Ministers’ Deputies

Agenda / Ordre du jour

CM/Del/OJ/DH(2010)1086 Section/Rubrique 4.2 PUBLIC                        17 June/juin 2010

———————————————

1086 meeting/réunion (DH), 1-3 June/juin 2010

Section/Rubrique 4.2 public

——————————————

Public information version /

Version destinée à l'information publique

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

RUBRIQUE 4 - AFFAIRES SOULEVANT DES QUESTIONS SPÉCIALES (MESURES DE CARACTÈRE INDIVIDUEL, MESURES NON ENCORE DÉFINIES OU PROBLÈMES SPÉCIAUX)

Action

For each case or group of cases, the Deputies adopted the decision presented in a ruled box.

Pour chaque affaire ou groupe d'affaires, les Délégués ont adopté la décision reproduite en encadré.

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

                       SOUS-RUBRIQUE 4.2 – MESURES DE CARACTÈRE INDIVIDUEL ET/OU PROBLÈMES GÉNÉRAUX

- 10 cases against Albania / 10 affaires contre l’Albanie

37959/02           Xheraj, judgment of 29/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to the quashing of a final judgment acquitting him on murder (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant was convicted of murder in absentia on 27/11/1996, then acquitted on 14/12/1998 following his application for judicial review. The acquittal decision became final on 24/12/1998. On 02/10/1999, outside the statutory time-limit, the prosecutor attached to the Durrës Court of Appeal launched appeal proceedings against the acquittal decision, arguing in particular that the victim’s family had not been notified of it. The prosecutor’s appeal was successful and the applicant’s acquittal was overturned by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court on 20/06/2001.

The applicant was notified of the quashing of the acquittal in 2002 when the Albanian authorities requested, on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision of 20/06/2001, his extradition from Italy where he is imprisoned for offences unrelated to the present case (§26 of the judgment).

The European Court noted that the victim’s family had not involved themselves in the trial, although there were a number of options available which permitted their involvement. The European Court also noted that the prosecutor could have appealed the acquittal within the statutory time-limit. It concluded that the prosecutor’s appeal and subsequent quashing of the applicant’s acquittal did not strike a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the acquittal was therefore in violation of the principle of legal certainty.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Noting however that the applicant continued to be subject to the consequences of the quashing of the decision of 14/12/1998, it considered that the most appropriate form of redress for this continuing situation would be for the applicant’s final acquittal of 14/12/1998 to be confirmed and his conviction in breach of the Convention to be erased with effect from that date (§82).

• Information is urgently awaited on action taken or envisaged to withdraw the extradition request and to ensure and to confirm, without further delay, the applicant's final acquittal and the erasure of his conviction from his criminal record in compliance with the European Court’s judgment. Information is also urgently awaited concerning the possibilities of confirming the applicant’s acquittal through a new an appeal out of time.

General measures: The European Court noted (§§ 59-60) that the situation giving rise to the present violation could have been avoided had the prosecutor’s office lodged an ordinary appeal within the statutory ten-day time-limit provided for under Article 147§3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the arguments used by the prosecutor to justify the request for leave to appeal out of time were insufficient to justify challenging the finality of the judgment.

• Information provided by the Albanian authorities: The judgment of the European Court was translated and sent for publication to the official publication centre. After its publication a round table will be held with judges, prosecutors, representatives from Ministry of Justice and High Council of Justice to discuss measures to be taken.

• Assessment: The violation in this case appears to stem from the approach of the prosecutor and its acceptance by the domestic courts.

• Information is needed on measures taken or envisaged to avoid similar violations. Information is also awaited on the confirmation of the publication of the judgment and its dissemination to the competent authorities, as well as on the conclusions of the round table held with the authorities concerned (e.g. training of prosecutors).

19206/05           Dauti, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

This case concerns a breach of the right of access to a court in proceedings brought to challenge administrative decisions concerning the award of invalidity benefits to the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court found in particular that the Commission of appeal on medical examinations regarding the capacity to work had not constituted an “independent and impartial tribunal” and that its decisions, according to the legislation in force at the material time, could not be challenged before domestic courts.

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 29/01/2010. Bilateral discussions are currently under way aimed at securing the additional information necessary to present an action plan/action report to the Committee.

- 5 cases of non-enforcement of final domestic decisions concerning the right of the applicants to compensation (whether pecuniary or in kind) as a consequence of the nationalisation of property under the communist régime CM/Inf/DH(2010)20 33771/02   Driza, judgment of 13/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008 38222/02   Ramadhi and 5 others, judgment of 13/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008 7352/03     Beshiri and others, judgment of 22/08/2006, final on 12/02/2007 45624/04   Hamzaraj no.1, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 06/07/2009 12306/04   Nuri, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 06/07/2009 These cases concern the failure to enforce final domestic court and administrative decisions relating to the right of the applicants to compensation (whether pecuniary or in kind) as a consequence of the nationalisation of property under the communist regime (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In the Ramadhi case, the European Court found that the authorities had deprived the applicants of their right to an effective remedy in ensuring the exercise of their civil right to compensation, as they had failed to take the measures necessary to secure the means of enforcing the decisions of the local Property Restitution and Compensation Commission (violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6§1). In the Driza case, the European Court found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 by reason of the ineffectiveness of the remedies introduced by the Property Act to obtain compensation (violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1). The Driza case also concerns a violation of the right to a fair trial, by reason of the lack of legal certainty found in this case, due to review of a final judgment and the introduction of parallel sets of proceedings.  The Supreme Court had set at naught an entire judicial process which had ended in final and enforceable decisions (violation of Article 6§1). The Driza case also concerns the lack of impartiality of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court lacked subjective impartiality, as its President, who instigated the supervisory review proceedings, had already ruled against the applicant’s claims in the same case.  It also lacked objective impartiality because a number of judges who were on the review panel had previously examined the case and had been among the judges who had adopted the judgments on the merits (violation of Article 6§1). In the Driza (§ 122) and Ramadhi (§§ 90, 93) cases, the European Court, with reference to Article 46, stated that the violations of Article 6§1, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 13 of the Convention resulted from shortcomings in the Albanian legal order, as a consequence of which an entire category of individuals have been and are still being deprived of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the failure to enforce court judgments awarding compensation under the relevant Albanian law (the Property Act). There are currently dozens of similar cases pending before the European Court. Individual measures 1) Driza case:  The European Court ordered the restitution of one of the plots of land and said that, failing such restitution within three months, additional just satisfaction should be paid. It also awarded just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in respect of both plots of land. • Information provided by the Albanian authorities: The Property Agency confirmed that the 1650 m² plot of land (i.e. the land at issue) had been registered in the name of the applicant, Ramazan Driza. • Assessment:  The authorities are invited to specify the date when the applicant has actually taken possession of his land. 2) Ramadhi case: The Court awarded all six applicants just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in relation to the claims over the first plot of land. In addition, it ordered the restitution of the second plot of land to the three applicants to whom it belonged and awarded just satisfaction jointly in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. It said that, failing such restitution, just satisfaction should be paid.  The applicants are still demanding restitution of the land and do not accept the payment of just satisfaction. • Assessment: Information is awaited on the completion of negotiations with the applicants concerning restitution of the second plot of land or, failing that, payment of just satisfaction. 3) Beshiri case:  The European Court awarded the applicants a lump sum by way of just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary prejudice sustained, including a sum corresponding to the present value of the plots of land. • Assessment: In these circumstances, no other individual measure seems necessary. 4) Hamzaraj case: The European Court awarded the applicants a lump sum by way of just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary prejudice sustained, including a sum corresponding to the present value of the plot of land. • Assessment: In these circumstances, no other individual measure seems necessary. 5) Nuri case:  The European Court awarded the applicants a lump sum by way of just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary prejudice sustained, including a sum corresponding to the present value of the plot of land. • Assessment: In these circumstances, no other individual measure seems necessary. General measures 1) Measures relating to enforcement of final domestic decisions concerning restitution of property/the right to compensation (violations of Articles 6§1, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) a) General measures designed to solve the structural problems underlying recurrent violations of the Convention: removing all the obstacles preventing payment of compensation under the Property Act: In the Driza (§ 126) and Ramadhi (§ 94) cases, with reference to Article 46 of the Convention, the European Court stated that in order to remedy these violations, the state should inter alia designate a competent body, set out the procedural rules, ensure compliance with such rules in practice and remove all obstacles to awarding compensation under the Property Act, adopting the necessary legislative, administrative and budgetary measures. These measures should include the making of maps for property valuation in respect of those applicants who are entitled to receive compensation in kind, and the designation of an adequate fund in respect of those applicants who are entitled to receive compensation in value. All claimants who have obtained compensation under the Property Act by virtue of a final domestic decision, whether judicial or administrative, should be able promptly to obtain the sums or the land due. The Court concluded that such measures should be made available as a matter of urgency. b) Lack of an effective domestic remedy: In the Ramadhi case (§ 94), referring to Article 46 of the Convention, the European Court also stated that Albania should introduce a domestic remedy which secures genuinely effective redress for the violations identified in this judgment and all similar applications pending. Measures taken or envisaged by the Albanian authorities and pending issues: see CM/Inf/DH(2010)20. 2) Other violations found by the European Court in the Driza case a) Lack of legal certainty (violation of Article 6§1): the European Court noted that the supervisory review procedure was provided for in paragraph 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in force until 17 May 2001 (§66 of the judgment) and is no longer available. Concerning the introduction of parallel proceedings, the European Court noted that it is the state’s responsibility to organise its legal system in such a way as to identify related proceedings and where necessary to join them or prohibit further institution of new proceedings related to the same matter. • Information provided by the Albanian authorities: With a view to finding an effective solution to the problem of parallel proceedings for the same case in the same court, a civil case management system has been in operation for a year. This system enables all courts to be connected in a network, provides them with their own website, providing individuals with access to any information they need on the dates of trials, decisions which become final, the status of decisions, etc. • Information is awaited on additional measures necessary to remedy the lack of legal certainty resulting from contradictory decisions taken in parallel sets of proceedings and on the effectiveness of the civil case management system. b) Lack of impartiality of the Supreme Court (violation of Article 6§1): The violation resulted from the composition of the Supreme Court deciding on the applicant’s case. • Information is awaited on measures necessary to remedy the lack of impartiality of the Supreme Court in the circumstances of the Driza case. 3) Publication and dissemination of judgments: The judgments of the European Court have been published in the Official Gazette and sent out to the authorities concerned. The Deputies, 1.             recalled that the questions raised in these cases concern the systemic problem of the non-enforcement of final domestic judgments and administrative decisions ordering restitution of properties nationalised during the communist regime or compensation of former owners; 2.             welcomed the general measures taken so far by the Albanian authorities to remedy this important problem and took note of the issues still pending; 3.             noted however that in order to evaluate fully the adequacy of measures proposed by the authorities, complementary information and explanations as well as a complete action plan/action report should be provided on those measures ; 4.             noted that additional information is also still awaited on the individual measures concerning the applicants in the cases of Driza and Ramadhi; 5.             decided to declassify the memorandum prepared by the Department for the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (CM/Inf/DH(2010)20), presenting the measures proposed by the Albanian authorities as well as the pending issues, and to resume consideration of these items at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of an action plan/action report to be provided by the Albanian authorities on individual and general measures.

- 5 affaires portant sur la non-exécution de décisions définitives internes concernant le droit des requérants à l’indemnisation (pécuniaire ou en nature) du fait de la nationalisation de biens immobiliers durant le régime communiste CM/Inf/DH(2010)20 33771/02   Driza, arrêt du 13/11/2007, définitif le 02/06/2008 38222/02   Ramadhi et 5 autres, arrêt du 13/11/2007, définitif le 02/06/2008 7352/03     Beshiri et autres, arrêt du 22/08/2006, définitif le 12/02/2007 45264/04   Hamzaraj n° 1, arrêt du 03/02/2009, définitif le 06/07/2009 12306/04   Nuri, arrêt du 03/02/2009, définitif le 06/07/2009 Ces affaires concernent la non-exécution de décisions internes définitives, judiciaires et administratives, concernant le droit des requérants à indemnisation (pécuniaire ou en nature) du fait de la nationalisation de biens immobiliers durant le régime communiste (violations de l'article 6§1 et de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1). Dans l’affaire Ramadhi, la Cour européenne a constaté que les autorités avaient privé les requérants de leur droit à un recours effectif pour assurer l'exécution de leur droit civil à indemnisation car elles n'avaient pas pris les mesures nécessaires pour fournir les moyens d'exécuter les décisions de la Commission locale de restitution des biens et d’indemnisation (violation de l'article 13 en conjonction avec l'article 6§1). Dans l’affaire Driza, la Cour européenne a constaté une violation de l’Article 13 de la Convention en conjonction avec l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1 en raison de l’ineffectivité des recours introduits par la loi sur la propriété pour obtenir une indemnisation (violation de l'article 13 en conjonction avec l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1). L’affaire Driza concerne également une violation du droit à un procès équitable, en raison du manque de sécurité juridique constaté en l'espèce du fait de la révision d'un jugement définitif et de l'introduction d'une procédure parallèle par la Cour suprême qui avait ainsi effacé l'ensemble d'une procédure judiciaire ayant abouti à des décisions définitives et exécutoires (violation de l'article 6§1). L'affaire Driza concerne en outre le défaut d'impartialité subjective de la Cour suprême, car son Président qui a mené la procédure de contrôle en révision, avait auparavant conclu au rejet des prétentions du requérant dans la même affaire. Elle a également manqué d'impartialité objective du fait qu'un certain nombre de juges siégeant dans la section de recours en révision avaient auparavant examiné l’affaire et siégé dans les formations ayant rendu des arrêts sur le fond (violation de l'article 6§1). Dans les affaires Driza (§122) et Ramadhi (§§90,93), la Cour européenne se référant à l’article 46, a indiqué que les violations des articles 6§1, 1 du Protocole n° 1, et 13 de la Convention découlaient de dysfonctionnements dans l’ordre juridique albanais, en conséquence desquels toute une catégorie d’individus ont été et sont toujours privés de leur droit au respect de leurs biens, du fait de la non-exécution de décisions finales internes (comprenant des décisions définitives judiciaires et administratives) leur allouant une indemnisation en vertu de la loi albanaise pertinente (la loi sur la propriété). Il y a, à ce jour, des dizaines d’affaires similaires pendantes devant la Cour européenne. Mesures de caractère individuel : 1) Affaire Driza : la Cour européenne a ordonné la restitution de l’un des terrains et a indiqué qu’à défaut d’une telle restitution dans les trois mois, une satisfaction équitable supplémentaire serait à payer. Elle a en outre octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice matériel et moral subi s’agissant des deux terrains. • Informations fournies par les autorités albanaises : L’Agence des biens fonciers a confirmé que la parcelle de 1650 m2 (le terrain litigieux) avait été enregistrée au nom du requérant Ramazan Driza. • Les autorités sont invitées à clarifier à quelle date le requérant a pu prendre possession de son terrain. 2) Affaire Ramadhi: la Cour européenne a alloué aux six requérants une satisfaction équitable pour le préjudice matériel et moral subi du fait des violations concernant le premier terrain. La Cour européenne a par ailleurs ordonné la restitution du second terrain aux trois requérants auxquels il appartient et leur a alloué conjointement une satisfaction équitable pour dommage matériel et moral et a indiqué qu’à défaut d’une telle restitution dans les trois mois, une satisfaction équitable serait à payer. Les requérants réclament toujours la restitution du terrain et n’acceptent pas le paiement de la satisfaction équitable. • Des informations sont attendues sur l’aboutissement des négociations avec les requérants concernant la restitution du deuxième terrain ou à défaut le paiement de la satisfaction équitable. 3) Affaire Beshiri : La Cour européenne a octroyé aux requérants une somme globale à titre de satisfaction équitable pour le dommage matériel et moral subi, y compris une somme correspondant à la valeur actuelle des parcelles. • Evaluation : dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire. 4) Affaire Hamzaraj : La Cour européenne a octroyé aux requérants une somme globale à titre de satisfaction équitable pour le dommage matériel et moral subi, y compris une somme correspondant à la valeur actuelle de la parcelle. • Evaluation : dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire. 5) Affaire Nuri : La Cour européenne a octroyé aux requérants une somme globale à titre de satisfaction équitable pour le dommage matériel et moral subi, y compris une somme correspondant à la valeur actuelle de la parcelle. • Evaluation : dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire. Mesures de caractère général : 1) Mesures concernant l’exécution des décisions internes définitives relatives à la restitution de propriétés/ au droit à l’indemnisation (violations des articles 6§1, 13 et article 1 du Protocole n° 1) a) Mesures générales visant à résoudre les problèmes structurels à l’origine des violations répétées de la Convention : supprimer tous les obstacles qui s’opposent à l’octroi de l’indemnisation en vertu de la loi sur la propriété : Dans les affaires Driza (§126) et Ramadhi (§94), se référant à l'article 46 de la Convention, la Cour européenne a indiqué que pour remédier à ces violations, l'Etat devrait, entre autres, désigner un organe compétent, fixer des règles procédurales, garantir le respect de ces règles en pratique et supprimer tous les obstacles qui s’opposent à l’octroi de compensations en vertu de la loi sur la propriété, en adoptant les mesures législatives, administratives et budgétaires nécessaires. Ces mesures devraient comprendre l’élaboration des plans cadastraux permettant l’évaluation des biens pour les requérants auxquels une compensation en nature a été attribuée, et la mise en place d’un fonds adéquat pour les requérants auxquels une indemnisation pécuniaire a été attribuée. Tous les requérants ayant obtenu, en vertu de la loi sur la propriété, une indemnisation par une décision interne de caractère définitif, soit judicaire, soit administrative, devraient se voir attribuer à bref délai la somme ou le bien dû. La Cour européenne a souligné que les mesures en question devraient être prises d’urgence. b) Absence de recours interne effectif : Dans l’affaire Ramadhi (§94), se référant à l'article 46 de la Convention, la Cour européenne a également indiqué que l'Albanie devait instaurer une voie de recours qui garantisse une réparation véritablement effective pour les violations constatées dans cet arrêt, ainsi que dans toutes les requêtes similaires pendantes. Mesures adoptées ou envisagées par les autorités albanaises et questions en suspens : voir le CM/Inf/DH(2010)20. 2) Autres violations constatées par la Cour européenne dans l’affaire Driza a) Défaut de sécurité juridique (violation de l’article 6§1) : La Cour européenne a noté que la procédure de contrôle en révision avait été instituée par l’article 473 du Code de procédure civile, en vigueur jusqu’au 17/05/2001 (§ 66 de l’arrêt), et qu’elle ne s’appliquait plus à ce jour. Concernant l’introduction de procédures parallèles, la Cour européenne a noté qu’il est de la responsabilité de l’Etat d’organiser son système juridique de façon à ce que les procédures présentant un lien entre elles soient identifiées et, le cas échéant, qu’elles puissent être jointes ou qu’il soit interdit d’introduire de nouvelles procédures liées à la même question. • Information fournies par les autorités albanaises : Depuis un an, un système de gestion des affaires civiles est en application en vue de trouver une solution efficace au problème des procédures parallèles concernant une même affaire devant un même tribunal. Ce système permet aux tribunaux d’être connecté en réseau, leur fournit leur propre site Internet permettant aux individus d’avoir accès à toute information concernant la date des audiences, la date des décisions finales, le statut des décisions, etc. • Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures complémentaires nécessaires pour remédier à l’absence de sécurité juridique résultant de décisions contradictoires prises dans des procédures parallèles et sur l’efficacité du système de gestion des affaires civiles. b) Défaut d’impartialité de la Cour suprême (violation de l’article 6§1) : La violation a résulté de la composition de la Cour suprême lors de l’examen de l’affaire du requérant. • Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures nécessaires pour remédier au défaut d’impartialité de la Cour Suprême dans les circonstances de l’affaire Driza. 3) Publication et diffusion des arrêts : Les arrêts de la Cour européenne ont été publiés au Journal Officiel et diffusés auprès des autorités concernées et compétentes. Les Délégués, 1.             rappellent que les questions soulevées dans ces affaires ont trait au problème systémique de la non exécution d'arrêts et de décisions administratives internes définitives ordonnant la restitution de biens nationalisés durant le régime communiste ou l’indemnisation des anciens propriétaires ; 2.             se félicitent des mesures générales adoptées jusqu'à présent par les autorités albanaises pour remédier à cet important problème et prennent note des questions encore en suspens ; 3.             relèvent cependant qu’afin d’évaluer pleinement la pertinence des mesures proposées par les autorités, il convient de disposer d’informations et explications complémentaires, ainsi que d’un plan/bilan d’action complet sur ces mesures ; 4.             notent que des informations complémentaires sont également encore attendues sur les mesures individuelles concernant les requérants dans les affaires Driza et Ramadhi ; 5.             décident de déclassifier le mémorandum préparé par le Service de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne (CM/Inf/DH(2010)20), présentant les mesures proposées par les autorités albanaises et les questions en suspens,  et de reprendre l'examen de ces affaires lors de leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’un plan d’action/bilan d’action à fournir par les autorités albanaises sur les mesures individuelles et générales.

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

This case concerns a violation of the applicant company's right to a fair trial due to the failure to enforce a final judicial decision (violation of Article 6§1).

By judgment of 23/02/1996, the Tirana Court of Appeal sentenced the Municipality of Tirana to pay compensation to the applicant company for losses resulting from the refusal to grant a building permit. However, this judgment was not executed on the grounds that the state allegedly lacked the necessary funds, despite various steps taken by the applicant company. The company therefore brought proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which declared that enforcement proceedings did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The European Court recalled that enforcement of judicial decisions is an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6 and that a delay in enforcement may impair the essence of the right to a fair trial.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage, including the sums at issue in the unenforced decision.

• Evaluation: no additional measure is required.

General measures: On 02/06/2005, the Secretariat wrote to the Albanian delegation requesting a plan of action for the execution of this judgment. Clarification was requested concerning the origin of the violation the measures envisaged with a view to ensuring the enforcement of domestic decisions. The Secretariat also referred to the European Court's judgment, which indicates that the remedy before the Constitutional Court in case of non-enforcement of judicial decision was only theoretical: according to the Court, the provisions in Albanian law concerning the right to a fair trial had to be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee an effective remedy in case of alleged violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention (§§ 40-42).

At the 1007th meeting (October 2007) the Albanian authorities announced certain general measures that they had envisaged and/or taken. They also committed themselves to submit a time-table for the execution of this judgment.

• Information provided by the Albanian authorities:

            1) Cause of the violation: The violation found by the European Court in this case resulted mainly from the lack of funds in the Tirana Municipality. It was not due to the division of budgetary institutions’ competencies. According to the decision of Council of Ministers (CMD) of 29/06/1998, State budgetary institutions are responsible for paying their financial obligations concerning enforcement of judicial decisions, by using their own budgetary funds.

            2) Measures aimed at dealing with the problem of lack of funds: Law No.9936, dated 26/6/2008, "On the Budget Management System in the Republic of Albania" and Instruction No. 1, dated 21/01/2010 “For the implementation of the budget 2010”, provide that particular funds are made available within the state budget and the budgetary institutions, with a view to paying financial debts related to the enforcement of final judicial decisions.

Instruction No. 1 (item 4.4 on court decisions) determines that regarding judicial decisions, institutions shall act in accordance with the Council of Ministers’ Decision No. 335 dated 02/06/1998 "On the procedures for implementation of judicial decisions that affect the obligations of the state budget”. Judicial decisions are enforced by the approved budget of each institution. These institutions analyse all decisions that attribute effective damage to the state budget and assess responsibilities. Responsibility for implementing the decision rests with the budgetary institution, and not with the treasury branch.

Albanian legislation does not provide any special budget or a special budget line in the state budget dedicated to the payment of debts deriving from final domestic decisions.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to ensure that funds are provided for due enforcement of court decisions concerning the compensation of damage caused by state authorities.

            3) Reform of the bailiff system and other legislative reforms: This issue is being examined in the framework of the Driza group (33771/02, Section 4.2).

            4) Change of the Constitutional Court’s practice: In its decision No. 6 of 31/03/2006 in the Memishaj case, the Constitutional Court found that the non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions may constitute a violation of the right for a fair trial.

This issue is being examined in the framework of the Driza group (33771/02, Section 4.2).

5) Publication and dissemination The European Court's judgment was translated into Albanian and published in the Official Gazette, No. Extra July 2007. By an official letter of 22/11/2004 it was also sent out to the Prime Minister, the President of the High Council of Justice, the President of the Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of European Integration and the Tirana municipality. Moreover, the Government Agent has translated and forwarded to the Ministry of Justice (General Department of Codification, Bailiffs Office, Commission of Legal Reforms), to the Parliament, the Bar and the civil society the conclusions of the Round Table, Strasbourg 21-22/06/2007, “Round table: on “Non-Enforcement of Domestic Judicial Decisions in Member States: General Measures to comply with of the judgments of the European Court” “ (CM/Inf/DH(200)733)).

3738/02            Marini, judgment of 18/12/2007, final on 07/07/2008

The case concerns the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings, one of which lasted from 1993 to 20/11/2003 and the other from January 1997 to 13/04/2006 (violation of Article 6§1). 

In one of these sets of proceedings, the European Court observed that the case had been repeatedly referred back to lower jurisdictions for fresh examination. It then considered that by giving a number of contradictory decisions at several levels of jurisdiction, the Albanian authorities had demonstrated a shortcoming in the judicial system for which they were responsible (§145).

The Court also found that there was no remedy available to the applicant in respect of the delays in the proceedings (violation of Article 13).

This case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, the Constitutional Court having failed to pronounce on the applicant’s appeal and having, on 27/04/2005, effectively declined to take a decision (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court noted that the Constitutional Court had declared that it could not decide on the applicant’s appeal because the vote had been tied, even though the panel consisted of seven judges, none of whom could abstain. As the Constitutional Court failed to give any reason for this outcome, the European Court concluded that the Constitutional Court could not reach a majority on any of the proposals submitted.

The case further concerns the failure to enforce a final decision of the Plenary State Arbitration Commission given on 07/07/1993, ordering the state to respect its partnership commitments in a joint venture company set up with the applicant in 1991. This judgment remained unenforced for 10 years until the joint venture was wound up in 2003 (violation of Article 6§1).

Finally, the case concerns a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) in that the state’s refusal to honour the company’s obligations, its failure to enforce decisions made by the courts in the applicant’s favour and the length of the proceedings rendered the applicant’s shareholding invalid and the applicant unable to receive the expected profits. This in conjunction with the manner in which the proceedings were conducted and the resulting uncertainty as to the applicant’s position in relation to his ownership of the company upset the “fair balance” between the public interest and the applicant’s rights.

Individual measures: The applicant was awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

• Assessment: The proceedings are closed and the joint venture company ceased to exist in 2003 No further individual measure therefore appears necessary..

General measures:

            1) Violations of Articles 6§1 (length of proceedings) and 13: The European Court recalled that protracted length of proceedings due largely to repeated remittals resulting from errors committed by lower courts, revealed a serious deficiency in the judicial system. In the present case, the number of contradictory decisions at several levels of jurisdiction revealed a systemic judicial dysfunction which was the authorities’ responsibility (§145).

These aspects of the case present similarities to that of Gjonbocari (10508/02, section 4.2).

2) Violation of Article 6§1 (lack of access to a court): Under section 74 of the Constitutional Court Organisation Act, the Constitutional Court must dismiss individual appeals where the vote is tied or where a proposal fails to attract a majority of votes. In such circumstances, no reasons are given for dismissing an appeal except that the vote was tied. In its judgment the European Court noted that this provision, which differs significantly from those adopted in the legal systems of the other contracting parties, does not serve the interests of legal certainty and may potentially deprive an applicant of her or his effective legal right to have a constitutional appeal finally determined. The Constitutional Court has taken practical measures to avoid tied votes or situations in which a proposal fails to attract a majority.

• Information is still awaited on further measures envisaged including amendment of the law concerning the Constitutional Court.

            3) Violation of Article 6§1 (non-enforcement of final domestic decisions): This violation resulted from the inaction of the bailiffs and the administrative authorities, who took no effective measure to comply with the relevant decisions.

A similar problem is being examined in the context of the case of Qufaj (54268/00, Section 4.2).

• Information is still awaited on the availability of the European Court’s judgment and its publication and dissemination to bailiffs and other competent administrative authorities.

            4) Violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1: This violation resulted from the reluctance of the administrative authorities and the bailiffs to honour the obligations entered into when the company was founded.

• Information is still awaited on measures taken or envisaged to avoid similar violations.

10508/02           Gjonbocari and others, judgment of 23/10/2007, final on 31/03/2008

The case concerns the excessive length of one of three sets of proceedings concerning property claims brought by the applicants (violation of Article 6§1) as well as the absence of and effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 together with Article 6§1). The proceedings in question, brought on 18/04/2000, were still pending and suspended when the European Court delivered its judgment (more than 7 years).

The European Court noted that even if the domestic courts had been aware that there were parallel, interrelated proceedings which might have been joined, they had failed to manage them properly (§§66-67).

Moreover, this was the first time that the European Court found that the Albanian legal system does not provide an effective remedy with respect to the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.

The case concerns, moreover, the non-execution of a judgment of 06/03/2003 given by the Supreme Court, ordering the Land Commission to take a decision regarding the applicants' claims on land appearing to have belonged to their parent and having been confiscated during the communist period (violation of Article 6§1). In this respect, the European Court noted that this judgment still has not been executed more than four years after having been given and that, furthermore, the proceedings had been suspended while waiting for documentation to be provided by the government.

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

            1) Violation of Article 6§1 (excessive length of proceedings): The proceedings in question, brought on 18/04/2000, were pending and suspended when the European Court delivered its judgment.

•Assessment: Information is awaited on the state of these proceedings and, if needed, on their acceleration.

            2) Violation of Article 6§1 (failure to enforce a final domestic decision): The European Court indicated that the most appropriate form of redress to ensure that the applicants are put as far as possible in the position in which they would have been had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded, the government should secure, by appropriate means and speedily, the enforcement of the judgment of 06/03/03 (§ 100-101).

• Information provided by the Albanian authorities (9/04/2009): The Supreme Court’s judgment of 06/03/2003 has been executed. As required by this judgment, the Land Commission considered the applicants’ claims in relation to the property and declared them inadmissible on 31/07/07. The authorities stressed that following the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Land Commission was required to come to a decision in relation to the applicants’ claim but that such a decision would not necessarily grant the applicants rights over the property. According to the applicants, the property in question has been seized by a third party.

The Local Land Commission has now implemented the Supreme Court’s judgment as required by the judgment of the European Court.

• Confirmation would be useful as to whether the decision of the Land Commission has become final.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 6§1 (excessive length of proceedings): The European Court noted that the judicial system failed properly to manage the multiplication of proceedings on the same issue whereas it would have been possible to join them (§§66-67).

• Information provided by the Albanian authorities (09/04/2009): The Code of Civil Procedure was amended by the adoption of Law No. 10052 of 29/12/2008, which lays down new procedures for summoning parties when absent, strengthens courts’ role at preparatory hearings and sets tighter time limits for the trial of certain types of cases.

With a view to finding an effective solution to the problem of parallel proceedings concerning the same case before the same court, a civil case management system has been in operation for a year. This system enables all courts to be connected in a network and provides them with their own website which gives individuals access to any information on dates of hearings, dates when decisions became final, the state of decisions, etc.

• The information provided by the authorities on measures planned to accelerate judicial proceedings and to improve the execution of judgments in civil cases is being assessed.

• Information is awaited concerning further measures envisaged to provide adequate solutions to these problems, in particular through further improved training programmes.

            2) Violation of Article 13 (lack of effective remedy in respect of the length of proceedings). This violation arose from the lack of any provision in national law which the applicants could have used to obtain redress for the excessive length of the proceedings. The European Court further observed that, even assuming that the Constitutional Court could in theory offer adequate redress in respect of the excessive length claims, the government had failed to produce any case in which the Constitutional Court had ruled on a complaint about length of proceedings. Accordingly, there was no evidence that a constitutional complaint under Article 131 of the Constitution could be regarded with a sufficient degree of certainty as constituting an effective remedy for the applicant’s complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings (§§ 80-81).

The Constitutional Court has recently developed its case-law and now considers itself competent to examine requests for redress in respect of excessively lengthy enforcement proceedings.

• Information is urgently awaited on measures envisaged to ensure, without further delay, the provision of domestic remedies in conformity with Article 13 of the Convention in respect of excessive length of judicial proceedings.

            3) Violation of Article 6§1 (failure to enforce a final domestic decision): This issue is considered in the case of Qufaj (54268/00) (section 4.2).

- 1 case against Andorra / 1 affaire contre Andorre

38196/05           Vidal Escoll and Guillán González, judgment of 29/07/2008, final on 26/01/2009

This case concerns the fact that it was impossible for the applicants to obtain enforcement of a judgment given in their favour by the High Court of Justice in May 2003.

In 1999 the applicants, relying on the unlawfulness of the building permits for two blocks of flats being built opposite and beside where they lived, brought an action to have the permits annulled before the administrative section of the court of batlles. In a judgment of 28/05/2003, the High Court of Justice ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered the demolition of the parts of the two buildings exceeding the regulation height.

However, in June 2004, at the request of the local authority of Escaldes-Engordany, Parliament decided to expropriate part of the property of each applicant on town-planning grounds. The Constitutional Court, seised of an empara appeal by the applicants, held in a judgment of April 2005 that these expropriations would result in transforming the applicants’ property rights into an entitlement to compensation and would thus render their application for enforcement of the 28/05/2003 judgment pointless.

Noting that the local authority had taken no measure with a view to enforcing the 2003 judgment, the European Court found that the expropriation decision, taken after the judgment at issue establishing the rightfulness of the applicants’ position, could not be considered a sufficiently exceptional circumstance to justify the failure to enforce a final judgment (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded each of the applicants just satisfaction in respect of all heads of grievance.

• Information is awaited on measures to redress the violation found, including the enforcement of the 20/05/2003 judgment of the High Court of Justice.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations and on the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the judicial bodies concerned.

- 7 cases against Armenia / 7 affaires contre l’Arménie

31237/03           Kirakosyan, judgment of 02/12/2008, final on 04/05/2009

22390/05           Mkhitaryan, judgment of 02/12/2008, final on 04/05/2009

41698/04           Tadevosyan, judgment of 02/12/2008, final on 04/05/2009

These cases concern degrading treatment suffered by the applicants due to the conditions in which they were detained in March 2003 (Kirakosyan and Mkhitaryan) or May 2004 (Tadevosyan) (violation of Article 3). They were each sentenced to ten days’ administrative detention for disobeying the lawful orders of police officers and for using obscene language.

It may also be noted that, in its analysis of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies regarding the complaint under Article 3, the Court stated that section 13 of the Law on holding conditions for arrestees and detainees could not be considered an effective remedy, not least because the government had failed to specify to which of the many authorities mentioned applicants were supposed to apply.

These cases also concern violations of the right to a fair trial and in particular the right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence, in that the applicants were convicted a few hours after their arrest without any contact with the outside world (violation of Article 6§3b combined with Article 6§1). Finally, the cases concern a breach of the right of appeal in criminal matters as the Code of Administrative Offences provides no clear and accessible right to appeal (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages; the applicants are no longer detained.

• Information is awaited on any possible record of the applicants’ conviction and on measures taken or envisaged in their favour.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 3: The European Court found that the conditions of the applicants’ detention amounted to degrading treatment having regard to the cumulative effects of the detention conditions, in particular:

-           inadequate living space;

-           sleeping conditions (the number of beds being half as many as the number of inmates, no bed linen and blankets were provided, sleeping conditions further aggravated by the constant -artificial lighting in the cell);

-           the cell was infested with pests and insects and lacked natural light;

-           access to the toilet was limited to specific times;

-           no drinking water or food was provided unless the applicants agreed to pay the administration staff.

• Information provided by the Armenian authorities: The judgments have been translated into Armenian and published on the official website of the Ministry of Justice (www.moj.am), as well as in the Official Bulletin of the Republic of Armenia;

The texts of the judgments in Armenian have been sent to the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Court of Appeals, all first-instance courts of general jurisdiction, the Human Rights Defender’s Office, the Office of Public Prosecutor, the Police, the Standing Committee on State and Legal Affairs and the Standing Committee on Protection of Human Rights and Public Affairs of the National Assembly;

A large-scale refurbishment programme has been initiated in all police holding areas pursuant to Order NK‑328–NG of the President of the Republic of Armenia, dated 28/12/2004. On 8/07/2005 the Law on conditions for holding arrested and detained persons was amended to increase the standard living space per detainee in police holding areas to 4 m²

            2) Effective remedy to complain about the conditions of detention: No information has been produced so far.

• Assessment: The Secretariat recalls that, in its report on its visit in Armenia in April 2006, the CPT noted that a living space of 4m² per person detained in a police holding area may be considered as acceptable when applied to multi-occupancy cells but is not an adequate size for single-occupancy cells.

• Information is awaited on:

(i) the impact of the 2004 prison refurbishment programme on detention conditions in police detention facilities and in particular those of Armavir and Ejmiadzin;

(ii) measures taken or envisaged to comply with the living-space standards for single-occupancy cells;

(iii) domestic remedies effective both in theory and practice capable of providing redress for alleged violations of Article 3 due to detention conditions. 

3) Violation of Article 6 §3b combined with Article 6 §1 and violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7: See the Galstyan group (26986/03, 1092nd meeting, September 2010).

38978/03           Sharukhanyan, judgment of 27/05/2008, final on 27/08/2008

The case concerns a breach of the right to free elections on account of the annulment by the authorities, upheld by the Shengavit district court of Yerevan on 8 May 2003, of the registration the applicant’s candidacy in legislative elections on the grounds that he had falsified his declaration of property when registering as a candidate (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court held that the requirement that candidates submit truthful information on their property status pursued a legitimate aim: i.e. enabling the electorate to make an informed choice when voting. However, the Court found that the applicant’s disqualification as a candidate in the general elections had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, in particular because the omission in that declaration had been the result of misleading rules and practices for registering privatised property in Armenia at that time and because it was of minor importance and could not seriously have misled voters.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The government considers that the decision of the Electoral Commission of 03/05/2003 cannot have any impact on the possibility for the applicant to be a candidate in future elections. The decision was valid only for the time and in the context of the parliamentary elections of May 2003 (the mandate of the members of the National Assembly elected in 2003 ended in 2007).

General measures: It appears from the Court’s judgment that provisions regarding the registration of candidacy for election have change since the facts of the case.

The judgment has been translated into Armenian and published on the official websites of the Ministry of Justice (www.moj.am), of the Prosecutor’s Office (www.genproc.am), of the Judicial authority of Armenia (www.court.am), as well as on those of the Police of the Republic of Armenia (www.police.am) and the Court of Cassation on 27/11/2008.

The Armenian version of the European Court`s judgement has been widely disseminated, in  particular to the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Court of Appeals, all First Instance Courts of General Jurisdiction, and therefore to the Court of First Instance of Shengavit Community of Yerevan (Shengavit district court of Yerevan).

• The following information is awaited:

-           the authorities’ own assessment on whether or not it is necessary to clarify the rules on registration of property;

-           clarification would be welcome as to whether or not there is an effective remedy against first-instance judgments in disputes on registration of candidacies, given the contradictory positions taken by the Shengavit district court of Yerevan in its judgment and by the government before the European Court.

36549/03           Harutyunyan, judgment of 28/06/2007, final on 28/09/2007

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the use of statements obtained from him and two witnesses under duress (violation of Article 6§1).

In April 1999 the applicant, in the army at that time, was accused of killing a soldier, found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The European Court noted that the applicant and the two witnesses had been coerced into making confessions and that that fact had been confirmed by the domestic courts when the police officers concerned were convicted of ill-treatment. The Court concluded that, regardless of the impact the statements obtained under torture had on the outcome of the applicant’s trial, the use of such evidence rendered his trial as a whole unfair.

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

The applicant was found guilty of premeditated murder and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment (final decision of the Court of Cassation of 8/05/2003) and was detained from 17/04/1999 to 22/12/2003 when he was released on parole (see §44 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Armenian authorities (30/06/2008): Article 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Armenia provides reopening of criminal proceedings in the event of “new circumstances” and sets out the grounds for reopening cases

• Letter from the applicant’s lawyer, 20/11/2008: On 25/12/2007, the applicant lodged a request for reopening with the Court of Cassation on the basis of Article 410.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) in force at that time, which provided that applications for reopening of proceedings had to be lodged with the Court of Cassation on grounds of “new circumstances”. According to the new provisions of the CCP which entered into force on 27/12/2007, requests for reopening have to be lodged with the first-instance court which examined the case. The applicant therefore also lodged a request for reopening on 25/12/2007, with the First-instance Court of Syunik Marz. This request was rejected on the ground that, according to Article 410.1 of the CCP, the court which gave the final decision was competent to decide on the reopening request. In addition, on 21/01/2008 the Court of Cassation referred the applicant’s case to the Southern Criminal Court, on the basis of Article 426.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant’s lawyer doubts that the Southern Criminal Court is competent to quash decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation.

• Letter from the applicant’s lawyer (16/03/2009): The applicant has applied to the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of Article 426.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By decision of 21/10/2008, the Constitutional Court found that Article 426.1 of the CCP was unconstitutional and void. On 21/01/2009, the applicant’s lawyer applied to the Court of Cassation, asking for the revision of its decision of 21/01/2008. On 9/03/2009, the Court of Cassation returned the application together with a decision of 25/02/2009 by which they rejected the application on the grounds that there was no new circumstance and that the applicant had sent an English version of the European Court’s judgment. The applicant’s lawyer underlines that an Armenian translation of the European Court’s judgment can be found on the Ministry of Justice website and that he had sent, as a new circumstance, the decision of the Constitutional Court of 21/10/2008.

The two letters from the applicant’s lawyer have been forwarded to the Armenian authorities.

• Information provided by the Armenian authorities (1059th meeting, June 2009): Following the decision of the Court of Cassation of 25/02/2009, the application was re-submitted to the Court of Cassation on 30/03/2009. On 10/04/2009, the Court of Cassation delivered its decision, quashing the previous judgments of the Syunik District Court of First Instance of 19/06/2002, of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal of 01/04/2003, and of the Court of Cassation of 08/05/2003, finding the applicant guilty. The Court of Cassation stated that the lawfully obtained evidence were insufficient to establish the guilt or innocence of the applicant, and on the basis of Article 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, transmitted the case to the First-instance Court of Syunik Marz for a fresh examination.

In its decision adopted at the same meeting, the Committee of Ministers stressed the need for a new trial respecting the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention and invited the Armenian authorities to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the development of the proceedings.

Moreover, the exact wording of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the re-opening of domestic criminal proceedings – as currently in force and, as the case may be, as revised after the decision of the Constitutional Court – is awaited.

• Information provided by the Armenian authorities (letters of 12/01/2010 and 7/04/2010): Article 426.1 now reads as follows (amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 26/12/2008): Competent court for reviewing the judicial acts in the event of newly discovered or new circumstances :Upon application, in the event of newly discovered or new circumstances, the judicial act of the Court of First Instance is reviewed by the Court of Appeal, the judicial acts of the Court of Appeal and Court of Cassation are reviewed by the Court of Cassation. 

Article 426.8.1 reads as follows (amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure of 26/12/2008):

Re-opening of proceedings to review judicial acts in the event of newly discovered or new circumstances: On the basis of a decision to re-open the proceedings, the Court reviews the judicial act in the event of newly discovered or new circumstances.

The Armenian authorities also stated that further amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which would improve the procedure for re-opening, were underway (amendments to Article 426.2)

Information is awaitedon the final version of Article 426.2 Code of Criminal Procedure and on the development of the new proceedings in the applicant’s case pending before the First-Instance Court of Syunik Marz.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Armenian authorities (23/01/2008 and 30/06/2008): According to Article 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which concerns “facts inadmissible as evidence”, “in criminal procedure it is illegal to use as evidence or as a basis for an accusation facts obtained: by force, threat, fraud, violation of dignity, as well with the use of other illegal actions, (…) by violation of the investigatory or other essential court proceedings. (…)  Any violation of the constitutional rights, freedom of a person and citizen, or of any requirements of this Code in the form of restriction or elimination of the rights guaranteed by law to the persons involved in the case, that influenced or could have influenced the reliability of the facts, shall be considered an essential violation in the process of obtaining evidence (…)”.

Moreover, the European Court’s Judgment has been translated and published in the Official Bulletin of the Republic of Armenia No 65 of 12/12/2007, on the official website of the Office of the Prosecutor of the Republic of Armenia (www.moj.am) as well as on the official website of the Prosecutor’s office of the Republic of Armenia (www.genproc.am) and in the official website of the Judiciary of the Republic of Armenia (www.court.am). The text of the judgment in Armenian has been sent to the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Court of Appeals, all first-instance courts of general jurisdiction, the Human Rights Defender’s Office, the Office of Public Prosecutor, the Police, the Standing Committee on State and Legal Affairs and the Standing Committee on Protection of Human Rights and Public Affairs of the National Assembly.

Study of the European Court of Human Rights case-law, and of the Harutyunyan case in particular, is included in the training curriculum of the Police Academy, the Prosecutors` School and the Judicial School.

• Information awaited: As Article 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure already existed at the material time, recent examples of effective application of this Article is awaited. It is recalled furthermore that dissemination of the European Court’s judgment was requested, to draw the attention of military and civil courts and of the police to the Convention’s requirements.

11724/04+         Nikoghosyan and Melkonyan, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

The case concerns an infringement of the applicants’ right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1). The applicants, who had appealed before the Civil Court of Appeal in proceedings against a third person, M., concerning the annulment of a property sale, were prevented from taking part in the hearing as they did not receive the summons until after it had been held. They appealed to the Court of Cassation which, in its decision of 26/09/2003, did not touch upon the issue of the applicants’ absence from the appeal hearing.

Individual measures: The applicants made no claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The European Court, holding that it could not speculate as to the outcome of proceedings had they been conducted in accordance with Article 6§1, rejected the applicants' claims for pecuniary damage. The Court noted that Article 241.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows reopening of the domestic proceedings if the Court has found a violation of the Convention or its Protocols and stated that the most appropriate form of redress in cases where it finds that a trial was held in the applicant's absence in breach of Article 6§1 would as a rule be to reopen the proceedings and re-examine the case in keeping with all the requirements of a fair trial.

Since the European Court gave its judgment, the law on reopening civil proceedings has been changed.

Article 204.20, which currently governs reopening of civil proceedings, reads as follows

“1. Grounds for reviewing judicial acts in the event of new circumstances are:

1) ….

2) The valid judgement or decision of the international court with participation of the Republic of Armenia, which substantiate the violation of person’s right provided by the international agreement of the Republic of Armenia.”

Following the European Court’s judgment, the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation. By decision of 13/03/2009 and in application of the article quoted above, the Court of Cassation quashed the previous judgments of its Civil and Commercial Chamber of 26/09/2003 and of the Civil Court of Appeal of 10/06/2003 and transmitted the case to the Court of General Jurisdiction of Aragatsotn Marz (first-instance court) for new examination.

The first-instance court conducted a new hearing, “taking into consideration legal analyses mentioned in paragraphs 33-41 of European Court’s judgment regarding due notification of hearings”. On 13/08/2009 it granted the claim of M’s family against the applicants.

• Information awaited: A copy of this decision is expected, in particular to establish how the right to legal certainty of the other party to the proceedings was taken into account, and the possible consequences for the applicants.

General measures: The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Armenian, published in the Official Bulletin of the Republic of Armenia and posted on the official website of the Ministry of Justice (www.moj.am) as of 04/06/2008 and on the website of the Judiciary of the Republic of Armenia (www.court.am).

Moreover, in order to draw courts’ attention to the importance of issuing summonses correctly, the Armenian version of the judgment has been sent out to all judicial bodies by e-transmission and in particular to the Court of Cassation and the Civil Court of Appeal. It is therefore expected that, should a similar situation occur, the domestic courts will not fail to respect the European Court’s case-law on this point.

27651/05           Minasyan and Semerjyan, judgment of 23/06/2009, final on 23/09/2009

The case concerns a violation of the applicants' right of peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the expropriation of the first applicant’s flat and the deprivation of the second applicant of her right of use, under conditions not provided for law (violation of Article1 of Protocol No. 1).

On December 2004 the first applicant was informed that the flat she owned was situated in an expropriation zone defined by government decree. She was offered compensation which she refused. On an unspecified date, the private company in charge of negotiating the compensation on behalf of the public authorities instituted court proceedings against the applicants on behalf of the state before the Yerevan District Court, which on 03/02/2005 granted the company’s claim and awarded compensation to the applicants. The applicants appealed but the Civil Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court on 18/04/2005. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants' appeal on points of law on 27/05/2005. On an unspecified date, the flat was demolished.

The European Court noted that, contrary to the requirement of Armenian law at the material time, no law was adopted by the Armenian parliament in respect of the first applicant’s property and that therefore the expropriation of the first applicant was not carried out in compliance with “conditions provided for by law”

As regards to the second applicant, the European Court considered that the right of use of accommodation enjoyed by her in respect of the flat owned by the first applicant was a distinct right among other property rights which involved a pecuniary interest and therefore constituted a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

The Court noted that in Armenian Law the termination of a person's right of use of accommodation is only possible upon the owner's request and contained no mention whatsoever of terminating that right upon an application lodged by any person other than the owner, be it the state or, as in the present case, a private company acting on behalf of the state. The Court considered therefore that the interference with the second applicant's possessions on such a legal basis was arbitrary.

The Court held that the question of the application under Article 41 was not ready for decision and reserved that question.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

- 20 cases against Austria / 20 affaires contre l’Autriche

34082/02           Rusu, judgment of 02/10/2008, final on 02/01/2009

The case concerns the violation of the right of the applicant, a Romanian national, to be informed promptly of the reasons for her arrest and detention (violation of Article 5§2).

On 25/02/2002 the applicant, who was travelling without a valid passport as hers had been stolen, was returned to Austria by the Hungarian border police and promptly detained. The Neusiedl/See District Administrative Authority noted in the detention order that she had entered Austria illegally, that she lacked sufficient means to stay in Austria and that, if released, she might abscond. This decision was issued to the applicant in German along with two information sheets in Romanian. On 7/03/2002 an interpreter translated the decision into Romanian in the presence of the applicant for the purpose of issuing an expulsion order against her. She was expelled to Romania on 22/03/2002.

The European Court noted that the information given to the applicant in Romanian on the day of her arrest had been incorrect and that it took ten days before the applicant was informed of the specific reasons and correct legal grounds for her detention, namely when she was questioned in the presence of an interpreter who translated the decision of 25/02/2002 for her.

The case also concerns the arbitrary character of the applicant’s detention pending expulsion, having regard to the incompleteness of the grounds relied on by the district administrative authority (violation of Article 5§1f). The Court further found it striking that the Austrian authorities had paid no attention to the applicant’s situation: she had not apparently intended to stay illegally in Austria or evade expulsion proceedings. It emphasised that to detain an individual is such a serious measure that it is automatically arbitrary unless justified as a measure of last resort.

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

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 5§2: The European Court noted that the information sheets issued to the applicant in Romanian on the day of her arrest had not contained any specific factual information concerning her detention or arrest and had referred to an out-of-date Aliens Act (see §§ 38-42 of the judgment). The Austrian authorities submit that information sheets for detainees under the 2005 Aliens Act currently applicable have been translated into various languages and are available to police authorities and detention centres via the Intranet site of the Ministry of Interior. This ensures that police officers can issue information to detainees promptly upon their arrest. When foreigners are questioned by the Aliens authorities shortly after their arrest, an interpreter is always present to explain the reason for the detention, any further steps to be taken and answer specific questions. Moreover, foreigners may avail themselves of the services provided by specific organisations with a view to their return (Rückkehrvorbereitung). Members of these organisations have the linguistic skills to guarantee effective communication with foreigners. In addition, on the initiative of the Human Rights Advisory Board (Menschenrechtsbeirat) a project is currently being put in place which will provide improved electronic information for download by foreigners in 40 languages (short video demonstrations and information about reasons for arrest and access to legal advice, including an appeal against detention pending expulsion (Schubhaftbeschwerde) and the return).

• Assessment: In these circumstances, no further general measure seems necessary regarding to this violation.

2) Violation of Article 5§1(f): The violation resulted from the Austrian authorities’ negligence in failing to take account of the specific situation of the applicant when ordering her detention with a view to expulsion. Section 66 of the then-applicable Aliens Act 1997 provided less stringent measures, such as residence orders in accommodation designated by the authorities (see also §27 of the judgment).

• Information is awaited on the legal situation and practice of less intrusive measures than detention, and, if necessary, on measures envisaged or taken in this respect to avoid new, similar violations.

            3) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was published in the Newsletter of the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (NL 2008, p. 276 (NL 08/5/09), available online at http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/docs/08_5/08_5_09). On 30/10/2008 and 28/07/2009 it was sent out widely to the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court, the Supreme Court, all Federal Ministries, the Human Rights Advisory Council, the Parliament, the Asylum Court, the Independent Administrative Panels and all Human Rights Co-ordinators in order to avoid similar violations.

                        - 2 cases concerning freedom of religion

40825/98          Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and others, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 31/10/2008

76581/01          Verein der Freunde der Christengemeinschaft and others, judgment of 26/02/2009, final on 26/05/2009

The cases concern the unnecessary restriction of the applicants' right to freedom of religion due to a discriminatory decision to confer upon the applicant communities an inferior grade of legal personality.

In both cases the first applicants are the religious communities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Austriaand Verein der Freunde der Christengemeinschaft, respectively: the four other applicants in each case are their respective members who, in 1978 and 1995, made a request to the Federal Minister for Education and Arts, under the 1874 Legal Recognition of Religious Societies Act, to have the Jehovah’s Witnesses recognised as a religious society and granted legal personality.

As regards the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Ministry initially found that the law at issue did not confer upon the applicants any entitlement to a formal decision. In 1997 it dismissed their request, finding that the Jehovah’s Witnesses could not be recognised as a religious society because their internal organisation was unclear and they had a negative attitude to the state and its institutions, demonstrated in particular by their refusal to do military service, to participate in local community life and elections or to have certain types of medical treatment such as blood transfusions. The Constitutional Court subsequently quashed that decision.

On 20/07/1998, an Act having been passed in January 1998 on the Legal Status of Registered Religious Communities, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christengemeinschaft were granted legal personality as religious communities. From that point, they had legal standing before the Austrian courts and authorities and were allowed to acquire and manage assets in their own name, establish places of worship and disseminate their beliefs.

The applicants in both cases nonetheless brought a second set of proceedings, still requesting recognition as a religious society. Their requests were dismissed on 1/12/1998 as the Federal Minister found that, pursuant to Section 11(1) of the 1998 Religious Communities Act, a religious community could only be registered as a religious society if it had already existed for a minimum of ten years. The applicants’ complaints against these decisions were ultimately dismissed in March 2001 (Christengemeinschaft) and October 2004 (Jehovah’s Witnesses) on the ground that a ten-year qualifying period was in conformity with the Constitution.

The European Court noted concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses that the period between the submission of the applicants’ request for recognition as a religious society and the granting of legal personality was substantial: some 20 years, and that during that period the Jehovah’s Witnesses had had no legal personality in Austria. The Court concluded that the interference had gone beyond any “necessary” restriction on the applicants’ freedom of religion (violation of Article 9).

The Court accepted as regards both cases that making a religious community wait for ten years before granting it the status of a religious society could be necessary in exceptional circumstances such as in the case of newly established and unknown religious groups. However, it hardly appeared justified in respect of religious groups which were well established both nationally and internationally and therefore familiar to the relevant authorities, as was the case with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christengemeinschaft. The authorities should have been able to verify much more quickly whether the requirements of the relevant legislation had been fulfilled, as they had done in respect of The Coptic Orthodox Church. Accordingly, the Court concluded that that difference in treatment had not been based on any “objective and reasonable justification” (violations of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 9).

Furthermore, the Court found that in the second set of proceedings lodged by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which had lasted almost five years and 11 months, there had been two periods of inactivity, one of which had not been explained by the government (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: In both cases the European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It rejected the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ claim for pecuniary damage as there was no causal link between the violation found and the alleged damage.

The European Court, having limited its scope of examination to the Ministry’s decision refusing recognition of the first applicants as religious societies exclusively for non-compliance with the 10-year waiting period under Section 11(1) of the 1998 Religious Communities Act, found this reason to be discriminatory. It noted that it could not speculate on the outcome of the proceedings, as in any event, the first applicants would not have been automatically entitled to recognition as a religious society had the Austrian authorities not relied on the discriminatory ground of the 10-year waiting period, because there were various other requirements under the applicable law (§ 130 of the judgment concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses). In July 2008, the 10-year waiting period expired as regards the first applicants. They may lodge a new request for recognition as a religious society.

On 7/05/2009 the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ new request was granted and they were recognised as a religious society by a decree (Federal Gazette II, 2009/139). Furthermore, the domestic proceedings concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses which the Court had found to be excessively long are closed.

• Assessment: no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 9: The European Court found a violation of the right to freedom of religion because of the lapse of time before the Jehovah’s Witnesses were granted legal personality in 1998. The 1998 Religious Communities Act provides the registration of religious groups as religious communities and grants them a legal status.

• Assessment: The violation appears to be an isolated incident resulting from the particular circumstances of the case. No further general measure seems necessary in this respect.

            2) Violations of Article 9 in conjunction with Article 14: The Court found the 10-years waiting period provided by Section 11(1) of the 1998 Religious Communities Act to be unjustified in respect of nationally and internationally well-established religious groups for which a considerably shorter period would be sufficient to verify whether they conform with the other applicable requirements. The recognition in 2003 of The Coptic Orthodox Church, which had also been registered as a religious community in 1998, demonstrates that the 10-year waiting period is not applied in all cases by the Austrian authorities.

The European Court’s judgment concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses was published in the Newsletter of the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (NL 2008, p. 232 (NL 08/4/15), available online at http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/docs/08_4/08_4_15) and in Österreichische Juristenzeitung (ÖJZ 2008, p.865). On 17/03/2009 both judgments were widely disseminated to Parliament, to Human Rights Coordinators, all Federal Ministries, the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court. Moreover, to avoid similar violations, the ministries were requested to take these judgments into consideration when applying the law and/or when drafting further legislative proposals.

• Information would be useful on measures taken or envisaged to avoid new, similar violations, in particular whether any legislative changes are envisaged.

            3) Violation of Article 6§1: The case concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses presents similarities to the Ortner group as regards the excessive length of proceedings before administrative authorities and courts (next examination, 1086th meeting (June 2010).

12556/03           Pfeifer, judgment of 15/11/2007, final on 15/02/2008

This case concerns a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life due to domestic courts’ failure to protect his reputation against defamatory statements in a newspaper (violation of Article 8).

In June 2000, the newspaper Zur Zeit published a letter by its chief editor alleging that the applicant had caused the suicide of a professor by criticising his anti-Semitic publications. In June 2000 and October 2001, two sets of defamation proceedings brought by the applicant against the chief editor and the publishing company owning Zur Zeit were dismissed (proceedings under Article 111§1 of the Criminal Code and under Section 6 of the Media Act). The domestic courts held that the article at issue contained a value judgment which relied on a sufficient factual basis.

The European Court noted that, by alleging that the applicant’s commentary had caused the suicide of the professor, the chief editor’s letter overstepped acceptable limits, because it in fact accused the applicant of acts tantamount to criminal behaviour. Even if the statement were to be understood as a value judgment it lacked a sufficient factual basis and no proof had been offered for the alleged factual link.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained and reimbursed him costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings and before the Court.

On 21/08/2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request to reopen the proceedings finding that, as a private prosecutor, he had no legal standing for such a request under Article 363a of the Code on Criminal Procedure. Moreover, reopening proceedings against the previously acquitted chief editor would infringe the principle of reformatio in peius applicable in criminal proceedings (Article 363b(3), in fine, of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

• Information submitted by the applicant’s counsel and the Austrian authorities: The applicant complained that despite the European Court’s judgment in his favour, Austrian law offered no restitutio in integrum with regard to the slur on his reputation.

The Austrian authorities are of the view that the European Court’s award in respect of non-pecuniary damage provided the applicant sufficient just satisfaction. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had correctly rejected the applicant’s request for re-opening of the proceedings as the state’s duty under the Convention in executing a judgment could not be extended to the degree of violating the principle of reformatio in peius to the detriment of an acquitted person.

• Bilateral contacts are underway to clarify whether further individual measures are necessary.

General measures:

1) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was published in German in various law journals (ÖJZ 2008/2; and Newsletter 2007, p.307, available online at www.menschenrechte.ac.at/docs/07_6/07_6_05. Furthermore, on 17/08/2007 it was disseminated to all ministries and human rights coordinators, the Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court.

2) Training and awareness raising measures: A distinct issue was raised in Wirtschaftstrend No. 2 (Application No. 58547/00, Section 6.2), concerning the conviction of defamation for a publication in a magazine. In this case the European Court noted that the right to freedom of expression had been interpreted too narrowly by the Austrian Courts and found a violation of Article 10. Consequently between 2002 and 2009 the Austrian Ministry of Justice provided regular training for judges on the Convention and especially the European Court’s case-law relating to the interplay of Articles 8 and 10. It is planned to continue these training courses, as well as to make a study visit to the European Court.

• Taking into account the circumstances and the type of violation in this case, the necessity of further general measures is closely linked to the assessment on the need for further individual measures.

- 6 cases mainly concerning the length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative authorities and courts and / or the lack of an oral hearing

2884/04            Ortner, judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 31/08/2007

38032/05           Gierlinger, judgment of 29/11/2007, final on 29/02/2008

33928/05           Klug, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

37040/02           Riepl, judgment of 03/02/2005, final on 03/05/2005

4490/06            Richter, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 18/03/2009

25929/05           Strobel, judgment of 04/06/2009, final on 04/09/2009

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

The Ortner case concerns land consolidation proceedings. The period taken into consideration by the European Court began on 1/03/1999 and the proceedings before the administrative authorities were still pending at the date of the European Court’s judgment (having lasted for more than 12 years).

In the Gierlinger case, the period taken into consideration by the European Court began on 4/05/2000, when the applicant filed objections against the enlargement of a canalisation system and ended on 26/04/2005 (almost 5 years for three levels of jurisdiction, but was pending for 4 years before the Administrative Court).

In the Riepl case, the period taken into consideration by the European Court began in August 1994 when the applicant’s neighbours appealed against a decision by the Mayor to grant the applicants a building permit and ended in April 2002 with the service of a new building permit (7 years and some 7 months for five levels of jurisdiction). The Court noted in particular the following two lengthy periods attributable to the authorities: some ten months before the Municipal Council, and two years and eight months before the Constitutional Court, before which there was a period of inactivity of almost two years.

Proceedings in the Richter case began on 7/02/2000 when a mayor dismissed the applicant's objection against the amendment of a building permit granted to his neighbour. They ended on 25/07/2005 when the Administrative Court's decision was served on the applicant's counsel (five years and five and a half months for four levels of jurisdiction).The European Court noted in particular two lengthy periods of inactivity before the Administrative Court, namely between September 2001 and March 2003, and between July 2004 and June 2005, amounting to a total delay of two years and five months.

The case also concerns the lack of an oral hearing before the Administrative Court (violation of Article 6§1).

In the Klug case, the period taken into consideration by the European Court began on 20/12/1984, when the applicants’ predecessors opposed the provisional transfer of land and ended on 18/03/2005, when the Administrative Court’s judgment was served (more than twenty years).

Procedings in Strobel case began on 16/01/2002, when the Dean of Klagenfurt University dismissed the applicant’s claim, the administrative authority’s decision being a necessary preliminary step for bringing the dispute before a tribunal and ended on 20/11/2006 when the parties concluded a settlement (four years and ten months).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants in all cases.

Except for the Ortner case, the domestic proceedings are closed.

• Information is expected on the state of the pending domestic proceedings and measures for acceleration, if needed.

