Ministers’ Deputies

Annotated Agenda

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2006)955-Vol II Public  24 February 2006

———————————————

955th meeting (DH), 7-8 February 2006

Annotated Agenda[1]

Volume II

Public information version

——————————————

This document only takes into account the information available to the Secretariat on 4 January 2006.

CONTENTS

STATISTICAL TABLE. 3

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS. 4

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES. 9

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION. 41

SECTION 6 - CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION. 62

c. PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING (960th MEETING, 28-29 March 2006) 76

Additional documents

Addendum General Questions

Addendum 1 – Final Resolutions

Addendum 2 – New cases

Addendum 4 – Cases raising special questions

Addendum Preparation of the next DH meeting (960th meeting (DH), 28-29 March 2006)

STATISTICAL TABLE

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS

(Addendum 1)

Action

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

                        SUB-SECTION 1.1 – LEADING CASES

- 7 cases against Austria

H54-1147          20602/92          Szücs, judgment of 24/11/97

H54-1149          21835/93          Werner, judgment of 24/11/97

H46-1150          28389/95          Asan Rushiti, judgment of 21/03/00, final on 21/06/00

H46-1148          28923/95          Lamanna, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46-1146          33730/96          Weixelbraun, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-1152          38549/97          Vostic, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

H46-1151          35437/97          Demir, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

- 19 cases against Croatia

Cases concerning the lack of access to a court in civil proceedings stayed automatically by a provision of law and the excessive length of civil proceedings

H46-1198          48778/99          Kutić, judgment of 01/03/02, final on 01/06/02

H46-1206          58112/00          Multiplex, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

H46-1199          61237/00          Aćimović, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

H46-1194          71614/01          Crnojević, judgment of 21/10/2004, final on 30/03/2005

H46-1200          58115/00          Čuljak and others, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-1201          11814/02          Dragičević, judgment of 09/12/2004, final on 09/03/2005

H46-1202          5705/02            Dragović, judgment of 28/10/2004, final on 28/01/2005

H46-1203          5266/02            Freimann, judgment of 24/06/2004, final on 24/09/2004

H46-1204          60533/00          Kastelic, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-1209          22681/02          Kljajić, judgment of 17/03/2005, final on 17/06/2005

H46-1210          22857/02          Lulić and Becker, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 24/06/2005

H46-1205          9138/02            Marinković, judgment of 21/10/2004, final on 21/01/2005

H46-190           21752/02          Mihajlović, judgment of 07/07/2005, final on 07/10/2005

H46-1214          16787/02          Peić, judgment of 26/05/2005, final on 26/08/2005

H46-1213          16552/02          Pikić, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005

H46-1211          26886/02          Urukalo and Nemet, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005

H46-1207          78008/01          Varićak, judgment of 21/10/2004, final on 21/01/2005

H46-1215          25410/02          Zadro, judgment of 26/05/2005, final on 26/08/2005

H46-1208          12877/02          Zovanović, judgment of 09/12/2004, final on 09/03/2005

                       SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

- 3 cases against France

H46-1373          46922/99          Bruxelles, judgment of 30/11/2004, final on 28/02/2005

H46-1353          65902/01          Maugee, judgment of 14/09/2004, final on 14/12/2004

H46-1374          68406/01+        Rey and 3 others, judgment of 05/10/2004, final on 02/02/2005

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

- 1 case against Greece

H46-1396          25701/94          Former King of Greece, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini, judgment of 23/11/00 and judgment of 28/11/02 (Article 41) - Grand Chamber

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

- 4 cases against France

H46-1297          49532/99          Abbas Houria, judgment of 15/07/2004 - Friendly settlement

H46-1344          48167/99          Hababou, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1358          47194/99          Leboeuf, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1359          44791/98          Marcel, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-1622          63608/00          Martin, judgment of 19/02/04 - Friendly settlement

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:

*H46-15            38885/02          N., judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

H46-21             66224/01          Gosselin, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

*H46-25            16163/02          Nastou No. 2, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005 (reserved)

*H46-28            34339/02          Athanasiadis and others, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 30/11/2005

H46-39             20723/02          Osváth, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 05/10/2005

*H46-1669        62592/00          Capone, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005 (reserved)

*H46-1667        63861/00          Carletta, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005 (reserved)

*H46-44            63868/00          Colacrai No. 2, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005 (reserved)

*H46-1668        63242/00          Donati, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005 (reserved)

*H46-45            63240/00          La Rosa and 3 others No. 6, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005 (reserved)

H46-46             63285/00          La Rosa and Alba No. 8, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005 (reserved)

*H46-61            51728/99          Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd., judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005 (reserved)

*H46-72            58254/00          Frizen, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 30/11/2005

H46-74             60974/00          Roseltrans, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

H46-109           52701/99+        Keçeci, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-110           35363/02          Kepeneklioğlu and Canpolat, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

*H46-133          28190/02          Kendirci, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-135          28192/02          Özdemir Seyit Ahmet and others, judgment of 21/07/2005,
final on 30/11/2005

H46-113           38422/97          Reyhan, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

*H46-140          28176/02          Toprak Mustafa and Mehmet, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-141          28177/02          Toprak Mustafa No. 1, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-142          28178/02          Toprak Mustafa No. 2, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-145          28183/02          Yiğit Hüseyin, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-146          28182/02          Yiğit Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-147          28184/02          Yiğit Mehmet No. 3, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-148          28185/02          Yiğit Mehmet No. 4, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-149          28188/02          Yiğit Mehmet No. 5, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-150          28186/02          Yiğit Salih No. 1, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-151          28187/02          Yiğit Salih No. 2, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-153          28171/02          Yılmaz Fadıl, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

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.

- 2 cases against Austria

H46-1               5263/03            Wolfmeyer, judgment of 26/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005

The case concerns the fact that former Article 209 of the Austrian Criminal Code, which was still 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 punishable. The European Court found that Article 209 of the Criminal Code, as well as the sentencing of the applicant to a suspended 6 months’ prison sentence under this article in November 2000 constituted a discriminatory restriction of his right to private life, as the applicant’s acquittal in July 2002 did not acknowledge the breach of the Convention and was not accompanied by adequate redress (violation of Article 14 combined with Article 8).

Individual measures: None, as the applicant was acquitted and was awarded just satisfaction by the European Court in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

General measures: The case presents similarities to those of S. L. and L. & V. (both judgments 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 through the internal database of the Austrian Ministry of Justice.

*H46-2              76809/01          Baumann Ulrike, judgment of 07/10/2004, final on 07/01/2005, revised on 09/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings in a request for the division of matrimonial property and savings following the applicant’s divorce. The period to be taken into consideration began in December 1987 and ended in May 2001 (13 years and 5 months, for three levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: Legislative reform on civil proceedings was enacted in 2003 (see case of Schreder, Section 6.2). All judgments of the European Court against Austria concerning a violation due to the length of civil proceedings are automatically transmitted to the competent Higher Regional Court with the request to disseminate it in the area of its competence and to inform the authorities been directly involved in the violation. Furthermore, judgments of the European Court are accessible to all judges and state attorneys through the internal database of the Austrian Ministry of Justice.

- 2 cases against Belgium

H46-3               52098/99          Leroy, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

This case concerns the excessive length of proceedings relating to criminal complaints lodged against the applicant combined with civil-party applications to join the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings at issue began in 1989 and were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment (more than 15 years and 6 months).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings, if they are still pending. Information is awaited in this respect.

General measures: The proceedings at issue concern different levels of jurisdiction, before courts under the jurisdiction of the Brussels Court of Appeal, the Court of Cassation and the Mons Court of Appeal.

- As regards the courts of the jurisdiction of the Brussels Court of Appeal, it is recalled that the Committee of Ministers has been informed of the measures taken by the Belgian authorities to avoid excessive length of proceedings before this very Court. These measures were examined in the context of, inter alia, the Oval S.P.R.L. case (judgment of 15/11/2002, in Section 6.2). In this respect, the Committee was informed in particular that the problem of the backlog of the Court of Appeal had been solved (see agenda of the 914th meeting (February 2005), Section 6.1, Volume I).

Certain clarifications are also being prepared in the context of the cases of Dumont (criminal proceedings) and Reyntiens (civil proceedings), judgments of 28/04/2005 (next examination at the 966th meeting, June 2006), concerning the present situation before first-instance courts under the jurisdiction of the Brussels Court of Appeal, in particular in view of the structural problem described in the judgment concerning the difficulties of recruiting magistrates, a problem related to the conditions of use of languages in the judicial field.

- As regards the national level, it is recalled that certain measures have been presented in the context of the Oval S.P.R.L. case (see above). A more general question concerning the existence (or not) of a structural problem of excessive length of criminal proceedings in Belgium is still under examination (see the De Staerke case, judgment of 28/05/2005, next examination at the 960th meeting, March 2006). It should be stressed in this context that in the present case the proceedings were still pending before the Mons Court of Appeal when the European Court delivered its judgment.

- As regards the existence of an effective remedy for the excessive length of criminal proceedings, it may be noted that Article 21 ter (which entered into force on 12/12/2000) of the preliminary part of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides inter alia that  “if the length of criminal proceedings exceeds a reasonable time, the judge may pass sentence by means of a simple finding of guilt or impose a lighter sentence than the minimum sentence stipulated by law” (see inter alia the judgment in Stratégies et Communications et Dumoulin of 24/06/2002, §35). Furthermore, it is recalled that the question of a remedy making it possible to complain about the excessive length of a pre-trial investigation is examined in the context of the same case.

H46-4               50575/99          De Landsheer, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings before the Brussels Court of first instance. Proceedings began in 1997 and ended in 2003 (almost 5 years and 11 months for one degree of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: - As regards the courts under the jurisdiction of the Brussels Court of Appeal, certain clarifications being prepared, in the context of the cases of Dumont (criminal proceedings) and Reyntiens (civil proceedings) judgments of 28/04/2005 (next examination at the 966th meeting, June 2006), concerning the present situation before these courts. For more details, see the Leroy case above.

- As regards the national level, it is recalled that certain measures have already been presented to the Deputies (see the Leroy case above). A more general question concerning the existence (or not) of a structural problem of excessive length of civil proceedings in Belgium is still under examination (see Reyntiens case). In this context information would be useful concerning the existence of means of seeking redress for the excessive length of such proceedings.

- 2 cases against Bulgaria

H46-5               52367/99          Mihailov, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s right of access to a court to obtain a decision on the refusals by the Labour Expert Medical Commission and the Central Labour Expert Medical Commission in 1998 to classify the applicant’s disability status as first-degree (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court held that the commissions could not be regarded as tribunals as they did not satisfy a series of procedural and structural guarantees. Thus their decisions should have been subject to review by a judicial body with full jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Administrative Court expressly refused to examine the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Central Labour Expert Medical Commission, citing the provisions of several statutory instruments, which apparently excluded judicial review of such decisions at the relevant time.

Individual measures: The applicant died in 2001. His son and daughter continued the proceedings before the European Court. They may ask for the re-opening of the domestic proceedings concerning their father’s disability status following the judgment of the European Court, on basis of Article 231§1, letter “z” of the Code of Civil Procedure.

General measures: According to Article 112§1(4) of the new Health Act of 2004, decisions of the National Expert Medical Commission (the successor body of the Central Labour Expert Medical Commission) may be reviewed by the Sofia City Court (see §25 of the judgment of the European Court).

H46-6               42026/98          Asenov, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

This case concerns the violation of the applicants' right to be brought promptly before a judge authorised by law to exercise judicial power, from December 1994 to September 1997, in order to contest the legality of the decision to put him in detention pending trial (violation of Article 5§3). It relates also to the excessive length of that detention (more than 3 years and 1 month) in view of the insufficient reasons to justify it (violation of Article 5§3). The European Court noted in particular that the applicant remained in detention for almost five months only because he was unable to pay the bail set by the domestic court, while there was otherwise no longer any ground for his detention.

The case concerns also the lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention, due to refusals by the competent court to examine the applicant’s requests concerning bail, in spite of the fact that he remained in detention (violation of Article 5§4).

The case relates finally to the unlawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention pending trial following the domestic court decision ordering his release (violation of Article 5§1) and the excessive length of two sets of criminal proceedings instituted against him (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None: the applicant was released in April 1998. The proceedings instituted against him ended and the European Court awarded him just satisfaction covering the non-pecuniary damage he sustained.

General measures: - As regards the right to be brought before a judge (Article 5§3), the case presents 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 excessive length of the detention pending trial (Article 5§3), the case presents some similarities to those of Assenov and Nikolova (see above). Concerning the groundless of the detention following the non-payment of the bail, the case presents similarities to that of Bojilov (judgment of 22/12/2004) which will be proposed for examination at the 966th meeting (June 2006). Moreover, it should be noted that according to the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (entering into force in April 2006), in case of non-payment of bail, the competent court may order and the prosecutor may request, either house arrest, or detention of the accused person (article 61§5). Now, such measures must be justified by the competent court (articles 59 and 63 of the new CCP). Furthermore, the accused may now contest the lawfulness of detention resulting from non-payment of bail at each stage of the proceedings (articles 65§11 and 270 of the new CCP), whilst the provisions in force at the relevant time did not provide such a possibility at the stage of the preliminary investigation. In any event the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to criminal courts appears to be necessary, to draw their attention to their obligation to provide sufficient justification of detention in similar cases.

- As regards the lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the detention (Article 5§4),see the remarks above. Moreover, the attention of the competent courts should be drawn to their obligation to ensure judicial review of the lawfulness of detention, when such detention results from non-payment of the requested guarantee. 

- As regards the unlawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention pending trial (Article 5§1), the case presents similarities to the Bojilov case (see above).

- As regards the excessive length of the criminal proceedings (Article 6§1), the case presents similarities to the Kitov case (judgment of 03/04/2003) which will be proposed for examination at the 966th meeting (June 2006).

- 2 cases against Croatia

*H46-7              71615/01          Mežnarić, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal due to the fact that his constitutional complaint concerning an action for a breach of a contract was decided in 2000 by a panel of judges which included a judge who had represented his opponents at an earlier stage in the proceedings. That fact, reinforced by the involvement of that judge’s daughter who had also represented previously the applicant’s opponents, created, in the Court’s view, a situation which was capable of raising legitimate doubts as to the judge’s impartiality (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicant's present situation and possible individual measures are being clarified with the Croatian authorities.

General measures: According to Articles 71-72 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1991, a judge shall be disqualified if he or one or other of his relatives represents a party or if other circumstances exist to cast doubt on his impartiality.

These provisions are applied mutatis mutandis in proceedings before the Constitutional Court (Art. 33 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of 1999, in force at the relevant time, and Art. 34 of the new Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court of 2002). Since the violation found in this case is rather the result of a problem of application of this regulation, the publication and the dissemination of the European court’s judgment to the Constitutional Court appear to be sufficient

H46-9               9707/02            Andrić, judgment of 17/11/2005 - Friendly settlement

This case concerns the applicant's right of access to a court to obtain a determination of his civil claim filed in 1997 for damage resulting from terrorist acts perpetrated during the Homeland War in Croatia (1992-1995)(complaint under Article 6§1). In 1996, before the adoption of a final court decision at national level in this case, legislation was adopted ordering all proceedings of this kind to be stayed until new provisions were enacted to regulate the matter.

The new legislation, which provides for the resumption of stayed proceedings, was adopted by the Croatian Parliament only on 14/07/2003.

This case presents similarities to the Kutić case (judgment of 01/03/02; Section 1.1).

- 1 case against Cyprus

*H46-1671        73797/01          Kyprianou, judgment of 15/12/2005 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the lack of impartiality of the Limassol Assize Court which in 2001 sentenced the applicant, an advocate, to 5 days’ imprisonment for contempt in the face of the court while he was conducting the defence in a murder trial. The European Court found that the Assize Court failed to satisfy the requirements of objective and subjective impartiality: first, it was the judges criticised by the applicant who took the decision to prosecute, tried the issues arising from the applicant’s conduct, determined his guilt and imposed the sanction. Secondly the judges’ personal conduct demonstrated that they did not succeed in detaching themselves sufficiently from the situation (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression in his capacity as a lawyer. The European Court, taking also into account the unfair procedure described above, considered the penalty, which was immediately enforced, disproportionately severe on the applicant and “capable of having a ‘chilling effect’ on the performance by lawyers of their duties as defence counsel” (§181 of judgment) (violation of Article 10).

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

General measures: - As regards the violation of Article 6§1, the offence in question is provided by the Courts of Justice Law 1960 (as amended). Information is therefore awaited on legislative or other measures envisaged by the Cypriot authorities to ensuring courts’ objective as well as subjective impartiality in cases concerning the offence of contempt of court.

- As regards the violation of Article 10, information is awaited on measures envisaged by the Cypriot authorities in order to ensure that any sentence imposed in similar circumstances is proportionate to the offence, such as the publication and wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all competent judicial authorities, including the possibility of issuing a circular by competent authorities aimed at informing courts about the judgment.

- 3 cases against the Czech Republic

                       Cases of length of judicial proceedings

Item	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
*H46-10	35883/02	Fáber, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 30/11/2005	12 years (4 degrees of jurisdiction)	No	1992 (when the Convention entered into force)

Item	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
H46-13	70847/01	Volf, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005	11 years and 4 months (4 degrees of jurisdiction, two of them several times)	No	1992
H46-11	65291/01	Vrábel and Ďurica, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005	11 years and 10 months (3 degrees of jurisdiction)	No	1992

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

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: These cases present similarities to the Bořánková and Hartman cases (judgments of 07/01/2003 and 10/07/2003, sheduled for examination at the 966th meeting, June 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.

- 1 case against Denmark

*H46-14            25907/02          Topp, judgment of 29/11/2005 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the length of proceedings before the Probate Court regarding ownership of a house which was part of the estate of a deceased person (complaint under article 6§1).

- 2 cases against Finland

*H46-15            38885/02          N., judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the decision to deny an asylum application lodged by the applicant, a Congolese agent belonging to the inner circle of the former president and who had fled his country in 1997. The competent national authorities considered that his declarations were not credible and ordered his deportation in November 2002. The deportation was suspended pending the judgment of the European Court.

The European Court, having conducted a fact-finding mission to Helsinki and received additional information, stated that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, if expelled to the Democratic Republic of Congo and that his expulsion would therefore constitute a violation of Article 3.

Individual measures: The present situation of the applicant and the possible individual measures are being clarified with the Finnish authorities.

General measures: Information on possible general measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations is awaited.

The judgment of the European Court has been published in the Finlex database. Dissemination to all relevant authorities is still awaited.

H46-16             39481/98+        Mild and Virtanen, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in that they were denied the right to examine witnesses whose statements were taken into account as evidence by the Court of Appeal. These witnesses had already been convicted of the same offence in other proceedings.

In this context, the European Court stated that the national legislation at the time was inadequate in that it provided no basis for ensuring the attendance of the witnesses in the proceedings against the applicants (violation of Art. 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)).

Individual measures: According to Chapter 31 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, extraordinary appeals may be lodged against final decisions if, inter alia, “a procedural error has been committed which may have had an effect on the decision”. This provision seems to allow the applicants to request the reopening of criminal proceedings found to violate the Convention, if they wish to do so.

No further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures: Chapter 17, section 18 of the Code of Judicial Procedure was amended by Law 690/1997 which entered into force on 01/10/1997. According to the new provisions, if a person to be heard as a witness is not a party to the case, the provisions on the invitation, absence and hearing of a party apply, insofar as appropriate, also to that person. In this respect, the direct effect afforded by the Finnish courts to the European Court’s case-law seems to be sufficient to prevent new similar violations.

The judgment of the European Court has been published in the Finlex database. Dissemination of the judgment to the authorities concerned is awaited.

- 6 cases against France

H46-18             73316/01          Siliadin, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

This case concerns the lack of specific and effective protection by French criminal law of the applicant against the “servitude” in which the applicant has been held (violation of Article 4). The applicant is a Togolese national who was a minor and in an illegal situation at the relevant time; for several years from 1994 onwards, she worked as an unpaid servant for a couple who made her work seven days a week and had confiscated her passport. The European Court held that Article 4 of the Convention gives rise to positive obligations on states, consisting in the adoption and effective implementation of criminal-law provisions making the practices set out in this Article a punishable offence. In the present case, the Court found that the respondent state had not complied with these positive obligations. In fact, the European Court noted that slavery and servitude were not as such classified as criminal offences in French criminal law, and that the persons who held the applicant in servitude had not been convicted under criminal law, although they were prosecuted under Articles 225-13 and 225-14 of the Criminal Code, as worded at the time.

Individual measures: Under civil law, the national Courts granted the applicant the sums due to her in respect of unpaid wages plus an indemnity, and also 15 245 euros in compensation for the “important psychological trauma” she had suffered. The applicant made no other request to the European Court. Bilateral contacts are under way to determine whether further individual measures are necessary.

General measures: The European Court noted that the legislation had been changed after the facts of this case. Bilateral contacts are under way to determine whether these changes, which the Court did not assess because they did not apply to the applicant’s situation, are sufficient to avoid new, similar violations, or if further general measures are necessary. In any event, it seems necessary to send the judgment of the European Court out to the relevant authorities, in particular public prosecutors.

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

H46-19             55929/00          Loyen Marie-Louise and others, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 05/10/2005

This case concerns infringements of the right to a fair trial on account of the Government Commissioner's participation in the deliberations of the trial bench in proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat (violation of Article 6§1). In finding this violation, the European Court referred to its judgment in the Kress case (judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber), in which it relied in particular on the following grounds : the Government Commissioner takes no part in voting on the trial bench, as he has already expressed his submissions on the case orally during the hearing. He attends the deliberations and answers, if necessary, any question which might be put to him. On this point, the European Court considered that the advantage for the bench of this purely technical assistance by the Government Commissioner in the deliberations “is to be weighed against the higher interest of the litigant, who must have a guarantee that the Government Commissioner cannot, through his presence influence their outcome.” (see §85 of the Kress judgment).

