detention on remand

5701/02            Karagöz Gönül, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

35065/97           N.M., judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

*                       *                      *

- 3 cases against Turkey

- Cases of length of judicial proceedings

49275/99           Karakullukçu, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006, rectified on 15/03/2006

39327/02           Mete, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

5400/02            Eser, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

*                              *                              *

- 1 case against Greece

*66742/01         Katsoulis and others, judgment of 08/07/2004, final on 08/10/2004 and of 24/11/2005, final on 24/02/2006

*                              *                              *

- 1 case against Greece

- Case of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

77198/01           Athanasiou, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005

- 6 cases against Greece

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights or obligations before administrative courts and of lack of an effective remedy

25324/03           Georgopoulos and others, judgment of 08/12/05, final on 08/03/06

15689/03           Giakoumeli and others, judgment of 08/12/05, final on 08/03/06

14173/03           Gili and others, judgment of 08/12/05, final on 08/03/06

32168/03           Nikopoulou, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005

14165/03           Renieri and others, judgment of 08/12/05, final on 08/03/06

42320/02           Tsantiris, judgment of 01/12/05, final on 01/03/06

*

*           *

- 1 case against Italy

56581/00           Sejdovic, judgment of 01/03/2006 - Grand Chamber

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

                        SATISFACTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT

                        EXPIRED MORE THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

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

Expiry date

of the time-limit set

- 5 cases against Austria

41444/98          Hennig, judgment of 02/10/03, final on 02/01/04                                                   02/04/2004

58141/00           Thaler, judgment of 03/02/2005, final on 03/05/2005                                             03/08/2005

37040/02           Riepl, judgment of 03/02/2005, final on 03/05/2005                                               03/08/2005

56483/00           Jancikova, judgment of 07/04/2005, final on 07/07/2005                                       07/10/2005

11084/02+         H.G. and G.B., judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 02/09/2005                                 02/12/2005

- 1 case against Belgium

46825/99+         Claes and others, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 02/09/2005                             02/12/2005

- 1 case against Bulgaria

42908/98+         Kirilova and others, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005                          09/12/2005

- 31 cases against France

38396/97           Karatas and Sari, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02                                     16/11/2002

44962/98           Yvon, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03[33]                                                    24/10/2004

53892/00           Lilly France, judgment of 14/10/03, final on 14/01/04                                            14/04/2004

69825/01           Faivre No. 2, judgment of 16/12/03, final on 16/03/04                                           16/06/2004

53951/00           Ardex S.A., judgment of 06/04/04 - Friendly settlement                                        06/07/2004

51294/99           Madi, judgment of 27/04/04 - Friendly settlement                                                 27/07/2004

59584/00           Rivas, judgment of 01/04/2004, final on 01/07/2004                                              07/10/2004

67114/01           Coorbanally, judgment of 01/04/2004, final on 01/07/2004                                    01/10/2004

39001/97           Maat, judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 27/07/2004                                               27/10/2004

49580/99           Santoni, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 29/10/2003, revised on 01/06/2004

                        final on 01/09/2004                                                                                             01/12/2004

53929/00           Richard-Dubarry, judgment of 01/06/2004, final on 01/09/2004                              01/01/2005

57671/00           Slimani, judgment of 27/07/2004, final on 27/10/2004                                           27/01/2005

38410/97+         Fontaine and Bertin, judgment of 08/07/2003, final on 10/11/2004                         10/02/2005

44568/98           R.L. and M.-J.D., judgment of 19/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004                              10/02/2005

51360/99           Marschner, judgment of 28/09/2004, final on 28/12/2004                                       28/03/2005

52621/99           Schwarkmann, judgment of 08/02/2005, final on 08/05/2005                                 08/08/2005

69678/01           Cossec, judgment of 14/12/2004, final on 06/06/2005                                           06/09/2005

57752/00           Matheron, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005                                        29/09/2005

43640/98           Mariani, judgment of 31/03/2005, final on 01/07/2005                                            01/10/2005

62740/00           Matheus, judgment of 31/03/2005, final on 01/07/2005                                          01/10/2005

61517/00           F.W., judgment of 31/03/2005, final on 06/07/2005                                               06/10/2005

74587/01           Lacas, judgment of 08/02/2005, final on 06/07/2005                                             06/10/2005

62034/00           Vigroux, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005                                           19/11/2002

59842/00           Vetter, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005                                             01/12/2005

64460/01           Bach, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005                                               28/12/2005

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

61173/00           Lechoisne and others, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03                             17/12/2003

27928/02+         Broca and Texier-Micault, judgment of 21/10/03, final on 21/01/04                         21/04/2004

51442/99           Coudrier, judgment of 10/02/2004, final on 14/06/2004                                          14/09/2004

66053/01           Simon, judgment of 08/06/2004, final on 08/09/2004                                             08/12/2004

55084/00           Dagot, judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 10/11/2004                                             10/03/2005