General measures:

            1) Length of proceedings before administrative authorities: The cases present similarities to that of G.S. (Final Resolution ResDH(2004)77) for which the Austrian Parliament adopted the Administrative Reform Act 2001, which entered into force on 20 April 2002 and aims at alleviating the case-load of the Administrative Court and accelerating administrative proceedings. They also present similarities to the Alge case (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)110, which takes stock of further general measures taken after the Resolution ResDH(2004)77 had been adopted, mainly measures aimed at reducing the case-load of the Administrative Court.

• Information on a positive trend concerning the number of lengthy procedures and on recent measures to further reduce the case-load at the Administrative Court was received in April 2008: for a detailed assessment see the group Jancikova (56483/00, Section 4.2).

• The Austrian authorities provided further information on 26/02/2010 regarding recent developments on excessive length of proceedings before administrative courts. This information is being assessed.

            2) Length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court: The Constitutional Court's 2008 Activity Report (published on 19/04/2009, available online at http://www.verfassungsgerichtshof.at/cms/vfgh-site/attachments/6/6/3/CH0011/CMS1239888247790/taetigkeitsbericht_2008.pdf ) provided statistics showing that the average length of proceedings between 1998 and 2008 was less than 9 months. Therefore the excessive length in the Riepl case seems to be an isolated incident resulting from the particular circumstances.

• Assessment: no further general measure seems necessary concerning the excessive length before the Constitutional Court.

3) Lack of an oral hearing: The Richter case presents similarities with that of Linsbod (Final Resolution ResDH(98)59, adopted on 22/04/1998), closed following the adoption of legislative changes, and with the Alge group of cases (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)110, adopted on 31/10/2007), according to which the payment of just satisfaction out of the Administrative Court's budget would suffice to prevent new, similar violations. As the violation in this occurred after the adoption of these measures, publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment to the Administrative Court seem to be necessary.

• Information is awaited in this respect.

• The Austrian authorities provided information on 26/02/2010 regarding the lack of oral hearing. This information is being assessed.

            4) Publication and dissemination: Judgments of the European Court are accessible to all judges and state attorneys through the internal database of the Austrian Ministry of Justice (RIS). The Riepl judgment was published in German in the Austrian law journal ÖJZ 2005/26. The Administrative and the Constitutional Court receive judgments via the Constitutional Law Service of the Austrian Federal Chancellery.

• Information is expected on the publication of the European Court's judgments in the Ortner and Gierlinger cases and their dissemination to relevant courts and authorities, to raise their awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from these cases.

- 9 cases of length of proceedings concerning the determination of criminal charges before administrative authorities and courts and of lack of an effective remedy

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

39120/03           Bartenbach, judgment of 20/03/2008, final on 20/06/2008

20597/04           Gürsoy, judgment of 05/06/2008, final on 05/09/2008

37301/03           Hauser-Sporn, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 23/05/2007

28034/04           Müller No. 2, judgment of 18/09/2008, final on 18/12/2008

25166/05           Schneider, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 31/10/2008

18015/03           Schütte, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

18294/03           Stempfer, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

8140/04            Vitzthum, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings in determination of criminal charges before 0administrative authorities and courts (violations of Article 6§1) as well as the lack of an effective remedy (violations of Article 13).

In the Jancikova case, proceedings concerning illegal employment of foreigners began in February 1993 and ended in September 1999 (more than six years), during which period the Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) had been inactive for some two years and the Administrative Court for one year and almost four months.

Furthermore, the applicant had no effective remedy against the delays. In particular, Section 51§7 of the Code of Administrative Offences which guarantees a decision on appeals within 15 months did not apply to the present case as more than one party, namely the Labour Office, was entitled to appeal. The European Court noted furthermore that Section 31§3 of the Code of Administrative Offences did not ensure written notification of the Independent Administrative Panel's decision within the statutory time-limit of three years: under Austrian law only the public pronouncement had to be within that time-limit (see §25 of the judgment).

In the Hauser-Sporn case, proceedings against the applicant concerning an offence under the Road Traffic Act began in February 1995 and ended on 6/11/2003 with the notification of the Administrative Court's decision, refusing to deal with his complaint (eight years and some nine months). The case had been pending before the two highest courts for more than five years, namely for two years and some six months each before the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. In respect of these delays, the applicant had no effective remedy at his disposal.

The Schutte, Stempfer, Vitzthum and Schneider cases concerned the length of administrative criminal proceedings for driving offences. In Schutte, proceedings lasted for five years, during which there was a period of inactivity of two years before the Administrative Court. In Stempfer, the proceedings lasted for seven years and two and a half months during which time the case had been pending before the Constitutional Court for three and a half years, and there was a period of inactivity for more than two years before the Administrative Court. In Vitzthum, proceedings lasted for four years and two months, including a period of complete inactivity for more than three years before the Administrative Court. In Schneider, proceedings lasted for four years and eight months, during which time the case was pending for three years before the Administrative Court.

Furthermore, the European Court found in all these cases that the applicants had no effective remedy - either acceleratory nor compensatory - at their disposal.

In the Bartenbach case, proceedings against the applicants concerning illegal employment of foreigners began in July 1997 and September 1998 and ended in May 2003 with the notification of the Administrative Court's judgment (five years and nearly ten months, and four years and nine months). The case had been pending for three years and two months before the Administrative Court.

The case also concerns the inequality of arms in that the Administrative Court failed to provide proof that it had forwarded the observations of the administrative authority to the applicants (violation of Article 6§1).

In the Gürsoy case, proceedings concerning the applicant's illegal sojourn began on 28/01/1999 and ended on 1/12/2003 (four years and eleven months). The case had been pending before the Administrative Court for more than two years.

The Müller No. 2 case concerned proceedings against the applicant for an offence under the Industrial Safety Act, which began on 31/03/1998 and ended on 19/12/2003 (five years and more than eight months). There was a period of inactivity of one year and eight months before the Administrative Court.

Individual measures: The proceedings are closed in all cases. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, except in Jancikova where no claim had been made to this end.

• Assessment: no further individual measure is required.

General measures:

1) Excessive length of proceedings:

a) before the Administrative Court: Legislative measures were adopted in 2002 (see case of G.S., judgment of 21/12/1999, Resolution ResDH(2004)77) and further general measures were adopted in the cases of Alge and Schluga (Resolution CM/ResDH (2007)110). The Annual Report 2008 (published in June 2009, available online at http://www.vwgh.gv.at/Content.Node/de/aktuelles/taetigkeitsbericht/taetigkeitsbericht2008.pdf) of the Administrative Court indicates a slight negative trend concerning the average length of proceedings. Furthermore, the absolute number of cases pending for an excessive time (more than 3 years) before the Administrative Court has increased over the last year. Also, the high number of recent complaints means that excessive length of proceedings remains an issue (ibidem, p. 9). Since 2005 the number of new complaints has been exceeding that of judgments/decision taken. To reduce the workload of the Administrative Court, a new Asylum Court, which is dealing with asylum cases, has been set up. Those cases accounted for a considerable part of the workload of the Administrative Court.

• The information provided by the Austrian authorities on 26/02/2010 is under assessment by the Secretariat.

b) before the Independent Administrative Panel:Only in the Jancikova case the European Court underlined two periods of inactivity before the Independent Administrative Panel. The first period of two years seems to be an isolated incident resulting from the particular circumstances of the case. The second lengthy period occurred between the public pronouncement and the written service of the decision. The Court noted that Austrian law did not provide a time-limit for the notification of a decision after its pronouncement.

• Information would be useful as to whether a possible legislative amendment is envisaged in this respect.

c) before the Constitutional Court: The Constitutional Court's 2008 Activity Report (published on 19/04/2009, available online at <http://www.verfassungsgerichtshof.at/cms/vfgh-site/attachments/6/6/3/CH0011/CMS1239888247790/taetigkeitsbericht_2008.pdf> ) provided statistics showing that the average length of proceedings between 1998 and 2008 was less than 9 months. Therefore the excessive length in the cases of Hauser-Sporn and Stempfer seem to be isolated incidents resulting from the particular circumstances.

The judgments in the Jancikova, Hauser-Sporn, Schutte, Stempfer and Vitzthum cases were transmitted to the Presidents of the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, the judgments have been forwarded to a range of federal and regional public authorities and published on the websites of the Constitutional Service of the Austrian Chancellery (<http://bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=29401>) and the Austrian Human Rights Institute (www.menschenrechte.ac.at <http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at>).

• Assessment: no further general measure seems necessary concerning the excessive length before the Constitutional Court.

2) Violation of equality of arms: The European Court noted in the Bartenbach case that it had no reason to doubt that the Administrative Court, as a rule, forwarded observations in order to obtain counterstatements from the concerned parties (§33 of the judgment). Thus, the violation in this case resulted from a single lapse occurring before the Administrative Court. The Court's judgment was published in various legal journals (the Newsletter of the Austrian Human Rights Institute, NL 2008, p.78; available online at <http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/docs/08_2/08_2_04>; and ÖJZ 2008, p. 503). On 1/04/2008 it has been sent out to the Administrative Court.

• Assessment: no further general measure seems necessary concerning the violation of equality of arms.

3) Violation of Article 13:

• Written information is awaited on existing or envisaged measures to safeguard individuals effectively against lengthy criminal proceedings before administrative courts.

32407/04           Donner, judgment of 22/02/2007, final on 22/05/2007

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings (14 years and some 8 months before three levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

The proceedings began on 27/12/1989 with an investigation on tax evasion by the Salzburg Tax office, followed by criminal investigations of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. On 19/08/2004 the Court of Appeal gave its final judgment, rejecting the applicant’s appeal and confirming the Regional Court’s conviction of the applicant.

The European Court noted that the case was altogether pending for more than six years before the investigating administrative authorities (Salzburg Tax office and Public Prosecutor’s Office). Furthermore, while pending before the courts the case was not dealt with from the end of 2000 until 2002. Moreover, the Court found that the Regional Court’s judgment, when referring to the excessive length as one factor of four mitigating circumstances for the reduction of the applicant’s sentence, failed to afford express and quantifiable redress for the breach of the reasonable time requirement.

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy for the applicant to complain about the excessive length (violation of Article 13). The applicant could have made use of section 91 of the Austrian Courts Act during the proceedings before the Regional Court, which could be regarded as an effective remedy. However, the Court's finding of a violation of Article 6 had in particular regard to the substantial delays occurred before the investigating authorities where the applicant had no remedy at his disposal to speed up the proceedings. A hierarchical complaint under Section 37 of the Public Prosecutor’s Act, was not considered as an effective remedy by the Court.

Individual measures: The proceedings are over. The European Court made no award of just satisfaction in the absence of a request by the applicant.

• Assessment: no further individual measure is required.

General measures:

1) Measures to be taken in respect of the violations of Articles 6§1 and 13:

• Information on the general measures was provided (15/10/2009) by the authorities. This information is being assessed. 

            2) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was published in the Newsletter of the Austrian Human Rights Institute (NL 2007, p.34 (NL 07/1/15), available online at http://www.menschenrechte.ac.at/docs/07_1/07_1_15).

• Information is still awaited on the dissemination of the judgment.

- 11 cases against Azerbaijan / 11 affaires contre l’Azerbaïdjan

22684/05    Muradova, judgment of 02/04/2009, final on 02/07/2009 The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicant during the dispersal of a demonstration on 16/10/2003, which resulted in the loss of the applicant’s sight in one eye (substantive violation of Article 3). The case also concerns the absence of an effective investigation leading to the identification and charging of the policemen who hit her, following the applicant’s complaint (procedural violation of Article 3). Individual measures: It is recalled that the Committee's consistent position in cases where a procedural violation of Article 3 is found is that there is a continuing obligation to conduct investigations. General measures: The European Court recalled that - when authorities resort to the use of force, there should exist some form of independent monitoring of the action taken to ensure accountability for the force used, including the issue of its proportionality - whatever mode or form of investigation is employed in respect of Article 3 complaints, once the matter has come to the attention of the authorities, they must act of their own motion and cannot leave it to the applicant to take responsibility for the conduct of the investigatory procedure - in cases of alleged ill-treatment, it is the responsibility of the investigation authorities, and not the applicant, to secure independent and reliable forensic evidence As regards the substantive violation of Article 3, the Court noted that the applicant's allegations were corroborated by sufficiently strong and concordant evidence and that the applicant's injuries resulted from unnecessary and excessive use of force by the police. As regards the procedural violation of Article 3, the Court noted, among other things, that: - while a criminal investigation was formally instituted to investigate the violent actions of the protesters, it is unclear from the material submitted by the parties whether any such formal inquiry was made into the actions of the law-enforcement authorities, whereas such an inquiry would have enhanced the effectiveness of the investigation into the applicant's individual complaint; - the first and second forensic reports were issued respectively more than nine months and more than a year after the injury had been suffered, and five months and eight months, respectively, after the applicant lodged her criminal complaint. No explanation was offered to justify these delays; - the authorities failed, in the framework of the criminal investigation, to take due account of witness statements adduced in the framework of a civil claim; - while the investigators relied on statements of others, the applicant was never given the opportunity to challenge the credibility or the veracity of these statements; - despite serious allegations of ill-treatment, the applicant was not recognised as a “victim of crime”, (i.e. the status provided in Article 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) which significantly restricted her ability to participate in the investigation and challenge the investigator's actions; - the applicant was not duly informed of the decision to discontinue the investigation and was therefore deprived of the possibility to request a court to review the lawfulness of this decision. •To date, the authorities have provided no information. The Deputies, 1.             noted that following the judgment of the European Court, the Office of the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General’s Office to carry out an investigation of the facts of the case; 2.             invited the Azerbaijani authorities to keep the Committee of Ministers informed of the development of the investigation in this case and recalled in this respect that to comply with the requirements of the Convention, such an investigation should be effective, conducted with reasonable speed and adequate public scrutiny and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible; 3.             noted that the Court’s judgment has been transmitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s office for dissemination among police officers and prosecutors and invited the authorities also to disseminate the judgment to courts; 4.             encouraged the authorities to organise as soon as possible the planned training for police officers and Prosecutors; 5.             recalled that when authorities resort to the use of force, there should exist some form of independent monitoring of the action taken, to ensure accountability for the force used and invited the Azerbaijani authorities to inform the Committee rapidly of any existing monitoring of this kind and, where necessary, of any measure envisaged with a view to establishing such independent monitoring; 6.             decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1092nd meeting (September 2010) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on individual and general measures.

22684/05   Muradova, arrêt du 02/04/2009, définitif le 02/07/2009 L’affaire concerne les traitements inhumains et dégradants infligés à la requérante durant la dispersion d’une manifestation le 16/10/2003, traitements qui ont entrainé la perte de la vue d’un œil pour la requérante (violation substantielle de l’article 3). L’affaire concerne également l’absence d’enquête effective sur la plainte de la requérante pour que le policier qui l’avait frappée soit identifié et poursuivi (violation procédurale de l’article 3). Mesures de caractère individuel : Il est rappelé que la position établie du Comité dans les affaires où une violation (procédurale) de l'article 3 a été constatée est qu'il existe une obligation continue de mener une enquête. Mesures de caractère général : La Cour européenne a rappelé que : - quand les autorités ont recours à l’usage de la force, il doit exister une forme de contrôle indépendant des actions entreprises afin d’assurer qu’il soit rendu compte de l’usage de la force et de sa proportionnalité ; - quelque soit le mode ou la forme d’enquête qui est utilisé au niveau national en cas de plaintes relatives à l’article 3, lorsque la question a été portée à l’attention des autorités, ces dernières doivent agir de leur propre chef et ne peuvent s’en remettre au requérant pour assumer la responsabilité de la conduite de la procédure d’enquête ; - en cas d’allégations de mauvais traitements, il est de la responsabilité des autorités d’enquête, et non du requérant, de se procurer des preuves médicolégales indépendantes et fiables. S’agissant de la violation substantielle de l’article 3, la Cour a relevé que les allégations de la requérante étaient corroborées par des preuves suffisamment fortes et concordantes et que les blessures de la requérante résultaient d’un usage excessif et non nécessaire de la force par la police. S’agissant de la violation procédurale de l’article 3, la Cour a relevé, entre autres, que : - alors qu’une enquête pénale a été formellement ouverte pour enquêter sur les actions violentes des manifestants, il ne ressort pas clairement des documents produits par les parties qu’une telle enquête a été menée sur les actions des forces de l’ordre alors qu’elle aurait accru l’efficacité de l’enquête sur la plainte individuelle de la requérante; - le premier rapport médico-légal a été rendu plus de neuf mois et le deuxième rapport plus d’un an après que la requérante eut été blessée, et respectivement cinq et huit mois après que la requérante eut déposé plainte; aucune explication n’a été donnée pour justifier ces retards; - les autorités n’ont pas pris en compte dans le cadre de l’enquête pénale les déclarations des témoins produites dans le cadre de la procédure civile; - les enquêteurs se sont appuyés sur les déclarations d’autres personnes mais la requérante n’a pas eu la possibilité de contester la crédibilité et la véracité de ces déclarations; - en dépit d’allégations sérieuses de mauvais traitements, la requérante n’a pas été reconnue “victime d’un crime”, (statut prévu à l’article 87 du Code de procédure pénale) ce qui a considérablement restreint sa capacité à participer à l’enquête et à contester les actes des enquêteurs; - la requérante n’a pas été informée de la décision d’abandonner l’enquête et a de ce fait été privé de la possibilité de faire contrôler la légalité de cette décision. • Aucune information n’a été produite par les autorités à ce jour. Les Délégués, 1.             notent qu’à la suite de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne, le Bureau de l’Agent du gouvernement a demandé au Parquet général de conduire une enquête sur les faits de cette affaire ; 2.             invitent les autorités azerbaïdjanaises à tenir le Comité informé de l’état d’avancement de l’enquête dans cette affaire et rappellent à cet égard qu’afin de répondre aux exigences de la Convention, une telle enquête doit être effective, conduite avec la célérité voulue et avec des éléments adéquats de contrôle du public et susceptible de conduire à l’identification et la punition des responsables ; 3.             notent que l’arrêt de la Cour a été transmis au Ministre de l’Intérieur et au Bureau du Parquet général pour diffusion auprès des fonctionnaires de police et procureurs, et invitent les autorités à diffuser également l’arrêt aux tribunaux ; 4.             encouragent les autorités à mettre en œuvre le plus rapidement possible les mesures de formation envisagées tant pour la police que pour les procureurs ; 5.             rappellent que lorsque les autorités décident de recourir à la force, un mécanisme de contrôle indépendant doit exister pour qu’il soit rendu compte de la force utilisée, et invitent les autorités azerbaïdjanaises à informer rapidement le Comité de l’existence de tout mécanisme de contrôle de cette nature et le cas échéant de toute mesure envisagée en vue de l’établissement d’un tel mécanisme de contrôle indépendant ; 6.             décident de reprendre l’examen de ce point lors de leur 1092e réunion (septembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière d’informations complémentaires à fournir sur les mesures individuelles et générales.

34445/04           Mammadov (Jalaloglu), judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 11/04/2007

The case concerns torture inflicted on the applicant, Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan at the material time, while he was in police custody in October 2003, in the Organised Crime Unit temporary detention facility (OCU) (violation of Article 3).

The case also concerns the absence of an effective investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment (violation of Article 3) in particular in that the authorities failed to secure the forensic evidence in a timely manner and the ensuing criminal investigation was not satisfactory.

Finally, the case concerns a breach to the right to an effective remedy (violation of Article 13), because the domestic courts simply endorsed the criminal investigation, without independently assessing the facts of the case.

As regards the absence of an effective investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, the Court noted in particular that:

-           the applicant was not able to bring his claim of ill-treatment immediately to the attention of the authorities because he was not allowed to see his lawyer for three days after the facts;

-           the request for medical examination was not handled with sufficient diligence: no action was taken in this regard until the lawyer, five days after having made the request for medical examination, complained to the prosecutor about the failure to arrange for it; it took two more days for the medical examination to be carried out;

-           the investigatory authorities limited themselves to studying the forensic report and questioning four police officers who had been in contact with the applicant in the temporary detention facility; no other witnesses were questioned;

-           the investigatory authorities, when reaching their decision not to institute criminal proceedings, totally failed to take into account the unambiguous statement of the warden of the OCU's temporary detention facility who testified that the applicant had been in good health upon his arrival in the facility.  

As regards the breach of the right to an effective remedy, the Court observed that the Nasimi District Court which on 18/02/2004 examined the applicant's complaint concerning the unlawfulness of the refusal by the Chief Prosecutor's Office's to institute criminal proceedings and then the Court of Appeal on 17/03/2004 simply endorsed the investigator's opinion that the applicant's claim was unsubstantiated without attempting to assess the facts of the case independently and, in essence, committed exactly the same flaws and omissions as those committed by the investigator during the criminal investigation.

Individual measures: The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Committee's consistent position in this kind of cases is that there is a continuing obligation to conduct investigations where a (procedural) violation of Article 3 is found.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (12/10/2007, 1028th meeting -June 2008, and 15/10/2008): Following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, on 11/01/2008, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan quashed the decisions of the Nasimi District Court and the Court of appeal of Azerbaijan and sent the case for re-consideration to the Nasimi District Court which, by a judgment of 15 January 2008, forwarded the applicant’s case to the Investigation Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office for Serious Crimes. The decision to refuse to institute criminal proceedings on the basis of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment was quashed by decision of the First Deputy Prosecutor General. The Investigation Department is currently investigating the applicant’s complaint.

• Information proved by the Azerbaijani authorities at the 1072nd meeting (3/12/2009): the investigation is still under way.

In their decision adopted at the 1072nd meeting the Deputies regretted that nearly a year after the resumption of the investigation of Mr Mammadov’s complaint of ill-treatment, no information on the developments of this investigation was made available to the Committee of Ministers and called upon the Azerbaijani authorities to provide detailed information on this issue.

General measures

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letters of 12/10/2007, 1028th meeting -June 2008 and 15/10/2008, 1072nd meeting, 3/12/2009):

1) Substantial violation of Article 3:

a) Training measures: More than twenty seminars and training sessions on the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court’s case-law as well as on requirements of international conventions on prevention of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment have been organised in the Training Centre of the Prosecutor General’s Office for prosecutors, investigators and police officers. Several seminars on the same topics have been organised for judges and candidates judges in the Judicial-Legal Council and Training Centre of the Prosecutor General’s Office.

b) Monitoring of compliance with the legislation protecting human rights of detainees

The Office of the Ombudsperson has a right to make unplanned urgent visits to places of detention.

The “Penal Enforcement Inspectorate” has been established under the Ministry of Justice. It handles complaints relating to human rights violations in prisons, has the power to conduct direct visits to prisons, meet individually with prisoners, examine prison conditions, and request relevant documentation.

A special Public Affairs Committee has also been set up within the Ministry of Justice which includes representatives of human rights NGOs. It prepares and submits reports on its regular visits to prisons and makes proposals and recommendations on how to improve prisoners’ living conditions.

The Ministry of Justice is closely co-operating with the OSCE and the Office of Ombudsperson in Azerbaijan in establishing a national preventive mechanism (NPM).

c) Legislative and regulatory framework applicable to police custody:

Article 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that prosecuting authorities shall ensure the access of any suspect or accused person to a lawyer from the moment of detention or arrest.

A draft law on the rights of suspects and accused persons is being examined by Parliament, which will ensure respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of detainees in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan and international human rights treaties to which the Republic of Azerbaijan is party.

• Information is awaited on:

- the state of progress of the draft law on the rights of suspects and accused persons,

- whether this law applies to individuals placed in police custody, on remand;

- the specific provisions of this draft law concerning access to a lawyer, medical supervision, contacts with family;  

- the remedies available to complain of violations of the rights provided in this draft law

An update of the other information given under this head (violation of Article 3) would be welcomed.

2) Procedural violation of Article 3:

a) Investigation of allegations of ill-treatment – statistics: During 2007 and the first quarter of 2008, a hundred police officers were subject to administrative proceedings;  ten police officers were prosecuted, convicted and dismissed from their position.

b) Special Manual for investigators: the Office of the Prosecutor General of Azerbaijan is currently drafting a special Manual for investigators, on questions related to pre-trial detention, including investigation of allegations of ill-treatment. This Manual will provide concrete actions and measures to be taken in cases of ill-treatment.

c) Legislative and regulatory provisions applicable in case of allegations of torture and ill-treatment: no information submitted.  

• Detailed information remains awaited on the legislative and regulatory provisions applicable in case of allegations of torture and ill-treatment and concrete examples of application of these provisions; It is recalled that to be deemed effective according to the Court’s case-law, an investigation should be independent, impartial, subject to public scrutiny, conducted with exemplary diligence and promptness and should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.  

Moreover, an update of the statistics on investigations of ill-treatment would be welcome.

3) Violation of Article 13: The Court found a violation of Article 13 because the domestic courts simply endorsed the criminal investigation, without independently assessing the facts of the case.

The judgment has been sent out to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for distribution among its subordinate structures, to judges and other legal professionals and included in the curricula for the training of judges, prosecutors and candidates for the position of judge (see below).

• Information is awaited on possible other measures.

4) Other measures:

a) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment has been translated and published in Qanunçuluk, the official gazette of the Ministry of Justice (No.9, September 2007), in Azerbaycan Prokurorlugu, the official gazette of the Prosecutor General’s Office (No.3, 2007) and in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights (No.4, 2008). The judgment has been sent out to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for distribution among its subordinate structures, to judges and other legal professionals and included in the curricula for the training of judges, prosecutors and candidates for the position of judge.

b) Action Plan on Human Rights

The Ministry of Internal Affairs adopted the Action Plan on Human Rights on 5/02/2007. A decree of the Minister of Internal Affairs of 5/02/2007established the Human Rights Commission, the aim of which is, among other things, to guarantee proper and prompt investigation of all allegations of torture and ill-treatment.

• Information is awaited on

- concrete measures of the Action Plan on Human rights and concrete action undertaken by the Human Rights Commission to fight torture and to guarantee effective and prompt investigation.

16528/05           Hajibeyli, judgment of 10/07/2008, final on 10/10/2008

The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings against the applicant who was charged with obstructing state officials following his participation in a demonstration in Baku (violation of Article 6§1).The proceedings lasted more than five years and four months, from 4/05/2000 to 14/09/2005 (three years and five months in the post-ratification period, as the Convention entered into force with respect to Azerbaijan on 15/04/2002) and were discontinued while still at the investigation stage.

The European Court reiterated, in this respect, that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence and that, in criminal matters, Article 6 is designed to avoid a person charged remaining too long in a state of uncertainty about the outcome of the proceedings.

The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to freedom of movement (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4) in that the applicant was prohibited from leaving his place of residence from 23/05/2000 to 14/09/2005.

The European Court found that, in respect of the restriction in its entirety, a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the applicant’s rights was not achieved, in particular in view of the fact that the investigation had clearly failed to produce any results and the case ended up being discontinued on account of the expiry of the criminal limitation period. The Court found in addition that this restriction was not “in accordance with the law” from 30/04 to 14/09/2005 since although the charges against the applicant became time-barred on 30/04/2005, the preventive measure was not lifted until 14/09/2005.

Individual measures The European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The proceedings are closed. The restriction on the applicant’s freedom of movement has been lifted.

•Assessment: No individual measure seems necessary.

General measures

1) Violation of Article 6§1: It appears from the Court’s judgment that the prosecutor decided to suspend the investigation on the applicant’s case on 25/0/2001, because one of the co-accused had absconded and “other accomplices” were not identified. The investigation was resumed on 24/08/2005 at the applicant’s request.

The European Court noted that:

- nothing in the case-file indicates that any procedural activity was carried out during the three years and four months which fell within the period after the Convention’s entry into force in respect of Azerbaijan. No information has been provided as to whether the prosecution had complied with their duties under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) and taken the necessary measures to find the co-accused and the other missing persons and thus eliminate the ground for the continued suspension of the proceedings;

- in accordance with the CCP, the proceedings against the co-accused could have been severed and suspended, while the proceedings against the applicant continued. Neither the domestic authorities, in their respective decisions, nor the government have advanced any plausible explanation as to the reasons for not choosing this procedural alternative;

- the proceedings against the applicant were continued even after the charges against him had become time-barred.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 1/07/09): The European Court’s judgment was translated and published in the Human Rights Bulletin No. 7/2008. The judgment has been sent out to judges (in particular judges of Courts of Appeal) and other legal professionals, as well as being included in the curricula for the training of judges, prosecutors and candidates to the position of judge.

• Information on the following points is awaited:

- dissemination of the European Court's judgment to Prosecutors and Criminal courts with a circular drawing their attention to the shortcomings underlined by the Court in the present judgment and to means to avoid such shortcomings.

- measures envisaged to avoid the repetition of the violation found in this case;

- as well as , pursuant to the Committee of Ministers' practice since the adoption of Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of internal remedies, information on the existence of an effective remedy, both in law and in practice, to complain about the length of proceedings.

2) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4: The European Court underlined that, although the applicant complained before a district court that he still remained under the obligation not to leave his place of residence pending the eventual end of the unreasonably lengthy investigation, there had been no review of the necessity of the continued restriction of his freedom of movement.

• Information is awaited on existing review proceedings of measures restricting the freedom of movement and, examples of concrete application of these proceedings would be welcomed.

34640/02           Rahmanova, judgment of 10/07/2008, final on 10/10/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court on account of the quashing, by the Plenum of the Supreme Court, of a final judicial decision in her favour and the delivery of a new decision on the merits, following an additional cassation procedure (violation of Article 6§1) .

The dispute concerned the applicant’s daughter in law right to reside in the applicant’s apartment after her divorce. By decision of 11/01/2002, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of a court of appeal according to which the applicant’s daughter in law had never acquired residence rights on the applicant’s apartment. By decision of 19/07/2002, the Plenum of the Supreme Court « vary » the judgment of the Supreme Court and ordered that the applicant’s daughter in law and her children be allowed to move into the applicant’s apartment.

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions in as much the decision of the Supreme court of 19/07/2002constituted an interference in this right, interference for which neither the Plenum of the Supreme court in is decision nor the Government before the Court have sought to offer any justification (violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant eventually sold her apartment to her daughter-in-law.

• Assessment: No measure seems necessary

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 1/07/2009): The Plenary of the Supreme Court has re-examined the applicant’s case and, having noted that the applicant had sold her apartment, decided that it was not necessary to re-examine its judgment of 19/07/2002).

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 6§1: The Court reaffirms that the procedure of additional cassation, available after the Supreme Court’s final decision, constituted in its essence an indirect, extraordinary appeal.

The Court reiterates that the principle of legal certainty insists that no party is entitled to seek a reopening of proceedings merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh examination of the case. The power to quash or alter binding and enforceable judicial decisions should be exercised to correct fundamental defects, but not to carry out a fresh examination. The review should not constitute an appeal in disguise, and the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination.

In its reasoning the Court noted that it had previously found a violation of the principle of legal certainty and an applicant’s “right to court” in many cases in which a judicial decision that had become final and binding was subsequently quashed by a higher court on an application by a State official whose power to intervene was not subject to any time-limit (Brumărescu against Romania; Ryabykh against the Russian Federation; Volkova against the Russian Federation).

The Court then noted that Article 426.2 of the Azerbaijani Code of criminal procedure provides for a two-month time-limit for filing further appeals on point of law and re‑opening proceedings but that, following such an appeal, there appeared to be no specific time-limit for the actual review of the case by the Plenum.  Lastly the Court noted that, following a request for a further appeal on points of law made by one of the parties, the decision whether to submit a case for review by the Plenum review was ultimately within the discretionary power of the President of the Supreme Court (see Articles 423 and 426 of the CCP and Article 83 of the Law on Courts and Judges).

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 1/07/2009): The European Court’s judgment has been translated and published in the Human Rights Bulletin No. 7/2008. It has also been sent out to judges, in particular in Appeal Courts and to other legal professionals and has been included in the training programme for judges, prosecutors and candidates for the post of judge.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to avoid repetition of this violation and to bring the procedure concerning additional appeals on points of law into conformity with the Convention.

2) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment are also indispensable measures with regard to this violation.

24271/05           Abbasov, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that he had not been informed about the hearing of his cassation appeal before the Supreme Court and, therefore, could not be present at the hearing (violation of Article 6§1). On 7/12/2004, the Supreme Court heard the applicant’s appeal in his absence and dismissed the appeal as being unsubstantiated.

Individual measures: The applicant, who was included in the list of “alleged political prisoners” submitted by experts of the Secretary General upon Azerbaijan's accession to the Council of Europe, was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment and to the confiscation of properties in July 1996. His sentence was reduced by half pursuant to a presidential pardon decree of 18/10/2002 and he was finally released from serving the remainder of his sentence following another presidential pardon decree of 18 August 2003.

The European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

Regarding the claim in respect of pecuniary damage, the Court held that it could not speculate as to what the outcome of the proceedings might have been if the violation of the Convention had not occurred. It therefore rejected this claim and considered that a retrial or the reopening of the case, if requested, represented, in principle, an appropriate way of redressing the violation in the present case.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 14/10/2008): The European Court’s judgment has been forwarded to the Supreme Court and the examination of Mr Abbasov’s case was scheduled for 28/10/2008.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 13/03/2009): On 3/11/2008, the Plenary of the Supreme Court examined the case, quashed the judgment of the Supreme Court of 7/12/2004 and sent the case to the Chamber on criminal matters of the Supreme Court for its reconsideration. The re-examination of the case has been scheduled for 3/05/2009. Information on the results of this examination will be submitted in due course.

A copy and translation of the Supreme Court’s decision of 3/11/2008 were enclosed in this letter.

• Information is awaited on the results of the re-examination of the case by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court

General measures: The Court reiterated that the concept of a fair trial includes the principle of equality of arms and the fundamental right that criminal proceedings should be adversarial. Moreover, Article 6 of the Convention, taken as a whole, guarantees that a person charged with a criminal offence should, as a general principle, be entitled to be present and participate effectively in the hearing concerning the determination of criminal charges against him. The Court noted that in the present case a public prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing and made oral submissions to the court. These submissions were directed at having the applicant's appeal dismissed and his conviction upheld. In such circumstances and having regard to the fact that the applicant was not legally represented, it was incumbent on the Supreme Court to take measures to ensure the applicant's presence, to maintain the adversarial character of the proceedings.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 14/10/2008): The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Azerbaijani and published in the Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights No. 4/2008, it has been sent out to judges and other legal professionals and included in the curricula for the training of judges, prosecutors and candidates for the post of judge.

• Information has been awaited, since the first examination of the case at the 1035th meeting (September 2008), on measures taken or envisaged to avoid similar violations.

5548/03            Hajiyev, judgment of 16/11/2006, final on 16/02/2007

The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right of access to court (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant was sentenced to 15 year's imprisonment by a Supreme Court judgment which was final and not subject to appeal at the time of his conviction. After the adoption of a new Code of Criminal Procedure in 2000, he was unable to benefit from the appeal procedures which should have applied to his case according to the provisions of the transitional Law, because of the absence of a clear domestic judicial interpretation of this transitional Law.

Individual measures: On 10/05/2004 the applicant was pardoned and released from prison under a presidential pardon. On 21/05/2004, the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's request for reduction of his sentence. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained.

The applicant states in a letter of 16/05/2007 that on 3/03/2007, he appealed against his conviction under Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that when the deadline for lodging an appeal has been missed for a good reason, persons listed in Article 383 of this Code have a right to lodge, with the first instance court which delivered the judgment, a petition for restoration of the period for appeal.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 31/03/2009): The Court of Appeal of the Republic of Azerbaijan examined the applicant’s appeals and dismissed the applicant petition for restoration of the missed period in two decisions of 23 and 25/05/2007.

• Information provided by the Azerbaijani authorities (letter of 8/09/2009): The European Court’s judgment was transmitted to the Plenum of the Supreme Court on 26/02/2007. The result of these proceedings is not mentioned in the Azerbaijani authorities’ letter.

• Contacts are underway with the Azerbaijani authorities to clarify certain aspects of this information.

General measures: The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Azerbaijani and published in Qanunçuluq, the official gazette of the Ministry of Justice (issue No. 3, March 2007) and in the Azerbaycan Prokurorlugu, the official gazette of the General Prosecutor’s Office (issue No 2, 2007). Moreover the judgment was disseminated among judges and other legal professionals and included in the curricula for the training of judges and candidates for the bench.

• Information would be welcomed on measures which could be taken, such as a circular letter to draw the attention of tribunals/courts to their obligation to take formal decisions within the time-limit provided by law on requests submitted to them.

                        - 4 cases concerning the right of freedom of association

44363/02           Ramazanova and others, judgment of 01/02/2007, final on 01/05/2007

28736/05           Aliyev and others, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 18/03/2009

4439/04            Ismayilov, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008

4307/04            Nasibova, judgment of 18/10/2007, final on 18/01/2008

The cases concern a violation of the applicants’ right of freedom of association (violations of Article 11) due to the repeated failure of the Ministry of Justice to decide definitively, or to respond within the statutory time-limits, on the applicants' requests for registration of their associations.

The Court found, in particular in the case of Ramazanova, that there had been no basis in domestic law for such significant delays and did not accept as reasonable the government’s excuse that the delays were caused by the alleged heavy workload of the Ministry. The Court underlined that it was the duty of a contracting state to organise its own national system of registration and take the measures needed to ensure that the relevant authorities might comply with the time-limits imposed by its own law. Furthermore, as the domestic law in force at the material time (the Law of 1996) did not provide automatic registration in the event that the Ministry failed to take timely action nor specify a limit on the number of times the Ministry could return documents without issuing a final decision, the Court considered that domestic law did not afford the applicants sufficient legal protection against the arbitrary actions of the Ministry.

The case of Aliyev differs from the other cases in that several months after the applicants had made their request for state registration, a new law came into force (the Law of 2004). The domestic courts, when deciding on the appeal lodged by the applicants, applied the new law and dismissed their appeal on the ground that the Ministry of Justice had send a reply to the applicants within the time limit provided by the new law. The Court noted that neither the former law nor this new law provided any retrospective effect.

The Court stated that, by concluding as they did, the domestic courts had implicitly absolved the Ministry of Justice from responsibility for breaches of procedural requirements of the previous law, which applied to the fact of the case, and that such a finding was arbitrary and incompatible with the interests of justice and legal certainty (§36 to 41 of the judgment).

Individual measures: In all these cases – except in the case of Aliyev as the applicants submitted no claim – the Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained.

In the case of Ramazanova, the association “Assistance to the Human Rights protection of the Homeless and Vunerable Residents of Baku” was registered on 18/02/2005;

Mr. Ismayilov’s association “Humanity and environment”, was finally registered on 3/09/2008;

Mrs Nasibova’s association, “The Journalists’ Enquiry Centre” was eventually registered on 30/10/2008.

It is unclear from the Court’s judgment in the case of Aliyev whether the proceedings for registration of the applicant’s association “The Azerbaijani Lawyers’ Forum” have ended.

• Information is awaited on the state of progress in registering the applicant’s association in the case of Aliyev.

General measures: The provisions regarding “state registration and the state register of legal entities” were modified in December 2003, the new provisions (the Law of 2004) entering into force on 9/01/2004.

Article 8, paragraph 1, of the present law provides that: “State registration of non-profit organisations, as well as representations and branches of foreign non-commercial organisations that wish to obtain a legal status shall be carried out no later than 40 days. “

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 8 provide an extension of this time-limit in exceptional cases, when it is necessary to conduct additional inquiry or to correct shortcomings in the documents submitted.

Paragraph 4 of Article 8 provides that: “After the examination of application or no later than 10 days after the removal of shortcomings, the relevant executive body of the Republic of Azerbaijan shall issue to the applicant a certificate of state registration or will inform the applicant in a written form of the rejection of state registration (with an explanation and indication of legislative provisions on which the rejection was based).” 

Finally paragraph 5 of Article 8 provides that: “If within the period set out in the present Article, a reply rejecting state registration is not given, the organisation is deemed to be registered by the state. In this case, the relevant executive body of the Republic of Azerbaijan shall issue to the applicant a certificate of state registration no later than within 10 days”.

In reply to a request for more detailed information, the Azerbaijani authorities explained that the term “the period set out in the present article” mentioned in Article 8§5 means 40 days and that the starting point of “the period set out in the present article” is the date upon which the applicants hand over the registration documents to the office of the Ministry of Justice. If the documents are sent by post, the starting point is the receipt by the Ministry of Justice of the documents.

The judgment of the European Court in the case of Ramazanova has been translated into Azerbaijani, sent out to judges and other legal professionals, and included in the curricula for the training of judges and candidates for the position of judge. The judgments of the European Court in the cases of Ismayilov and Nasibova have been translated and published in the « Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights» No. 4/2008. They have also been sent out to judges and other legal professionals. These measures of publication and dissemination will guide the administration and judges in their application of the law.

• Assessment: important progress has been achieved in ensuring a new legal situation in conformity with the Convention’s requirements with the adoption of the law of 2004, the clarification given by the government as to its scope and the efforts made to draw the attention of the authorities concerned to the requirements of the Convention as developed in the case-law of the European Court, so as to ensure their direct effect in the Azerbaijani law. The progress achieved in taking individual measures is also an important sign of this positive evolution. However, confirmation is awaited that the problem raised by the government before the European Court regarding the heavy workload of the Ministry of Justice has been solved. In addition, the specficl issue relating to the temporal scope of the new law raised in the case of Aliyev require special attention

• Information is awaited as to whether requests for registration introduced prior to the 2004 Law are still pending before the Ministry of Justice; publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment, together with a circular drawing judges’ attention to §§ 36 to 40 of the judgment, is awaited.

19853/03          Akimova, judgment of 27/09/2007, final on 27/12/2007 and of 09/10/2008 – Friendly settlement

The case concerns an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of her possessions on account of a decision taken by a Court of appeal in which, while recognising that the applicant was the lawful tenant of a flat, it decided, not relying on any domestic legislation, to postpone the execution of an eviction order until the unlawful occupants , who moved into the applicant’s flat in 1997, can go back to their region of origin, Nagorno-Karabakh (violation of Article 1 of Protocol n° 1).

Individual measures: On 9/10/2008, the European Court gave its judgment on application of Article 41. The Court took note of a friendly settlement reached by the parties according to which the government first undertook to pay 10 000 AZN to the applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and secondly took note of the fact that, in a decision of 21/01/2008, the Supreme Court quashed the above-mentioned judgment of the Court of Appeal. Later, on 14/03/2008, the applicant’s possession of her apartment was restored.

General measures:

The European Court judgment was translated and published in the “Bulletin of the European Court Judgment” No 4/2008. The European Court judgment has been disseminated among judges (in particular judges of Courts of Appeal) and other legal professionals, as well as included in the curricula for the training of judges, prosecutors and candidates to judge position.

It is recalled that information on measures envisaged by the authorities following the Court’s judgment have been awaited since the first examination of the case at the 1028th meeting (June 2008). In this context, information on the number of similar cases pending before domestic courts would be very useful. Lastly, examples of direct application of the case-law of the European Court by domestic courts would be welcome.

- 37 cases against Belgium / 37 affaires contre la Belgique

29787/03+         Riad et Idiab, arrêt du 24/01/2008, définitif le 24/04/2008

Cette affaire concerne la détention irrégulière de deux ressortissants palestiniens suite à leur arrivée, sans les visas nécessaires, à l’aéroport de Bruxelles-National en décembre 2002 (violation de l’article 5§1).

En janvier et février 2003, les requérants ont tout d’abord été maintenus dans la zone de transit de l’aéroport, pendant respectivement 15 et 11 jours, sur la base d’une décision de l’Office des étrangers rendue pour une période indéterminée et imprévisible. La Cour européenne a relevé que cette décision était intervenue en dépit de décisions de justice ordonnant la libération immédiate des requérants et ne reposait pas non plus sur une disposition légale concrète. Elle a estimé à cet égard que l’Office des étrangers avait « sciemment outrepassé ses pouvoirs ». La détention illégale des requérants s’est prolongée ensuite au centre fermé pour illégaux de Merksplas, pour d’autre motifs, en totale méconnaissance des décisions de justice susvisées, à l’encontre desquelles les autorités n’avaient d’ailleurs exercé aucun recours.

L’affaire concerne en outre le traitement inhumain et dégradant subi par les requérants en raison de leur maintien en détention pendant plus de dix jours dans la zone de transit (violation de l’article 3). La Cour européenne a jugé inacceptable que quiconque puisse être détenu, comme les requérants, dans des conditions impliquant une absence totale de prise en charge de ses besoins essentiels. Elle a enfin ajouté que l'humiliation ressentie par les requérants avait été accentuée par le fait que, ayant obtenu une décision de remise en liberté, les requérants s’étaient retrouvés privés de liberté dans un autre lieu ; selon elle, les sentiments d'arbitraire, d'infériorité et d'angoisse qui ont dû être associés à cette circonstance s'ajoutent au degré d'humiliation que comportait l'obligation de vivre dans un lieu public, sans accompagnement.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Les requérants ont été finalement rapatriés les 5 et 8/03/2003. La Cour européenne a accueilli en totalité leurs demandes de satisfaction équitable au titre du dommage moral subi et plus particulièrement de la détresse certaine qu’ils ont dû éprouver.

• Evaluation : Dans ces conditions, aucune autre mesure ne semblerait nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

1) Maintien des requérants en détention nonobstant des décisions de justice ordonnant leur remise en liberté immédiate : Des décisions de justice ont ordonné la remise en liberté immédiate des requérants (il était entre autres précisé qu’ils devaient pouvoir « circuler librement sur le territoire »).

L’Office des étrangers a toutefois décidé du maintien des requérants en zone de transit, puis immédiatement après qu’ils avaient quitté cette zone, adopté une nouvelle décision de privation de liberté entraînant leur détention au centre pour illégaux de Merksplas.

La Cour européenne a noté (§ 103), sur la base de différentes sources nationales et internationales, dont les observations du Comité des Droits de l’Homme des Nations-Unies, le rapport 2004 des médiateurs fédéraux et le rapport du CPT de 2005, que cette façon d’agir était loin de se limiter à la présente affaire. L'Office des étrangers a en effet développé une véritable « pratique » consistant à transférer, suite au prononcé d'une décision de remise en liberté par une autorité judiciaire, des ressortissants étrangers faisant l'objet d'un ordre de refoulement, du centre de rétention où ils étaient détenus vers la zone de transit de l'aéroport.

2) Conditions de détention des requérants dans la zone de transit de l’aéroport : La Cour européenne a estimé que, de par sa nature même, la zone de transit est un lieu destiné à accueillir des personnes pour de très courtes durées. Présentant des caractéristiques pouvant faire naître chez le détenu un sentiment de solitude, sans accès à l'extérieur pour se promener ou faire de l'exercice physique, ni structure interne de restauration, ni contact avec le monde extérieur, la zone de transit n'est en rien adaptée aux besoins d'un séjour de plus de dix jours. 

En outre, la Cour européenne a également tenu à noter, de manière subsidiaire, que même en cas de possibilité d’une prise en charge dans un centre d’hébergement existant à l’aéroport (centre « INADS »), les conclusions du rapport du CPT de 1997, confirmées dans le rapport de 2005, indiquent que ce centre n’est pas adapté pour des séjours se prolongeant au-delà de quelques jours, alors que les requérants ont été maintenus plus de dix jours dans la zone de transit. Pour parvenir à ces conclusions, le CPT a notamment relevé le caractère limité des possibilités de visite et l’absence d’aménagements permettant aux personnes maintenues au centre de se rendre à l’air frais.

Les violations constatées en l’espèce ont été aussi rappelées par le Commissaire aux droits de l'homme du Conseil de l'Europe, Thomas Hammarberg, dans son rapport, suite à sa visite en Belgique, 15-19 décembre 2008, à l'attention du Comité des Ministres et de l'Assemblée parlementaire, (2009)14, 17 juin 2009.

• Les informations fournies par les autorités sont en cours d’évaluation. Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours.

44256/06           Cakir Turan, arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009

Cette affaire concerne des mauvais traitements infligés au requérant par les forces de l’ordre au cours de son arrestation et sa garde à vue (violation de l’article 3 sous son volet matériel) et le défaut d’effectivité de l’enquête menée à cet égard (violation de l’article 3 sous son volet procédural).

La Cour européenne a également constaté que les autorités belges n’avaient pas pris toutes les mesures nécessaires pour rechercher si les policiers avaient fait preuve d’un comportement discriminatoire (violation de l’article 3 dans son volet procédural, combiné avec l’article 14).

45413/07           Anakomba Yula, arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009

L’affaire concerne une décision de refus d’assistance judiciaire par les juridictions belges, dans le cadre d’une action engagée par la requérante, au motif que cette dernière ne résidait pas de manière régulière sur le territoire belge.

Prenant en compte notamment la gravité des questions en jeu (paternité d’un enfant) et les démarches entreprises par la requérante pour régulariser son séjour, la Cour européenne a estimé que l’Etat belge avait manqué à son obligation de réglementer le droit d’accès à un tribunal d’une manière conforme aux exigences de l’article 6§1 de la Convention, combiné avec l’article 14.

58081/00+         Leschiutta et Fraccaro, arrêt du 17/07/2008, définitif le 17/10/2008

Cette affaire concerne une atteinte aux droits de deux pères (agissant en leur nom propre et en tant que représentants légaux de leurs fils) au respect de leur vie familiale (violations de l'article 8). Ressortissants italiens et vivant en Italie, chacun des requérants a eu un enfant avec la même femme, A.M. En vertu de décisions des juridictions italiennes de 1994 et 1998, les pères se sont vus confier la garde de leur enfant respectif. Par la suite, A.M. enleva les enfants et les emmena vivre avec elle en Belgique.

La Cour européenne a jugé que les autorités belges avaient omis de déployer de façon rapide les efforts adéquats et suffisants pour faire respecter le droit des deux pères au retour de leur enfant respectif.

A.M. fut condamnée en Belgique et en Italie pour l'enlèvement des deux enfants.

Mesures de caractère individuel : En juin 2000, les pères et les enfants rentrèrent en Italie. Elia, fils de M. Leschiutta, est majeur (il est né en 1987). Andrea, fils de M. Fraccaro, est mineur (il est né en 1995). Au mois de mars 2008, une procédure concernant l'attribution définitive de la garde d'Andrea était pendante devant le tribunal des enfants de Venise. La dernière audience avait été renvoyée sur demande des parents du fait que l'enfant souhaitait passer l'année scolaire avec sa mère. La Cour européenne a précisé que, « selon les informations fournies par les deux pères, les enfants ont enfin fait retour en Italie ». « Andrea vit chez sa mère et il serait en train de poursuivre ses études. Sous contrôle du tribunal des enfants de Venise et avec l'accord du père, la mère s'est engagée à ne l'amener en Belgique que pour des vacances de courte durée » (§8 de l'arrêt) ».

• Evaluation : Aucune mesure ne semble nécessaire concernant Elia, vu sa majorité. La situation d'Andrea semblerait, à ce stade, faire l'objet d'un accord entre les parents et, selon les informations disponibles, la question de son droit de garde serait pendante devant les juridictions italiennes. Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours à cet égard. 

Mesures de caractère général : Pour constater la violation, la Cour européenne a tout d'abord noté qu'il n'y avait eu qu'une seule tentative - immédiate - d'exécution sérieuse des décisions accordant la garde aux pères. Entre décembre 1998 et septembre 1999, hormis un rapport des services sociaux et deux rencontres pères-fils, aucune action concrète en vue du regroupement des requérants ne fut entreprise, sans qu'aucune explication satisfaisante n'ait été avancée à cet égard. De plus, la Cour européenne a exprimé des réserves au sujet du processus décisionnel ayant conduit les juridictions belges (en septembre puis décembre 1999, décisions définitives en juin 2000) à confier la garde des enfants à leur mère. La Cour a notamment retenu qu'au lieu de confier rapidement et définitivement les enfants à leurs pères respectifs, légitimes titulaires du droit de garde, les autorités publiques avaient considéré la tension entre les parents comme un danger qu'il convenait d'épargner aux enfants en les éloignant. Pour le reste, aucune mesure n'a été prise par les autorités pour créer les conditions nécessaires à l'exécution urgente des décisions litigieuses.

• Evaluation : Des informations sont toujours attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées en vue d'éviter de nouvelles violations similaires. En tout état de cause, la publication de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne et sa diffusion auprès des autorités compétentes semblent nécessaires.

20656/03           Loncke, arrêt du 25/09/2007, définitif le 25/12/2007

Cette affaire concerne une atteinte au droit d'accès du requérant à un tribunal, dans le cadre de poursuites fiscales s’analysant en une « accusation en matière pénale » (violation de l'article 6§1). En 1999, la Cour d’appel de Gand déclara l’appel du requérant irrecevable en application de l’article 92, alinéa 2 du Code de la TVA, pour n’avoir pas consigné la somme mise à sa charge par je jugement de première instance – soit plus de 3,7 millions d’euros.

Au vu des circonstances de l’espèce, entre autres la disproportion évidente entre les sommes « exceptionnellement élevées » réclamées au requérant et sa situation matérielle, la Cour européenne a jugé que la décision d’irrecevabilité pour défaut de consignation a constitué une mesure disproportionnée au regard de la protection des intérêts de l’administration fiscale et que l’accès effectif du requérant à la juridiction d’appel s’est est trouvé entravé.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Dans son examen de la satisfaction équitable à allouer au requérant, la Cour européenne a estimé qu’elle ne saurait spéculer sur ce qu’eût été l’issue des procès si l’infraction à la Convention n’avait pas eu lieu.

• Des informations semblent nécessaires sur le point de savoir si le requérant dispose de possibilités de faire réexaminer son affaire à la lumière du constat de violation de la Convention.

Mesures de caractère général : la Cour européenne n'a pas mis en cause l'article 92, alinéa 2 du Code de la TVA en tant que tel mais l'application qui en a été faite par le juge dans les circonstances de l’espèce. Aux termes de cette disposition telle que modifiée le 01/01/1999 (modification non applicables aux faits de la présente affaire), en cas d’appel du jugement qui a rejeté l’action en justice introduite par le débiteur, l’administration fiscale (« receveur de la TVA ») peut demander au débiteur de consigner tout ou partie de la somme due, ou de constituer une sûreté. Ce faisant, l’administration doit avoir égard aux données concrètes du dossier, notamment la situation financière du débiteur. La juridiction saisie du recours peut le déclarer irrecevable si les sommes réclamées ne sont pas consignées ou la une sûreté constituée dans un délai de deux mois, sauf le cas où la juridiction juge que la demande formée par le fonctionnaire chargé du recouvrement n’est pas fondée.

• Des informations sont toujours attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin d’assurer une application de l'article 92, alinéa 2 du Code de la TVA conforme aux exigences de la Convention telle qu’interprétée dans cet arrêt. En tout état de cause, il semblerait nécessaire de publier l’arrêt et le communiquer aux juridictions et administrations fiscales concernées, par exemple accompagnée d’une circulaire.

49230/07           L’Erablière A.S.B.L., arrêt du 24/02/2009, définitif le 24/05/2009

Cette affaire concerne une limitation disproportionnée au droit d’accès à un tribunal imposée à l’association requérante dans le cadre de sa demande en annulation d’un permis d’urbanisme, déclarée irrecevable en 2007 par le Conseil d’Etat, faute de contenir un exposé des faits (violation de l’article 6§1).

22945/07           Houtman et Meeus, arrêt du 17/03/2009, définitif le 17/06/2009

L’affaire concerne laviolation du droit à réparation des requérants au titre de l’illégalité de l’internement psychiatrique de la première requérante, effectué à l’initiative des médecins (violation de l’article 5§5).

La Cour européenne a estimé qu’en refusant d’indemniser les requérants malgré la reconnaissance du caractère illégal de l’internement de la requérante, les juridictions belges n’avaient pas interprété et appliqué le droit interne dans l’esprit de l’article 5§1.

11287/03           Lelievre, arrêt du 08/11/2007, définitif le 31/03/2008

Cette affaire concerne la durée excessive d’une détention provisoire d’août 1996 à juin 2004, dans le cadre d’une affaire judiciaire fortement médiatisée ayant trait à des enlèvements de mineurs (violation de l’article 5§3).

Pour parvenir à ce constat de violation, la Cour européenne a tout d’abord constaté qu’une durée de détention provisoire de sept ans et dix mois paraissait prima facie déraisonnable, et donc inadmissible, et ne pouvait être justifiée que par des circonstances exceptionnelles. A cet égard, elle a relevé que, certes, vu les particularités de l’affaire, les divers motifs qui avaient fondé le refus d'élargissement du requérant, dont le risque de le voir se soustraire par la fuite à sa comparution au procès, étaient restés pertinents tout au long de la procédure.

Elle a toutefois conclu que ces motifs n’avaient pas suffi à justifier une détention provisoire aussi longue, « en particulier du fait qu’à aucun moment les juridictions d’instruction n’ont envisagé une alternative à la détention préventive », alors même que le requérant avait proposé une remise en liberté assortie de mesures de contrôle ou de surveillance. Enfin, bien que vu ce constat, elle aurait pu s’abstenir d’examiner cette question, la Cour européenne a précisé que la procédure n’avait pas été menée avec la « diligence particulière » qui s’imposait en la matière.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Par un arrêt définitif de 2004, le requérant a été condamné à 25 ans de prison, qu’il purge actuellement. Le préjudice moral subi par le requérant du fait du caractère déraisonnable de la durée de sa détention provisoire a été compensé par l’octroi d’une satisfaction équitable. Il est également précisé qu’en vertu de l’article 30 du code pénal, « toute détention subie avant que la condamnation ne soit devenue irrévocable, par suite de l'infraction qui donne lieu à cette condamnation, sera imputée sur la durée des peines emportant privation de la liberté ».

• Evaluation : dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : En ce qui concerne l’absence de recherche de solution alternative à la détention provisoire, la Cour européenne a notamment constaté que les juridictions d’instruction sont habilitées à envisager d’office l’imposition d’une alternative à une telle détention, mais surtout que le droit belge (loi du 20/07/1990) leur laisse une grande latitude pour décider du type de mesure alternative selon les circonstances de l’espèce. En ce qui concerne le manque de diligence dans la procédure, elle a détaillé les principaux dysfonctionnements (§107 de l’arrêt).

Ÿ Des informations semblent nécessaires sur les mesures prises ou envisagées pour éviter de nouvelles violations similaires. En tout état de cause, afin que les juridictions pénales puissent tenir compte des conclusions de la Cour dans cette affaire, il semblerait nécessaire de confirmer que l’arrêt leur a bien été diffusé et qu’il a été publié.

                        - 5 affaires de durée de procédures concernant des droits et obligations de caractère civil devant le Conseil d'Etat

49204/99           Entreprises Robert Delbrassinne S.A., arrêt du 01/07/2004, définitif le 01/10/2004

37330/02           Defalque, arrêt du 20/04/2006, définitif le 13/09/2006

43542/04           De Turck, arrêt du 25/09/2007, définitif le 25/12/2007

12066/06           Mathy, arrêt du 24/04/2008, définitif le 24/07/2008

47295/99           Stoeterij Zangersheide N.V. et autres, arrêt du 22/12/2004, définitif le 22/03/2005

Ces affaires concernent la durée excessive de procédures concernant des droits et obligations de caractère civil devant le Conseil d'Etat (violations de l'article 6§1). La période couverte par les différentes violations s’étend de 1975 à 2006.

La Cour européenne a relevé que la durée résultait principalement du laps de temps inexpliqué pris par l'auditeur du Conseil d'Etat pour déposer son rapport.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Aucune. Les procédures sont terminées.

Mesures de caractère général : L'arrêt de la Cour européenne dans l'affaire Entreprises Robert Delbrassinne S.A. a été communiqué à l'auditeur général du Conseil d'Etat et au Ministre de l'Intérieur et il a été publié sur le site Internet www.just.fgov.be du SPF Justice (Service public fédéral, à savoir le ministère de la Justice) dans les trois langues nationales.

Les autorités ont également fait état d’un projet de réforme du Conseil d'Etat, tendant notamment à réduire l'arriéré judiciaire (en particulier en matière de contentieux des étrangers). Parmi les mesures structurelles et organisationnelles envisagées, figuraient notamment la suppression des fonctions non juridictionnelles du Conseil d'Etat, l’amélioration du fonctionnement des sections, notamment en fonction des résultats du travail du Président de section chargé de l'organisation et de la section, ainsi qu’une définition plus exacte et concrète les tâches du greffier en chef, du greffier en chef adjoint et de l'administrateur. Le gouvernement prévoyait également l'introduction d'une gestion moderne du personnel (notamment l'instauration d'un système de mandat pour un certain nombre de fonctions et l'introduction d'un système d'évaluation des titulaires de fonction) ainsi que des modifications visant notamment à simplifier la procédure dans certains cas.

En outre, l'arrivée de nouveaux magistrats était prévue pour contribuer à résorber l'arriéré judiciaire.

Les autorités ont indiqué que la loi réformant le Conseil d'Etat a désormais été adoptée.

• Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours concernant le contenu de cette loi, en vue de son évaluation.

- 24 affaires de durée de procédures judiciaires et d’absence de recours effectif

49525/99           Dumont, arrêt du 28/04/2005, définitif le 28/07/2005

24731/03           Barbier, arrêt du 20/09/2007, définitif le 20/12/2007

41881/02           Beheyt, arrêt du 13/05/2008, définitif le 13/08/2008

44826/05           Bell, arrêt du 04/11/2008, définitif le 06/04/2009

50575/99           De Landsheer, arrêt du 15/07/2005, définitif le 15/10/2005

27535/04           De Saedeleer, arrêt du 24/07/2007, définitif le 24/10/2007

51788/99           De Staerke, arrêt du 28/04/2005, définitif le 28/07/2005

31634/03           Denée, arrêt du 04/12/2007, définitif le 04/03/2008

2115/04            Depauw, arrêt du 10/06/2008, définitif le 10/09/2008

21861/03           Hamer, arrêt du 27/11/2007, définitif le 27/02/2008

28171/04           Heremans, arrêt du 24/04/2008, définitif le 24/07/2008

6203/04            Iwankowski et autres, arrêt du 27/11/2007, définitif le 27/02/2008

5950/05 Jouan, arrêt du 12/02/2008, définitif le 12/05/2008, rectifié le 13/02/2008

18211/03           Lenardon, arrêt du 26/10/2006, définitif le 26/01/2007

35327/05           Leonardi, arrêt du 03/02/2009, définitif le 03/05/2009

52098/99           Leroy, arrêt du 15/07/2005, définitif le 15/10/2005

46046/99           Marien, arrêt du 03/11/2005, définitif le 03/02/2006

40628/04           Nagler et Nalimmo B.V.B.A., arrêt du 17/07/2007, définitif le 17/10/2007

11013/05           Nicolai de Gorhez, arrêt du 16/10/2007, définitif le 31/03/2008

44807/06           Poelmans, arrêt du 03/02/2009, définitif le 03/05/2009

25864/04           Raway et Wera, arrêt du 27/11/2007, définitif le 27/02/2008

52112/99           Reyntiens, arrêt du 28/04/2005, définitif le 28/07/2005

50236/99           Robyns de Schneidauer, arrêt du 28/04/2005, définitif le 28/07/2005

29198/05           Schinckus, arrêt du 01/04/2008, définitif le 01/07/2008

Ces affaires concernent la durée excessive de procédures civiles, ainsi que de procédures pénales dans lesquelles les requérants étaient accusés ou parties civiles (violations de l'article 6§1).

Huit de ces vingt-quatre affaires concernent principalement ou uniquement une durée excessive de procédure devant le tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles. Les procédures ont débuté entre 1982 et 2002 et étaient toutes terminées lorsque la Cour européenne a rendu ses arrêts, à l'exception des affaires énumérées ci-dessous (mesures de caractère individuel).

L’une des procédures concernées dans l’affaire Beheyt concerne plus particulièrement la durée excessive d’une instruction.

Les affaires Beheyt, et Raway et Wera concernent également l’absence de recours effectif pouvant mener au constat de violation de la durée excessive d’une procédure civile (violations de l'article 13).