Individual measures: Before the European Court, the applicants only claimed non pecuniary damages, which the Court considered sufficiently compensated by the finding of the violation.

General measures: This case presents similarities to the Kress case and to other similar cases, last examined by the Deputies at the 933rd meeting (July 2005). It is recalled that in the context of these cases, the French delegation sent the Secretariat a copy of the memorandum of 23/11/2001 addressed to Government Commissioners by the President of the Section du contentieux of the Conseil d'Etat, in which it is in particular explained that they may continue to attend deliberations on condition that they do not take the initiative of speaking. The points of view of the government and the Secretariat concerning this measure have already been described in an information note dated 31/03/2003 (CM/Inf(2003)15) as well as in a note submitted by the government in June 2003. At the 933rd meeting, the Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of the general measures required in these cases pending the judgment of the European Court in the case of Martinie (Application No. 58675/00).

H46-21             66224/01          Gosselin, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

This case concerns the excessive length of the applicant's detention on remand (from 1997 to 2000; more than 3 years and 6 months) (violation of Article 5 § 3). The European Court found that the grounds for the applicant's detention had been relevant and sufficient during the whole investigation, but that the judicial authorities had not conducted the investigation as rapidly as they should have.

Individual measures: The applicant is no longer detained on remand, having been sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment by a final judgment.

General measures: It is recalled that legislative measures have been examined in the context of the Muller case (final Resolution ResDH(2003)50), in particular those limiting the conditions and the length of detention on remand, the exceptional character of which has been reaffirmed (Law No. 2000-516 of 15/06/2000 “reinforcing the protection of the presumption of innocence and the rights of victims”). Given that the Court stressed the slowness of the investigatory stage of the proceedings, this case also presents similarities to that of Etcheveste and Bidart (judgment of 21/03/2002) and other similar cases, in Section 6.2 (Volume II) following legislative measures adopted by the respondent state to reduce the length of criminal proceedings, in particular of the investigatory stage (inter alia, as from the entry into force of Law No. 2000-516 of 15/06/2000, judicial inquiries are subject to a proceedings schedule and new rights have been granted to parties to avoid extension of proceedings).

H46-22             77098/01          Desrues, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings relating to civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1). The impugned proceedings began in 1992 and ended in 2001 (more than 9 years and 1 month for one preliminary demand and 3 degrees of jurisdiction).

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: 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.

Furthermore, it should also be 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 this case).

*H46-23            57470/00          Ouattara, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 30/11/2005

This case concerns the excessive length of the investigation arising out of a criminal complaint combined with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party lodged by the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).The proceedings at issue began in 1993 and were still pending at the pre-trial investigation stage when the European Court gave its judgment (more than 11 years and 6 months).

Individual measures: acceleration of the proceedings, if still pending.

General measures: this case presents similarities to that of Etcheveste and Bidart (judgment of 21/03/2002) in Section 6.2 following the measures adopted by the respondent state to avoid new cases of excessive length of criminal proceedings, in particular at the investigatory stage. In particular, as from the entry into force of Law No. 2000-516 of 15/06/2000, judicial inquiries are subject to a proceedings schedule and new rights have been granted to parties (including civil parties) to avoid extension of proceedings.

H46-24             61104/00          Quillevere, judgment of 27/10/2005 - Friendly settlement

This case concerns the applicant’s access to a court, the fairness of a trial and an alleged discrimination in proceedings to identify the blood transfusion centre responsible for contaminating him with the Hepatitis C virus (complaint under Article 6§1 taken individually and combined with Article 14).

- 13 cases against Greece

*H46-25            16163/02          Nastou No. 2, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the state’s occupation of the 7 applicants’ land without compensation since 1985. The European Court found that the failure by the national courts to take a decision concerning the applicants’ title to the property as well as the total absence of any compensation, breached the equitable balance which should exist between the protection of the right to property and the requirements of the public interest (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case also concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning the recognition of applicants’ ownership and their compensation. The contested situation came into being in 1985 and the proceedings were still pending when the European Court gave its judgment (violation of Article 6§1).

Finally, the case concerns the lack of an effective remedy in Greek law for the latter violation (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: Information is awaited on the state of the proceedings and on measures under consideration to accelerate them so as to put an end to the applicants’ uncertainty as to their property rights. The question of individual measures could also be linked to the Court’s decision with regard to just satisfaction which it has reserved as a whole.

General measures: - As regards the interrelated violations of Articles 1 of Protocol No. 1 and 6§1, Greece has already adopted a number of legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before civil courts (see Final Resolution  DH(2005)64 on Academy Trading Ltd and others against Greece and other cases, adopted on 18/07/2005).

As regards the violation of Article 13, the Greek authorities have informed the Committee that legislative measures are envisaged to introduce an effective remedy in Greek law for this kind of violations. More information is awaited.

H46-26             16945/02          Agatianos, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005

The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right of access to a court in 2001, in that his appeal on points of law following his conviction and sentence to 2 months' imprisonment suspended, was dismissed by the Court of Cassation as being out of time. The Court of Cassation found that the appeal should have been introduced by the prosecutor within a time-limit counting from the date of delivery of the judgment and not from the date when its text was finalised and thus available to the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicant is entitled to apply for reopening of the proceedings following the judgment of the European Court, in accordance with Article 525§1(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary prejudice suffered.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of AEPI SA (judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02, section 6.2). By its decision 2008/2003 (04/11/2003), the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation expressly accepted and incorporated in its case-law the European Court's judgment in the case of AEPI S.A. As a consequence, the time-limit for appeals on points of law, both for litigants and for public prosecutors, should count from the date of finalisation of the text of the judgment in question. This new case-law by the Court of Cassation is now established (see also §§12 and 18 of the judgment in Agatianos) and the Greek authorities have assured the Committee that it constitutes a guarantee for the prevention of similar violations, thus rendering any legislative amendment unwarranted. The new case-law has been published in the widely read criminal law journal Poinika Chronika (2004) pp 742-744, as well as in the widely accessed site of the Athens Bar (www.dsa.gr <http://www.dsa.gr/>).

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts and of effective remedy

Item	Application	Case	Duration of proceedings	Courts involved	State of proceedings
H46-30	5072/03	Ioannidis, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005	+10 years	Athens Administrative and Appeal Courts; Council of State	Closed
H46-31	19731/02	Loumidis, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005	+4 years and 11 months	Council of State; Athens Administrative Court of Appeal	Closed
H46-32	5081/03	Spyropoulos, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005	+13 years and 11 months	Athens Administrative and Appeal Courts; Council of State	Closed
H46-33	5085/03	Tsaras, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005	+10 years	Athens Administrative and Appeal Courts; Council of State	Closed
H46-34	5076/03	Vozinos, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005	+11 years and 10 months	Athens Administrative and Appeal Courts; Council of State	Closed

These cases concern the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1). The Gavalos, Ioannidis, Spyropoulos, Tsaras and Vozinos cases also concern the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: - As regards the violations of Article 6§1: 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, scheduled for examination at the 966the meeting (June 2006)) 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 proceedings (mentioned in the Justice Ministry's letter of 30/09/04) and on any other specific measures envisaged to accelerate proceedings before the Council of State.

- As regards the violations of Article 13: The Greek authorities have informed the Committee that legislative measures are envisaged to introduce an effective remedy in Greek law against this kind of violations. More information is awaited.

                       - Cases of length of civil proceedings

Item	Application	Case	Duration of proceedings	Courts involved	State of proceedings
H46-35	2895/03	Atmatzidi, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005	+6 years and 6 months	Athens First Instance and Appeal Courts; Court of Cassation	Closed
H46-36	27302/03	Koutrouba, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005	+8 years and 10 months	Athens First Instance and Appeal Courts; Court of Cassation	Closed
*H46-37	38240/02	Zolotas, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005	+15 years	Athens First Instance and Appeal Courts; Court of Cassation	Closed

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

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: Greece has already adopted a number of legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before civil courts (see Final Resolution ResDH(2005)64 on Academy Trading Ltd and others and other cases against Greece, adopted on 18/07/2005).

The Greek authorities have also informed the Committee that legislative measures are envisaged to introduce an effective remedy in Greek law for this kind of violations. More information is awaited and will be examined by the Committee in the context of the case of Konti-Arvaniti (section 4.2, Volume I).

H46-38             40775/02          Amassoglou, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings. Proceedings began in July 1994 and ended in May 2002 (6 years and more than 10 months for 3 degrees of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: Greece has already adopted a number of legislative and other measures to accelerate proceedings before criminal courts (see Final Resolution DH(2005)66 on Tarighi Wageh Dashti against Greece and 7 other cases, adopted on 18/07/2005).

The Greek authorities have also informed the Committee that legislative measures are envisaged to introduce an effective remedy in Greek law against this kind of violations. More information on this issue is awaited in the context of examination by the Committee of the Manios group of cases scheduled for further examination at the 966th meeting (June 2006).

- 2 cases against Hungary

H46-39             20723/02          Osváth, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 05/10/2005

The case concerns the non-adversarial nature of proceedings before the domestic courts seised of applications by the public prosecutor’s office to extend the applicant’s detention pending trial. These applications were made at the investigation stage between June and December 2001 (violation of Article 5§4).

The European Court observed that the applicant’s detention pending trial was repeatedly prolonged without him having been served in advance with copies of the prosecution’s applications. The Court considered that, even if the applicant was able to appear in person or be represented at the court hearings concerning his detention that possibility was not sufficient to afford him a proper opportunity to comment on the relevant applications. Moreover, the Court noted that the applicant could not appear in person or be represented before the Supreme Court, which decided in camera to prolong his detention on remand. The Court noted finally that the fact that the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand on a ground which had not previously been referred to, and was consequently quite unexpected for the applicant, aggravated the absence of an adversarial procedure.

Individual measures: None: the applicant was released in March 2002.

General measures: The old Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the relevant time did not prescribe that, during the investigation, a prosecution motion to extend detention must be served on the defendant. Information is expected on the resolution of that issue by the new Code of Criminal Procedure, which entered into force in 2003, and on any other measure, if appropriate, aimed at the prevention of new, similar violations of the Convention. In any case, the dissemination of the European Court's judgment to criminal courts appears to be necessary in order to draw their attention to their obligation to afford defendants a proper opportunity to comment on the public prosecutor’s applications concerning their detention pending trial. Finally, given the fact that this is the first violation of this kind against Hungary, publication of the European Court's judgment also appears necessary.

H46-40             5503/02            Mezötúr-Tiszazugi Vizgazdálkodási Társulat, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began in 1997 and ended in 2003 (6 years for three degrees of jurisdiction).

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: These cases present similarities to the Tímár group which will be proposed for examination at the 966th meeting (June 2006).

- 17 cases against Italy

*H46-41            30595/02          Bove, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the failure by the Italian authorities to implement court decisions ordering the progressive re-establishment of relations between the applicant and his daughter. The child was recognised by both her parents when she was born on 19/01/1995. On 22/09/1996, the Naples Youth Court gave custody to the mother, with visiting rights to the father. Since June 2000, meetings between the applicant and his daughter have been limited on account of the mother's accusations of sexual abuse of the child by persons close to the applicant. These accusations were dismissed without further action, and on 30/01/2003 the Naples Appeal Court decreed a progressive resumption of encounters between the applicant and his daughter, to take place in a secure environment and in the presence of a psychologist. Subsequently, the same Court instructed the psychologist to develop a strategy for the gradual resumption of relations.

The European Court found that, despite these judicial decisions recognising the indispensable nature of the father-figure for the full physical and psychological development of the child, the applicant has not seen his daughter since September 2002 (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: Information is awaited on measures taken by the authorities to ensure the regularity of meetings between father and daughter as prescribed by the court decisions and, to the extent possible, foster a reconciliation between them.

General measures: Publication of the judgment and dissemination of the European Court's judgment could be a useful means of raising the awareness of competent courts of the problems raised by this case. In addition, it may be noted that some of the measures adopted in the Scozzari case (Section 4.2, Volume I), might be of relevance.

H46-42             55764/00          Zečiri, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005

The case concerns the detention of the applicant by the police pending his expulsion to his country of origin (Serbia & Montenegro). This detention was found to be unlawful insofar as the expulsion order had not only been annulled by the Court of Cassation but also commuted to a prison sentence of a year and two months which the applicant had already served (violation of Article 5§1).

The case also relates to the absence of sufficiently reliable means of obtaining redress for the first violation (violation of Article 5§5).

Individual measures: None, since the applicant has been freed and has left Italy.

General measures: The European Court found that Article 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is supposed to provide means of redress for undue privation of liberty, could not be applied in the present circumstances, and that the other remedies invoked by the government were not effective either (§§47-51 of the judgment). This being the case, it would appear necessary to provide appropriate means of redress for unlawful detention in order to prevent similar violations of Article 5§5 in the future; information is awaited on measures envisaged to this end.

*H46-43            42644/02          Picaro, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the irregularity of the applicant’s detention on remand between 09/01/2000 and 02/02/2000 given that, as from 09/01/2000 this detention went beyond the prescribed legal limit (violation of Article 5§1c).

The case also concerns the failure by the Italian Court of Cassation to give a prompt determination of the applicant’s appeal concerning the lawfulness of his detention on remand (5 months and 20 days from lodging the appeal to the decision (violation of Article 5§4).

Finally the case concerns the absence of any means of any sufficiently reliable means of obtaining redress in respect of these violations (violation of Article 5§5).

Individual measures: As the applicant’s detention on remand ended in 2002, no further individual measure would appear necessary.

General measures: - As regards the delay in obtaining a decision on the lawfulness of the detention, the short time-limits prescribed by national law are in conformity with the requirements of the Convention, but were not correctly applied in the present case. However, confirmation is needed that the issues raised by this case do not form part of a wider problem of excessive length of criminal proceedings.

- As regards the absence of a means of redress for the violations found, it would be desirable to have information about any measures to avoid recurrence. The attention of the competent authorities should be drawn forthwith to the problems raise, not least through publication and broad dissemination of the European Court’s judgment.

*H46-1669        62592/00          Capone, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns a continuous violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their property on account of the lack of compensation, since 1992, for the legal expropriation of her property (violation Article 1, Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: Information is awaited as to measures envisaged to accelerate and bring to an end the compensation proceedings, which are still pending before the Court of Cassation. The European Court reserved its decision on just satisfaction, but nevertheless indicated that it will take into account the compensation awarded by the domestic courts at the outcome of those proceedings and that it would take into account the damage due to the important delay in awarding compensation.

General measures: In July 2003, a new expropriation law entered into force, which amended the compensation procedure with a view to facilitating and accelerating the setting and payment of compensation. In the context of the examination of the cases concerning illegal expropriations (see the Belvedere Alberghiera case, application No. 31524/96) the Italian authorities were invited to indicate whether the new provisions had effectively accelerated compensation. A reply is still awaited.

In view of the violation found in this case, information is also needed as to measures taken or envisaged to compensate, when awarding compensation for expropriation, for damages resulting from delays in payment. In this connection, the outcome of the proceedings pending in this case might provide an opportunity to test whether compensation compatible with the Convention can be awarded by the national courts or whether legislative measures are needed.

Information is furthermore awaited as to the measures to be taken to raise the awareness of the competent authorities (Constitutional Court, Court of Cassation, Council of State, administrative courts and local administrations) of the Convention’s requirements in the field of expropriation, as they result from this judgment.

These issues have already been raised in the context of a similar case (Mason against Italy, Secretariat's letter of 15/12/2005) in which a plan of action is awaited.

                       - Cases concerning constructive expropriation

*H46-1667        63861/00          Carletta, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-44            63868/00          Colacrai No. 2, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-1668        63242/00          Donati, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-45            63240/00          La Rosa and 3 others No. 6, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

H46-46             63285/00          La Rosa and Alba No. 8, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

All these cases concern the de facto expropriation of the applicants’ land as a result of its prolonged occupation by the public authorities, and the impossibility of determining the lawfulness of such expropriation in the absence of any deed of transfer and on account of the slowness of subsequent proceedings (at least 21 years). The European Court found this situation to be incompatible with the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: Information is awaited concerning measures taken or envisaged to put an end to the ongoing violations of the applicants’ rights by rapidly bringing the pending proceedings to a close. Subject to the European Court’s decision under Article 41 concerning just satisfaction, the Italian authorities might give consideration to the possibility of compensating the applicants in conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

General measures: These cases bear similarities with that of Belvedere Albighiera (31524/96), scheduled for examination at the 966th meeting (June 2006).

(a) Presentation of the problem: Since the 1970s, Italian local authorities have been carrying out emergency occupations of land without issuing a deed of expropriation. The courts, confronted with such situations, developed the case-law rule of “constructive expropriation”, according to which public authorities may acquire title to land without formal expropriation if, without prejudice to the lawfulness or otherwise of the expropriation, works in the public interest are completed on the property. This jurisprudence has been recognised and amended by a number of legislative acts, the most recent being the Consolidated Code on Expropriation in the Public Interest (Presidential Decree No. 327 of 8/06/2001).

In its judgments, the European court found first of all that the “constructive expropriation” mechanism did not present a sufficient degree of legal safety, noting in this respect some contradictory applications in the development of Italian case-law as well as between case-law and statute law. The Court noted that “constructive expropriation” allows the administration to dispense with the ordinary rules of expropriation, with the concomitant risk of unpredictable or arbitrary outcomes for the citizen.

As “constructive expropriation” authorises the occupation and irreversible transformation of a property without a deed of transfer of any kind, the only judicial verification of such transfer is a finding of unlawfulness by a judge in the absence of any formal declaration by the expropriating authority. Such a finding implies judicial proceedings, often long-drawn-out, brought by the person concerned.

Secondly, the Court found that “constructive expropriation” made it possible to occupy and transform property without simultaneous compensation of those concerned, who are instead required to lodge a demand for compensation within 5 years. In some cases, the right to compensation has been found to be time-barred because the starting point for the prescription period was fixed retroactively by the court, thereby ruling out any hope of compensation (see judgment in Carbonara and Ventura, §71). The European Court also pointed out that compensation for “constructive expropriation” was hardly any more advantageous than that awarded in cases of “ordinary” expropriation, a fact which provides no incitement to good administrative practice or the prevention of illegal acts.

(b) Measures adopted and questions outstanding: The Consolidated Code on Expropriation in the Public Interest, which came into force in July 2003, has reformed expropriation. In the framework of its examination of other cases of “constructive expropriation” (see Belvedere Albighiera) the Italian authorities have been invited to indicate the extent to which the new provisions have reduced the time taken to pay compensation. Their reply is still awaited. Information is also needed with regard to measures taken or envisaged to remedy prejudice resulting from possible delays in payment of compensation for expropriation, at the time of payment. In this connection, the outcome of the pending proceedings might make it possible to determine whether national courts may make compensation in conformity with the requirements of the Convention, or whether legislative measures are needed.

Finally, information is awaited concerning measures to prevent illegal occupation: such measures might for example include:

-       the introduction of a system of regular dissuasive fines (“astreintes”);

-       punitive interest;

-       the increase of public servants’ personal liability in cases of illegal occupation;

-       annulment in certain cases of the administration’s right return of land or its restoration to its original state;

-       measures to draw the attention of the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Council of State and of regional and local authorities to the requirements of the Convention raised by the European Court.

- Cases relating to the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants - Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)72

H46-47             55161/00          Cima, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

H46-48             68707/01          Gamberini Mongenet and 2 others, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

H46-49             67911/01          Molteni and Ghisi, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

H46-50             69834/01          Sciortino Giovanna, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

H46-51             68706/01          Stornelli and 3 others, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

These cases concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain enforcement of judicial decisions ordering their tenants' eviction, due to the lack of assistance by the police and to the application of legislation providing the suspension or staggering of evictions (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The applicants recovered possession of their flats in 2000-2001.

General measures: This issue will be examined by the Committee in the context of the Immobiliare Saffi group of cases, concerning which Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)72 was adopted on 08/12/2004. The Committee expressly encouraged Italy to adopt effective measures to remedy the problems in the housing sector, in particular in densely populated cities, without, however, having recourse to legislation preventing enforcement; make sure that the police are employed in a timely manner to enforce eviction orders; adopt legislative or other measures to make sure that the authorities and officials actually comply with final court judgments and, finally, strengthen the system of remedies in respect of failure to enforce court orders so as to enable all injured parties to establish the state's liability and obtain promptly satisfactory compensation for the losses caused by such failure.

*H46-52            68344/01          Cecere Paolo, judgment of 24/11/2005 - Friendly settlement

*H46-53            70585/01          Cecere Enrico, judgment of 24/11/2005 - Friendly settlement

*H46-249          68189/01          Quatrini, judgment of 18/12/2005 - Friendly settlement

The cases concern the alleged violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their property on account of the prolonged non-enforcement of judicial decisions ordering their tenants' eviction, mainly due to the lack of assistance from the police. The applicants recovered possession of their flats by 2000, after very lengthy enforcement proceedings (complaints under Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: See the Cima group above.

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46-54             13130/02          Dattel and others, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings, which began in 1986 and ended in 2001 (more than 15 years and 3 months for three degrees of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings took place before the district court (tribunal d'arrondissement - first degree of jurisdiction until 1998), at a time when parties to civil cases had sole control of the progress of proceedings. Thus in the present case, the European Court underlined in particular first, that the district court had accepted numerous requests for the case to be adjourned and secondly, the amount of time granted by the Court to the experts to provide their reports. The European Court recalled that, even if proceedings are governed by the principle that the initiative rests with the parties, the concept of "reasonable time" requires courts to follow the development of the proceedings and to be more attentive when they have to decide on whether or not the examination of a case may be adjourned, or when they supervise the time-limits for experts’ reports held to be necessary for decisions.