55704/00           Rega, judgment of 09/12/2004, final on 09/03/2005                                              09/06/2005

- 4 cases against Greece

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights or obligations before administrative courts and of lack of an effective remdy

33339/02           Gika and 9 others, judgment of 17/03/2005, final on 17/06/2005                            17/09/2005

5973/03            Kabetsis, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005                                          21/10/2005

5957/03            Kollias, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005                                             21/10/2005

5038/03            Plastarias, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005                                        21/10/2005

- 51 cases against Italy

33202/96           Beyeler, arrêts du 05/01/00 (merits) and of 28/05/02 (Article 41)                             28/08/2002

36681/97           Santoro, judgment of 01/07/2004, final on 01/10/2004                                          01/01/2005

36815/97           Scordino No. 2, judgment of 15/07/2004, final on 15/10/2004                                15/01/2005

38746/97           Buffalo Srl en liquidation, judgment of 03/07/03, final on 03/10/03

                        and of 22/07/2004, final on 22/10/2004                                                                22/01/2005

27265/95           Terazzi S.A.S., judgment of 17/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003 and
                        du 26/10/2004, final on 26/01/2004                                                                      26/04/2005

50774/99           Sciacca, judgment of 11/01/2005, final on 06/06/2005                                          06/09/2005

- Case of length of civil proceedings

30423/96           Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673                                             22/10/2002

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

44330/98          Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement                            19/03/2001

41806/98          Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01                           27/08/2001

41805/98          Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01                                                   27/08/2001

41804/98          Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01                                                     27/08/2001

35956/97          Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01                                   27/08/2001

44525/98          Ferrari Marcella No. 2, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02                              25/04/2002

44379/98          Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02                                                   25/04/2002

44343/98          Massimo Giuseppe No. 1, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02                        25/04/2002

44352/98          Massimo Giuseppe No. 2, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02                        25/04/2002

44345/98          Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02                                 25/04/2002

44342/98          Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02                                                  06/06/2002

44333/98          V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02                                      12/08/2002

56226/00          Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                              19/08/2002

56222/00          Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                    19/08/2002

56206/00          Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                             19/08/2002

56208/00          Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                    19/08/2002

56202/00          Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                    19/08/2002

56224/00          D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                 19/08/2002

56217/00          De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                             19/08/2002

56205/00          Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                     19/08/2002

56225/00          Di Pede No. 2, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                         19/08/2002

56221/00          Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                   19/08/2002

56212/00          Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                    19/08/2002

56203/00          Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                               19/08/2002

56204/00          Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                 19/08/2002

56207/00          Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                     19/08/2002

56220/00          Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                        19/08/2002

56211/00          Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                              19/08/2002

56213/00          Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                  19/08/2002

56223/00          Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                   19/08/2002

56219/00          Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                                    19/08/2002

56214/00          Ripoli No. 1, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                            19/08/2002

56215/00          Ripoli No. 2, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                            19/08/2002

56201/00          Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                      19/08/2002

56218/00          Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                                       19/08/2002

44334/98          Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02                                 28/09/2002

44341/98          Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                                                 09/01/2003

44347/98          Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                               09/01/2003

44350/98          Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                                   09/01/2003

44337/98          Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                                               09/01/2003

44340/98          Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                                                09/01/2003

44349/98          Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                                                 09/01/2003

44348/98          Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                                 09/01/2003

44351/98          Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                                     09/01/2003

- 3 cases against Moldova

53487/99          Meriakri, judgment of 01/03/2005, final on 06/07/2005 - Striking-out                       06/10/2005

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments

49806/99           Prodan, judgment of 18/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004                                           10/01/2005

73562/01+         Sîrbu and others, judgment of 15/06/2004, final on 10/11/2004                              10/01/2005

- 7 cases against the Netherlands

51392/99           Göçer, judgment of 03/10/02, final on 21/05/03                                                    21/08/2003

39339/98           M.M., judgment of 08/04/03, final on 24/09/03                                                      24/12/2003

48086/99           Beumer, judgment of 29/07/03, final on 29/10/03                                                  29/01/2004

44320/98           Baars, judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04                                                     28/04/2004

50210/99           Doerga, judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 27/07/2004                                           27/10/2004

49902/99           Brand, judgment of 11/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004                                             10/02/2005

48865/99           Morsink, judgment of 11/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004                                          10/02/2005

- 5 cases against Poland

34049/96           Zwierzyński, judgment of 19/06/2001, final on 19/09/2001 and of 02/07/2002,

                        final on 06/11/2002 (Article 41)                                                                            06/02/2003

54723/00           Brudnicka and others, judgment of 03/03/2005, final on 03/06/2005                       03/09/2005

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

55383/00           Guzicka, judgment of 13/07/04, final on 13/10/04                                                 13/01/2005

46245/99           Kreuz No. 2, judgment of 20/07/04, final on 20/10/04                                            20/01/2005

44189/98           Ł., judgment of 27/07/04, final on 27/10/04                                                          27/01/2005