Mesures de caractère individuel :

• Des informations sont toujours attendues sur l’accélération des procédures est attendue dans les affaires suivantes si elles sont toujours pendantes :

- Barbier (procédure civile, pendante depuis plus de 25 ans au jour de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne) ;

- Beheyt (procédures pénales contre le requérant, pendantes depuis plus de 7 et 10 ans respectivement à la date de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne) ;

- Denée (procédure pénale contre les requérants, pendante depuis plus de 15 et 13 ans respectivement, à la date de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne) ;

- Heremans (procédure pénale contre le requérant, pendante depuis plus de 21 ans à la date de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne) ;

- Leroy (procédures civiles et pénales contre le requérant, pendantes depuis plus de 15 ans à la date de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne).

Dans les autres affaires : aucune mesure nécessaire (procédures terminées).

Mesures de caractère général : Les autorités indiquent qu’il n'y a pas de problème structurel de durées excessives de procédures au niveau national en Belgique, que ce soit en matière civile ou en matière pénale. Néanmoins, une longueur problématique de certaines procédures pénales a été constatée ; cela vaut au niveau des phases préliminaires du procès pénal (cette question a été examinée séparément par le Comité des Ministres : voir l'affaire Stratégies et Communications et Dumoulin contre Belgique, 37370/97, en rubrique 6.2) et au niveau des juridictions de jugement.

Les juridictions bruxelloises constituent toutefois un cas particulier. S'agissant des tribunaux de première instance du ressort de la Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, les autorités ont exposé que la durée excessive des procédures résulte largement de difficultés de recrutement de magistrats, liées aux conditions de l'emploi des langues en matière judiciaire. S'agissant de la Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, la question de la durée des procédures a été examinée séparément par le Comité des Ministres (voir l'affaire Oval S.P.R.L. c. Belgique et autres affaires similaires, 49794/99, en rubrique 6.2).

            1) Mesures tendant à éviter la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires.

a) au niveau national : Un certain nombre de mesures a été pris au cours des dernières années afin d'assurer une durée raisonnable des procédures judiciaires. Une série de mesures a déjà été présentée dans le cadre de l'affaire Oval S.P.R.L. (voir ci-dessus), notamment la mise en place d'un système temporaire de chambres supplémentaires et de magistrats suppléants, des mesures procédurales tendant entre autres à rendre le juge plus actif au sein de la procédure et des embauches. Ces mesures s'inscrivent pour la plupart dans un plan d'ensemble appelé « Plan Thémis » et élaboré par le Ministre de la justice.

A ces mesures, il convient d'ajouter la loi du 26/04/2007 « modifiant le Code judiciaire en vue de lutter contre l'arriéré judiciaire » (publication au Moniteur belge du 12/06/2007). Cette loi contient de nombreuses dispositions tendant à réduire la durée des procédures judiciaires, de la mise en état de l'affaire jusqu'au prononcé de l'arrêt. La loi tend à responsabiliser, en ce sens, juges et parties, notamment en accélérant l'échange des arguments entre les parties et en s’assurant que le juge détermine dès le début un calendrier reprenant les grandes étapes de la procédure. Des sanctions (amendes) sont également prévues à l'encontre des parties qui utilisent la procédure à des fins manifestement dilatoires ou abusives. Un meilleur contrôle est instauré sur le délai pris par les juges pour rendre leur décision. En effet, en cas de dépassement d'un délai de délibéré fixé par la loi, les juges doivent rendre des comptes à leurs autorités hiérarchiques ; la primauté sera donnée à la recherche de solution au retard, mais en cas de retard injustifié, une sanction disciplinaire peut être prononcée (retenue sur salaire).

Enfin, le budget de la justice a augmenté. En 2008, il a augmenté de 4,7 % par rapport à 2007, avec à la clé davantage de moyens de fonctionnement (par exemple poursuite de l'informatisation dans l'organisation judiciaire, de l’aménagement et du fonctionnement des cours et tribunaux) et le recrutement de personnel supplémentaire (par exemple au bénéfice du cadre de l'organisation judiciaire, avec une priorité accordée aux tribunaux de l'application des peines). Entre 1998 et 2008, le budget des cours et tribunaux est passé de 485,8 millions d'euros à 846,6 millions d'euros. En 2007, près de 2 500 ordinateurs ont été livrés et installé dans diverses juridictions.

Des résultats positifs ont été enregistrés (voir Justice en chiffres 2008, publication du Service Public Fédéral justice, www.just.fgov.be). A titre d'exemple, s'agissant des tribunaux de première instance : en matière civile, le nombre de nouvelles affaires enregistrées a augmenté de 3 % entre 2000 et 2006, alors que le nombre d'affaires clôturées a augmenté de 23 % pendant la même période ; en matière pénale, le nombre d'affaires pendantes au 1er janvier a diminué de 15 % entre 2000 et 2006. S'agissant des cours d'appel, au civil, le nombre d'affaires pendantes a baissé de 41 % entre 1999 et 2007.

b) au niveau des juridictions bruxelloises : En plus des mesures prises au niveau national pour permettre un déroulement accéléré des procédures judiciaires, notamment la loi du 26/04/2007, et qui bénéficient ou vont également bénéficier aux juridictions bruxelloises, les éléments suivants doivent être rappelés.

Concernant les juridictions de première instance et en particulier les difficultés de recrutement de magistrats liées aux conditions de l'emploi des langues en matière judiciaire, des mesures spécifiques ont été prises (voir notamment les informations fournies par les autorités belges à la Commission de Venise, reflétées dans le document CDL(2006)026). En particulier, la loi du 18/07/2002 a été adoptée. Les dispositions concernant l'emploi des langues en matière judiciaire ont ainsi été amendées, allégeant les exigences du bilinguisme pour les magistrats et permettant de dégager davantage de moyens pour juger les affaires francophones qui sont majoritaires devant les juridictions bruxelloises.

Concernant la Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, le Comité des Ministres a déjà été informé des mesures prises (affaire Oval S.P.R.L. susmentionnée, en rubrique 6.2). Les autorités belges avaient à cette occasion déclaré que le problème de l'arriéré de la cour d'appel avait été résolu (voir l'ordre du jour de la 914e réunion, de février 2005, rubrique 6.1).

• Des informations seraient utiles sur la situation actuelle devant les juridictions bruxelloises de première instance, en matière de durées de procédures et l’arriéré d’affaires.

2) Recours permettant de se plaindre de la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires.

            a) En matière civile :dans sa décision sur la recevabilité dans l'affaire Depauw contre Belgique (décision du 15/05/2007), la Cour européenne a jugé que depuis le 28/03/2007, il existe un recours indemnitaire permettant de se plaindre et d'obtenir réparation de la durée excessive d'une procédure civile. Ce recours repose sur une jurisprudence ayant acquis un degré de certitude juridique suffisant (arrêt de la Cour de cassation du 28/09/2006). Il est par ailleurs rappelé que la loi du 21/04/2007 modifiant le Code judiciaire en vue de lutter contre l'arriéré judiciaire contient certaines dispositions permettant de demander l'accélération d'une procédure civile.

            b) En matière pénale : L'examen de cette question s'inscrit dans l'esprit de la Recommandation Rec(2004)6 du Comité des Ministres aux Etats membres (sur l’amélioration des recours internes) et correspond à la pratique bien établie au sein du Comité des Ministres. Il ressort notamment d'informations fournies par les autorités belges à la Commission de Venise (document CDL(2006)026) qu'aucune voie de recours spécifique ne permet de demander l'accélération d'une procédure pénale ou d'obtenir une indemnisation du fait de sa durée excessive. En revanche, une sanction est prévue à l'article 21 ter (entré en vigueur le 12/12/2000) du titre préliminaire du code de procédure pénale en cas de durée excessive d'une procédure pénale. Selon cet article, « si la durée des poursuites pénales dépasse le délai raisonnable, le juge peut prononcer la condamnation par simple déclaration de culpabilité ou prononcer une peine inférieure à la peine minimale prévue par la loi ». Entre autres dans sa décision sur la recevabilité dans l'affaire Hermanus contre Belgique (requête n° 49195/99, décision du 18/09/2001), la Cour européenne a dit qu' « en Belgique, un accusé a, à l'occasion de l'examen du bien-fondé des poursuites dirigées contre lui, la possibilité de faire constater le dépassement du délai raisonnable et d'obtenir le redressement de pareille violation de l'article 6 », ce qui constitue une voie de recours interne, au sens de l'article 35§1 de la Convention.

- 7 cases against Bosnia and Herzegovina / 7 affaires contre Bosnie-Herzégovine

12455/04+         Tokić and others, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicants' detention in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annexe following the introduction of new legislation in August 2003, under which the competent authorities had until 01/09/2003 to verify the status of all those who, like the applicants in the present case, had been acquitted on the grounds of insanity under the former criminal law. The authorities also had to initiate proceedings so that the competent civil court could decide whether to prolong detention of any such mental health patient (§53). However, no such decision was ever taken in the present case (violation of Article 5§1).

The European Court noted that social care centres took administrative decisions on compulsory confinement with regard to certain applicants, even though they had no jurisdiction to order psychiatric detention under the new law. The European Court also noted that the Constitutional Court had examined similar complaints in a number of psychiatric detainees’ cases (including those of two applicants in the present case) and considered the present situation to be unlawful (§66). In fact, on 21/12/2006,  the Constitutional Court ordered the authorities “to undertake such legislative and other measures as might be necessary within three months of the delivery of the decision” (§38). Finally, when reviewing decisions on the compulsory confinement of the two applicants from October 2003 to 2007 the domestic courts referred to the earlier law, which after July 2003 was no longer in force (§§ 35, 45, 48).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. It also noted that the violation still continued in the case of Mr Marinić, while the other three applicants had been released from Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex (§66).

It may be noted that the European Court decided to strike a similar case, that of Hadžić (Application No. 11123/04, decision of 11/10/2005) out of its list on the basis of the undertaking by the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, inter alia, to “move all patients held in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annexe to an adequate facility at latest by 31/12/2005.”

• Information provided by the authorities: On 25/02/2009, the Municipal Court of Zenica ordered that Mr Marinić should be held in the Psychiatric Hospital in Sokolac. However, Mr Marinić is still held in the Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annexe as the psychiatric hospitals in Sokolac and Fojnica refused to accommodate him for lack of facilities. On 08/02/2010 the same court again ordered that Mr Marinić should be held for a year in the Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex until his transfer to the Sokolac Psychiatric Hospital.

• Assessment: A domestic court having ordered the compulsory confinement of Mr Marinić in proceedings prescribed by law, no further individual measure is required in this regard.

General measures:  The new Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina entered into force on 01/08/2003. As from that date, offenders acquitted on grounds of insanity may be placed in psychiatric detention only by a decision of a competent civil court if this is considered necessary for the protection of the offender and/or the public from serious harm (§52) and criminal courts may no longer issue hospitalisation orders against those who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity (§51).

However, in the Halilović case (23968/05, Section 2.2), the European Court noted that, in response to its findings in Tokić, Article 410 of the 2003 Criminal Procedure Code has since been amended. It now provides that if an offender has been found not guilty by reason of insanity, the criminal court will order his or her compulsory confinement in a psychiatric hospital for a maximum period of six months and refer the case directly to the competent civil court. Such cases used to be referred to social work centres which, however, systematically failed to refer them to the civil courts and themselves decided whether to place an offender in psychiatric detention (as in the Tokić and Halilović cases) (§14).

The issues concerning Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annexe and a state-level forensic psychiatric institution were also discussed in the CPT reports (see e.g. CPT/Inf(2007) 34, pp. 9-10, 33-35, CPT/Inf(2009)25, p. 45-46, CPT/Info(2010)10, p. 29-31).

• Information provided by the authorities: To implement the general measures in this case, the government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Federation) adopted an action plan on 08/03/2010. The action plan provides that all persons found not guilty by reason of insanity and are currently in compulsory confinement in psychiatric facilities, will be identified within two months. The competent authorities will begin the procedure to obtain court decisions on the compulsory confinement of these persons within two further months.

• Information is awaited on the results of the verification of the status of all mental patients in similar situations, including the number of such detainees still unlawfully held in compulsory confinement and the measures taken to remedy their situation

• Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment was published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina (No. 95/08 of 01/12/2008). It was also sent with an explanatory note to all relevant authorities as well as to all courts and social care centres involved in the case, while all social care centres in the Federation took note on the violation found in the judgment.

39462/03    Karanović, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008 The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to access to a court due to the failure, since 2003 to enforce a final, binding decision of the Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina (“HRC”) given in his favour (violation of Article 6§1). The applicant was in receipt of an old-age pension from the pension fund of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. When he had to move from Sarajevo to the Republika Srpska (“RS”) as an internally displaced person in 1992 due to the armed conflict at the time, he began to receive a pension from the RS Pension Fund. Upon his return to Sarajevo in 2000, the applicant unsuccessfully sought to receive his pension from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Pension Fund (hereinafter “the Federation Fund”), which provided a higher pension than that paid in RS. At the same time, pensioners who have moved to other countries during the armed conflict have continued to enjoy their full pension rights under the Federation Fund. The applicant applied to the HRC, which held in a decision of 10/01/2003 that he had been discriminated against in his enjoyment of the right to social security. The HRC ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the “Federation”) to take all necessary legislative and administrative action to remedy such discrimination in general as well as to pay to the applicant the difference in the pension paid to him as compared to the more favourable pension amounts payable by the Federation Fund, as from the moment he seised the HRC. Given the current legislative and administrative arrangements in BIH (in particular, the absence of harmonised legislation between the Entities and the lack of state-level legislation regulating pensions), the European Court considered that the only conceivable interpretation of the HRC order was that it required the applicant’s transfer from the RS Fund to the Federation Fund. The European Court noted that even though the disparity between pension amounts in each Entity may have subsequently become smaller, this is of no relevance to the respondent state’s obligation to enforce decisions of its courts (§24 of the judgment). The European Court observed that the violation of the applicant's right of access to a court “concerns the failure of the authorities to eliminate discrimination from the pension legislation regardless of the order of the Human Rights Chamber in that direction”. It further noted that the “facts of the case […] disclose the existence, within the national legal order, of a shortcoming affecting a whole class of citizens (namely, pensioners living in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina who were internally displaced in the Republika Srpska during the armed conflict)” and stressed that “the fact that they are all potential applicants represents a threat to the future effectiveness of the Convention machinery” (§27 of the judgment). Individual measures: The European Court ordered the enforcement of the decision of the HRC in respect of the applicant not least by transferring him to the Federation Fund (§24 of the judgment). The BIH authorities informed the Committee that on 21/02/2008 the applicant's pension was transferred to the Federation Pension Fund. The difference between the amounts he had received and those payable under more favourable regime of the Federation Fund has been paid to the applicant, as ordered by the European Court's judgment. • Assessment: In view of this information, no further individual measure appears necessary. General measures: The general measures taken so far and the outstanding issues will be examined in the light of a memorandum to be prepared by the Secretariat. The Deputies, 1.             noted that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina have taken legislative and budgetary measures aimed at preventing non-enforcement of court decisions ordering the release of “old savings”; 2.             invited the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to clarify whether there are still court decisions ordering the release of “old savings” that have not been enforced within their jurisdiction; 3.             noted that the legislative initiatives aimed at abolishing the difference in treatment  with respect to pension rights have not produced any result in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; 4.             encouraged the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to intensify their efforts with a view to finding an appropriate solution to eliminate the difference in treatment with respect to pension rights; 5.             invited the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to determine the exact number of pensioner returnees from the Republika Srpska to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina that are entitled to payment of a difference in pension; 6.             decided to declassify the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)22; 7.             invited the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to provide the Committee with further information on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum; 8.             decided to resume consideration of this case at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on the outstanding general measures.

39462/03    Karanović, arrêt du 20/11/2007, définitif le 20/02/2008 L'affaire concerne la violation du droit d'accès du requérant à un tribunal en raison de l'inexécution depuis 2003 d'une décision définitive de la Chambre des droits de l'homme de Bosnie-Herzégovine (CDH) rendue en sa faveur (violation de l'article 6§1). Le requérant bénéficiait d'une pension de retraite versée par la Caisse de retraite de l'ex-République socialiste de Bosnie-Herzégovine. En 1992, il quitta Sarajevo pour la Republika Srpska (RS), en tant que personne déplacée en raison du conflit armé, où il toucha une pension versée par la Caisse de la RS. Dès son retour à Sarajevo en 2000 (en Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine), il essaya en vain d'obtenir le versement de sa pension par la Caisse de la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine (ci-après « Caisse de la Fédération »), la Caisse de la Fédération versant des pensions plus élevées que la Caisse de la RS. Parallèlement, les retraités de la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine qui avaient émigré dans d'autres pays pendant le conflit armé avaient continué à bénéficier de l'intégralité de leur pension de retraite versée par la Caisse de la Fédération. Saisie par le requérant, la CDH a conclu, le 10/01/2003, que le requérant avait subi une discrimination en matière de jouissance du droit à la sécurité sociale. Elle a ordonné à la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine de prendre toutes les mesures législatives et administratives nécessaires pour remédier à cette discrimination en général et pour verser au requérant la différence entre le montant de sa pension de retraite et celle à laquelle il aurait eu droit au titre de la Caisse de la Fédération, à compter de la saisine de la Chambre. Etant donné la situation législative et administrative actuelle en Bosnie-Herzégovine (sachant notamment que la législation n’est pas harmonisée actuellement entre les entités et qu’il n’y a pas de législation applicable aux retraites au niveau de l’Etat), la Cour européenne a estimé que l’ordonnance de la CDH pouvait uniquement être interprétée dans le sens d’une obligation de transférer le requérant de la Caisse de la RS à la Caisse de la Fédération. Elle a relevé que le fait que les disparités dans les montants de pension au sein de chaque entité aient pu par la suite être réduites n’affectait pas l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur d’exécuter les décisions des juridictions internes (§24). La Cour européenne a relevé que si le droit d’accès du requérant à un tribunal a été violé, c’est parce que les autorités n’avaient pas éliminé les discriminations de la législation sur les retraites malgré l’ordonnance en ce sens de la Chambre des droits de l’homme. Elle a aussi noté que les faits de la cause révélaient l’existence au sein de l’ordre juridique interne d’une lacune qui touche toute une catégorie de personnes (à savoir les retraités vivant dans la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine qui étaient des personnes déplacées en Republika srpska pendant le conflit armé) et elle a souligné que le fait qu’ils soient des requérants potentiels constituait une menace pour l’efficacité future du mécanisme de la Convention (§27 de l’arrêt). Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a ordonné l'exécution de la décision de la CDH à l'égard du requérant, ne serait-ce qu'en l'immatriculant auprès de la Caisse de retraite de la Fédération (§24 de l'arrêt). Les autorités bosniaques ont informé le Comité de l’immatriculation du requérant le 21/02/2008 à la Caisse de la Fédération. La différence entre le montant de la pension reçue et le montant auquel il aurait eu droit en vertu du régime plus favorable de la Caisse de la Fédération lui a été payée ainsi que la Cour européenne l'avait ordonné dans son arrêt. • Evaluation : Au vu de ces informations, aucune mesure de caractère individuel ne semble nécessaire. Mesures de caractère général : Les mesures de caractère général prises jusqu’à présent et les questions en suspens seront examinées à la lumière d’un Memorandum à préparer par le Secrétariat. Les Délégués, 1.             notent que les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine ont pris des mesures législatives et budgétaires visant à prévenir la non-exécution de décisions judiciaires ordonnant la restitution d’« anciens dépôts » ; 2.             invitent les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine à clarifier la question de savoir s’il reste toujours des décisions judiciaires ordonnant la restitution d’« anciens dépôts » qui n’ont pas encore été exécutées au sein de leur juridiction ; 3.             notent que les initiatives législatives destinées à supprimer la différence de traitement en matière de pensions de retraite n'ont pas encore donné de résultats dans la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine ; 4.             encouragent les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine à intensifier leurs efforts en vue de trouver une solution appropriée pour supprimer la différence de traitement en matière de pensions de retraite ; 5.             invitent les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine à déterminer le nombre exact de retraités qui avaient gagné la Republika Srpska puis sont retournés dans la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine, et qui ont droit au versement d’un complément de pension ; 6.             décident de déclassifier le document d’information CM/Inf/DH(2010)22 ; 7.             invitent les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine à donner au Comité des informations complémentaires sur les questions en suspens identifiées dans le document d’information ; 8.             décident de reprendre l'examen de ces affaires à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière des informations complémentaires à fournir sur les mesures générales en suspens.

7435/04            Milisavljević, judgment of 03/03/2009, final on 03/06/2009

The case concerns the violations of the applicant's right to access to a court and to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions due to the failure to enforce a final decision of the Human Rights Chamber (“HRC”) given in her favour since 2003 (violation of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

In 1983 the Sarajevo city authorities expropriated an apartment, which the applicant occupied as a tenant. The planning authorities were ordered to allocate her a suitable replacement apartment. In 1999, the applicant complained to the HRC that the final administrative decision of 1983 had not been enforced.

The HRC found violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention and ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the “Federation”) to allocate, or to cause the local planning authorities to allocate to the applicant a suitable replacement apartment at latest within a month. It further explained in 2005 that the applicant should be given ownership of a suitable apartment and not only a tenancy. In 2006, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the government of the Federation, but to no avail.

Individual measures:

• Information provided by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Following the European Court’s judgment in the present case, the planning authorities in Sarajevo have been ordered to allocate a suitable replacement apartment to the applicant with an area not less than 44,78 m². On 18/12/2009, the authorities offered the applicant title to an apartment with an area of 44,5 m². The applicant did not accept this offer, requesting a replacement apartment with an area not less than 60 m².

• Information provided by the applicant (letter of 28/04/2010): The applicant stated that the judgments of the First-Instance Court of Sarajevo of 18/11/1998 and 04/12/1991, also referred in the HRC decision, had ordered the authorities to allocate her a suitable replacement apartment with an area of 60 m². Given that the apartment offered by the authorities is smaller by 16 m², the applicant does not consider it suitable. The applicant further asserts that the apartment offered to her is subject to litigation before the Municipal Court of Sarajevo.

▪ Information is expected on further developments in the allocation of a suitable apartment to the applicant and on the full execution of the HRC decision.

General measures

• Information provided by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina (04/09/2009): The European Court’s judgment has been translated into local languages and published in the Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. 55/09. The Deputy Government Agent forwarded the judgment to all relevant authorities, including the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the relevant domestic courts. It was also forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian authorities stressed in particular that they were aware of no other case pending before the domestic courts or the European Court based on similar facts or the same laws.

• Information is awaited on the action plan to be provided by the authorities in respect of measures to ensure compliance with HRC decisions and domestic administrative decisions.

- 4 cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration in abiding by final domestic judgments concerning “old” savings denominated in foreign currency 41183/02    Jeličić, judgment of 31/10/2006, final on 31/01/2007 28971/05    Kudić, judgment of 09/12/2008, final on 09/03/2009 337/04+     Pejaković and others, judgment of 18/12/2007, final on 18/03/2008 38945/05    Pralica, judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 27/04/2009 These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the administration's failure to enforce final court decisions, including the decisions of the Human Rights Chamber (“HRC”). Judicial decisions rendered between 1993 and 2001 in the applicants' favour ordered their banks to release all sums of “old savings” (foreign currency savings deposited prior to the dissolution of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia) plus default interest and legal costs, which were not enforced (violations of Article 6§1). In particular, since 1996 there have been various statutory provisions in domestic law, preventing the enforcement of judgments ordering the release of “old savings”, the latest being Section 27 of the 2006 Old Foreign-Currency Savings Act (“the Act”) ordering that final judicial decisions concerning “old savings” are subject to verification by administrative authorities. Further, it is noted that “old savings” in 2002 were converted into the public debt of the Republika Srpska (“RS”) and in 2006 Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BiH”) took over the debt arising from “old savings” from its constituent units, including that of the RS. The European Court also found that the impossibility of obtaining the execution of the final judgments in the applicants’ favour constituted an interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The Court noted that it is not open to a state authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt (see §§39 and 42 of the Jeličić and §27 of the Pejaković judgment). Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained, except in the Pralica case in which the applicant made no claim for just satisfaction. All domestic decisions ordering release of foreign-currency accounts in the present cases have been enforced. • Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary. General measures: The general measures taken so far and the outstanding issues will be examined in the light of a memorandum to be prepared by the Secretariat. The Deputies, 1.             noted that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina have taken legislative and budgetary measures aimed at preventing non-enforcement of court decisions ordering the release of “old savings”; 2.             invited the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to clarify whether there are still court decisions ordering the release of “old savings” that have not been enforced within their jurisdiction; 3.             noted that the legislative initiatives aimed at abolishing the difference in treatment  with respect to pension rights have not produced any result in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; 4.             encouraged the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to intensify their efforts with a view to finding an appropriate solution to eliminate the difference in treatment with respect to pension rights; 5.             invited the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to determine the exact number of pensioner returnees from the Republika Srpska to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina that are entitled to payment of a difference in pension; 6.             decided to declassify the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)22; 7.             invited the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to provide the Committee with further information on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum; 8.             decided to resume consideration of this case at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on the outstanding general measures.

- 4 affaires concernant le manquement ou le retard substantiel de l'administration à se conformer à des arrêts internes définitifs concernant les « vieux » comptes de dépôt en devises 41183/02   Jeličić, arrêt du 31/10/2006, définitif le 31/01/2007 28971/05   Kudić, arrêt du 09/12/2008, définitif le 09/03/2009 337/04+     Pejaković et autres, arrêt du 18/12/2007, définitif le 18/03/2008 38945/05   Pralica, arrêt du 27/01/2009, définitif le 27/04/2009 Ces affaires concernent la violation du droit d'accès des requérants à un tribunal en raison de la non-exécution, par l'administration, de décisions judiciaires définitives, y compris des décisions de la Chambre des droits de l’homme (CDH). Par décisions, rendues en faveur des requérants entre 1993 et en 2001, les tribunaux avaient vainement ordonné à la banque des requérants de restituer la totalité de leurs « anciens » dépôts (« anciens » comptes de dépôt en devises effectués auprès d'une banque d'Etat avant la dissolution de l'ancienne République socialiste fédérative de Yougoslavie), majorés des intérêts de retard et des frais et dépens (violations de l'article 6 §1). En particulier, de nombreuses dispositions légales, adoptées à partir de 1996 en droit interne, ont empêché l'exécution de décisions judiciaires relatives à la restitution des « anciens » dépôts. La dernière en date était l'article 27 de la loi de 2006 sur les « anciens » dépôts (ci-après « la loi ») selon laquelle ces décisions doivent être vérifiées par l'administration. Il convient en outre de noter que les « anciens » dépôts ont été convertis en 2002 en dette publique de la Republika Srpska (RS) et qu'en 2006, la Bosnie-Herzégovine (BiH) a repris à son compte toutes les dettes résultant de ces « anciens » dépôts imputables à ses entités constitutives, y compris la RS. La Cour européenne a également constaté que l'impossibilité d'obtenir l'exécution de la décision judiciaire définitive rendue en faveur des requérants constituait une ingérence dans le droit au respect de leurs biens (violations de l'article 1er du Protocole n° 1). Elle a indiqué que les restrictions budgétaires ne pouvaient servir de prétexte aux autorités de l'Etat pour ne pas honorer une telle décision (voir §§ 39 et 42 de l'arrêt Jeličić et §27 de l'arrêt Pejaković). Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a octroyé aux requérants une satisfaction équitable au titre des préjudices matériel et moral subis, sauf dans l’affaire Pralica où le requérant n’a pas soumis de prétention au titre de la satisfaction équitable. Toutes les décisions internes concernées ont été exécutées. • Evaluation : Aucune mesure individuelle supplémentaire ne semble nécessaire. Mesures de caractère général : Les mesures de caractère général prises jusqu’à présent et les questions en suspens seront examinées à la lumière d’un Memorandum à préparer par le Secrétariat. Les Délégués, 1.             notent que les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine ont pris des mesures législatives et budgétaires visant à prévenir la non-exécution de décisions judiciaires ordonnant la restitution d’« anciens dépôts » ; 2.             invitent les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine à clarifier la question de savoir s’il reste toujours des décisions judiciaires ordonnant la restitution d’« anciens dépôts » qui n’ont pas encore été exécutées au sein de leur juridiction ; 3.             notent que les initiatives législatives destinées à supprimer la différence de traitement en matière de pensions de retraite n'ont pas encore donné de résultats dans la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine ; 4.             encouragent les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine à intensifier leurs efforts en vue de trouver une solution appropriée pour supprimer la différence de traitement en matière de pensions de retraite ; 5.             invitent les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine à déterminer le nombre exact de retraités qui avaient gagné la Republika Srpska puis sont retournés dans la Fédération de Bosnie-Herzégovine, et qui ont droit au versement d’un complément de pension ; 6.             décident de déclassifier le document d’information CM/Inf/DH(2010)22 ; 7.             invitent les autorités de Bosnie-Herzégovine à donner au Comité des informations complémentaires sur les questions en suspens identifiées dans le document d’information ; 8.             décident de reprendre l'examen de ces affaires à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH), à la lumière des informations complémentaires à fournir sur les mesures générales en suspens.

- 84 cases against Bulgaria / 84 affaires contre la Bulgarie

                       - 5 cases concerning violations arising in the context of deportation

50963/99           Al-Nashif and others, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

65028/01           Bashir and others, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007

1365/07            C.G. and others, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008

54323/00           Hasan, judgment of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007

61259/00           Musa and others, judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 09/07/2007

1) Lack of sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness in deportation proceedings: These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life as Mr Al-Nashif, Mr Bashir and Mr C.G. were deported and Mr Hasan and Mr Musa were ordered to leave the territory between 1999 and 2005 pursuant to a legal regime that did not provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness (violations of Articles 8 and 13).

The European Court considered that even in cases where national security is at stake, as in all these cases, the concept of lawfulness requires that measures affecting fundamental human rights must be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings before an independent body competent to review the reasons for the decision and relevant evidence, if need be with appropriate procedural limitations on the use of classified information (see §123 of the Al-Nashif judgment). The Court noted that in four of the cases, none of the applicants had had access to independent supervision of the measures imposed on them, since at the material time such measures taken on grounds of national security were excluded from judicial review. Furthermore, in some of the cases the applicants were not informed of the factual basis of the measures against them and some of the orders at issue did not disclose any reasons to the applicants, to their lawyers or to an independent body competent to examine the matter.

In the C.G. and others case, although the first applicant had the formal possibility of seeking judicial review of the decision to expel him (the facts are subsequent to 2003 when judicial review against such measures was introduced), the competent courts confined themselves to a purely formal examination of his case. In particular, they did not subject the executive’s assertion that the applicant presented a national security risk to meaningful scrutiny and relied solely on uncorroborated information in a classified report of a covert surveillance operation. The European Court noted in this connection that Bulgarian law on such surveillance did not provide the minimum guarantees required under Article 8. The European Court also found that the allegations against the first applicant, although serious, could not reasonably be considered to be capable of threatening Bulgaria’s national security. Finally, the Court criticised the fact that the national courts also failed to consider the question of the proportionality of the interference with the applicants’ family life compared with the aim pursued.

2) Lack of opportunity to have a case reviewed before deportation:  The case of C.G. and others also concerns the fact that the first applicant’s expulsion failed to satisfy the various requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.7. The Court noted in particular that the expulsion was not “in accordance with the law” since the applicant did not enjoy the minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness. Furthermore, the applicant was not given the opportunity to have his case reviewed before being deported from Bulgaria. Expulsion of an alien lawfully resident in the territory of a state before his/her case is heard or reviewed is permitted under Article 1§2 of Protocol No. 7 only if that “expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security”. The European Court had already found that the first applicant’s expulsion had not been based on any genuine national security interests, and the government had not put forward any convincing arguments that it had been truly necessary to deport him in the interests of public order before he was able to challenge the measure.

3) Detention while awaiting deportation: The Al-Nashif and Bashir and others cases also concern the fact that the applicants had, under the applicable law, been given no opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of their detention while awaiting deportation or expulsion (violations of Article 5§4). The European Court noted in particular that the detention orders stated no particular reasons and that the applicants were not given the possibility to discuss with their lawyer any possible legal challenge to the measures against them. The case of Bashir and others also concerns the failure to inform the first applicant promptly of the reasons for his detention (violation of Article 5§2).

Individual measures:

1) Case of Al-Nashif: The measures taken against Mr Al-Nashif originated in three different orders: revoking his residence permit, ordering his detention and deportation, and banning his re-entry on Bulgarian territory for a period of 10 years. At the material time the applicant appealed without success two of these orders. Following the judgment of the European Court, the Supreme Administrative Court reopened these proceedings and, in 2004 and 2006, the orders revoking the residence permit and ordering the detention and deportation were quashed by final judgments of the competent courts. The ban on entering the territory was lifted in October 2007.

• Information provided by the applicant’s lawyer (letters of May and September 2008): Having learned that the ban on entering the territory had been lifted, Mr Al-Nashif applied to the Bulgarian Consulate in Damascus for a Bulgarian visa. His request was rejected on 09/09/2008. The applicant’s lawyer subsequently sought information from the Director of Migration as to steps to take to allow Mr Al-Nashif to return to Bulgaria, in the light of the fact that he still has a valid permanent residence permit and that the ban on entering the territory had been lifted.

• Information provided by the Bulgarian authorities (letter of 26/03/2010): Between 01/01/2008 and the date of the letter, Mr Al-Nashif’s application for a visa to enter Bulgaria, lodged with the Bulgarian Embassy in Damascus, was refused by the Directorate of Consular Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At present, there are no restrictive administrative measures against Mr Al-Nashif.

• The comments of the authorities would be useful as to whether Mr Al-Nashif’s permanent residence status is still valid and whether he may enter and permanently reside in Bulgaria. 

2) Case of Bashir and others: Mr Bashir was expelled from Bulgaria in 2000.

As of 20/03/2008 the applicants have lodged no application with the Supreme Administrative Court to have the expulsion order and other relevant measures revoked.

• Assessment: in these circumstances, no further individual measure appears to be necessary.

            3) Case of C.G. and others: the first applicant was expelled from Bulgaria in 2005.

• Information is expected on the situation of the first applicant with a view to withdrawing the measures taken against him.

4) Case of Hassan: As a result of the measures undertaken by the authorities, Mr Hasan left Bulgaria in October 1999.

• Information provided by the Bulgarian authorities (letter of 16/10/2008): The ban on entering the territory has been lifted.

• Information is expected on the withdrawal of the other measures taken against M. Hasan (i.e. the revocation of his residence permit).

5) Case of Musa: Mr Musa was obliged to leave Bulgaria in 2000 as a result of the measures imposed on him and was banned from re-entry for a period of 10 years.

• Information provided by the applicant’s lawyer (letter of May 2008): Following the judgment of the European Court, Mr Musa made three appeals: against the order prohibiting him from entering the territory of Bulgaria (which expires in May 2010), against the withdrawal of his residence permit, and against the obligation to leave the territory. The order banning entry was kept in force by the Supreme Administrative Court. The proceedings against the withdrawal of Mr Musa’s residence permit are currently pending. As regards the appeal against the obligation to leave the territory, a hearing was scheduled ex officio for 16/10/2008 by the Supreme Administrative Court.

• Additional information is awaited on the outcome of the pending proceedings. A copy of the decision rejecting the request of the applicant to lift the ban on entry in the territory would be useful.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Articles 8 and 13:  The attention of the Bulgarian authorities was drawn to a number of problems in the legislation and regulations which were the basis for the violations found by the European Court in the Al-Nashif case. Indeed, at the relevant time concerning this case Bulgarian law did not provide for judicial review of the lawfulness of aliens' detention in case of their expulsion on the grounds of national security, nor of the decision on expulsion itself, when such reasons are evoked (cf. Article 47 of the Aliens Act, in force at the material time).

- Development of the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court: It has been noted that in its well-established practice since the Al-Nashif judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court indicates to the competent courts that they must apply the Convention directly, as interpreted by the European Court and, consequently, must examine complaints against expulsion on the grounds of national security (see, for example, the decisions Nos. 706 of 29/01/2004, 4883 of 28/05/2004, 8910 of 01/11/2004, 3146 of 11/04/2005 and 4675 of 25/05/2005).

- Legislative reform: In 2005 and 2006 several draft amendments to the Aliens Act were prepared by the Ministries of Justice and of the Interior without achieving the necessary legislative reform. On 23/03/2007 a draft law amending the Aliens Act was adopted, introducing judicial review by the Supreme Administrative Court of expulsions, revocations of residence permits and of bans on entry into the territory ordered on national security grounds. However, it was noted that the amended law excludes the suspensive effect of an appeal against such measures when based on national security grounds.

In addition, it should be noted that a new Law on the entry into, presence on and departure from Bulgarian territory by citizens of the European Union and their families entered into force on 01/01/2007. According to Article 28 of this law, expulsion orders, revocation of residence permits and exclusion orders adopted on the basis of considerations of national security may be challenged according to the procedure provided in the Code of Administrative Procedure, which implies judicial control.

Furthermore, according to Article 30 of this law, the person concerned by such a measure may also apply for its revocation after the expiry of three years its adoption. At the same time, this law also excludes the suspensive effect of an appeal against such measure, when based on national security grounds.

• The authorities were invited to consider the issue of the efficacy of the remedies provided in these laws, given that they cannot stay execution of expulsion measures based on considerations of national security. In response, the authorities indicated that Article 1§2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention provides the possibility to expel a person before the exercise of her or his rights under §1 (namely the right to put forward reasons against her or his expulsion, to obtain an examination of the case and to be represented before the competent authority) when the expulsion is based on grounds of national security.

• Bilateral contacts are under way on this issue (particularly in light of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 found by the European Court in the C.G. and others case: see point 2 below).

• Information is awaited on the issue of the effectiveness of judicial review in such cases in the light of the finding of a violation of Articles 8 and 13 by the European Court in the C.G. and others case owing to the purely formal examination by the domestic courts (including the Supreme Administrative Court) of the applicant’s complaint regarding the decision to expel him. It should be noted that the question of the compatibility of the legal framework and the practice related to secret surveillance with the requirements of the Convention is being examined in the framework of the case of the Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev (62540/00, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

2) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.7 (C.G. and others case): 

• Bilateral contacts are under way in this issue, in particular, with respect to Article 1§1 (b) of Protocol No. 7, regarding the possibility given to persons in the position of the first applicant in the C.G. and others case to challenge an expulsion order before its execution.

            3) Violation of Article 5§4: Clarification has been requested concerning whether Bulgarian law at present provides judicial review of the lawfulness of detention in specialised centres in cases of expulsion on the grounds of national security (see Article 44§6 in conjunction with Article 46§1 of the Aliens Act). The Bulgarian authorities indicated that the lawfulness of detention imposed under the Aliens Act may be reviewed by the competent administrative organs and courts in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure. In addition, the authorities consider that following the judgment in the Al-Nashif case the domestic courts are already obliged to provide the guarantees provided for in Article 5§4.

• Additional information is awaited on the practice relating to the judicial supervision of detention pending deportation.

            4) Violation of Article 5§2 (Bashir case):

• Information has been requested on the measures envisaged or already adopted.

            5) Publication: The judgments of the European Court in the cases of Al-Nashif, Musa and Hasan were published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice http://www.mjeli.government.bg.

• Bilateral contacts are under way on individual and general measures.

43577/98+        Nachova and others, judgment of 06/07/2005 - Grand Chamber

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

The Nachova and others case concerns the killing, on 19/07/1996, of the applicants’ relatives, Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov, by a military policeman who was trying to arrest them. The two men were conscripts in the Bulgarian army, both aged 21 and of Roma origin, who were wanted by the military police following their escape from the place where they were serving short terms of imprisonment for repeated absence without leave. Neither man was armed. The European Court considered that Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov were killed in circumstances in which the use of firearms was not justified and that the relevant law and practice on the use of force during arrest, falls well short of the level of protection of the right to life required by the Convention (violation of Article 2). The case also concerns the lack of effective investigation by the Bulgarian authorities into the deaths of the two men (violation of Article 2) and finally to the authorities’ failure to fulfil their procedural obligation to investigate whether or not possible racist motives may have played a role in the events (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2). 

The Tzekov case concerns ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant by police officers in 1996, when they shot him in the course of a police operation aiming at stopping his vehicle to check his identity. It also concerns the lack of an effective investigation by the Bulgarian authorities of this ill-treatment caused by the police officers’ actions (procedural and substantive violations of Article 3).

The European Court noted in particular that the National Police Act permitted the use of firearms by police officers in order to arrest an individual, even in circumstances where such a measure is not strictly necessary and proportionate.

Individual measures:

            1) Nachova case: The investigations into the killings had been closed by the prosecutor in 1997. Following the European Court’s judgment, the Prosecutor General’s Office indicated that a judgment of the European Court should be considered a new fact and should be taken into account in the evaluation of the possibility of cancelling the decision to close the criminal proceedings in the applicants’ case. In accordance with these conclusions the criminal file, together with a copy of the judgment of the European Court, were sent to the Prosecutor’s Office in Pleven, competent in this situation.

• Information provided by the Bulgarian authorities (letter of 20/03/2008): A new investigation has been opened into the killing of the applicants. Most of the concrete investigative steps omitted during the initial investigation, but pointed out by the European Court in its judgment as having been necessary, have been taken. More concretely, these comprise: a) additional questioning of the witnesses in this case, as well as questioning of two additional eye-witnesses; b) investigative experiments on the scene of the events, including reconstituting the facts and examining the shot trajectory, the possibility to see and hear, the exact placement of the bodies of the victims and of the officer who shot during the shooting; and c) new forensic and ballistic reports, which have confirmed the findings of the previous ones. Further, special attention has been paid during the additional investigation on whether the officer who shot had acted in compliance with the regulations governing the use of firearms. The competent prosecutor concluded in a decision of 30/11/2007 confirmed by the appellate prosecutor in a decision of 23/01/2008 that the officer had acted in accordance with the rules applicable at the time governing the use of firearms (Unpublished Regulations on the functioning of military police issued in 1994).

The authorities indicated that they have contacted the Prosecutor General’s Office and are in the process of clarifying whether the decision of the appellate prosecutor is definitive.

• Information is urgently awaited about this question.

• Assessment: underway

            2) Tzekov case: The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation expressed the view that the criminal investigation could not be reopened as the decision to discontinue it had been taken by a prosecutor and not by a court. At the same time, the decision to discontinue the proceedings was examined ex officio by the competent appellate prosecutor. In 2007 the appellate prosecutor upheld this decision as lawful and justified. Furthermore, the expiry of the limitation period was emphasised. 

• Assessment: in these circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary in the Tzekov case.

General measures:

            1) Publication and dissemination: The judgments of the European Court in both cases have been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg.

The Nachova judgment has been also published in the new quarterly journal European Law and Integration, which is published by the Ministry of Justice in 1000 copies and distributed to magistrates and academics. It has been sent to the military courts and prosecuting organs, as well as to the Ministry of the Interior and to the Ministry of Defence, with a circular letter explaining the most important conclusions of the European Court, and in particular the fact that the Convention prohibits the use of fire-arms during arrest of fugitives who are not dangerous (a copy of this letter was provided).

• Confirmation is urgently awaited of the dissemination of the Tzekov judgment to the competent investigation organs in order to draw their attention to the deficiencies of the initial enquiry conducted in this case. 

2) Training on the Convention’s requirements in respect of use of force and firearms: The authorities consider that the seminars on the Convention and the European Court's case-law organised by the National Institute of Justice are relevant measures for the execution of these cases (more than 23 seminars for more than 798 participants - judges, prosecutors and national experts - took place in the period 2001-2006, of which 4 seminars on Articles 2, 3, 13 and 14).

In June 2006, the Ministry of Justice asked Prosecutor General’s offices in courts of appeal for information on complaints concerning allegations of ill-treatment inflicted during arrest lodged between 2002 and 2004, and on their outcome. A report drawn up by military prosecutors was provided concerning the results of the investigations of cases of allegations of police violence for 1999-2005 (see the cases of the Velikova group, 41488/98, Section 4.2).

            3) Use of force and firearms by the military police during arrest (violation of the substantive aspect of Articles 2 and 3): In 2009, the Ministry of Defence adopted a regulation defining the circumstances in which military police may use force and firearms. On 26/03/2010 the authorities provided the text of this regulation and it is currently being assessed by the Secretariat.

• This information is being assessed.

            4) Use of force and firearms by the police during arrest (violation of the substantive aspect of Articles 2 and 3): In October 2007, the Directorate for Legislation within the Ministry of Justice expressed the view that an appropriate legal framework on the use of force during arrest by ordinary police already existed and that the violations found by the European Court were due to the incorrect application of this legal framework.

• Assessment: In this context it should be noted that the European Court clearly stated in the Tzekov case that the legal framework governing the use of force during arrest by ordinary police falls short of the level of protection of the right to life and the prohibition of ill-treatment required by the Convention.

• Information is requested in particular about what measures the Bulgarian authorities envisage taking to bring the National Police Act in line with the requirements of the European Court in the area of use of fire-arms.

            5) Violations of Articles 2 and 3 (procedural aspect): As regards the improvement of investigations carried out when individuals have been killed or injured as a result of the use of force, a great part of the general measures adopted or under way within the framework of the Velikova case are also relevant to the present case.

            6) Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2: The authorities are of the opinion that no amendment of the Criminal Code is needed to guarantee fulfilment of prosecutors’ obligation to determine whether or not possible racist motives played a role in an excessive use of force during arrest.

The Ministry of Justice indicated in the circular letter, sent to the military authorities and to the Ministry of Defence for the dissemination of the judgment (see above), that Bulgaria’s obligations under the Convention can be fulfilled in an appropriate manner by drawing up instructions for the attention of prosecution authorities indicating their obligation to investigate possible racist motives in similar cases. Subsequently, the Ministry of Defence, in particular its service responsible for the military police, brought the judgment to the attention of the competent authorities. Concrete instructions were given to the military police in order to prevent similar violations in the future. The Government Agent asked the Military Prosecutor of Appeal whether his office has drawn up instructions for the attention of investigating bodies in line with the judgment of the European Court.

On 26/03/10 the authorities provided information on amendments made in 2009 to the Criminal Code to introduce more severe sanctions for racially and ethnically motivated crimes. It should be noted that these crimes concern mainly acts of incitement to racial, national or ethnic hatred or participation in mobs aroused to attack citizens because of their ethnic, national or racial affiliation.

• Information awaited: A copy of the instructions given to the military police is awaited. In addition, information is awaited on the response of the Military Prosecutor of Appeal to the Government Agent’s enquiry as to whether similar instructions have been given to the other investigating bodies.

• It would also be useful to have the authorities’ assessment of the relevance of these amendments to the execution of this judgment, as the situations concerned by the amendments to the Criminal Code do not seem to be similar to that concerned in the Nachova case.

- 15 cases mainly concerning deaths or ill-treatment which took place under the responsibility of the forces of order

Interim Resolution CM/Res/DH(2007)107

41488/98           Velikova, judgment of 18/05/00, final on 04/10/00

38361/97           Anguelova, judgment of 13/06/02, final on 13/09/02

69138/01           Boyko Ivanov, judgment of 22/07/2008, final on 22/10/2008, rectified on 08/09/2008

31365/02           Dimitrov Georgi, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

61275/00           Georgiev Vladimir, judgment of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009

53121/99           Iliev Stefan, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007

55061/00           Kazakova, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006

50222/99           Krastanov, judgment of 30/09/2004, final on 30/12/2004

7888/03            Nikolova and Velichkova, judgment of 20/12/2007, final on 20/03/2008

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

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

57883/00           Petrov Vasil, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 31/10/2008

47905/99           Rashid, judgment of 18/01/2006, final on 18/04/2006

42027/98           Toteva, judgment of 19/05/2004, final on 19/08/2004

48130/99           Vasilev Ivan, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

The Ognyanova and Choban, Velikova and Anguelova cases concern breaches of the right to life and/or of the prohibition of ill-treatment, since the authorities failed to account fully for the deaths of relatives of the applicants between 1993 and 1996, while they were detained in police custody, and also in some cases for the injuries they received during detention (violations of Articles 2 and/or 3).

The Nikolova and Velichkova case concerns a breach of the right to life of the applicants’ relative, who died in police custody after excessive force was used to arrest him (violation of Article 2).

The rest of the cases, except the Kazakova and the Stefan Iliev cases, concern the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicants by police officers between 1995 and 2001, in the course of different police operations and during police custody (violations of Article 3).

All these cases also concern the lack of effective investigation by the Bulgarian authorities into these deaths or into the applicants' arguable claim to have suffered ill-treatment at the hands of the police (violations of Articles 2 or 3, and in some cases Article 13).

The Anguelova and Ognyanova and Choban cases also concern the unlawfulness of the detention of the applicants' relatives, as it was not in conformity with domestic law (violations of Article 5§1).

The Anguelova case concerns in addition the failure by the police to provide timely medical care during the detention of the applicant's son (violation of Article 2).

The Krastanov case also relates to the excessive length of civil proceedings for damages brought by the applicant in 1995. The Petrov Vasil case also concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant (violations of Article 6§1).

The Osman case also concerns the illegal destruction of certain property of the applicants during the police operation to evict them from their house (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Finally the Rashid case also relates to the violation of the applicant's right to be brought before a judge promptly after his arrest (violation of Article 5§3) and to the unlawfulness of the applicants' continued detention pending trial following the domestic court's decision ordering his release (violation of Article 5§1).

Individual measures: In the Interim Resolution adopted in these cases in October 2007, the Committee has called upon the Bulgarian government to rapidly adopt all required individual measures (see CM/ResDH(2007)107). Information was sought in particular on the follow-up given to the judgments of the European Court by the General Prosecutor (competent to ask for the reopening of the unsatisfactory criminal investigations in these cases).

According to the information provided by the Bulgarian authorities, an examination of the possibility of new investigation was carried out or was underway in the majority of these cases.

• Information was submitted on the 16/10/2008 concerning the cases Velikova, Toteva, Anguelova and Ognyanova and Choban and is currently being assessed.  

1) Velikova case: a prosecutor from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation orally informed the authorities that an enquiry had been opened in 2007 into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Tsonchev.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of this enquiry.

2) Anguelova case: The criminal investigation into the death of the applicants’ relative was discontinued in 2004 (following the judgment of the European Court in this case). The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation expressed the opinion that the investigation could not be reopened, as the decision to discontinue it had been taken by a prosecutor and not by a court. At the same time, the decision to discontinue the proceedings was examined ex officio by the competent appellate prosecutor, who concluded in 2008 that the initial decision had been lawful and justified.

• Assessment: under way. It would be useful to have 1) information as to whether new investigative acts have been carried out between 1997, when the initial investigation was suspended, and 2004, when a decision was taken for its discontinuation; and 2) a copy of the 2004 prosecutor’s decision discontinuing the investigation.

3) Kazakova case: The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation ordered an examination into the circumstances of the case and pointed to specific actions to be taken in that respect, in particular the questioning of the police officers involved in the facts and of the applicant (copy of the European Court’s decision was enclosed with this order). As a result of this examination, in 2007, the competent military prosecutor refused to open criminal investigation into the relevant facts. His decision was upheld by the Appellate Military Prosecutor in 2008. The latter pointed out in particular that the limitations period had expired about 9 years ago, and consequently it was not possible to initiate proceedings anew.

• Assessment: in these circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.

4) Ognyanova and Choban case: The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation considered that no reopening of the criminal investigation into the death of the applicants’ relative was needed (letter of 16/01/08). This finding was made on the basis of a decision of the Appellate Military Prosecutor of 2008 upholding the initial prosecutorial decision not to prosecute. The Appellate Military Prosecutor considered in particular that the analysis of the evidence gathered in the case demonstrated that the initial prosecutorial decision not to prosecute was lawful and justified. Further he found that the investigating authorities had taken all measures to establish the truth, the prosecutor in particular having discontinued proceedings only after an objective, all-inclusive and thorough examination of all circumstances of the case.

• Assessment: It should be noted that this consideration and analysis refer to the same investigation acts declared by the European Court to have been insufficient, giving rise to a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2.

• Additional information is awaited as to how the authorities are engaging with pursuing an effective investigation in line with the requirements stated by the European Court.

5) Osman case: A copy was provided of the 1997 refusal to open criminal proceedings on the grounds that the act at issue did not constitute a criminal offence. The authorities indicated that they have no information as to whether the applicants appealed against this decision. 

• Information is awaited about an examination by the competent authorities of the possibility for new investigation into the relevant facts. In addition, it should be noted that according to the information contained in the judgment of the European Court, the applicants appealed against the refusal of 1997 to open criminal investigation (see §41 of the judgment). .

6) Toteva case: the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation considered that there was no criminal investigation to be reopened in this case since no formal refusal to open a criminal investigation into the relevant facts had been issued at the relevant time. 

• Information is awaited about the possibility of opening criminal investigation in respect of the acts of the police officers who allegedly ill-treated the applicant.

            7) Nikolova and Velichkova case  An investigation was carried out in this case; however, various factors led the European Court to conclude that the criminal proceedings against the two police officers responsible for the death of the applicants’ relative fell short of the requirements of Article 2: the police officers were convicted more than seven years after the wrongful act; they received suspended minimum sentences; no disciplinary measures were taken against them; and they continued to serve in the police force after the criminal proceedings were brought against them, and one was even promoted.

One of the police officers involved resigned from the police force in 1999 (§63; §§19-20).

• Information is awaited as to whether the police officers found guilty of causing the death of the applicants’ relative are currently employed as law enforcement agents.

8) Petrov Vasil case: The criminal proceedings against the applicant have been ended and the applicant has been released.

• Information is awaited on the possibility of reopening the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.

• Information is also awaitedon the situation concerning in particular the newer cases (Iliev Stefan, Rashid, Vasilev Ivan, Krastanov, Boyko Ivanov, Georgiev Vladimir and Dimitrov Georgi).

General measures:

1) Adopted measures: The measures adopted by the Bulgarian authorities were summarised in the Interim Resolution adopted in these cases in October 2007 (see CM/ResDH(2007)107). The most important of them are presented below:

a) Violations of the right to life and of the prohibition of ill-treatment, including as a result of lack of medical care: The main information provided by the authorities concerns awareness-raising measures and training of the police on the requirements of the Convention: compulsory training on the subject has been introduced and in 2000 a specialised Human Rights Committee was set up at the National Police Directorate. In addition, in 2002, a new form was introduced, to be signed by all detained persons, containing information on their basic rights. Furthermore, in October 2003 a Code of Police Ethics, drawn up in cooperation with the Council of Europe, was introduced by order of the Minister of the Interior.

The special issue of the insufficiency of the legal framework for the use of firearms by police officers is being examined within the framework of the cases of Nachova and others (Section 4.2).

b) Violations related to the lack of effective investigation: A judicial review of prosecutors’ decisions not to prosecute was introduced in 2001 as well as the power for courts to remit files to the prosecutor for specific investigations. The effectiveness of this judicial review is steadily enhanced as the direct effect of the Convention and the European Court’s case law is improving.

c) Violations related to unlawful detention: It has been noted that already at the time of the events, a written order had to be issued before police detention and this detention had to be recorded in a special register. In a circular letter of 13/03/2002 the Director of the National Police Directorate reminded all the chiefs of Regional Police Directorates of their obligation to take all necessary measures to ensure strict compliance with these rules. In addition, Article 12 of the 2006 Instruction on detention by police specifies that the period of detention runs from the moment a person has been apprehended; the time must be recorded in the detention order, irrespective of when the actual order for detention is issued.

d) Violation of the right of property: In the light of the particular circumstances of this violation, the publication and the dissemination of the Osman case appear appropriate measures for execution. 

e) Other violations: The measures required by the violation related to the excessive length of the civil proceedings for damages against the state are examined in the context of the Djangozov case (45950/99, Section 4.2). The measures required by the violation related to the excessive length of the criminal proceedings are examined in the context of the Kitov case (37104/97, Section 4.2).  

The measures required by the violation of the right to be brought promptly before a judge after arrest were adopted in the case of Assenov, closed by Resolution ResDH(2000)109, following a legislative reform of criminal procedure which took effect from 01/01/2000.

The issue concerning continuing detention pending trial following the domestic court's decision ordering release is examined in the framework of the Bojilov group (Section 4.2).

f) Publication and dissemination: the most important judgments of the European Court were translated, published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice and sent out to the relevant authorities, in some cases together with an accompanying letter from the Ministry of Justice.

2) Outstanding issues: Whilst noting with interest the information provided by the government in respect of general measures, the Committee has, however, noted in the above mentioned Interim Resolution that certain general measures remain to be taken, in particular measures aimed at:

- improving the initial and ongoing trainingof all members of police forces, in particular as regards the widespread inclusion of the feature “human rights” in the training;

- improving procedural safeguards during detention on remand, in particular through the effective implementation of the new regulations concerning the obligation to inform detained persons of their rights and the formalities to be followed concerning the recording of arrests;

- guaranteeing the independence of investigations regarding allegations of ill-treatment inflicted by the police, and in particular ensuring the impartiality of the investigation organs in charge with this kind of cases.

In the light hereof the Committee called upon the Government of Bulgaria to rapidly adopt all outstanding measures and to regularly inform the Committee on the practical impact of the adopted measures, in particular by submitting statistical data on the investigations carried out in respect of allegations of ill-treatment by the police. The Committee decided to pursue the supervision of execution until all general measures necessary for the prevention of new, similar violations of the Convention are adopted and their effectiveness does not raise any doubt.

• Information is still awaited on the above mentioned outstanding issues. Confirmation is awaited of the dissemination of the judgments of the European Court in the Ognyanova and Choban and Osman cases to the competent investigation organs in order to draw their attention to the deficiencies of the enquiries conducted in these cases. 

- 2 cases mainly concerning the lack of effective investigation into death or alleged ill-treatment inflicted by private individuals

55523/00           Angelova and Iliev, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

72663/01           Dimitrov Nikolay, judgment of 27/09/2007, final on 27/12/2007

1) Angelova and Iliev: This caseconcerns the authorities’ failure in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the death of a relative of the applicants following a racially motivated attack by a group of teenagers in April 1996 (violation of Article 2). Although the authorities had identified the assailants almost immediately after the attack, had determined with some degree of certainty the identity of the person who had stabbed the victim, and had charged some of the assailants, no one was brought to trial for the attack over a period of more than 11 years. As a result of the accumulated delays, the statute of limitations expired in respect of the majority of the assailants. The European Court found that the authorities failed in their obligation effectively to investigate the death of the applicants' relative promptly, expeditiously and with the required vigour, considering the racial motives of the attack and the need to maintain the confidence of minorities in the ability of the authorities to protect them from the threat of racist violence.

The case also concerns the authorities’ failure to make the required distinction between offences that were racially motivated and those that were not, in that they failed to ensure due diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings and to prosecute the assailants for racially motivated offences, despite the widespread prejudice and violence against Roma (violation of Article 14 combined with Article 2).

            2) Dimitrov Nikolay: This case concerns the authorities’ failure in their obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s credible allegations of ill-treatment inflicted by private third parties in August 1997 (violation of Article 3). The applicant had identified the assailants to the authorities and had provided medical evidence that he had been physically assaulted. Some investigative steps had been conducted by the authorities in the immediate aftermath of his complaint. Despite that, the authorities had not acted with sufficient diligence and had finally decided to discontinue the prosecutions in June 2000 on the ground that there was no evidence that the applicant had been the victim of an offence. In taking these decisions, they relied mostly on the fact that the applicant had withdrawn his complaint, disregarding the evidence gathered during the investigation and the applicant’s later statements according to which the withdrawal of his complaint was the result of the pressure brought on members of his family by one of his alleged aggressors. In addition, the European Court found that the authorities did not take certain investigative steps which it deemed necessary and the investigation had been affected by undue delays. The Court held that the inadequacies of the investigation had been too numerous and too serious for it to be regarded as effective.

Individual measures:

1) Angelova and Iliev case: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages suffered. Investigations were still pending against two of the assailants when the European Court delivered its judgment. The charges against the others assailants had to be dismissed under the statute of limitations.

The applicant’s lawyer submitted in April 2008 that, after the European Court’s judgment became final, the preliminary investigation was concluded in a report, the content of which was unknown to the applicants. The case file was transmitted to the competent prosecutor, who never replied to the applicants’ requests to read the file, and was known to have been on sick leave at least between 2/10/2007 and beginning of April 2008. On 14/04/2008 the applicants asked the relevant appellate Prosecutor’s Office to allow them to read the file and to appoint another prosecutor competent to complete the investigation and bring the case to court. 

• Information provided by the Bulgarian authorities: On 14/05/2008, in the presence of her lawyer, the applicant (the victim’s mother) was informed of the evidence collected during the preliminary stage of the criminal proceedings. All documents concerning the investigation have been submitted to the applicant. On 16/10/2008, the Shoumen Regional Court found one of the alleged assailants, Mr Gueorgiev, guilty of voluntarily causing the death of Mr Iliev, and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and to pay damages of 10 000 leva to the civil party, Mrs Angelova. Another of the alleged assailants, Mr Ganev, was found guilty of acts contrary to public morals and was fined.

The judgment was appealed by Mr Georgiev and Mrs Angelova to the Varna Court of Appeal, which upheld the judgment on 25/05/2009. Upon appeal by Mr Gueorgiev and Mrs Angelova, the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the appeal court and remitted the case to it.

At the 1072nd meeting (December 2009), the Committee of Ministers took note of the information provided on the development of the criminal proceedings against the alleged assailants and noted that the information remained to be studied in detail.

• The information provided is being assessed.

• Information is awaited on the progress of the proceedings in the remitted case.

            2) Dimitrov Nikolay case: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages suffered.

At the 1072nd meeting (December 2009), the Committee of Ministers noted the information provided at the meeting and invited the Bulgarian authorities to submit it in writing and keep the Committee informed of any development.

• This information is still awaited.

General measures:

1) Angelova and Iliev case: As to whether the Bulgarian legal system affords adequate protection against racially-motivated offences, the European Court observed that the authorities had charged the assailants with aggravated offences, which despite not making any direct reference to racist motives nevertheless carried heavier sentences than those envisaged under the domestic racial-hatred legislation. The domestic legislation and lack of increased penalties for racist murder or serious bodily injury had not, therefore, hampered the authorities from conducting an effective investigation.

2) Dimitrov Nikolay case: The European Court noted that the ill-treatment of which the applicant complained is identified as a crime under Bulgarian criminal law and that the applicant could request compensation for the damage caused. The Court therefore found that the authorities could not be reproached for not having put an appropriate legal framework in place (§72 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Bulgarian authorities (November 2009): The judgment in the Dimitrov Nikolay case has been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice.

At the 1072nd meeting (December 2009), the Committee of Ministers took note of the information provided by the authorities, including that announced at the meeting and, in particular, on the publication of the European Court’s judgments in these cases and on the training activities organised by the National Institute for Justice. The Committee recalled that an action plan and/or an action report are expected from the authorities for the execution of the European Court’s judgments in these cases.

• An action plan and/or an action report is expected on measures envisaged or already taken. In addition, it would be useful to receive in writing the information provided by the authorities at the 1072nd meeting (December 2009).

- 14 cases concerning poor detention conditions and / or the lack of an effective investigation in this respect[1]

41035/98           Kehayov, judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005

54578/00           Alexov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008

55389/00           Dobrev, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 10/11/2006

54659/00           Gavazov, judgment of 06/03/2008, final on 06/06/2008

61507/00           Georgiev Andrei, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

44082/98           I.I., judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 09/09/2005

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

55712/00           Kostadinov, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/05/2008

28674/03           Kostov Slavcho, judgment of 27/11/2008, final on 27/02/2009

57830/00           Malechkov, judgment of 28/06/2007, final on 28/09/2007

37449/02           Shishmanov, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

49438/99           Staykov, judgment of 12/10/2006, final on 12/01/2007

50765/99           Todorov Todor, judgment of 05/04/2007, final on 05/07/2007

56856/00           Yordanov, judgment of 10/08/2006, final on 10/11/2006

71127/01           Bevacqua and S., judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

The case concerns the authorities’ failure in their obligation to take appropriate action to ensure respect for the private and family life of the applicants, a mother and her minor son, in the difficult situation caused by the applicant’s divorce and her former husband’s behaviour (violation of Article 8).