From the appeal stage onwards (i.e. from 1998), the proceedings took place under the new procedure. The Law of 11/08/1996 entered into force on 16/09/1998 and introduced into Luxembourg civil procedure the Juge de la mise en état, a magistrate responsible for setting the date-limits for pre-trial investigations who is also empowered to serve injunctions on counsel.

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed).

General measures: This case presents similarities to the Berlin case (judgment of 15/07/03), in section 6.2 in view of the measures taken by the respondent state, in particular information submitted to the Committee of Ministers concerning the efficiency of the Law of 11/08/1996 as a means of avoiding new, similar violations. Furthermore, the Dattel and others judgment has been published in CODEX, the monthly law and politics review of Luxembourg (October 2005).

It may also be mentioned that the Committee is currently examining the question of the existence of an effective remedy to complain about the excessive length of proceedings in the context of the cases of Schumacher (judgment of 25/11/03) and Rezette (judgment of 13/07/04, which concern the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings before the Luxembourg tribunal d’arrondissement and will next be examined next at the 966th meeting (June 2006). In this context, it may be noted that in the Dattel and others case, among others, the European Court held that the remedy provided by the Law of 1/09/1988 had not acquired a sufficient degree of legal certainty to be used or exhausted by the applicant for the purposes of Article 35§1 of the Convention.

- 1 case against Moldova

H46-56             20864/03          Scutari, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

The case concerns violation of the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection, due to the sustained failure to enforce a final judicial decision given in his favour in 2001 (violation of Article 6§1) and the consequent violation of his right to respect for his property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The European Court found that the decision in question was not enforced within a reasonable time.

Individual measures: The decision was ultimately enforced in February 2004.

General measures: This case presents similarities to the Luntre group (judgment of 15/06/2004, scheduled for examination at the 966th meeting, June 2006), in which the Moldovan authorities have already adopted and are currently adopting measures concerning the non-enforcement of final national judgments.

- 7 cases against Poland

H46-57             77710/01          H.N., judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right for respect of his family life (violation of Article 8).

The applicant, a Norwegian national, was married to a Polish national, M.C. They lived in Norway and had three children together (A., B. and C.). After their divorce in 1998, a Norwegian court granted the applicant custody of the three children. In August 1999, M.C. abducted the children and took them to Poland. On the basis of the provisions of the Hague Convention of 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the applicant applied to the Polish Ministry of Justice for assistance in securing the return of the children. In March 2000, the Warsaw District Court rendered a decision ordering the return of the children to the applicant (decision upheld in July 2000). Consequently, enforcement proceedings began and the bailiff referred the case to the district court, which once again ordered M.C. to return the children, this time by April 2001. Despite the applicant’s fears and his request to accelerate the proceedings, the bailiff and the Ministry of Justice did nothing and M.C. disappeared with the children before the date fixed for their return.

Thus the Norwegian Central Authority and the applicant intervened several times before Polish authorities, but to no avail. In June 2002, the applicant succeeded, with the help of a relative, in tracing his daughter A, who subsequently joined him in Norway. In February 2003, the Warsaw District Court was informed that M.C. had been arrested and charged with a criminal offence, B and C being removed from her care by a guardian and returned to their father in April 2003.

The European Court concluded that the Polish authorities had failed to make adequate and effective efforts to enforce the applicant’s right to the return of his children. It criticised in particular the periods of inactivity before courts, the bailiff’s omissions in preventing the escape of M.C with the children and the lack of action by the Ministry of Justice and the police following the information received from the Norwegian Central Authority. 

Moreover, the European Court concluded that the proceedings brought by the applicant on the basis of the Hague Convention lasted too long (three years, seven months and 16 days), given that the Polish authorities should have acted with exceptional diligence in view of what was at stake for the applicant and the irreversible character of the measures concerned (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None: the three children have been returned to the applicant.

General measures: In view of the Convention’s direct effect in Poland, publication of the European Court’s judgment on the website of the Ministry of Justice and its dissemination, with a circular, to the Central Authority in the meaning of the Hague Convention, the courts competent in the field of its application, the guardians and the police would be apposite to prevent new similar violations. Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged in order to ensure that applications lodged on the basis of the Hague Convention of 1980 are examined without delay and decisions rendered in this context are enforced expeditiously.

Moreover, as regards the violation of Article 6§1, the issue of excessive length of proceedings before civil courts is being examined in the context of the Podbielski group (judgment of 30/10/1998, Section 4.2, Volume I).

*H46-58            38064/97          Turczanik, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts relating to the registration of the official address of the applicant’s law firm (a necessary condition for starting any activity in this field) due to a persistent refusal of the Bar to observe the Supreme Administrative Court’s directions (violation of Article 6§1). These proceedings began on 25/11/1983, when the applicant was registered as a practicing barrister, and ended on 21/04/1999, when the Bar Council finally registered his law firm’s address in Wrocław (nearly 15 years and five months, out of which nearly six years falling within the jurisdiction of the European Court).

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to access to a tribunal due to a lack of means to ensure the observance of the Supreme Administrative Court’s directions (violation of Article 6§1). In this respect, the Supreme Administrative Court had three times – in 1993, 1995 and 1998 – set aside the Bar’s decisions, including one refusing to register the law firm’s address of the in Wrocław and two others refusing registration in Wołów and Trzebnica. The Supreme Administrative Court noted among other things that the Bar had failed to take account of the applicant’s state of health.

The European Court found that by ailing to observe these directions, the Bar had shown a clear intention to disregard a decision by a competent higher judicial authority and deprived the applicant of effective protection.

Individual measures: On 21/04/1999, the domestic proceedings were terminated and the address of the applicant’s law firm was registered in Wrocław. The European Court granted the applicant just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

General measures: Publication of the European Court’s judgment on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice and its dissemination, with a circular, to the Bar are necessary to prevent similar violations in the future. Information is awaited on the need to take other possible measures to prevent new, similar violations, in particular to guarantee respect by the Bar of decisions of higher jurisdictions.

*H46-59            73547/01          Jedamski and Jedamska, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

H46-60             71731/01          Kniat, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

*H46-1670        39199/98          Podbielski and PPU Polpure, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

These cases concern a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to domestic courts’ refusal to exempt them from court fees in respect of appeals lodged against decisions rendered between 1999 and 2001 (violation of Article 6§1).

In the Jedamski and Jedamska case, the applicants’ claims concerning the attachment of their property by a bank in enforcement proceedings could not be examined.

The Kniat case concerns the rejection of the applicant’s appeal against a judgment on the divorce from her husband against her will.

In the Podbielski and PPU Polpure case, the applicant could not obtain an examination of his financial claims against the commune of Świdnica, for which he had carried out construction work.

Having regard to the importance of the right to a court in a democratic society, 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. Thus the imposition of the court fees on the applicants constituted a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to a court.

Individual measures: Concerning the case of Podbielski and PPU Polpure, following the European Court’s judgment, the applicant, relying on Article 401, Section 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, applied for the reopening of the proceedings terminated finally by a decision of the Supreme Court of 10/06/1999. This request was dismissed on 19/10/2005 on the grounds that the Code of Civil Procedure did not contain a clear provision allowing reopening in cases in which the European Court had delivered a judgment in favour of the applicant (see Bulletin No. 2/2005 of the Information Centre of the Council of Europe in Warsaw).

Bilateral contacts with the Polish delegation are under way on this issue as well as on the situation of the applicants in the two other cases.

General measures: The case presents similarities to the Kreuz case (judgment of 19/06/01), which will be examined at the 966th meeting (June 2006).

*H46-61            51728/99          Rosenzweig and Bonded Warehouses Ltd., judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the violation of the right to respect for the property of the first applicant, a German citizen, and the second applicant, a public company owned by him (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In February 1994, the customs administration granted the applicant company a licence to run a bonded warehouse at the border crossing in Słubice and in June 1995 a further permit to export merchandise via this border crossing. In November 1995, the export permit was revoked for no precise reason and customs officers ordered that the headquarters of the company be closed and sealed the door, preventing it from conducting further business. Later the main Customs Office informed the applicant company that the export permit was temporary and its validity had expired. Following the applicant company’s appeals (amongst others before the Supreme Administrative Court), the validity of this permit was re-examined several times until the applicant company obtained a decision in its favour in June 1998. However, in the meantime the customs authorities began proceedings as a result of which the licence to run a bonded warehouse was revoked in November 1998, because of legal provisions requiring such a revocation if there was no activity for more than three months. Due to the applicant company’s appeals, in March 2000, this decision was cancelled, but the company did not resume its business activities.

The European Court found that the revocation of the permit and the licence was illegal, particularly given the criticisms made in this regard by the Supreme Administrative Court.

It also found that it was disproportionate, as the Polish authorities had not shown that there had been any suspicion that the operation of the applicant company was in any way unlawful or dishonest, or that the applicants had been involved in any attempt to evade customs tax.

It found that, in revoking and changing the decision concerning the applicant company’s operation, the Polish authorities were not following any genuine or consistent policy.

Individual measures: The applicants have asked for compensation in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The European Court has reserved the question of just satisfaction.

General measures: Publication of the European Court’s judgment on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice and its dissemination, with a circular, to customs authorities (including the main Customs Office) would be appropriate, to prevent similar violations in the future.

H46-63             75112/01          Czarnecki, judgment of 28/07/2005, final on 28/10/2005

The case concerns the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand given the insufficient reasons to justify it (violation of Article 5§3).

The applicant, who was suspected of murder but finally convicted of theft, was detained between January 1996 and September 2001, a total of almost 5 years and one month.

Individual measures: None: the applicant was released in September 2001.

General measures: The case presents similarities to the Trzaska group (judgment of 11/07/2000, Section 4.2, Volume I).

- 1 case against Portugal

*H46-1670         9388/02            Cruz da Silva Coelho, judgment of 13/12/2005, Friendly settlement

The case concerns the alleged failure of the respondent state to act to prevent illegal sand extraction from the banks of the River Tagus which led to the drowning of the applicant’s son (complaint under Article 2).

In fact, the Supreme Court held that the state was not liable, even though it found that the state was liable in the case of a man who drowned at the same time and in the same circumstances. In this respect the applicant complained that it had not been possible to obtain a determination of this jurisdictional conflict (complaint under Article 6 and 14).

- 5 cases against Romania

*H46-65            41138/98+        Moldovan and others, judgment No. 2, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the consequences for the applicants, all of Roma origin, of events which took place in September 1993 in the village of Hădăreni, where violent clashes between the Roma community and the other villagers led to the death of three Roma and to the destruction of the applicants' houses and of much of their personal property.

- Under Article 8, the European Court concluded that, in view of the direct repercussions of the acts of state agents on the applicants’ rights (in particular due to the involvement of police officers in the burning of the Roma houses), the government’s responsibility was engaged with regard to the applicants’ living conditions, even after 20/06/1994, when Romania ratified the Convention.

The European Court concluded that the general attitude of the national authorities had perpetuated the applicants’ feelings of insecurity and affected their right to respect for their private and family life and their homes. In this respect, the European Court noted, inter alia, that the Public Prosecutors’ Office had failed to institute criminal proceedings against the state agents involved in the burning of the applicants’ houses, that the domestic courts had refused for many years to award the applicants pecuniary damages for the destruction of their belongings and furniture, that some of the houses had not been rebuilt by the authorities and those which supposedly had been rebuilt remained uninhabitable, etc. (violation of Article 8).

- Under Article 3, the European Court found that the applicants’ living conditions over the last ten years (in overcrowded and unsuitable dwellings), together with the racial discrimination to which they had been publicly subjected by the way in which their grievances had been dealt with by the various (judicial and administrative) authorities, had constituted an interference with their human dignity which, in the special circumstances of the case, had amounted to “degrading treatment” within the meaning of Article 3 (violation of Article 3).

- Under Article 6§1, the European Court found that the proceedings brought by the applicants for compensation against the civilians accused of violent acts had lasted too long. These proceedings began in September 1993, when the applicants became civil parties to criminal proceedings against the presumed perpetrators.

They ended on 25/02/2005 with the confirmation by the Court of Cassation of a lower court’s verdict ordering those who had already been convicted in 1999 for taking part in the violent incidents, to pay compensation to the applicants who had sustained both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (violation of Article 6§1).

- Under Article 14 taken together with Articles 6 and 8, the European Court noted that the applicants’ Roma origin seems to have had a decisive influence on both the duration and the outcome of the domestic proceedings. Particular note was taken of the authorities’ discriminatory remarks throughout the proceedings and the fact that a court decision to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage had been motivated by observations directly linked to their ethnic origin (violation of Article 14 taken together with Articles 6 and 8).

Individual measures: Under article 41, the European Court has awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

Information is awaited on the outcome of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the court decision (final on 25/02/2005) ordering compensation of the applicants (see above).

In addition, given the Court’s finding that the failure to prosecute the state agents involved in the events of September 1993 was a contributory factor to the finding of a violation of Article 8 (§107(a) of the judgment), it would be helpful to have information concerning the present possibility of instituting such prosecution.

General measures: The Secretariat notes that the Romanian government has undertaken, in the friendly settlement with some of the applicants who brought these matters before the European Court, to adopt a number of general measures for the improvement of the situation of the Roma Community in Hădăreni (see judgment No. 1 given on 5/07/2005 in this case, in Section 4.2, Volume I).

In addition to the information already provided in this respect, it would be useful to know what measures are contemplated to ensure that the decisions of public prosecutors, courts and local government officials are not guided by discriminatory attitudes towards persons belonging to ethnic minorities. Confirmation of the publication and broad dissemination of the European Court’s judgment of 12/07/2005 is also awaited.

As regards the violation of Article 6§1, the Secretariat asked the Romanian authorities, in the context of the Pantea case (judgment of 03/06/03) whether they were envisaging the introduction of measures to provide national means of redress for excessively long judicial proceedings, and information is awaited in this respect.

H46-66             73970/01          Sacaleanu, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

The case concerns the delay in the execution of final court decisions ordering the applicant’s employer (the State Inspectorate for People with Disabilities, a public institution) to pay her wages and penalties until her reinstatement in her former post (which eventually occurred in 2000), as well as costs and expenses. These sums were paid to the applicant with significant delays and in several instalments, almost twenty months having sometimes elapsed between them. The applicant only received the total sum on 22/02/2002.

The European Court noted that the employer, as a state-funded public institution, could only pay its debts with specific sums assigned for the purpose by the Ministry of Finance. The European Court noted that delays in paying sums due to the applicant were sometimes caused by the fact that the Ministry had not made over the necessary sums in time. It therefore concluded that the state, through its own acts, had made it impossible for the applicant promptly to recover the sums which were due to her by virtue of final court decisions (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None: the sums at issue were paid to the applicant on 22/02/2002. The non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant has been compensated by the European Court under Article 41 of the Convention.

General measures: Information is awaited on the measures envisaged or already adopted by the Romanian authorities to establish a system allowing the prompt payment by the public institutions of the debts owed by them by virtue of final court decisions. Bringing the judgment to the attention of the Ministry of Public Finance also appears to be necessary.

The Secretariat will write to the Romanian authorities with a view to presenting an action plan for the execution of this judgment.

*H46-67            57001/00          Străin and others, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the fact that the applicants could not recover the possession of an apartment which belonged to them prior to its nationalisation in 1950. The European Court concluded that there had been an interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the sale of the apartment by the state to the sitting tenants in December 1996, while court proceedings in which the applicants were contesting the lawfulness of the nationalisation and sought recovery of possession, were still pending. Moreover, the European Court noted the refusal by the Timişoara Court of Appeal (final judgment of 30/06/1999) to declare the sale contract void, although the courts had held, retrospectively, that the nationalisation had been unlawful and that the applicants were still the lawful owners of the property.

Noting that Romanian law did not foresee with sufficient clarity and certainty the consequences for individuals’ property rights of the sale in good faith of their property to third parties by the state, the European Court concluded that the applicants had had to bear a disproportionate and excessive burden, in particular in view of the total lack of compensation. In this respect, the European Court noted that, even if Article 21 of Law No. 10/2001 provided that a future law will regulate the procedure for granting such compensation, as well as its forms and its amount, no such law had been voted at the time when the judgment was delivered (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings for recovery of the property at issue. Proceedings began in September 1993 and lasted until 30/06/1999 (see above), when the Timişoara Court of Appeal delivered its final judgment (violation of Article 6§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 applicants within three months of the date on which the judgment became final. Failing that, the government would have to pay them a sum corresponding to the market value of the apartment.

Invoking the judgment of the European Court, the applicants, relying on Article 322 (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure, lodged revision proceedings against the 30/06/1999 judgment of the Timişoara Court of Appeal, seeking to obtain the restitution of the apartment. The first hearing was due to be held on 19/01/2006. Information is expected on the progress of these proceedings.

General measures: - As regards  the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, information is awaited on the adoption and implementation of the legislative and other measures concerning the compensation of persons finding themselves in the same situation as the applicants (see §56 of the judgment). Information is also awaited on the possible other measures envisaged to prevent new, similar violations, as well as on the publication of the European Court’s judgment in the Official Gazette.

- As regards the violation of Article 6§1, the Secretariat asked the Romanian authorities, in the context of the Pantea case (judgment of 03/06/03) whether they were envisaging the introduction of measures to provide national means of redress for excessively long judicial proceedings, and information is awaited in this respect.

The Secretariat will write to the Romanian authorities with a view to presenting an action plan for the execution of this judgment.

H46-68             77517/01+        Stoianova and Nedelcu, judgment of 04/08/2005, final on 04/11/2005

The case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants who were arrested in April 1993. In November 1997 the public prosecutor decided to abandon the proceedings. Subsequently, in May 1999, the prosecutor decided to reopen the proceedings, which then lasted until April 2005 (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court concluded that the periods April 1993 – November 1997 and May 1999 – April 2005 must both be taken into account in assessing the overall duration of the proceedings, in particular in view of the fact that the decision to reopen them had been taken by the public prosecutor, who did not satisfy the requirement of independence from the executive, was not subject to any time-limit and was not obliged to seek authorisation from any domestic court which could have checked the fairness pf such reopening or whether or not the time elapsed since the abandonment was excessive.

Individual measures: None: the statute of limitations for the criminal charges brought against the applicants expired in April 2005.

General measures: The Romanian authorities are invited to ensure the publication and the wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all prosecutors’ offices and courts, underlining the conclusion that, when the reopening of criminal proceedings is ordered by a prosecutor following a decision to abandon them, the overall length of the proceedings within the meaning of Article 6§1 of the Convention must take into account the time elapsed before the decision to abandon. Therefore, special diligence might be required in the handling of such cases.

Also, it would be useful to have an evaluation of the need for other measures to preventing excessive delays in criminal proceedings.

Moreover, the Secretariat asked the Romanian authorities, in the context of the Pantea case (judgment of 03/06/03) whether they were envisaging the introduction of measures to provide national means of redress for excessively long judicial proceedings, and information is awaited in this respect.

The Secretariat will write to the Romanian authorities with a view to presenting an action plan for the execution of this judgment.

*H46-1673         60957/00          Velcea, judgment of 22/12/2005 – Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment inflicted by a policemen and another person present with the policeman’s consent, when he was arrested on 23 October 1999 and during his detention on remand, and the alleged inadequacy of the subsequent investigation (complaints under Article 3). It also relates to the alleged unlawfulness of the decision of 24/10/1999 to imprison him on remand, on account of its lack of adequate motivation. Finally the case relates to the applicant’s allegation that he was not brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power (complaints under Article 5§§1 and 3).

The applicant's complaints present similarities to those raised in the case of Pantea against Romania (judgment of 03/06/03, examined in Section 4.2 at the 940th meeting (October 2005)).

- 9 cases against the Russian Federation

*H46-69            49790/99          Trubnikov, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the ineffectiveness of the inquiry into the death of the applicant’s son in 1998 in the correctional labour colony OZH 118/8 in Rossosh, Voronezh Region, due to the lack of promptness, exemplary diligence, initiative on the part of the authorities and the lack of public scrutiny (violation of Article 2). The European Court also found a violation of the respondent state’s obligation to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in establishing the facts, given the failure to provide the original medical file concerning the psychiatric supervision of the applicant’s son prior to his death without any convincing explanation (violation of Article 38§1a).

Individual measures: The European Court noted that the authorities had taken a number of important steps to establish the true circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son after he had lodged his application with the Court (§ 94 of the judgment). The second investigation conducted by the Voronezh City Special Prosecutor’s Office, i.e. more than three years after the death, confirmed that the applicant’s son had committed suicide. The applicant received official notification of closure on 3/03/2003, without however being granted the official status of a victim in criminal proceedings, contrary to the usual practice under national law.

General measures: - As regards the violation of Article 2:It results from the Court’s judgment that the second investigation (see above) conducted after the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (1/07/2002) was closer to meeting the Convention’s requirements, except that it took place three years after the death of the applicant’s son. It remains to be assessed, however, to what extent the current legislative provisions, together with the regulations and instructions based on them, meet the requirements of prompt, thorough and effective investigation, thus preventing new violations of the same kind. The Russian authorities are therefore invited to provide clarifications in this respect together with information on possible further legislative or other measures envisaged to ensure effective investigations into deaths of persons deprived of their liberty.

As regards the violation of Article 38§1a: The authorities’ attention must be drawn to the Committee’s Resolution ResDH(2001)66 stressing that the principle of co-operation with the Court embodied in the Convention is of fundamental importance for the proper and effective functioning of the Convention system and calling upon the governments of the contracting states to ensure that all relevant authorities comply strictly with this obligation. Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent further incidents of non-co-operation in the future.

The publication and wide dissemination of the judgment, together with the Resolution mentioned above and accompanied by a circular letter, to courts, prosecutors and penitentiary authorities, would also be helpful to prevent new, similar violations.

H46-70             23472/03          Grinberg, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

The case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression on account of his having been found guilty of defamation in 2002, under civil law, following the publication by the daily newspaper of an article criticising a political candidate.