- 2 cases against Portugal

18065/02           Carvalho Magalhães, judgment of 15/02/2005 - Friendly settlement                       15/05/2005

- Case of length of judicial proceedings

54926/00           Costa Ribeiro, judgment of 30/04/03, final on 30/07/03[34]                                        30/10/2003

- 17 cases against Romania

40670/98           Todorescu, judgment of 30/09/03, final on 30/12/03                                             30/03/2004

78028/01           Pini and Bertani and Manera and Atripaldi, judgment of 22/06/2004, final

                        on 22/09/2004[35]  22/12/2004

46572/99           Sabou and Pîrcălab, judgment of 28/09/2004, final on 28/12/2004                         28/03/2005

46430/99           Anghelescu Barbu No. 1, judgment of 05/10/2004, final on 05/01/2005                  05/04/2005

49781/99           Florică, judgment of 25/01/2005 - Friendly settlement                                           25/04/2005

34642/97           Buzatu, judgment of 01/06/2004, final on 06/09/2004 and of 27/01/2005,

                        final on 06/06/2005 (Article 41)                                                                            06/09/2005

57808/00           Albina, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005                                             28/10/2005

61302/00           Buzescu, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005[36]                                         24/11/2005

57810/00           Costin, judgment of 26/05/2005, final on 26/08/2005                                             26/11/2005

- Cases concerning the annulment of final court decisions relating to property ownership

33627/96           Bărăgan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03                 05/05/2003

34992/97           Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                                             09/01/2003

33912/96           Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

                        rectified on 09/07/02                                                                                           09/10/2002

32943/96           Fălcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                              09/01/2002

31678/96           Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03                             21/08/2003

33358/96           Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02                                   16/01/2003

32927/96           Segal, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03 and of 27/07/2004,

                        final on 27/10/2004                                                                                             27/01/2005

53037/99           Ionescu Virgil, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005                                  28/12/2005

- 2 cases against the Russian Federation

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments

61651/00           OOO Rusatommet, judgment of 14/06/05, final on 14/09/05                                 14/12/2005

- Case concerning the poor conditions of detention

66460/01           Novoselov, judgment of 02/06/05, final on 02/09/05                                            02/12/2005

- 1 case against San Marino

40786/98           Beneficio Cappella Paolini, judgment of 13/07/2004, final on 13/10/2004               13/01/2005

- 1 case against Spain

55524/00           Stone Court Shipping Company S.A., judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04      28/04/2004

- 3 cases against Sweden

56529/00           Enhorn, judgment of 25/01/2005, final on 25/04/2005                                            25/07/2005

55853/00           Miller, judgment of 08/02/2005, final on 08/05/2005                                              08/08/2005

59403/00          Jonasson, judgment of 12/07/2005 - Friendly settlement                                       12/10/2005

- 10 cases against Turkey

46827/99           Mamatkulov and Askarov, judgment of 04/02/2005 - Grand Chamber                    04/05/2005

40153/98+         Çetin and others, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03                                     13/08/2003

- Cases concerning freedom of expression

25723/94           Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00                                                                           15/09/2000

25143/94+         Yurttaş, judgment of 27/05/04                                                                             27/08/2004

- Case concerning actions of the Turkish security forces                                                                             

23145/93+         Elçi and others, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 24/03/04                                       24/06/2004

- Case concerning length of detention in custody

35982/97           Ağrağ and others, judgment of 27/07/2004, final on 27/10/2004,
rectified on 02/02/2005                                                                                       27/01/2005

- Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

27694/95           A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement                                                 28/06/2002

26546/95           Acar Ahmet, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03                                            30/07/2003

37087/97           Bekmezci and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement, rectified on

                        19/09/02 and 03/04/03                                                                                         27/09/2002

- Case concerning length of detention on remand

61446/00           Polat Ali Hıdır, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 05/07/2005                                  05/10/2005

- 5 cases against Ukraine

77317/01           Poltorachenko, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005,

                        rectified on 26/01/2005                                                                                       26/04/2005

17707/02           Melnychenko, judgment of 19/10/2004, final on 30/03/2005                                   30/06/2005

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or state companies in abiding by final domestic judgments[37]

26131/02          Grishechkin and others, judgment of 03/05/05, final on 03/08/05                            03/11/2005

14397/02          Varanitsa, judgment of 05/04/05, final on 05/07/05                                                05/10/2005

74432/01           Bulynko Raisa Petrovna, judgment of 21/06/2005, final on 21/09/2005                   21/12/2005

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

46387/99+         Whitfield and others, judgment of 12/04/2005, final on 12/07/2005                        12/10/2005

*                       *                      *

- 1 case against Spain

77837/01           Saez Maeso, judgment of 09/11/2004, final on 09/02/2005

*                       *                      *

- 1 case against Spain

72773/01           Alberto Sánchez, judgment of 16/11/2004, final on 16/02/2005