The European Court noted in particular the fact that the competent court had failed to adopt interim custody measures between June 2000 and February 2001, in a situation of tense relations between the parents which had adversely affected the child (3 year old at the time). The Court also found that the measures taken by the authorities in reaction to the violent behaviour of the child's father during the divorce proceedings were not sufficient. In the Court’s view, the authorities’ failure to impose sanctions, or otherwise oblige the father to refrain from unlawful acts amounted to a refusal to provide the immediate assistance the applicants needed. The Court concluded that the authorities’ view that no such assistance was due as the dispute concerned a “private matter” was incompatible with their positive obligations to secure the enjoyment of the applicants’ rights under Article 8.

Individual measures: The parents are divorced, custody has been granted to the first applicant (the mother) and at the time of the judgment both applicants (mother and son) were living abroad. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.

General Measures:

1) Failure to adopt interim custody measures without delay:

• The authorities are invited to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations. Information will be appreciated on the existing remedies at the disposal of interested parties to challenge delays in examining requests for interim custody measures in divorce proceedings

2) Lack of sufficient measures in respect of the father’s behaviour: The European Court stressed in the judgment that administrative and policing measures – specified in Committee of Ministers Rec(2002)5 on the protection of women against violence or introduced following the relevant facts by the 2005 Bulgarian Domestic Violence Act - were called for in this case.

• The authorities are invited to provide examples demonstrating that current administrative and policing practices ensure that sanctions are imposed on individuals engaging in unlawful acts similar to those described in this case as regards the father and/or that the persons in question are prevented from committing such acts.

3) Publication and dissemination

• Information is awaited in any event on the publication of the European Court's judgment and its dissemination to competent courts, to draw their attention to their obligation to examine requests for interim custody measures in family dispute proceedings with due diligence, affording them the priority as might be necessary.

Wide dissemination is also awaited to prosecutors and police with a circular emphasising the conclusion of the European Court that the failure to impose sanctions, or otherwise oblige a person to refrain from unlawful acts in circumstances similar to those of the present case is incompatible with the authorities’ positive obligation to secure the enjoyment of rights under Article 8.

64209/01           Peev, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007[2]

65755/01           Stefanov Iliya, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008

57045/00           Zhechev, judgment of 21/06/2007, final on 21/09/2007

The case concerns the unjustified refusal by the domestic courts to register an association in 1999 on the ground that its aims were “political” and incompatible with the Constitution (violation of Article 11).

As to the alleged “political” character of the association, the European Court found that since associations were not allowed to participate in national, local or European elections there was no “pressing social need” to require every association deemed to pursue “political” goals to register as a political party. Moreover, the exact meaning of the term “political” appeared quite vague under Bulgarian law. Thus, in the present case the domestic courts had considered that a campaign for the restoration of the Constitution of 1879 and the monarchy fell within that category. In another case, the courts stated that the holding of meetings and other forms of public campaigning by an association aimed at achieving alleged minority rights also amounted to political goals (see the judgment in the case of the UMO Ilinden and others, judgment of 19/01/2006). The Constitutional Court has, for its part, adopted a different definition of “political”, which was centred on “participation in the process of forming the bodies through which … the people exercise[d] its power” (judgment of 21/04/1992). In the light of the foregoing, the European Court found that a classification based on this criterion is liable to produce inconsistent results and give rise to considerable uncertainty among those wishing to apply for registration.  

As to the alleged incompatibility of the association’s aims with the Constitution of 1991, the European Court observed that restoring the monarchy or campaigning for change in legal and constitutional structures were not in themselves incompatible with the principles of democracy, as there was also nothing to suggest that the association would use violent or undemocratic means to achieve its aims.

Individual measures: The applicant, one of the founders of the association in question, may reapply for registration of the association. However, it appears that the individual measures are closely linked to the general measures (see below).

• Information would be useful on the applicant’s present situation.

General measures:

1) “Political” aims as a ground to refuse registration as association: The ban on associations’ pursuing political goals or carrying out political activities solely characteristic of political parties, at the origin of the domestic court’s refusal to register the applicant’s association, is provided in Article 12§2 of the Constitution of 1991.

• The Bulgarian authorities are invited to provide information on measures envisaged or already taken to overcome the shortcomings identified by the European Court in its judgment.

2) Incompatibility of the aims of the association with the Constitution: Solutions to this problem are also being discussed in particular in the framework of the UMO Ilinden and others case (59491/00, Section 4.2).

• Information is also awaited on the publication of the judgment in this case and on its wide dissemination to the competent authorities.

412/03+            Holy synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and others, judgment of 22/01/2009, final on 05/06/2009

This case concerns unjustified interference in the organisational autonomy of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church by the authorities by way of certain provisions of the Religious Denominations Act 2002 and their implementation, forcing this religious community to unite under one of two leaderships at a time when there was deep and genuine division in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (violation of Article 9, interpreted in the light of Article 11).

The European Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision as to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

- Case concerning the refusal to register an association aiming to achieve “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”

59491/00          United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and others, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

                        CM/Inf/DH(2007)8

This case relates to the competent courts' refusal to register the association Ilinden in 1998‑99, based on insufficient grounds to justify such a radical measure (violation of Article 11).

The European Court concluded that the refusal to register the association was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim but were not "necessary in a democratic society”. The Court noted in particular that the alleged formal deficiencies in the registration documents or the supposed substantive divergences between Ilinden’s articles and the laws of the country did not constitute, in the circumstances of the case, sufficient reason to deny registration. As regards the alleged dangers stemming from Ilinden’s goals and declarations, the Court considered that the refusal to register the association was not necessary to protect the territorial integrity of the country, public order or the rights and freedoms of the majority of the population in the region in question. The Court reiterated in this respect that the fact that a group of persons calls for autonomy or even requests secession of part of the country’s territory – thus demanding fundamental constitutional and territorial changes – cannot automatically justify interferences in their rights under Article 11. Concerning the applicant organisation’s virulent style and its acerbic criticism of the authorities’ actions, the Court recalled that the freedom of expression protects not only “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as matter of indifference, but also those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population (§76 of the judgment).    

Individual measures: The European Court noted that in 2002-2004 the competent courts once again refused to register the applicant association. These facts are the object of another application, currently pending before the Court (see DD(2008)564). The applicants did not refer to a new request for registration following the judgment of the European Court. However, the authorities indicated that it appeared likely, having regard to the direct effect that the authorities should give to the Convention and to the judgments of the European Court, that a possible new request will be examined in compliance with the requirements of the Convention (see also the general measures).

General measures:

            1) Awareness-raising measures: The European Court’s judgment was sent to the Court of the City of Sofia and to the Supreme Court of Cassation with a letter drawing their attention to their obligations under the Convention. The judgment was sent to the Regional Court of Blagoevgrad and to the Sofia Court of Appeal (competent for the registration of associations in the region concerned), together with a letter indicating that this communication is made within the framework of the adoption of the general measures for the execution of the European Court’s judgment. In addition, with a view to raising the awareness of the competent authorities, a CD manual, elaborated by the National Institute of Justice, was sent to 153 courts, the same number of prosecutor’s offices and to 29 investigation offices. The manual contains examples of case-law of the European Court in the field of the freedom of association and freedom of assembly, as well as articles, studies and other material relating to these areas. It may be downloaded from Internet, at www.blhr.org/bibl.htm

Furthermore, several training activities have been organised (see also the case of the UMO Ilinden-PIRIN and others, judgment of 20/10/2005, Section 6.2). A seminar for judges and prosecutors on freedom of association and assembly with the participation of the Council of Europe was organised by the National Institute of Justice in October 2007.

Another seminar on this subject, for judges, prosecutors, representatives of the Ombudsman’s Office, lawyers and NGOs was organised in December 2007 by the Ministry of Justice and the Department for execution of judgments. Yet another training activity for mayors and police chiefs took place in May 2008. Another seminar for judges and prosecutors was organised by the National Institute of Justice in June 2008. In October 2008 a group of judges from the Supreme Court of Cassation, of prosecutors and of representatives of the Government Agent’s Office paid a study visit to the Council of Europe during which they participated in a working seminar. 

2) Communications from civil society: On 10/03/09 the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee submitted information relating to the refusals of the Blagoevgrad regional court, in December 2008 and in January 2009, to register two associations – “Macedonian cultural and educational association” and “Union for the repressed Macedonians in Bulgaria”. The Bulgarian authorities stated that this information could not be taken into consideration for the examination of these cases, in particular due to the fact that only awareness-raising measures were required for the execution of the UMO Ilinden and others judgment (DD(2009)135 of 25/03/09). On 02/06/09 the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee submitted another communication referring to the confirmation on appeal of the refusal to register the associations mentioned above. According to this communication, the decisions of the appeal courts have been themselves appealed before the Supreme Court of Cassation. A copy of the decision of the appeal court in one of these proceedings has been submitted (see DD(2009)405E of 10/08/2009).

• Assessment: The information provided by the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee deserves to be examined as far as it relates to the question of the efficacy of the awareness-raising measures adopted so far in order to prevent violations similar to that found by the European Court. It should be noted in this respect that certain grounds put forward to refuse the registration of one of the associations in question have already been rejected by the European Court, not least in the judgment UMO Ilinden – PIRIN and others. 

• The authorities’ comments on this question are awaited.

            3) Publication: The judgment of the European Court was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg, to draw the public’ attention, as well as that of other authorities which may be brought to act in this area, to the requirements of the Convention in this field. The judgment was also published in the new quarterly journal European Law and Integration, which is published by the Ministry of Justice in 1000 copies and distributed to magistrates and academics (No. 2/2006), together with an article analysing the European Court’s conclusions in these cases, as well as the Court’s case-law in this field. 

47579/99           Raichinov, judgment of 20/04/2006, final on 20/07/2006

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression due to his being sentenced in 1998 to a fine and to a public reprimand for having insulted a high-ranking official (violation of Article 10). The applicant, who was at that time head of the division in the Ministry of Justice responsible for financial support declared at a working meeting, with regard to a decision entrusting some financial matter to the Deputy Prosecutor-General, that in his opinion the latter was not honest and added that he could prove it. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the European Court considered that the reaction of the Prosecutor-General who insisted on the applicant’s prosecution ex officio and the ensuing conviction were disproportionate and failed to answer any pressing social need.   

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction including the amount of the fine paid by the applicant. The public reprimand was never enforced because the relevant prescription period expired. Furthermore, the applicant was rehabilitated automatically with the effect of erasing the sentence and its consequences (Article 88a of the Criminal Code). In addition it appears that, in 2007, the Supreme Court of Cassation reopened the proceedings against the applicant following the European Court’s judgment and that by decision No. 293/2007 annulled the applicant’s conviction and acquitted him. 

• Additional information is awaited on this decision, a copy of which would be useful.

General measures:

• Assessment: As the violation does not appear to reveal any structural problem concerning the protection of the freedom of expression in Bulgaria and having regard to the development of the direct effect given by Bulgarian courts to the Convention and to the Court's case-law, the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to competent courts appear to be sufficient measures for execution.

The judgment of the European Court has been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg.

• Information is expected on its dissemination.

Moreover, it has been noted that following modifications of the Criminal Code introduced in 2000, insult may now only be prosecuted privately (§§30 and 50 of the European Court’s judgment) and imprisonment may not longer be imposed for this kind of offences.

14134/02           Glas Nadejda EOOD and Elenkov, judgment of 11/10/2007, final on 11/01/2008

The case concerns an unlawful interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant company due to the refusal without reasoning by the competent body, the National Radio and Television Committee (NRTC), to award it a radio broadcasting licence (violation of Article 10).

The European Court pointed out in particular that the NRTC had not held any form of public hearing and its deliberations had been kept secret, despite a court order obliging it to provide the applicants with a copy of its minutes. Nor had the NRTC given reasons explaining why it considered that the applicant company had failed to meet its requirements. This lack of reasons had not been made good in the ensuing judicial review proceedings, because the Supreme Administrative Court had held that the NTRC’s discretion was not reviewable. This, coupled with the vagueness of some of the NRTC’s criteria, had denied the applicants legal protection against arbitrary interference with their freedom of expression.

The case also concerns the absence of a judicial review of the NRTC’s decision. The Court observed that the approach taken by the Supreme Administrative Court in the applicants’ case, which had involved refusing to interfere with the NRTC’s discretionary powers, had fallen short of the requirements of Article 13, which obliges domestic authorities to examine the substance of the complaints made under the Convention (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures:  

• Information is still awaited as to whether the applicants may submit a new application for a radio broadcasting licence (currently before the Electronic Media Council).

General measures: The European Court found in its judgment that the guidelines adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the field of broadcasting regulations called for open and transparent application of the regulations governing the licensing procedure and specifically recommended that all decisions taken by regulatory authorities are duly reasoned and open to review by the competent judicial bodies (Recommendation Rec(2000)23). In this connection, it should be noted that the national law provided at the material time and still provides that the decisions of the competent body to grant, modify or withdraw a radio broadcasting license may be reviewed by the Supreme Administrative Court (Article 38 of the Law on Radio and Television). The approach followed by the Supreme Administrative Court in this case appears to be based solely on its practice.

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged to prevent new, similar violations. In particular it would be useful to have a copy of the regulations currently in force concerning the criteria and procedure for the award of radio broadcasting licences. In any event, the publication of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination to the Electronic Media Council formerly the NRTC), to the State Telecommunications Commission and to the Supreme Administrative Court, appear necessary measures of execution.

31211/03           Georgiev Gavril, judgment of 02/04/2009, final on 02/07/2009

This case concerns the unlawful detention of the applicant for four days in March 2003 by order of the commanding officer of the regiment in which he was performing his military service (violation of Article 5§1). The government indicated before the European Court that the detention had been ordered for the purpose of ensuring that the applicant, who was under suspicion of having committed a crime, could be brought before the courts within the framework of the criminal proceedings initiated against him. In this respect, the European Court found that under domestic law, the regiment’s commanding officer was not among the bodies competent to order a remand in custody.

This case also concerns the fact that the applicant had no remedy available to him whereby he could contest the lawfulness of the detention order (violation of Article 5§4).

To date, the authorities have provided no information.

55861/00           Svetloslav Dimitrov, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/05/2008

The case concerns the irregularity of the detention of the applicant between May 1999 and February 2000 on account of the lack of clarity in domestic law about the conciliation between different periods of detention which appear to run in parallel and the resolution of possible disagreements amongst state organs on that subject (violation of Article 5§1).

Between 1995 and 1999 Mr Dimitrov was convicted on three occasions of theft. At the end of the third set of proceedings he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 2 months, from which the court deducted the period of pre-trial detention in these proceedings (from June 1996 to December 1998). The applicant served the so defined sentence in December 1998. However, he was detained again between May 1999 and February 2000 for the execution of the same conviction, because the prosecution considered that the pre-trial detention that was to be deducted from the punishment comprised a shorter period (from June 1996 until August 1997). According to the prosecution and also the penitentiary authorities, the pre-trial detention was suspended in August 1997, given that as of that date and till December 1998 the applicant was detained for the execution of the first two sentences.

The European Court observed in this connection that the pre-trial detention of the applicant was formally revoked only in December 1998 and that the domestic legislation does not provide for its automatic suspension the moment a detainee starts serving a prison sentence. It expressed doubt concerning the power of the prosecution to order the execution of what it considers to be the remaining part of a sentence, despite a clear court decision on that subject.

The case also concerns the lack of a remedy allowing the applicant to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in question before a tribunal (violation of Article 5§4). The European Court observed that in domestic law a general habeas corpus procedure did not exist and that none of the specific procedures concerning the detention was applicable to this situation.

In this case the applicant was not permitted an executable right to compensation for his detention effected contrary to the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention (violation of Article 5§5). In fact, at the end of the proceedings, which he initiated on the basis of the Law on the responsibility of the State and the municipalities for damage, the competent courts concluded that his detention was in conformity with domestic law.

Individual measures: The applicant was released in February 2000 and the European Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

• Assessment: No other individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

            1) Unlawful detention in the absence of clear provisions concerning the conciliation between different periods of detention which appear to run in parallel (violation of Article 5§1):

• The authorities are invited to provide informationabout the current provisions governing this question, and, if necessary, about the measures envisaged or already adopted in order to establish clear regulations on this subject, including solving potential disagreements among the State organs in this area.

            2) Lack of judicial control of the lawfulness of the detention (violation of Article 5§4):

• Information is awaited on the possibility to introduce in Bulgarian law a judicial control of the deprivation of liberty in similar cases. It should be noted that a similar question has already been raised in the Stoichkov case on the subject of control of the lawfulness of detention for the execution of a sentence passed in absentia (9808/02, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

            3) Lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention in contravention of Article 5): The measures to adopt are linked to those concerning the violation of Article 5§1. In fact, while accepting the application of the Law on the responsibility of the state and the municipalities for damage, the courts responsible for the case rejected the request for compensation of the applicant on the basis of diverging arguments, the court of first instance having even concluded that his detention has been unlawful. It appears that the approach of the courts in this procedure is largely attributable to the lack of clarity on the conciliation between periods of detention running simultaneously.

• In any event, the authorities are invited to publish and to disseminate this judgment to the competent authorities, in particular to prosecutors.

75157/01           Sadaykov, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 22/08/2008

The case concerns the unlawful detention of the applicant for a period of 8 days in November 1999 pending his expulsion, because – contrary to the requirements of the domestic law – his detention was not based on a written order explicitly stating that he was to be detained pending expulsion (violation of Article 5§1(f)).

The European Court noted that Bulgarian law at the time made a distinction between an order for an alien’s deportation and an order for his or her detention pending such deportation. The Court concluded that, as only an order for deporting the applicant had been issued, it could hardly be considered to have authorised additionally his detention for a period which was not subject to an upper limit.

The case also concerns the absence of a meaningful opportunity for the applicant to have the lawfulness of his detention pending deportation decided speedily by a court (violation of Article 5§4). The European Court noted that even assuming that the applicant could have had the lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a court by challenging in court his deportation order, such an application for judicial review could have only been lodged if the administrative avenues for appeal had already been exhausted or if the time-limit for their exhaustion had already expired. Bearing in mind that the applicant was deported 8 days after his arrest, the Court considered that the applicant had no realistic possibility of using this remedy to obtain a prompt review of his detention pending deportation. It was also not established that the applicant had at his disposal any other avenues for redress, given that Bulgarian law does not provide for a general habeas corpus procedure applying to all kinds of deprivation of liberty.

Individual measures: None as the applicant was deported in November 1999.

General measures:

1) Unlawful detention pending expulsion (Article 5§1):

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged to prevent future, similar violations.

2) Impossibility to have the lawfulness of detention pending deportation decided speedily by a court (Article 5§4): This case presents similarities to the Al-Nashif case (Section 4.2).

• Information is awaited in the present case on regulations and practice relating to the judicial supervision of detention pending deportation.

- 11 cases mainly concerning the length of detention on remand[3]

45114/98          Bojilov, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 22/03/2005

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

47799/99          Bojinov, judgment of 28/10/2004, final on 28/01/2005

56796/00          Danov, judgment of 26/10/2006, final on 26/01/2007

16085/02           Georgieva, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008

60859/00          Hristova, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 07/03/2007

48870/99          Iliev, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 22/03/2005

40063/98          Mitev, judgment of 22/12/2004, final on 22/03/2005

74792/01           Rashid No. 2, judgment of 05/06/2008, final on 05/09/2008, rectified on 30/09/2008

3475/03            Titovi, judgment of 25/06/2009, final on 25/09/2009

47279/99          Yosifov, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 07/03/2007

31001/02           Kamburov, judgment of 23/04/2009, final on 23/07/2009

This case concerns the fact that the applicant had no opportunity to appeal to a higher court against a judgment of 2002 by a district court convicting him and sentencing him to five days’ detention for a minor disturbance to public order. Given the severity of the penalty provided for the offence concerned, i.e. up to fifteen days’ detention, the European Court considered that the applicant should have had the possibility to have the judgment of the district court examined by a higher court (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

Noting that no information has been provided in this case other than on the payment of just satisfaction, the Deputies once more invited the authorities to transmit an action plan / action report for the implementation of this judgment and decided to resume consideration at the latest at their 1st DH meeting in March 2011. / Notant qu'aucune information n'a été fournie dans cette affaire mise à part sur le paiement de la satisfaction équitable, les Délégués invitent à nouveau les autorités à transmettre un plan / bilan d'action pour l'exécution de cet arrêt et décident d'en reprendre l'examen au plus tard à leur 1ère réunion DH de mars 2011.

77568/01+         Petkov and others, judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 11/09/2009

This case concerns the failure or refusal of the electoral authorities to comply with the Supreme Administrative Court’s final and binding judgments by virtue of which they were required to reinstate the three applicants on the lists of candidates for the 17 June 2001 parliamentary elections (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1). 

This case also concerns the lack of effective remedies available to the applicants in this respect (violation of Article 13). 

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

51343/99          Angelov Angel, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007

The case concerns the lack of access to a court due to the unmotivated dismissal of the applicant’s petition for review (cassation) by the Supreme Court of Cassation (violation of Article 6§1).The European Court noted that the order dismissing the applicant’s petition as time-barred could not be seen as a justified enforcement of a legitimate procedural limitation on the applicant’s right of access to a court as it did not indicate the dates on which the relevant time-limit had started to run and expired and the date on which the appeal had been submitted.

Individual measures: The applicant was sentenced to a year's imprisonment, suspended. In addition his driving licence was suspended for a year.

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 421§2 and 422§1, p. 4) when a judgment of the European Court has found a violation of the Convention which is decisive for the criminal proceedings, the Prosecutor General is obliged to request the reopening of the proceedings in question within one month from the date upon which he took cognisance of the judgment of the European Court. In addition the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

• Information is expected on the current situation of the applicant and whether the Prosecutor General has requested the reopening of the proceedings.

General measures: The European Court noted that the order of the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissing the applicants petition for review (cassation) as time-barred was made on a standard form which did not mention any dates (§18).

• The authorities are invited to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in order to comply with the requirements of the European Convention.

• Information is awaited concerning the publication of the European Court's judgment and its dissemination to relevant courts and authorities, to raise domestic courts' awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from this case.

47797/99+        Kehaya and others, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 12/04/2006 and of 14/06/2007, final on 14/09/2007 (Article 41)

The case concerns the failure by the Bulgarian courts to respect the final character of a judgment of 1996, ordering the restitution of certain plots of land to the applicants (violation of Article 6§1). In 2000, following proceedings brought by the local forest authority, the Supreme Court of Cassation reconsidered the issues determined in 1996 and found that the applicants were not legally entitled to the land in question. The Supreme Court of Cassation found that the decision of 1996 did not have res judicata effects to the forest authority, as this decision was given in proceedings which were administrative by their nature, with the participation of the restitution commission. 

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

Individual measures: Under Article 41, the respondent state was to return to the applicants the ownership and possession of the plots of land at issue or, failing such restitution, the state was to pay the applicants within the same deadlines certain sums corresponding to the value of the property. The Bulgarian authorities did not return the land at issue to the applicants, but instead paid the amounts awarded by the European Court as compensation for pecuniary damage in case of non-restitution, as well amounts awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damages and for costs and expenses, into bank accounts specially opened for that purpose in the name of the applicants.

• Assessment: No other measure appears necessary.

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

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

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

19612/02           Kalkanov, judgment of 09/10/2008, final on 09/01/2009

The case concerns unfairness of civil proceedings brought by the applicant in order to have his dismissal revoked. When deciding on the applicant’s appeal on points of law, the Supreme Court of Cassation refused to examine a decisive argument raise by him on the pretext that it was a new argument which had not been examined by the lower courts and required the gathering of new evidence.

The European Court considered that this conclusion of the Supreme Court of Cassation was clearly erroneous as it was not consonant with the material in the file nor with the findings of the lower courts. The argument had actually been submitted in the applicant’s initial statement of claim and had therefore been raised before the lower courts (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The proceedings before the Supreme Court of Cassation challenged by the judgment led to the refusal of the applicant’s request to have his dismissal revoked. The applicant did not submit any just satisfaction claim to the European Court.

• Information is awaited on any individual measures taken or envisaged.

General measures: The violation in this case seems to constitute an isolated incident, due to a mistake by the Supreme Court of Cassation. Publication of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination to the judges of that court appear to be sufficient for the execution of the judgment.

• Information is awaited in this respect.

60018/00           Bonev, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006

The case concerns the unfairness of the applicant’s trial in that he was unable to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements had served as the main basis for his conviction in 1999 (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3 d)). The court considered that these witnesses could not be found, and could not be summonsed to appear as one of them had died and the other was not found at the indicated address (and was apparently a vagrant). It therefore, with the applicant’s consent, had read into the record the testimony they had given at the stage of the preliminary investigation. The applicant appealed without success.

The European Court found that the applicant could not be regarded as having waived his rights under Article 6 of the Convention, as he was not represented by a lawyer when he agreed to the reading of the statements and, moreover, he had not been cautioned as to the consequences of this act. The Court noted, furthermore, that no effort had been made to establish the whereabouts of the only eyewitness still alive, even though the applicant was accused of murder and risked a severe sentence.

Individual measures: the applicant was sentenced in 1999 to ten years’ imprisonment. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Articles 421§2 and 422§1, p. 4) when a judgment of the European Court has found a violation of the Convention which is decisive for the criminal proceedings, the Prosecutor General is obliged to request the reopening of the proceedings in question within one month from the date upon which he took cognisance of the judgment of the European Court.

• Information is awaited on the applicant’s present situation and on a possible request for reopening of his trial. 

General measures: The witnesses statements at issue in this case were included in the file on the basis of Article 279§1, pp. 4 and 5 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings of 1974. According to the first of these provisions, the statement of a witness given at the preliminary investigation could be read out at the trial and included in the file if the witness had died or he could not be found in order to be called. According to the second provision, this could also be done, if the witness, despite being duly subpoenaed, did not appear and the parties agreed to this. 

According to a new provision, introduced in 2003 (Art. 279§3), on the conditions of §1 (see above) statements made at the preliminary investigation may be included in the file if the parties agree. In such cases, the court is obliged either to appoint a lawyer for the accused, if he is not already represented but wishes to have a lawyer, or to explain to the accused what would be the consequences of his consent. This legislative framework was maintained in the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 2006 (Art. 281§§1 and 3). 

• Assessment: as it seems that it is still possible to include in criminal case-files witness statements given at the preliminary investigation without the consent of the accused, it is necessary to send the judgment of the European Court out to all criminal courts, to draw their attention in particular to the need for thorough efforts to locate witnesses before considering that they could not be found.

It should be noted that two decisions of the Supreme Court, of 1981 and 1991, support this approach, but they were not followed in the present case (§31 of the European Court’s judgment).

The judgment of the European Court was published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg.

 

50479/99          Yordanov Stanimir, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007

The case concerns the unfairness of the applicant's trial in that he was unable to appear and defend his case, either in person or through his lawyer, before the courts which had ruled on his case (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3c). In February 1997 the applicant and his lawyer could not attend the hearing at which his appeal against an administrative fine was examined, as the summons to attend the hearing had been sent to the applicant's former address, despite his lawyer's repeated requests that it be sent to her offices. His application for a retrial was granted by the Sofia City Court, which, although acknowledging that the applicant had not been summoned in the proper manner, examined his appeal on the merits again without summoning him or his lawyer to appear and upheld the administrative decision imposing a penalty on the applicant.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

• Information is expected on the current situation of the applicant, in particular, whether the applicant may request the reopening of the proceedings in question.

General measures: Under Section 59 of the Administrative Offences and Punishment Act, an administrative sanction shall be subject to appeal before a district court, which is obliged under Section 61 to summon the offender. At the material time, the decision of the district court was not subject to appeal by the interested party; it was only the public prosecutor who had the possibility to seize the competent (regional) court with a request for review (Sections 65-69). In such proceedings, the competent court examined the case either in a public hearing with the participation of the parties or in camera. In 1998, the procedure of review at the request of the public prosecutor was repealed and replaced by an appeal on points of law. In the framework of these proceedings, the Supreme Administrative Court now holds a public hearing with the participation of the parties (Section 217§2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure).

• Assessment: given that to a great extent the violation in this case was the result of a bad application of the procedural rules in force, the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all administrative courts appears sufficient in terms of execution measures.

49429/99           Capital Bank AD, judgment of 24/11/2005, final on 24/02/2006[4]

48191/99          Kushoglu, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007 and of 03/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

The case concerns the fact that through arbitrary decisions the domestic courts failed to assist the applicants in recovering property they were forced to sell to the local municipality in 1989, when the communist regime forced tens of thousands of ethnic Turks, among them the applicants, to emigrate (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The house in question was sold by the municipality to third parties in 1990. In 1995 the Supreme Court declared with final effect the nullity of the transaction of 1989 but referred the issue concerning the validity of the contract between the municipality and the third parties to the lower courts for further examination. By final decision of 1996 the domestic courts declared that the third parties had acquired the house on the basis of their contract with the municipality, which is in manifest contradiction with the Property Act and the relevant practice of Bulgarian courts (when a property sale is declared null and void, subsequent buyers cannot acquire title to the property). The European Court noted that those findings were vague to the point of being arbitrary (§53).

The European Court further found that the authorities’ failure to afford the applicants judicial procedures of effective and fair adjudication in accordance with the applicable law continued in 1998 since the second action was dismissed on the ground that the matter was res judicata. Thus, the reasons provided by the courts for their refusal to examine this action were in contradiction with the applicants’ second claim, in which they did not challenge the validity of the contract in question but claimed restitution on other grounds (§58).

Consequently the European Court observed that the legal acts which denied the applicants’ rei vindicatio claims and precluded any further action on their part to recover possession of the house did not meet the Convention’s requirement of lawfulness and did not have a clear basis in domestic law.

Individual measures: In its judgment of 10/05/2007, the European Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) was not ready for decision and reserved the question in whole.

On 15/02/2008 the applicants sent a letter indicating that an agreement had not been reached as to just satisfaction and requesting the Committee of Ministers to take the necessary steps to ensure the execution of the judgment of 10/05/2007. 

The European Court delivered its judgment on just satisfaction on 03/07/2008; it became final on 01/12/2008. In that judgment, the European Court noted that the case did not concern an illegal dispossession of property by the state and that the state’s duty to erase the consequences of the violation therefore did not include any obligation to return the property at issue to the applicants. The Court considered that payment of a sum of money to the applicants would provide redress for the pecuniary damage suffered and awarded them just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

• Assessment: In the light of the above, it appears that no individual measure is required, aside from payment of the just satisfaction.

General measures: The European Court noted that the domestic courts’ decisions were given in contradiction with existing law and court practice.

• The authorities are invited to provide information on current practice of domestic courts in similar cases and, if appropriate, measures taken or envisaged to comply with the requirements of the European Convention.

• Publication of the European Court's judgment and its dissemination to relevant courts and authorities are expected, in order to raise their awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from this case.

61951/00          Debelianovi, judgment of 29/03/2007, final on 29/06/2007 and of 27/11/2008, final on 27/02/2009

The case concerns the fact that the applicants could not obtain enforcement of a final court decision of 1994 ordering the restitution of their house, which had been expropriated in 1953, converted into a museum and classified as a national historic monument. In June 1994 the Bulgarian National Assembly voted a moratorium on the laws concerning the restitution of properties with historical monument classification, which prevented the applicants from obtaining restitution of their property (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)

The European Court observed that the National Assembly’s decision, constituting a temporary restriction on the use of property, was provided by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely to ensure the preservation of protected national heritage sites. However, the situation imposed on the applicants had lasted for about 12½ years and, except for a small sum awarded in respect of the two months preceding the moratorium, the applicants had obtained no compensation for their inability to enjoy their property (§56 of the judgment). In addition, they still have no information as to when the impugned measures will end (§58 of the judgment).

Individual measures: In its judgment on the application of Article 41 of 27/11/2008 the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage for the loss of the use of their property for the period under consideration, that is to say, from the restoration of their title to the property in 1994 until the date of the delivery of the judgment.

• Information provided by the applicants’ lawyer (letter of 22/11/2009): The applicants’ lawyer indicated that despite European Court’s finding that the refusal by the Bulgarian government to allow the applicants the use of their house violated their rights, no step has been taken to remedy that violation. He underlined that the applicants still had no access to their house and were still not allowed to use it in any way. He noted that the amount awarded by the European Court had been paid in full but that payment only concerned the period until 1/09/2007, but that since that date the applicants still continued to be the victims of the violation of their property rights established by the European Court.

• The observations of the authorities on this matter would be appreciated.

General measures: The National Assembly decision in question stipulated that the moratorium would remain applicable until the enactment of a new law on cultural monuments. In this context, the European Court noted that this decision fixed no time-limit in this respect and that no draft law seemed to be envisaged yet.

• The authorities are invited to present an action plan for the execution of this judgment.

The judgment of the European Court was published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg.

• Dissemination of the European Court's judgment among relevant courts and authorities is expected, to raise their awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from this case.

- 14 cases concerning the violation of the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the annulment of their title to property acquired under the communist regime

43278/98+         Velikovi and others, judgment of 15/03/2007, final on 9/07/2007, judgment of 24/04/2008 (Article 41), final on 24/07/2008

56753/00           Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

76963/01           Gyuleva and others, judgment of 25/06/2009, final on 25/09/2009

45116/98          Kalinova, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 08/02/2008 and of 27/11/2008, final on 27/02/2009

31836/04           Kirova and others, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

57176/00           Koprinarovi, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

6189/03            Mihaylovi, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

60805/00           Miteva, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

27636/04           Panayotova, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

29722/04           Peshevi, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

55722/00           Simova and Georgiev, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

27213/04           Tsonkovi, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

19162/03           Yurukova and Samundzhi, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

42617/02          Vladimirova and others, judgment of 26/02/2009, final on 26/05/2009

The cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the annulment of their title to property acquired under the communist regime (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The applicants had acquired property which had previously been nationalised. After the entry into force of the Restitution Act in February 1992, the pre-nationalisation owners or their heirs successfully sued for recovery of the property.

The European Court considered that the interference with the applicants’ property rights was provided by law and pursued a legitimate aim, namely redress for the victims or arbitrary nationalisation under communism (§§162, 176 of the Velikovi and others judgment) but nonetheless considered that, having regard to the specific conditions of the following cases, the authorities had not struck an appropriate balance between the public interest and the applicants’ rights.

- In the case of Bogdanovi and Tzilevi (Velikovi and others judgment),  the applicants’ property titles were annulled in 1998 pursuant to Article 7 of the Restitution Act, which provides that a title is invalid when the buyer has acquired the property in breach of the law, by virtue of their position in the Communist party or through abuse of power. The European Court noted that the applicants had acted in good faith and that the titles had been annulled due to procedural errors committed by the authorities at the time of acquisition. In addition the applicants did not receive sufficient compensation. The European Court held that in such cases, the fair balance required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could not be achieved without adequate compensation.

- In the cases of Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi; Gyuleva and others; Koprinarovi; Mihaylovi; Miteva; Panayotova; Peshevi; Simova and Georgiev; Yurukova and Samundzhi; and Vladimirova and others, the European Court found violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for the same reasons given in the Bogdanovi and Tzilevi cases.

- In the case of Todorova (Velikovi and others judgment), the property at issue had been acquired by the applicant’s family in 1953 in reparation for an expropriation. The title was annulled pursuant to Article 1 of the Restitution Act in 1994 on the ground that the expropriation had been irregular and thus the reparation was not valid. The European Court observed that the title had not derived from a commercial transaction but from an act of the competent authorities: thus the applicant should not have suffered the consequences of errors by the state which led to her being unable either to recover the expropriated property or obtain compensation for it.

- In the case of Kirova and others, the European Court was of the view that that case was similar to that of Todorova, even though the deprivation of property in the Kirova and others case did not result directly from the application of special legislation on the restitution of national property but rather from the application of general rules on the nullity of contracts, as interpreted by the domestic courts in 2004. The European Court noted that the Kirova and others case still pursued the legitimate aim of undoing wrongs of the communist regime and considered it appropriate to apply the criteria developed in its judgment in Velikovi and others. It found that the unlimited possibility to challenge the validity of title acquired from the state could not be reconciled with the principle of legal certainty.

- In the case of Eneva and Dobrev (Velikovi and others judgment), the applicants, acting in good faith, bought from a third party a formerly nationalised apartment. In 1996, the courts found that this third party’s title to the property was irregular and accordingly ruled the subsequent transaction between the third party and the applicants invalid with a view to restoring the property to the pre-nationalisation owners. 

The European Court considered that, in the interest of legal certainty, clear rules should have been established concerning the restitution of property acquired in good faith. It moreover noted that the compensation to which the applicants were entitled was no greater than that provided for persons having acquired property unlawfully.

- In the case of Tsonkovi, the European Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 for the same reasons given in the cases of Todorova and Eneva and Dobrev.

- In addition, in the Kalinova case, the applicant’s title to a house she bought from the state in 1990 was annulled in 1996 as having been acquired in violation of Article 110 of the Law on State Properties. The house had been expropriated by the state initially in 1984, however, following the annulment of the applicant’s title to a house, the competent court declared the expropriation irregular, and ordered restitution of the house to the previous owners. The European Court found that the applicant had acquired the house in good faith on the basis of the rules applicable at the time, and had been deprived of it by extensive application of the legislation governing restitution without having received any compensation for this deprivation.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the applicants in the cases of Kalinova; Dimitar and Anka Dimitrovi; Mihaylovi; Panayotova ; Peshevi; Simova and Georgiev ; Tsonkovi ; and Vladimirova and others ; to the second and third applicants in the case of Gyuleva and others; to the first applicant in the case of Kirova and others; to the second applicant in the case of Koprinarovi and to those applicants in the case of Velikovi and others whose cases led to findings of violations of the Convention. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damages to the applicant in the case of Miteva. In the case of Yurukova and Samundzhi, where no claim for pecuniary damage was made, the European Court awarded the first applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: No individual measure aside from the payment of just satisfaction appears necessary in the cases where violations have been found and just satisfaction for pecuniary damage has been awarded by the European Court.

• The authorities are invited to provide information on the personal situation of the first applicant in the case of Yurukova and Samundzhi.

General measures:

• The authorities are invited to provide information on the current practice of domestic courts in similar cases and, if appropriate, measures taken or envisaged to comply with the requirements of the Convention. In this context, they are invited to keep in mind the European Court’s observation concerning the proportionality according to which two factors should be taken into consideration: due consideration of the factual and legal particularities of each case when determining whether it falls within the scope of the Restitution Act, and the question of adequate compensation.

• Awaited is also dissemination of the Velikovi and others judgment of the European Court to relevant authorities to raise their awareness of the Convention's requirements as they result from this case.

This judgment was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.mjeli.government.bg.

- 48 cases against Croatia / 48 affaires contre la Croatie

46598/06           Tomašić Branko and others, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

The case concerns the authorities’ failure in their obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect the lives of the applicants’ relatives from a person who had previously been convicted of threatening to kill them and who eventually carried out the threat in 2006 (violation of Article 2 in its substantive aspect).

The European Court noted that the findings of the domestic courts and the conclusions of the psychiatric examination undoubtedly showed that the authorities had been aware that the threats made against the applicants’ relatives were serious and that all reasonable steps should have been taken to protect them (§53 of the judgment). It further observed several shortcomings in the authorities’ conduct: no search of the perpetrator’s premises or vehicle had been carried out during the initial criminal proceedings against him even though he had repeatedly threatened to use a bomb (§54 of the judgment). In addition, although the psychiatric report drawn up for the purposes of the criminal proceedings had stressed the need for continued psychiatric treatment, the authorities had failed to prove that such treatment was actually and properly administered (§56 of the judgment). Finally, the perpetrator was not examined prior to his release from prison to assess whether he still posed a risk to the applicants’ relatives (§58 of the judgment).

The European Court observed that the Croatian regulations on enforcement of compulsory psychiatric treatment measures showed that these general rules did not properly address the issue of enforcement of obligatory psychiatric treatment as a security measure, thus leaving it completely to the discretion of the prison authorities to decide how to act (§57 of the judgment). Beyond that, under Croatian law there was no possibility of extending compulsory psychiatric treatment beyond a prison term for those in need of such treatment (§59 of the judgment).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicants in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage sustained.

▪ Assessment: In view of this information, no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: The authorities have so far not provided an action plan or action report on this case.

▪ Information provided by the Croatian authorities (09/07/2009): The European Court's judgment has been translated into Croat and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). It has been sent out to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, Directorate for Prison Administration, State Attorney’s Office, Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Interior Affairs. The judgment will be also published in a journal on the European Court's case-law.

▪ Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

40116/02           Šečić, judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 31/08/2007

The case concerns the failure of the public authorities to carry out an effective investigation into a racist attack by unidentified individuals in April 1999 on a person of Roma origin (violation of Article 3).

The European Court noted that the criminal proceedings remained pending at the pre-trial phase for almost seven years without the police bringing any charges. Thus, the police neither questioned anyone belonging to a skinhead group known to have participated in similar incidents nor the person identified by an eye-witness as an attacker. Moreover, the police did not seek a court order to compel a journalist who had interviewed a young skinhead who admitted having engaged in attacks on the Roma population, to reveal his source, although the law has provided such possibility since 2003. Finally, the police had not made use of any of the other investigative measures open to them or taken any action since 2001.

The European Court also observed that, knowing that the attack was probably the result of ethnic hatred, the police should not have allowed the investigation to drag on for more than 7 years without taking serious steps to identify or prosecute those responsible (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3).

Individual measures: As the police could not identify the attackers, the investigation into the attack was conducted against unknown perpetrators and was still pending when the European Court gave its judgment. In the meantime, the possible criminal offences have been subject to prescription (6 years for similar cases). The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: In view of the above information, no other individual measure appears possible. 

General measures: The European Court found in the Beganović case (46423/06, 1092nd meeting, September 2010) that Croatia had failed effectively to bring to justice perpetrators of ill-treatment in respect of an applicant of Roma origin. The Court also found violation resulting from the lack of an effective investigation into allegations of violence in the Sandra Janković case (38478/05, Section 4.2) concerning an applicant who is not of Roma origin.

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities (12/11/2007 and 04/11/2008):

-  Legislative measures: In 2006 “hate crime” was introduced into the Criminal Code and the first judgments related to this crime have already been delivered. The amendment to Article 89 defines hate crimes as “any criminal act according to the Criminal Code, committed through hatred towards a person on the basis of his/her race, skin colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social background, property, birth, education, social status, age, medical status or any other attribute.”

-  Institutional measures: A special Division for Terrorism and Extreme Violence has been established within the Zagreb Police Department. It is authorised to conduct criminal inquiries to identify perpetrators of hate crimes. The division is also authorised to carry out inspections of police stations within its territory and to provide assistance to police stations in more complex cases.

  Training: Since June 2006, the Ministry of Interior, in co-operation with the OSCE, has been conducting training on “Law Enforcement Officer Programme on Combating Hate Crime”.

The main aims followed by the programme include: raising police officers’ awareness in identifying hate crimes and effective reaction to such crimes, ensuring specific investigation techniques and methods for successful detection of hate crimes and incidents which include identification of motives governed by prejudices in regard to hate crimes, exchange of police practice in gathering and analysing figures related to hate crimes.

The Ministry of the Interior plans to continue and intensify the education of police officers in relation to hate crimes by: incorporating the content of the programme in the national curriculum for police training, organising specialised training in the Department for professional training and specialisation of the Police Academy; providing additional training in police departments all over the country; organising lectures and open discussions on hate crime.It should be also noted that, as early as in April 2007, the Police Academy developed an educational plan for suppressing hate crime as a part of specialised courses at the Police Academy.

- Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court has been translated and sent out to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Interior and State Attorney’s Office. It is also available on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr) and will be published in a periodical.

• Information received from the European Roma Rights Centre (letter of 08/04/2010): The European Roma Rights Centre alleged in a letter to the Committee of Ministers that, inter alia, the institutional measures and training programmes for law-enforcement officials (see above) have not been adequate general measures with respect to this case. In their response, the Croatian authorities did not comment on those particular allegations.

• Assessment: The Croatian authorities have taken a number of measures to improve the efficiency of investigations into hate crimes. However, in view of recent judgments rendered by the European Court in the Beganović and Sandra Janković cases, it appears that the lack of an effective investigation into allegations of violence by individuals, including that against persons of Roma origin, and the failure to bring perpetrators of such violence promptly to justice, might still represent an issue in Croatia.

• Information is thus awaited on further measures taken or envisaged to ensure that allegations of violence committed by individuals, including that against persons of Roma origin, are efficiently investigated and the perpetrators promptly brought to justice.

38478/05           Janković Sandra, judgment of 05/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her physical integrity due to the inefficiency of the Croatian judicial authorities and their failure in their obligation to protect her adequately from aggression. The violation was also due to the defective manner in which the national criminal-law mechanisms had been implemented in this case (violation of Article 8).

In particular, the domestic authorities declared the applicant’s request for an investigation into the attack on her physical integrity inadmissible as being incomplete, without specifying exactly what formal requirements were not met (§53). Furthermore, after the prosecution authorities had decided not to open an official investigation following the applicant’s criminal complaint, they should have authorised her to bring a private prosecution under Croatian law. However, the competent authorities completely ignored that rule and failed to proceed with the applicant’s criminal complaint. Finally, the petty proceedings were closed as a result of prescription without any decision on the attackers’ guilt (§57). In this respect, it was noted that the limitation for the minor offence involved was two years while the domestic court scheduled the first hearing about a year and a half after the relevant facts had taken place.

The case also concerns the excessive length of the civil and enforcement proceedings initiated by the applicant to regain the occupation of a flat in Split (violation of Article 6§1). The civil proceedings lasted from 1999 to 2003, while the enforcement proceedings lasted from 2003 to 2008.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages. The Court also noted that the proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint about the length of proceedings were pending before the Constitutional Court (§23). Similarly, the proceedings concerning the applicant’s appeal before the Split County Court were also pending (§24).

• Information is awaited on the applicant’s situation and the developments in the pending proceedings before the Constitutional Court and the Split County Court. 

General measures: The authorities have not so far provided an action plan or action report on this case. Similar violations of Article 3 have been examined in the cases of Beganović (46423/06, 1092nd meeting, September 2010) and Šečić (40116/02, Section 4.2) concerning applicants of Roma origin.

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities (08/01/2009): The European Court's judgment has been translated into Croatian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). It has been sent out to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, Split County Court, Split Municipal Court, High Court for Minor Offences, Split Court for Minor Offences and Criminal Law Directorate of the Ministry of Justice. The judgment will be also published in a journal concerning the European Court's case-law.

• Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

17182/07           Hanževački, judgment of 16/04/2009, final on 16/07/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial in that in 2004 the latter was not able to defend himself through the legal assistance of his own choosing to the extent required under the Convention because the final hearing in the criminal proceedings conducted against him had been held in the absence of his counsel (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3(c)).

The European Court noted that one of the most important aspects of a concluding hearing in criminal trials was an opportunity for the defence, as well as for the prosecution, to present their closing arguments. It was the only opportunity for both parties to orally present their view of the entire case and all the evidence presented at trial and give their assessment of the result of the trial (§25 of the judgment). Thus, in the Court’s view the absence of the applicant’s counsel gave good cause for the final hearing in this case to be adjourned, in view of the significance of the concluding hearing in the criminal proceedings against the applicant (§26).

Individual measures:

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities (12/03/2010): The applicant is entitled to seek a fresh trial before the domestic courts under Article 430 of the Criminal Procedure Code (§35). On 22/09/2009, the applicant availed himself of this possibility and requested the reopening of the criminal proceedings at issue. On 16/03/2010 the Municipal Court of Daruvar was expected to decide whether to grant the applicant leave to reopen proceedings.

▪ Information is awaited on the further developments in respect of the reopening of the proceedings.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities (12/03/2010): The Government Agent deems that no other general measure is required in this case beyond publication and dissemination of the European court’s judgment. It has been published in Croatian on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). It has been sent to the Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, County Court in Bjelovar and the relevant first-instance court.

• The information provided is being assessed.

22330/05           Olujić, judgment of 05/02/2009, final on 05/05/2009

The case concerns various breaches of the right to a fair trial in the context of the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, a judge and the President of the Supreme Court, before the National Judicial Council (NJC).

The European Court first noted lack of objective impartiality of three members of the NJC in that during the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant they expressed bias against the applicant in interviews published in two different national newspapers (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the unjustified exclusion of the public from the proceedings before the NJC on the ground that it was necessary to protect the dignity of both the applicant personally and the judiciary as a whole (violation of Article 6§1). In this context the European Court noted that the applicant himself had asked for the proceedings to be held in public.

Moreover, given that the proceedings concerned such a prominent public figure and that public allegations had already been made suggesting that the case against him was politically motivated, it was evidently in the interest of both the applicant and the general public for the proceedings before the NJC to be open to public scrutiny. The case further concerns inequality of arms: the NJC had justified its refusal to hear evidence from any of the applicant’s by stating that the circumstances referred to in the evidence on which he relied had already been established (violation of Article 6§1). In this context the European Court considered that the evidence of the witnesses concerned had been relevant to the applicant’s case in that it could have been likely to support his line of defence. Moreover, the reasons relied on by the NJC had not been sufficient to justify the refusal to hear any of the witnesses called on behalf of the applicant, which ultimately limited his ability to present his case in a manner compatible with the guarantees of a fair trial.

Finally, the case concerns the excessive length of proceedings which began in 1996 and ended with the Constitutional Court’s decision of 9/12/2004 (violation of Article 6§1).

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

• Information is awaited as to whether it is possible to reopen proceedings following the judgment of the European Court. 

General measures: The authorities have not so far provided an action plan or action report on this case.

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities (09/07/2009): The European Court's judgment has been translated into Croatian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). It has been sent out to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court and the National Judicial Council. The judgment will be also published in a journal concerning the European Court's case-law.

• Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

30431/03          Vajagić, judgment of 20/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006 and of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009

The case concerns the failure of the authorities to decide on the amount of compensation to which the applicants were entitled under domestic law for the expropriation in 1976 of certain of their properties (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court noted that most of the delays were caused by the successive remittals which, in the Court’s view, disclosed a deficiency in the procedural system.

The case also relates to the lack of an effective remedy under domestic law which would have enabled the applicants to obtain a decision determining the amount of their compensation (violation of Article 13). The Court noted in this respect that the constitutional complaint against the excessive length of judicial proceedings introduced in Croatia in 2002 was not applicable to the proceedings before the administrative organs.

Individual measures: The proceedings challenged in this judgment were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment. The European Court awarded to the applicants just satisfaction corresponding to the difference between the value of their property and the compensation they obtained at national level by the decision of the Ministry of Justice of 19/05/2006.

▪ Information provided by the Croatian authorities (29/09/2009): On 20/05/2009, the State Administration Office in Virovitica County decided to discontinue the proceedings concerning the applicants’ request for compensation in respect of the expropriated property in view of the award of just satisfaction by the European Court in respect of pecuniary damage. On 11/09/2009, the Ministry of Justice rejected the applicants’ complaint in respect of the decision of the State Administration Office.

▪ Assessment: The European Court found that the national law provided only partial reparation for the consequences of the violation. Thus, it considered it had to award the difference between the value of their property and the compensation they obtained at national level. Therefore, no other individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 : The European Court noted in its judgment that the new Expropriation Act of 1994 provides that the decision on compensation should be given at the same time the actual expropriation takes place (§17). Moreover, if there are still cases similar to that of the applicants, they should be settled with the introduction of an effective remedy against the excessive length of this kind of proceedings (see below).

▪ Information provided by the Croatian authorities (05/11/2008): The administrative authorities have been informed of the need to conclude any similar proceedings concerning expropriation compensation as soon as possible. In the case of successive remittals, the second-instance body would apply the new case-law and award an advance payment to the party concerned pending the final resolution of the issue.

2) Violation of Article 13: This issue is examined in the framework of the case of Počuča (38550/02, Section 4.2).

3) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). It was sent to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, State Administration Office in Virovitica County and Civil Law Directorate of the Ministry of Justice.

• Assessment: It appears that the provisions of the Expropriation Act of 1994 and the change in administrative practice will eliminate the risk of similar violations. In addition, a remedy has been introduced in respect of excessive length of administrative proceedings. However, the efficiency of this remedy remains yet to be demonstrated (see the Počuča cases).

9702/04            Gabrić, judgment of 05/02/2009, final on 05/05/2009

The case concerns a disproportionate interference in the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in that the customs authorities, during a border control in January 2002, in addition to fining him for failing to declare foreign currency in his possession, confiscated the sums concerned (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court noted that the applicant had already been fined by customs for failing to declare the money and considered the fine to have been a sufficient sanction to prevent future breaches of the national legal requirement to declare currency carried across borders.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage, in particular concerning the amount confiscated in breach of the Convention.

• Assessment: In view of this information, no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: The authorities have not so far provided an action plan or action report on this case.

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities (09/07/2009): The European Court's judgment has been translated into Croatian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). It has been sent out to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, High Misdemeanour Court and the Ministry of Finance. The judgment will also be published in a journal concerning the European Court's case-law.

• Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

35298/04           Trgo, judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 11/09/2009

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions in that the domestic courts refused to acknowledge his ownership of certain plots of land he had acquired ex lege by adverse possession on the basis of Section 388(4) of the 1996 Property Act. This statutory provision was subsequently abrogated by the Constitutional Court while the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant were pending.

The European Court noted that the applicant who reasonably relied on legislation later abrogated as unconstitutional, should not – in the absence of any prejudice to the rights of others – bear the consequences of the state’s own mistake committed by enacting such unconstitutional legislation (§67) (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (§77).

The Court also noted that under section 428a of the Civil Procedure Act an applicant may file a petition for reopening of civil proceedings in respect of which the Court has found a violation. It considered that in the present case the most appropriate way of repairing the consequences of that violation was to reopen the proceedings at issue (§75 of the judgment).

▪ Information is awaited as to whether the applicant has requested the reopening of the proceedings.

General measures: The authorities have not so far provided an action plan or action report on this case.

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities (23/10/2009): The European Court's judgment has been translated into Croatian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). It has been sent out to the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court, Municipal Court in Makarska, State Attorney’s Office, County State Attorney’s Office in Split County, Legislation Committee of the Croatian Parliament, Legislation Office of the Government and the Civil Law Directorate of the Ministry of Justice. The judgment will be also published in a journal concerning the European Court's case-law.

• Information is awaited on an action plan/action report indicating the measures envisaged or taken.

- 8 cases concerning the lack of access to a court in civil proceedings stayed automatically by a provision of law – inadequate compensation awarded by domestic courts

11072/03          Popara, judgment of 15/03/2007, final on 15/06/2007

38303/02          Hajduković, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

41751/02          Milašinović, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 24/08/2007

43446/02          Novaković Radivoj, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

43437/02          Novković, judgment of 05/04/2007, final on 05/07/2007

41567/02          Pasanec, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007

38292/02          Petrović, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

43362/02           Terzin-Laub, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

These cases concern violations of the applicants' right of access to a court to obtain a determination of their civil claims filed between 1992 and 1995 for damage caused by the members of the Croatian army or police during the Homeland War in Croatia (1992-1995) or resulting from terrorist acts. In 1996, before the adoption of a final court decision at national level in these cases, legislation was adopted ordering all proceedings of this kind to be stayed until new provisions were enacted to regulate the matter. In 2003, legislation was adopted in this respect. This legislation provided for the resumption of civil proceedings which had been stayed in accordance with the legislation of 1996.

In all those cases the applicants successfully lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court about the length of proceedings in question and the lack of access to a court. However, the European Court found the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants at domestic level, which was approximately 15% of what the European Court was generally awarding in similar Croatian cases, to be manifestly unreasonable (violations of Article 6§1).

In this respect, the European Court observed that the Constitutional Court, while relying on the European Court’s judgment in the case of Kutić, awarded the applicant in the Milašinović case an inadequate compensation in the amount of 12 750 Croatian Kunas (HRK) (§13). The proceedings in the instant case were brought in 1994, while the Constitutional Court rendered its decision in 2004.

Individual measures: All the proceedings had been resumed by domestic courts before the European Court gave its judgments. In addition, the European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: No other measure appears necessary.

General measures: The problem of the access to a court in similar situations was examined in the context of the Kutić group of cases (Final Resolution ResDH(2006)3). However, these cases did not concern violations due to inadequate compensation awarded by the Constitutional Court in respect of the lack of access to a court.

▪ Information received from the Croatian authorities (25/09/2009):

            1) Legislative measures: The new Courts Act entered into force in 2005. It introduced a new remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings before ordinary courts immediately higher than the court before which the proceedings at issue had been conducted. When a court finds a complaint of excessive length substantiated, it sets a time limit for the lower court to make a decision in the proceedings at issue and award appropriate compensation. As a result of the introduction of this new remedy, complaint before the Constitutional Court has now become a subsidiary remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings and can thus only be lodged after exhaustion of the remedy before ordinary courts.

            2) Case-law concerning the amount of compensation awarded: The average amount of compensation awarded in similar individual cases varies between 4 000 HRK and 10 000 HRK. When deciding on the amount of compensation, the domestic courts will consider all circumstances of the individual case while taking into account economic and social standards in Croatia.

• Assessment: The legislative amendments of 2005 introduced certain additional remedies into the national legal system in respect of the excessive length of proceedings. However, it is noted that the violations in the present cases concern inadequate compensation awarded in respect of the excessive length of proceedings and the lack of access to a court in a specific context. In this regard, it is observed that nearly all domestic proceedings in these cases began in 1994-1995 and that the Constitutional Court rendered nearly all its decisions in this respect in 2004. Given the European Court’s findings in the Milašinović case, that the amount of 12 750 HRK was inadequate and considering that all other possible cases resulting from the same context would have the similar length of proceedings, it appears that the average amount of compensation between 4 000 HRK and 10 000 HRK awarded in similar cases would not be adequate.

• Information is thus expected on the measures taken or envisaged to guarantee the effectiveness of the remedy against the excessive length of the proceedings in question.

3) Publication and dissemination: All the judgments were translated and disseminated to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and to the courts or authorities dealing with the cases. They are also available on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr) and were to be published in a periodic on case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

- 4 cases concerning the allocation of the applicants’ possessions by state authorities to third persons

9056/02            Radanović, judgment of 21/12/2006, final on 21/03/2007

9224/06            Brajović-Bratanović, judgment of 09/10/2008, final on 09/01/2009

22344/02           Kunić, judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 23/05/2007

889/06              Vučak, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 23/01/2009

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in that they were prevented from using their property as it was allocated by state authorities to third persons on the basis of the Act on the provisional requisition and management of certain property (“the Takeover Act”) (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Between 2000 and 2003, the competent authorities (Housing Commissions or courts) ordered the occupants of the applicants’ properties to vacate them, but these orders remained unenforced for several years. The relevant legislation and the case-law of the Supreme Court required the authorities to provide the temporary occupants with alternative accommodation before they were evicted from the properties occupied under the Takeover Act.

Although the European Court recognised that the Croatian authorities faced an exceptionally difficult task in balancing the rights of owners with those of temporary occupants in the context of the return of refugees and displaced persons, it considered that the applicants had been subjected to an excessive restriction of their property rights.

The Radanović case also concerns the ineffectiveness of the remedies at the applicant’s disposal to seek repossession of her flat (a civil action and an application to the local administrative authorities) (violation of Article 13).

The Brajović-Bratanović and Kunić cases also concern the excessive length of civil proceedings, including consecutive administrative, civil and enforcement proceedings in Kunić (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: All the applicants have now recovered their properties. The European Court awarded them just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

• Assessment: it therefore seems that no other measure is necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: According to Section 2(3) and 2(4) of the Act repealing the Takeover Act, which entered into force in August 1998, the Programme for the return of refugees and displaced persons adopted by the Parliament in June 1998 was applicable in proceedings concerning the temporary use, management and control of the property of persons who had left Croatia. Such proceedings were to be conducted by housing commissions at first instance and by municipal courts at second instance.

According to the Act on areas of special state concern, a temporary occupant has a right to housing. It also provides that a temporary occupant whose right to housing is to be satisfied by providing him with construction material, must vacate the house or flat provided for his temporary use within 90 days of the final shipment of such material (Section 18(1)). Section 18(2) provides that if a temporary occupant fails to observe this time-limit, the State Attorney will, within 15 days following the expiry of the time-limit, institute civil proceedings for his eviction. Such action may be also brought independently by the owner (Section 18(5)). Section 27 provides that the Ministry shall pay compensation for the damage sustained by owner who applied for repossession his or her property prior to 30/10/2002 but to whom the property was not returned by that date. Finally, in 2003 the government adopted the Decision on the level of compensation due to owners for damage sustained, which fixed the amount of compensation at 7 Croatian kunas per square metre.

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities (29/09/2009): On 18/06/2008, the Constitutional Court issued a decision changing the case-law concerning payment of compensation to owners whose properties had been allocated to third parties by state authorities under the Takeover Act. In doing so, the Constitutional Court referred expressly to the European Court’s judgment in the Radanović case. According to this decision, whenever courts decide to award compensation to an owner of property allocated to third parties by the authorities under the Takeover Act, they must assess, in each individual case, whether an excessive burden had been imposed on the owner due the length of time during which they could not use the property. In particular, the Constitutional Court held that there are no grounds for courts’ referring to the government’s 2003 decision fixing compensation at 7 kunas/m², as it was not a general normative act of binding character.

• Assessment: The Secretariat noted the measures taken by the Croatian authorities. The change in the Constitutional Court’s case-law appears to grant direct effect to the European Court’s judgment in Radanović. This is particularly encouraging. However, it remains to be demonstrated that the measures taken will ensure rapid enforcement of similar eviction decisions in the future.

• Information is thus awaited on measures taken or envisaged to ensure that eviction decisions rendered by Housing Commissions or courts under similar circumstances are rapidly and fully complied with. To assess the scope of the problem, information would be helpful concerning the total number of outstanding non-enforced eviction decisions on property allocated to third parties under the Takeover Act and the average period for their enforcement. Information would also be appreciated on the funds and resources available to ensure the authorities’ obligation to provide occupants of such properties with alternative housing or construction materials. 

2) Violation of Article 13:

• Information is expected on measures taken or envisaged to ensure that remedies are effective in similar situations.

3) Violation of Article 6§1: The issue of the excessive length of civil and enforcement proceedings is examined in the context of the Počuča (38550/02) and Cvijetić groups of cases (71549/01) (both in Section 4.2).

4) Publication and dissemination:The judgments of the European Court in the Radanović and Kunić cases have been published in Croatian on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). They have been also sent to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and to the courts dealing with the case. In addition, the Court’s judgment in the Brajović-Bratanović case was sent to the Ministry of Regional Development, Forestry and Water Management.  

- 10 cases of length of civil proceedings – inadequate compensation awarded by domestic courts and lack of an effective remedy

12419/04           Jakupović, judgment of 31/07/2007, final on 31/10/2007

43429/05           Balen, judgment of 25/10/2007, final on 25/01/2008

14878/04           Husić, judgment of 25/10/2007, final on 25/01/2008

22014/04           Kaić and others, judgment of 17/07/2008, final on 17/10/2008

27846/05           Letica, judgment of 18/10/2007, final on 18/01/2008

9951/06            Oreb, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

28704/06           Rizman, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 31/10/2008

43714/02           Skokandić, judgment of 31/07/2007, final on 31/10/2007

40383/04           Vidas, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 03/10/2008

33867/06           Vujčić, judgment of 25/06/2009, final on 06/11/2009

The cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). Certain proceedings started as far back as in 1974 (Skokandić) or 1980 (Oreb) .When the European Court gave its judgments, the proceedings were pending in all cases except in the cases of Balen, Kaić and Vidas. In all these cases the applicants successfully lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court about the length of proceedings in question. However, the European Court considered that the compensation offered by the Croatian Constitutional Court was manifestly unreasonable having regard to the European Court’s case-law (§17 of the Jakupović judgment).