The European Court found that the Russian law on defamation in force at the material time was not compatible with the Convention as it required the defendant to prove the truth of any negative statement, whether factual statements or, as in this case, value judgments not susceptible of proof (violation of Article 10). 

Individual measures:  All the damages suffered by the applicant as a consequence of the violation have been compensated within the framework of the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court.

General measures:  The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation anticipated the European Court’s judgment by issuing a ruling on 24/02/2005 providing guidelines on the application of Article 152 of the Civil Code regarding defamation in the light of Article 10 of the Convention. The Supreme Court insisted particularly on the necessity for judges to distinguish between statements of fact susceptible of proof and value judgments, opinions or convictions which to not fall within the scope of the Article.

The publication and the wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment would be useful because it constitutes a concrete illustration of the guidelines given by the Russian Supreme Court.

*H46-71            55723/00          Fadeyeva, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the Russian authorities’ failure in their obligation to protect the applicant’s private and home life against environmental hazards arising from a steelworks. Since 1982 the applicant has lived in council flat situated in the sanitary zone established around the Severstal Steel Works in Cherepovets, where the pollution level is much higher than the “maximum permitted limit” set forth by Russian law. In 1996 and 1999, domestic courts confirmed the applicant’s right to be resettled by the municipality in a safer area. However, the authorities offered the applicant no effective solution to that effect, being satisfied with the municipality’s decision to place the applicant on a general waiting-list for resettlement. Neither have the authorities taken effective measures to reduce the industrial pollution to an acceptable level and to ensure the compliance of the steel plant with domestic environmental standards. Consequently, the state had failed to strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and the applicant’s effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and private life (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: By finding a violation of Article 8 in the present case, the European Court has established the government's obligation to take appropriate measures to remedy the applicant's individual situation (§142). The Court noted at the same time that the resettlement of the applicant in an ecologically safe area would be only one of many possible solutions (ibid). The Court also pointed out that the individual measures in the present case may be closely connected to the general measures (see below) as the state has at its disposal a number of other tools capable of preventing or minimising pollution (§ 124). Information on the measures taken is awaited.

General measures: It appears undisputed that the operations of the Severstal steel plant do not comply with the environmental and health rules established by the Russian law. Its pollution levels with respect to a number of dangerous substances continue to exceed the maximum admissible levels. The implementation of the judgment would therefore appear to require bringing these activities in line with domestic law either by reducing the pollution or by other means.

In order to facilitate the Committee’s assessment of appropriate measures necessary to prevent new, similar violations, the following questions need at the outset to be answered or clarified by the authorities:

-       What are the avenues available under domestic law to prevent dangerous pollution by industrial plants in populated areas? It appears from the judgment (§ 116) that to set up sanitary zones around such plants was at the relevant time the only avenue to make their activities lawful – otherwise the plant must be closed or significantly restructured (§ 116 of the judgment). Are new solutions available today?

-       What is the current legal status and size of the sanitary zone around Severstal plant? According to the judgment, the current size of the sanitary zone around Severstal is unclear (§§ 118-119).

-       Which authorities are competent to ensure that sanitary zones are set up and implemented, bearing in mind that the common rules for such zones are defined in the Federal Law of 30/03/1999? What measures may be taken in case of breach of these rules by the competent authorities?

-       What is the current state policy in respect of the Severstal and other industrial plants in the same position with a view to inducing them to take the necessary measures for environmental protection? For example, are there any conditions attached to the operating permits (cf. § 129)?

-       What legal remedies/sanctions (e.g. civil, administrative or criminal) are currently available in Russian law to combat unlawful industrial pollution or to make polluting industrial plants bear the consequences of their activities? For example, what actions are available in respect of industrial units which pollute the environment above the maximum admissible levels and/or in respect of the competent authorities which fail to ensure respect for domestic law in this respect?

-       More specifically, what judicial or administrative remedies, either preventive or compensatory, are available to ensure respect for the rights of persons in the applicant’s position, i.e. those currently living in the sanitary zone which has to exist around the Severstal plant, bearing in mind that Russian law directly prohibits the building of any residential property within this sanitary zone (§ 122)?

The Russian authorities are invited to provide clarifications on these questions and to inform the Committee of measures taken or envisaged along these lines or otherwise so as to comply with Russia’s positive duties under the Convention, as set out in the present judgment. The Secretariat will shortly write to the Russian delegation with a view to requesting an action plan for the implementation of the judgment.

*H46-73            68443/01          Baklanov, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-72            58254/00          Frizen, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The cases concern the violation of the applicants’ property rights on account of confiscatory measures taken against them without precise legal justification in the framework of criminal proceedings in 1997 (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

In the Baklanov case, a person transporting a large sum of money on the applicant’s behalf without having declared the fact was arrested by the customs authorities for smuggling. The money was confiscated on the basis of a Ruling of the Supreme Court of 3/02/1978 authorising the confiscation of smuggled goods (to be placed in the case-file as an exhibit). The ruling at issue was given in relation with Article 169-1 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960.

However the Criminal Code of 1996, which was in force at the material time, provided no such measure. Given the ambiguity in domestic law, the European Court concluded that the applicant had been deprived of his property on a legal basis not formulated with sufficient precision to enable the applicant to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences of his actions.

In the Frizen case, the courts confiscated the applicant’s car in respect of a criminal offence of which her husband had been convicted. The domestic courts did not refer to any legal provision authorising the confiscation.

Individual measures: Both applicants, who did not ask for compensation for pecuniary damage from the European Court, are claiming restitution of their forfeited goods and damages for continued deprivation of their property. Information would be useful on the possible means available to the applicants in domestic law to obtain redress for the violations found.

General measures: - As regards the Baklanov case, Article 81 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in force since 1/07/2002 qualifies smuggling as an offence. In its decision of 8/07/2004, the Constitutional Court specified that, in the light of the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (8/11/1990) and the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (15/11/2000), both ratified by the Russian Federation, the term “confiscation” means not only punishment but also “a measure ordered by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence resulting in the final deprivation of property” as provided for by Article 86-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Domestic courts are expected to follow this interpretation given by the Constitutional Court which is binding in Russian law.

- In the Frizen case, it seems that the forfeiture of the applicant’s car constituted an additional punishment related to the conviction of the applicant’s husband for a large-scale fraud. However, no legal grounds were indicated under domestic law then in force. Should similar actions of forfeiture still take place today, clarifications would be necessary as regards the legal grounds relied upon by domestic courts under the law presently in force.

The wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgments to all relevant authorities including the domestic courts and publication also appear necessary.

H46-74             60974/00          Roseltrans, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

The case concerns the quashing in supervisory review proceedings of a final and binding domestic court judgment in the applicant’s favour (violation of Article 6§1). The Court found that the system of supervisory review, as used in the present case, was incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.

Individual measures: The proceedings were finished by a final decision in the applicant’s favour.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of Ryabykh, in which a draft Interim Resolution taking stock of the progress and setting out the outstanding issues in the implementation of the Ryabykh judgment has been prepared by the Secretariat in co-operation with the Russian authorities with a view to its adoption at the present meeting (Section 4.2 Volume I).

*H46-76            67099/01          Solodyuk, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the violation of the applicants’ property rights due to delays by the Pension Fund, in 1998, in paying old-age pensions and to the failure to safeguard the value of the pensions on account of the difference between the index-link applicable to pensions and the real inflation rate of up to 37% in Russia at the material time (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The pecuniary and non-pecuniary prejudice suffered by the applicants was remedied by the European Court through the grant of just satisfaction. Thus, no individual measure would appear to be necessary.

General measures: Information is expected on measures taken or envisaged to prevent delays in payment of pensions and to ensure that the value of amounts owed by the state is effectively safeguarded in case of delays in payment. In this respect, the Russian authorities may wish to take into account the measures taken in other countries to prevent similar violations (see, for example, Resolutions ResDH(2001)70 and ResDH(2001)71 in Aka and Akus against Turkey concerning the Turkish reform aligning the statutory rate of default interest applicable to all state debts on the country’s official inflation rate established by the Central Bank).

It would appear appropriate, at the outset, to ensure publication and wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all relevant authorities, in particular to the Ministry of Labour, the Pension Fund Agency and all their local subordinates drawing their attention to the obligation to prevent new, similar violations.

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

Items	Application	Cases	Dates of domestic judgments	Outcome of the enforcement of domestic judgments
H46-75	24077/02	Gerasimova Natalya, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005	26/08/2002	Not enforced
H46-77	34687/02	Yavorivskaya, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005	21/02/200	Not 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) registration fees for obtaining a title in property following her eviction and relocation because of demolition of a building; (b) damages (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: - As regards the case of Natalya Gerasimova, It results from the Court’s judgment that the decision in the applicant’s favour was cancelled and her claim for payment by the District Council of registration fees was rejected. The enforcement proceedings were pending when the European Court delivered its judgment. Thus information is required on the applicant’s current situation and the measures taken or envisaged to erase the negative consequences of the violation.

- As regards the case of Yavorivskaya, the European Court awarded the applicant pecuniary damage covering the sum due under the domestic judgment It has also awarded non-pecuniary damages. Given that the domestic judgment is still enforceable, the situation remains to be solved through appropriate procedures so as to avoid continuing violations of Article 6 on account of non-execution of valid judicial decisions. Information on the measures envisaged in this respect is required.

General measures: The cases present similarities to those of the Timofeyev group, in which the Committee is examining the general measures envisaged by the Russian authorities for the implementation of the European Court’s judgments in relation to the non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions (Section 4.2, Volume I).

- 2 cases against Switzerland

H46-80             7020/02            Contardi, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005

The case concerns the unfairness of certain civil proceedings before the administrative courts (Federal Insurance Court) on account of the failure to disclose some documents (comments made by a cantonal administrative court and certain social authorities) to the applicant with the consequence that he could not reply. In the proceedings the applicant contested the assessment of his disability pension (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: In the light of the European Court’s finding, no individual measures appear to be necessary. It may be noted that under Swiss administrative law the applicant might request reopening of domestic proceedings.

General measures: Stating that the principle of equality of arms is a basic element of fairness of proceedings and citing its case-law, the European Court held that even where the documents had little or no impact on the decision, it was above all the litigant’s confidence in the work of justice which was at stake. This confidence is based inter alia on the knowledge that he could have the opportunity to express his views on every document in the file (see § 44). In the light of these findings, information is awaited on measures envisaged or taken to ensure a change in domestic courts’ practice, in particular through dissemination and publication of the European Court’s judgment.

H46-81             7957/02            Munari, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings against the applicant, a financial consultant for a foundation, who was suspected of fraud, offences relating to the foundation’s assets and dishonest management.

The period to be taken into consideration began in January 1993 with preliminary investigations and ended in December 2002 when the public prosecutor abandoned the prosecution for lack of grounds (more than 9 years for one level of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None (proceedings closed). In June 2001, the Federal Court awarded the applicant 1 500 Swiss francs for his expenses on account of the length of the proceedings.

General measures: Following the appeal introduced by the applicant in April 2001, the Federal Court acknowledged the violation of Article 6§1 in this case and ordered the lower courts to deal with it without further delay. Given that it still required a further year and a half to close the examination of the case, information is awaited on measures envisaged or taken to ensure a change in the practice of lower courts, in particular through dissemination and publication of the European Court’s judgment.

- 45 cases against Turkey

*H46-82            65899/01          Tanış and others, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the disappearance of the applicants’ relatives, who were president and secretary of the local branch of the HADEP party, in south-east Turkey in 2001. The European Court found it established that the applicants’ relatives had gone to the gendarmerie station following a call from a gendarme and had not been seen since. Furthermore, there were sufficient indications to establish that they had been threatened by local commanding officers on account of their political activities within the HADEP. No criminal proceedings had been opened to identify those responsible for the disappearance and the investigation into the conduct of the gendarmes had resulted in a finding that there was no case to answer. Although the investigation had not yet been officially closed, there was nothing to suggest that additional, effective measures were still being taken. The Court therefore found that the domestic authorities had failed in their obligation to protect the life of the applicants’ relatives and to carry out an effective investigation into events surrounding their disappearance (violations of Article 2 and 13). The Court further considered that the disappearance of the applicants had caused them anxiety and stress and thus amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

Lastly, the Court noted that such an unacknowledged disappearance had amounted to a grave violation of the right to liberty and security (violation of Article 5).

In addition, the government had failed to furnish all necessary facilities to the European Court in its task of establishing the facts (violation of Article 38). The Court’s delegation was unable to hear two key witnesses during the fact-finding mission carried out in Turkey in 2003. Secondly, the Court had been unable to obtain the documents from the investigation file indicating the information which had been withheld.

Individual measures: Information is awaited on the possibilities of reopening the domestic investigations, which were found to be inadequate.

General measures: - As far as the violation of Article 38 is concerned, the case presents similarities a group of cases (see, for example, Ateş Yasin) examined at the 948th meeting (December 2005) when the Turkish authorities were invited to inform the Committee of the measures, either legislative or others, to ensure that all competent authorities comply in the future with their obligations to furnish all necessary facilities to the Court in its investigations with a view to establishing the facts. In this context, the authorities' attention should be drawn to the Committee's Resolution ResDH(2001)66 stressing that the principle of co-operation with the Court embodied in the Convention is of fundamental importance for the proper and effective functioning of the Convention system and calling upon the governments of the contracting states to ensure that all relevant authorities comply strictly with this obligation. It should be noted that the incidents of non-co-operation in this case occurred approximately two years after the adoption of this Resolution. Information on the measures taken or envisaged is awaited.  

Information is also expected concerning the publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to all other relevant authorities.

- As far as the violations of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 are concerned, this case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (in this connection see 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 solved).

H46-84             35838/97          Kaçar Fatma, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

The case concerns the lack of an effective investigation into the events surrounding the killing of the applicant’s husband by unknown perpetrators in the south-east of Turkey in 1994.

The European Court found that the investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband had not been conducted diligently and that there had been a number of periods of unexplained inactivity. Furthermore, neither the deceased’s family nor their representative appeared to have been kept informed of progress in the investigation. Lastly, the criminal proceedings initiated against the suspects, who had been found, were still pending at first instance level some ten years later, without any explanation from the government (violations of Articles 2 and 13).  

Individual and 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 (in this connection see 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).

H46-87             35072/97+        şimşek and others, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

The case concerns the failure of the state to protect the right to life of the applicants’ relatives who were shot dead by members of the security forces during two violent demonstrations which took place in two different suburbs of Istanbul in 1995. Police officers fired on the demonstrators to disperse them, resulting in the death of 17. The European Court found that the police officers had received no clear or precise instructions as to the manner and circumstances in which firearms should be used or any proper training enabling them to deal with such large-scale demonstrations. Furthermore, the security forces had not been provided with means of resorting to other, less dangerous means of crowd dispersal, such as tear gas, plastic bullets, water cannon. The Court thus concluded that the resort to force in these circumstances was disproportionate ‘violation of Article 2).

As to the effectiveness of the investigation, the European Court observed that the investigatory steps taken by the Turkish authorities were dilatory and half-hearted, did not appear to have produced tangible results and disregarded the accountability of state officials (violations of Articles 2 and 13).

Individual measures: The European Court has identified a number of shortcomings in the investigations carried out against the accused police officers. Possibilities of remedying these shortcomings remain to be considered. Information in this respect is awaited in writing.

General measures: This case presents similarities to the other cases concerning the actions of the security forces in Turkey, which are being examined by the Committee (in this connection see 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).

H46-96             61441/00          Özdemir Sadegül, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 02/11/2005

This case concerns the applicant’s excessively long detention on remand between November 1992 and June 2000 (about 7½ years). 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 indicate in sufficient detail the reasons justifying the applicants’ being kept on remand (violation of Article 5§3).

Individual measures: The applicant was released pending trial in December 2001.

General measures: This case presents similarities to the Demirel case (examined at the 940th meeting in Section 5.2-October 2005) in which the Committee is awaiting information as to how the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, which came into force on 01/06/2005, will be applied by Turkish courts in order to avoid future violations. Article 101 § 2 of the new Code provides that  decisions to detain on remand or to extend such detention, as well as those denying requests for release, must be duly reasoned on both legal and factual grounds. Moreover, the new Code sets a maximum for the length of detention on remand (two years in the case of offences within the jurisdiction of the Assize Courts, which may be extended for a maximum of three years; six months in the case of the other offences, with the possibility of extension for four months).

H46-98             36220/97          Okyay Ahmet and others, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005

The case concerns the national authorities’ failure to enforce domestic courts’ orders to shut down three thermal power plants which pollute the environment in the province of Muğla, in south-west Turkey. The administrative authorities have neither complied with an interlocutory injunction of June 1996 ordering the suspension of the power plants’ operation, nor have they enforced, within the prescribed time-limits, the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court of December 1996 upholding the first-instance court decisions finding that the power plants were polluting the environment. On the contrary, by a decision of September 1996, the Council of Ministers decided that the three thermal power plants should continue to be operated despite the court decisions.

The European Court found that the national authorities’ failure to comply in practice and within a reasonable time with the decisions of domestic courts constituted a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention. The Court also noted that the decision of the Council of Ministers had no legal basis and was obviously unlawful under domestic law. It was tantamount to circumventing the judicial decisions, a situation which adversely affects the principle of a law-based state, founded on the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty.

Individual measures: Information is urgently awaited as to whether the Turkish authorities have taken the necessary measures with the aim of eliminating the pollution caused by the power plants, if not shutting them down completely in compliance with the domestic court decisions ordering their closure. 

General measures: This case presents similarities to the Taşkın and others case (examined at the 948th meeting – December 2005) where the Turkish authorities have failed to comply with domestic court decisions ordering the closure of a gold-mine that was found to be polluting the environment. In this regard, information is awaited both in the Taşkın and in the present case concerning the general measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations and, in particular to ensure effective compliance with domestic court decisions. At the outset it appears that publication and dissemination of the judgment is necessary. The Secretariat will write to the Turkish authorities inviting them to present a plan of action for the execution of this judgment.

H46-99             35811/97          Kolu Mustafa, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 02/11/2005

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant on charges of unlawful entry and aggravated theft in 1995. The applicant was sentenced to 33 years and four months’ imprisonment on the basis of the confessions he made, which he claimed were obtained under torture, in the absence of a lawyer, while in police custody in solitary confinement.

The European Court found that the applicant had made several self-incriminating statements while in police custody and that there was nothing to suggest that he had given those statements in the presence of a lawyer or after having been informed of his right to be assisted by a lawyer. Neither had it been shown that the police officers had informed the applicant of his right to remain silent. Furthermore, during the trial stage the applicant was denied not only the possibility of challenging the allegations made by his accusers but also an opportunity to challenge the use of confessions obtained in the absence of a lawyer in solitary confinement (violation of Article 6§§1, 3c and d).

Individual measures: The applicant was released in December 2000 in application of Amnesty Law No. 4616 of 22/12/2000. Information is awaited as to whether the applicant is still suffering any consequences of his conviction which was found to be unsafe by the European Court.

General measures: Several measures have been taken with the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) on 01/06/2005 and with the amendments introduced in the Rules on Apprehension, Police Custody and Interrogation in relation to the procedural safeguards in police custody (see, Appendix 1 to Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)43). These amendments, as far as relevant, can be summarised as follows:

1. All suspects or accused shall have the right to have access to a lawyer at every stage of the investigation. The right to have access to a lawyer, including during the interrogation, shall not be obstructed or limited (Article 149 of the CCP).

2. A lawyer shall be appointed if suspect or accused declares that he or she has no means to appoint one. In the investigation of crimes requiring at least five years’ imprisonment, a lawyer shall automatically be appointed whether or not the suspect or the accused requests it (Article 150 of the CCP). 

3. Apprehended persons shall be informed of their rights at the time they are taken into custody (Article 6 of the Regulations).

4. Lastly, no statement obtained by security forces in the absence of a lawyer shall be considered as a basis of a conviction unless the suspect or accused confirms that statement before a judge or a court (Article 148 of the CCP).

*H46-1672         72071/01          Turan Demir, judgment of 22/12/2005 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns allegations of unjustified interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression on account of his conviction in 2000 under former Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Law (No. 3713) following a public speech he made (complaint under Article 10).

The European Court took note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The Turkish government undertook to pay a sum of money and noted that “Turkish law and practice has been brought into line with the Convention’s requirements under Article 10 with the guidance provided by the Court’s rulings against Turkey”.

Individual and general measures: This case presents similarities to the group of cases concerning the violations of the freedom of expression examined by the Committee at its 948th meeting (December 2005). Article 8 of Anti-terrorism Law was abrogated on 19/07/2003 (by Law No. 4928).

Furthermore, any convictions on criminal records should be 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 02/01/2003) once an offence is decriminalised. Information concerning the confirmation of the erasure of the applicant’s criminal conviction from his criminal record is awaited.

H46-111           53918/00          Önder Faik and Zeydan Oktay, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 02/11/2005

This case concerns the violation of the first 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 courts which tried and convicted him (violations of Article 6§1). The European Court declared Mr Zeydan’s case inadmissible.

Individual measures: The applicant Faik Önder was pardoned by the President of Turkey on account of his state of health.

General measures: This 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 the independence and impartiality of state security courts

H46-104           59237/00          Aslan Mehmet Salih, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-105           57019/00          Çaplik Hatip, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-106           61650/00          Çelik Mehmet, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-107           52691/99          Karabaş, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

H46-109           52701/99+        Keçeci, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-110           35363/02          Kepeneklioğlu and Canpolat, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

H46-113           38422/97          Reyhan, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

H46-117           52162/99          Yeşiltaş Hüseyin and Kaya Zeki, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-118           52164/99          Yildiz and others, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

H46-119           62319/00          Yilmaz Feyyaz, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-120           53497/99          Yilmaz Levent Can, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

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 Kepeneklioğlu and Canpolat also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, which began in June 1992 and ended in February 2002 (more than 9 years, 7 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: These cases present similarities to those scheduled for examination in Section 4.1 (See Volume I).The European Court has expressed the view that in cases where an applicant has been convicted by a court which was not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6§1, the most appropriate form of redress would be to ensure that in due course the applicant is granted a retrial by an independent and impartial tribunal. However, the applicants cannot obtain the reopening of proceedings because the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure on reopening do not apply in their cases (see the similar cases in Section 4.1 for the measures expected to be taken).

General measures: 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.

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

H46-123           66995/01          Başkan, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

H46-126           45712/99          Dost and others, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 26/10/2005

H46-127           52159/99          Ernekal, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

H46-128           853/03              Kahveci, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-129           6759/03            Kaplan Cafer, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-130           6071/03            Kaplan Salih, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-131           6073/03            Kaplan Salih (No. 2), judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-132           49394/99          Karapınar, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 02/11/2005

*H46-133          28190/02          Kendirci, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

H46-134           28174/02          Kurucu, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

*H46-135          28192/02           Özdemir Seyit Ahmet and others, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

H46-136           49398/99           Pembe and others, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

H46-137           2203/03             Sahin Zeynep, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

H46-138           46085/99           Taş and others, judgment of 02/08/2005, final on 02/11/2005

*H46-140          28176/02          Toprak Mustafa and Mehmet, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-141          28177/02          Toprak Mustafa No. 1, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-142          28178/02          Toprak Mustafa No. 2, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

H46-144           70289/01          Yayla, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 21/10/2005

*H46-145          28183/02          Yiğit Hüseyin, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-146          28182/02          Yiğit Mehmet No. 2, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-147          28184/02          Yiğit Mehmet No. 3, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-148          28185/02          Yiğit Mehmet No. 4, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-149          28188/02          Yiğit Mehmet No. 5, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-150          28186/02          Yiğit Salih No. 1, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-151          28187/02          Yiğit Salih No. 2, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

*H46-153          28171/02          Yılmaz Fadıl, judgment of 21/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

H46-154           28167/02          Yılmaz and Gümüş, judgment of 15/07/2005, final on 15/10/2005

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. In some of these cases the Court did not award any damages because the applicants had failed to submit their just satisfaction claims under Article 41 of the Convention and Rule 60 of Rules of Court. 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).

- 7 cases against Ukraine

H46-155           65518/01          Salov, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to be brought promptly before a judge following his arrest to ascertain the lawfulness of detention. The applicant’s remained in detention for 16 days before being brought before a judge (violation of Article 5§3).

The case also concerns the unfairness of the criminal proceedings brought against him in November 1999 for electoral fraud (violation of Article 6 § 1). In this respect, the Court found in particular:

- the lack of impartiality of the judge hearing the case due to the insufficient legislative and financial guarantees against outside pressure on him;

- the breach of the principle of equality of arms since the applicant was not provided with a copy of the protest lodged by the Prosecutor, nor with the resolution of the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court and thus was deprived of the opportunity to prepare his defence in advance of the trial;

- the lack of motivation of the court’s judgment, which hindered the applicant’s right of appeal;

- the breach of the principle of legal certainty due to the quashing of a final decision by means of the supervisory review procedure.

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. In this respect the Court found that the applicant’s sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment for disseminating a forged newspaper announcing the President Kuchma’s death was manifestly disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: It appears from the judgment that the applicant’s conviction has been struck out of his criminal record and the legal effects of his conviction were thus annulled (§32 of the judgment). He has in addition been awarded compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

General measures: - As regards the violation of Article 5 §3: Clarifications are requested regarding the current legal time-limits for the authorities’ bringing an arrested person before a judge.

- As regards the violation of Article 6 §1: The Court pointed out in its judgment a number of structural problems at the basis of this violation. The Court noted in particular:

-       the financial influence exerted on the courts by reducing of the expenditure of the state budget on the needs of courts by Resolution No. 432 of the Cabinet, which was challenged by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 24/07/1999 (§ 49 of the judgment);

-       the lack of clear criteria and procedures in the domestic legislation for the promotion, disciplinary liability, appraisal and career development of judges or limits to the discretionary powers vested in the presidents of the higher courts and qualifications commissions in that regard (§ 83);

-       the lack of guarantees against possible pressure from the President of the Regional Court and the binding nature of the instructions given by the Presidium of the Regional Court according to the Article 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 then in force (§§ 44, 86);

-       the use of supervisory procedure in criminal cases, thus violating the principle of legal certainty (similar issues with regard to civil proceedings have already been raised in the SovtransavtoUkraine case, in which the Committee is supervising the adoption of general measures).

These problems are likely to call for comprehensive general measures, in particular legislative ones, so as to prevent new, similar violations. The Secretariat will shortly write to the Ukrainian authorities requesting a plan of action for the implementation of the judgment.

- As regards the violation of Article 10: The authorities have to ensure that sanctions imposed in similar circumstances are proportionate to the gravity of impugned acts, as required by the Convention. It therefore appears appropriate to publish and widely disseminate the European Court’s judgment to all courts and prosecutor’s offices, possibly with circulars drawing their attention to the Convention’s requirements as highlighted by the §§104-115 of the judgment.

H46-156           61406/00          Gurepka, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

The case concerns the fact that the applicant had no means of appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ordering seven days’ administrative detention for the applicant’s for contempt of court in civil defamation proceedings brought against him. According to Article 297 of the Code of Administrative Offences, in force at the relevant time, only a prosecutor or the president of a higher court could introduce such an appeal. The European Court accordingly found that, given the fact that this procedure was not directly accessible to a party to the proceedings and did not depend on his or her motion and arguments, it was not a sufficiently effective remedy for the purposes of the Convention (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7).

The applicant served the sentence, from 25 to 31/12/1998.

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

General measures: Clarifications are awaited as to whether the legislation currently in force provides a directly accessible remedy to a party to proceedings thereby preventing new, similar violations.

*H46-157          62608/00          Agrotehservis, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

The case concerns the quashing, by supervisory review, of a final judgment given in April 1998 awarding the applicant company damages in respect of a breach of contract by its Ukrainian partner (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court found that the system of supervisory review, as used in the present case, was incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.

Individual measures: On 21/01/2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine confirmed the validity of the judgment of 10/04/1998 given in the applicant company’s favour. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction covering the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of Sovtransavto (judgment of 25/07/02, scheduled to be examined at the 966th meeting, June 2006), in which Deputies adopted, at their 871st meeting, Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)14 summarising the implementing measures taken and envisaged by the Ukrainian authorities and the outstanding issues.

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

Items	Applications	Cases	Date of domestic judgment	Outcome of the enforcement of domestic judgment
*H46-159	15366/03	Chernyayev, judgment of 26/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005	04/08/2000 03/07/2001 17/05/2004	not enforced
*H46-161	71186/01	Fuklev, judgment of 07/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005	24/02/1998	partly enforced
H46-163	41125/02	Gouzovskiy, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005	06/11/2001	enforced

These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to effective judicial protection due to the failure or substantial delay by the administration in executing final judicial decisions in the applicants’ favour, mainly as a consequence of the inefficiency of bailiffs (violations of Article 6§1).

In some of these cases the European Court also found the consequent violation of the applicant’s right to the respect for their property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and/or violations of Article 13 due to the lack of an effective remedy allowing redress for damage created by delays in enforcement.

Individual measures: Urgent measures are necessary to ensure enforcement of the domestic judgments in the cases of Chernyayev and Fuklev, if these judgments remain unenforced.

General measures: These cases are similar to those in the Zhovner group (Section 4.2, Volume I).

H46-166           70767/01          Pavlyulynets, judgment of 06/09/2005, final on 06/12/2005

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings. They began in 1999 and were still pending before the Supreme Court of Ukraine when the European Court delivered its judgment (5 years and 2 months) (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Information is required on the present state of the proceedings and on measures taken or envisaged to erase the negative consequences of the violation found.

General measures: The case presents similarities to that of Svetlana Naumenko, in which the Committee is supervising the adoption of general measures to ensure reasonable duration of court proceedings, including issues of compensation for damage caused by the failure to respect the requirement of reasonable time (Section 4.2, Volume I).

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-169           6638/03            P.M., judgment of 19/07/2005, final on 19/10/2005

The case concerns discrimination suffered by the applicant, an unmarried father separated from the mother of his child: in the 1998-1999 tax year, he was refused a tax deduction, granted to separated or divorced fathers who had once been married to the mothers of their children, for child maintenance payments, on the ground that he had never been married to the mother of his child. Given that he had duly fulfilled the financial obligations towards his daughter, the Court found no objective ground for treating him differently from a married father, divorced or separated from the mother, as regards to the tax deductibility of such payments (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: As to just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant a sum corresponding to the tax deduction he was refused in the 1998-1999 tax year. Clarifications are required as to the applicant’s personal situation, in order to assess whether further individual measures are necessary.

General measures: Information recently received from the United Kingdom authorities indicates that after 6/04/2000 the tax deductibility of such payments was abolished, except where one of the parties to the marriage was born before 6 April 1935. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) have advised that general measures have already been taken in order to allow the legal situation to reflect the judgment of the European Court in this case. That information is currently under assessment, with a view to determining whether further general measures are necessary.

The Secretariat will shortly write to the delegation of the United Kingdom inviting them to furnish the necessary clarifications and, if necessary, to present a plan of action for the execution of this judgment.

H46-170           36536/02          B. and L., judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

This case concerns the violation of the right of the applicants, a father-in-law and his daughter-in-law, to marry. The applicants have been co-habiting since 1996. In June 2002 they were informed that, under the Marriage Act 1949, as amended by the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986, they could not marry unless both their former spouses had died (violation of Article 12).

Individual measures: Information is awaited on measures undertaken or envisaged to enable the applicants to marry.

General measures: It should be noted that even before the judgment became final, on 21/11/2005, the government responded to it in a ministerial statement, setting out its intention to amend the Marriage Act 1949. Publication of the European Court’s judgment would appear to be useful, to bring it to the attention of persons in similar circumstances.

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

*H46-171          40029/02          Wingrave, judgment of 29/11/2005 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the length of proceedings to decide a claim for disability allowances (complaint under Article 6§1).

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION

Action

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

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

At the time of issuing the present Annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the Secretariat had not received the written confirmation of payment of just satisfaction and/or default interest in the following cases (see the table below summarising the total number of cases by States). The Representatives of the States concerned are invited to give the Secretariat written confirmation of payment of the sums awarded by the Court and/or the default interests.

- 1 case against Albania

                       - Default interest due

H46-172            54268/00           Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k., judgment of 18/11/2005, final on 30/03/2005

- 3 cases against Austria

H46-173            11084/02+         H.G. and G.B., judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 02/09/2005

H46-174            69162/01           Geyer, judgment of 07/07/2005, final on 07/10/2005

H46-175            56483/00           Jancikova, judgment of 07/04/2005, final on 07/07/2005

- 3 cases against Belgium

H46-176            46825/99+         Claes and others, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 02/09/2005[3]

H46-177            48386/99           Cottin, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 02/09/2005

H46-178            50372/99           Goktepe, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 02/09/2005[4]

- 4 cases against Bulgaria

                       - Just satisfaction due

H46-184           44082/98            I.I., judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005[5]

H46-185           42908/98+          Kirilova and others, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005

H46-186           50326/99            Kolev, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005

H46-187           43578/98            I.D., judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005

- 7 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-191           64935/01          Chmelíř, judgment of 07/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-192           61811/00          Milatová and others, judgment of 21/06/2005, final on 21/09/2005[6]

H46-193           74328/01          Zedník, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005[7]

H46-194           73116/01          Mařík, judgment of 12/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-199           75375/01          Houbal, judgment of 14/06/2005, final on 14/09/2005[8]

H46-200           28661/03          Kubizňáková, judgment of 21/06/2005, final on 21/09/2005[9]

H46-201           64750/01          L.C.I., judgment of 07/06/2005, final on 07/09/2005, rectified on 04/10/2005[10]

- 42 cases against France

                       - Just satisfaction due

H46-205           1513/03            Draon, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber[11]

H46-206           11810/03          Maurice, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber[12]

H46-207           69116/01          Mayali, judgment of 14/06/2005, final on 14/09/2005[13]

H46-208           59842/00          Vetter, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005

H46-209           64460/01          Bach, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-211           57752/00          Matheron, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005

H46-212           43640/98          Mariani, judgment of 31/03/2005, final on 01/07/2005

H46-213           62034/00          Vigroux, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

H46-214           62740/00          Matheus, judgment of 31/03/2005, final on 01/07/2005

H46-215           61517/00          F.W., judgment of 31/03/2005, final on 06/07/2005

H46-216           69678/01          Cossec, judgment of 14/12/2004, final on 06/06/2005

H46-217           74587/01          Lacas, judgment of 08/02/2005, final on 06/07/2005

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

H46-220           52621/99          Schwarkmann, judgment of 08/02/2005, final on 08/05/2005

                       - Default interest due

H46-210           59480/00          Harizi, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005

H46-626           49572/99          Geniteau, judgment of 07/12/2004, final on 07/03/2005

H46-625           49451/99          Blondet, judgment of 05/10/2004, final on 05/01/2005

H46-222           68864/01          Merger and Cros, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 22/03/2005

H46-223           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

H32-224           25971/94          Proma di Franco Gianotti, Interim Resolution DH(99)566

H46-225           29731/96          Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

H46-226           37794/97          Pannullo and Forte, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-227           39594/98          Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber

H46-228           37786/97          Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

H46-229           52206/99          Mokrani, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-230           58148/00          Société Plon, judgment of 18/05/2004, final on 18/08/2004

H46-231           59765/00          Carabasse, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005[14]

H46-232           63059/00          Lafaysse, judgment of 12/10/2004, final on 12/01/2005

H46-233           56588/00           Chesnay, judgment of 12/10/2004, final on 12/01/2005

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

H46-234           56198/00          Société Industrielle d’Entretien and de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-235           73804/01          Storck, judgment of 14/09/2004, final on 14/12/2004

H46-236           71377/01          Watt, judgment of 28/09/2004, final on 28/12/2004

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

H46-237           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

H46-238           42270/98          Frangy, judgment of 01/02/2005, final on 01/05/2005

H46-239           69258/01          Quemar, judgment of 01/02/2005, final on 01/05/2005

- Friendly settlements[15]

H46-240           33023/96          Meier, judgment of 07/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-241           45172/99          Fentati, judgment of 22/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-242           49613/99          Garon, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-243           41526/98          Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-244           42279/98          Diard, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-245           47631/99          Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-246           53607/99          Cohen and Smadja, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-247           43543/98          Loyen René, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Germany

H46-248            61603/00           Storck, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 16/09/2005

- 1 case against Georgia and the Russian Federation

H46-250            36378/02           Chamaïev and 12 others, judgment of 12/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005[16]

- 31 cases against Greece

H46-251           43837/02          Castren-Niniou, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005[17]

H46-252           71563/01          Diamantides No. 2, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

H46-254           73717/01          Alija, judgment of 07/04/2005, final on 07/07/2005

H46-255           75483/01          Dimitrellos, judgment of 07/04/2005, final on 07/07/2005

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts and of lack of effective remedyf

H46-256           43848/02          Aggelopoulos, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005

H46-261           18830/03          Fraggalexi, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005

H46-263           33339/02          Gika and 9 others, judgment of 17/03/2005, final on 17/06/2005

H46-264           394/03              Gika and cinq others, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/09/2005

H46-267           5973/03            Kabetsis, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005

H46-270           21276/03          Karagiannis Charalambos, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005

H46-273           21279/03          Kaskaniotis and others, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005

H46-275           5957/03            Kollias, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005

H46-283           16106/03          Makedonopoulos, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

H46-286           16109/03          Moïsidis, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

H46-287           22029/03          Nafpliotis, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 02/09/2005

H46-288           21978/03          Nikopoulos, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 02/09/2005

H46-291           18602/03          Patelaki-Skamagga and others, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/09/2005

H46-292           18582/03          Patsouraki and others, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/09/2005

H46-293           5038/03            Plastarias, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005

H46-296           14127/03          Stamos, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

H46-298           42108/02          Tavlikou-Vosynioti, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005

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

H46-303           35450/02          Arvanitis, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 16/09/2005

H46-304           37253/02          Giannakopoulou, judgment of 02/06/05, final on 02/09/05

H46-305           1985/03            Grylli, judgment of 30/06/05, final on 30/09/05

H46-306           9733/03            Kaggali, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

H46-308           43863/02          Kolybiri, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005

H46-309           37249/02          Korre, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005

H46-310           43839/02          Panagakos, judgment of 09/06/05, final on 09/09/05

H46-311           18375/03          Potiri, judgment of 23/06/05, final on 23/09/05

H46-312           3257/03            Sflomos, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005

H46-313           41621/02          Zafiropoulos, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/09/2005

-1 case against Hungary

H46-314           73376/01          Szilágyi, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005

- 119 cases against Italy

                       - Just satisfaction due

H46-315           60915/00          Bifulco, judgment of 08/02/2005, final on 08/05/2005, Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)56

H46-316           56271/00          Sardinas Albo, judgment of 17/02/2005, final on 17/05/2005

H46-317           60033/00          L.M., judgment of 08/02/2005, final on 08/05/2005

H46-318           50774/99          Sciacca, judgment of 11/01/2005, final on 06/06/2005

H46-319           55984/00          Goffi, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 06/07/2005

H46-320           76024/01          Rapacciuolo, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-321           14021/02          Kaufmann, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005

                       - Default interest due

H46-322           15918/89          Antonetto, judgment of 20/07/00, final on 20/10/00

H46-323           39221/98+        Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

                                               Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151[18]

H46-324           36732/97          Pisano, judgment of 24/10/02 - Striking-out - Grand Chamber

H46-325           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

H46-326           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

H46-327           38011/97          Aponte, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-328           59636/00          Calvo, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

H46-329           28724/95          Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

H46-330           34658/97          E.P. No. 4, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-331           33696/96          L. and P. No. 2, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-332           32542/96          L.B. No. 3, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-333           36149/97          Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-334           64663/01          Lo Tufo, judgment of 21/04/2005, final on 21/07/2005

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H32-335           17482/90          D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28

H46-336           44446/98          Di Girolamo and 6 others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-337           44409/98          Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, rectified on 04/07/02

H46-338           44505/98          Shipcare S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

H32-339            24170/94           Pesce Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)468

- Friendly settlements[19]

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

H46-340            46079/99           Biffoni, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-341            35997/97           Candela, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-342            48840/99           Carloni Tarli, judgment of 30/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-343            31928/96           F. and F., judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-344            60660/00           Ferretti Maria Grazia, judgment of 06/03/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-345            39451/98           Fiorentini Vizzini, judgment of 19/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-346            42414/98           G.G. No. 5, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-347            39690/98           Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-348            63600/00           Notargiacomo, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-349            60662/00           Nuti, judgment of 03/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-350            47895/99           Sartorelli, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-351            55673/00           Savarese, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-352            34714/97           Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-353            36734/97           Visca, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-354            45071/98           Capurro and Tosetti, judgment of 28/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-355            40979/98           Conte Riccardo No. 2, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-356            40954/98           D’Alessandro, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-357            40982/98           Erdokovy, judgment of 01/02/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-358            53705/00           M.L. and 46 others, judgment of 05/04/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-359            40978/98           Mantini, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-360            40956/98           Marchetti, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-361            53708/00           Mas A. and 207 others, judgment of 07/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-362            40952/98           Paderni No. 2, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-363            45070/98           Persichetti and C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-364            28936/95           Piccinini No. 2, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-365            45065/98           Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-366            45058/98           Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-367            43098/98           Romano, judgment of 28/09/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-368            45068/98           Toscano and others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

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

H46-369            41807/98           Centioni and others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-370            41813/98           Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-371            41812/98           Piccirillo Aldo, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-372            37118/97           Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

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

H46-373            40363/98           Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-374            43063/98           Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-375            40975/98           Bucci, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-376            43094/98           C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-377           42999/98          Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-378           43085/98          Cesare Silvio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-379           43086/98          Cesare Cosimo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-380           43020/98          Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-381           42996/98          Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-382           43088/98          Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-383           43083/98          D’Addona Simone, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-384           43017/98          D’Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-385           43059/98          D’Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-386           40960/98          Dattilo, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-387           43054/98          Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-388           43051/98          Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-389           43062/98          Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-390           43030/98          Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-391           43022/98          Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-392           43056/98          Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-393           43058/98          Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-394           43096/98          G.A. No. 4, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-395           43093/98          G.P. No. 6, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-396           43075/98          Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-397           38975/97          Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-398           43050/98          Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-399           43074/98          Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-400           43072/98          Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-401           43091/98          Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-402           42998/98          Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-403           43101/98          Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-404           43021/98          Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-405           43067/98          Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-406           43065/98          Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-407           43102/98          Lepore T., Lepore M. and Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-408           43068/98          Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-409           43095/98          M.C. No. 10, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-410           43010/98          Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-411           43000/98          Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-412           43018/98          Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-413           43069/98          Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-414           43057/98          Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-415           43064/98          Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-416           43100/98          Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-417           43076/98          P.T. No. 2, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-418           43012/98          Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-419           43052/98          Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-420           43061/98          Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-421           43060/98          Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-422           43023/98          Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-423           43087/98          Rotondi Cosimo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-424           43019/98          Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-425           43055/98          Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-426           43099/98          Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-427           42997/98          Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-428           43084/98          Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-429           43016/98          Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-430           43070/98          Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-431           43109/98          Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-432           43015/98          Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-433           43066/98          Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Moldova

H46-434           53487/99          Meriakri, judgment of 01/03/2005, final on 06/07/2005 - Striking-out

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-435           5379/02            Nakach, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/09/2005

- 6 cases against Poland

H46-437           54723/00          Brudnicka and others, judgment of 03/03/2005, final on 03/06/2005