The Oreb, Kaić and Vujčić cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy (violations of Article 13). In the Oreb and Vujčić cases, the European Court took into account that the applicants had not received sufficient compensation for the inordinate length of their proceedings and that the competent court had failed to comply with the time-limit set by the Constitutional Court to bring the proceedings to an end. The combination of these two factors in the particular circumstances of the Oreb and Vujčić cases rendered an otherwise effective remedy ineffective. On the other hand, the European Court found in Vidas that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court on the applicant's complaint of the length of the civil proceedings lasted over three years. Consequently, the effectiveness of the constitutional complaint as a remedy for the length of pending civil proceedings was undermined by its own excessive duration. However, the European Court stressed that this conclusion did not call into question the effectiveness of the remedy as such (§39 in Oreb and §41 in Vujčić).

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

• Information provided by the Croatian authorities: In the Oreb case, the proceedings were closed before the Split Municipal Court on 15/09/2009.

• Information is awaited on the current state of the pending proceedings in these cases and, if appropriate, on their acceleration.

General measures: These cases present partial similarities to that of Horvat (judgment of 26/07/2001) closed by Final Resolution ResDH(2005)60.

            1) Violation of Article 6§1

▪ Information provided by the Croatian authorities (25/09/2009): The average amount of compensation awarded in similar individual cases varies between 4 000 and 10 000 HRK. When deciding on the amount of compensation, the domestic courts consider all circumstances of an individual case while taking into account economic and social standards in Croatia. Payment of the damages awarded takes place within three months; from the state budget.

• Assessment: It is noted that the violations in these cases concern the inadequate compensation awarded in respect of the excessive length of proceedings. It appears that the domestic courts take into account all circumstances of an individual case when deciding the amount of compensation for excessive length of civil proceedings. Prima facie, this practice is certainly compliant with the Court’s case-law. It also appears that the number of similar cases pending before the European Court has decreased. However, the Secretariat is not able at this stage to make a conclusive assessment as to whether the amount of compensation awarded in respect of the excessive length of civil proceedings in Croatia is adequate.

• Information is thus expected on further practice concerning the award of compensation in similar situations (examples of court decisions, information on any development in the case-law concerning the compensation for the excessive length of civil proceedings etc.).

            2) Violation of Article 13

▪ Information provided by the Croatian authorities (25/09/2009):

            (a) Legislative measures: The new Courts Act entered into force in 2005. It introduced a new remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings before ordinary courts immediately higher than the court before which the proceedings at issue were conducted.

When a court finds that a complaint in respect of the excessive length of proceedings is substantiated, it sets a time limit for the lower court to decide in the proceedings and award appropriate compensation. Proceedings instituted in respect of the excessive length of proceedings are examined with high priority. As a result of the introduction of this new remedy, complaint before the Constitutional Court has become only a subsidiary remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings, so that such complaints may only be lodged before the Constitutional Court after the exhaustion of the remedy before ordinary courts.

            (b) Statistics: The Croatian authorities also submitted statistics illustrating the use of the remedy before ordinary courts. In the period 2006-2008, a total of 8 109 complaints of excessive length of proceedings were lodged before county courts. As of 01/12/2008, 5 291 of those cases have been decided. A violation has been found in 3 672 cases and damages awarded in the amount of 5.3 million EUR. In the same period, the Supreme Court received 3 998 complaints of excessive length of proceedings and rendered decisions in 2 579. In 1 496 cases, the Supreme Court granted the claims and awarded damages in the amount of 2.2 million EUR.

• Assessment: The amended law of 2005 introduced certain additional remedies in respect of the excessive length of proceedings. However, the European Court did not call into question the effectiveness of the remedy before the Constitutional Court as such. The reasons which led the European Court to find that this remedy was not effective in the present cases concern lower courts’ failure of the to comply with the time-limit set to end proceedings and/or the excessive length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

• Information is thus expected on the measures taken or envisaged to guarantee the effectiveness of the remedies against the excessive length of the proceedings. In this respect it would be helpful to have statistical information on lower courts’ compliance with the time-limits set for bringing pending civil proceedings to an end, as well as on the average time required to complete proceedings before the higher courts, the Supreme Court and/or the Constitutional Court in respect of the remedies for excessive length of civil proceedings.

            (c) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgments have been translated into Croatian and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice(www.pravosudje.hr). They have been sent out to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the local courts involved in each particular case.

                       - 13 cases of length of enforcement proceedings

71549/01          Cvijetić, judgment of 26/02/04, final on 26/05/04

4899/02            Kvartuč, judgment of 18/11/2004, final on 18/02/2005

39810/04          Lukavica, judgment of 05/07/2007, final on 05/10/2007

29759/04          Măcinković, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 07/03/2007

9505/03            Mahmutović, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007

33593/03          Majski, judgment of 01/06/2006, final on 01/09/2006

49916/07           Medić, judgment of 26/03/2009, final on 26/06/2009

39299/02          Mužević, judgment of 16/11/2006, final on 16/02/2007

36071/03          Omerović, judgment of 01/06/2006, final on 01/09/2006

75139/01          Pibernik, judgment of 04/03/04, final on 04/06/04

14898/04          Šamija, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 07/03/2007

25803/05           Siničić, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

39659/04           Šoštarić, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

All these cases concern the excessive length of enforcement proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

In the Cvijetić and Pibernik cases the European Court also found that the delay in certain appeal proceedings and in executing eviction orders meant that the applicants were prevented from living in their homes for a very long time (violations of Article 8).

The Omerović and Medić cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy against the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings (violations of Article 13). The European Court noted in the Omerović case that when the applicant lodged his application (2003), there was no remedy under domestic law in respect of the excessive length of enforcement proceedings (§43). However, the European Court held that as of 02/02/2005, a constitutional complaint became an effective remedy for the length of enforcement proceedings (§29); when the Constitutional Court changed its practice, accepting a constitutional complaint in respect of excessive length of enforcement proceedings, the latter expressly relied on the Court's case-law on the matter (§22).

In the Medić case, however, the European Court noted that in the particular circumstances of the case, an otherwise effective remedy was rendered ineffective because the applicant had not received sufficient compensation for the inordinate length of the enforcement proceedings and because the competent court failed to implement the Constitutional Court’s decision within the prescribed time-limit and to bring the enforcement proceedings to an end (§42).

The Lukavica and Siničić cases also concern the violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions due to the non-execution of a friendly settlement and a court decision, both related to the return of the applicants’ vehicles (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: In the cases of Cvijetić, Pibernik and Majski, the applicants regained possession of their flats in 2002, 2003 and 2004 respectively. Furthermore, the European Court awarded all of them just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage and in the cases Cvijetić and Pibernik the Court also awarded just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage suffered due to the impossibility of living in their homes, including the expenses related to their accommodation during the period concerned.

• Information provided by the Croation authorities: Proceedings have been closed in the Kvartuč, Lukavica (31/01/2007), Mačinković (11/04/2006), Mahmutović, Omerović (15/04/2008) and Šoštarić (08/02/2008) cases but were still pending in the Mužević, Siničić and Šamija cases when the European Court gave its judgment. In this respect, the Croatian authorities stressed that the enforcement proceedings were brought to an end in the Mužević case on 27/01/2010. With respect to the Siničić case, the authorities repaired the applicant’s vehicle and invited the applicant in writing to collect it from the court depot.  

• Information is awaited on the state of the domestic proceedings in the Šamija case and if appropriate on their acceleration.

General measures:

            1) Excessive length of enforcement proceedings

• Information provided by the Croation authorities: The Croatian Parliament has adopted amendments to the Enforcement Act, which entered into force in 2005. The aim of the amendments is to simplify and accelerate enforcement proceedings, in particular by limiting the possibilities of suspending them. The possibility for the competent authorities to request the assistance of the judicial police in the event of a refusal to execute their orders is also provided.

Concerning the specific problems related to the late execution of eviction orders against squatters, the authorities consider that these could for the most part be solved by better application of the legislation in force. For that purpose the Judges' Academy organised seven two-day training meetings on the implementation of the new Enforcement Act.

The authorities also indicated that the Ministry of Justice had initiated a series of meetings between representatives of the competent courts and persons in charge from the relevant police departments with a view to improving the efficiency of police assistance in enforcement proceedings. The overall conclusion is that the co-operation between courts and police is satisfactory. However, it seems that better preparation of intervention when the police are involved is needed in some cases. The Ministry of Justice therefore will continue to encourage periodic coordination meetings on this issue at local level.

• Information awaited: statistical data on the average length of enforcement proceedings would be useful in order to confirm the efficiency of the measures already adopted.

            2) Excessive length of civil proceedings: The cases of Lukavica,Pibernik and Kvartuč present similarities to the Horvat case (judgment of 26/07/2001) closed by resolution ResDH(2005)60 following:

- the adoption of general measures aimed at improving the efficiency of the judicial system and avoiding new violations (Act amending the Act on Civil Procedure, adopted on 14/07/2003, which aims at strengthening procedural discipline and simplifying civil proceedings) and

- the introduction of an effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings (new Article 63 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, into force since 15/03/2002).

            3) Lack of an effective remedy in respect of excessive length of enforcement proceedings:

It appears that the European Court found that since 02/02/2005, a complaint before the Constitutional Court in respect of excessive length of enforcement proceedings has been an effective remedy (§29 in Omerović).

• Assessment: In view of this finding, no further measure seems necessary.

            4) Violation of Article 8:  Measures taken in respect of the excessive length civil and enforcement proceedings are also relevant under this head. The European Court’s judgment in the Cvijetić case has been published and sent out to the courts concerned (see below).

• Assessment: Taking into account the direct effect of the European Convention in Croatia, no further measure seems necessary.

5) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: Measures taken in respect of the excessive length civil and enforcement proceedings are also relevant under this head. The European Court’s judgments in the Lukavica and Siničić cases have been published and sent out to the courts concerned (see below).

• Assessment: Taking into account the direct effect of the European Convention in Croatia, no further measure seems necessary.

            6) Publication and dissemination: The judgments of the European Court in the Cvijetić and Pibernik cases have been published in Croatian on the internet site of the Government (www.vlada.hr); the judgments in the Lukavica, Mačinković, Medić, Mužević, Siničić and Šoštarić cases have been published on the web page of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr). Extracts of Cvijetić and Pibernik judgments were published in the legal magazine The Informer, Nos. 5226/04 and 5236/04. All judgments have been sent to the Supreme Court, Constitutional Court and the relevant courts concerned.

- 5 cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative authorities and courts

38550/02           Počuča, judgment of 29/06/2006, final on 29/09/2006

22457/02           Božić, judgment of 29/06/2006, final on 11/12/2006

28074/03           Smoje, judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 11/04/2007

15233/05           Štokalo and others, judgment of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009

35384/04           Tomljenović, judgment of 21/06/2007, final on 21/09/2007

These cases relate to the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative authorities and courts (violations of Article 6§1). The proceedings began between 1996 and 1999. All the proceedings were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgments.

In the Počuča and Božić cases the European Court recalled its case-law according to which special diligence is required in the examination of pension disputes. Smoje and Štokalo cases concern excessive length of administrative proceedings concerning denationalisation. The European Court also noted in the Božić case that the cause of the violation was a deficiency in the procedural system allowing for repeated remittals mandated by incomplete findings of fact (§36).

The Božić and Štokalo cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the excessive length of administrative proceedings (violations of Article 13).

In this respect, the European Court found in the Štokalo judgment that the Constitutional Court, when deciding a constitutional complaint concerning the length of proceedings pending before the Administrative Court, did not take into consideration their overall duration as it excluded the period during which the case was pending before the administrative authorities (§64).

Individual measures: In the Počuča case the proceedings before administrative courts have been closed, while the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint on 12/03/2009. In the Božić case the proceedings were closed on 8/05/2007 after the rejection of the applicant's complaint by the Constitutional Court. In the Tomljenović case the enforcement proceedings were concluded on 19/11/2009.

• Information is awaited on the state of the proceedings in the Smoje and Štokalo cases and if appropriate on their acceleration.

General measures:

1) Excessive length of administrative proceedings: The violation found in the Počuča case is due to a great extent to a complex situation created following a decision of the Constitutional Court of 1998 declaring the unconstitutionality of certain legislative provisions concerning the adjustment of pensions. According to the Government, following to this decision, more than 427 809 applications have been lodged with the local Pension Fund's regional offices by those seeking adjustment of their pensions (§7). The difficulties in the examination of these requests would come in particular from the lack of a special legislation replacing the provisions declared unconstitutional. Such legislation intervened only in 2004 and 2005 (Act on the Implementation of the Constitutional Court's decision of 12 May 1998 and Pensioners Fund Act). It finally established a mechanism for compensation of the reducing of some pensions and thus resolved the legal gap created by the decision of the Constitutional Court of 1998.

▪ Information provided by the Croatian authorities (02/10/2009): The payments of compensations pursuant to the provisions of the Pension Fund Act of 2005 have been implemented as scheduled. The Croatian Pension Fund submitted that 2/3 of pensioners withdrew their complaints in order to participate in the Pension Fund, while 1/3 maintained their requests before administrative bodies. However, the number of administrative complaints before the Administrative Court concerning the right to compensation under the Pension Fund Act has significantly decreased. In 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 respective totals of 547, 163, 45 and 13 such complaints were lodged.

Therefore the risk of new violations of the Convention concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings on account of the application of the new procedure envisaged by the Pension Fund Act is significantly reduced.

▪ Assessment: It appears that the number of complaints lodged before Administrative Courts concerning compensation under the Pension Fund Act has significantly decreased. Thus, it could be expected that similar violations will not recur. However, the European Court also found violations in these cases in respect of the excessive length of administrative proceedings concerning denationalisation. Beyond that, the European Court noted in the Božić judgment that the cause of the delay was rather a deficiency in the procedural system allowing for repeated remittals mandated by incomplete findings of fact.

▪ Information is thus awaited on the possible reasons for the violation found in the Smoje and Štokalo cases and measures taken or envisaged to avoid similar violations, including the elimination of the system allowing for repeated remittals mandated by incomplete findings of fact.

            2) Effective remedy against the excessive length of proceedings before administrative organs:

▪ Information provided by the Croatian authorities (02/07/2007): By a decision of 20/06/2007, the Constitutional Court changed its case-law as regards the time to be taken in consideration when deciding on the length of administrative proceedings. Thus, following the case-law of the European Court, it established that in all future cases regarding the length of the administrative proceedings, the period during which the case was pending before the administrative authorities should also be taken into consideration.

▪ Assessment: no further measure appears necessary.

3) Publication and dissemination of the judgments of the European Court: The judgments in the Božić, Smoje and Tomljenović cases were translated and sent out to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and to the courts concerned. They are also available at the internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravosudje.hr) and were to be published in a periodical publication on the case law of the European Court.

- 25 cases against Cyprus / 25 affaires contre Chypre

                        - 25 cases of length of judicial proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

62242/00          Gregoriou, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 09/07/03

34579/05          A.J. Hadjihanna Bros (tourist enterprises) Ltd and Hadjihannas, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007

37885/04           Charalambides, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

43151/04          Charalambous Aresti, judgment of 19/07/2007, final on 19/10/2007

30282/06           Christodoulou, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

6470/02            Cichowicz, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

35128/02          Clerides and Kynigos, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

21929/04           Douglas, judgment of 17/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

15940/02          Gavrielides, judgment of 01/06/2006, final on 01/09/2006

73802/01          Gavrielidou and others, judgment of 06/04/06, final on 06/07/06

2647/02            Josephides, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

33761/02           Josephides, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 02/06/2008

2669/02            Kyriakidis and Kyriakidou, judgment of 19/01/06, final on 19/04/06

68448/01          Lerios, judgment of 23/03/06, final on 23/06/06

14790/06           Mylonas, judgment of 11/12/2008, final on 06/07/2009

30503/03          Odysseos, judgment of 08/03/2007, final on 08/06/2007

2418/05            Ouzounian Barret, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 09/07/2007

20429/02          Papakokkinou, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

4403/03            Papakokkinou, judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 14/03/2006

20435/02          Paroutis, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

19106/03          Pastellis, judgment of 02/03/06, final on 02/06/06

47119/99          Shacolas, judgment of 04/05/2006, final on 04/08/2006

35698/03          Tengerakis, judgment of 09/11/2006, final on 09/02/2007

21322/02          Tsaggaris, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

38775/02           Waldner, judgment of 19/01/2006, final on 19/04/2006

These cases concern excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The cases of Clerides and Kynigos, Gavrielides, Gavrielidou and others, Paroutis, Lerios and Ouzounian Barret also concern the lack of an effective domestic remedy (violations of Articles 13). The violations occurred in cases running from prior to 1989 (when Cyprus accepted the individual right of petition) up to the present.

Individual measures: In all cases except that of Shacolas, proceedings are closed.

• Information is awaited concerning the state of the proceedings in the Shacolas case.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 6§1:

Regulatory measures (in particular a series of circulars issued by the Supreme Court from 1995-2003) were adopted for the prevention of similar violations.

Several of the judgments from this group were promptly disseminated, with an explanatory letter, by the Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent to judicial authorities, the Ministry of Justice and Public Order, the Cyprus Bar Association and the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Parliamentary Committees. On 10/03/2010 the Human Rights Sector of the Government Agent's Office circulated to all law officers within the Government Agent's Office and the Supreme Court a list of all European Court judgments against Cyprus concerning the excessive length of judicial proceedings. Summaries of several of the judgments from this group were published in the Cyprus Law Journal of the Bar Association (see for example Kyriakidis and Kyriakidou, 2006, 2nd issue).

During bilateral meetings in Nicosia with the Secretariat in June 2009, the Cypriot authorities provided information on a number of measures which have been taken, are currently under way or are proposed to be implemented:

Measures taken or under way:

-           A group of Supreme Court judges has been set up to monitor the problem of length of proceedings and evaluate the causes of excessive delay in civil proceedings;

-           One judge of the Supreme Court has been assigned to follow up statistics concerning older cases, and inform the Supreme Court at regular intervals on the progress of judicial proceedings;

-           The jurisdiction of single judges in the district courts has been increased;

-           Disciplinary measures are taken against judges who do not comply with Supreme Court directions provided under the Rules of Procedure for timely issue of judgments. The competent disciplinary body is the Supreme Council of Judicature, composed of all Supreme Court judges. 

-           Interest on compensation now runs from the cause of the action, encouraging litigants not to delay proceedings;

-           Judges attend regular seminars on human rights issues in rotation, subsequently feeding back information to other judges. The majority of judges are well informed of the European Court’s judgments and the problem of the excessive length of proceedings.

-           The stenotype system has been replaced to allow proceedings to be recorded digitally with respect to all assize courts;

-           There has been increase in the number of judges appointed to family and assize courts.

Proposed measures:

-           The Ministry of Finance is currently examining a request made to the Government by the President of the Supreme Court for the appointment of additional judges;

-           Further replacement of the existing stenotype system with digital recording of proceedings is envisaged;

Digitalisation of the Judicial Service will be implemented in two phases, with application first in the Supreme Court and Nicosia District Court, and subsequent extension to all domestic courts;

-           Selected Supreme Court judges, in co-operation with representatives from the Cyprus Bar Association, have reviewed the Civil Procedure Rules, with the aim of simplifying the Rules to expedite proceedings. Revised Rules have been drafted following consultations with District Court registrars and bailiffs, and will be submitted to the Supreme Court for further discussions;

-           There are plans to construct a new District Court of Nicosia. Other cities already have new district courts (Larnaca, Paphos, Limassol).

• Further information is awaited on the substance of the measures taken or proposed and the progress of their implementation.  Information would be useful on the current trends concerning length of judicial proceedings.

            2) Violation of Article 13: The Cypriot Parliament has adopted a Law (Law 2(I)/2010) providing a domestic remedy for instances of excessive length of civil and administrative proceedings, at all levels of jurisdiction, which came into force on 05/02/2010. Persons who consider that their right to determination of civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time has been violated may institute a complaint either when the relevant proceedings have been concluded by a final court judgment or when they are still pending:

-           Proceedings have been concluded: An action for compensation may be brought with respect to alleged excessive length in relation to any stage of proceedings or the execution of a domestic judgment (sections 4 and 5). The action must be instituted within one year from the date of delivery of the final judgment or its execution. In relation to proceedings concluded before entry into force of the Law, an action must be instituted within one year of the Law coming into force or execution of the judgment.

-           Pending proceedings: Without prejudice to the right to institute an action under sections 4 and 5, a person who is a party to pending proceedings, including those pending when the Law came into force, may at any stage apply by summons for examination of alleged excessive length (sections 8 and 9). During this examination there is no suspension or adjournment of the pending proceedings.

In relation to both an action under section 4 and 5 and a summons under sections 8 and 9, if the domestic court determines that there has been a violation of the right to determination of civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time, it can award compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as legal costs and expenses (section 12). Where the court determines that there has been a violation of the right to determination of civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time in respect of pending proceedings, the judgment is immediately transmitted to the Supreme Court (section 14). The Supreme Court may then issue such directions as it considers necessary in the circumstances for the acceleration of the proceedings (section 14(2) and (3)).

In determining whether there has been a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention and assessing damages, the domestic courts must take into account the case-law of the European Court and the factors it deems relevant. Proceedings which took place or are pending in a district court are examined by the President of any district court who was not exercising his duties in the relevant court nor had participated at any stage in the proceedings. Proceedings which took place or are pending before the Supreme Court are examined by three judges of the Supreme Court. Judgments of the Supreme Court are final.

The judgment in the case of Paroutis was translated into Greek and published in the Cyprus Law Tribune of the Bar Association, 2006, 2nd issue, p 39 ff. Summaries of several of the judgments from this group, in which the Court found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, were published in the Cyprus Law Journal of the Bar Association (see for example Gavrielides, 2006, 2nd issue).

• Information is awaited on the implementation of the new Law and examples of domestic case-law to this effect.

- 71 cases against the Czech Republic / 71 affaires contre la République tchèque

57325/00           D.H. et autres, arrêt du 13/11/2007 (Grande Chambre)

L’affaire concerne la discrimination subie par les requérants dans le cadre de l’exercice de leur droit à l’instruction en raison de leur placement dans des écoles spéciales d’Ostrava entre 1996 et 1999, fondé sur leur origine rom (violation de l’article 14 et de l’article 2 du Protocole n° 1). Ces écoles spéciales étaient destinées aux enfants présentant des « déficiences mentales » qui les empêchaient de fréquenter les écoles primaires ordinaires ou spécialisées (voir § 30 de l’arrêt). Selon la législation en vigueur à l’époque,la décision de placer un élève dans une école spéciale était prise par le directeur de l’école, sur la base de tests visant à évaluer les capacités intellectuelles de l’élève, sous réserve du consentement du représentant légal de l’élève.

La Cour européenne a estimé que les statistiques fournies par les requérants révélaient une tendance visant à placer les enfants d’origine Rom majoritairement dans les écoles spéciales et très peu dans les écoles primaires ordinaires, et que les éléments de preuve présentés par les requérants faisaient ainsi naître une forte présomption de discrimination indirecte. La Cour européenne a ensuite estimé que les résultats des tests psychologiques effectués à l’époque des faits dans les centres de conseil psychopédagogique n’étaient pas susceptibles de fournir une justification objective et raisonnable au regard de l’article 14. Soulignant à cet égard que les tests étaient conçus pour la population majoritaire et ne tenaient pas compte des particularités des Rom, elle a estimé qu’il existait un risque qu’ils soient entachés de préjugés et que leurs résultats ne soient pas lus à la lumière des particularités et caractéristiques spécifiques des enfants d’origine Rom qui les avaient subis. La Cour européenne était également d’avis que les parents des enfants d’origine Rom n’étaient vraisemblablement pas en mesure d’évaluer tous les aspects de la situation et les conséquences de leur consentement, eu égard à leur appartenance à une communauté défavorisée et souvent sans instruction.

La Cour européenne a conclu que le processus de scolarisation des enfants d’origine Rom n’avait pas été entouré de garanties permettant de s’assurer que l’Etat avait tenu compte des besoins spécifiques découlant de leur position défavorisée. En conséquence, les requérants avaient été placés dans des écoles pour enfants souffrant d’un handicap mental et avaient reçu une éducation ayant accentué leurs difficultés. Il y avait dès lors une discrimination indirecte en ce qu’une mesure formulée de manière neutre permettant de placer un enfant dans une école spéciale avait eu un effet préjudiciable disproportionné sur les élèves d’origine Rom.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Les requérants sont aujourd’hui âgés de 18 à 24 ans et ne relèvent donc plus de l’enseignement primaire. La Cour européenne leur a octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral.

• Evaluation : aucune mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : Selon l’arrêt de la Cour européenne, la législation mise en cause a été abrogée le 01/01/2005 (voir §208 de l’arrêt) et la nouvelle loi sur les écoles (loi n° 561/2004) prévoit que les enfants ayant des besoins spécifiques en matière d’éducation, dont les enfants défavorisés sur le plan social, doivent être formés au sein du système d’écoles primaires et peuvent aussi suivre des cours préparatoires. L’existence de besoins éducatifs spécifiques est déterminée au moyen d’un examen pédagogique ou psychologique, effectué dans un centre de conseil scolaire (§§31-33 et 38 de l’arrêt).

• Informations fournies par les autorités tchèques (en dernier lieu le 09/04/2010) :

- Mesures déjà adoptées :

Une réforme des programmes a été lancée en 2005, elle permet à chaque école d’établir, sur la base du Programme-cadre de l’éducation, son programme d’enseignement en fonction des besoins de ses élèves. L’éducation des Rom fait l’objet du Concept interdépartemental de l’Intégration de la communauté Rom adopté par le Gouvernement pour soutenir les enfants d’origine Rom défavorisés sur le plan social dans l’obtention des diplômes. Une analyse des communautés rom dans l’exclusion sociale a été effectuée en 2006 par le Ministère du Travail et des Affaires sociales avec le Conseil gouvernemental pour les affaires des communautés rom. Elle fournit des informations sur les localités menacées par l’exclusion sociale et sur les problèmes spécifiques de leurs habitants. En mai 2008, le Gouvernement a adopté une version mise à jour du Concept de soins précoces pour les enfants des milieux socioculturels défavorisés, lequel a pour but de compenser les désavantages existant dans le domaine de l’éducation avant le début de la scolarité obligatoire. Des programmes d’étude et de développement sont également disponibles pour soutenir les élèves/étudiants d’origine Rom et leurs enseignants. Enfin, la République tchèque participe à la mise en œuvre de la Décennie de l’Intégration des Rom (2005-2015).

Lorsque les Délégués ont examiné ces mesures en septembre 2008, il a été noté que l’arrêt soulignait également la nécessité d’une stratégie au niveau européen.

- Plan d’action : Le 09/04/2009, les autorités tchèques ont soumis un plan d’action dans lequel elles prévoyaient notamment d’effectuer une série d’études spécialisées (sociologiques, pédagogiques etc.) qui donneraient une image claire de la situation des enfants Rom dans le système scolaire et qui permettraient d’identifier des mesures à prendre pour éliminer la ségrégation existant dans les écoles. Ces études devaient aussi porter sur les méthodes utilisées par les centres de conseil pour évaluer les capacités intellectuelles des enfants. Les autorités se sont également engagées à développer un plan national de l’éducation assurant l’intégration.

- Mise en œuvre du plan d’action :

Il ressort des études effectuées en 2009 que, tandis que 3,1 % des élèves soumis à l’enseignement obligatoire poursuivaient leur éducation dans les écoles appelées « pratiques » (praktické školy), destinées aux enfants souffrant d’un handicap mental léger, 26,7 % des élèves rom y étaient scolarisés. Dans la mesure où en 1999, 70 % des enfants rom poursuivaient leur éducation dans les anciennes écoles spéciales, l’amélioration des résultats scolaires des enfants rom survenue depuis lors résulte, d’après les études effectuées par les autorités tchèques, de mesures telles que l’enseignement préscolaire, le travail des assistants pédagogiques et l’aide des ONG. Les études concluent également que les méthodes utilisées par les organismes de conseil pour évaluer les capacités intellectuelles des enfants sont correctes et n’ont pas de caractère discriminatoire, pourvu qu’elles soient utilisées selon les règles de l’art, à savoir non pas isolément mais dans différentes combinaisons.

Le 15/03/2010, le gouvernement tchèque a adopté le Plan National de l’Education Assurant l’Intégration – Phase Préparatoire (NAPIV), préparé par le Ministère de l’Education en collaboration avec d’autres ministères, des représentants de différents milieux professionnels et des ONG. Le but du NAPIV est d’augmenter le niveau d’intégration dans le système scolaire, d’adopter des mesures préventives contre l’exclusion sociale et de contribuer à renforcer la cohésion de la société tchèque. La phase préparatoire permettra d’adopter, entre 2010 et 2013, des stratégies qui seront ensuite mises en œuvre dans le cadre de la deuxième phase du Plan – la phase d’exécution.

Un comité directeur sera mis en place pour coordonner l’exécution du NAPIV. Ce comité sera notamment chargé de planifier les projets de recherches et de proposer des réformes aux administrations publiques ; il va périodiquement mettre à jour le NAPIV.

Dans le cadre du NAPIV seront élaborées des propositions de modification des programmes-cadres de l’enseignement, notamment du Programme National pour le Développement du Système de l’Education en République tchèque (« Livre Blanc »). L’objectif clé est d’élaborer des projets de loi permettant de définir de manière précise les relations entre différents acteurs du processus d’enseignement : élèves, écoles, services de conseil etc. Seront également définis de façon claire les différents types de support pédagogique et les établissements chargés d’assurer le support pédagogique spécialisé. Plusieurs catégories (organisationnelles, matérielles et personnelles) de mesures permettant l’intégration dans le milieu scolaire des enfants défavorisés sur le plan social seront établies et le caractère obligatoire de l’application de ces mesures sera abordé.

La proposition de transformer les écoles primaires « pratiques » (destinées aux enfants souffrant d’un handicap mental léger) en écoles primaires ordinaires est actuellement élaborée et devra être soumise au Gouvernement avant la fin de 2010. Ces écoles vont recevoir un support important en conseil et en méthodologie. Des « classes transitoires » seront créées dans les écoles ordinaires ; les élèves avec des faibles résultats scolaires vont y être placés pour une période limitée et entourés de soins compensatoires spécialisés. Il est également proposé de créer des classes séparées pour les enfants souffrant d’un handicap mental léger ; le placement dans de telles classes ne pourra avoir lieu que dans l’intérêt de l’enfant et uniquement lorsque ce handicap a été diagnostiqué et qu’en dépit des soins compensatoires prodigués, l’enfant n’arrive pas à suivre le curriculum ordinaire.

Le NAPIV prévoit également des mesures visant à assurer l’intégration à tous les niveaux de l’enseignement, y compris l’enseignement supérieur. Il se penche sur la question de la formation des enseignants dans l’esprit de l’intégration. Il vise à uniformiser le système de conseil scolaire, le soumettre à une supervision d’experts et le rendre plus accessible ; plutôt que de diagnostiquer des difficultés, les organismes de conseil devraient recommander des soins compensatoires efficaces.

En relation avec le NAPIV, des projets d’amendements aux règlements en vigueur (n^os 72/2005 et 73/2005) ont été élaborés. Ils prévoient notamment d’obliger les organismes de conseil à informer les parents sur les conséquences qu’aura pour l’avenir de leur enfant leur choix de le placer dans un établissement scolaire pour handicapés mentaux. Il sera possible pour les organismes de conseil d’effectuer leurs examens au domicile de l’enfant. Un autre amendement définit d’une manière plus précise la notion d’enfant défavorisé sur le plan social ; il interdit le placement d’enfants ne souffrant pas d’un handicap mental dans le cadre des programmes d’enseignement pour handicapés mentaux. Le projet d’amendement de l’article 16 de la loi sur les écoles indique que l’intégration est la voie fondamentale et préférée de l’enseignement des enfants avec des besoins spécifiques en matière d’éducation et que ces enfants ont droit à demander des soins compensatoires pour améliorer leurs résultats scolaires.

En 2010, des recommandations méthodologiques ont été adressées aux écoles primaires et maternelles ; elles prévoient des procédures spécifiques pour soutenir les enfants défavorisés sur le plan social. Toujours en 2010, le Ministre de l’Education a exhorté les écoles à intégrer les enfants ne souffrant pas d’un handicap mental dans l’enseignement ordinaire. Le Plan d’Action pour les Soins Précoces a été lancé en 2009 ; il vise à éliminer les inégalités par le biais de l’enseignement préscolaire, notamment en rendant les écoles maternelles plus accessibles pour les enfants rom. Un site Internet contenant des exemples de bonnes pratiques en matière d’intégration a été mis en place. Une coopération a été lancée avec les autorités territoriales concernant notamment le financement des écoles et l’intégration en matière d’éducation. Entre 2008 et 2010, 39 370 000 euros provenant des fonds structurels de l’Union européenne ont été affectés au développement de l’égalité des chances dans le domaine de l’éducation.

- Publication et diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne :

L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été traduit et publié sur le site Internet du Ministère de l’Education. En 2009 et 2010, il a été l’objet de plusieurs séminaires et conférences concernant l’enseignement des enfants défavorisés sur le plan social. Différents ministères, le Sénat, le Médiateur et l’Agence pour l’Intégration Sociale l’ont également été diffusé à plusieurs cercles professionnels concernés et à des élus locaux. En novembre 2009, le Ministre de l’Education et une coalition de treize ONG, dont certaines rassemblant des Rom, ont tenu une conférence de presse consacrée au présent arrêt, intitulée « Deux ans après ».

• Communication en vertu de la règle 9§2 : Un groupe d’ONG (European Roma Rights Centre, Open Society Justice Initiative, Educational Support Program, Early Childhood Program et Roma Education Fund) a soumis trois mémoires (en dernier lieu le 13/11/2009) qui présentent une évaluation critique des mesures prises par les autorités. Selon les ONG, les enfants rom continuent d’être placés dans les anciennes écoles spéciales, maintenant renommées « écoles pratiques », ce qui renforce leur ségrégation et réduit leurs chances pour l’avenir. Les ONG dénoncent également le caractère inapproprié ou insuffisant d’autres mesures prises par les autorités.

Ils proposent de mettre fin à la ségrégation dans le milieu scolaire dans les meilleurs délais ; un moratoire sur l’admission des enfants rom dans les écoles pratiques pourrait être envisagé. Les autorités ont répondu aux ONG le 16/12/2009 (voir https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=1483471&SecMode=1&DocId=1522958&Usage=2).

• Des informations sont attendues sur la mise en œuvre du Plan National de l’Education Assurant l’Intégration (NAPIV), ainsi que sur le déroulement des réformes législatives et organisationnelles envisagées. Des informations sont attendues sur l’impact des mesures prises sur la suppression envisagée de la ségrégation des enfants rom dans le milieu scolaire (données statistiques).

                        - 2 affaires concernant la détention provisoire

18642/04           Smatana, arrêt du 27/09/2007, définitif le 31/03/08

76576/01           Fešar, arrêt 13/11/2008, définitif le 06/04/2009

Ces affaires concernent le maintien en détention provisoire des requérants en l'absence de motifs suffisants justifiant cette mesure. Dans l’affaire Smatana, le requérant a été détenu pendant plus de 2 ans, entre 2000 et 2002 ; dans l’affaire Fešar, la détention du requérant a duré presque 2 ans, entre 1996 et 1998 (violations de l'article 5§3).

Ces affaires portent également sur l’absence d’examen à bref délai des recours introduits par les requérants contre leur maintien en détention, notamment des retards dans la procédure devant la Cour constitutionnelle laquelle a duré presque 2 ans dans l’affaire Smatana et 3 ans et 9 mois dans l’affaire Fešar (violations de l'article 5§4).

Dans l’affaire Smatana, la Cour européenne a estimé en outre que la jouissance effective par le requérant de son droit à réparation pour détention contraire à l'article 5 de la Convention ne se trouvait pas, à l'époque des faits, assurée à un degré suffisant de certitude (violation de l'article 5§5).

Mesures de caractère individuel : Depuis 2003, le requérant dans l’affaire Smatana purge une peine de prison dont a été déduite la période qu'il a passée en détention provisoire. La période de la détention provisoire a été déduite également de la peine infligée au requérant dans l’affaire Fešar. Ce dernier a été libéré le 18/05/1998 (§§14 et 16 de l’arrêt).

Dans l’affaire Smatana, la Cour européenne a accordé au requérant une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral mais pas au titre du préjudice matériel, car elle a considéré que la réduction de sa peine de prison était une compensation suffisante. Le requérant dans l’affaire Fešar n’a pas spécifié sa demande de satisfaction équitable devant la Cour européenne qui ne lui a donc rien alloué à ce titre (§73 de l’arrêt).

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

1) Violations de l'article 5 §3 : Le code de procédure pénale tchèque contient depuis le 01/01/2002 de nouvelles dispositions visant à limiter la durée de la détention provisoire (voir l'affaire Punzelt, Résolution finale ResDH(2004)33, adoptée le 15/06/2004, et les affaires Singh et Vejmola, Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2007)119, adoptée le 31/10/2007). En outre, les tribunaux tchèques doivent régulièrement réévaluer la justification ou non du maintien en détention provisoire. De plus, ils doivent examiner s'il y a des motifs sérieux pour justifier le fait qu'une procédure pénale soit toujours pendante.

Les violations dans les cas présents se sont produites avant ces changements et constituaient probablement des incidents isolés résultant de circonstances spécifiques.

• Evaluation : aucune mesure générale supplémentaire ne semble nécessaire.

2) Violations de l'article 5§4 : Le 01/01/2002, des garanties complémentaires ont été introduites dans le Code de procédure pénale afin d’assurer le traitement rapide des procédures portant sur la légalité des détentions provisoires (voir les Résolutions finales précitées). Toutefois, la violation dans les présentes affaires résultait principalement des retards accusés dans la procédure devant la Cour constitutionnelle qui n'est pas régie par le Code de procédure pénale. Selon les informations fournies par les autorités tchèques, les arrêts de la Cour européenne ont été portés à la connaissance des juges de la Cour constitutionnelle, lesquels consacrent désormais une attention particulière aux recours relatifs à la détention. Depuis le 1/04/2008, date de la prise de nouvelles mesures générales par la Cour constitutionnelle, la liste de tous ces recours pendant devant cette juridiction est présentée tous les mois en assemblée plénière aux fins de vérification périodique de la durée des détentions. De plus, le greffe de la Cour constitutionnelle tient un registre spécial concernant les affaires de détention où tous les dossiers sont marqués avec un « V » rouge (Vazba [« détention »]).

Tandis qu’avant l’introduction de ces mesures, la durée moyenne de traitement d’un dossier par la Cour constitutionnelle était de 88,19 jours (82 affaires entre le 1/01/2007 et le 31/03/2008), elle est désormais de 65,97 jours (136 affaires entre le 1/04/2008 et le 15/10/2009).

• Des informations complémentaires seraient également utiles sur une éventuelle incorporation de ces mesures dans la législation ainsi que sur les mesures prises/envisagées afin de réduire les délais de notification des décisions sur les recours contre la détention.

3) Violation de l'article 5§5 : Au moment des faits, la législation tchèque n'assurait pas, avec un degré suffisant de certitude, le droit à réparation au titre d'une violation constatée de l'article 5 de la Convention. Depuis la loi n° 160/2006 portant modification de la loi n° 82/1998 (entrée en vigueur le 27/04/2006), la législation tchèque prévoit expressément la possibilité d'indemnisation des préjudices matériel et moral résultant d'une détention provisoire injustifiée, à condition cependant que la procédure pénale se solde par une décision d'acquittement ou de non-lieu ou qu'une décision relative à la détention ait été au préalable annulée comme irrégulière. Pour permettre aux requérants de bénéficier de cette possibilité, l'assemblée plénière de la Cour constitutionnelle a adopté (le 06/05/2008) l'avis n° Pl.ÚS-st 25/08 visant à unifier sa jurisprudence en la matière. Désormais, lorsque la Cour constitutionnelle considère comme fondé le recours constitutionnel portant sur la régularité de la détention, elle doit également annuler la décision ordonnant la détention, indépendamment de la question de savoir si l'intéressé se trouve encore en détention ou non. La Cour constitutionnelle a rendu des décisions individuelles en ce sens le 7/07/2008 (n° I.ÚS 1348/07) et le 17/07/2009 (n° II. ÚS 96/09).

Les autorités tchèques ont indiqué en outre qu’une indemnisation pouvait également être sollicitée au titre d'une irrégularité de procédure commise par l'autorité compétente, ainsi que prévu par l'article 13§1 de la loi n° 82/1998, lequel renvoie désormais entre autres à l'article 5 de la Convention. Ce recours ne nécessite pas l'annulation préalable de la décision ordonnant la détention. La Cour européenne a cependant estimé qu'aucun exemple de décision adoptée sur cette question n'avait été présenté jusqu'alors (voir § 91 in fine de l'arrêt).

• Des informations sont toujours attendues sur le fonctionnement du recours indemnitaire prévu par la loi n° 82/1998 en matière de prétentions fondées sur l'article 5 de la Convention.

4) Publication et diffusion : Les arrêts de la Cour européenne ont été traduits et publiés sur le site Internet du Ministère de la Justice (www.justice.cz). Ils ont été transmis aux juges de la Cour constitutionnelle ainsi qu'aux présidents de tous les tribunaux régionaux, qui ont été invités à en informer les juges concernés, afin de prévenir des violations similaires. 

                        - 68 cases of length of judicial proceedings[5]

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Bořánková and Hartman group)

- 1 case against Denmark / 1 affaire contre le Danemark

26461/06           Valentin, judgment of 26/03/2009, final on 26/06/2009

The case concerns the excessive length of bankruptcy proceedings (violation of Article 6).

The applicant was a partner in a banking and stock-broking firm which went bankrupt in 1988. Bankruptcy proceedings lasted from 29/08/1988 until 20/12/2005 (17 years and four months).

The case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy in Danish law at the time in respect of complaints related to length of bankruptcy court proceedings (violation of Article 13).

Finally, the case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as he had been deprived of the possibility to administer his assets for more than 17 years (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

- 1 case against Estonia / 1 affaire contre l’Estonie

41653/05           Kochetkov, judgment of 02/04/2009, final on 02/07/2009

This case concerns the poor conditions in which the applicant was detained on remand between 17/04 and 2/05/2005 in the Narva remand centre (arestimaja). Assisted in this matter by the report of the CPT (CPT/Inf(2005)6), the European Court found that the severely overcrowded and insanitary conditions (poor food, inadequate ventilation, poor hygiene) of the remand centre amounted to degrading treatment (violation of Article 3).

This case concerns also the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3. The Court observed that the domestic courts did not grant monetary compensation to the applicant in the absence of any fault or intention to degrade him on the part of officials. The Court considered that this approach was too restrictive and deprived the applicant of an effective remedy in domestic law (violation of Article 13).

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

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Estonian authorities: In their action report of 17/12/2009, the Estonian authorities provided the following information:

- The judgment has been translated into Estonian and made available on the website of Council of Europe Information Centre in Tallinn (www.coe.ee). It has also been forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court for action and for communication to subordinate bodies.

- The Estonian authorities undertook a widespread reconstruction and renovation effort with the technical assistance of the Council of Europe and the Nordic-Baltic Prison Reform project. Some old prisons, such as the Central Prison in Tallinn, Pärnu Prison, Ämari Prison and Viljandi Prison, were closed. New prisons were built in Tartu and Viru and a new prison is currently planned to be built in Maardu (the new Tallinn prison). According to the Estonian authorities, these programmes have been carried out over a number of years and are still going on.

- Moreover, a new ventilation system was installed in Narva remand centre, which is still used for short periods of detention following the inauguration in 2008 of a new centre in neighbouring Jõhvi for up to 150 inmates who were previously detained in Narva and Kohtla-Järve remand centres.

- As regards the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the Estonian courts have been informed of the European Court’s criticism of the interpretation of the Article 9 of the State Liability Act given by the Administrative courts in the present case. A preliminary analysis on the need and the scope of amendments to the State Liability Act has been prepared and a draft amendment of this Act is planned to be submitted to the Government for approval in the first half of 2010.

• Information is awaited on progress with legislative amendments to introduce an effective remedy in respect of allegations of poor detention conditions.

- 44 cases against Finland / 44 affaires contre la Finlande

18249/02           C., judgment of 09/05/2006, final on 09/08/2006

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life due to a Supreme Court decision reversing two judgments of lower courts awarding the applicant custody of his children (violation of Article 8).

The custody had initially been awarded to the children’s mother, who lived in Finland with her female partner. Following the mother’s death in 1999, a District Court decision, confirmed at appeal, awarded custody to the father, who lives in Switzerland. However, the Supreme Court reversed these judgments, instead awarding custody to the mother’s partner, with whom the children had been living since 1993 and with whom they had continuously expressed the wish to live.

The European Court found that the Supreme Court, in giving exclusive weight to the children’s views without considering any other factors, in particular the applicant’s rights as a father, had effectively given the children, both of whom were at least 12, an unconditional power of veto. Moreover, the European Court found that the Supreme Court had acted without holding a hearing and without requiring any investigation or expert testimony which might have clarified the parties’ positions.

Individual measures: The children are now of age. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. However, the just satisfaction in respect of costs and expenses was seized by the Finnish authorities against previous debts of the applicant. The applicant has complained about this situation.

• Bilateral contacts are under way concerning this issue.

General measures: In view of the direct effect of the Convention and its case-law in Finnish law, the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all judicial authorities appears useful to prevent new, similar violations. In this context it should be noted that the judgment of the European Court has been published in the judicial database Finlex (www.finlex.fi) and it has been widely disseminated inter alia to the Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court, Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman for Children.

In addition, the Ministry of Justice was planning to modify the Law on Seizure so that the seizure of just satisfaction awarded by the European Court would no longer be possible. The working group which has been appointed to examine the problem of length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy has already proposed a similar amendment to the Law on Seizure. 

• Additional information is awaited on the results of the working group.

13079/03           Ruotsalainen, judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 16/09/2009

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right not to be punished twice for the same offence (violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7).

Stopped by the police in January 2001 during a road check, the applicant was found to be driving with more leniently taxed fuel than the diesel oil his van should have been running on. He was then fined for petty tax fraud in summary penal order proceedings. Subsequently he was also issued with a fuel fee debit in administrative proceedings.

The European Court found that both sanctions imposed on the applicant had been criminal in nature and had arisen from the same facts.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

3514/02            Eerikäinen and others, judgment of 10/02/2009, final on 13/03/2009

The case concerns the violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicants, a freelance journalist, the former editor-in-chief (now deceased) of a publishing company and the publishing company, against whom a civil court found that they had invaded the privacy of others. On 21/11/2000, the Supreme Court ordered the applicants to pay damages because of a newspaper article the first applicant had written in 1997 concerning criminal proceedings pending against a business-woman accused of fraud against the social security authorities and insurance companies.

The European Court observed that coverage of the criminal case in the article had been based on public facts, concerned a matter of legitimate public interest and its purpose had been to contribute to a public discussion. It noted furthermore that the Supreme Court had failed to analyse the significance of several elements and that the grounds relied on, although relevant, were thus not sufficient to justify the interference in terms of a “pressing social need” (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of both non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages, including all the sums they had been ordered to pay.

• Assessment: no individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: The European Court found that the Supreme Court had not convincingly established the “necessity” of the restriction of the exercise of the freedom of expression, as it had not given sufficient reasons to justify that ordering the applicants to pay damages responded to a “pressing social need”. The violation found derives therefore from a national court’s failure to take into account the criteria set out by the Convention with regard to freedom of expression.

A summary of the European Court’s judgment in Finnish has been published in the Finlex legal database (www.finlex.fi). The judgment has also been sent out to the relevant national authorities, including the Supreme Court.

• Information is still awaited on other measures which might be envisaged to prevent similar violations.

19235/03           Marttinen, judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings in that in proceedings to recover a debt the applicant had been fined for refusing to give an overall account of his assets and other financial means, being at the same time suspected of a tax fraud concerning the same assets.

The European Court found that the determination to ensure the effectiveness of debt recovery proceedings could not justify a provision which extinguished the very essence of the applicant’s right to silence and not to incriminate himself (violation of Article 6§1).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

34165/05           R.H., judgment of 02/06/2009, final on 02/09/2009

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant in 2002-2004, as the Appeal Court failed to make a full examination of the case or to organise an oral hearing, but used instead a so-called “filtering procedure” based on Chapter 26, sections 2 and 2a of the Code of Judicial Procedure (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that in the circumstances of the case, the credibility of the statements of the persons involved could not have been properly determined by the Appeal Court without a direct assessment of such evidence.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

40412/98           V., judgment of 24/04/2007, final on 24/07/2007

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant who was unable to argue fully and in due time his allegations that he had been entrapped by the police into committing the drug offences he was charged with (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted in particular that by the refusal to disclose the telephone metering information concerning the applicant’s telephone, confirmed by the court under the Coercive Measures Act, the police had denied him the opportunity to prove that the drugs had been ordered by a person being held in custody who had been incited by the police. No public interest grounds had been advanced for not revealing to the applicant the metering information concerning his telephone calls. Consequently, the courts had not, any more than the defence or the public prosecutor, had knowledge of the contents of that telephone metering information and they had therefore not been in a position to monitor the relevance to the defence of the withheld information. The decision-making procedure had thus failed to comply with the requirements of fairness.

Individual measures: As a result of the proceedings in question the applicant was convicted in 1996 for drug related offences and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment.

The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

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 allows the applicant to request the reopening of criminal proceedings found to violate the Convention, if he wishes to do so.

The applicant submitted no request regarding individual measures to the Committee of Ministers.

• Assessment: No further measure appears necessary.

General measures: At the material time, national legislation did not contain any provisions on the use of undercover transactions or on the use of undercover agents (§ 56 of the judgment).

            1) Legislation adopted: The Police Act was amended in 2001, so that it now includes explicit provisions on certain unconventional preventive methods and investigative techniques, including undercover operations and induced deals (§29 of the judgment).

On 01/04/2008, the revised decree (No.174/2008) of the Ministry of Interior on arranging and supervising information gathering by the police took effect, which regulates the decision-making on and the arrangement, use and supervision of, the means used by the police to gather and protect information, including undercover activities and technical surveillance.

On 07/07/2008, the Police Act and the Coercive Measures Act were completed with the new regulation of the Ministry of Interior on arranging, using and supervising secret information gathering by the police, which concerns inter alia access to such information.

Furthermore, the Act on the Openness of Government Activities (No. 621/1999) provides that any person whose right, interest or obligation in a matter is concerned shall have the right of access, to be granted by the authority which is considering or has considered the matter, to the contents of a document which is not in the public domain, if they may influence or may have influenced the consideration of his/her matter.

            2) Measures planned: In March 2007, a committee was appointed to prepare an overall reform of the Criminal Investigations Act, the Coercive Measure Act and the Police Act. In May 2009, the Ministry of Justice received the committee’s report which will serve as a basis for drafting a governmental proposal on new acts. The Bill should be submitted to the Parliament in spring 2010. According to the report, the Criminal Investigations Act should give parties a right of access to what has appeared during the investigation, assuming that it may not cause damage to the investigation. The Coercive Measures Act should provide that at the conclusion of the pre-trial investigation, the suspect must be informed of undercover actions and coercive measures related to him, such as the telephone metering, and all irrelevant information gathered must be destroyed. If the pre-trial investigation has not ended within a year calculated from the moment the use of coercive measure had ceased, the suspect must nevertheless be notified, unless the court decides otherwise.

• Information is awaited on the development of the legislative process under way and on the final legislative framework concerning access of the accused to all information available to the police, which is relevant for his/her defence.

            3) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court was published in the legal database Finlex (www.finlex.fi). A summary of the judgment in Finnish has been published in the same database. Moreover, the judgment was sent out to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Parliament / Constitutional Law Committee, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministries of Justice and Interior, the office of the Prosecutor General, the Helsinki District Court and the Helsinki Appeal Court.

- 2 cases concerning the search and seizure of privileged material and the length of judicial proceedings

50882/99          Sallinen Petri and others, judgment of 27/09/2005, final on 27/12/2005

19348/04           Sorvisto, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

These cases concern the search and seizure of privileged material at the first applicant’s law firm in the course of a police investigation, also affecting the rights of his clients (Sallinen and others), and seizure of correspondence between the applicant and his lawyer (Sorvisto).

The European Court found that Finnish law provided no proper legal safeguards in that it was unclear about the circumstances in which privileged material could be subject to search and seizure. The interference in question was thus not “in accordance with the law” in the meaning of Article 8 and the applicants were therefore deprived of the protection to which they were entitled (violation of article 8§2).

The Sorvisto case also concerns the excessive length of judicial proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect (violation of Article 6§1 and 13).

Individual measures:

1) Sallinen Petri and others: The material seized has been either returned to the first applicant or destroyed. The European Court has awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants.

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.

2) Case of Sorvisto:

• Information is still awaited on the current state of the proceedings before the Appeal Court and as to what has been done with the material seized

General measures: The Deputy Chancellor of Justice invited the Ministry of Justice to examine whether there was a need to amend the law to clarify the relationship between the Coercive Measures Act, the Code of Judicial Procedure and the Advocates Act. A report on the reform of the Coercive Measures Act and some other acts was thus presented in May 2009 and circulated for comments due at the end of August 2009. A governmental proposal on the reform was to be submitted to Parliament by the end of April 2010. A steering group was appointed by the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior to that end. The aim is that the proposal would be adopted by the current Parliament before the parliamentary elections of March 2011. The new legislation could then enter into force at the earliest at the beginning of 2012.

The proposed new Coercive Measures Act should contain the same prohibitions of seizure related to the privilege or duty to refuse to give evidence, but significant changes are proposed to the regulation concerning search conducted before seizure. Correspondence between suspect and counsel would fall under the current prohibitions on seizure. A search conducted to seek evidence in counsels’ premises would be regarded as a “special search”. This new type of search, the “special search of premises”, would be introduced where the premises (e.g. a law firm) may be presumed to contain information on which a person cannot testify at trial or which he or she may refuse to reveal. It would be up to a court to decide whether to conduct a special search and to assign a “search ombudsman” to supervise that such information is not seized or copied. The police officer conducting the search should take due account of the ombudsman’s opinion on the suitability of the information for seizure. If, during the search, material is seized against the ombudsman’s opinion, this material should not be examined further and should be sealed; the question of examining and using such material will have to be referred to a court. The proposal also includes provisions on the state’s liability for damages caused by the use of coercive measures during special searches of premises. Damages would be due for personal injury, damage to property, financial loss or suffering.

The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published in the Finlex database (www.finlex.fi) and sent out to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Central Criminal Police, the District Court of Joensuu, the Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Bar Association and the Finnish Federation of Lawyers. 

• Assessment: The proposed amendments seem sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future.

•Information is still awaited on interim measures to prevent similar violations pending the entry into force of the new law. A copy of the governmental proposal is also awaited.

The issues of excessive length of proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy are being examined in the framework of the Kangasluoma group (48339/99, Section 4.2).

10163/02           Johansson, judgment of 06/09/2007, final on 06/12/2007

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for their private and family life due to the refusal of the Finnish authorities (the Population Registration Authority) to register the name “Axl” for their son born in 1999, on the ground that the spelling did not comply with Finnish name practice (violation of Article 8).

The European Court’s finding of a violation was based not least on the fact that the name thus spelt had already gained acceptance in Finland. Three people with the same name were found in the official Population Information System when the applicants' son was born, and, subsequently, at least two other children have been given this name. At least four of them were Finnish nationals. According to the European Court, a fair balance had thus not been struck between the public interest considerations and the interests claimed by the applicants.

Individual measures: The Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages suffered.

The Finnish authorities informed the Secretariat that the applicants’ son has been given the forename of their choice.

• Assessment: no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: An excerpt from the judgment in Finnish was published in the legal database Finlex (www.finlex.fi) and the judgment was sent out to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Parliament/Constitutional Law Committee, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor General, the Helsinki Administrative Court, the Population Register center and the Hyvinkää local register office.

As to other general measures, the Finnish authorities stated on 30/06/2009 that further information was being gathered and would be submitted soon.

• Additional information as announced above would be appreciated.

40350/05           Kaura, judgment of 23/06/2009, final on 23/09/2009

The case concerns the excessive length of administrative proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations brought by the applicant in 2000–2005 against the authorities’ refusal to pay him unemployment benefit because he had failed to respond promptly to a potential employer (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the unfairness of the same proceedings due to the absence of a hearing.

The European Court found that, to determine properly the credibility of the statements of the persons involved, the Insurance Court should have held an oral hearing (violation of Article 6§1).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

68050/01           Ekholm, judgment of 24/07/2007, final on 24/10/2007

This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings, which concerned a dispute between neighbours, began in 1991 and were still pending when the European Court gave its decision (almost 16 years).

The case also concerns the competent authorities’ failure to enforce final judicial decisions (violation of Article 6§1). During the proceedings at issue, the case was five times referred back to the competent administrative authority (South Åland Municipal Health Board). For almost ten years, this board refused to comply with the final judicial decisions taken in the proceedings, ordering it to issue appropriate instructions to the applicants’ neighbours.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered. On 26/04/2006, the Health Board finally complied with the judicial decisions and ordered the applicants’ neighbours to take certain measures within 60 days from the date on which its decision acquired legal force. On 27/02/2007, the Administrative Court rejected the appeals introduced by both parties. The Supreme Administrative Court gave its decision on 08/11/2007, upholding the lower court’s decision. The applicants submitted no claims for individual measures.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

            1) Failure to comply with a final judicial decision: An excerpt from the judgment was published in Finnish in the Finlex legal database (www.finlex.fi) and the judgment was sent out to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Parliament / Constitutional Law Committee, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministries of Justice and Social Affairs and Health, the Åland Parliament and the Mariehamn District Court.

• Information is still awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent future similar violations and in particular on effective remedies available to applicants in domestic proceedings to complain of non-compliance with final judicial decisions by administrative authorities. 

2) Length of the proceedings: See the Kangasluoma group (48339/99) (Section 4.2).

                        - 33 cases of length of judicial proceedings

48339/99          Kangasluoma, judgment of 20/01/2004, final on 14/06/2004

23667/06           Ahlskog Rafael, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

2511/02            Aho, judgment of 16/10/2007, final on 16/01/2008

24732/06           Aiminen, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009

4799/03            Eloranta, judgment of 09/12/2008, final on 09/03/2009

22508/02           F. and M., judgment of 17/07/2007, final on 17/10/2007

36288/97          Fryckman, judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007

33173/05           G., judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 27/04/2009

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

39105/05           Jaanti, judgment of 24/02/2009, final on 24/05/2009

64436/01          Kajas, judgment of 07/03/2006, final on 07/06/2006

7790/05            Knaster, judgment of 22/09/2009, final on 22/12/2009

26890/95          Kukkola, judgment of 15/11/2005, final on 15/02/2006

47628/06           Kukkonen No. 2, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

34147/96          Lehtinen, judgment of 13/09/2005, final on 13/12/2005

41585/98          Lehtinen No. 2, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006

43160/98          Lehtinen Toive, judgment of 22/05/2007, final on 22/08/2007

45618/04           Lehtinen Toive No. 2, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

11704/03          Lehtonen, judgment of 13/06/2006, final on 13/09/2006

28631/05           Manninen, judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/07/2009

77138/01          Mattila, judgment of 23/05/2006, final on 23/08/2006

10615/03          Molander, judgment of 07/11/2006, final on 07/02/2007

13102/03          Narinen No. 2, judgment of 06/03/2007, final on 06/06/2007

38158/07          Oy Hopotihoi Suomen Lelukamarit Toy & Hobby Ltd and Matti Kangasluoma, judgment of 22/09/2009, final on 22/12/2009

26189/06           Petikon Oy and Parviainen, judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 17/02/2009

25072/02           Riihikallio and others, judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007

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

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

38581/97           T.K. and S.E., judgment of 31/05/2005, final on 31/08/2005

61222/00          Uoti, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007 and of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

10736/03           Väänänen, judgment of 22/05/2007, final on 24/09/2007

36989/05           Vienonen and others, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 24/06/2009

63235/00           Vilho Eskelinen and others, judgment of 19/04/2007 - Grand Chamber

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

Several cases also concern the absence of an effective remedy enabling the applicants to complain about the length of the proceedings (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures: Acceleration of proceedings, if still pending (one set of proceedings in the Lehtinen Toive case, 43160/98). The other sets of proceedings are closed.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 6: The Finnish authorities confirmed that the judgments of the European Court had been translated, published on Finlex and widely disseminated with a covering letter to various authorities concerned (for example to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the appeal courts and district courts concerned, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and the National Bureau of Investigation).

At the bilateral level, the authorities declared that the following measures had been taken: interaction among police, prosecutor and the court to reduce the length of proceedings, inter alia through common database system; training of judges; improvement of quality of work of the courts.

In June 2009, the authorities stated that further measures were under way with a view to reducing the length of proceedings: namely restructuring the district courts system, introduction of an appraisal system in the civil service and reallocation of resources within the district courts system.

• Assessment: These measures, stemming from the reflection carried out by a working group of the Ministry of Justice, are to be welcomed. Nevertheless, more detailed information would be necessary to assess the impact of these measures.

• More detailed information is awaited on the measures announced by the authorities in June 2009 as well as on possible supervisory measures and on any other measures which might be envisaged. Recent statistics on length of proceedings would also be useful to assess the impact of the measures taken. 

            2) Violation of Article 13: According to information provided by the authorities on 25/05/2009, the government's Bill on compensation for excessive length of proceedings was passed by Parliament in April 2009 and the Act should enter into force at the beginning of 2010. It should amend the Code of Judicial Procedure to provide a preventive measure against excessive length of proceedings, i.e. the possibility for district courts to order a matter to be considered urgent at the request of a party where there is a compelling reason. Moreover, applicants would also be entitled to obtain reasonable compensation from the state budget in case of excessive length of proceedings. The assessment of the length of proceedings and the amount of compensation (to be determined by the court examining the merits of the case) would correspond to the European Court's practice. It is also proposed to reduce administrative financial sanction where the length of proceedings is excessive.

In June 2009, the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament requested clarification from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Finish Bar Association. The Supreme Court was also given the opportunity to give a statement on the matter. The clarification is currently under preparation.

• Assessment:The developments towards adopting the Act are welcome.

• Information is awaited on the scope of the new remedy (possible retroactive effect in respect of applicants having already applied before the European Court, details of compensation) and on the finalisation of the legislative process. The entire text of the Act would also be appreciated.

- 25 cases against France / 25 affaires contre la France

70204/01           Frérot, arrêt du 12/06/2007, définitif le 12/09/2007

L’affaire concerne les traitements dégradants infligés au requérant - un ancien membre du mouvement armé d’extrême gauche « Action directe » qui purge une peine de réclusion criminelle à perpétuité - lors de sa détention à la maison d'arrêt de Fresnes, entre septembre 1994 et décembre 1996 (violation de l’article 3). Durant cette détention, le requérant fut contraint de se soumettre à plusieurs reprises à des fouilles intégrales qui ne reposaient pas sur un « impératif convaincant de sécurité », de défense de l'ordre ou de prévention des infractions pénales.

L’affaire concerne également une atteinte au droit au respect de la correspondance en raison du refus du directeur de Fleury-Mérogis d’acheminer le courrier du requérant à un détenu dans une autre prison, parce que, selon lui, il « ne correspond[ait] pas à la définition de la notion de correspondance » (violation de l’article 8).

Elle concerne en outre l’absence de recours pour se plaindre de la violation de son droit au respect de sa correspondance (violation de l’article 13).

Enfin l’affaire concerne la durée excessive d’une procédure devant le Conseil d’Etat (violation de l'article 6§1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a alloué au requérant une somme pour préjudice moral. La procédure devant les juridictions administratives est terminée. Le requérant n’est plus détenu à Fresnes ; il est actuellement détenu à la maison centrale de Lannemezan.

• Evaluation : Aucune autre mesure ne semble donc nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

1) Violation de l’article 3 : La Cour européenne admet que des fouilles corporelles, même intégrales, puissent parfois se révéler nécessaires pour assurer la sécurité dans une prison, défendre l'ordre ou prévenir les infractions pénales. Elle précise par ailleurs que les modalités de ses fouilles prévues par la circulaire du 14/03/1986 ne sont pas, d’un point de vue général, inhumaines ou dégradantes.