H46-438           48542/99          Zawadka, judgment of 23/06/2005, final on12/10/2005[20]

H46-439           75955/01          Sokołowski, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005[21]

H46-440           45214/99          Sildedzis, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005[22]

H46-441           40732/98          J.S. and A.S., judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005

- Case of length of detention on remand[23]

H46-443           44722/98          Łatasiewicz, judgment of 23/06/2005, final on 23/09/2005

- 9 cases against Portugal

                       - Just satisfaction due

H46-447           64330/01          Antunes Rocha, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005

                       - Default interest due

H46-449           48206/99          Maire, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03

H46-450           53468/99          Mora Do Vale and others, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

- Case of length of judicial proceedings[24]

H46-451           52657/99          Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

H46-452           44298/98          Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

- Friendly settlements[25]

H46-453           48233/99          Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-454           48752/99          Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-455           49020/99          F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-456           54704/00          Ferreira Pinto, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

- 14 cases against Romania

                       - Just satisfaction due

H46-457           61302/00          Buzescu, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005

H46-458           57810/00          Costin, judgment of 26/05/2005, final on 26/08/2005[26]

H46-459           7893/02            Ghibuşi, judgment of 23/06/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-460           53037/99          Ionescu Virgil, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-462           57808/00          Albina, judgment of 28/04/2005, final on 28/07/2005

H46-463           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)

                       - Default interest due

H46-464           54062/00          Androne, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 06/06/2005

H46-465           34647/97          Ruianu, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

- Cases concerning the annulment of final court decisions relating to property ownership

H46-466           35831/97          Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-467           28342/95          Brumărescu, judgments du 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01 (rectification) – Grand Chamber

H46-468           31804/96          Chiriacescu, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

H46-469           32925/96          Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-470           33355/96          Popescu Nasta, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

H46-471           31680/96          State and others, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

- 12 cases against the Russian Federation

                       - Just satisfaction due

H46-472           77785/01          Znamenskaya, judgment of 02/06/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-473           54071/00          Rokhlina, judgment of 07/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005

- Cases concerning the poor conditions of detention

H46-474           66460/01          Novoselov, judgment of 02/06/05, final on 02/09/05

H46-475           62208/00          Labzov, judgment of 16/06/05, final on 16/09/05

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration in abiding by final domestic judgments[27]

H46-476           38305/02          Gorokhov and Rusyayev, judgment of 17/03/05, final on 12/10/05

H46-477           41302/02          Malinovskiy, judgment of 07/07/05, final on 07/10/05

H46-478           61651/00          OOO Rusatommet, judgment of 14/06/.05, final on 14/09/05

H46-479           41307/02          Shpakovskiy, judgment of 07/07/05, final on 07/10/05

H46-480           11931/03          Teteriny, judgment of 30/06/05, final on 30/09/05

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-481           22118/02          Kuzin, judgment of 09/06/05, final on 09/09/05

H46-482           70190/01          Zimenko, judgment of 23/06/2005, final on 23/09/2005

                       - Default interest due

H46-483           65659/01          Presidential Party of Mordovia, judgment of 05/10/2004, final on 05/01/2005, rectified on 31/03/2005[28]

- 11 cases against the Slovak Republic

                       - Just satisfaction due

H46-484           56195/00          Krumpel and Krumpelová, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 05/10/2005

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

H46-485           57237/00          Hefková, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005[29]

H46-486           62194/00          Heger, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-487           74456/01          Horváthová, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005[30]

H46-488           69012/01          Kopecká, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005

H46-489           51543/99          Macková, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005

H46-490           65998/01          Mažgútová, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 17/08/2005

H46-491           9818/02            Palgutová, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005[31]

H46-492           50232/99          Z.M. and K.P., judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 17/08/2005

                       - Default interest due

H46-493           48814/99          Zuzčák and Zuzčáková, judgment of 13/07/04, final on 13/07/2004

- Friendly settlement[32]

H46-494           54822/00          Micovčin, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

- 3 cases against Sweden

H46-495           56529/00          Enhorn, judgment of 25/01/2005, final on 25/04/2005

H46-496           55853/00          Miller, judgment of 08/02/2005, final on 08/05/2005

H46-497           59403/00          Jonasson, judgment of 12/07/2005 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Switzerland

H46-498           43874/98          Linnekogel, judgment of 01/03/2005, final on 01/06/2005

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

                       - Default interest due

- Friendly settlement[33]

H46-499           58185/00          Janeva, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

- 70 cases against Turkey

                       - Just satisfaction due

H46-500           38187/97          Adalı, judgment of 31/03/2005, final on 12/10/2005[34]

H46-501           40145/98          Kılınç Abdurrahman and others, judgment of 07/06/2005, final on 07/09/2005

H46-502           53909/00          Aydın Abdulkadir and others - Friendly settlement

H46-503           42853/98+        Güneri and others, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-504           48176/99          Turhan, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005[35]

H46-506           39465/98          Parsıl, judgment of 26/04/2005, final on 26/07/2005

- Cases concerning action of the Turkish security forces

H46-507           36088/97+        Acar and others, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005[36]

H46-508           25165/94          Akdeniz, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005

H46-509           21894/93          Akkum and others, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 24/06/2005

H46-510           30949/96          Ateş Yasin, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005

H46-512           27693/95          Çelikbilek, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005[37]

H46-513           38585/97          Dalan, judgment of 07/06/2005, final on 07/09/2005

H46-514           35044/97          Kılıç Hasan, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-515           27306/95          Kişmir, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005[38]

H46-517           54430/00          S.B. and H.T., judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 05/10/2005

H46-519           34506/97          Türkoğlu, judgment of 17/03/2005, final on 17/06/2005

- Case concerning the independence and impartiality of state security courts[39]

H46-520           59997/00          Gündüz Müslim No. 2, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005, rectified on 13/12/2005

- Cases concerning ill treatments suffered by the applicants and the lack of independence and impartiality of state security courts[40]

H46-524           43925/98          Karakaş and Yeşilırmak Yılmaz, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-525           39813/98          Önder Soner, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005

- Cases concerning the dissolution of political parties

H46-526           39434/98          Emek Partisi and Şenol, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005[41]

- Cases concerning freedom of expression

H46-528           46069/99          Ağın, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-529           48944/99          Ergin Ahmet No. 1, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 16/09/2005[42]

H46-530           49566/99          Ergin Ahmet No. 2, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 16/09/2005[43]

H46-531           50691/99          Ergin Ahmet No. 3, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 16/09/2005[44]

H46-532           63733/00          Ergin Ahmet No. 4, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 16/09/2005[45]

H46-533           63925/00          Ergin Ahmet No. 5, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 16/09/2005[46]

H46-534           50273/99          Ergin and Keskin No. 1, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 16/09/2005[47]

H46-535           63926/00          Ergin and Keskin No. 2, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 16/09/2005[48]

H46-536           77365/01          Falakaoğlu, judgment of 26/04/2005, final on 26/07/2005

H46-537           39708/98          Pamak, judgment of 07/06/2005, final on 07/09/2005

H46-538           46669/99          Perinçek Doğu, judgment of 21/06/2005, final on 21/09/2005

H46-539           50744/99          Töre Teslim, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings and of detention on remand

H46-540           73038/01          Altın Gıyasettin, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005, rectified on 06/09/2005[49]

H46-541           77845/01          Dereci, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005[50]

H46-542           40159/98          Temel and Taşkın, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/09/2005

- Cases of length of detention on remand

H46-543           61442/00+        Acunbay, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005[51]

H46-544           61443/00          Dinler, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005

H46-545           61440/00          Kimran, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 05/07/2005

H46-546           61446/00          Polat Ali Hıdır, judgment of 05/04/2005, final on 05/07/2005

- Case of length of detention in custody

H46-547           36965/97          I.Ö, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

- Cases of length of proceedings before Martial Law Courts

H46-548           47117/99          Ege, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005

- Cases of length of judicial proceedings

H46-550           50913/99          Özel Mehmet and others, judgment of 26/04/2005, final on 26/07/2005

H46-552           26136/95          M.Ö, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005[52]

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

H46-553           48262/99          Aslangiray and others, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-554           42667/98          Ekşinozlugil, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005

H46-555           48719/99          Hattatoğlu Emrullah, judgment of 14/04/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-556           28172/02          Kaçar, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-558           68136/01          Kokol and others, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005

H46-560           28512/03          Özgür and Turhan, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-561           45436/99          Tiryakioğlu, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005

H46-562           28179/02          Toprak Fatime, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-563           28180/02          Toprak Nasan, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-565           28189/02          Yiğit Mehmet, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-566           28175/02          Yiğit Mehmet and others, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

H46-567           28170/02          Yılmaz Bekir, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

                       - Default interest due

H46-568           34592/97          Ağdaş, judgment of 27/07/2004, final on 27/10/2004

H46-569           49164/99          Kılıç Ayşe, judgment of 16/10/03, final on 16/01/04

H46-570           47165/99          Özkan Fadime, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

H46-571           60847/00          Saçık, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

- Cases concerning action of the Turkish security forces

H46-572           26307/95          Acar Tahsin, judgment of 08/04/04 - Grand Chamber

H46-573           24351/94          Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03

H46-574           32572/96+        Aydın and Yunus, judgment of 22/06/2004, final on 22/09/2004, rectified on 03/02/2005

H46-575           22876/93          Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02

H46-576           29422/95          Tepe Ayşe, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

- Case concerning the independence and impartiality of state security courts[53]

H46-577           42552/98          Yılmaz Mehmet Bülent and Yılmaz Şahin, judgment of 07/10/2004, final on 07/01/2005

- Cases concerning freedom of expression

H46-578           23536/94+        Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-579           27528/95          Kızılyaprak, judgment of 02/10/03, final on 02/01/04

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

H46-580           38883/97          H.B. and others, judgment of 27/05/2004, final on 27/08/2004

H46-581           51483/99          Yazar, judgment of 07/10/2004, final on 02/02/2005, rectified on 24/05/2005

- Friendly settlement[54]

H46-582           46649/99          Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

- 9 cases against Ukraine

                       - Just satisfaction due

H46-583           72713/01           Ukrainian Media Group, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 12/10/2005, rectified on 16/06/2005

- Cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration or State companies in abiding by final domestic judgments[55]

H46-588            74432/01           Bulynko Raisa Petrovna, judgment of 21/06/2005, final on 21/09/2005

H46-590            26131/02           Grishechkin and others, judgment of 03/05/05, final on 03/08/05

H46-593            35087/02           Sharenok, judgment of 22/02/05, final on 06/06/05

H46-596            14397/02           Varanitsa, judgment of 05/04/05, final on 05/07/05

                       - Default interest due

H46-597           67647/01            Bakay and others, judgment of 09/11/2004, final on 09/02/2005[56]

H46-598           41220/98            Aliev, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-591            35091/02+         Mykhaylenky and others, judgment of 30/11/04, final on 06/06/05[57]

H46-585            47148/99           Novoseletskiy, judgment of 22/02/2005, final on 22/05/2005

- 5 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-599           74025/01          Hirst No. 2, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber

H46-601           517/02              Kolanis, judgment of 21/06/2005, final on 21/09/2005[58]

H46-604           46387/99+        Whitfield and others, judgment of 12/04/2005, final on 12/07/2005

H46-605           29798/96+        Lloyd and others, judgment of 01/03/2005, final on 06/07/2005

H46-772           36256/97          Thompson, judgment of 15/06/2004, final on 15/09/2004

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

- 2 cases against Austria

H46-606           58141/00          Thaler, judgment of 03/02/2005, final on 03/05/2005                      03/08/2005

H46-607           37040/02          Riepl, judgment of 03/02/2005, final on 03/05/2005                        03/08/2005

- 21 cases against France

H46-610           38396/97          Karatas and Sari, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02              16/11/2002

H46-611           44962/98          Yvon, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03                              24/10/2004

H46-612           53892/00          Lilly France, judgment of 14/10/03, final on 14/01/04                     14/04/2004

H46-613           69825/01          Faivre No. 2, judgment of 16/12/03, final on 16/03/04                    16/06/2004

H46-614           53951/00          Ardex S.A., judgment of 06/04/04 - Friendly settlement                 06/07/2004

H46-615           51294/99          Madi, judgment of 27/04/04 - Friendly settlement                          27/07/2004

H46-616           59584/00          Rivas, judgment of 01/04/2004, final on 01/07/2004                       07/10/2004

H46-617           67114/01          Coorbanally, judgment of 01/04/2004, final on 01/07/2004             01/10/2004

H46-618           39001/97          Maat, judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 27/07/2004                        27/10/2004

H46-619           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

H46-620           53929/00          Richard-Dubarry, judgment of 01/06/2004, final on 01/09/2004       01/01/2005

H46-621           57671/00          Slimani, judgment of 27/07/2004, final on 27/10/2004[59]                  27/01/2005

H46-622           38410/97+        Fontaine and Bertin, judgment of 08/07/2003, final on 10/11/2004  10/02/2005

H46-623           44568/98          R.L. and M.-J.D., judgment of 19/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004       10/02/2005

H46-624           51360/99          Marschner, judgment of 28/09/2004, final on 28/12/2004[60]              28/03/2005

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

H46-627           61173/00          Lechoisne and others, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03      17/12/2003

H46-628           27928/02+        Broca and Texier-Micault, judgment of 21/10/03, final on 21/01/04  21/04/2004

H46-629           51442/99          Coudrier, judgment of 10/02/2004, final on 14/06/2004                   14/09/2004

H46-630           66053/01          Simon, judgment of 08/06/2004, final on 08/09/2004                      08/12/2004

H46-631           55084/00          Dagot, judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 10/11/2004                      10/03/2005

H46-632           55704/00          Rega, judgment of 09/12/2004, final on 09/03/2005                       09/06/2005

- 3 cases against Greece

H46-636           68138/01           Zazanis and others, judgment of 18/11/2004, final on
30/03/2005[61]                                                                                30/06/2005

H46-637           19437/02           Viaropoulos and others, judgment of 31/03/2005 -
Friendly settlement                                                                      31/06/2005

H46-638           73836/01           Organochimika Lipasmata Makedonias A.E., judgment of
18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005                                                    18/07/2005

- 51 cases against Italy

H46-642           33202/96           Beyeler, judgments du 05/01/00 (merits) and of 28/05/02 (Article 41) 28/08/2002

H46-643           36681/97           Santoro, judgment of 01/07/2004, final on 01/10/2004                   01/01/2005

H46-644           36815/97           Scordino No. 2, judgment of 15/07/2004, final on 15/10/2004        15/01/2005

H46-645           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

H46-646           40750/98           Ospina Vargas, judgment of 14/10/2004, final on 14/01/2005         14/04/2005

H46-647           27265/95           Terazzi S.A.S., judgment of 17/10/2002, final on 21/05/2003 and

                                               of 26/10/2004, final on 26/01/2004                                               26/04/2005

- Case of length of civil proceedings                                                                                                          

H32-648           30423/96           Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673                     22/10/2002

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

H46-649           44330/98           Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement    19/03/2001

H46-650           41806/98           Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01   27/08/2001

H46-651           41805/98           Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01                           27/08/2001

H46-652           41804/98           Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01                             27/08/2001

H46-653           35956/97           Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01           27/08/2001

H46-654           44525/98           Ferrari Marcella No. 2, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02      25/04/2002

H46-655           44379/98           Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02                           25/04/2002

H46-656           44343/98           Massimo Giuseppe No. 1, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-657           44352/98           Massimo Giuseppe No. 2, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-658           44345/98           Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02         25/04/2002

H46-659           44342/98           Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02                          06/06/2002

H46-660           44333/98           V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02              12/08/2002

H46-661           56226/00           Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02      19/08/2002

H46-662           56222/00           Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                            19/08/2002

H46-663           56206/00           Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02     19/08/2002

H46-664           56208/00           Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02            19/08/2002

H46-665           56202/00           Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                            19/08/2002

H46-666           56224/00           D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                         19/08/2002

H46-667           56217/00          De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                      19/08/2002

H46-668           56205/00          Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                             19/08/2002

H46-669           56225/00          Di Pede No. 2, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                 19/08/2002

H46-670           56221/00          Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                           19/08/2002

H46-671           56212/00          Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                            19/08/2002

H46-672           56203/00          Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                       19/08/2002

H46-673           56204/00          Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                          19/08/2002

H46-674           56207/00          Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02              19/08/2002

H46-675           56220/00          Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                 19/08/2002

H46-676           56211/00          Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02       19/08/2002

H46-677           56213/00          Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                          19/08/2002

H46-678           56223/00          Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                            19/08/2002

H46-679           56219/00          Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                             19/08/2002

H46-680           56214/00          Ripoli No. 1, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                     19/08/2002

H46-681           56215/00          Ripoli No. 2, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                     19/08/2002

H46-682           56201/00          Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02              19/08/2002

H46-683           56218/00          Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02                19/08/2002

H46-684           44334/98          Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02         28/09/2002

H46-685           44341/98          Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                         09/01/2003

H46-686           44347/98          Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02        09/01/2003

H46-687           44350/98          Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02            09/01/2003

H46-688           44337/98          Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                       09/01/2003

H46-689           44340/98          Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                        09/01/2003

H46-690           44349/98          Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                          09/01/2003

H46-691           44348/98          Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02          09/01/2003

H46-692           44351/98          Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02              09/01/2003

- 2 cases against Moldova

H46-693           49806/99          Prodan, judgment of 18/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004                    10/01/2005

H46-694           73562/01+        Sîrbu and others, judgment of 15/06/2004, final on 10/11/2004       10/01/2005

- 7 cases against the Netherlands

H46-695           51392/99          Göçer, judgment of 03/10/02, final on 21/05/03                             21/08/2003

H46-696           39339/98          M.M., judgment of 08/04/03, final on 24/09/03                               24/12/2003

H46-697           48086/99          Beumer, judgment of 29/07/03, final on 29/10/03                           29/01/2004

H46-698           44320/98          Baars, judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04                              28/04/2004

H46-699           50210/99          Doerga, judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 27/07/2004                    27/10/2004

H46-700           49902/99          Brand, judgment of 11/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004                      10/02/2005

H46-701           48865/99          Morsink, judgment of 11/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004                   10/02/2005

- 4 cases against Poland

H46-702           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)[62]                                 06/02/2003

- Cases of length of civil proceedings[63]

H46-704           55383/00          Guzicka, judgment of 13/07/04, final on 13/10/04                          13/01/2005

H46-705           46245/99          Kreuz No. 2, judgment of 20/07/04, final on 20/10/04                     20/01/2005

H46-706           44189/98          Ł., judgment of 27/07/04, final on 27/10/04                                   27/01/2005

- 4 cases against Portugal

H46-709           18065/02          Carvalho Magalhães, judgment of 15/02/2005 - Friendly settlement 15/05/2005

- Case of length of judicial proceedings[64]

H46-710           54926/00          Costa Ribeiro, judgment of 30/04/03, final on 30/07/03                  30/10/2003

H46-711           55340/00          Sociedade Agrícola do Peral and other, judgment of 31/07/03,

                                               final on 31/10/03                                                                          31/01/2004

H46-712           52662/99          Jorge Nina Jorge and others, judgment of 19/02/04,

                                               final on 19/05/04                                                                          19/08/2004

- 12 cases against Romania

H46-713           40670/98          Todorescu, judgment of 30/09/03, final on 30/12/03                      30/03/2004

H46-714           78028/01          Pini and Bertani and Manera and Atripaldi, judgment of 22/06/2004,

                                               final on 22/09/2004                                                                      22/12/2004

H46-715           46572/99          Sabou and Pîrcălab, judgment of 28/09/2004, final on 28/12/2004  28/03/2005

H46-716           46430/99          Anghelescu Barbu No.1, judgment of 05/10/2004, final on

                                               05/01/2005[65]                                                                                05/04/2005

H46-717           49781/99          Florică, judgment of 25/01/2005 - Friendly settlement                    25/04/2005

- Cases concerning the annulment of final court decisions relating to property ownership

H46-719           33627/96          Bărăgan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02,

                                               final on 05/02/03                                                                          05/05/2003

H46-720           34992/97          Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02                      09/01/2003

H46-721           33912/96          Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

                                               rectified on 09/07/02                                                                    09/10/2002

H46-722           32943/96          Fălcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02       09/01/2002

H46-723           31678/96          Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03      21/08/2003

H46-724           33358/96          Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02            16/01/2003

H46-725           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

- 1 case against San Marino

H46-726           40786/98          Beneficio Cappella Paolini, judgment of 13/07/2004, final on

                                               13/10/2004                                                                                  13/01/2005

- 7 cases against Spain

H46-727           61133/00          Lopez Sole y Martin de Vargas, judgment of 28/10/03,

                                               final on 28/01/04                                                                          28/04/2004

H46-728           55524/00          Stone Court Shipping Company S.A., judgment of 28/10/03,

                                               final on 28/01/04                                                                          28/04/2004

H46-729           66990/01          Soto Sanchez, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04                 25/05/2004

H46-730           58438/00          Martínez Sala and others, judgment of 02/11/2004, final on
02/02/2005[66]                                                                                02/05/2005

H46-731           77837/01          Saez Maeso, judgment of 09/11/2004, final on 09/02/2005             09/05/2005

H46-732           4143/02            Moreno Gómez, judgment of 16/11/2004, final on 16/02/2005      16/05/2005[67]

H46-733           72773/01          Alberto Sánchez, judgment of 16/11/2004, final on 16/02/2005     16/05/2005[68]

- 31 cases against Turkey

H46-734           44057/98          Işık Ôzgür, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03                       24/12/2003

H46-735           47311/99          Özkan Ertan, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04                    09/04/2004

H46-736           26518/95          Sekin Mahmut and others, judgment of 22/01/04, final on 22/04/04 22/07/2004

H46-737           46827/99          Mamatkulov and Askarov, judgment of 04/02/2005 - Grand Chamber[69] 04/05/2005

- Cases concerning the independence and impartiality of state security courts[70]

H46-738           52665/99          Akkaş Çağlar, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 24/03/04                  24/06/2004

H46-739           59234/00          Al and others, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 24/03/04                  24/06/2004

H46-740           46388/99          Bozkurt Bilal and others, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 24/03/04   24/06/2004

H46-741           51416/99          Dalgıç, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 24/03/04                             24/06/2004

H46-742           53895/00          Erdoğan Mesut, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 24/03/04               24/06/2004

H46-743           53014/99          Peker, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 24/03/04                              24/06/2004

H46-744           55427/00          Özcan Serdar, judgment of 08/04/2004, final on 08/07/2004           08/10/2004

H46-745           42775/98          Ünkünç and Güneş, judgment of 18/12/2003, final on 14/06/2004   14/09/2004

H46-746           53586/99          Yavuzaslan, judgment of 22/04/2004, final on 22/07/2004              22/10/2004

H46-747           48173/99+        Y.B. and others, judgment of 28/10/2004, final on 28/01/2005        28/04/2005

H46-748           29592/96          Dolaşan, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005                   18/07/2005

- Cases concerning freedom of expression

H46-749           40153/98+        Çetin and others, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03              13/08/2003

H46-750           25723/94          Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00                                                    15/09/2000

H46-751           42436/98          Gerger No. 2, judgment of 09/03/04 - Friendly settlement               09/06/2004

H46-752           25143/94+        Yurttaş, judgment of 27/05/04                                                      27/08/2004

- Cases concerning action of the Turkish security forces                                                                             

H46-753           32270/96          Doğan Ülkü and others, judgment of 19/06/03 - Friendly settlement 19/09/2003

H46-754           23145/93+        Elçi and others, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 24/03/04                24/06/2004

H46-755           32578/96+        Çolak and Filizer, judgment of 08/01/04, final on 08/04/04              08/07/2004

H46-756           30015/96          A. and others, judgment of 27/07/2004, rectified on 17/08/2004,

                                               final on 27/10/2004                                                                      27/01/2005

H46-757           35851/97          Bozkurt, judgment of 31/03/2005 - Friendly settlement                   31/06/2005

- Cases concerning the length of detention in custody / detention on remand

H46-759           25142/94+        Sadak Selim, judgment of 08/04/04                                              08/07/2004

H46-760           36115/97          Sarıkaya, judgment of 22/04/2004, final on 22/07/2004                  22/10/2004

H46-761           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

H46-762           27694/95          A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement                          28/06/2002

H46-763           26546/95          Acar Ahmet, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03                     30/07/2003

H46-764           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 of length of judicial proceedings

H46-766           48057/99          Yorgiyadis, judgment of 19/10/2004, final on 30/03/2005               30/06/2005

- 3 cases against Ukraine

H46-768           67534/01          Romashov, judgment of 27/07/2004, final on 15/12/2004[71]             15/03/2005

H46-769           77317/01          Poltorachenko, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005,
rectified on 26/01/2005                                                                26/04/2005

H46-770           17707/02          Melnychenko, judgment of 19/10/2004, final on 30/03/2005[72]          30/06/2005

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-774           47441/99          Wood Mark, judgment of 15/03/2005 - Friendly settlement             15/06/2005

3.c               EXAMINATION OF SPECIAL PAYMENT PROBLEMS (FOR EXAMPLE THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE APPLICANT, DISPUTES REGARDING THE EXACT AMOUNT PAID AS A RESULT OF EXCHANGE RATE PROBLEMS OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES)

- 3 cases against Turkey

                       - a. Currency conversion problems

H46-775           42560/98          Külter, judgment of 04/12/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-776           19285/92          Karabulut Cemile and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

                       - b. Other payment problems

- Case concerning freedom of expression

H46-777           23144/93          Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

Table summarising the total number of cases by States

State	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum (3.a capital sum)	Payment after expiration of the time-limit set and no confirmation of payment of the default interest due (3.a default interest)	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum although payment due since more than 6 months (3.b)	Special payment problems (3.c)
Albania		1
Austria	3		2
Belgium	8		2
Bulgaria	4
Czech Republic	8
Finland	2
France	13	29	21
Georgia	1		4
Germany	1
Greece	38
Hungary	1
Italy	7	112	51
Moldova	1		2
Netherlands	1		7
Poland	6		4
Portugal	2	8	4
Romania	6	8	12
Russian Federation	11	1
San Marino			1
Slovak Republic	9	2
Spain			7
Sweden	3
Switzerland	1
“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”		1
Turkey	60	15	32	3
Ukraine	11	4	4
United Kingdom	5	1	2

Strasbourg, 03/02/2006

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

up to 3 February 2006

(955th meeting, 7 and 8 February 2006)

The information presented in the table below is the sole responsibility of the states concerned. Bearing in mind the date upon which this information was communicated to it, the Secretariat has not yet had the opportunity to check it. This will be done for the next meeting.

Item / Point	State / Etat	Application / Requête	Case / Affaire	Section / Rubrique	Judgment of / Arrêt du	Final on / Définitif le
H46-054	LUX	13130/02	Dattel & others/autres	955-2	04/08/2005	04/11/2005
H46-056	MDA	20864/03	Scutari	955-2	26/07/2005	26/10/2005
H46-081	SUI	7957/02	Munari	955-2	12/07/2005	12/10/2005
H46-169	UK	6638/03	P.M.	955-2	19/07/2005	19/10/2005
H46-179	BEL	46848/99	Stift	955-3.A	24/02/2005	24/05/2005
H46-180	BEL	52112/99	Reyntiens	955-3.A	28/04/2005	28/07/2005
H46-181	BEL	51788/99	De Staerke	955-3.A	28/04/2005	28/07/2005
H46-182	BEL	49525/99	Dumont	955-3.A	28/04/2005	28/07/2005
H46-183	BEL	50236/99	Robyns de Schneidauer	955-3.A	28/04/2005	28/07/2005
H46-203	FIN	45029/98	Lomaseita Oy & others/autres	955-3.A	05/07/2005	05/10/2005
H46-204	FIN	38581/97	T.K & S.E.	955-3.A	31/05/2005	31/08/2005
H46-259	GRC	34206/02	Apostolaki	955-3.A	17/03/2005	17/06/2005
H46-266	GRC	72030/01	Hadjidjanis	955-3.A	28/04/2005	28/07/2005
H46-269	GRC	38688/02	Kallitis n°2	955-3.A	17/02/2005	06/07/2005
H46-278	GRC	5967/03	Koufogiannis	955-3.A	21/04/2005	21/07/2005
H46-284	GRC	43841/02	Makris	955-3.A	07/04/2005	07/07/2005
H46-294	GRC	33518/02	Refene Michalopoulou & others/autres	955-3.A	17/03/2005	17/06/2005
H46-299	GRC	9673/03	Tsamou	955-3.A	21/04/2005	21/07/2005
H46-448	PRT	69338/01	Calheiros Lopez & others/autres	955-3.A	07/06/2005	07/09/2005
H46-511	TUR	25660/94	Aydin Suheyla	955-3.A	24/05/2005	24/08/2005
H46-516	TUR	27305/95	Koku	955-3.A	31/05/2005	31/08/2005
H46-518	TUR	27601/95	Togcu	955-3.A	31/05/2005	31/08/2005
H46-527	TUR	39210/98+	Parti de la Democratie & autres/others	955-3.A	26/07/2005	26/10/2005
H46-584	UKR	54825/00	Nevmerzhitsky	955-3.A	05/04/2005	12/10/2005
H46-586	UKR	49430/99	Strannikov	955-4.2+3.A	03/05/2005	03/08/2005
H46-587	UKR	9693/02	Bulynko	955-4.2+3.A	21/06/2005	21/09/2005
H46-589	UKR	6962/02	Chizov	955-4.2+3.A	17/05/2005	17/08/2005
H46-592	UKR	75788/01	Piryanik	955-4.2+3.A	19/04/2005	19/07/2005
H46-595	UKR	29439/02	Sokur	955-4.2+3.A	26/04/2005	26/07/2005
H46-602	UK	59512/00	Blackstock	955-3.A	21/06/2005	21/09/2005
H46-608	BEL	47295/99	Stoerij Zangersheide N.V. & others/autres	955-4.2+3.B	22/12/2004	22/03/2005
H46-609	BEL	47153/99	Vanpraet	955-3.B	21/04/2005	21/04/2005
H46-634	GRC	46372/99	Papastavrou & others/autres	955-3.B	21/10/2004	21/01/2005
H46-635	GRC	46725/01	Fotopoulou	955-3.B	18/11/2004	18/02/2005
H46-640	GRC	70314/01	Gialamas	955-3.B	21/10/2004	21/01/2005
H46-758	TUR	36217/97	Mentese & others/autres	955-3.B	18/01/2005	18/04/2005
H46-767	UKR	61333/00	Tregubenko	955-4.1+3.B	02/11/2004	30/03/2005
H46-271	UK	61827/00	Glass	955-3.B	09/03/2004	09/06/2004

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

(See Addendum 6 for part or all these cases)

Action

At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the information available on the measures taken in these cases seemed to allow the preparation of draft resolutions putting an end to their examination by the Committee of Ministers (if necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in an Addendum 6). As regards the cases appearing under sub-section 6.1, the Deputies are invited to examine the new information available with a view to evaluating whether a draft final resolution can be prepared. As regards cases listed under sub-section 6.2, the Deputies are invited to note that the elaboration of a draft final resolution, in cooperation with the delegation of the respondent State, is under way. In both cases, the Deputies are invited to postpone consideration of these cases to their next meeting.

Cases waiting for the presentation of a draft final resolution

- 28 cases against Austria

H46-1126          29477/95          Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-1127          37295/97          Yildiz M., G. and Y., judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

H46-1128          24430/94          Lanz, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 31/04/02

H46-1129          36757/97          Jakupovic, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

H46-1130          45330/99+        S.L., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-1131          37950/97          Fischer Franz, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

H46-1132          38237/97          Sailer, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

H46-1133          38275/97          W.F., judgment of 30/05/02, final on 30/08/02

H32-1134          26113/95          Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H., Interim Resolution DH(98)378

H46-1135          32899/96          Buchberger, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-1136          39392/98+        L. and V., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-1137          18297/03          Ladner, judgment of 03/02/2005, final on 03/05/2005

H46-1138          69756/01+        Woditschka and Wilfling, judgment of 21/10/2004, final on 21/01/2005

H46-1139          60553/00          Malek, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03

H46-1140          43454/98          Bakker, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

H46-1141          40016/98          Karner, judgment of 24/07/03, final on 24/10/03

H46-1142          39394/98          Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 13/02/04

H46-1143          54645/00          Osinger, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 24/06/2005

H46-1144          32636/96          A.T., judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-1145          34983/02          Nowicky, judgment of 24/02/2005, final on 24/05/2005

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-1153          50064/99          Girardi, judgment of 11/12/03, final on 11/03/04

H46-1154          49455/99          Gollner, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-1155          33505/96          H.E., judgment of 11/07/02, final on 06/11/02

H46-1156          72159/01          Löffler Hans-Peter No. 2, judgment of 04/03/2004, final on 04/06/2004, rectified on 02/12/2004

H46-1157          38536/97          Schreder, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

H46-1158          20077/02          Wohlmeyer Bau GmbH, judgment of 08/07/2004, final on 08/10/2004

H46-1159          66956/01          Ullrich, judgment of 21/10/2004, final on 21/01/2005

H46-1160          61930/00          El Massry, judgment of 24/03/2005, final on 24/06/2005

- 24 cases against Belgium

H54-1161          17849/91          S.A. Pressos Compania Naviera and others, judgment of 20/11/95, Interim Resolution DH(99)724

H46-1162          47650/99          Silvester’s Horeca Service, judgment of 04/03/2004, final on 04/06/2004

H46-1163          33400/96          Ernst and others, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-1164          49794/99          Oval S.P.R.L., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-1165          50615/99          Boca, judgment of 15/12/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-1166          51083/99          Bouzalmad, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

H46-1167          50855/99          Dautel, judgment of 30/01/2003, final on 30/04/2003

H46-1168          49797/99          De Plaen, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-1169          49522/99          Dooms and others, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-1170          52303/99          GB-Unic No. 1, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

H46-1171          52304/99          GB-Unic No. 2, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

H46-1172          52229/99          Gillet, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/04/03

H46-1173          50624/99          Gökce and others, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-1174          50566/99          Kenes, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-1175          49546/99          Lefebvre, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-1176          50857/99          Lenaerts, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

H46-1177          49518/99          Nelissenne, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 23/01/04

H46-1178          50853/99          Olbregts, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

H46-1179          49332/99          Oren and Shoshan, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-1180          50172/99          Randaxhe, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-1181          49495/99          S.A. Sitram, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-1182          50859/99          Willekens, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

H46-1183          52231/99          Roobaert, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

H46-1184          52230/99          Rouard, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

- 9 cases against Bulgaria

H46-1185          33977/96          Ilijkov, judgment of 26/07/01

H46-1186          35519/97          Mihov, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-1187          42346/98          G.B., judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 11/06/2004

H46-1188          40653/98          Iorgov, judgment of 11/03/2004, final on 07/07/2004

H46-1189          39015/97          Lotter and Lotter, judgment of 19/05/04 - Friendly settlement

H46-1190          42986/98          Pramov, judgment of 30/09/2004, final on 30/12/2004

H46-1191          40897/98          Neshev, judgment of 28/10/2004, final on 28/01/2005

H46-1192          38822/97          Shishkov, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-1193          38884/97          Nikolov, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

- 6 cases against Croatia

H46-1195          69265/01          Kostić, judgment of 18/11/2004 - Friendly settlement

H46-1196          53176/99          Mikulić, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-1197          9591/02            Jelavić - Mitrović, judgment of 13/01/2005, final on 13/04/2005

H46-1212          18431/02          Gudeljević, judgment of 31/03/2005, final on 07/07/2005

H46-1216          41075/02          Pitra, judgment of 16/06/2005, final on 12/10/2005

H46-1217          15733/02          Camasso, judgment of 13/01/2005, final on 13/04/2005

- 4 cases against Cyprus

H46-1218          29515/95          Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

H46-1219          30873/96          Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-1220          44730/98          Serghides and Christoforou, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03 and of 10/06/2003, final on 24/09/2003

H46-1221          62242/00          Gregoriou, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 09/07/03

- 15 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-1222          73577/01          Vodárenská akciová společnost, a. s, judgment of 24/02/2004, final on 07/07/2004

H46-1223          46129/99          Zvolský and Zvolská, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-1224          36548/97          Pincová and Pinc, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-1225          40226/98          Červeňáková and others, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1226          36541/97          Bucheň, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46-1227          33071/96          Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-1228          47273/99          Běleš and others, judgment of 11/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-1229          29010/95          Credit and Industrial Bank, judgment of 21/10/03

H46-1230          7356/02            Parchanski, judgment of 17/05/2005 - Friendly settlement

H46-1231          59213/00          Udovik, judgment of 17/05/2005 - Friendly settlement

H46-1232          48577/99          Šoller, judgment of 18/01/2005 - Friendly settlement

H46-1233          52863/99          Koliha, judgment of 26/10/2004 - Friendly settlement

H46-1234          55727/00          Netolický and Netolická, judgment of 11/01/2005 - Friendly settlement

H46-1235          73403/01          Turek, judgment of 21/06/2005, final on 21/09/2005

H46-1236          64737/01          Páleník, judgment of 21/06/2005, final on 12/10/2005

- 2 cases against Denmark

H46-1237          52792/99          Vasileva, judgment of 25/09/03, final on 25/12/03

H46-1238          56811/00          Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

- 11 cases against Finland

H46-1239          40847/98          Tamminen, judgment of 15/06/2004, final on 05/07/2004

H46-1240          38267/97          H.A.L., judgment of 27/01/2004, final on 07/07/2004

H46-1241          31611/96          Nikula, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-1242          31764/96          K.P., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 05/09/01

H46-1243          29346/95          K.S., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-1244          25702/94          K. and T., judgment of 12/07/01 – Grand Chamber

H46-1245          30013/96          Türkiye iş Bankasi, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

H46-1246          35999/97          Pietiläinen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 27/01/03

H46-1247          32559/96          The Fortum Corporation, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-1248          45027/98          Narinen, judgment of 01/06/2004, final on 01/09/2004

H46-1249          48999/99          Ivanoff, judgment of 05/07/2005 - Friendly settlement

- 124 cases against France

H46-218           61139/00          Le Duigou, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

H46-1250          71445/01          Fenech, judgment of 30/11/2004, final on 28/02/2005

H46-1251          60392/00          Abribat and other, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

H46-1252          51279/99          Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

H46-1253          50638/99          Duriez-Costes, judgment of 07/10/03, final on 07/01/04

H46-1254          51406/99          Gaucher, judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

H46-1255          50528/99          Coste Thierry, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-1256          46802/99          Mac Gee, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

H46-1257          48221/99          Berger, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-1258          31520/96+        Richen and Gaucher, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

H46-1259          36677/97          SA Dangeville, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-1260          34000/96          DuRoy and Malaurie, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-1261          47160/99          Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

H54-1262          25017/94          Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

H32-1263          26242/95          Lemoine Pierre, Interim Resolution DH(99)353

H32-1264          31409/96          Riccobono, Interim Resolution DH(99)557

H46-1265          24846/94          Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 - Grand Chamber

H32-1266          26984/95          Picard, Interim Resolution DH(99)30

H46-1267          25803/94          Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99 - Grand Chamber

H32-1268          27019/95          Slimane-Kaïd

H46-1269          48943/99          Slimane-Kaïd No. 2, judgment of 27/11/03, final on 27/02/04

H46-1270          29507/95          Slimane-Kaïd No. 1, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00

H46-1271          36515/97          Fretté, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H54-1272          23618/94          Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

H32-1273          27413/95          Cazes, Interim Resolution DH(99)31

H46-1274          25444/94          Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

H46-1275          31819/96+        Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46-1276          42195/98          Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

H32-1277          27659/95          Ferville, Interim Resolution DH(99)254

H32-1278          28845/95          Venot, Interim Resolution DH(2000)19

H46-1279          27362/95          Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

H54-1280          14032/88          Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

H32-1281          17572/90          A.C.

H54-1282          25201/94          Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-1283          34791/97          Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-1284          53613/99          Goth, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

H54-1285          24767/94          Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-1286          31070/96          Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

H32-1287          20282/92          G.B.

H32-1288          23321/94          Delbec No. 1, Interim Resolution DH(98)15

H46-1289          32911/96+        Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/02 - Grand Chamber

H46-1290          45019/98          Pascolini, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03

H46-1291          69680/01          Coulaud, judgment of 02/11/2004, final on 02/02/2005

H46-1292          44069/98          G.B. No. 2, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

H46-1293          54210/00          Papon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

H46-1294          56653/00          Walser, judgment of 01/07/2004, final on 01/10/2004

H46-1295          67263/01          Mouisel, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-1296          49843/99          Weil, judgment of 05/02/04, final on 05/05/04

H46-1298          65110/01          Quesne, judgment of 01/04/2004, final on 01/07/2004

H46-1299          43716/98          Susini and others, judgment of 03/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1300          60546/00          Menher, judgment of 03/02/04, final on 03/05/04

H46-1301          39288/98          Association Ekin, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 17/10/01

H46-1302          45130/98          Slimane-Kaïd No. 3, judgment of 06/04/2004, final on 10/11/2004

H46-1303          49636/99          Chevrol, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

H32-1304          31677/96          Watson John, Interim Resolution DH(2000)20

H46-1305          69225/01          Fabre, judgment of 02/11/2004, final on 30/03/2005, rectified on 08/03/2005

H46-1306          72783/01          Nesme, judgment of 14/12/2004, final on 14/03/2005

H46-1307          61092/00          Pause, judgment of 14/12/2004, final on 14/03/2005

H46-1308          51069/99          Sibaud, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005

H46-1309          65436/01          Henaf, judgment of 27/11/03, final on 27/02/04

H46-1310          45840/99          Bayle, judgment of 25/09/03, final on 25/12/03

H46-1311          71846/01          Rachdad, judgment of 13/11/03, final on 13/02/04

H46-1312          46044/99          Lallement, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02 (merits) and of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03 (Article 41)

H46-1313          64927/01          Palau-Martinez, judgment of 16/12/03, final on 16/03/04

H46-1314          40892/98          Koua Poirrez, judgment of 30/09/03, final on 30/12/03

H46-1315          49217/99+        SA Cabinet Diot and SA Gras Savoye, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H46-1316          43284/98          Morel No. 2, judgment of 12/02/2004, final on 07/07/2004

H46-1317          59477/00          SCP Huglo, Lepage & Associés conseil, judgment of 01/02/2005, final on 01/05/2005

H46-1318          68255/01+        Crochard and 6 others, judgment of 03/02/2004, final on 14/06/2004

H46-1319          57742/00          Lebègue, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 06/06/2005

H46-1320          33592/96          Baumann, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

H46-1321          58906/00          Casalta, judgment of 12/10/2004, final on 30/03/2005

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-1322          53118/99          Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-1323          53425/99          Dumas, judgment of 23/09/03, final on 24/03/04

H46-1324          51434/99          Granata No. 2, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-1325          55829/00          Huart, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

H46-1326          42268/98          J.-M. F., judgment of 01/07/2004, final on 10/11/2004

H46-1327          35589/97          Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-1328          41943/98          L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1329          41476/98          Laine, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-1330          49531/99          Lutz No.2, judgment of 17/06/03, revised on 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

H46-1331          51887/99          Nicolle, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

H46-1332          33424/96          Nouhaud and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

H46-1333          55875/00          Signe, judgment of 14/10/2003, final on 14/01/2004

H46-1334          40096/98          Versini, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46-1335          42405/98          C.D., judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-1336          42407/98          C.R., judgment of 23/09/2003, final on 23/12/2003

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

H46-633           4094/02            Beloeil, judgment of 02/11/2004, final on 30/03/2005