Toutefois, la Cour relève que le requérant a fait l’objet de fouilles intégrales uniquement lors de son séjour à la prison de Fresnes, où il y avait une présomption que tout détenu revenant du parloir dissimulait des objets ou substances dans les parties les plus intimes de son corps.

Dans ces conditions, la Cour comprend que les détenus concernés, tel que le requérant, aient eu le sentiment d'être victimes de mesures arbitraires, d’autant que le régime de la fouille était prévu par une circulaire et laissait au chef d'établissement un large pouvoir d'appréciation.

• Mesures prises par les autorités : L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été communiqué au directeur de l’administration pénitentiaire (le 29/06/2007) et au Ministère de la Justice, afin que celui-ci le diffuse auprès des différents établissements pénitentiaires. La direction de l’administration pénitentiaire a diffusé l’arrêt rendu par la Cour européenne dans l’affaire Frérot dès le mois d’aout 2007, par le biais du Bulletin Action Juridique et Droit Pénitentiaire n° 11, auprès des établissements pénitentiaires et des directions interrégionales des services pénitentiaires.

En 2008, un projet de loi pénitentiaire a été présenté.

Le Médiateur de la République française et la Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme (« CNCDH ») ont fait une communication en vertu de la règle 9.2, datée du 21/10/2009, faisant état d’insuffisances dans le cadre légal du régime des fouilles, ainsi que dans le projet de loi précité.

Dans leurs observations du 03/11/2009, les autorités françaises ont indiqué que les dispositions contenues dans le projet de loi pénitentiaire, reconnaissant notamment le principe de stricte nécessité des fouilles, permettent de remédier aux insuffisances relevées par la Cour européenne (document DD (2009)570).

Suite à une décision du Conseil constitutionnel du 19/11/2009 (décision n° 2009-593 DC), la loi pénitentiaire (loi n°2009-1436) a été promulguée le 24/11/2009 (publiée au Journal Officiel le 25/11/2009).

• Ces informations sont encore en cours d’évaluation.

• A ce stade, des informations sont attendues sur la manière dont la mise en œuvre de la nouvelle loi permettra de prévenir des violations similaires en tenant compte aussi des observations formulées par le Médiateur et la CNCDH, ainsi que sur d’autres mesures éventuellement prises ou envisagées afin d’éviter la répétition de la violation constatée (telles que par exemple : instruction, circulaire, mesures de sensibilisation). 

2) Violation de l’article 8 : La Cour européenne a dit que l’ingérence dans le droit du requérant ne reposait sur aucun des articles du Code de procédure pénale, qu’en outre aucun texte de nature législative ou réglementaire, pas plus que la jurisprudence, ne donnait de définition de la notion de correspondance ; la Cour conclu que l’ingérence dans le droit du requérant n’était donc pas prévue par la loi. La Cour a en outre relevé que la définition de la notion de correspondance retenue par la circulaire du 29/12/1986 était incompatible avec l’article 8 de la Convention, en ce qu’elle s’articule autour du contenu de la « correspondance ».

• Mesures prises par les autorités : La circulaire contestée, du 29/12/1986 ne sera plus appliquée compte tenu des modifications apportées par les dispositions de la nouvelle loi pénitentiaire.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la manière dont la mise en œuvre de la nouvelle loi permettra de prévenir des violations similaires, en tenant compte aussi des observations formulées par le Médiateur et la CNCDH, et de mettre en conformité la notion de correspondance avec l’article 8 de la Convention;

3) Violation de l’article 13 : La Cour européenne a constaté que le Conseil d'Etat avait, en 2000, déclaré irrecevable la demande du requérant tendant à l'annulation de la décision de refus du directeur de Fleury-Mérogis d’acheminer un courrier à un autre détenu, au seul motif qu'il s'agissait d'une mesure d'ordre intérieur, insusceptible de faire l'objet d'un recours pour excès de pouvoir. Elle a relevé que le gouvernement ne prétendait pas que le requérant disposait d’un autre recours, et a donc conclu que le requérant avait été privé de tout recours, s'agissant du grief tiré d'une violation de son droit au respect de sa correspondance.

• Mesures prises par les autorités : L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été communiqué au Conseil d’Etat

Les autorités ont fourni un certain nombre de précisions concernant les décisions pouvant ou non (c’est le cas des mesures d’ordre intérieur), faire l’objet d’un recours pour excès de pouvoir devant le juge administratif. En particulier, les décisions du Conseil d’Etat Marie et Hardouin (17/02/1995, n° 97754 et 107766) ont réalisé une avancée jurisprudentielle déterminante dans le domaine du contentieux pénitentiaire, en posant le principe selon lequel c’est au regard de la nature et de la gravité d’une mesure qu’il convient de déterminer si elle peut ou non faire l’objet d’un recours pour excès de pouvoir. Il est par ailleurs précisé que depuis l’arrêt Centre hospitalier spécialisé de Sarreguemines du 12/03/1980, le Conseil d’Etat juge que le refus de respecter le secret de la correspondance entre un détenu et son avocat est susceptible de faire l’objet d’un recours pour excès de pouvoir. Les autorités en concluent que le détenu dispose ainsi d’un recours effectif au sens de l’article 13 de la Convention relativement au respect du secret de sa correspondance. Selon les autorités, même si les évolutions précitées de la jurisprudence du Conseil d’Etat concernant généralement la notion de « mesures d’ordre intérieur » ou le secret de la correspondance datent de 1980 et 1995 alors que la décision litigieuse date de 2000, aucun élément ne permet de penser que le Conseil d’Etat ne tirera pas toutes les conséquences de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne.

Et même si la décision litigieuse de 2000 a été suivie par la Cour administrative d’appel de Nancy (n°00NC01402), de nombreuses juridictions de fond estiment que les décisions d’intercepter certaines correspondance sont susceptibles de faire l’objet d’un recours pour excès de pouvoir (TA Limoges 16/05/1991 ; TA Orléans 19/11/1996 ; TA Melun 15/10/1997 ; TA Versailles 27/11/2003 n°9806529 ; CAA Douai 19/06/2003 n°01DA00373 (document DD (2009)570).

Par ailleurs, les autorités ont cité trois décisions du Conseil d’Etat du 14/12/2007 ayant réduit à nouveau le champ des mesures d’ordre intérieur, concernant d’autres domaines de la vie pénitentiaire (n° 306432 ; 290730 ; 290420.

• Ces informations sont encore en cours d’évaluation.

• Toute information complémentaire serait utile sur l’état actuel de la jurisprudence administrative relative aux restrictions à la correspondance dans les prisons.

4) Violation de l’article 6§1 : Sur ce point l’affaire est à rapprocher en particulier de l’affaire S.A.P.L. et d'autres affaires de durée de procédure devant les juridictions administratives, closes par Résolution finale ResDH(2005)63 suite aux mesures annoncées par l'Etat défendeur notamment s’agissant du Conseil d’Etat, concerné dans cette affaire (notamment : l'adoption de la loi n° 2002-1138 du 09/09/2002 qui prévoit entre autres des embauches, des allocations budgétaires et des mesures d'ordre procédural). Des mesures complémentaires ont été présentées dans l’affaire Raffi et d’autres affaires similaires (Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2008)12).

5242/04            Dubus S.A., arrêt du 11/06/2009, définitif le 11/09/2009

Cette affaire concerne laviolation du droit de la société requérante à un procès équitable au motif que la procédure disciplinaire ouverte en 2000 à son encontre par la Commission bancaire a manqué d’indépendance et d’impartialité (violation de l’article 6 §1).

La Cour européenne a notamment relevé l'imprécision des textes qui régissent la procédure devant la Commission bancaire, quant à la composition et aux prérogatives des organes appelés à exercer les différentes fonctions qui lui sont dévolues (voir §56 de l’arrêt).

En date du 8/04/2010, les autorités ont soumis un bilan d’action dont l’évaluation est en cours.

9090/06            Blandeau, judgment of 10/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008[6]

36497/05           Ligue du monde islamique et Organisation islamique mondiale du secours islamique, arrêt du 15/01/2009, définitif le 15/04/2009

Cette affaire concerne une restriction, insuffisamment prévisible, au droit d’accès des deux organisations requérantes à un tribunal (violation de l’article 6§1). Les juridictions françaises ont déclaré irrecevables leurs plaintes en diffamation au motif qu’elles n’avaient pas accompli les formalités exigées pour obtenir la capacité d’ester en justice en France.

• Des informations préliminaires ont été fournies par les autorités en date du 09/10/2010. Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours en vue de réunir les informations complémentaires nécessaires à la présentation d’un plan/bilan d’action au Comité.

- 2 Cases concerning the disproportionate penalty imposed on the applicant for failure to declare a sum of money to the customs authorities[7]

*28336/02         Grifhorst, judgment of 26/02/2009, final on 26/05/2009 and of 10/12/2009 - Friendly settlement

39973/03           Moon, judgment of 09/07/2009, final on 09/10/2009 and of 22/04/2010 – Friendly settlement

5 groups of cases concerning the retroactive application of new legislation

to pending judicial proceedings:[8]

60796/00          Cabourdin, judgment of 11/04/2006, final on 11/07/2006

16043/03          Achache, judgment of 03/10/2006, final on 03/01/2007

15589/05          De Franchis, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

40191/02          Ducret, judgment of 12/06/2007, final on 12/09/2007

67847/01          Lecarpentier and other, judgment of 14/02/2006, final on 14/05/2006

72038/01          Saint-Adam and Millot, judgments of 02/05/2006, final on 02/08/2006 and of 26/04/2007, final on 26/07/2007 (Article 41)

66018/01           Vezon, judgment of 18/04/2006, final on 13/09/2006

20127/03+        Arnolin and others and 24 other cases, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007

31501/03+        Aubert and others and 8 other cases, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 23/05/2007

954/05              Chiesi S.A., judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 16/04/2007

12106/03           SCM Scanner de l’Ouest Lyonnais and others, judgment of 21/06/2007, final on 21/09/2007

30345/05           Joubert, judgment of 23/07/2009, final on 10/12/2005

- 5 cases mainly concerning the right of access to a court to challenge search and seizure measures undertaken by the tax authorities[9]

18497/03           Ravon and others, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 21/05/2008

18603/03           André and others, judgment of 24/07/2008, final on 24/10/2008

18659/05           Kandler and others, judgment of 18/09/2008, final on 18/12/2008

10447/03           Maschino, judgment of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009

2058/04            Société IFB, judgment of 20/11/2008, final on 20/02/2009

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

56802/00           Baumet, judgment of 24/07/2007, final on 24/10/2007[11]

- 16 cases against Georgia / 16 affaires contre la Géorgie

23204/07           Ghavtadze, arrêt du 3/03/2009 définitif le 3/06/2009

9870/07            Poghossian, arrêt du 24/02/2009 définitif le 24/05/2009

            DH-DD(2010)74

L'affaire Poghossian concerne les traitements dégradants dont le requérant a été victime en raison de l'absence de traitements médicaux, lors de sa détention, pour soigner l’hépatite C dont il souffrait (violation de l'article 3).

L’affaire Ghavtadze concerne les traitements dégradants dont le requérant a été victime en raison du manquement des autorités géorgiennes à leur obligation positive de protéger la santé du requérant mais aussi de lui dispenser les soins médicaux suffisants et adéquats en ce qui concerne l'hépatite virale C et la pleurésie tuberculeuse dont il était atteint (violation de l'article 3).

La Cour a relevé que près de quarante requêtes portant sur le manque de soins médicaux dans les établissements pénitentiaires géorgiens étaient actuellement pendantes devant elle, et a donc constaté l’existence d’un problème structurel quant à la prise en charge médicale adéquate des détenus souffrant, entre autres, d’hépatite virale C. Elle a estimé que cela constituait un facteur aggravant quant à la responsabilité de la Géorgie au regard de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, et également une menace pour l’effectivité du dispositif mis en place par la Convention. En conséquence, elle a invité la Géorgie à adopter à bref délai des mesures législatives et administratives afin de prévenir la transmission des maladies contagieuses, et notamment de l’hépatite virale C, dans les établissements pénitentiaires, à instaurer un système de dépistage dès l’admission des détenus en prison, et à garantir la prise en charge de ces maladies de façon rapide et effective dans des conditions appropriées.

Mesures de caractère individuel :

1) Affaire Poghossian : Le requérant n’ayant pas présenté de demande de satisfaction équitable dans le délai imparti, la Cour dit qu’il n’y avait pas lieu de lui allouer de somme au titre de l’article 41. En outre, M. Poghossian a purgé sa peine de prison ferme et a donc été libéré le 5/12/2008.

2) Affaire Ghavtadze : La Cour a noté qu'en l'espèce, la nature même de la violation constatée n'offrait pas réellement de choix parmi différentes mesures susceptibles d'y remédier. Dans ces conditions, et eu égard aux circonstances spécifiques de la présente requête, la Cour estime que l'Etat défendeur doit garantir, dans les meilleurs délais, le placement du requérant dans un établissement capable de lui dispenser un traitement médical adéquat pour son hépatite virale C parallèlement à la tuberculose pulmonaire dont il souffre.

La Cour a alloué une satisfaction équitable pour dommage moral et pour dommage matériel au requérant.

• Informations fournies par autorités géorgiennes : le 3/04/2009, le Chef du Département de la Représentation de l’Etat auprès des juridictions internationales (Ministère de la Justice) a adressé un courrier au Chef du département pénitentiaire (Ministère du Système pénitentiaire, de la Probation et de l’Aide judiciaire) pour attirer son attention sur l’arrêt de la Cour et lui demander de prendre les mesures d’exécution qu’impose l’arrêt de la Cour, dont il a rappelé le caractère contraignant. Le 18/06/2009, le Chef du Département de la Représentation de l’Etat auprès des juridictions internationales a adressé un nouveau courrier au Chef du département pénitentiaire pour lui poser des questions précises sur le sort du requérant (voir réponse ci-dessous) et pour attirer son attention sur les conclusions de la Cour quant à l’existence d’un problème structurel concernant la prise en charge médicale adéquate des détenus souffrant, entre autres, d’hépatite virale C (voir réponse sur ce point sous mesures générales).

En réponse les services pénitentiaires ont indiqué que le requérant avait été admis au service des maladies infectieuses de l’hôpital pénitentiaire le 23/04/2007 et qu’il y était soigné depuis 2 ans et 2 mois. A son arrivée, le requérant a subi un certain nombre d’analyses médicales et un diagnostic a été établi (pleurésie exsudative et hépatite virale C aigüe). Le requérant a suivi un traitement contre la tuberculose et, quand son état le permettait, il a également été traité contre l’hépatite C. Il est en outre suivi par un psychiatre. Le traitement anti tuberculeux qu’il suivait s’est terminé le 13/04/2009 et il lui a été proposé un traitement pour l’hépatite C. Il a tout d’abord refusé le traitement qui lui était proposé au motif qu’il devait se préparer psychologiquement. Lors de la dernière proposition de suivre un traitement, qui lui a été faite le 18/06/2009, il a refusé de suivre ce traitement tout de suite et a indiqué qu’il le commencerait le 2/07/2009.

Lors de la 1065° réunion (septembre 2009), le représentant de la Géorgie a déclaré que M. Ghavtadze avait accepté, le 31/08/2009, de suivre un traitement contre l’hépatite C. Le requérant est soumis a des examens médicaux de manière périodique et sera, si nécessaire, transféré dans l’établissement médical civil spécialisé. Ce transfert n’a pas été jugé nécessaire jusqu’à présent. 

Lors des débats, le Secrétariat a précisé que, afin que le Comité des Ministres puisse décider de s’en remettre pour l’avenir aux autorités nationales pour assurer le suivi de la situation du requérant, il était nécessaire que les autorités géorgiennes indiquent au Comité des Ministres  en quoi, la prise en charge actuelle du requérant répondait à la mesure ordonnée par la Cour, quelles étaient les mesures prises pour veiller à ce que, en fonction de l’évolution de l’état de santé du requérant, les avis médicaux sur le traitement nécessaire au requérant soient effectivement adéquatement suivis d’effet et non entravés (par exemple par un retrait intempestif d’une unité de soins, par une interruption de traitement) et dans quelle mesure la relation médecin/patient était préservée.

Lors de la 1072e réunion (décembre 2009), le représentant de la Géorgie a déclaré que M. Ghavtadze était sous surveillance médicale permanente, qu’il était hospitalisé dans le nouvel hôpital pénitentiaire qui dispose des moyens nécessaires au traitement des maladies dont le requérant est atteint, et que l’état de santé du requérant est stable. Enfin, il est exclu que le requérant soit transféré dans sa cellule sans avis médical.

• Des précisions ont été demandées sur les procédures qui permettent d’éviter que le traitement nécessaire au requérant ne soit plus entravé, et l'importance qui s'attache à garantir l'efficacité des recours existant en ce domaine a été rappelée.

Mesures de caractère général :

1) Affaire Poghossian : La Cour a estimé qu'aux fins de l'article 3 de la Convention, il n'était pas suffisant que le détenu soit examiné et un diagnostic établi. En vue de la sauvegarde de la santé du prisonnier, il est primordial qu'une thérapie correspondant au diagnostic établi et une surveillance médicale adéquate soient également mises en œuvre. La Cour estime par conséquent inacceptable que les demandes réitérées du requérant qui visaient clairement à l'octroi de soins médicaux « nécessaires et effectifs » soient restées sans réponse ou n'aient pas connu de suite effective.

2) Affaire Ghavtadze : La Cour a relevé qu’à deux reprises le requérant avait été hospitalisé et renvoyé en prison sans que les médecins aient autorisé ce renvoi en prison. La Cour relève qu’il n'est pas compatible avec l'article 3 de la Convention qu'un détenu ne soit hospitalisé que lorsque les symptômes de sa maladie atteignent leur paroxysme et qu'il soit, avant même la guérison, renvoyé dans une prison où il ne peut pas bénéficier de soins. La Cour estime donc que le retrait du requérant de l'hôpital pénitentiaire (les 10/02 et 31/032007) constituaient des mesures contraires à cette disposition.

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes depuis le premier examen de ces affaires à la 1065° réunion, en septembre 2009:

- Publication des arrêts : les arrêts de la Cour européenne dans les affaires Ghavtadze et Poghossian ont été publiés au Journal Officiel du 21/10/2009 n°72 ;

- Sort des infrastructures visées par les arrêts de la Cour : la prison n° 5 de Tbilissi dans laquelle M. Ghavtadze avait été placé à l’époque des faits de cette affaire et qui faisait l’objet de nombreuses critiques, a été démolie en 2008 et remplacée par un nouveau bâtiment, équipé d’une infrastructure moderne et où les conditions sont conformes aux standards internationaux.  L’hôpital pénitentiaire dans lequel le requérant avait été placé en avril 2007 a été remplacé par un nouvel hôpital pénitentiaire qui a ouvert le 28/11/2008 et qui dispose d’équipements modernes et d’un personnel médical qualifié ;

- Réforme du système pénitentiaire : le système pénitentiaire fait l’objet d’une vaste réforme ; l’ancien Département pénitentiaire du ministère de la Justice a été transformé en Ministère, lequel ministère a adopté un programme de réformes. Un Département de la santé a été créé, qui est responsable de tous les aspects relatifs aux questions de santé des détenus

De nouveaux établissements médicaux ont été construits.

            - un Code relatif à la détention, élaborée en coopération avec les organisations internationales sera adoptée courant 2010.

            - Plans d’action pour répondre au problème structurel relatif à la qualité des soins en détention et pour s’assurer que des détenus placés en structure de soins hospitalière n’en soient pas extraits sans l’autorisation expresse du médecin traitant :

Dans un premier temps, le Ministre du Système pénitentiaire, de la Probation et de l’Aide judiciaire et le Ministre de la Santé et de la protection sociale ont adopté, le 25/06/2009, une ordonnance relative à l’adoption d’une stratégie du traitement médical des détenus atteints de l’Hépatite C. La stratégie prévoit notamment :

- l’amélioration du niveau et de la qualité des informations données aux personnels pénitentiaires et aux détenus sur l’hépatite virale C ;

- l’étude de la situation épidémique dans les prisons (examen médical et test pour chaque nouveau détenu et pour toute personne déjà en détention)

- le placement, dans un établissement spécialisé, des détenus malades qui acceptent de subir un traitement après avoir été informé des effets négatifs du traitement ;

- la mise en place du traitement, son suivi et la tenue d’un dossier médical individuel dont il est remis copie au détenu après guérison.

Puis un plan d’action provisoire du contrôle et de la prévention de l’hépatite C dans les établissements pénitentiaires a été adopté (ce plan d’action est disponible sur demande). Il reprend les quatre objectifs mentionnés dans l’ordonnance relative à l’adoption d’une stratégie du traitement médical des détenus atteints de l’Hépatite C et indique des mesures à adopter ; il prévoit une planification qui s’étale de 2009 à 2011. Ce plan d’action devrait être financé par le budget de l’Etat, les organisations internationales donatrices et les ONG. Il est réalisé sous le contrôle du Ministère du Système pénitentiaire, de la Probation et de l’Aide judiciaire et du Département de la représentation de l’Etat auprès des Juridictions internationales des Droits de l’Homme.

Enfin, en réponse à l’invitation qui leur a été faite par le Comité des Ministres (décision du 3/12/2009, 1072e réunion), d’élargir le plan d'action à la prise en charge adéquate des maladies contagieuses dans leur ensemble, les autorités ont présenté trois plans d’action pour lutter respectivement contre l’hépatite C, la tuberculose et le VIH en prison. Ces plans d’actions figurent dans le DH-DD(2010)74 du 12/02/2010.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les points suivants : 

-          première évaluation, par les autorités, de l’impact des mesures de ces plans d’action qui ont déjà été mises en œuvre (certaines de ces mesures sont appliquées depuis fin 2009/début 2010) ; 

-          procédures existantes, ou dont la création est envisagée, pour que les détenus placés en structures de soins hospitalières n’en soient pas extraits sans l’autorisation expresse du médecin traitant ;

-          existence de recours efficaces au sens de la Convention dont l’importance de ces recours a été rappelée à deux reprises par le Comité des Ministres dans ces décisions du 16/09/2009 à la 1065e réunion et du 3/12/2009 à la 1072e réunion, pour se plaindre de l’absence de traitements adéquats en prison.

- 3 affaires concernant le défaut d'enquête effective sur les allégations de mauvais traitements subis par les requérants

73241/01           Davtyan, arrêt du 27/07/2006, définitif le 27/10/2006

68622/01           Danelia, arrêt du 17/10/2006, définitif le 17/01/2007

11830/03           Gharibashvili, arrêt du 29/07/08 définitif le 29/10/08

L'affaire Davtyan concerne l'absence d'enquête effective sur les plaintes du requérant en date du 9/11/1999 quant à des mauvais traitements que la police lui aurait infligé en juin 1999, lors d'une garde à vue (violation de l'article 3 sous son volet procédural). La Cour européenne a notamment souligné que le seul commencement d'une enquête, interrompue à un stade précoce sans jamais aboutir à une décision quelconque, ne pouvait passer pour approfondie et effective au regard des exigences de la Convention.

L'affaire Danelia concerne également l'absence d'actes d'investigations par les autorités géorgiennes en vue de déterminer l'éventuelle responsabilité des agents du Ministère de l'intérieur quant aux tortures dont le requérant aurait fait l'objet lors d'une garde à vue en octobre 2000 (violation de l'article 13). Cette affaire concerne en outre l'impossibilité pour le requérant de se faire examiner par des experts médicaux indépendants (violation de l'article 3 sous son volet procédural).

L’affaire Gharibashvili concerne l’absence d’enquête effective sur les mauvais traitements que le requérant allègue avoir subi pendant sa garde à vue au poste de police de Rustavi du 23 au 25 mai 2001 (violation de l’article 3 sous son aspect procédural).

Dans ces trois affaires, la Cour a également conclu que, notamment en raison des insuffisances de l'enquête conduite par les autorités compétentes, il ne pouvait être établi de violation substantielle de l'article 3 de la Convention.

S’agissant des défaillances de l’enquête, la Cour a relevé les points suivants :

dans l’affaire Davtyan :

-           l’instructeur chargé de l’enquête n’a pas demandé d’expertise médicale ;

-           le requérant n’a pas été confronté aux policiers alors qu’il avait déclaré pouvoir reconnaître celui l’ayant torturé ;

-           l’instructeur n’a pas interrogé la seule personne de la famille du requérant à qui celui-ci s’était confié ;

dans l’affaire Danelia :

-           il n’a pas été possible pour le requérant de se faire examiner par des experts médicaux indépendants ;

-           ni le requérant ni les agents de l’Etat en charge du requérant pendant sa garde à vue n’ont été interrogés ;

-           aucune confrontation n’a eu lieu entre le requérant et ses prétendus tortionnaires.

dans l’affaire Gharibashvili

la Cour a distingué deux périodes : la première, avant la communication au gouvernement de la requête introduite devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme par M. Gharibashvili et la deuxième après la communication de la requête au gouvernement le 5 décembre 2005.

La Cour européenne a noté en particulier que : 

- l’enquête préliminaire avait été confiée à la même division de l’autorité de poursuite – le parquet du district de Rustavi – que celle à laquelle appartenait l’auteur allégué de l’infraction, et ce bien que le requérant ait clairement protesté contre un conflit d’intérêts aussi manifeste ;

- le requérant lui même n’a jamais été entendu tout au long de l’enquête ; cette défaillance a été relevée par la Cour Suprême de Géorgie, mais il n’y a pas été remédié par la suite ;

- aucune enquête n’a été menée, et donc aucune réponse n’a été donnée, au sujet des allégations de mauvais traitements infligées par le prétendu auteur ;

- c’est seulement après la communication de la requête du requérant à l’Etat défendeur que le Parquet général a décidé d’entamer une procédure, le 24 janvier 2006, soit près de deux ans après que le requérant eut introduit une requête à cette fin ;

- le parquet de Tbilissi s’est, dans une grande mesure, fondé sur les informations fournies par le parquet du district de Rustavi et les officiers de police de Rustavi directement ou indirectement impliqués dans les faits contestés, sans chercher d’information dans les témoignages du requérant ou sans confronter le requérant lui-même aux trois personnes qu’il avait directement mises en cause ;

- le parquet de Tbilissi n’a pas envisagé d’interroger le médecin de la prison n°5 de Tbilissi qui avait examiné le requérant à l’époque des faits et qui aurait refusé de consigner dans son rapport les marques de mauvais traitements sur le corps du requérant ; enfin, au lieu d’ordonner un examen médical complet et indépendant de l’état de santé du requérant le parquet de Tbilissi a limité l’enquête à la lecture du registre médical de la prison ;

- la fin de l’enquête a été confirmée par les tribunaux internes siégeant à huis clos, sans tenir d’audience. Celle-ci n’a été remplacée par aucune procédure écrite transparente et contradictoire. La Cour relève à ce sujet qu’un contrôle public et contradictoire a l’avantage, même si le tribunal en question n’est pas compétent pour mener une enquête indépendante ou établir les faits, de fournir un forum garantissant le respect de la légalité dans une procédure contentieuse relative à une affaire de mauvais traitements, dans laquelle le requérant et les autorités de poursuites sont tous deux parties.

Mesures de caractère individuel : M. Davtyan a été libéré en septembre 2005 et la Cour européenne lui a octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral. M. Danelia n'est plus détenu et la Cour européenne lui a alloué une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral. M. Gharibashvili n’a soumis aucune demande de satisfaction équitable et, par conséquent, la Cour ne lui a accordé aucune somme à ce titre.

1) Sur la possibilité de mener une nouvelle enquête à la suite d’un constat de violation de l’article 3 par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme :

La position établie du Comité dans ce type d'affaire étant qu'il existe une obligation continue de mener une enquête dans la mesure où une violation (procédurale) de l'article 3 a été constatée, il a été demandé aux autorités géorgiennes si des enquêtes pouvaient être menées sur les faits dénoncés dans ces arrêts.

Par lettre en date du 27/03/2007, les autorités géorgiennes, reprenant pour l'essentiel les arguments qu'elles avaient déjà invoqués devant la Cour européenne dans le cadre de l'examen du grief tiré de l'article 3 dans l’affaire Davtyan ont déclaré qu'il n'existait  pas de base légale pour reprendre l'enquête dans cette affaire.

Un courrier précisant la nature des obligations relatives à l'adoption de mesures individuelles dans ces affaires a été adressé aux autorités géorgiennes le 23/08/2007.

Par lettre en date du 3/10/2007 la délégation de la Géorgie a produit une nouvelle fois une partie du courrier déjà adressé le 27/03/2007.

Le Secrétariat a rappelé (courrier du 23/08/2007) que « les demandes de nouvelles enquêtes dans les cas d'allégations de torture ou de mauvais traitements sont basées sur l'obligation des Etats membres de prendre des mesures individuelles en faveur des requérants afin de mettre un terme à la violation constatée par la Cour et effacer ses conséquences afin de parvenir autant que faire se peut à la restitutio in integrum. Dans ce contexte, la répétition d'arguments déjà rejetées par la Cour ne peut pas constituer une réponse adéquate ».

Enfin, le 2/04/2009, le Secrétariat a adressé un nouveau courrier aux autorités géorgiennes rappelant que des informations étaient attendues sur la manière dont les autorités géorgiennes entendaient s’acquitter de l’obligation de mener une enquête et posant les questions suivantes : quelles sont les possibilités, en droit géorgien, d’ordonner l’ouverture ou la reprise d’une enquête close par un enquêteur ? Par exemple, le procureur dispose-t-il d’un tel pouvoir ? Par ailleurs quelle est l’autorité compétente pour tirer les conséquences d’un arrêt de la Cour européenne constatant une violation procédurale de l’article 3 et ordonner l’ouverture ou la reprise d’une enquête ?

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes (lettre du 1/07/2009) : L’article 400 du Code de procédure pénale (CPP) prévoit la possibilité de rouvrir une enquête préliminaire ou des poursuites pénales closes « si le délai de forclusion n’est pas épuisé » ;

Le réexamen d’une décision judiciaire est possible lorsque des circonstances nouvelles sont découvertes ou établies ; l’article 593 du CPP prévoit ces circonstances mais un arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme ne constitue pas une circonstance nouvelle.  

• Des informations complètes et détaillées sur la possibilité de rouvrir une enquête sont attendues de manière urgente. Sont en particulier attendus la traduction intégrale des articles du CPP mentionnées ci-dessus et des informations supplémentaires sur l’article 400 du CPP (l’article 400 prévoit-il la forclusion ou bien la prescription de l’action publique?) et sur son éventuelle application aux affaires ici en cause.

2) Nouvelle enquête dans l’affaire Davtyan : Par lettre en date du 27/03/2007, les autorités géorgiennes, reprenant pour l'essentiel les arguments qu'elles avaient déjà invoqués devant la Cour européenne dans le cadre de l'examen du grief tiré de l'article 3 et ajoutant que le requérant n'a pas fait appel de « la décision du procureur du 10/12/1999 refusant l'ouverture d'une enquête », ont déclaré qu'il n'existait pas de base légale pour reprendre l'enquête dans l'affaire Davtyan. Le 20/08/09 les autorités ont produit une copie d’une décision du 10/12/1999 du procureur du district de Samgori, accompagnée d’une traduction de la notification de cette décision à l’avocat du requérant.

• Evaluation : Le Secrétariat observe que ce document n’a pas été produit devant la Cour (cf. fin §46 : « le seul commencement d'une enquête, interrompue à un stade précoce sans jamais aboutir à une décision quelconque, ne saurait passer pour approfondie et effective ») et ne saurait donc être valablement invoqué devant le Comité des Ministres. L’exigence d’une nouvelle enquête reste donc entière.

3) Nouvelle enquête dans l’affaire Danelia : Aucune information n'est parvenue à ce jour en ce qui concerne la réouverture de l’enquête dans l’affaire Danelia

4) Nouvelle enquête dans l’affaire Gharibashvili : Aucune information n'est parvenue à ce jour en ce qui concerne la réouverture de l’enquête dans l’affaire Gharibashvili

• Des informations sont attendues de manière urgente  sur les démarches entreprises par les autorités pour rouvrir les enquêtes dans ces trois affaires ; en particulier des informations sur la qualification juridique des actes commis par la police dans ces affaires, les sanctions encourues et les délais de prescriptions seraient très utiles.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes (courrier du 27/03/2007 et du 22/01/2008) : de nombreuses mesures ont été adoptées pour éliminer la torture et les mauvais traitements en détention et améliorer le traitement des plaintes relatives à la torture ou des mauvais traitements.

En application de l'article 92 de la loi sur la détention, toute personne qui entre en prison doit faire l'objet d'un examen médical. Toutes les informations relatives à des blessures doivent être consignées dans les « notes journalières » (Krebsi) qui doivent être automatiquement transmises à l'Unité de contrôle des services pénitentiaires et de la protection des droits de l'homme près les services du Procureur de la Géorgie. En application de l'article 263 du Code de procédure pénale, cette information est suffisante pour qu'une enquête préliminaire soit automatiquement ouverte. Une enquête est également ouverte dès qu'une information relative à des mauvais traitements est reçue par un procureur, que cette information provienne d'une personne physique ou morale, d'un organe public local, d'officiels, d'autorités d'instruction (operative-investigative authorities) ou de media.

De nombreuses formations sont organisées pour les forces de l'ordre notamment par le Centre de formation du bureau du Procureur (créé en 2006) et par le centre de formation du Ministère de l'Intérieur (créé en 2004). Un code d'éthique à l'intention des procureurs et un code d'éthique pour la police ont été adoptés en juin 2006.

Les statistiques de l'année 2006 montrent un accroissement du nombre d'enquêtes sur des faits de tortures et mauvais traitements, accroissement qui est la conséquence de la volonté du gouvernement d'enquêter sur tous les cas d'abus. En 2006, 137 enquêtes ont été menées ; des poursuites ont été engages contre 16 fonctionnaires et 7 fonctionnaires ont été condamnés dans 4 affaires.

Ces arrêts ont été traduits en géorgien, publiés au journal officiel (Matsne n° 55 du 26/11/2007 et Matsne n° 6 du 26/01/2009) et les arrêts Davtyan et Danelia ont été diffusés aux différents corps d'Etat. Les traductions en géorgien de ces affaires sont également disponibles sur le site Internet officiel du Ministère de la Justice de la Géorgie.

S'agissant de la question de l'examen médical par des experts indépendants, les autorités géorgiennes indiquent dans leur courrier du 22/01/2008 que l'article 364 du code de procédure criminelle prévoit la possibilité de mener une expertise à l'initiative d'une partie.

• Evaluation : Cet article du code de procédure pénale était déjà en vigueur à l'époque des faits de l'affaire Danelia (voir §16 page 3 et §30 page 7 de l'arrêt de la Cour) ; des informations sont donc attendues sur les mesures mises en œuvre afin d'assurer que le recours à l'article 364 du code de procédure pénale soit efficace. Des exemples concrets d'application de cette disposition seraient utiles.

En outre, la diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour dans l’affaire Gharibashvili au tribunal régional et à la Cour d’appel de Tbilissi ainsi qu’aux parquets, est attendue.

Enfin, dans le courrier du 2 avril 2009 (voir sous mesures individuelles), le Secrétariat relève que l’arrêt Gharibashvili, dont les faits sont récents, semble suggérer que les procédures d’enquête sur des allégations de mauvais traitements subis en garde à vue ne sont toujours pas conformes à la Convention et indique que des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées pour remédier aux insuffisances relevées par la Cour, afin que le Comité des Ministres puisse évaluer si ces mesures permettront de prévenir des violations similaires.

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes en réponse (lettre du 1/07/2009) : l’article 9 de la loi relative à la détention prévoit que les enquêtes sur les infractions commises dans les établissements pénitentiaires se déroulent conformément aux règles établies dans le CCP et notamment de ses articles 261 (ouverture de l’enquête préliminaire) et 263 §1 (fondements de l’ouverture de l’enquête) ;

L’article 26 §b de la loi relative à la détention prévoit la possibilité de déposer plainte contre les actes illégaux de l’administration ou du personnel des établissements pénitentiaires ;

L’article 73 §b de la loi relative à la détention prévoit qu’une personne peut demander un examen médical ou une expertise médicale dès son arrestation ou sa mise en examen ; le refus d’accéder à une demande d’expertise peut être contesté devant le tribunal de district qui doit examiner la plainte dans les 24 heures.

L’article 62 §2 du CPP prévoit que les enquêtes sur les infractions commises notamment par un procureur, un enquêteur et un policier sont du ressort de l’enquêteur du parquet, qui est donc un organe différent de celui dont les personnes susmentionnées sont les représentants.

• La traduction exacte de ces articles et des exemples concrets de leur application seraient les bienvenus. En outre, le Secrétariat souhaiterait savoir si des modifications ont été apportées à ces articles dans le nouveau code de procédure pénale qui doit entrer en vigueur en octobre 2010.

                        - Examination of measures to be taken in respect of violations of Article 5[12]

30779/04           Patsuria, judgment of 06/11/2007, final on 06/02/2008

1704/06            Ramishvili and Kokhreidze, judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 27/04/2009

37048/04           Nikolaishvili Giorgi, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

Information concerning the examination of measures to be taken in respect of Article 5 for these three cases will appear in CM/Inf/DH(2010)14 (to be issued).

71156/01           97 membres de la congrégation des Témoins de Jéhovah de Gldani et 4 autres, arrêt du 03/05/2007, définitif le 03/08/2007

L’affaire concerne les traitements inhumains et/ou dégradants infligés, en octobre 1999, à un certain nombre de requérants, membres de la Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de Gldani, par un groupe de religieux orthodoxes extrémistes dirigés par Vassil Mkalavichvili (appelé « le père Basile »), sans qu’ils ne parviennent à obtenir la protection de l’Etat et sans qu’aucune enquête effective n’ait été conduite sur ces évènements (violations de l’article 3).

L’affaire concerne en outre l’inactivité des autorités géorgiennes qui manquèrent à leur obligation de prendre des mesures nécessaires pour assurer que le groupe d'extrémistes orthodoxes animé par le père Basile tolère l'existence de la communauté religieuse des requérants et permette à ceux-ci un exercice libre de leurs droits à la liberté de religion (violation de l’article 9).

Enfin, l’affaire concerne le fait que les propos et attitudes de certains fonctionnaires impliqués dans l’affaire – propos et attitudes qu’on ne saurait qualifier de compatibles avec le principe de l'égalité de tous devant la loi – ont laissé penser que les agissements du « père Basile » bénéficiaient de l'aval officieux des autorités, lui permettant de continuer de prôner la haine dans les médias et de poursuivre avec ses partisans des actes de violence religieux (violation de l’article 14 combiné avec les articles 3 et 9).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour a alloué aux requérants une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral subi. La position établie du Comité dans ce type d’affaire est qu’il existe une obligation continue de mener une enquête dans la mesure où une violation de l'article 3 a été constatée.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées par les autorités afin de se conformer à cette obligation.

Mesures de caractère général :

L’arrêt de la Cour en date du 3/05/07 indique qu’il n’y a plus de violences commises contre les Témoins de Jehovah depuis 2004.

Le 24/12/2009, l’Association européenne des Témoins de Jéhovah a adressé une communication au Comité des Ministres en application de la règle 9.2 des règles du Comité des Ministres pour la surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts, dénonçant de nouvelles violences contre les Témoins de Jéhovah depuis juillet 2007 (cf. DH-DD(2010)61)

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes :

- le rapport du Médiateur de la République de Géorgie, pour la première moitié de l’année 2009, recense une vingtaine d’incidents contre des Témoins de Jéhovah ; des poursuites ont été engagées contre des individus pour trouble à l’ordre public et des amendes, d’autres sanctions ou des mises en garde ont été prononcées. Des enquêtes étaient toujours en cours sur une partie de ces 20 incidents, au moment où les autorités géorgiennes ont produit ces informations (8/02/2010). Enfin, certains incidents ont pu être évités grâce à la présence de la police. Des enquêtes effectives et complètes sont désormais conduites chaque fois qu’un problème est porté à la connaissance de la police. 

- l’article 155 du Code de procédure pénale prévoit que : « l’empêchement illégal à la manifestation de la conviction religieuse ou à l’exécution des rituels religieux, avec violence, menace de violence, ou accompagné d’insultes aux convictions religieuses, est passible d’une amende, de travaux d’intérêt public pour une durée pouvant aller jusqu’à 1 an ou d’un emprisonnement pour une durée pouvant aller jusqu’à 2 ans. »

- L’arrêt de la Cour européenne traduit en géorgien et publié au journal officiel de Géorgie n° 50 en date du 24/10/07. Le jugement traduit a été distribué à différents organes de l’Etat. Il est en outre disponible sur le site Internet du Ministère de la Justice www.justice.gov.ge/gladni.pdf.

• Des informations détaillées restent attendues sur les points suivants :

- quel est le cadre législatif et réglementaire applicable aux situations telles que, ou apparentés à, celle décrite dans le présent arrêt ? en particulier, des sanctions sont-elles prévues contre les agents des forces de l’ordre qui refuseraient de protéger des individus ayant réclamé leur protection ?

- les dispositions actuellement applicables ont-elles été modifiées dans le nouveau Code de procédure pénale qui doit entrer en vigueur en octobre 2010 ? 

- Confirmation de la diffusion de cet arrêt aux services de police et à l’ensemble des juridictions pénales géorgiennes afin d’attirer leur attention sur les exigences de la Convention.

18145/05           Gigolashvili, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008[13]

74644/01           Donadze, arrêt du 07/03/2006, définitif le 07/06/2006

L'affaire concerne la violation du droit du requérant à un procès équitable en raison de l'absence d'examen effectif de ses arguments en 2000 par les juridictions civiles géorgiennes saisies de son affaire. Ces dernières ont rejeté sa plainte selon laquelle l'administration qui l'employait ne lui avait pas toujours fourni, entre 1991 et 2000, les équipements et le bureau dont il avait besoin pour son travail et ne lui avait pas payé certains suppléments de salaire auxquels il avait droit.

La Cour européenne a souligné que les juridictions géorgiennes avaient rejeté la plainte du requérant sur la seule base des arguments de l'administration défenderesse, sans examiner sérieusement et de manière approfondie les moyens et les éléments de preuve du requérant, plaçant ainsi ce dernier dans une situation de désavantage par rapport à l'administration défenderesse (violation de l'article 6§1).

Mesures de caractère individuel :La Cour européenne a octroyé au requérant une satisfaction équitable qui couvre, en équité, l'ensemble des préjudices subis et le requérant n'a pas soumis au Comité des Ministres de demande de mesures d'ordre individuel spécifiques complémentaires.

Mesures de caractère général : Depuis les faits à l'origine de cette affaire, le système judiciaire a été modifié et une reforme globale est actuellement en cours, en coopération avec le Conseil de l'Europe, afin de rendre le système judiciaire géorgien pleinement conforme aux standards de la Convention européenne. En particulier des mesures ont été prises afin d’accroître le professionnalisme des juges : les critères d'accès à la profession ont été modifiés et des programmes de formation spéciaux ont été mis en œuvre

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes (lettre du 5/12/ 2007) : l'arrêt de la Cour européenne, traduit en géorgien, a été publié dans journal officiel de Géorgie n° 28 daté du 29/05/07.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les éventuelles dispositions prévues par le nouveau système en vue de garantir l'équité des procédures civiles, en particulier celles mettant en cause l'administration, et notamment sur les éventuelles dispositions relatives à l'évaluation des arguments des parties par les tribunaux et les motivations des décisions de justice. Cette demande a été rappelée par lettre en date du 17/04/2007.

• De la jurisprudence de la Cour Suprême relative à l’obligation de motiver les décisions de justice serait également très utile. En outre, est également attendue la confirmation de la diffusion de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne aux juridictions civiles concernées.

40765/02           Apostol, arrêt du 28/11/2006, définitif le 28/02/2007

L'affaire concerne une atteinte au droit à un procès équitable en raison de la limitation excessive du droit d'accès du requérant à une procédure d'exécution d'un jugement définitif rendu en sa faveur le 21/11/2001. Ce jugement est resté inexécuté car le requérant n'a pu s'acquitter au préalable des frais afférents à la procédure d'exécution (violation de l'article 6§1).

Mesures de caractère individuel :Le requérant n'a formulé aucune demande de satisfaction équitable. La Cour européenne a dit que l'Etat défendeur devait, par des moyens appropriés, veiller à l'exécution du jugement du 21/11/2001.

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes (30/10/2007) : A ce jour, les pouvoirs publics n’ont pas été en mesure d’assurer l’exécution du jugement du 21/11/2001 car le débiteur est introuvable et ne possède apparemment aucun bien (ni véhicule, ni bien immobilier, il n’est pas enregistré comme entrepreneur et ne possède pas de compte bancaire). Les pouvoirs publics poursuivent toutefois leurs efforts pour faire exécuter le jugement du 21/11/2001.

Le 14/05/2008, le requérant a informé la Cour européenne de ce que le jugement interne demeurait inexécuté.

• Des informations sont attendues :

- sur d’autres mesures entreprises afin de faire exécuter l’arrêt du 21/11/2001 ;

- sur l’existence d’un recours en droit géorgien basé sur la responsabilité de l’Etat du fait du fonctionnement défectueux du service public de la Justice.

Mesures de caractère général : La Cour européenne a dit qu'en faisant porter au requérant la responsabilité financière de l'organisation de la procédure d'exécution, l'Etat tentait d'échapper à son obligation positive d'organiser un système d'exécution des décisions de justice qui soit efficace à la fois en droit et en pratique.

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes (30/10/2007): L’arrêt de la Cour a été traduit en géorgien, publié au Journal officiel n° 13 du 13/03/2007, et distribué à de nombreux corps de l’Etat ; le Gouvernement est actuellement en train de préparer un projet de loi sur les procédures d’exécution qui incorporera les normes internationales.

• Informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes (3/03/2009): La loi du 16/04/1999 sur les procédures d’exécution, telle que modifiée le 15/07/2008, est entrée en vigueur le 1/10/2008. L’article 38 de la loi qui traite des frais d’exécution des actes pris par un tribunal ou d’autres organes compétents prévoit à son paragraphe 12 que, sont exemptés du paiement préalable des frais:

(a)        la personne qui est enregistrée dans la base de données sociale, sur présentation du certificat pertinent ;

(b)        le créancier sur le fondement d’une décision judiciaire ; le tribunal, prenant en considération l’état des biens du créancier, peut exempter celui-ci du paiement préalable des frais.

- 3 affaires concernant le manquement ou le retard substantiel de l'administration à se conformer à des arrêts internes définitifs

28537/02           « Iza » Ltd et Makrakhidze, arrêt du 27/09/2005, définitif le 27/12/2005

2507/03            « Amat-G » Ltd et Mebaghishvili, arrêt du 27/09/2005, définitif le 15/02/2006

16277/07           Kvitsiani, arrêt du 21/07/2009, définitif le 21/10/2009

            CM/Inf/DH(2009)28

Les affaires « Iza » Ltd et Makrakhidze et « Amat-G » Ltd et Mebaghishviliconcernent des violations du droit des sociétés requérantes à un tribunal en raison de l'impossibilité d'obtenir l'exécution par l'administration d'arrêts internes définitifs (de mai 2001 et de décembre 1999 respectivement) ordonnant à l'Etat de payer certaines sommes aux sociétés requérantes (violations de l'article 6§1) ainsi que l'absence de recours effectif à cet effet (violations de l'article 13).

Enfin, ces affaires concernent des violations du droit des sociétés requérantes au respect de leurs biens, à partir du 7/06/02 (date d'entrée en vigueur du Protocole n° 1 en Géorgie), en raison de l'absence d'exécution des arrêts internes (violations de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1). La Cour européenne a relevé que l'inexécution d'arrêts définitifs par les autorités budgétaires géorgiennes, motivée par des insuffisances budgétaires, était un problème persistant, reconnu par les autorités nationales.

L’affaire Kvitsiani concerne l’inexécution, durant plus de cinq ans et demi, d’une décision de justice ordonnant le paiement d’un dédommagement au requérant à la suite d’une procédure mettant en cause la responsabilité de l’Etat (violation de l’article 6§1 et de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour européenne dans les affaires « Iza » Ltd et Makrakhidze et « Amat-G » Ltd et Mebaghishvili couvre les sommes qui faisaient l'objet des arrêts internes inexécutés. Dans l’affaire Kivitsiani, le requérant a finalement été payé le 2/04/2008. La Cour européenne lui a accordé une satisfaction équitable pour dommage moral.

Mesures de caractère général :

            1) Violation de l’article 6§1 et de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1 : Dans le cadre de l'examen de l'affaire « Iza », les autorités géorgiennes ont été invitées, par lettre du 3/04/2006, à présenter un plan d'action pour l'exécution de l'affaire et leur attention a été attirée en particulier sur les exemples d'autres pays, ayant été confrontés à des problèmes similaires par le passé (voir les conclusions de la Table ronde, tenue les 21-22 juin 2007, CM/Inf/DH(2007)33).

Par lettre du 07/08/2006, les autorités géorgiennes ont indiqué qu'un plan d'action était en cours d'élaboration. Elles ont par ailleurs confirmé que les arrêts dans les affaires « Iza » Ltd et Makrakhidze et « Amat-G » Ltd et Mebaghishvili avaient été traduits en géorgien, publiés au Journal Officiel (Sakartvelos Sakanonmdeblo Matsne) et largement diffusés. Les arrêts sont également disponibles en géorgien sur le site Internet du ministère de la justice : http://www.justice.gov.ge/makrakhidze.pdf .

L’arrêt Kivitsiani a été traduit et publié au Journal Officiel n° 80 du 11/11/2009.

            2) Violation de l’article 13 de la Convention :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les recours disponibles permettant de dénoncer la non-exécution d’un jugement et de réparer le préjudice occasionné par le délai écoulé dans la procédure d’exécution en question.

Lors de la 1051e réunion (mars 2009), les autorités géorgiennes ont apportées un certain nombre d’informations concernant des changements législatifs et des arrangements budgétaires, en vue de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires de la Convention. Ces informations sont contenues dans le document CM/Inf/DH(2009)28.

• Le Secrétariat est en train de mettre à jour ce mémorandum sur la base des dernières informations fournies par les autorités géorgiennes.

40022/05           Kobelyan, arrêt du 16/07/2009, définitif le 06/11/2009

L’affaire concerne la durée excessive d’une procédure pénale (violation de l’article 6§1).

La procédure a duré six ans, neuf mois et vingt cinq jours pour trois degrés de juridiction – du 20/07/2001 au 15/05/2007 - et plus de trois ans et demi en première instance, sans qu’aucune explication n’ait été fournie pour justifier cette durée.

• Information fournies (28/04/2010) : L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été publié au Journal Officiel n°37 du 19/04/2010.

- 1 case against Germany / 1 affaire contre l’Allemagne

3545/04            Brauer, judgment of 28/05/2009, final on 28/08/2009 and of 28/01/2010 – Friendly settlement

The case concerns discriminatory interference with the applicant's right to respect for her family life due to domestic law provisions and court decisions of 2003 that prevented the applicant, who was born out of wedlock in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1948, from asserting her right to inherit from her late father, who had been resident in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8).

The European Court concluded that the applicable law introduced an unjustified difference of treatment in respect of persons born out of wedlock before 1/07/1949, based on the place of residence of the deceased at the moment of German reunification. Natural children have no inheritance rights if the deceased resided in the FRG, whilst for deceased persons residing in the GDR, natural children have the same rights as those born in wedlock.

Individual measures: Following the conclusion of a friendly settlement between the parties on 22/09/2009 concerning the applicant's claims for just satisfaction, the European Court, on 28/01/2010, struck the remainder of the application out of its list. The applicant waived any further claims in respect of her application.

Assessment: In these circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

1) Legislative amendments: A draft law has been prepared, according to which the discriminatory provision distinguishing inheritance rights between persons born out of wedlock and those born in wedlock will be abolished with retroactive effect from 1/07/1949 and be applicable to all cases of succession following the date of the European Court's judgment (28/05/2009). The draft law has been sent to the Länder for submission of comments by April 2010. Thereafter it will be sent to the Federal Council (the Upper House of the German Parliament) for comments and for the government's comments in reply. It is estimated that the draft law will be submitted to the Bundestag (the Lower House of the German Parliament) for further consultation before mid-July 2010. The adoption of the law and its entry into force are not expected before April 2011.

• Information is awaited on the progress of the adoption of the draft law and a copy of the text.

2) Publication and dissemination: The European Court's judgment has been sent to the courts concerned as well as to all judicial authorities of the Länder and was published in several law journals (Zeitschrift für das Notariat in Baden-Württemberg 2009, p. 203; Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 2009, p. 1293; Neue juristische Wochenschrift Rechtsprechungsreport 2009, p. 1603; Zeitschrift für Erbrecht und Vermögensnachfolge 2009, p. 510). Moreover, it will be included in the Federal Ministry of Justice's Report on the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights and on the Execution of its Judgments and Decisions in Cases against the Federal Republic of Germany in 2009). This report is widely disseminated and published on the Internet on the Federal Ministry of Justice website (www.bmj.de <http://www.bmj.de> under the heading “Themen I Menschenrechte I EGMR I Rechtsprechung des EGMR”).

- 66 cases against Greece / 65 affaires contre la Grèce

                       - 8 cases concerning actions of police forces[14]

50385/99          Makaratzis, judgment of 20/12/2004 - Grand Chamber

25771/03          Alsayed Allaham, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 23/05/2007

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

21449/04           Celniku, judgment of 05/07/2007, final on 05/10/2007

27850/03           Karagiannopoulos, judgment of 21/06/2007, final on 21/09/2007

43326/05           Leonidis, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 05/06/2009

44803/04          Petropoulou-Tsakiris, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

17060/03           Zelilof, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 24/08/2007

CM/Inf/DH(2009)16-rev

53541/07           S.D., judgment of 11/06/2009, final on 11/09/2009

The case concerns degrading treatment suffered by the applicant, a Turkish national at the time an asylum seeker in Greece, resulting from the conditions of his detention (no outdoor activities, no access to a telephone, blankets, clean sheets, hot water or hygiene products), combined with the excessive length of detention in such conditions (violation of Article 3).

 The applicant was at first detained in the Soufli frontier holding centre from 12/05/2007 to 10/07/2007 then in the holding facility of Attica (Petru Rali) from 10/07/2007 to 16/07/2007. 

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to liberty and security, due to the unlawfulness of his detention pending expulsion between 17/05/2007, the date on which his asylum application was formally registered, and his release on 16/07/2007 (violation of Article 5§1f)). During this period the authorities failed to take into account the applicant’s asylum seeker status, which in Greek law protected him against any measure of expulsion, until his asylum application was examined.

Finally the case concerns the fact that the applicant had no possibility to obtain a judicial decision on the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§4).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

26713/05           Bigaeva, judgment of 28/05/2009, final on 28/08/2009

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her professional private life due to the rejection of her request to sit for the examinations for admission to membership of the Athens Bar (violation of Article 8).

The European Court underlined that the domestic authorities, which did not raise the issue of the applicant’s nationality until the end of the process, had allowed her by mistake to carry out her pupillage and left her with hope, even though she was clearly not going to be entitled to sit for the subsequent examinations. They had thus shown a lack of coherence and respect towards the applicant and her professional life.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

19516/06           Alexandridis, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 21/05/2008

This case relates to an infringement of the applicant’s right to not have to divulge his religious convictions in that he was obliged to reveal that he was not an orthodox Christian when taking an oath of office in 2005 (violation of Article 9). Provided with a standard statement form attesting a religious oath, the applicant was forced to declare before the tribunal where he was taking his oath of office, that he was not an orthodox Christian and did not wish to take a religious oath but wanted to make a solemn declaration. The tribunal allowed him to do so but the minutes of the ceremony did not record this request.

The European Court noted that these proceedings show the existence of a presumption that barristers presenting themselves before tribunals are Orthodox Christians. Under domestic law, the oath that any civil servant must take is usually a religious oath (article 19§1 of the Civil Service Code). Those wishing to make a solemn declaration are obliged to declare themselves atheists or that their religion does not permit the taking of a religious oath (§§36-37 of the judgment). Concerning the existence of two different statement forms invoked by the government, the Court noted that the copies brought before the Court were dated 2007 and that as a result it could not come to the conclusion that such forms existed at the time. Even if the two different forms had existed, the Court considered that the applicant could not be blamed for his failure to obtain the proper document. The President and registry of the tribunal have informed the applicant that there existed a specific form for the solemn declaration.

In addition, the Court considered that the applicant did not have an effective remedy regarding the violation of his religious freedom (violation of Article 13). It also noted in this respect that the applicability and effectiveness of procedures for correcting minutes such as those provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been proved (§§48 and 25 of the judgment).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

• Information would be useful as to whether it is possible to rectify the minutes relating to the applicant’s swearing-in or alternatively to communicate an annotation of the European Court’s judgment to the court office of the bar concerned.

General measures:

1) Right to freedom of religion: The judgment has been sent out to all relevant judicial authorities (letter of 12/01/2009).

By a communication under Rule 9.2 of 07/10/2009 the Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR) provided information on the adoption at its Plenary Session of 29/05/2008 of a Decision on the replacement of religious oath by civil oath which was communicated to the competent Ministries. The GNCHR recommended the amendment of certain provisions of the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, to achieve the replacement proposed.

On 15/10/2009 the Greek authorities indicated that this communication regarding the abolition of the religious oath had been brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights who would consider the question carefully.

• Information is awaited on the present practice relating to professional oaths of barristers, especially whether the barrister is informed beforehand of the possibility of choosing between a religious oath and solemn declaration.The Greek authorities are also invited to provide information on any other measures envisaged or already taken to prevent new, similar violations and especially on possible legislative changes to the rules relating to the oath taking for barristers (see the conclusions of the European Court in this respect).

2) Right to an effective remedy:

• Information is needed on the existence or introduction of a remedy allowing a domestic body to hear complaints similar to those raised by the applicant in the present case and offer an effective remedy. Information is particularly awaited on the possibility of rectifying the minutes of swearing-in ceremonies for barristers and on the appeal for damages if necessary.

32526/05           Sampanis and others, judgment of 05/06/2008, final on 05/09/2008

The case concerns the authorities’ failure to provide schooling for the applicants’ children during the 2004-2005 school year and their subsequent placement in special preparatory classes in 2005, resulting in a difference of treatment between Roma children et non-Roma children without any objective or reasonable justification (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No.1). The case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy to secure redress for the above violation (violation of Article 13).

Concerning the failure to provide schooling for the children in 2004-2005, the European Court considered that the authorities should have recognised the particularity of the Roma community’s situation and should have facilitated the enrolment in primary school of children of Roma origin, especially in view of the fact that the authorities were aware of their problems relating to schooling. Yet, although the authorities had not explicitly refused to enrol the children, they did not do so despite the fact that the parents had explicitly expressed to the competent school authority their wish to enrol their children. Concerning the special preparatory classes situated in an annexe of the primary school in which the applicants’ children had been placed in 2005, the European Court considered that the authorities had not based their decision concerning the children to be placed in the preparatory classes on a unique and clear criterion. It noted in particular that the authorities had not shown that any suitable tests had been given to the children concerned in order to assess their capacities and potential learning difficulties. In addition, although the declared objective of these classes was for the pupils concerned to attain a level which would enable them to enter ordinary classes in due course, no examples were offered of any student (amongst the 50 students concerned) who had been transferred in the ordinary classes. Furthermore, it was not shown that any tests existed that would enable the school authorities to assess periodically whether, based on objective facts and not approximate appraisals, the Roma children were capable of attending ordinary classes.

The European Court underlined the importance of setting up an appropriate system of assessment of the capacities of children with learning needs, to monitor their progress, especially in the case of children from ethnic minorities, and to provide for possible placement in special classes on the basis of non-discriminatory criteria. In addition, in view of the racist incidents caused by the parents of non-Roma children, the setting-up of such a system would have given the applicants the feeling that their children had not been placed in preparatory classes for segregation reasons.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

• Information provided by the applicants (November 2008): The 50 children of Roma origin concerned by the facts of the case, which include the applicants’ children, remained in the special preparatory classes at stake. The parents wanted their children to be placed in ordinary classes, as was the case for the children of Roma origin in the Spata region, who were placed in such classes in November 2008.

• Bilateral contacts are under way regarding individual measures in respect of the applicants’ children.

General measures: It should be noted that the European Court found that Greek law recognised the particular nature of the Roma community’s situation, by facilitating the school enrolment procedure for their children. In addition domestic legislation provides the possibility of enrolling pupils at primary school simply by means of a declaration signed by someone with parental authority, provided birth certificates are produced in due course (§ 86 of the judgment).

In a letter of 29/09/2009, the authorities stated that the necessary steps had been undertaken in respect of the relevant services and that an action plan will follow as soon as possible. A translation of the European Court’s judgment was published on the website of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr).

• Detailed information provided by the authorities regarding inter alia a new programme on the education of Roma children launched by the Ministry of Education, as well as by the applicants’ representative, is under assessment.

11919/03          Mohd, judgment of 27/04/2006, final on 27/07/2006[15]

199/05              John, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007

- 2 cases concerning the lack of access to a court because of the application of a procedural rule resulting in annulment of the proceedings ipso jure

1735/07            Stamouli and others, judgment of 28/05/2009, final on 28/08/2009

514/07              Christodoulou, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

The cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the application by the Court of Audit in June 2006 of a procedural rule resulting in annulment of the proceedings ipso jure and in the filing of their case in the archives (violations of Article 6§1).

Although the rule in question has not been in force since 30/06/2003 (entry into force of Law No. 3160/2003), the Court of Audit applied it to the present cases on the grounds that the applicants’ appeal on points of law had been lodged before that date (see §§11 and 27 of the judgment).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

- 2 cases concerning the violation of the right of access to a court (excessive formalism of the Court of Cassation)[16]

43374/06           Louli, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 31/10/2008

37349/07           Kallergis, judgment of 02/04/2009, final on 02/07/2009

- 2 cases concerning the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings due to refusal by the Court of Cassation to examine the applicants’ complaints based on the Convention[17]

17721/04           Perlala, judgment of 22/02/2007, final on 22/05/2007

30340/07           Karavelatzis, judgment of 16/04/2009, final on 14/09/2009

42778/05+         Giosakis No 1, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

36205/06           Giosakis No 2, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

These cases concern the violation of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings in 2005 before the chamber of indictment concerning the remand of the applicant in custody (Giosakis No. 1) and the extension of the remand in 2006 (Giosakis No. 2) in that the applicant had been denied the right to appear whilst the prosecutor was granted a hearing (violations of Article 5§4).

The European Court recalled its case-law concerning proceedings before the chamber of indictment (Kampanis judgment of 13/07/1995 and Kotsarides judgment of 23/09/2004, which led a reform of indictment proceedings (see Resolution ResDH(2006)54). The Court found that, in denying the applicant’s request to appear, the chamber of indictment had denied him the possibility of attacking the grounds relied upon to justify his remand and maintenance in custody. The doctrine of equality of arms requires that the applicant should be given the opportunity to appear at the same time as the prosecutor in order to reply to his conclusions, as well as before the examining magistrate.

These cases also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy determination of the lawfulness of his detention and his applications for release (violations of Article 5§4). The Court found that in principle, given that the liberty of the individual was at issue, the state is under a duty to ensure that proceedings take a minimum amount of time. It considered that the 96 days (Giosakis No. 1), 67 and 48 days (Giosakis No. 2) taken to pronounce upon the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention and his applications for release did not respond to the requirement of “speediness”.

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 03/03/2010. Bilateral discussions are currently under way to secure the additional information necessary to present an action plan/action report to the Committee.

15100/06           Pyrgiotakis, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 29/09/2008

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial: in June 2003, he was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment for his involvement in drug trafficking following the conduct of one of the police officers involved in the case who had acted as an agent provocateur (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court considered that the said police officer had pretended to be a potential buyer during a transaction in which the applicant had acted as go-between with a drug trafficker and had brought about the criminal act, which otherwise would not have taken place. The Court pointed out that the domestic courts’ reasoning had shown nothing in the applicant’s behaviour prior to his arrest which could have led them to conclude that he would have committed the offence in question even without the police officers’ intervention

Individual measures: The applicant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and to a 7 000 euros fine. He was detained in the psychiatric clinic of the Korydallos prison (Greece) when he introduced his petition before the European Court. Under Greek law the applicant is allowed to ask for the re-opening of his trial and a suspension of his sentence following the European Court’s decision (article 525§1.5 and 529 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

In a letter dated 12/12/2009 the applicant, who was released on 23/05/2008, provided information that he has applied for the reopening of his case, under Article 525§5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that a delay at the hearing of his case has occurred (due to elections, general strike etc).

• Information is awaited on the developments in the applicant’s case.

General measures:

• information is necessary on the publication and wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment into Greek, In view of the fact that the origin of the violation relates to the way the trial judges dealt with the evidence and especially in view of the reasoning of the domestic courts.

• Confirmation of the wide dissemination of the judgment, as well as of any developments occurred in the national case law is awaited. 

12045/06           Ichtigiaroglou, judgment of 19/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions in that her right to an old-age pension was cancelled following a retroactive application by the Council of State of legislative measures relating to old-age pensions.

In 1993, in accordance with Law No. 2079/1992 which extended a number of deadlines within which cases had to be brought before the appropriate authorities, the applicant applied for an old-age pension, asking that the pension contributions she had paid in Turkey be recognised in Greece. Meanwhile, a new law No. 2187/1994 entered into force, which clearly stated that the possibility of extending the deadlines provided by Law No. 2079/1992 was open only to those living permanently in Egypt or Turkey. Despite the adoption of the 1994 law, the applicant’s right to an old-age pension was recognised by two court decisions (at first instance in 1996 and on appeal in 1998), although she lived in Greece. She began to receive her pension from June 1999 onwards. 11 years after her initial request, the Council of State, in its judgment No. 370/2005, found that the applicant should not have been awarded the pension in question in view of the retroactive effect of the 1994 law.

The European Court pointed out that, even if the adoption of the law in question did not in itself violate the applicant’s right to the protection of her property as the administrative courts had refused to give the law retroactive effect, its legitimacy and its conformity with the principle of the rule of law seemed questionable. The European Court called to mind in this respect the fact that the changes, made through new provisions, to the rights resulting from laws previously applicable could only be justified by pressing grounds relating to the public interest. It considered in this case that the necessary balance between the demands of the public interest and the safeguard of the applicant’s right to protection of her property had been breached by the retroactive application – 11 years after the beginning of the dispute in question – of Law No. 2187/1994 by the Council of State. Furthermore the applicant was not only deprived of her right to receive the pension, but was also subjected to a disproportionate burden as she was requested to pay back the entire amount of the pension she had already received bona fide.

This case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings relating to the applicant’s pension rights before the appropriate administrations and the administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures:

1) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1: In July 2007, following the Council of State’s judgment No. 370/2005, the social security agency (Ιδρυμα Κοινωνικών Ασφαλίσεων, hereafter “IKA”) stopped paying the pension in question. In October 2007, the applicant was ordered to pay back to the IKA the sums she had been paid between 1999 and 2007, plus interest, for a total of 48 495, 04 euros. Whilst agreeing with the fact that the applicant had suffered pecuniary damages in view of the violations found, the Court stated that the elements in the file did not enable it to determine precisely the scope of the damages actually sustained. It awarded the applicant 50 000 Euros for all heads of damage taken together.

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

2) Violation of article 6§1: The proceedings criticised by the European Court for their excessive length ended in 2006.

• Assessment: No further individual measure is necessary in this respect.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1:

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 22/09/2009): The European Court’s judgment has been sent in Greek to the President of the Council of State. It was also notified to the social security agency (“IKA”) directly involved. It is available on the State Legal Council’s website (www.nsk.gr).

• Information is awaited on further measures adopted or envisaged to prevent similar violations. Information on developments in the case-law would be useful.  

2) Violation of article 6§1: This case presents similarities to the Manios case (70626/01, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

72081/01          Mavroudis, judgment of 22/09/2005, final on 22/12/2005[18]

36963/06           Zouboulidis No. 2, judgment of 25/06/2009, final on 06/11/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, due first of all to the specific, two-year time-limit after which debts owed by the state are deemed to be extinguished (whereas the Civil Code the equivalent time-limit may be from twice to ten times as long); and secondly to the fact that default interest was calculated as from the date on which notice of action was served on state (whereas under the Civil Code, interest is charged as from the date upon which payment becomes due) (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The European Court underlined that the mere interest of the state’s cash flow could not in itself be regarded as a public or general interest justifying interference with individual rights, through the application of the two-year limitation period and the granting of preferential treatment to the state in fixing the date from which default interest was charged.

The European Court recalled its case-law as set out in the case of Meidanis (No. 33977/06, 1086th meeting, June 2010) in which the European Court noted that while privileges or immunities might be necessary for an administrative authority where it discharged duties governed by public law, the mere fact of belonging to the state structure was not sufficient in itself to justify the application of privileges in all circumstances; such privileges had to be necessary for the proper performance of public duties.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

48906/06           Varnima Corporation International S.A., judgment of 28/05/2009, final on 06/11/2009

This case concerns a violation of the applicant company’s right to equality of arms due to different limitation periods (one year for the applicant company’s debts and twenty years for state debts ) applied by the domestic courts in a dispute between the applicant company and the state (violation of Article 6 §1).

The European Court concluded that the mere interest of the state’s cash flow could not in itself be regarded as a public or general interest justifying interference with the principle of equality of arms.

The Court recalled its case-law as set out in the Meidanis case (No. 33977/06) (1086th meeting, June 2010) to the effect that that while privileges or immunities might be necessary for an administrative authority where it discharged duties governed by public law, the mere fact of belonging to the state structure was not sufficient in itself to justify the application of privileges in all circumstances; such privileges had to be necessary for the proper performance of public duties.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

1234/05            Reklos and Davourlis, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private live due to the dismissal of their suit for damages related to photographs taken without their consent in the sterile unit of a private clinic of their newborn child, as part of a photographic service offered to clients (violation of Article 8). The European Cour t noted in particular that the courts had taken no account of the facts that the photographs had been taken without the parents’ consent and that the photographer had been able to keep the negatives, which might thus have been used subsequently without the parents’ consent.

The case also concerns the violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court due to the vague reasoning of the dismissal of their application to appeal on points of law (violation of Article 6§1).

The Court considered that to declare the applicants’ sole means of appeal inadmissible merely on the ground that they had not indicated in their application the factual circumstances relied on by the appellate court to dismiss their appeal, was indicative of an excessively formalistic approach which denied them the possibility of obtaining an examination of their allegations by the Court of Cassation.

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 03/02/2010. Bilateral discussions are currently under way to secure the additional information necessary to present an action plan/action report to the Committee

48775/06           Reveliotis, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 04/03/2009[19]

45769/06           Kokkinis, judgment of 06/11/2008, final on 06/02/2009

- 9 cases mainly concerning the failure to implement final judicial decisions

38878/03          Beka-Koulocheri, judgment of 06/07/2006, final on 06/10/2006

32838/07          Clinique psychiatrique “Athina” Vrilisson Sarl and Clinique Lyrakou SA, judgment of 02/07/2009, final on 02/10/2009

38752/04          Georgoulis and others, judgment of 21/06/2007, final on 21/09/2007

26914/07           Gikas, judgment of 02/04/2009, final on 14/09/2009

11325/06          Kanellopoulos, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 21/05/2008

32636/05          Moschopoulos-Veïnoglou and others, judgment of 18/10/2007, final on 18/01/2008

41898/04           Milionis and others, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 29/09/2008

6571/05            Pantaleon, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007

14263/04           Rompoti and Rompotis, judgment of 25/01/2007, final on 09/07/2007

The cases of Beka-Koulocheri, Georgoulis, Gikas Panagiotis and Gikas Georgios, Kanellopoulos, Moschopoulos-Veïnoglou and Rompoti and Rompotis relate to the administrative authorities’ failure to comply with final judgments of administrative tribunals given between 1999 and 2006 concerning the lifting of certain expropriation measures to allow the release of the applicants’ property (violations of Article 6§1). The case of Clinique psychiatrique “Athina” Vrilisson Sarl and Clinique Lyrakou SA concerns the failure to ensure the prompt execution of the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 2005.

The case of Milionis and others concerns the failure to enforce a final court decision of 2003 recognising the applicants’ right to statutory interest on additional pension payments (violation of Article 6§1). It concerns also the excessive length of the proceedings and the absence of a domestic remedy in this respect (violation of Articles 6§1 and 13).

The case of Pantaleon concerns the non-enforcement of a Court of Audit judgment (violation of Article 6§1).

The Gikas Panagiotis and Gikas Georgios and theKanellopoulos cases also relate to the absence of a domestic remedy capable of remedying this situation (violation of Article 13).

In all these cases, the European Court noted that the adoption of Law No. 3068/2002 on the execution of judgments by the administration unequivocally demonstrates the state’s serious commitment to complying with judgments, but considered that the mechanism set up was unlikely to offer an effective remedy to the applicant. The Court noted that, after the person concerned had appealed before the competent committee of the highest jurisdiction, this committee could only note the administration’s refusal to comply with a judgment and impose the payment of compensation to the applicant, if necessary. Yet, in the Court’s opinion, these measures are not likely to lead to the certain execution of the judgment in question and as a result cannot be considered as sufficient redress. It further noted that disciplinary proceedings against administrative officials responsible for the failure to execute the judgment did not offer sufficient direct redress in the present situation.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages. The Court rejected the applicants’ claim for pecuniary damages in respect of their property rights, as they had not exhausted the domestic legal remedies to receive compensation.

In the Georgouillis and others case the domestic judicial decision was enforced in 2004 (see §24 of the judgment) in the Moschopoulos and others case it was enforced in 2005 (see § 29 of the judgment).

In the case of Milionis and others the Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of pecuniary damage, i.e. interest at 6% per annum on the sums awarded in the 2003 judgment, for the period from 20/06/989 until the date of delivery of the European Court’s judgment, despite the fact that the competent authority paid the applicants the sums due (without interest) on 21/07/2004.

In the Gikas Panagiotis and Gikas Georgios case no just satisfaction was awarded.

• Information is awaited on the compliance by the administration with domestic judicial decisions in the cases of Beka-Koulocheri, Gikas Panagiotis and Gikas Georgios, Kanellopoulos, Pantaleon and Rompoti and Rompotis. Information would be welcomed on further possible measures in the case of Clinique psychiatrique “Athina” Vrilisson Sarl and Clinique Lyrakou SA.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 6 (non-enforcement of domestic courts’ decisions): It should be recalled that Greece has adopted a number of global constitutional, statutory and regulatory reforms, to remedy the structural problem relating to the non-execution of domestic judgments by the administration (see Final Resolution ResDH(2004)81 in Hornsby and other cases against Greece). These measures related in particular to the changes to Article 95§5 of the Constitution in 2001 and later the adoption of Law No. 3068/2002, which set up a new procedure guaranteeing the administration’s compliance with judgments and reinforcing the disciplinary and civil responsibility of civil servants. The law set up committees of three members each, who belong to the highest Greek jurisdictions (the special Supreme court, the Court of Cassation, the State Council and the Court of Audit), which are responsible for ensuring the proper execution of the judgments of their respective jurisdictions by the administration within a 3-month deadline. The committees may in particular nominate a magistrate to assist the administration by suggesting, amongst other things, the appropriate measures necessary to comply with the judgment. If the administration does not comply with the judgment within the deadline specified by the committee, fines will be imposed which may be renewed as long as the administration has not complied with the judgment (Article 3).

On 25-26/06/2009 a high-level meeting took place in Athens between the Secretariat and the Greek authorities at which questions relating to the results already obtained from the implementation of the mechanism set up by Law No. 3068/2002 and to the measures possibly needed to guarantee and improve its effectiveness were discussed.

The European Court’s judgments are available on the Internet site of the Legal Council of the State (www.nsk.gr) and have been sent out to all national jurisdictions.

• In a letter dated 19/03/2010 the authorities provided information on the implementation of the mechanism set up by Law No. 3068/2002, which is currently under assessment.   

2) Violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time (Millionis and others): this issue will be examined in the Manios group (70626/01, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

- 4 cases mainly concerning the violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the lack of compensation for the progressive ban on any construction that affected the possessions[20]

35332/05           Anonymos Touristiki Etairia Xenodocheia Kritis, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 21/05/2008

35859/02           Housing Association of War Disabled and Victims of War of Attica and others, judgments of 13/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006 and of 27/09/2007, final on 31/03/2008

9368/06            Theodoraki and others, judgment of 11/12/2008, final on 04/05/2009

14216/03          Z.A.N.T.E. - Marathonissi A.E., judgments of 06/12/2007, final on 02/06/2008 and of 28/05/2009, final on 06/11/2009

33977/06           Meïdanis, judgment of 22/05/2008, final on 01/12/2008

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions following the fixing in 2006 of the default interest which was owed to him by his employer, a hospital which was a public-law entity, at a rate that was four times lower than the interest imposed on private individuals (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The applicant had sued his employer before the Greek courts for payment of salary outstanding for a certain period, plus the payment of default interest. Contrary to the decision taken by the appeal court, the Court of Cassation considered that in relation to public entities’ debts, the fixing of the default interest at a lower rate than that imposed on private individuals provided in Law No. 496/1974, did not violate the right to peaceful enjoyment as guaranteed by the Convention. Following the example of the Appeal Court and dissenting magistrates of the Court of Cassation, the European Court considered that the interest of the public entity’s cash-flow could not be assimilated to the public or general interest and could not justify the violation, caused by the law in question, of the creditors’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damages sustained by the applicant for the amount of interest he requested.

• Assessment: No other individual measure seems necessary.  

General measures:

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 22/09/2009): The European Court’s judgment has been sent out to all judicial authorities and to the hospital directly involved. It is available, in Greek translation, on the State Legal Council’s website (www.nsk.gr).

On 14/10/2009 the authorities provided information on the latest developments on the case-law of the Greek Council of State which, in its judgment No 1663/2009, in Plenary Session, fully endorses the European Court's findings. This judgment criticised the lower rate of default interest paid by the state, to which public-law entities are considered by law as equivalent.

• Assessment: The case-law of the Greek Council of State is now in compliance with the European Court’s findings.

• Information is awaited on the relevant case-law of the Court of Cassation and on other possible developments to prevent similar violations.

- 18 cases concerning various violations in the context of land expropriation proceedings[21]

46355/99          Tsirikakis, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 10/07/02 and of 23/01/03, final on 09/07/03

39725/03          Anastasiadis, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007

49000/06           Antonopoulou and others, judgment of 16/04/2009, final on 16/07/2009

48392/99          Hatzitakis, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

51354/99          Karagiannis and others, judgment of 16/01/03, final on 16/04/03

51356/99          Nastou, judgments of 16/01/03, final on 16/04/03 and of 22/04/04, final on 22/07/04

16163/02          Nastou No. 2, judgments of 15/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005 and of 05/04/2007, final on 05/07/2007

17305/02          Zacharakis, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006

50824/99           Azas, judgment of 19/09/02, final on 21/05/03

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

61582/00          Biozokat A.E., judgment of 09/10/03, final on 09/01/04

55794/00          Efstathiou and Michaïlidis and Cie Motel Amerika, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

58642/00          Interoliva Abee, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

58634/00          Konstantopoulos AE and others, judgment of 10/07/03, final on10/10/03

73836/01          Organochimika Lipasmata Makedonias A.E., judgment of 18/01/2005, final on 18/04/2005

32730/03          Ouzounoglou, judgment of 24/11/2005, final on 24/02/2006

2834/05            Sampsonidis, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 02/06/2008 and of 05/11/2009, final on 10/05/2010

55828/00          Satka and others, judgments of 27/03/03, final on 27/06/03 and of 02/03/2006, final on 02/06/2006

- 3 cases concerning the dissolution or refusal to register associations established by persons belonging to Muslim minority of Western Thrace (Greece) 35151/05    Bekir-Ousta and others, judgment of 11/10/2007, final on 11/01/2008 26698/05    Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 29/09/2008 34144/05    Emin and others, judgment of 27/03/08, final on 01/12/2008 The judgments concern the refusal to register (Bekir-Ousta and others and Emin and others) or dissolution (Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others) of associations on the grounds that their aim was to promote the idea of the existence in Greece of an ethnic minority as opposed to the religious one provided for by the 1923 Lausanne Treaty (violations of Article 11). With regard to the cases of Bekir-Ousta and others and Emin and others, the European Court noted that “the contested measure rested only on a simple suspicion concerning the true intentions of the founders of the associations and concerning the actions that the association might pursue once it began to operate”. The European Court also noted that “even if the real aim of the associations was to promote the idea that an ethnic minority existed in Greece, this could not in itself constitute a threat to a democratic society”. The European Court found in this connection that “nothing in the statute of the associations indicated that its members would or had engaged in violence or non-democratic or anti-constitutional actions”. The Court recalled that Greek law (Article 12 of the Constitution and Article 81 of the Civil Code) provides no system of preventive control over the establishment of non-profit-making associations. Furthermore the Court noted that once the above-mentioned associations were founded, the Greek courts could order dissolution if the associations subsequently pursued an aim different from that laid down in the statutes, or if their functioning turned out to be contrary to public order. As a result, the Court concluded that the contested measure was disproportionate to the objectives pursued. In the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others, the European Court underlined the radical nature of the measure dissolving the association and noted in particular that before its dissolution, the association had carried on its activities unhindered for half a century without any indication that its members had ever resorted to violence or rejected democratic principles. The case Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others also concerns the excessive length of the civil proceedings related to the dissolution (violation of Article 6§1). Individual measures: In all these cases, the Court concluded that the finding of a violation of Article 11 constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The first applicant in Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis was awarded just satisfaction in respect of the violation of Article 6§1. The proceedings of which the excessive length was criticised,ended in 2005. 1) Case of Bekir-Ousta and others: On the basis of the European Court’s judgment, the applicants applied again for registration of the association in the national courts. On 09/12/2008, the Single Member Court of First Instance of Alexandroupoli (judgment No. 405/2008) rejected the application as inadmissible on the ground of res judicata. The decision referred in particular to the fact that under national law, retrial of a case further to a finding of a violation by the European Court is foreseen only for criminal proceedings (Article 525§5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) but not for civil ones. The applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal of Thrace. The Court of Appeal of Thrace, by a decision made public on 31/07/2009, also rejected the application. While noting the obligations resulting from Article 46 of the Convention (just satisfaction, individual measures and general measures), the Court of Appeal also referred to the fact that under national law, retrial of a case further to a finding of a violation by the European Court is foreseen only for criminal, but not for civil proceedings. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal noted that the decisions rendered in the context of a non-contentious procedure, as in the present case, bearing recognition of a right or a legal relationship, become final bearing res judicata in the absence of new facts or a change of circumstances. 2) Case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others: a) Violation of Article 11: On the basis of the European Court’s finding of a violation regarding the dissolution of the applicant association, the applicants introduced two separate claims currently pending: one before the Court of First Instance of Xanthi, seeking annulment of its earlier decision No. 36/1986 ordering the dissolution; and one before the Court of Appeal of Thrace, seeking annulment of its earlier decision No. 31/2002 confirming the decision No. 36/1986. Regarding the first claim, the Court of First Instance of Xanthi (judgment No. 12/2009 published on 30/04/2009) rejected the application on the basis of res judicata, also relying on Article 525§5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as quoted above. On 27/05/ 2009 the applicants appealed before the Court of Appeal of Thrace. The hearing was scheduled for 23/10/2009.  Under the terms of the letter sent by “the Federation of Western Thrace Turks in Europe” [“ABTTF”; see DD(2009)609)] dated 12/11/2009, the first claim before the Court of Appeal of Thrace was deferred to the 08/10/2010 at the request of the Prefect of Xanthi who wished to have more time to prepare. In their letter dated 23/11/2009 [DD (2009)609], the Greek authorities confirmed information from “the ABTTF” regarding the first claim. A hearing postponement was requested by the Prefect of Xanthi and the Greek Federation of Associations of Thrace, for which the representative of the applicants gave his consent. The declaration of the latter was appended to the records of the hearing. Concerning the second claim, the hearing before the Court of Appeal of Thrace was scheduled for 03/04/2009. The application was rejected by a decision published on the 18/08/2009 for reasons similar to those adduced in the decision of the Court of Appeal of Thrace in the case of Bekir-Ousta and others. In the present case, the Court of Appeal noted that the possibility, under the Article 758§1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, of an annulment or revision of a final domestic judgment in the framework of a non-contentious procedure, on the basis of new facts or a change in the circumstances in which the judgment had been handed down, does not extend to a judgment of the European Court. 3) Case of Emin and others: On the basis of the European Court’s judgment, the applicants again applied for registration of the association before the national courts. A hearing was held at the Court of First Instance of Rodopi on 08/04/2009. According to the letter sent by “the ABTTF” [DD (2009)609)] dated 12/11/2009 the Court of First Instance of Rodopi, by a decision rendered on 26/06/2009, rejected the application on the ground that it was introduced by a lawyer who did not belong to the Bar of Rodopi. The Greek authorities [letter dated 23/11/2009, DD(2009)609] confirmed that the application was rejected as inadmissible. Under the terms of the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Lawyers, claims lodged before civil courts must be signed by a lawyer belonging to the bar of the geographical jurisdiction of the court. If not, the lawyer must jointly sign the claim with a colleague of the Bar from the geographical area of the court. Since in the present case, the claim was only signed by the applicants’ lawyer who belongs to the Xanthi Bar, the applicants’ request was rejected. On 03/08/2009, the applicants deposited a new claim; the hearing is planned for 13/01/2010 (date also confirmed by the representative of the applicants, see DD (2009)572). Under the terms of a letter sent by the representative of the applicants dated 19/03/2010, the application was rejected by decision No. 44/2010 of the Court of First Instance of Rodopi, for reasons similar to those adduced in the decisions of the Court of Appeal of Thrace in the cases of Bekir-Ousta and Others and of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others. • Information is awaited: - on the developments of the national proceedings in all three cases; - on the reasoning followed by the domestic courts in the context of the non-contentious procedure, regarding the refusal of the new application for registration (case of Bekir-Ousta and others) and of the annulment of the earlier decision of dissolution (case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others); - on the role of the Prefect in the framework of  the procedure in the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and others. General measures: 1) Violation of Article 6§1 in the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others: The issue of excessive length of civil proceedings is being examined in the framework of the Manios group (70626/01, 1100th meeting, December 2010). 2) Violations of Article 11: The three judgments have been translated and published on the Internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). In addition, the Ministry of Justice sent an accompanying letter to the President of the Court of Cassation emphasising the main conclusions of the Court as well as the obligation for the state, in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention, to abide by the Court’s judgments. In this letter the dissemination of the judgments to the judicial authorities concerned was also requested. The judgment in the case of Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis was also sent to the Prefects of the region (Drama, Kavala and Xanthi). According to the information provided in particular by “the ABTTF” [DD(2009)609], a new association called “South Evros Cultural and Educational Association of Western Thrace Minority” was refused registration on 28/03/2009 by the Court of First Instance of Alexandroupoli. The Greek authorities submitted a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rodopi dated 23/04/2009, granting the registration of an association called “Minority association on culture, education and sports of the Region of Alonotopos in Komotini”. • Confirmation is awaited regarding the wide dissemination of the three judgments to the relevant judicial authorities. Information is also awaited on any measures taken or envisaged in order to prevent similar violations, in particular on the registration of new associations established by persons belonging to the Muslim minority of Western Thrace and on the organisation of targeted training activities for judges in this field. The Deputies, 1.             took note of the information provided by the Greek authorities according to which the applications submitted by the applicants following the Court’s judgments had not as yet been examined as to the merits, as they had been declared inadmissible for the following procedural reasons: first, domestic legislation does not provide reopening of proceedings following the finding of a violation by the European Court, and secondly, because it was not possible, following a judgment by the Court, to annul a final domestic decision in non-contentious proceedings; 2.             noted however that these proceedings have not yet been completed: the decisions of the Court of Appeal of Thrace in the Bekir-Ousta and Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis cases (regarding the application to annul that court’s earlier dissolution decision No. 31/2002) may be appealed before the Court of Cassation; the decisions of the Multi-Member Court of First Instance of Xanthi in the Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis case (regarding the application to annul that court’s earlier decision No. 36/1986) and the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rodopi in the Emin case are pending before the Thrace Court of Appeal; 3.             noted moreover that, according to the information provided by the authorities, the applicants are also able under domestic law to submit new applications for registration of their associations before the competent domestic courts; 4.             noted with interest the information provided by the Greek authorities regarding a certain number of recent decisions authorising the registration of associations whose title includes the adjective “minority” or indicates in some way that it is of minority origin (for example the Pan-Hellenic Association of Pomaks, decision 59/2009 of the Court of Rodopi; the Minority Cultural Association of Iasmos Municipality of Rodopi; decision 92/2008 of the same Court); 5.             expressed their satisfaction that the Greek Prime Minister had underlined before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 26 January 2010 that “we should implement all the decisions that the Council of Europe and the Court decide upon”; welcomed in this connection the firm commitment of the Greek authorities to implementing fully and completely the judgments under consideration without excluding any avenue in that respect; encouraged the authorities to pursue their co-operation with the Secretariat, in particular through bilateral consultations; 6.             decided to resume consideration of these cases at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH).

- 3 affaires concernant la dissolution et le refus d'enregistrement d'associations fondées par des personnes appartenant à la minorité musulmane de Thrace occidentale (Grèce) 35151/05   Bekir-Ousta et autres, arrêt du 11/10/2007, définitif le 11/01/2008 26698/05   Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres, arrêt du 27/03/2008, définitif le 29/09/2008 34144/05   Emin et autres, arrêt de 27/03/2008, définitif le 01/12/2008 Ces affaires concernent le refus d’enregistrement (affaires Bekir-Ousta et autres et Emin et autres) et la dissolution (affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres) d’associations au motif que leur but était de promouvoir l’idée qu’il existe en Grèce une minorité ethnique par opposition à la minorité religieuse reconnue par le traité de Lausanne de 1923 (violations de l’article 11). En ce qui concerne les affaires Bekir-Ousta et autres et Emin et autres, la Cour européenne a observé que « la mesure litigieuse s’[était] appuy[ée] sur une simple suspicion quant aux véritables intentions des fondateurs de l’association et aux actions que celle-ci aurait pu mener une fois qu’elle aurait commencé à fonctionner ». De plus, la Cour européenne a estimé « qu’à supposer même que le véritable but de l’association était de promouvoir l’idée qu’il existe en Grèce une minorité ethnique, ceci ne saurait passer pour constituer à lui seul une menace pour une société démocratique ». Elle a noté à cet égard que « rien dans les statuts de l’association n’indiquait que ses membres prônaient le recours à la violence ou à des moyens antidémocratiques ou anticonstitutionnels ». La Cour a rappelé que la législation grecque (article 12 de la Constitution et article 81 du Code civil) n’institue pas de système de contrôle préventif pour l’établissement des associations à but non lucratif. La Cour a noté par ailleurs que les juridictions grecques pourraient ordonner la dissolution des associations précitées, si ces dernières, une fois fondées, poursuivaient par la suite un but différent de celui fixé par les statuts ou si leur fonctionnement s’avérait contraire à l’ordre public. En conséquence, la Cour a conclu que la mesure incriminée était disproportionnée aux objectifs poursuivis. Dans l'affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres, la Cour européenne a souligné le caractère radical de la mesure en cause à savoir la dissolution de l’association et a noté en particulier qu'avant sa dissolution, l'association concernée avait poursuivi pendant environ un demi-siècle ses activités sans aucune entrave et sans qu'il y ait d'indication que ses membres aient jamais fait appel à la violence ou rejeté les principes démocratiques. L'affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres concerne également la durée excessive de la procédure civile relative à la dissolution de l’association requérante (violation de l'article 6§1). Mesures de caractère individuel : Dans toutes ces affaires, la Cour européenne a conclu que le constat de violation de l'article 11 représentait une compensation suffisante pour le préjudice moral subi par les requérants, à l'exception de la première requérante dans l'affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres, laquelle s'est vue octroyer une satisfaction équitable pour le préjudice moral subi au titre de l’article 6§1. La procédure interne dont la durée excessive a été mise en cause par la Cour européenne s’est terminée en 2005. 1) Affaire Bekir Ousta et autres : Sur la base de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne, les requérants ont déposé une nouvelle demande d’enregistrement de leur association devant les tribunaux nationaux. Le 09/12/2008, le tribunal de première instance d’Alexandroupoli, composé d’un juge unique, a rejeté la demande sur le fondement de l’autorité de la chose jugée. La décision fait notamment référence au fait qu’en vertu du droit interne le réexamen d’une affaire suite à un constat de violation par la Cour européenne n’est prévu que dans le cadre des procédures pénales (article 525§5 du code de procédure pénale). Il ne s’applique pas aux procédures civiles. Les requérants ont interjeté appel devant la Cour d’appel de Thrace. Par décision rendue publique le 31/07/2009, la Cour d’appel de Thrace a également rejeté la demande. Tout en notant les obligations résultant de l’article 46 de la Convention (satisfaction équitable, mesures individuelles et mesures générales), la Cour d’appel s’est aussi référée au fait qu’en vertu du droit interne le réexamen d’une affaire suite à un constat de violation par la Cour européenne n’est prévu que dans le cadre des procédures pénales et qu’il ne s’applique pas aux procédures civiles. En outre, la Cour d’appel a noté que les décisions rendues dans le cadre d’une procédure non contentieuse, comme la présente espèce, portant reconnaissance d’un droit ou d’une relation juridique deviennent définitives et revêtent l’autorité de la chose jugée en l’absence de faits nouveaux ou d’un changement de circonstances. 2) Affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres : a) Violation de l’article 11 : Sur la base du constat de violation de la Cour européenne concernant la dissolution, les requérants ont introduit deux recours distincts qui sont actuellement pendants : le premier devant le tribunal de grande instance de Xanthi, afin de révoquer la précédente décision (n° 36/1986) de ce même tribunal ayant décidé la dissolution de l’association et le second devant la Cour d’appel de Thrace afin de révoquer la précédente décision (n° 31/2002) de cette Cour qui avait confirmé la décision n° 36/1986. Concernant le premier recours, le tribunal de grande instance de Xanthi (décision n° 12/2009, publiée le 30/04/2009) a rejeté la demande sur le fondement de l’autorité de la chose jugée. La décision fait notamment référence à l’article 525§5 du code de procédure pénale précité. Les requérants ont interjeté appel le 27/05/2009 devant la Cour d’appel de Thrace. L’audience avait été fixée au 23/10/2009. En vertu de la lettre envoyée par « la Fédération européenne des Turcs de Thrace occidentale » [« ABTTF » ; voir DD(2009)609)] datée du 12/11/2009 le premier recours devant la Cour d’appel de Thrace a été reporté au 08/10/2010 sur demande du préfet de Xanthi qui souhaitait disposer de plus de temps pour sa préparation. Dans leur lettre datée du 23/11/2009 [DD(2009)609], les autorités grecques ont confirmé les informations de « l’ABTTF » s’agissant du premier recours. Le report de l’audience a été demandé par le Préfet de Xanthi et par la Fédération grecque des associations de Thrace, demande à laquelle l’avocat des requérants a consenti. La déclaration de ce dernier a été annexée aux actes de l’audience. Concernant le second recours, l’audience devant la Cour d’appel de Thrace avait été fixée au 03/04/2009. Le recours a été rejeté par une décision publiée le 18/08/2009 sur des motifs similaires à ceux invoqués dans la décision de la Cour d’appel de Thrace dans le cadre de l’affaire Bekir-Ousta et autres. Dans la présente espèce, la Cour d’appel a noté que la possibilité, en vertu de l’article 758§1 du code de procédure civile, de révocation ou de révision d’un arrêt interne définitif dans le cadre d’une procédure non-contentieuse sur la base de faits nouveaux ou d’un changement des circonstances, en vertu desquelles cet arrêt avait été rendu, ne couvre pas l’hypothèse d’un arrêt de la Cour européenne. 3) Affaire Emin et autres : Sur la base de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne, les requérants ont déposé une nouvelle demande d’enregistrement devant les tribunaux nationaux. Une audience a eu lieu le 08/04/2009 devant le tribunal de première instance de Rodopi. Selon la lettre envoyée par « l’ABTTF » [DD(2009)609)] datée du 12/11/2009 le tribunal de première instance de Rodopi, par décision rendue le 26/06/2009, a rejeté la demande des requérants au motif qu’elle était introduite par un avocat qui n’appartenait pas au Barreau de Rodopi. Les autorités grecques [lettre datée du 23/11/2009, DD(2009)609] ont confirmé que le recours a été rejeté comme étant irrecevable. En vertu du code de procédure civile et du code des avocats, les recours introduits devant les juridictions civiles doivent être signés par un avocat appartenant au Barreau du ressort géographique dudit tribunal. Dans le cas contraire, l’avocat doit signer le recours conjointement avec un collègue du Barreau du ressort géographique dudit tribunal. Puisque dans le cas d’espèce, le recours était uniquement signé par l’avocat des requérants qui relève du Barreau de Xanthi, la demande des requérants a été rejetée. Le 03/08/2009, les requérants ont déposé une nouvelle demande; l’audience est fixée au 13/01/2010 (date confirmée aussi par le représentant des requérants, voir DD(2009)572). En vertu d’une lettre envoyée par le représentant des requérants en date du 19/03/2010, ce recours a été rejeté par la décision n° 44/210 du tribunal de première instance de Rodopi, pour des raisons similaires à celles dans les affaires Bekir-Ousta et autres et Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres. • Des informations sont attendues : -sur les développements des procédures internes dans ces trois affaires ; - sur le raisonnement suivi par les juridictions internes dans le cadre d’une procédure non-contentieuse, refusant la nouvelle demande d’enregistrement (affaire Bekir-Ousta et autres) et la révocation de la précédente décision de dissolution (affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres) ; - sur le rôle du préfet dans le cadre de la procédure dans l’affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres. Mesures de caractère général : 1) Violation de l’article 6§1 (affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres): La question de la durée des procédures civiles est examinée dans le cadre du groupe Manios (70626/01, 1100e réunion, décembre 2010). 2) Violations de l’article 11: Les trois arrêts ont été traduits et publiés sur le site Internet du Conseil juridique de l’Etat (www.nsk.gr). De plus, le Ministère de la Justice a envoyé au Président de la Cour de cassation une lettre accompagnant la traduction des arrêts en soulignant les principales conclusions de la Cour ainsi que l’obligation pour l’Etat en vertu de l’article 46 de la Convention de se conformer aux arrêts de la Cour. Dans cette lettre, la diffusion de l’arrêt aux autorités judiciaires concernées a également été demandée. L’arrêt dans l’affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis et autres a également été envoyé aux Préfectures de la région (Drama, Kavala et Xanthi). Selon les informations communiquées notamment par « l’ABTTF »  [DD(2009)609], une nouvelle association dénomée « Association de l’éducation et de la culture de la minorité de Thrace occidentale d’Evros du Sud) s’est vue refuser son enregistrement le 28/03/2009 par le tribunal de première instance de Alexandroupoli. Les autorités grecques ont transmis un arrêt du tribunal de première instance de Rodopi, en date du 23/04/2009, acceptant la demande d’enregistrement d’une association dénomée « Association minoritaire à but culturel, éducatif et sportif de la région d’Alonotopos à Komotini ». • Confirmation est attendue de la diffusion large des trois arrêts aux autorités judicaires concernées. Des informations sont également attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir des violations similaires, en particulier en ce qui concerne l’enregistrement des nouvelles associations fondées par des personnes appartenant à la minorité musulmane de Thrace occidentale et l’organisation d’activités de formation ciblée pour des juges en ce domaine. Les Délégués, 1.             prennent note des informations fournies par les autorités grecques selon lesquelles les demandes introduites par les requérants suite aux arrêts de la Cour n’ont pas, à ce stade, pu être examinées sur le fond, ayant été déclarées irrecevables pour les raisons procédurales suivantes : d’une part, parce que le droit interne ne prévoit pas, en matière civile, la réouverture d’une procédure suite à un constat de violation de la Cour européenne et, d’autre part, parce qu’il n’est pas possible de révoquer, suite à un arrêt de la Cour, une décision interne définitive dans le cadre d’une procédure non contentieuse ; 2.             notent cependant que ces procédures ne sont pas achevées : les décisions de la Cour d’appel de Thrace dans l’affaire Bekir-Ousta et dans l’affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis (concernant le recours en révocation de la précédente décision de dissolution n° 31/2002 de ladite Cour) sont susceptibles d’appel devant la Cour de cassation ; les décisions du tribunal de grande instance de Xanthi dans l’affaire Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis (concernant le recours en révocation de la précédente décision n° 36/1986 dudit tribunal) et la décision du tribunal de première instance de Rodopi dans l’affaire Emin sont pendantes devant la Cour d’appel de Thrace ; 3.             relèvent par ailleurs que, selon les informations fournies par les autorités, les requérants ont également, conformément au droit interne, la possibilité d’introduire de nouvelles demandes d’enregistrement de leurs associations devant les juridictions internes compétentes ; 4.             relèvent avec intérêt les informations fournies par la délégation grecque concernant un certain nombre de décisions récentes accordant l’enregistrement à des associations portant dans leur titre l’adjectif « minoritaire » ou faisant valoir de quelque manière que ce soit une origine minoritaire (par exemple l’Association Panhellénique de Pomaks, décision 59/2009 du tribunal de Rodopi ; l’Association minoritaire culturelle de la municipalité de Iasmos Rodopis, décision 92/2008 du même tribunal) ; 5.             expriment leur satisfaction de ce que le Premier Ministre de la Grèce a souligné devant l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe, le 26 janvier 2010, que « toutes les décisions prises par le Conseil de l’Europe ou la Cour doivent être exécutées » ; saluent à cet égard l’engagement ferme des autorités grecques de mettre en œuvre de manière pleine et entière les arrêts en question et ce sans exclure aucune voie pour ce faire ; encouragent les autorités à poursuivre leur coopération avec le Secrétariat notamment dans le cadre des consultations bilatérales ; 6.             décident de reprendre l'examen de ces affaires lors de leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH).

60457/00          Kosmopoulou, judgment of 05/02/04, final on 05/05/04

The case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to her family life in the context of proceedings concerning her visiting rights in respect of her daughter, a minor (born in January 1988) custody of whom had been granted to the father after the applicant left the matrimonial home. Proceedings began in May 1997 and ended in March 2002.

In particular, the European Court noted that the domestic courts had provisionally suspended the applicant's visiting rights without hearing representations from her, at a time when it was particularly important for the mother to establish regular contact with her daughter who was nine years old at the time. It also noted that the public prosecutor did not act in accordance with a psychiatric report which stressed the need for the child to have contacts with the applicant. This report was provided to the applicant by the authorities three and a half years late while another psychiatric report used in the proceedings was based on examinations of the child and the father but not of the mother (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The child has attained the age of majority. It is also noted that she has lived with her father since she was eight, when the applicant left the matrimonial home. She has several times refused to see her mother, who ill-treated her once.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Greek authorities (letter of 22/12/2005):

(a) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) regarding interim measures (Article 682 et seq.) require that the adverse party concerned by such measures is summonsed. This is a legal obligation, exceptions to which are allowed only in absolutely exceptional cases of imminent danger for the applicant (Article 687);

(b) According to Article 691§2 CCP, a provisional order lays down the measures necessary to preserve the applicant's rights until the delivery of a judicial decision regarding the interim measure requested. The new paragraph 4, added to Article 691 by Law 3327/2005 (in force as from 16/09/2005), provides that if no hearing is fixed within 30 days from the filing of a request for an interim order, the provisional order expires. In labour cases in particular, the parties must be summonsed, at the latest 24 hours before the hearing, to submit their arguments. Thus, the judge may have a global opinion on the parties' arguments before delivering a provisional order;

(c) New draft legislation provides similar measures in cases of provisional orders concerning parents' visiting rights.

• More information on the progress of this draft legislation is awaited as well as a copy of the text and an indicative timetable for its adoption.

(d) Finally, the judgment of the European Court has been forwarded to the competent judicial authorities and translated and published at the site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr).

The Greek authorities have assured the Committee that the practice of all judicial authorities is now in full conformity with the European Court's judgment in this case, which was moreover exceptional.

- 139 cases against Hungary / 139 affaires contre la Hongrie

5529/05            Patyi, judgment of 07/10/2008, final on 07/01/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly.

In 2004, the authorities on several occasions banned demonstrations notified by the applicant in compliance with the national law, citing traffic and security reasons. The applicant planned to organise peaceful demonstrations with twenty participants, whose only action would have been to stand silently in line on the pavement in front of the Prime Minister’s private residence in Budapest.

The European Court noted that it appeared unlikely that a limited number of demonstrators would have needed more space at the scene than the five-metre-wide pedestrian area, or that they would have significantly impeded the traffic, especially on Christmas Eve, when the town buses ceased to run soon after 4 p.m. (§42). The ban was thus neither relevant nor sufficient to meet any pressing social need nor it has been necessary in a democratic society (§44) (violation of Article 11).

Individual measures: The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicant may have suffered (§53).

• Assessment: In these circumstances no further measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities (06/07/2009 and 09/10/2009): The debate in respect of the amendments to Act No. 3 of 1989 concerning the right of assembly is still going on. However, the European Court’s judgment has been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement (www.irm.gov.hu). 

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new,similar violations. It appears at the outset that the wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment, in particular to the authorities concerned, would be useful.

44378/05           Daróczy, judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/10/2008

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life in that in 2005 she was forced to alter her name, Tiborné Daróczy, which she had used for more than 50 years and which, beyond its relevance in self-identification and self-determination, also gave her a strong personal link to her late husband (violation of Article 8).

The European Court held that the authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the need to preserve the authenticity of the state registration system and the applicant’s right to her private life (§34).

Individual measures: The European Court found that the government should take steps to rectify the applicant’s personal situation and recognise in some official manner that she may retain her longstanding name of Tiborné Daróczy (§40). 

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities (19/01/2009): The applicant’s situation can only be remedied after a change in the law (see general measures below).

• Information is awaited in this respect.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities (19/01/2009): The government has submitted before the National Assembly Bill No. T 6644 to amend the Registry Act.

• Information is awaited on the contents of this draft law as well as its adoption.

44399/05           Weller, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

The case concerns discrimination against the applicants, a father and his twin sons, in that in 2005 they were refused maternity benefits on the ground that the children’s mother was not a Hungarian national and that natural fathers were generally excluded from such benefits (violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8). The applicants complained to the Constitutional Court in this respect; proceedings have been pending since 2006.

The European Court found that the first applicant had been the object of discrimination based on his parental status given the absence of any objective or reasonable ground to justify the general exclusion of natural fathers from a benefit aimed at supporting all those who were raising newborn children, when mothers, adoptive parents and guardians were entitled to it (§35).

The European Court also found that the twins had been objects of discrimination, given the absence of any reasonable justification for legal provisions according to which maternity benefits are allowed to families with children of a Hungarian mother and a foreign father but not to families with a Hungarian father and a foreign mother (§37). It noted that as from 01/01/2008 onwards all EU citizens residing in Hungary for more than three months are entitled to a maternity allowance under the same conditions as Hungarian citizens (§§19, 38).

                        - 136 cases of length of judicial proceedings[22]

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Tímár group)

A. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings began in these cases between 1986 and 2003 and most ended between 2000 and 2005 (violations of Article 6§1).

The Kovács (No. 23435/03) and Pátková cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 13).

The European Court noted in several cases that special diligence was required in certain disputes, such as those concerning employment, civil status, child custody or matrimonial issues and compensation in respect of an illness resulting in disability or injuries sustained in an accident.

The European Court noted in the Timár judgment that the excessive length of civil proceedings originated in the inconsistency between the approaches of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court as regards whether a Supreme Court review was available in cases concerning the examination of criminal restitution claims in civil review proceedings. In other judgments, the Court noted that the violations resulted from

            (i) inactivity of the domestic courts, including the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court;

            (ii) inefficient use of their time during the proceedings;

            (iii) difficulties in applying foreign laws; and

            (iv) difficulties in obtaining expert opinions.

Individual measures: When the European Court rendered its judgments, proceedings were pending in the following cases:

Barna, Bíró, Csabainé Győri, Czmarkó, Earl, Fodor, Hidvégi, Immobilia Bau Kft, Kalmár, Karalyos and Huber, Kastner, Keszthelyi, Kiss, Kovač, Kovács (No. 23435/03), Kreisz, Lévai and Nagy, Lovász, Magyar (No. 2), Mezey, Militaru, Molnár, Nyírő and Takács, Pepszolg Kft (V.A.), Sándor, Szebellédi, Szilágyi, Sztergár, Tardi and others, Temesvári,  Tóth, Várnai, Vass and Zaveczky.

Proceedings have been closed in the following cases:

Barna (15/01/2007), Earl (01/07/2009), Kalmár (17/05/2007) Karalyos and Huber (26/10/2006), Kiss (26/02/2004), Magyar (No. 2) (11/07/2007), Sándor (24/03/2009), Szilágyi (19/11/2008),Tóth (27/02/2008) and Vass (07/11/2007), Oravecz (16/02/205), Jánosi (24/05/2005), Székely (21/03/2006), Wolfgéher and Turula (13/04/2005), Mária Menyhárt (12/05/2005) and Karaván city bt (26/01/2005).

In addition, review proceedings have been instituted by the applicants before the Supreme Court in the Szilágyi and Szebellédi cases. In the Czmarkó case, civil proceedings against an airline are pending on appeal before Pest County Regional Court. The applicant’s claim in the civil proceedings against a Belarusian official has been dismissed.

The applicant appealed against this decision, but service on the foreign respondent was unsuccessful. Proceedings have been also pending on appeal in the Mezey and Kalmar and Lorencz cases. In the Temesvári and Tardi case, the proceedings have been suspended due to the death of one of the parties. Hearings have been scheduled in the Kovács (No. 23435/03) and Várnai cases.

• Additional information is awaited on the state of all pending proceedings and on their acceleration. Information is awaited in particular concerning pending proceedings in the following cases:

Bíró, Csabainé Győri, Czmarkó, Fodor, Hidvégi, Immobilia Bau Kft, Kastner, Keszthelyi, Kovač, Kovács (No. 23435/03), Kreisz, Lévai and Nagy, Lovász, Mezey, Militaru, Molnár, Nyírő and Takács, Pepszolg Kft (V.A.), Szebellédi, Sztergár, Tardi and others, Temesvári,  Várnai and Zaveczky.

General measures: Some 160 applications are currently pending before the European Court against Hungary concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings.

1) Excessive length of civil proceedings:

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities:

Reform of the Hungarian legal system: The workload of the Supreme Court has been considerably reduced following a reform of the legal system in Hungary in 2002 which transferred appeal competence to the five Courts of Appeal created in 2003 and 2004. Before the end of 2003 the Courts of Appeal adopted final decisions in two thirds of the 5 443 cases which were transferred to them by the Supreme Court. Thus, at the end of 2003, the Supreme Court's roll of civil and criminal cases on appeal had been reduced to 1 180 cases, that is to say 16% of its workload before the reform.

Legislative measures: To reduce the length of judicial proceedings, several amendments of the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure were adopted after the changes of 1989 with the aim of accelerating civil proceedings and modernising the system of legal remedies. Stricter time-limits were provided for the stay of proceedings and the drafting and notification of judgments. The possibilities of appeal against first-instance decisions in cases concerning small amounts were limited by an amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure which came into force in 1998: appeal proceedings in such cases were simplified. Moreover, the conditions of revision of judgments before the Supreme Court were modernised in 2002 in order to restrict the use of this extraordinary means and to reduce the length of this kind of proceedings.

Administrative supervision: According to the Act of 1997 on the Organisation of Courts, the Office of the National Judicial Council and the presidents of courts are in charge of administrative supervision of the examination of cases and may order that certain civil or criminal cases are examined in priority. Moreover, the Office of the National Judicial Council has regularly requested from courts information on cases pending for more than two years and the respect of legal time-limits. Finally, in 1999 administrators were appointed to courts to ensure better case-management.

Measures concerning experts:  Concerning the difficulties in obtaining expert opinions, the authorities stressed that if an expert fails to submit his opinion within the prescribed time-limit without just cause, the court has at its disposal a number of procedural possibilities to ensure the speedy termination of the proceedings, such as appointing another expert, obliging the expert in default to reimburse the expenses or fining him or her. The court may also order the recall of any expert who failed to appear or left a hearing without permission. Moreover, the 2008 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, which entered into force on 01/01/2009, provide that a court expert responsible for unjustified delay must reimburse costs caused by him, while the court may fine him and reduce his remuneration by 1% for each day of unjustified delay.

Statistics: Statistics have been provided for the year 2006: less than 1% of the cases before the Supreme Court have been pending more than 12 months. At the appeal level, 2% of civil cases and 1.2% of commercial cases have been pending at that level for more than 12 months. However, at first instance, the statistics show a higher percentage of cases pending for over 12 months.

Statistics have also been provided on the total number of court cases for the year 2008. However, no statistics have been provided on the average length of proceedings.

• Assessment: A number of measures have been taken by the Hungarian government to reduce the length of proceedings. However, it appears that despite the measures taken, the statistics show a higher percentage of cases pending before first-instance courts for more than 12 months. Beyond such discouraging statistics, there is an alarmingly large number of pending applications, implying that the measures taken so far have been ineffective. Finally, no information is available on measures taken to ensure special diligence in certain cases and to eradicate the causes of violations identified by the European Court, except for the issues concerning the belated expert reports.

• Information is awaited as follows:

- Further statistical data regarding pending cases, in particular in respect of local, first-instance courts and country courts, in 2008 and 2009 so as to evaluate the efficacy of the measures adopted so far. In particular, information would be helpful on the average length of proceedings in the indicated period.  

- Measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the domestic courts proceed with  special diligence in certain cases, particularly those  concerning employment, civil status, child custody or matrimonial issues and compensation in respect of illness resulting in disability or injuries sustained in an accident.

- Measures taken or envisaged to eradicate the causes of excessive length of civil proceedings identified by the European Court (see reference to the Court’s observations in the Timár judgment, summarised in the introductory summary above).

2) Effective remedy: As of 1/04/2006, sections 114/A and 114/B of the Code of Civil Procedure have provided a first-instance remedy and appeal for complaints about the undue length of civil proceedings. The courts dealing with such complaints, if well-founded, are expected to order measures to facilitate the progress of the litigation at issue (§8 in Pátková) (see details below).

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities:

Legislative measures: Act XIX of 2006, a law allowing parties to ask for acceleration of pending proceedings, amended the Codes of both Civil and Criminal Procedure. Parties to civil proceedings may complain where:

(i)         a time-limit prescribed by law by which a court must end proceedings, perform a procedural act or take a decision has elapsed without result;

(ii)         a time-limit set by a court itself, by which a party to proceedings must perform a procedural act has elapsed without result, and the court has failed to impose on that person the measures permitted by law; or where

(iii)        a court fails to end the proceedings within a reasonable length of time by failing to perform or order the performance of a procedural act, counting from the last action taken by the court on the merits of the case.

A written complaint is filed with the court before which proceedings are pending, which must examine it within 8 days. If it finds the complaint well-founded, it has 30 days to take or order appropriate measures to put an end to the situation complained of.  The court shall inform the complainant of how the complaint has been determined.

If the court finds the complaint ill-founded, it shall forward the file within 16 days, together with the observations of the opposing party and its own reasons as to why it was impossible to perform the procedural act or take a decision, to the court empowered to determine the complaint, the superior court. The superior court has 15 days upon receipt of the files to determine the complaint. If the superior court finds the complaint ill-founded, it shall dismiss the complaint in a reasoned decision. If it finds the complaint well-founded, it shall set a time-limit and invite the court before which proceedings are pending to take the action required for the proper progress of the case or the most effective action. If the complaint concerns an omission by the lower court to perform an act within a time-limit prescribed by law, the superior court may instruct that court to do so.

Statistics: In 2008 a total of 108 complaints were filed against excessive length in civil proceedings and 14 commercial proceedings. In January-June 2009, a total of 42 such complaints were lodged in respect of all types of proceedings before county courts, 25 complaints before regional courts and 6 complaints before the Supreme Court. Most of them: 34, 17 and 6 respectively, referred to the excessive length of civil proceedings.

• Assessment: The remedy introduced appears to provide several acceleratory remedies in lengthy proceedings. The statistics concerning the number of complaints lodged in 2008 and 2009 show that the excessive length of proceedings still persists in Hungary.  However, no assessment is possible at this point as to whether or not the remedy in question is efficiently applied in practice. On the other hand, the European Court has frequently noted that an acceleratory remedy offers advantages over a remedy affording only compensation. It acknowledged on a number of occasions that this type of remedy is “effective” insofar as it hastens the decisions by the court before which the lengthy proceedings are pending.

However, the European Court has also observed that it is clear that for countries where length-of-proceedings violations already exist a remedy designed to expedite the proceedings – although desirable for the future – may not be adequate to redress a situation in which the proceedings have clearly already been excessively long (see e.g. the Grand Chamber judgment in Scordino against Italy (No. 1) (application No. 36813/97), §§183-185). In this context, the authorities’ attention is also drawn to the measures taken in Lukenda group of cases (Section 4.2)

• Information is awaited as follows:

- How the remedy introduced to accelerate proceedings is applied in practice (e.g. statistics, examples showing that the remedy is used and the pending proceedings are shortened if it is used).  Information would be also appreciated as to whether the Hungarian authorities might also envisage introducing compensatory remedies.

- How the remedy introduced has been used to accelerate proceedings in cases in which, following a judgment of the European Court, domestic proceedings have been pending since 2006 when the remedy became available (see above under Individual measures) or in which proceedings have been ended since the introduction of the new remedy, such as those in the cases of Koronczai and Sassné Sári.

B. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings in these cases began as early as in 1988 and most of them were closed between 2003 and 2007 (violations of Article 6§1).

The Kalmár and Lorencz case also concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings.

The European Court noted in the Csanádi judgment that the excessive length of criminal proceedings originated in the inactivity of domestic courts and their failure to use their time effectively to accelerate proceedings anc conclude cases as quickly as possible (§35).

Individual measures: In the cases of Csanádi, Nagy and Kalmár and Lorencz, proceedings were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgments.

• Information provided by the Hungarian authorities: In the Csanádi case, the proceedings were closed on 05/05/2008 before the Veszprém County Regional Court. In the Nagy case, proceedings were closed on 22/08/2005 before the Budapest Regional Court.

• Assessment: No further measure appears necessary in the Csanádi and Nagy cases. However, no information has been provided on the status of the domestic proceedings in the Kalmár and Lorencz.

• Information is awaited on the state of the domestic proceedings in the Kalmár and Lorencz case (§§7 and 10) and on their acceleration, if still pending.

General measures: 

1) Background information: The European Court first found a violation on grounds of excessive length of criminal proceedings against Hungary in the Németh case (see Resolution ResDH(2006)48) in the context of which the Hungarian authorities informed the Committee that the violation found did not in itself indicate structural shortcomings in Hungary's administration of justice concerning the length of criminal proceedings. Thus the publication and dissemination of the judgment to the National Judicial Council were considered sufficient measures to prevent similar violations. It may be noted that there are around 40 cases currently pending before the European Court in respect of Hungary regarding excessive length of criminal proceedings.

2) Excessive length of criminal proceedings: The information provided on measures taken in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings is also relevant to the present cases.

• Information is however awaited on the specific measures taken or envisaged to reduce the excessive length of criminal proceedings in Hungary, in particular in order to reduce considerable periods of inactivity of domestic courts in criminal proceedings and to ensure that the domestic courts use their time efficiently to accelerate proceedings.

•Publication and dissemination: The European Court's judgments concerning excessive length of both civil and criminal proceedings have been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement (www.irm.gov.hu) and sent to the Office of the National Judicial Council for dissemination to the courts. The judgments in the cases of Tímár, Simkó and Lévai and Nagy were also published in the human rights quarterly Acta Humana.

- 1 case against Ireland / 1 affaire contre l’Irlande

39474/98           D.G., judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

The concerns the fact that the applicant, a minor suffering from severe personality disorders and consequently a risk to himself and to others, was placed from 27/06 to 28/07/1997, because of a lack of appropriate institutional facilities, in a penal institution ill-suited to fulfilling his constitutional rights (violation of Article 5§1). The applicant needed a secure unit where he could be detained and looked after, and no such unit existed in Ireland at the time.

It also relates to the fact that he was unable to obtain compensation in respect of this detention, since it was imposed in conformity with national law (violation of Article 5§5).

Individual measures: None: the applicant is no longer placed in a penal institution. Moreover, he has meanwhile reached the age of majority. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 5§1:

a) Increase in special residential places for non-offending children: Since the mid 1990s health boards and, subsequently, the Health Service Executive (established on 1/01/2005 under the 2004 Health Act) have put in place a programme of high support and special care unit development to address the needs of a small number of disturbed non-offending children in need of special care or protection. The High Support Units operate as open units (i.e. children are not detained). The children in Special Care Units are detained by order of the High Court as a measure of last resort and for as short a period of time as possible. The Irish authorities have stated that the number of all categories of special residential places for non-offending children in need of special care and protection increased from 17 in 1997 to a total of over 120 places in 2003, with over two-thirds of those places being in the high support category.

Finally, today there are three designated special care units with a total capacity of 22 special care places. In 2008, the overall average occupancy of those 22 special care places per month was 14.5 young people. Those figures demonstrate that there was an excess of available places in relation to those needed. The national authorities indicated that should the demand increase, the number of places could be assessed.

b) The Children Act 2001: This Act provides the statutory scheme for non-offending children in need of special care or protection. It enables the court to order a special care placement. It amends the Child Care Act 1991 and in Part 3 imposes statutory duties on health boards in relation to children in need of special care or protection. Part 2 of the Act establishes the Family Welfare Conference on a statutory basis. Part 11 establishes the statutorily based Special Residential Services Board to coordinate special residential services. The Act was fully implemented in 2007.

• Assessment: In the light of the statutory scheme for non-offending children in need of special care or protection and the excess of available special care places for such children in relation to those needed, it appears that no further measures are needed with respect to the violation of Article 5§1.

2) Violation of Article 5§5: Section 2, sub-section 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, which entered into force on 31/12/2003, provides that “in interpreting and applying any statutory provision or rule of law, a court shall, in so far as possible, subject to the rules of law relating to such interpretation and application, do so in a manner compatible with the State’s obligations under the Convention provisions.” The government has indicated that it is expected that this provision will lead the Irish courts to interpret the Constitution in the light of Article 5 of the Convention and of the European Court’s judgment in the present case. Compensation is available for violations of constitutional rights.

The government has also indicated that anyone who suffers damage as a result of the acts of state institutions which are incompatible with the Convention (but in conformity with national law) may seek compensation under Section 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. According to this provision, following a “declaration of incompatibility” made by the High Court or the Supreme Court, the injured party may apply to the government, through the Attorney General, for an ex gratia compensation payment in respect of any loss, injury or damage suffered as a result of the incompatibility.

• Bilateral contacts are under way on general measures with respect to the violation of Article 5§5.

3) Publication and dissemination:The European Court's judgment has been published in the European Human Rights Reports at (1998) 25 EHRR 33.

- 2 cases against Iceland / 2 affaires contre l’Islande

39731/98          Sigurđsson, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

The case concerns the lack of objective impartiality of the Supreme Court of Iceland which rejected, in 1997, the applicant's appeal in compensation proceedings he had brought against the National Bank of Iceland, while one of the Supreme Court’s judges, and her husband, were closely linked to the National Bank (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant lodged two petitions with the Supreme Court requesting the reopening of the proceedings. These petitions were rejected in July and October 1997.

Individual measures: Under Article 169 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, re-opening of proceedings can be applied for only once. Before the European Court handed down its judgment, the applicant had already applied twice before the Supreme Court of Iceland for re-opening of the proceedings in his case: the second application was rejected because, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the civil procedure law, a party could apply only once for the reopening of a case.

Consequently, it seems that even if Icelandic law in principle does not appear to exclude the possibility of reopening the proceedings at issue in order to give effect to the judgments of the European Court (Article 169 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure), a potential new request for reopening by the applicant has no chances of success. The individual measures are therefore linked to the general measures as reopening of the proceedings seems the most appropriate means to allow the applicant to have his case decided without lack of objective impartiality (see below).

General measures:

            1) Measures to guarantee the impartiality of Supreme Court judges: The judgment of the European Court has been translated and sent out to the Icelandic judicial authorities and the Icelandic version has been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.dkm.is).

• Assessment: Taking into account the direct effect given to the Convention and to case-law of the European Court by Icelandic Courts, these measures are sufficient for execution (examples of this direct effect have been provided in the framework of the case Arnarsson against Iceland, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003, Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)82).

            2) Reopening of the proceedings: A review of the procedural obstacles to reopening the impugned proceedings could be useful. The Icelandic delegation informed the Secretariat on 23/09/2005 that the Ministry of Justice has asked the Permanent Committee on Procedural Law to give its opinion on whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning the reopening of proceedings following a judgment of the Supreme Court should be revised,

• Information is still awaited on the follow-up given to the request of the Ministry of Justice as well as on possible legislative changes and their timetable for adoption.

42628/04           Westlund Súsanna Rós, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 07/07/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial because of the unjustified lack of an oral hearing in civil proceedings brought by the applicant before the Supreme Court of Iceland (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that the applicable legislation conferred upon one of the parties – the defendant – the de facto possibility to decide unilaterally whether or not the Supreme Court should hold an oral hearing. The Court concluded that the absence of a hearing in the applicant’s case was a direct consequence of the application of the Code of Civil Procedure which contained an apparent discrepancy between the national standards and the Convention’s requirements as regards the right to a fair trial.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages, and costs and expenses. The applicant has applied for the reopening of proceedings. The request is under consideration by the Supreme Court (26/02/2010).

• Information is awaited on the proceedings subsequent to the applicant's request.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Icelandic authorities (26/02/2010): The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has requested the Permanent Committee on Procedural Law to take into consideration Article 158 of the Code of Civil Procedure, No 91/1991, concerning oral hearings in civil proceedings brought before the Supreme Court of Iceland, in the upcoming general revision of the Code. In the letter, reference was made to the Westlund Súsanna Rós judgment of the European Court.

The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (<http://eng.domsmalaraduneyti.is>), thus ensuring its dissemination to practicing lawyers and other interested persons. It has also been published in a periodical on the case-law of the European Court.

• Information is awaited on action taken following the request of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights as well as on possible legislative changes.

- 2385 cases against Italy / 2385 affaires contre l’Italie

- 10 cases concerning the danger that the applicants might be subject to torture or to degrading or inhuman treatment in their country of origin (Tunisia) if deportation orders against them were to be enforced

37201/06           Saadi, judgment of 28/02/2008 – Grand Chamber

2638/07            Abdelhedi, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

38128/06           Ben Salah, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

46792/06           Bouyahia, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

44006/06           C.B.Z., judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

11549/05           Darraji, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

16201/07           Hamraoui, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

37257/06           O., judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

37336/06           Soltana, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

12584/08           Sellem, judgment of 05/05/2009, final on 06/11/2009

These cases concern the risk that the applicants might be subject to torture or to degrading or inhuman treatment (Article 3) in their country of origin, Tunisia, if deportation orders against them were to be enforced.

The European Court observed that the danger of terrorism and the difficulties states face in protecting their communities from terrorist violence should not call into question the absolute nature of Article 3. The Court reaffirmed that for a forcible expulsion to be in breach of the Convention it was necessary – and sufficient – for substantial grounds to be shown for believing that there was a risk that the applicants would be subject to ill-treatment in the receiving country. It considered that in the present cases, on the basis of the evidence received, and not rebutted by any of the evidence provided by the Italian government, there were substantial grounds to believe the risk was real. This conclusion was not challenged by the diplomatic assurances provided by the Tunisian government.

Individual measures: The European Court considered that the finding of the violation constituted just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages suffered by the applicants.