H54-1337          36313/97          Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-1338          36317/97          Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-1339          32217/96          Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

H46-1340          65323/01          Beaumer, judgment of 08/06/2004, final on 08/09/2004

H46-1341          57115/00          Bouilly, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H32-1342          31842/96          Darmagnac Pierre No. 5, Interim Resolution DH(98)388

H46-1343          72313/01          Favre, judgment of 02/03/04, final on 02/06/04

H46-1345          40493/98          Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-1346          57753/00          C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-1347          39282/98          Laidin Monique No. 2, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

H46-1348          44964/98          Louerat, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

H46-1349          48215/99          Lutz, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H54-1350          33441/96          Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

H46-1351          55007/00          SCI Boumois, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-1352          60955/00          Seidel No. 2, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-1354          44451/98          A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H46-1355          65786/01          Lechelle, judgment of 08/06/2004, final on 08/09/2004

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

H32-1356          32510/96          Peter, Interim Resolution DH(99)132

- Case of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

H46-1357          38398/97          Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

H46-1360          53584/99          Verhaeghe, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-219           64174/00          Guiraud, judgment of 29/03/2005, final on 29/06/2005

H46-1361          49533/99          Barrillot, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-1362          49627/99          Beladina, judgment of 30/09/03, final on 30/12/03

H46-1363          44070/98          Beljanski, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1364          51803/99          Benmeziane, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03

H46-1365          33951/96          Caloc, judgment of 20/07/00

H46-1366          50632/99          Coste Pascal, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H46-1367          44797/98+        Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-1368          49857/99          Ottomani, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

H46-1369          49285/99          Rablat, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-1370          50268/99          Rouille, judgment of 06/01/04, final on 06/04/04

H46-1371          53946/00          Vaney, judgment of 30/11/2004, final on 28/02/2005

H46-1372          56651/00          Destrehem, judgment of 18/05/2004, final on 18/08/2004

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

H46-221           75866/01          Colin, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 05/10/2005

H46-1375          60504/00          Fattell, judgment of 27/01/2005, final on 27/04/2005

H46-1376          70034/01          Guez, judgment of 17/05/2005, final on 17/08/2005

- 1 case against Georgia

H46-1377          71503/01          Assanidzé, judgment of 08/04/04 - Grand Chamber

- 14 cases against Germany

H46-1378          30943/96          Sahin, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

H46-1379          39547/98          Niederböster, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

H46-1380          44672/98          Herz, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 03/12/03

H46-1381          31871/96          Sommerfeld, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

H46-1382          37568/97          Böhmer, judgment of 03/10/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-1383          35968/97          Van Kuck, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03

H46-1384          68103/01          Trippel, judgment of 04/12/03, final on 04/03/04

H46-1385          47169/99          Voggenreiter, judgment of 08/01/04, final on 08/04/04

H46-1386          11057/02          Haase, judgment of 08/04/2004, final on 08/07/2004

H46-1387          60534/00          Wimmer, judgment of 24/02/2005, final on 24/05/2005

H46-1388          49746/99          Cevizovic, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

H46-1389          52853/99          Yilmaz Saldiray, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-1390          57249/00          Herbolzheimer, judgment of 31/07/03, final on 31/10/03

H46-1391          64387/01          Uhl, judgment of 10/02/2005, final on 10/05/2005

- 22 cases against Greece

H46-1392          62503/00          Karahalios, judgment of 11/12/2003, final on 14/06/2004

H46-1393          41666/98          Kyrtatos, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

H46-1394          46356/99          Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-1395          43622/98          Malama, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 05/09/01 and judgment of 18/04/02 (Article 41), final on 18/07/02

H46-1397          47020/99          Kolokithas, judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1398          47760/99          Koskinas, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1399          51473/99          Katsaros, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02 and of 13/11/03 (Article 41), final on 13/02/04

H46-1400          41727/98          Yagtzilar and others, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 10/07/02 and judgment of 15/01/04 (Article 41) final on 15/04/04

H46-1401          48679/99          AEPI S.A., judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-1402          2216/03            Manolis, judgment of 19/05/2005, final on 19/08/2005

H46-1403          46352/99          Logothetis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01 and judgment of 18/04/02 (Article 41), final on 18/07/02

H46-1404          47541/99          Vasilopoulou, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02 and judgment of 26/09/02 (Article 41) final on 21/05/03

H46-1405          63000/00+        Skondrianos, judgment of 18/12/03, final on 18/03/04

- Case of length of civil proceedings and of lack of effective remedy

H46-307           33194/02          Kokkini, judgment of 17/02/2005, final on 17/05/2005

- Case of length of civil proceedings

H46-1406          52464/99          Papadopoulos Georgios, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 21/05/03

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-1407          52848/99          Papadopoulos Ioannis, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-1408          60821/00          Diamantides No. 1, judgment of 23/10/2003, final on 23/01/2004

H46-1409          59506/00          Papageorgiou Georgios, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 09/08/03

H46-1410          16771/02          Pothoulakis, judgment of 15/07/2004, final on 15/10/2004

H46-1411          64417/01          Terzis, judgment of 29/01/04, final on 29/04/04

H46-1412          71498/01          Kotsaridis, judgment of 23/09/2004, final on 23/12/2004

H46-1413          11800/02          Rodopoulos, judgment of 14/10/2004, final on 14/01/2005

- 3 cases against Hungary

H46-1414          53129/99          Imre, judgment of 02/12/03, final on 02/03/04

H46-1415          60037/00          Németh, judgment of 13/01/04, final on 09/02/04

H46-1416          57967/00          Kmetty, judgment of 16/12/03, final on 16/03/04

- 1 case against Iceland

H46-641           40905/98           Hafsteinsdóttir, judgment of 08/06/2004, final on 08/09/2004

- 26 cases against Italy

H46-1417          23969/94          Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00

H46-1418          41221/98          Troiani Marcello No. 2, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 10/07/02

H46-1419          31227/96          Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

H32-1420          16609/90          Intrieri, Interim Resolution DH(97)50

H54-1421          14025/88          Zubani, judgments des 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

H46-1422          40877/98          Cordova Agostino No. 1, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-1423          45649/99          Cordova Agostino No. 2, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-1424          43269/98          Leoni, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-1425          33354/96          Lucà, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-1426          30882/96          Pellegrini Maria Grazia, judgment of 20/07/01, final on 20/10/01

H46-1427          30127/96          Sciortino, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46-1428          43522/98          Grava, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

H46-1429          28168/95          Quadrelli, judgment of 11/01/00, final on 20/03/00

H46-1430          42098/98          Pezone, judgment of 18/12/03, final on 18/03/04

H46-1431          36534/97          Osu, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

H46-1432          73936/01          De Jorio, judgment of 03/06/2004, final on 10/11/2004

H46-1433          62913/00          Accardo, judgment of 17/03/2005 - Friendly settlement

H46-1434          65674/01          Del Luce, judgment of 07/04/2005 - Friendly settlement

H54-1435          12151/86          F.C.B., judgment of 28/08/91, Résolution DH(93)6 and Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)30

H32-1436          23924/94          C.A.R. srl, Interim Resolution DH(98)154

H46-1437          41879/98          Saggio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-1438          55634/00          Cianetti, judgment of 22/04/2004, final on 10/11/2004

H46-1439          51739/99          Nordica Leasing S.p.a., judgment of 14/10/2004, final on 14/01/2005

H32-1440          26426/95          S.B.F. S.p.a., Interim Resolution DH(97)599

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

H46-1441          68074/01          Brocco, judgment of 07/04/2005 - Friendly settlement

H46-1442          69308/01          Sferrazzo and Papini, judgment of 07/04/2005 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Liechtenstein

H46-1443          49158/99          Frommelt, judgment of 24/06/2004, final on 24/09/2004

- 4 cases against Lithuania

H46-1444          41510/98          Jasiūnienė, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

H46-1445          70661/01          Girdauskas, judgment of 11/12/03, final on 11/03/04

H46-1446          50551/99          Siaurusevičius, judgment of 04/12/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1447          53161/99          Meilus, judgment of 06/11/03, final on 06/02/04

- 3 cases against Luxembourg

H46-1448          38432/97          Thoma, judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

H46-1449          44978/98          Berlin, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-1450          51772/99          Roemen and other, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 25/05/03

- 4 cases against Malta

H46-1451          25642/94          Aquilina, judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1452          25644/94          T.W., judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1453          35892/97          Sabeur Ben Ali, judgment of 29/06/00, final on 29/09/00

H46-1454          55263/00          Kadem, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

- 1 case against Moldova

H46-1455          60115/00          Amihalachioaie, judgment of 20/04/2004, final on 20/07/2004

- 13 cases against the Netherlands

H46-1456          25989/94          Van Vlimmeren and Van Ilverenbeek, judgment of 26/09/00

H46-1457          32605/96          Rutten, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-1458          31465/96          Sen, judgment of 21/12/01, final on 21/03/02

H32-1459          14084/88          R.V. and others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

H46-1460          28369/95          Camp and Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-1461          29192/95          Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-1462          34549/97          Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

H46-1463          26668/95          Visser, judgment of 14/02/02

H46-1464          39657/98          Steur, judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04

H46-1465          35731/97          Venema, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-1466          52750/99          Lorsé and others, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

H46-1467          50901/99          Van der Ven, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

H46-1468          44760/98          Del Latte, judgment of 09/11/2004, final on 09/02/2005

- 4 cases against Norway

H46-1469          37372/97          Walston No. 1, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/12/03

H46-1470          30287/96          Hammern, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-1471          29327/95          O., judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-1472          56568/00          Y., judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

- 16 cases against Poland

H46-703           34091/96          M.B., judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 27/07/2004                                       

H46-1473          26760/95          Werner, judgment of 15/11/01

H46-1474          29692/96+        R.D., judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-1475          37774/97          P.K., judgment of 06/11/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1476          29537/95+        Radaj, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

H46-1477          35489/97          Sałapa, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-1478          38670/97          Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

H46-1479          24244/94          Migoń, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

H46-1480          64120/00          Niziuk, judgment of 15/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1481          26761/95          Płoski, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-1482          30218/96          Nowicka, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 03/03/03

H46-1483          68880/01          Schirmer, judgment of 21/09/2004, final on 21/12/2004

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-1484          45288/99          Ciągadlak, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 01/10/03

H46-1485          71891/01          Hałka and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

H46-1486          31382/96          Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-1487          51799/99          Sobczuk, judgment of 25/05/04 - Friendly settlement

- 7 cases against Portugal

H46-1488          29813/96+        Almeida Garret, Mascarenhas Falcão and others, judgment of 11/01/00 and judgment of 10/04/01

H46-1489          37698/97          Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

H54-1490          15777/89          Matos and Silva and 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

H46-1491          33290/96          Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

H46-1492          61009/00          Geraldes Barba, judgment of 04/11/2004, final on 04/02/2005

H46-1493          38830/97          Czekalla, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-1494          19485/02          Real Alves, judgment of 07/06/2005 - Friendly settlement

- 35 cases against Romania

H54-1495          27053/95          Vasilescu, judgment of 22/05/98, Interim Resolution DH(99)676

H54-1496          27273/95          Petra, judgment of 23/09/98

H32-1497          32922/96          C.C.M.C., Interim Resolution DH(99)333

H46-1498          49009/99          Suciu, judgment of 10/02/04 - Friendly settlement

H46-1499          41134/98          Glod, judgment of 16/09/03, final on 16/12/03

H46-1500          37424/97          Bălăşoiu, judgment of 20/04/04 - Friendly settlement

H46-1501          34644/97          Paulescu, judgment of 10/06/03, final on 10/09/03

H46-1502          42930/98          Crişan, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

H46-1503          49145/99          Constantin, judgment of 17/02/2005 - Friendly settlement

H46-1504          62959/00          Roman and Hogea, judgment of 17/02/2005 - Friendly settlement

- Cases concerning the annulment of final court decisions relating to property ownership

H46-1505          33353/96          Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-1506          42513/98          Chivorchian, judgment of 02/11/2004, final on 02/02/2005

H46-1507          29053/95          Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

H46-1508          29769/96          Curuţiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-1509          36017/97          Dickmann, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H46-1510          32936/96          Drăgnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46-1511          38445/97          Erdei and Wolf, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-1512          32977/96          Găvruş, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46-1513          32915/96          Ghitescu, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-1514          29973/96          Golea, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-1515          31736/96          Grigore, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-1516          29968/96          Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-1517          39410/98          Iacob, judgment of 03/02/2005, final on 03/05/2005

H46-1518          30698/96          Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-1519          32268/96          Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46-1520          36039/97          Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

H46-1521          31172/96          Popa and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-1522          38360/97          Popescu, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

H46-1523          35882/97          Potop, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

H46-1524          33631/96          Savulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-1525          48179/99          Sofletea, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

H46-1526          32260/96          Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 21/08/02

H46-1527          39184/98          Tandreu, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04

H46-1528          32269/96          Tărbăşanu, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-1529          29407/95          Vasiliu, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02

- 1 case against the Russian Federation

H46-1530          60776/00          Poleshchuk, judgment of 07/10/2004, final on 07/01/2005

- 17 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-1531          47227/99          Baková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-1532          24530/94          Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-1533          29032/95          Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

H46-1534          32686/96          Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

H46-1535          42472/98          Tkáčik, judgment of 14/10/03, final on 24/03/04

H46-1536          39753/98          König, judgment of 20/01/04, final on 20/04/04

H46-1537          32106/96          Komanický, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-1538          56193/00+        E.O. and V.P., judgment of 27/04/04, final on 10/11/2004

H46-1539          41784/98          A.B., judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

H46-1540          39359/98          Pavletić, judgment of 22/06/2004, final on 10/11/2004

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

H46-1541          51204/99          Fabišík, judgment of 22/03/2005, final on 22/06/2005

H46-1542          43377/98          Žiačik, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-1543          48817/99          Bzdúšek, judgment of 21/06/2005, final on 21/09/2005

H46-1544          67199/01          Csepyová, judgment of 24/02/04, final on 24/05/04

H46-1545          60231/00          Klimek, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-812            51545/99          Švolík, judgment of 15/02/2005, final on 15/05/2005

H46-813            52555/99          Vargová, judgment of 15/02/2005, final on 15/05/2005

- 3 cases against Slovenia

H46-1546          42320/98          Belinger, judgment of 13/06/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1547          29462/95          Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

H46-1548          28400/95          Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

- 9 cases against Switzerland

H46-1549          26899/97          H.B., judgment of 05/04/01, final on 05/07/01

H46-1550          33958/96          Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1551          27798/95          Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

H46-1552          54273/00          Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

H46-1553          33499/96          Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-1554          27426/95          G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-1555          28256/95          M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H32-1556          27613/95          P.B., Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)83

H46-1557          31827/96          J.B., judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01

- 5 cases against Sweden

H46-1558          35179/97          Allard, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-1559          34619/97          Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-1560          36985/97          Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-1561          38993/97          Stockholms Försakrings- och Skadestandsjuridik Ab, judgment of 16/09/03, final on 16/12/03

H46-1562          55164/00          Toimi, judgment of 22/03/2005 - Friendly settlement

- 39 cases against Turkey

H46-1563          34688/97          Akin, judgment of 12/04/01

H46-1564          26093/94+        B.T. and others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-1565          25182/94+        Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01

H46-1566          40035/98          Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00

H46-1567          37021/97          Avcı Zeynep, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-1568          30944/96          Öcal, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1569          34686/97          Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1570          29495/95          Erdemli, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/10/01

H46-1571          24669/94          Karataş and Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1572          25144/94          Sadak Selim and others, judgment of 11/06/02, final on 06/11/02

H46-1573          32580/96          Koç Ahmet, judgment of 22/06/2004, final on 22/09/2004

H46-1574          46749/99          Kaptan, judgment of 22/12/2004 - Friendly settlement

H46-1575          20652/92          Djavit An, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-1576          36141/97          Guðrún Hansen Sophia, judgment of 23/09/03, final on 23/12/03

H46-1577          36590/97          Göç Mehmet, judgment of 11/07/02 – Grand Chamber

H46-1578          24209/94          Y.F., judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03

H54-1579          18954/91          Zana, judgment of 25/11/97

- Cases concerning freedom of expression

H46-1580          28635/95+        Aksoy Ibrahim, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-1581          23462/94          Arslan, judgment of 08/07/99

H32-1582          25658/94          Aslantaş Sedat, Interim Resolution DH(99)560 du 08/10/99

H46-1583          27307/95          Bayrak Mehmet, judgment of 03/09/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1584          27529/95          Caralan, judgment of 25/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1585          28496/95          E.K., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1586          25067/94+        Erdoğdu and Ince, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1587          24919/94          Gerger, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1588          27692/95+        Karakoç and others, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

H46-1589          23168/94          Karataş, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1590          27209/95+        Kiliç Özkan, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1591          28493/95          Küçük Yalçın, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

H46-1592          24246/94          Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1593          25753/94          Özler, judgment of 11/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1594          23500/94          Polat, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1595          26680/95          Şener, judgment of 18/07/00

H46-1596          24762/94          Sürek No. 4, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-1597          29590/96          Yağmurdereli, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-1598          26982/95          Zana Mehdi No. 2, judgment of 06/04/2004, final on 06/07/2004

H46-1599          37059/97          Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 1, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1600          37061/97          Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 2, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1601          37062/97          Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 3, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1602          26971/95+        Zarakolu Ayşenur and Belge Uluslararası Yayıncılık, judgment of 13/07/2004, final on 13/10/2004

- Cases concerning the independence and impartiality of state security courts

H46-1603          41316/98          Atça and others, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

H46-1604          42741/98          Çakar Mehmet, judgment of 23/10/03, final on 24/03/04

H46-1605          59659/00          Özdemir Tekin, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

H46-1606          29851/96          Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H46-1607          56007/00          Vural, judgment of 21/12/2004, final on 06/06/2005

- Cases of length of detention on remand / detention in custody

H46-1608          29863/96          Barut, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1609          31247/96          Tepe Talat, judgment of 21/12/2004, final on 21/03/2005

- Cases concerning actions of the Turkish security forces

H46-1610          31849/96          İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-1611          32984/96          Alfatli Ali and others, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1612          31879/96          Değirmenci and others, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1613          29360/95          Ketenoğlu Gülşen and Ketenoğlu Halil Yasin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46-1614          29700/96          Metinoğlu, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1615          29701/96          Özcan Süleyman, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1616          29703/96          Zülal, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

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

H46-1617          29921/96          Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

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

H46-765           51482/99          Demir Penpe and others, judgment of 07/10/2004, final on

                                               02/02/2005, rectified on 24/05/2005 and le 20/10/2005                                  

H46-1618          30947/96          Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-557           57375/00          Kayatepe, judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005

H46-559           42752/98          Özdeş, judgment of 26/04/2005, final on 26/07/2005

H46-564           54040/00          Tunç, judgment of 24/05/2005, final on 24/08/2005

- Case of length of judicial proceedings

H46-1619          47116/99          Gümüşten, judgment of 30/11/2004, final on 28/02/2005

H46-1620          40156/98          Keskin Mahmut, judgment of 29/03/2005 - Friendly settlement

- 46 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-773           23414/02          Wood Clayton, judgment of 16/11/2004, final on 16/02/2005

H46-1621          45825/99+        Miller, Morrisson and Gillespie, judgment of 26/10/2004, final on 26/01/2005

H46-1623          39846/98          Brennan, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

H46-1624          48015/99          Easterbrook, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03

H46-1625          32771/96          Cuscani, judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

H46-1626          39393/98          M.G., judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

H46-1627          36533/97          Atlan A. and T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H46-1628          24724/94          T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1629          24888/94          V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1630          45276/99          Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H54-1631          24839/94          Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

H32-1632          26109/95          Santa Cruz Ruiz, Interim Resolution DH(99)131

H46-1633          28901/95          Rowe and Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

H46-1634          35718/97          Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

H46-1635          33274/96          Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

H46-1636          39360/98          S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H54-1637          20605/92          Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Interim Resolution DH(1999)725

H46-1638          32340/96          Curley, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-1639          37471/97          Faulkner William, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-1640          44652/98          Beckles, judgment of 08/10/02, final on 08/01/03

H46-1641          61036/00          Owens, judgment of 13/01/04 - Friendly settlement

H46-1642          35765/97          A.D.T., judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

H46-1643          24833/94          Matthews, judgment of 18/02/99 - Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)79

H46-1644          48539/99          Allan, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-1645          38784/97          Morris, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

H46-1646          37555/97          O'Hara, judgment of 16/10/01, final on 16/01/02

H46-1647          53236/99          Waite, judgment of 10/12/02, final on 10/03/03

H46-1648          28945/95          T.P. and K.M., judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-1649          56547/00          P., C., and S., judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

H46-1650          40787/98          Hirst, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-1651          57836/00          Mellors, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-1652          21413/02          Kansal, judgment of 27/04/2004, final on 10/11/2004

H46-1653          50390/99          McGlinchey and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-1654          39665/98+        Ezeh and Connors, judgment of 09/10/03 - Grand Chamber

H46-1655          25680/94          I., judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber

H46-1656          28957/95          Goodwin Christine, judgment of 11/07/02 - Grand Chamber

H46-1657          44647/98          Peck, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-1658          39197/98          Foley, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-1659          44808/98          Mitchell and Holloway, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-1660          43185/98+        Price and Lowe, judgment of 29/07/03, final on 03/12/03

H46-1661          42007/98          Davies, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02, rectified on 13/09/02

H46-1662          74976/01          Eastaway, judgment of 20/07/2004, final on 20/10/2004

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

H46-1663          4216/98            Somjee, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 15/01/03

H46-1664          50034/99          Obasa, judgment of 16/01/03, final on 16/04/03

- Cases concerning interference in private life due to covert police surveillance

H46-1665          47114/99          Taylor-Sabori, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-1666          1303/02            Lewis, judgment of 25/11/03, final on 25/02/04