            1) Saadi: The applicant was lawfully resident in Italy from December 2001 to October 2002 and placed in pre-trial detention as from 09/10/2002 on suspicion among other things of international terrorism. On 09/05/2005, the Milan Assize Court found him guilty of criminal conspiracy (the previous offence of international terrorism having been thus reclassified because of the lack of evidence), of forgery and receiving, and sentenced him to 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment. The Assize Court ordered that after serving his sentence, the applicant was to be expelled from Italy. The applicant having being released on 6/08/2006, the Minister of Interior ordered his deportation to Tunisia (8/08/2006) under the provisions of Law No. 155 of 31/07/ 2005 on “urgent measures to combat international terrorism” and placed him in a temporary holding centre. On 3/11/2006 he was released. Meanwhile (May 2005) a military court in Tunis convicted the applicant of membership of a terrorist organisation acting abroad in peacetime and of incitement to terrorism and sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment.

On 07/02/2008 the Milan Assize Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to 8 years and 10 months' imprisonment, banning him from exercising public office for life and confirming the other aspects of the first- instance decision.

• Information provided by the Italian authorities (18/11/2009 and 01/03/2010): The applicant is currently serving his prison sentence (until 27/04/2012) on the basis of the judgment of the Milan Assize Court of Appeal of 07/02/2008 (see above). According to the Italian authorities, currently no expulsion order has been issued against the applicant and there is no potential risk of his being expelled. 

• Information is awaited as to whether the expulsion order of the Milan Assize Court (confirmed by the Milan Assize Court of Appeal) following the prison sentence of 09/05/2005, is still in force or has been lifted or replaced by another security measure.

            2) Abdelhedi: The applicant had resided in Italy since 1989 and in 2002 the Prefecture (Questura) of Varese granted him an open-ended residence permit. In 2003 he was arrested on suspicion of belonging to a criminal association linked to foreign terrorist groups and suspected of  arms trafficking, handling stolen goods, the falsification of documents and aiding illicit immigration. On 03/12/2004 the Milan Court sentenced him to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment and ordered that after serving his sentence, the applicant was to be expelled from Italy. On 29/09/2005 the Court of Appeal of Milan reduced the sentence to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, otherwise confirming the first-instance judgment. On 30/03/2006 the Principal State Prosecutor of Milan ordered the deferment of the remaining prison sentence (1 year, 3 months and 17 days) and the applicant filed before the Execution Court of Milan a request for probationary assignment to the social services (affidamento in prova al servizio sociale).

Pending the proceedings before the Execution Court of Milan, Law No. 241 of 31/07/2006 establishing the conditions for general remissions of sentences (indulto) entered into force: pursuant to that law, the remaining prison sentence that the applicant had to undergo was entirely remitted. According the information given to the European Court by the applicant on 28/03/2007, on that date the Execution Court of Milan was waiting to receive a formal decision on the remission of his remaining prison sentence. On 23/05/2007 the Prefecture of Varese revoked the applicant’s residence permit.

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant, as well as on measures taken with regard to him.

            3) Ben Salah: The applicant lawfully entered Italy in 2003. In February 2006 he was arrested with seventeen others in a police operation concerning a terrorist association. On 11/04/2006 the preliminary investigation judge of Bologna rejected the request to remand the applicant in custody as it had not been established that he belonged to an association with terrorist aims. This decision was upheld by the Court of Bologna. On 01/09/2006 the Minister of Foreign Affairs, pursuant to Law No. 155 of 2005 on “urgent measures to combat international terrorism”, ordered the expulsion of the applicant to Tunisia, on the grounds that it appeared from his dossier that he played a significant role in (Islamic terrorist) associations having subversive aims. On 11/09/2006 the Prefect (Questore) of Bologna revoked the applicant’s residence permit. On 12/09/2006 the applicant was put in a temporary holding centre in Rome and on 15/09/2006 the Rome justice of the peace of confirmed the expulsion order.   

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant, as well as on measures taken with regard to him.

4) Bouyahia: The applicant resided in Milan. On 28/11/2003 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of international terrorism. On 24/01/2005 the Milan preliminary hearing judge (GUP) dismissed the charge of international terrorism and sentenced him to 3 years for forgery of documents. The decision was upheld on 28/11/2005 by the Assize Court of Appeal. Subsequently, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and referred it back to the Court of Appeal. On 30/08/2006 the applicant was freed and on 09/11/2006 the Prefect of Milan ordered his expulsion to Tunisia: the expulsion order was confirmed by the justice of the peace on 11/11/2006 and the applicant was transferred to a temporary holding centre in Milan for a certain period of time. Subsequently, the procedure to grant him the refugee status was initiated: according to the information provided by the government, on 17/05/2007 this procedure was still pending and in any case the applicant’s residence permit was valid until 04/08/2007. In the meantime, the applicant was sentenced in absentia by the Military Court of Tunis to 8 years imprisonment.

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant (i.e. status of the proceedings before the Assize Court of Appeal following the referral of the Court of Cassation; status of the procedure to grant the applicant the refugee status), as well as on other measures taken with regard to him.

• Just satisfaction: opinions diverge as to the formalities needed to authorise the applicant and his counsel to receive payment. The Italian authorities have recently indicated (04/01/2010) that the documents provided by the applicant's counsel are not in conformity with the requirements of Italian law. The Secretariat will offer its good offices to assist the parties in finding a solution.

• Bilateral contacts are under way as regards just satisfaction.

            5) C.B.Z.:  The applicant had been lawfully resident in Italy since 1994. He was accused of belonging to a fundamentalist terrorist group. On 11/04/2006 the preliminary investigations judge (GIP) of Bologna rejected a request to remand the applicant in custody in the absence of strong evidence of his guilt. This decision was upheld by the Court of Bologna on 27/06/2006.

On 01/09/2006 the Minister of Interior, pursuant to Law No. 155 of 2005 on “urgent measures to combat international terrorism”, ordered the expulsion of the applicant, on the grounds that it appeared from his dossier that he belonged to a complex Islamist network with terrorist intent. On 12/09/2006 the Prefect (“Questore”) of Bologna revoked the applicant’s residence permit he was put in a temporary holding centre in Milan. On 14/09/2006 the justice of the peace confirmed the expulsion order. On 14/11/2006 the applicant filed a request before the Regional Administrative Court of Latium to have the expulsion order deferred and declared null.

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant (i.e. status of the proceedings before the Regional Administrative Court of Latium), as well as other the measures taken with regard to him.

            6) Darraji: The applicant resided in Milan. He was accused of belonging to a criminal association linked to a fundamentalist Islamic group and of aiding illicit immigration. On 03/12/2004 the Milan Court sentenced him to 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment and ordered that after serving his sentence, he was to be expelled from Italy. The applicant appealed the decision. On 29/09/2005 the Court of Appeal of Milan, considering that there was no evidence that the criminal association to which the applicant belonged was linked to terrorist groups, reduced the criminal conviction to 3 years and 7 months (otherwise confirming the first-instance judgment). This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation.

On 12/01/2007 the applicant was taken to the Prefecture of Varese, apparently with view to the execution of the expulsion order contained in the judgment of the Court of Milan; he was then placed in a temporary holding centre. On 15/01/2007 the Milan justice of the peace confirmed the expulsion order. In the meantime, on 10/11/2006 the applicant applied for refugee status and the hearing before the competent commission was held on 01/02/2007.

The applicant was also sentenced in absentia by a Tunisian court to 10 years’ imprisonment for affiliation to a terrorist organisation.

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant (i.e. status of the procedure to grant him refugee status), as well as on other measures taken with regard to him.

            7) Hamraoui: The applicant resided in Brescia. On 01/04/2003 he was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of belonging to fundamentalist Islamic groups and of aiding illicit immigration. On 13/07/2005 the Brescia preliminary hearing judge (GUP) sentenced him to 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment in respect of the first charge and ordered that after serving his sentence, the applicant was to be expelled from Italy. On 16/11/2005 the preliminary investigations judge, at the applicant’s request, placed him under house arrest. In the meantime, the first-instance decision was confirmed by the Assize Court of Appeal of Brescia on 16/06/2006 and this judgment was confirmed by the Court of Cassation. On 15/03/2007 the applicant applied for refugee status: his request was rejected. The applicant was also the object of in absentia proceedings in Tunisia, for affiliation to a terrorist organisation.

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant, as well as on measures taken with regard to him.

• Just satisfaction (information provided by the Italian authorities on 02/02/2010 and 22/03/2010): ongoing contacts between the applicant (in prison) and the authorities as regards modalities of payment.

            8) O.: The applicant had resided in Italy since 1987. In 1997 he (and thirty-nine others) were subject to criminal investigations into the activity of an armed Islamic network. In a judgment of 21/11/2000, the preliminary investigations judge of the Court of Bologna discharged the applicant of belonging to a terrorist association. Subsequently, on 13/01/2003 the Court of Bologna also acquitted the applicant of belonging to a criminal association and of forgery of documents, and sentenced him to 6 months’ imprisonment for “arbitrary exercise of his rights with violence on other persons” (“esercizio arbitrario delle proprie ragioni con violenza alle persone”, Art. 393 of the Criminal Code). On 31/10/2005 the Prefect (“Questore”) of Bologna refused to renew the applicant’s residence and work permits which had expired on 13/08/2005. In February 2006 the applicant was arrested in the framework of a new investigation on terrorist groups. On 11/04/2006 the Bologna preliminary investigations judge rejected the request to remand the applicant in custody in the absence of any strong evidence of his being guilty of international terrorism. The decision of the preliminary investigations judge was upheld by the Court of Bologna on 27/06/2006. On 01/09/2006 the Minister of Interior, pursuant to Law no. 155 of 2005 on “urgent measures to combat international terrorism”, ordered the expulsion of the applicant to Tunisia, on the grounds that it appeared from his dossier that he played a significant role in an Islamist terrorist organisation. On 12/09/2006 he was put in a temporary holding centre in Rome. On 14/09/2006 the applicant applied for refugee status: his request was rejected on 21/09/2006. In the meantime, on 15/09/2006 the Rome justice of the peace confirmed the expulsion order.

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant, as well as on measures taken with regard to him.

            9) Soltana: The applicant had been lawfully resident in Italy since 1989. He was accused of belonging to a fundamentalist terrorist group. On 11/04/2006 the preliminary investigations judge (GIP) of Bologna rejected a request to remand the applicant in custody in the absence of any strong evidence of his guilt. This decision was upheld by the Court of Bologna on 27/06/2006, which stressed that the only strong evidence concerned instigation to commit crimes by the applicant in 2002 (therefore not requiring remand in custody). On 01/09/2006 the Minister of the Interior, pursuant to Law no. 155 of 2005 on “urgent measures to combat international terrorism”, ordered the expulsion of the applicant, on the grounds that it appeared from his dossier that he had been very active proselytising in support of members fundamentalist Islamic units present in Italy and abroad. On 12/09/2006 he was put in a temporary holding centre in Milan in order to execute the expulsion order, which was confirmed on 14/09/2006 by the Milan justice of the peace.

On the same date, the applicant applied for refugee status: his request was declared inadmissible by the Prefect (Questore) of Milan on 15/09/2006. Finally, the Tunisian Consulate in Italy refused to renew the applicant’s passport.

• Information provided by the Italian authorities (01/03/2010): The applicant is free. Currently no expulsion order has been issued against him and there is no potential risk of him being expelled.

•Assessment: in light of the above, no further individual measures seem necessary.

10) Sellem: The applicant had resided in Italy since 1990. On 06/11/2007 he was under investigations for terrorism: the criminal proceedings were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment. On 13/03/2008 the prefecture served on him an expulsion order, as his residence permit was expired and he did not ask for its renewal. On 15/04/2008 the applicant appealed against the expulsion order before the justice of the peace of Milan: the appeal was granted and the execution of the expulsion suspended.

The applicant was also sentenced in absentia by a Tunisian court to 10 years’ imprisonment for affiliation to a terrorist organisation.

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicant (i.e. status of the criminal proceedings), as well as on measures taken with regard to him.

General measures: As regards general measures, these cases present similarities to the case Ben Khemais against Italy (246/07, Section 4.3). It is worth noting that the European Court's judgments in these cases, which are of general interest inasmuch as they re-affirm the requirements of the Convention as regards deportation, deserve broad dissemination in Italian, not least via modern electronic media and through the organisation of courses/seminars for judges, Prefects and other relevant entities.

All judgments have been published on the Internet site of the Court of Cassation, in the database on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.italgiure.giustizia.it), and on the government's website (<http://www.governo.it/presidenza/contenzioso>), translated into Italian. These websites are widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike. Furthermore, all judgments have been sent by the Ministry of Justice to the authorities concerned, i.e. supervisory magistrates (competent for the validation of the security measure of expulsion ordered by the court sentencing a person to imprisonment) and the justices of the peace (competent for the validation of the expulsion orders issue by the Interior Ministry or by the Prefect).

• Information is awaited on the other measures envisaged or already taken for the execution of these judgments.

36822/02           Bracci, judgment of 13/10/2005, final on 15/02/2006[23]

62094/00           Majadallah, judgment of 19/10/2006, final on 26/03/2007

10249/03           Scoppola, judgment of 17/09/2009 – Grand Chamber

The case concerns the breach by the authorities of their obligation to allow the applicant to benefit from the application of a more lenient criminal law which entered into force after the commission of the offence of which he was charged (violation of article 7). It also concerns the unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant in that, following the application of provisions which came in force after the beginning of the trial, he had been deprived of a possibility of reduction of the penalty provided by law, which was at the basis of his decision to be judged under a summary procedure which offers fewer procedural guarantees (violation of article 6§1).

Arrested in 1999 for the murder of his wife and attempted murder of his son, the applicant asked to be tried under the summary procedure pursuant to article 442§2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as modified in January 2000 (the “CPP”). This provided that if the crime committed by the defendant was punishable by life imprisonment, the appropriate sentence should be thirty years. The first-instance judge sentenced the applicant to thirty years’ imprisonment, thus applying the reduction of sentence provided by article 442§2 of the CPP. However, this decision was set aside by the Rome Court of Appeal and by the Court of Cassation.

Those courts took the view that it was necessary to apply Legislative Decree No. 341 of 2000, which entered in force on the date of the first-instance decision, and specified that, where there were accumulated offences, if an offender was liable – as was the applicant – to life imprisonment with daytime isolation, that penalty was to be replaced not by thirty years' imprisonment but by life imprisonment without isolation. According to those courts, it was a procedural rule applicable to all pending proceedings.

The European Court took the view that it was necessary to depart from the case-law established by the former European Commission on Human rights in X against Germany and affirm that Article 7§1 of the Convention guarantees not only the principle of non-retroactivity of more stringent criminal laws but also, and implicitly, the principle of retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law.

That principle is embodied in the rule that where there are differences between the criminal law in force at the time of the commission of the offence and subsequent criminal laws enacted before a final judgment is rendered, the courts must apply the law whose provisions are most favourable to the defendant.

Individual measures: Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the urgent need to put an end to the breach of Articles 6 and 7, the European Court expressly states that Italy is responsible for ensuring that the applicant's life sentence is replaced by a penalty consistent with the principles set out in the judgment, which is a sentence not exceeding thirty years' imprisonment (§154).

Following the judgment of the European Court, the Principal State Counsel’s Office at the Court of Cassation forwarded to the court in charge of the execution of Mr. Scoppola’s life sentence (the Court of Appeal of Rome) a note dated 29/10/2009. In the light of the judgment of the European Court, the Attorney General of the Court of Appeal of Rome is expressly requested to apply - through an incidente d’esecuzione – to have the applicant’s life sentence replaced by a sentence not exceeding thirty years' imprisonment. On 11/02/2010 the Court of Cassation granted the request of the Attorney General: the sentence of life imprisonment was therefore replaced with a sentence of thirty year’s imprisonment.

• Assessment: Under these circumstances, no further individual measure seems necessary. 

General measures: In the light of the direct effect granted by the Italian courts to the judgments of the European Court and having regard to the possibilities offered by the procedure of incidente d’esecuzione to those in the same situation as the applicant in this case (see individual measures above), the Italian authorities consider that the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the competent courts are sufficient measures to prevent similar violations.

The judgment has been published on the Internet site of the Court of Cassation, in the database on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.italgiure.giustizia.it), and on the government's website (<http://www.governo.it/presidenza/contenzioso>), with a translation into Italian. These websites are widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike. The judgment has also been transmitted to all competent Authorities.

• Assessment: in light of the above, no further general measures seem necessary. 

50550/06           Scoppola, judgment of 10/06/2008, final on 26/01/2009, rectified on 07/04/2009

The case concerns degrading treatment suffered by the applicant, a life prisoner, due to the conditions of his of detention, which were not appropriate to his state of health (violation of Article 3).

In 2003 the applicant, who was confined to a wheelchair and suffered from several diseases, unsuccessfully asked to be transferred from the Regina Coeli Prison in Rome to another prison in Rome where he could benefit from more humane conditions of detention. In June 2006, the Rome court responsible for the execution of sentences, supported by medical evidence, granted the applicant detention at home, but because he did not have a home adapted to his needs, the decision was set aside. In December 2006, the competent bodies of the Ministry of Justice ordered the applicant’s transfer to Parma prison, which had appropriate facilities for disabled inmates. The transfer did not take place until September 2007.

The European Court considered that keeping the applicant in the Regina Coeli Prison, which the court responsible for the execution of sentences had deemed inappropriate to his health status, must inevitably have placed him in a situation that aroused sufficiently strong feelings of anxiety, inferiority and humiliation to amount to ”inhuman or degrading treatment” (§51).

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

The European Court considered that it did not have sufficient information to enable it to give an opinion of the facilities in Parma Prison (where he was transferred in September 2007) or, more generally, the conditions of the applicant’s detention in that prison (§51). In any case, the Court observed that being unable to care for the applicant at home and there being no adequate institution available to care for him, the state should have either transferred him to a better-equipped prison to avoid the risk of inhuman treatment or deferred execution of a sentence that had become tantamount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (§50).

- New application before the European Court and information provided by the Italian authorities in March 2010 on the new application: Mr. Scoppola filed a new application before the European Court in 2009 (No. 65050/09, not yet communicated) complaining of the conditions of detention in Parma Prison. On 11/12/2009 the Court indicated an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, requiring the Italian government to transfer the applicant urgently to a facility appropriate to his state of health, in order to avoid inhuman and degrading treatment – in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court.

On 24/12/2009 noting that despite several requests to territorial health units (USL) to transfer the applicant to a hospital capable of coping with his very serious health problems, no place was found. The Supervisory Magistrate (magistrato di sorveglianza) of Reggio Emilia ordered that Mr. Scoppola be placed in Parma Hospital pending the availability of an appropriate hospital bed in the Rome region. The applicant, however, refused to be hospitalised in Parma Hospital.

On 07/01/2010 the Bologna Supervisory Court (tribunale di sorveglianza) issued another order in which, having highlighted his very serious health problems, underlined the need to place him in a facility able to cope with them, noted that despite repeated requests and although his name is on waiting lists, no adequate hospital has been found so far, it ordered deferment of the execution of the sentence for a year, pursuant to Article 147 of the Criminal Code as requested by the applicant’s counsel.

Following this order, on 20/01/2010 the European Court decided to lift the interim measure issued on 11/12/2009 under Rule 39.

As from 20/01/2010 the territorial health unit of Frosinone (Rome) wrote several times to Mr Scoppola’s counsel and his statutory guardian (as well as the supervisory court of Bologna) informing them of the availability of 2 hospitals: Mr. Scoppola’s name was placed on the waiting list, pending his acceptance. However, as no answer was provided within the deadline of 03/02/2010, his name was removed from the waiting list.  

• Assessment of this information in under way

General measures:

- Information provided by the Italian authorities (08/03/2010): The Italian authorities indicated that to avoid future similar violations, the Ministry of Justice will, together with the supervisory magistrates, monitor the establishment of efficient co-operation with territorial health units to find appropriate medical facilities for the hospitalisation of detainees in need of special treatment.

The judgment has been published on the Internet site of the Court of Cassation, in the database on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.italgiure.giustizia.it), and on the government's website (<http://www.governo.it/presidenza/contenzioso>). These websites are widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike.

• Assessment of this information in under way

10427/02          Roda and Bonfatti, judgment of 21/11/2006, final on 26/03/2007

19537/03           Clemeno and others, judgment of 21/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

These cases concerns the violation of the applicants' right to respect for their family life due to the authorities' failure, between 1998 and 2006 (Roda and Bonfatti), and between 1997 and 2002 (Clemeno) to take the necessary measure to maintain contacts between a child and her natural family while she was in care in particular through the organisation of regular visits (violation of Article 8).

The European Court considered that the measures taken to remove the children from their family and place them in care were justified and proportionate in view of the serious allegations of abuse against members of their families. However, in the Roda and Bonfatti case, the Court held that the prolonged interruption of relations between the child and the applicants and the defective organisation of encounters between them had breached the necessary balance between the interests of the child and those of the applicants (§125).

In the Clemeno case, the Court observed that, after having been taken into care, the authorities had never made it possible for the child to meet any member of her natural family, in particular her mother, who had not faced any criminal charges, and her brother. Every link with the natural family was therefore totally and finally broken (§61).

Moreover, in the Clemeno case, the violation also concerns the authorities’ decision to put her up for adoption. In the European Court’s opinion, the reasons given by the domestic courts for such decision were insufficient in relation to the child’s best interest, which required that a decision resulting in breaking family links should be ordered only in exceptional circumstances and that everything should be done to maintain personal relations and, where appropriate, at the right time, to “reconstitute” the family (§60).

Individual measures: Both children attained majority in 2006. The European Court awarded just satisfaction to all applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

General measures:

            1) Lack of contacts: During the events at the origin of these cases, Law No. 149/01 on adoption and care of minors entered into force on 24/4/2001 as regards the provisions of Title II on the placement of minors. Article 5§2 of this Title provides that social services, under instruction of the judge or according to the needs of the case, are required inter alia to ease relationships with the natural family and return within the family in the most appropriate ways. Moreover, Title III of the law, which only entered into force on 30/06/2007, provides for greater involvement of parents when taking emergency measures, not least the possibility for parents, assisted by counsel, to take part in the investigations ordered by the court, to submit claims and to ask the judge for disclosure of the file. The law confirms courts' obligation to decide within 30 days on questions related to extending, changing or revoking emergency measures. Any suspension of proceedings must be reasoned and under no circumstances exceed a year.

• Information is awaited on any other measure envisaged to prevent new, similar violations, such as training measures for social services.

            2) Declaration of adoptability: Law No. 149/01, mentioned above, also introduced new rules concerning the adoption of minors, including the “declaration of adoptability” procedure (Title III entered into force in 2007). It provided in particular greater involvement of parents since the beginning of the procedure (Article 8§4), as well as clearer rules for the different steps of the procedure itself. The procedure for appealing against a measure of the Children’s court declaring a child adoptable has not changed (Articles 14 and 16).

            3) Publication and dissemination: The Ministry of Justice translated the Roda and Bonfatti judgment into Italian and sent it out to the competent authorities (courts concerned, Prosecutor General and Secretary General of the Court of Cassation) with a note recalling the principles of the judgment and the decision, and asking for its further dissemination to all judges. The judgment has also been published on the Internet site of the Court of Cassation (http://www.cortedicassazione.it/Notizie/GiurispridenzaComunitaria/CorteEuropea), and in the database of this Court on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (www.italgiure.giustizia.it). This website is widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike.

The Clemeno judgment has also been published in the Court of Cassation database mentioned above.

• Information is awaited on the dissemination of the Clemeno judgment to children’s courts and social services.

59909/00          Giacomelli, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 26/03/2007

The case concerns the failure of the Italian authorities in their duty to protect the applicant's private life and home (violation of Article 8). She had been living since 1950 in a house in Brescia, located 30 metres from a plant for the storage and treatment of “special waste” operated by a commercial company since 1982.

The European Court held that the state authorities had failed to comply with domestic legislation on environmental matters as neither the decision to authorise the commercial company to operate the plant, nor the decision to authorise the company to treat industrial waste by means of “detoxification”, were preceded by an appropriate investigation or study conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable in such matters. Furthermore, it has found that the authorities had refused to enforce judicial decisions dating from 29/04/2003 (Administrative Court of Lombardy) and 25/05/2004 (Council of State), in which the authorisation to operate the plant issued in 1999 was found to be unlawful and had to be invalidated, thereby rendering inoperative the procedural safeguards available to the applicant and breaching the principle of the rule of law.  Consequently, the state did not succeed in striking a fair balance between the interest of the community in having a plant for the treatment of toxic industrial waste and the applicant's effective enjoyment of her right to respect for her home and her private and family life.

Individual measures: The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered. Furthermore, it should be noted that, following an environmental impact assessment (VIA) carried out in 2004, on 28/04/2004 the Ministry of the Environment adopted a decree approving the continued operation of the plant provided that it complied with the environmental requirements fixed by the Lombardy region. The implementation of these requirements was to be verified upon renewal of the authorisation to operate the plant in 2004. The Court did not put in question the evaluation of the Ministry of the Environment. However, it concluded that there has been a violation of Article 8: even supposing that, following the decree at issue, the measures and requirements indicated had been implemented by the relevant authorities and the necessary steps taken to protect the applicant's rights, the fact remains that for several years her right to respect for her home was seriously impaired by the dangerous activities carried out at the plant (§96).

The authorities indicated that on the basis of the Decree of the Ministry of the Environment of 28/04/2004 mentioned above, the Lombardy region adopted Decree No. 7/20118 of 23/12/2004 authorising the treatment of all types of waste by the commercial company. Therefore the authorities considered that the authorisation procedure has been fully regularised and that no negative consequence remains.

In any case, the Italian authorities indicated that information on the implementation of the requirements of the 2004 Decree were requested from the Ministry of the Environment on 27/01/2010.

• Information is awaited in this respect.

General measures: The European Court’s judgment has been published on the Internet site of the Court of Cassation, in the database on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.italgiure.giustizia.it): this website is widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike.

• Information is awaited on the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the Ministry of the Environment authorities so that they may take the Court's findings into account and be aware of their obligations under the Convention.

25337/94          Craxi No. 2, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03[24]

17214/05+         Savino and others, judgment of 28/04/2009, final on 28/07/2009

This case concerns a breach of the right of access to an independent and impartial court in proceedings instituted in 2001 and 2002 by the applicants (staff of the Chamber of Deputies) to obtain special working benefits (Mr. Savino and Persichetti, applications Nos. 17214/05 and 20329/05) or to complain about the conduct of a competitive examination organised by the Chamber of Deputies (Mr. Borgo, Carbonara, Fantoni, Giordani and Ms. Colasanti, application Nos. 42113/04) (violation of Article 6§1).

The petition filed by Mr. Savino and Mr. Persichetti was partially granted on 18/02/2004 by the Commission, which is the first instance body of the Chamber of Deputies in administrative proceedings between the Chamber of Deputies and its staff.

However, upon appeal by the Administration, the decision of the Commission was set aside on 06/10/2004 by the Judicial Section of the Chamber of Deputies (the body which decides in last instance in administrative proceedings). As regards the petition filed by Mr. Borgo, Carbonara, Fantoni, Giordani and Ms. Colasanti to obtain the revocation of the Administration’s decision (according to which they failed the written part of a competitive examination), it was granted by the Commission on 15/05/2002 (the Commission ordered the re-examination of the applicants’ written papers). However, upon appeal by the Administration, the Commission’s decision was set aside on 09/07/2002 by the Judicial Section of the Chamber of Deputies. Appeals by the applicants before the Court of Cassation were rejected. 

The European Court found that the Judicial Section of the Chamber of Deputies did not constitute an independent and objectively impartial tribunal due to the way its members are designated. In particular the Court noted that the Judicial Section is entirely composed of members of the Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies, which is the body which rules upon and regulates the main administrative matters of the Chamber. Moreover, the Chamber of Deputies is represented before the Judicial Section by the Secretary General, who is also appointed by the Bureau (§103 of the judgment).

Individual measure: The Court found that the acknowledgment of the violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damages. Furthermore, the European Court stated that it could not speculate on the outcome of the proceedings, had they been carried out in compliance with Article 6§1 of the Convention (§111 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the applicants' counsel (19/10/2009, 19/11/2009 and 20 /01/2010). The attorneys of the applicants served notices on the competent bodies of the Chamber of Deputies to take action in the light of the judgment of the European Court. In these letters they request the Chamber of Deputies to enforce the first-instance decisions of the Commission ordering the (partial) payment of the working benefits to Mr. Savino and Mr. Persichetti and the re-examination of the written papers of Mr. Borgo, Carbonara, Fantoni, Giordani and Ms. Colasanti. This on the grounds that the decisions of the Judicial Section in the appeal proceedings would be null and void as a result of the judgment of the European Court’s finding of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

• Information is awaited as regards the authorities’ position on these issues. Bilateral contacts are under way.

General measures: The European Court observed that it is not its task to indicate to states which, among several possible solutions, should be adopted to comply with Article 6§1 of the Convention. In any case, it reasserted that it is essential that courts and tribunals are independent and impartial and that they inspire confidence in persons on trial (§103 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Italian authorities (30/10/2009 and 13/11/2009). Following the judgment of the European Court, on 07/07/2009 the Chamber of Deputies issued a decision to modify its internal regulations regarding designation of the members of the Judicial Section (the decision was enacted by Decrees of the President of the Republic No. 781 and 782 of 15/10/2009). In particular, following the findings of the European Court (see §§103, 104 and 105 of the judgment), the new (modified) Article 6 of the internal regulation provides that the members of the Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies - as well as of the government and of the Commission - cannot be designated as members of the Judicial Section: it is composed of members of the Chamber of Deputies fulfilling specific requirements.

The judgment has been published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_8.wp), translated into Italian.

• Assessment: the swift reaction of the Italian authorities to the findings of the European Court is welcome. In particular, the modification of the criteria for the designation of the members of the Judicial Section in the internal regulation of the Chamber of Deputies, appear to be sufficient measures to prevent similar violations.

16861/02           Silvestri Nicola, judgment of 09/06/2009, final on 09/09/2009

This case concerns the failure by the administration to comply with a final domestic judgement of the regional administrative court of Tuscany (TAR) dated 29/10/1997, implying the reinstatement of the applicant to his former post of director of the Empoli Women’s Prison (violation of article 6§1).

Furthermore, this case concerns the failure by the administration to comply with the order dated 29/03/1999 and the judgment of 23/11/2005 of the Court of Florence ordering the payment to the applicant of a certain amount due to the non-respect of the notice of termination of his contract (violation of article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

64088/00          Pilla, judgment of 02/03/2006, final on 02/06/2006[25]

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

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention by the police, from 25/02/2000 to 21/03/2000, pending his expulsion to his country of origin (Serbia and Montenegro) (violation of Article 5§1).. This detention was found to be unlawful insofar as the expulsion order issued by the judge of Busto Arsizio on 09/03/1999 had not only been annulled by the Court of Cassation on 09/09/1999, but also commuted on 16/12/1999 to a prison sentence of a year and two months which the applicant had already served. It was only upon appeal by the applicant that on 21/03/2000 the Court of Lamezia Terme acknowledged that the expulsion order was no longer in force and declared the detention unlawful, thus freeing the applicant

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

The European Court shared the opinion of the Italian government, that this situation was the result of a mistake, although the Court did not consider it a “justifiable” mistake. In fact, in the light of the judgment of the Court of Cassation of 09/09/1999, the authorities could not ignore that the applicant did not have to be expelled (§41 of the judgment).

Individual measures: The Court stated that the acknowledgment of the violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for all moral damages potentially suffered by the applicant. After being freed on 21/03/2000, the applicant left Italy.

• Assessment: in these circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.

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).

• Information provided by the Italian authorities: As this appears to be an isolated case, the publication of the judgment and its broad dissemination appear to be appropriate means to avoid future similar violations, insofar as they may determine an application/interpretation of the existing national legislation by the domestic courts in the light of the case-law of the European Court and of the direct effect of the European Convention.

The judgment has been published in the Official Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice of 31/03/2006 (No. 6); it has also been published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.giustizia.it) and of the Court of Cassation, in the databases on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.italgiure.giustizia.it and http://www.cortedicassazione.it). These websites are widely used by all those who practice law in Italy: civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike. Furthermore, the judgment was sent on 27/03/2006 to all competent authorities by means of an explanatory note (No. 34893) and a translation into Italian language.

• Assessment: as the violation of Article 5§1 was due to the authorities’ mistake failure to comply with decisions given by domestic courts, no specific measure appears to be necessary to prevent similar violations. As regards the violation of Article 5§5 the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court do not appear to be sufficient measures to prevent similar violations. In fact, if a violation of Article 5§1 occurs in similar circumstances, the Italian legal system provides no means of obtaining redress at domestic level. The Italian authorities are therefore invited to provide further information in this respect.

- 11 cases mainly concerning the special prison regime provided by Article 41bis of the Prison Administration Act (Articles 6§1 and 13)

41576/98          Ganci, judgment of 30/10/03, final on 30/01/04

56317/00          Argenti, judgment of 10/11/2005, final on 10/02/2006

35795/02           Asciutto, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 07/07/2008

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

74912/01           Enea, judgment of 17/09/2009 – Grand Chamber

53723/00          Gallico, judgment of 28/06/2005, final on 28/09/2005

25498/94          Messina Antonio No. 2, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

33695/96          Musumeci Carmelo, judgment of 11/01/2005, final on 06/06/2005

60395/00           Papalia, judgment of 04/12/2007, final on 04/03/2008

42285/98          Salvatore, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

8316/02            Viola, judgment of 29/06/2006, final on 29/09/2006

            1) Systematic delay or lack of judicial decisions on the merits on complaints against the imposition of a special prison regime provided by Article 41 bis: These cases concern the lack of access to an effective judicial supervision of the lawfulness of restrictions imposed to the applicants under a special detention regime (violations of Articles 6§1 or 13). The ineffectiveness of the judicial review was due to delay (systematic failure to comply with the statutory ten-day time-limit by courts responsible for the execution of sentences) or from the failure to decide on the merits of appeals against the imposition of this regime by the Minister of Justice on prisoners convicted of offences linked with the mafia. This special regime, provided by Article 41bis of the Prisons Act No. 354/1975, amended most recently by Law No. 94/2009, authorises certain restrictions with respect for example to correspondence, visits, receiving goods from the outside, the schedule for outdoor exercise and recreational activities.

The European Court, while acknowledging that the mere fact of exceeding a statutory time-limit does not amount to an infringement of the right to an effective remedy, affirmed that the systematic failure to comply with the statutory ten-day time-limit considerably reduced – indeed practically nullified – the impact of judicial review of decrees issued by the Minister of Justice (§§94 and 96 of the Messina No.2 judgment). The European Court also found that “the lack of any decision on the merits of the appeals nullified the effect of the courts' review of the decrees issued by the Minister of Justice” (§31 of the Ganci judgment).

2) Lack of access to a court to contest placement in a “high-level surveillance” (E.I.V.) prison unit:: The Musumeci case also concerns the fact that the applicant had been unable to challenge his placement in a “high-level surveillance” (E.I.V.) prison unit (violation of Article 6§1). The relevant court rejected the applicant’s request to serve his prison sentence under a normal detention regime on the ground that the application of the E.I.V. regime was a matter for discretion of the authorities as part of the organisation of prison life. The European Court considered that an imprisonment regime prohibiting contact with detainees from other sections and incorporating a particularly strict level of surveillance was in fact per se an interference in civil rights which the applicant had had no opportunity to contest.

3) Control of prisoners’ correspondence: All cases, except Ganci, Bifulco, Callico and Musumeci also concern a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their correspondence due to the application of the law in force at the material time, particularly Article 18 of the Law on Prison Administration (violations of Article 8). The censorship of their correspondence was not provided by law insofar as the law fixed neither the duration of the control of their correspondence nor the reasons required to justify it and failed to indicate with sufficient clarity how the competent authorities should exercise it. Furthermore, the law in force at the material time provided for no effective remedy against decisions ordering the monitoring of correspondence (violation of Article 13, taken together with Article 8 in the case of Papalia).

Individual measures:

1) Imposition of special detention regime (regime provided by Article 41 bis or E.I.V. regime): Apart from the Asciutto and Enea cases, no individual measure is required since the applicants are no longer subject to any special detention regime.

• Information is awaited on the applicant’s situation in the case Asciutto, in particular whether he is still subject to the special detention regime provided by Article 41bis of the Prison Act, and in the Enea case, in particular whether he is still under house arrest due to his state of health. 

2) Control of prisoners’ correspondence: no individual measures are required in view of the new legislation adopted in Italy (see general measures).

General measures:

            1) Systematic delay or lack of judicial decisions on the merits on complaints against the imposition of a special prison regime provided by Article 41 bis – violations of Articles 6§1 or 13: In the cases where it found a systematic delay in taking judicial decisions, the European Court reached the conclusion that courts’ judicial review of the decrees of the Ministry of Justice was ineffective taking into account in particular two factors: the limited period of validity (six months) of each decree imposing the special regime and the fact that the Minister of Justice was not bound by any decision the court responsible for the execution of sentences may have taken to rescind all or part of the restrictions imposed by the previous decree. This second element brought along a chain of decrees which did not take into account the judicial decisions having, meanwhile, possibly struck down certain restrictions (a pluribus, Asciutto judgment, §§37 and 41). “In the Court's opinion, the applicable legislation lays down a time-limit of only ten days for adjudication partly because of the seriousness of the special regime's impact on prisoners' rights and partly because the impugned decision remains valid for only a limited time” (a pluribus, Ganci judgment, §31).

In Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)56 of 05/07/2005, the Committee of Ministers highlighted three main shortcomings in the judicial review: (i) court’s systematic failure to respect the legal time-limit of tens days for pronouncing on complaints; (ii) the fact that Minister of Justice was not bound by earlier judicial decisions when deciding to prolong restrictions; and (iii) the existence of domestic case-law according to which complaints are inadmissible if the restrictions complained of are no longer being applied. The Interim Resolution also pointed out (item b) that Law No. 279 of 2002 now provides that the Minister of Justice must give reasoning when re-imposing a special regime if his earlier decision has been set aside in whole or in part by a judicial review and (item c) that the Court of Cassation, in its judgment No. 4599, of 5 February 2004, Zara, recognised the right to judicial review of restrictions on prisoners even when they were no longer in application, and this on account of the direct effect of the decision on the decrees subsequent to the appealed one.

The Committee of Ministers noted “with satisfaction that these developments have gone a long way towards solving the problems identified by the European Court”, but the problem of systematic delay in decisions (item a) remained untouched. In 2005 the government indicated that the ten-day legal time-limit for judicial review provided in Law No. 354 of 1975 was not complied with, statistics indicating that in practice judicial review tool between 45 days and four months.

• Information provided by the Italian authorities (17/09/2008): The Italian authorities underlined that, by virtue of a procedure respecting the right of defence, as provided by the Prison Act, it is practically impossible to respect the ten-day time-limit set by law without at the same time infringing the effective guarantees in the detainee’s favour. They also made reference to recent judgments of the European Court where no violation of Article 6§1 was found on account of the delay in examining appeals against the ministerial decrees: although beyond the legal ten-day time-limit, the court responsible for execution of sentences pronounced itself before the expiry of the period of validity of the decrees at issue (Campisi judgment, application No. 24358/02, §76; whereas in cases of Guidi, application No. 28320/02, § 59, and De Pace, application No. 22728/03, §63, the Court considered the grievance unfounded since the applicants obtained a decision before the expiry of the period of validity of the decrees).

• Reform of Article 41bis. Law No. 94 adopted on 15/07/2009 partially modified Article 41bis, in particular extending to four years the period of validity of the decrees of the Ministry of Justice imposing this special detention regime (and to two years each period of validity of possible prorogations), also extending to twenty days the term to appeal against the decrees (term running from the communication of the latter). Furthermore, the sole supervisory court competent to decide on the appeals is the Court of Rome, instead of the court having jurisdiction on the prison where the appellant is detained (as before the reform).

• Information is awaited on the effects of the reform of Article 41bis on the systematic delay of judicial decisions determining the ineffectiveness of courts’ judicial control over the decrees of the Ministry of Justice.

            2) Lack of access to a court to contest placement in a “high-level surveillance” (E.I.V.) prison unit - violation of Article 6 §1: In its decision No. 14487of 03/03/2004, the Court of Cassation, rejected the possibility of seizing the supervisory magistrate (magistrato di sorveglianza) in order to object per se to the application of the “E.I.V.” regime, as its implementation concerns the organisation of imprisonment with certain additional precautions whilst respecting the detainee's basic rights. However, the Court of Cassation stated that an appeal lies to the courts responsible for the execution of sentences against any specific violation of basic rights following the application of the E.I.V. regime. This reasoning appears to be in line with the recent Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court in the Enea case (judgment of 17/09/2009). In this judgment, the European Court changed its approach vis-à-vis the placement in E.I.V. units.

The Grand Chamber observed that “while it is true that a prisoner cannot challenge per se the merits of a decision to place him or her in an E.I.V. unit, an appeal lies to the courts responsible for the execution of sentences against any restriction of a “civil” right (affecting, for instance, a prisoner's family visits or correspondence)” (§119 of the judgment). In this case, not only the applicant (Mr. Enea) was not subject to any such restrictions but, if he had been, he would have had access to a court. Accordingly, the court concluded unanimously that there had not been a violation of the right to access to a court.

• Assessment: in light of the recent Grand Chamber judgment in the Enea case, no general measure on this issue appears to be necessary.

            3) Control of prisoners’ correspondence – violations of Article 8 and of Article 13 taken together with Art 8: The law at issue in these cases was modified in April 2004 (see Resolution ResDH(2005)55 adopted on 05/07/2005, closing supervision of the cases of Calogero Diana and others; see also Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)56 mentioned above).

                        - 85 cases concerning constructive expropriation

                        Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)3

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Belvedere Alberghiera S.R.L. group)[26]

- 84 cases mainly concerning the effectiveness of the compensatory remedy (Pinto Act)

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Mostacciuolo group)[27]

                        - 2183 cases of length of judicial proceedings

(see also, for more detailed information, CM/Inf/DH(2005)31, CM/Inf/DH(2005)31-add, CM/Inf/DH(2005)31-add2, CM/Inf/DH(2005)33, CM/Inf/DH(2005)39, CM/Inf/DH(2008)42

Interim Resolutions DH(97)336, DH(99)436, DH(99)437, ResDH(2000)135 ; CM/ResDH(2007)2,CM/ResDH(2009)42:

- including 118cases concerning the length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts

   (See Appendix for the list of cases)

                       - and including 2065 cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings

(See Appendix for the list of cases)

These cases concern the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Italy. There are at present 2183 of them (see Appendices for the complete list), i.e., almost half the total number of cases pending before the Committee. They involve virtually every type of judicial institution (1571 civil cases, one of which should have called for exceptional diligence, 364 cases before industrial tribunals, 7 sets of enforcement proceedings; 122 criminal cases and 118 cases before administrative tribunals). About 180 cases have resulted in friendly settlements.

The first findings of violation of Article 6§1 by Italy, due to excessively lengthy court proceedings, date from the 1980s. Following a number of general measures, the Committee put an end to its supervision of such judgments in 1992 for criminal cases and in 1995 for civil cases (Resolutions DH(92)26 and (95)82).

Unfortunately there was no reduction in the number of such violations found by the Court and the Committee decided in 1997 (Resolution DH(97)336) “to resume the examination of the reforms required in order to solve the problem posed by the length of civil proceedings in Italy and, consequently, to maintain the cases relating to this problem on its agenda until the implementation of these reforms”.

The Committee of Ministers subsequently adopted several further interim resolutions, some setting out the measures taken and others also pointing out the shortcomings of these measures (Resolutions DH(99)436, DH(99)437, DH(2000)135 and ResDH(2005)114).

In 2000 the Committee decided “to continue the attentive examination of this problem until the reforms of the Italian judicial system become thoroughly effective and a reversal of the trend at domestic level is fully confirmed”.

In the absence of any decisive progress, the Committee, first in Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)114, and then in Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)2, called upon the Italian authorities to establish a new, effective strategy, co-ordinated at the highest level of government and based on an interdisciplinary approach involving all the main actors of the Italian judicial system (for details, see below, “General measures”).

Individual measures: According to the information available, 707 sets of proceedings were not yet finished (531 civil proceedings, 109 proceedings before labour courts, 1 set of execution proceedings, 23 criminal proceedings and 43 proceedings before administrative courts). The Italian authorities had indicated that the findings had been signalled to the domestic courts with a view to accelerating the pending proceedings.

• The most appropriate follow-up to individual measures is under consideration in the framework of bilateral contacts, in the light, inter alia, of the note sent by the Italian delegation on 20/06/2008.

General measures:

            1) Legislative reform in the 1990s: Over the past decade, Italy has enacted several reforms and taken a number of organisational measures which are reflected in the resolutions mentioned above (1992, 1995, 1997 and 1999). Important measures have been taken both:

(a) in the criminal field, through an overall reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure, fixing time limits for investigations by the prosecution and simplifying a number of procedures; and

(b) in the civil field, among other things by the institution of the new justices of the peace in order to help deal with the workload of the ordinary judges.

            2) Supervision of execution 2000-2005:

- The Annual Reports system: In 2000 the Committee concluded that while Italy had undoubtedly made an effort to resolve the problem, it had not yet discharged its obligation to comply fully with the judgments of the Court and the decisions of the Committee. Thus Interim Resolution DH(2000)135 proposed a system of annual reports on progress with regard to three main lines of action:

• Improving the efficiency of the judicial system: The early reports recalled the fundamental reforms undertaken, not least in civil justice, the institution of a single judge at first instance, the incorporation of Article 6 of the Convention into the Italian Constitution (Constitutional Act No. 2 of 1999, implemented by Legislative Decree No. 2 of 2000) and the extension of the jurisdiction of justices of the peace to criminal matters (Law No. 163 of 2001).

• Dealing with the oldest cases: the main measure was the setting up of sezioni stralcio, special chambers to deal with such cases. However, this measure was not in itself enough to re-absorb the more recent backlog.

• Compensating the victims of unreasonably lengthy proceedings: The “Pinto Act” has resulted in a reduction of the volume of cases coming to Strasbourg, but has not proved totally effective (for an example of the shortcomings, see the case of Cocchiarella and others, judgment of 29/03/06 (Grand Chamber).

- The 2005 Annual Report: In 2004, in the face of the increase in the mean duration of proceedings, Italy had been invited to draw up an action plan to identify: (1) the problems at the origin of the slowness of proceedings, (2) a range of corrective measures and a timetable for their implementation and (3) the time‑scale within which the measures could be expected to show the first results.

In the action plan submitted in 2005 (CM/Inf/DH(2005)39) the Italian authorities identified the following causes at the origin of the structural problem:

- the principle of compulsory criminal action;

- an insufficient degree of decriminalisation;

- the low cost of bringing an action;

- the build-up of the backlog of cases over the years;

- the country's penchant for litigation; and

- certain advantages of the slowness of proceedings for those who are not looking for a swift judgment.

The authorities also presented a series of legislative and organisational measures at the same time drawing attention to the enormous sums spent on the functioning of justice. They indicated that the first results would be perceptible in the medium- to long-term, as important reform takes time. Finally, it should be noted that “reforms introduced since 2000 and which had Committee of Ministers' approval have not had all the desired impact - confirmation that in Italy there are structural obstacles which have significant political implications”.

- The 2005 undertaking: In Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)114, the Committee noted the persistence of the problem and its complex, structural nature. In its conclusions the Committee:

- urged the Italian authorities to enhance their political commitment and make it their effective priority to meet Italy's obligation under the Convention and the Court's judgments, to secure the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time to all persons under Italy's jurisdiction;

- called upon the competent authorities to set up an effective national policy, coordinated at the highest governmental level, with a view to achieving a comprehensive solution to the problem and to present by the end of 2006 at the latest a new plan of action based on a stocktaking of results achieved so far and embodying an efficient approach to its implementation.

            3) The 2006 annual report and other undertakings: The report gave a summary of the most recent measures, including: progress in the use of information technology in civil proceedings and reform of civil procedures (Law No. 80 of 2005), bankruptcy, arbitration and procedure before the Court of Cassation. Regarding administrative proceedings, new judges have been recruited and the computer system improved. The report set out the main lines envisaged for the future, in particular:

- a performance measurement system not limited to mere statistical analysis but extended to laying down efficiency standards;

- assessment of courts' needs;

- enhancing the status of administrative staff; and

- improving the information technology resources.

Politically, several statements by Italian authorities confirmed that they fully acknowledged the seriousness of the problem and expressed their determination to reinforce their political commitment to give effective priority to respecting Italy's obligations under the Convention and the Court's judgments. This commitment was confirmed, inter alia, by the adoption of Act No. 12 of 9/01/2006 assigning competence to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers to co-ordinate the execution of the Court's judgments and to keep Parliament regularly informed of progress achieved, and by the establishment of a ministerial commission, the “Mirabelli Commission”, to look into the judicial system and to propose standard-setting and organisational measures to improve its efficiency.

            4) Developments in 2007: Following to the 2006 annual report, the Committee of Ministers adopted a new Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)2 which, although recognising the measures, legislative or others, taken in the meanwhile:

- urged the Italian authorities at the highest level to maintain their political commitment to resolving the problem of the excessive length of judicial proceedings;

- invited the authorities to undertake interdisciplinary action, involving the main judicial actors, co-ordinated at the highest political level, with a view to drawing up a new, effective strategy.

In October 2007, the Mirabelli Commission presented its report, which identified the following objective with a view to improving the efficiency of justice: decriminalisation, alternative means of dispute resolution, increase of the productive capacity, technological innovation, restructuring of justice and more appropriate deployment of personnel.

A first bilateral meeting on excessive length of judicial proceedings between Italian governmental authorities and the Department of Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights took place in October 2007 in Rome. In the framework of the interdisciplinary approach to the structural problem of length of proceedings, the authorities had planned to adopt:

- a series of reforms (normative reforms of civil and criminal proceedings; reorganisation of courts, process of recruiting personnel, use of information technology in civil proceedings; dissemination of best practices and adoption of dissuasive measures or mediation);

- precise and targeted objectives as to the maximum length of proceedings before the various jurisdictions;

- the participation not only of magistrates, but also of the other main players, such as advocates, registries and the users of courts, in drawing up and implementing these reforms.

         5) Latest developments in 2008: Following the dissolution of the Italian Parliament in February 2008, the newly elected government, from its inception, set about reforming justice according to a programme whose guidelines seem to continue those set up in the previous legislatures.

A second bilateral meeting on excessive length of judicial proceedings took place, once again in Rome, in October 2008. On the occasion of this meeting between the highest government authorities (M Letta, Under Secretary to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, M Alfano, Ministry of Justice, as well as many senior officials of different ministries and judicial bodies) and the Department of Execution of the judgments of the European Court, the Italian government, gave an exhaustive presentation of the legislative measures already taken and those on the way to adoption by the Parliament, as well as of organisational measures, completed by statistical data, and also reaffirmed its strong commitment to reaching a definitive solution to the structural problem of the length of proceedings. For the detailed presentation of the measures taken or envisaged see the information document CM/Inf/DH(2008)42.

- 10 cases against Latvia / 10 affaires contre la Lettonie

64846/01          Moisejevs, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 23/10/2006

The case concerns a number of violations linked to the applicant’s detention on remand and the criminal proceedings subsequently brought against him:

- the irregularity of the detention between 04/06/1998 and 26/11/1998, his detention order having been extended automatically on expiry on the basis of a practice based on wrongful interpretation of the law (violation of Article 5§1);

- the excessive length of the detention (4 years, 2 months and 28 days) in the absence of any reason for extending it (violation of Article 5§3);

- the excessive length of the criminal proceedings (6 years, 1 month and 10 days) due to periods of inactivity and several adjournments (violation of Art. 6§1).

- a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life due to the almost total refusal to allow him to receive family visits during his detention on remand (violation of Art. 8), and a lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13 combined with Article 8);

- the violation of the applicant’s right of individual application due to the interception of a letter he had addressed to the European Court (violation of Article 34);

- the fact that insufficient food was provided on court hearing days, amounting to “degrading treatment” (violation of Article 3).

Individual measures: The applicant is no longer detained on remand: on 25/09/2001 he was convicted and on 17/01/2003 sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He claimed no just satisfaction before the European Court.

• Assessment: This being the case, no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures: This case presents similarities to that of Lavents (Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)131) and the Kornakovs case (61005/00, Section 5.3).

• Measures adopted or under way in respect of the following violations:

            1) Violation of Article 5§1: The Article on the basis of which the applicant was kept unlawfully in the detention, namely Article 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been repealed by a law of 20/01/2005 which has entered into force on 01/02/2005.

            2) Violation of Article 5§3: The grounds for the detention were not challenged by the European Court. The new Law on Criminal Procedure entered into force on 01/10/2005. The new law introduces a post of investigative judge whose main function is to supervise the observance of human rights in criminal proceedings. The judge decides on the application and extension of certain means of restraint (detention, house arrest, placement in an institution) as well as on complaints related to other means of restraint (e.g. restraint orders, bail, conditions of police supervision). The new law also imposes several time-limits for pre‑trial detention. In May 2003, the Human Rights Institute of the University of Latvia organised a seminar on detention issues for judges, prosecutors, practicing lawyers, government and parliament representatives.

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

            4) Violation of Article 8 (family visits): On 29/04/2003, the Latvian government adopted the Regulation on the internal rules of provisional detention centres, which provides inter alia that the administration of such establishments should allow detainees to have contact their families or others.

            5) Violation of Article 34 (correspondence): In addition to the measures already taken in the context of the Lavents case (legislative reform), publication and dissemination with a covering letter, in particular to the prison authorities, seems necessary.

• Measures required in respect of other violations:

            6) Violation of Article 3: The European Court noted that, following a complaint by the applicant, he and other defendants began to receive more food. However, to make sure that other detention centres also follow the same practice, publication and dissemination of the judgment with a covering letter, in particular to the prison authorities, seems necessary.

            7) Violation of Article 8 combined with Article 13: The Latvian authorities are invited to provide information on the existence of an effective remedy concerning family visits. On this point, the authorities may wish to take into account the concerns voiced by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman Treatment or Punishment (CPT) regarding the contacts of detained persons with the outside world (See the CPT Report to the Latvian Government, 5-12 May 2004 visit, made public on 13/03/08, page 35. Available at www.cpt.coe.int/documents/lva/2008-15-inf-eng.pdf)

• Information is thus awaited on these two issues.

                        - 2 cases mainly concerning poor detention conditions

62393/00           Kadiķis No. 2, judgment of 04/05/2006, final on 04/08/2006

62609/00           Nikitenko, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

These cases concern the conditions of the applicants’ administrative detentions in the temporary confinement suites of the Liepaja State Police station (15 days) (Kadikis case) and in of the Jelgeva State Police station (35 days) (Nikitenko case).

In the Kadikis case, the European Court noted that the cell in which the applicant was detained, usually with 3 or 4 other people, measured 6m², of which less than half was available for all the co-detainees to move about in. There was no natural light and the ventilation system did not work properly, stopping often. There was no exercise yard and the only time the applicant could leave the cell was to go to the lavatory or to the washroom. The applicant had no bed, but had to share a wooden platform 2.1m x 1.7m with his cellmates. There was no bed-linen and the prisoners slept fully clothed on bare boards. During the applicant’s detention, only one proper meal per day was served and it was prohibited for the detainees to receive foodstuffs from outside. Finally, there was neither drinking water nor even running water in the cell.

The European Court found that, although there was no evidence of any intention on the part of the Latvian authorities deliberately to humiliate or diminish the applicant, this treatment was nonetheless degrading (violation of Article 3).

The circumstances of the applicant’s detention in the Nikitenko case were very similar: the Court found a violation of Article 3. This case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life due to the censorship of his correspondence (violation of Article 8). As in the Kornakovs case (61005/00, Section 5.3), the Court noted that the censorship was not provided by law.

The Kadikis case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy whereby the applicant might complain about the conditions of detention (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: In the Kadikis case, the applicant was freed in May 2000. The European Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

In the Nikitenko case, the applicant was transferred to Riga Central prison on 28/02/2000. The European Court award no just satisfaction as the applicant submitted no claim in this respect within the time-limit set. 

• Assessment: no further measure seems necessary.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Article 3: The Latvian authorities have provided a list of measures taken in 2004‑2006 in order to ensure that the conditions in temporary confinement suites are in conformity with the Convention’s requirements. In most of the temporary detention institutions (TDI) much repair work has been done (for example repairing ventilation systems and the sanitary facilities). In December 2005 a new building complex was opened by the Liepaja Town and Regional Police Department, including a new TDI. 

• Further information is awaited on other measures taken concerning the specific problems identified by the Court, for example overcrowding, natural light, ventilation, physical exercises, meals, running water, bed linen etc.

            2) Violation of Article 13: The Cabinet has decided to establish a working group to examine whether legislative amendments are necessary to ensure that an effective remedy is available for complaints concerning the conditions of detention. The working group was established under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice and it began its work in November 2006. So far the working group has decided that it will become a permanent forum for discussing the necessary steps to be taken to execute the European Court’s judgments. The composition of the working group will be adjusted to include experts in the relevant fields. Furthermore, the working group has decided to examine the issue of effective examination of individual complaints concerning the conditions of detention in a broader context than the present judgment. For instance, it will cover not only the deadlines for these complaints but also such issues as the procedure for examining complaints made by illegal immigrants, appeal proceedings against decisions imposing administrative detention and the related conditions.

• Further information is awaited on the reflections of the working group and on the question of the need to adopt legislative measures and, if such measures are foreseen, on the timetable for their adoption.

3) Violation of Article 8: The measures are taken in the context of Kornakovs case (61005/00, Section 5.3).

            4) Publication and dissemination:

• In any event, publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the relevant authorities and courts are expected, possibly accompanied by a circular or note explaining the problems identified by the European Court.

61638/00          Dmitrijevs Igors, judgment of 30/11/2006, final on 28/02/2007

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life due to the ban imposed on his corresponding with his mother during his pre-trial detention as well as on account of the opening and monitoring of the letters addressed to the applicant by the European Court (double violation of Article 8).

The case concerns also a violation of the applicant’s freedom of thought, conscience and religion on account of the ban on the applicant’s attending the prison’s religious services (violation of Article 9). The European Court found that this interference was not provided by law (§79 of the judgment).

Finally, the case concerns a violation of the right of individual application due to the repeated refusal to forward the applicant’s application form to the European Court as well as the assertion by the deputy governor of the prison that the applicant required the authorisation of the Latvian courts to write to the Court (double violation of Article 34).

Individual measures: The applicant was released in December 2002 (§44 of the judgment). He made no application before the European court in respect of just satisfaction.

• Assessment: No further individual measure thus seems necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Articles 8 and 34: This case presents similarities to the Kornakovs case (61005/00, Section 5.3) in which the Latvian authorities have adopted and are adopting measures in this respect.

2) Violation of Article 9:

• Information is awaited on legislative measures taken or envisaged, in addition to those mentioned above, to remedy the lack of provisions concerning the right of detainees on remand to attend religious services (§§79‑80 of the judgment). In addition, information is awaited on publication of the judgment of the European Court and dissemination to the relevant authorities.

73819/01          Estrikh, judgment of 18/01/2006, final on 18/04/2007

67275/01           Čistiakov, judgment of 08/02/2007, final on 08/05/2007

These cases concern the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand due to insufficient grounds to justify detention and the unlawfulness of its extension from 20/04/1999 to 23/08/2000 (Estrikh case) as well as the absence of “particular diligence” (Čistiakov case) (violations of Article 5§3). They also concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicants (violations of Article 6§1).

The Estrikh case further concerns the violation of his right to respect for his family life on account of the restrictions imposed on visits by his partner, with whom he had lived for five years, and their child, as well as his expulsion upon his release from prison. The European Court considered this expulsion had not been provided by law (violation of Article 8).

The Čistiakov case concerns, in addition, the unlawfulness of prolonged detention on remand without legal basis as he was detained eight more days after the expiry of his detention order (violation of Article 5§1(c)) as well as the censorship of his correspondence while in detention on the basis of inadequate rules (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The applicants are no longer detained on remand as their convictions have become final. On 29/08/2002, Mr Estrikh was expelled from Latvia to the Russian Federation. The European Court concluded that the applicant was expelled on the basis of his criminal judgment which at the time of the expulsion had not yet become final and the administrative proceedings concerning his expulsion were still pending.

• Information is awaited as to whether Mr Estrikh may re-enter Latvia.

General measures: These cases present similarities to those of Lavents (Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)131) and Kornakovs (61005/00) (Section 5.3)

            1) Problems already solved (see Lavents and Kornakovs cases):

- Violation of Article 5§3: The applicants’ detention was prolonged under Article 77 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which did not provide any precise legal basis for such extension and has now been repealed by a law of 20/01/2005 which entered into force on 01/02/2005. Moreover, the new Law on Criminal Procedure entered into force on 01/10/2005. The new law introduces a post of investigative judge whose main function is to supervise the observance of human rights in criminal proceedings. The judge decides on the application and extension of certain means of restraint (detention, house arrest, placement in an institution) as well as on complaints related to other means of restraint (e.g. restraint orders, bail, conditions of police supervision). The new law also imposes various time-limits for pre-trial detention. In May 2003, the Human Rights Institute of the University of Latvia organised a seminar on detention issues for judges, prosecutors, practicing lawyers and governmental and parliamentary representatives.

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

- Violation of Article 8 (family visits): Concerning family visits, on 29/04/2003 the Latvian government adopted the Regulation on the internal rules of provisional detention centres, which provides inter alia that such establishments should allow detainees to have contact with their families or others.

- Violation of Article 8 (correspondence): Concerning prisoners’ correspondence, the new Law on Criminal Procedure and the new internal Rules of pre-trial detention centres provide stricter conditions for monitoring of correspondence during the pre-trial investigation (see Kornakovs case).

            2) Outstanding issues:

- Violation of Article 5§1(c) (unlawful detention): As regards Mr Čistiakov’s detention of eight days after the expiry of his detention order, the violation was due to a wrongful application of national law.

- Violation of Article 8 (unlawful expulsion): As regards the expulsion from Latvia, the violation was also due to a wrongful application of national law.

• Therefore are expected: publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgments to the competent authorities. Information on other possible measures would also be useful.

61655/00          Miholapa, judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 31/08/2007

The case concerns the unfairness of civil proceedings in which the applicant was sued for damages (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant owned a flat in a block in Riga, which was put up for compulsory auction on account of non-payment of municipal taxes. The purchaser of the flat brought two actions against the applicant. The first proceedings resulted in the applicant’s eviction; in the second set of proceedings, in January 1999, the applicant was ordered to pay damages because she continued to occupy the apartment following the eviction order. The court took this decision in absentia as her new address could not be found and as she has not responded to the notification made in the Official Gazette (§25 of the judgment).

The European Court considered that the district court had not shown sufficient diligence and had not done all that could be reasonably expected of it in order to summons the applicant to appear (§31 of the judgment).

Individual measures: As the applicant had not submitted any claim for just satisfaction, the Court considered that there was no need to make an award.

• Assessment: No further individual measure thus seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information has been awaited since December 2007 on the general measures taken or envisaged by the Latvian authorities to prevent new, similar violations in the future, in particular publication of the judgment of the European Court and its dissemination to judicial authorities.

70930/01           Blumberga, judgment of 14/10/2008, final on 14/01/2009

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court in civil proceedings due to the rejection of her request to be exempted from court fees, despite her modest financial circumstances.

In June 2001 the applicant filed a civil claim for damages against the state police in connection with the failure of the authorities to fulfill their obligation to protect her property while she was in detention. Some of the applicant’s property stored in her house was stolen while she was held in police custody. The applicant also requested exemption from paying court fees, attaching a copy of her pensioner’s certificate indicating the amount of her retirement pension.

In August 2001, the Rīga Regional Court declined to examine the merits of the claim, on the ground that the applicant did not submit sufficient evidence as regards to her financial situation and the basis of her claim.

However, the European Court considered that the documents submitted by the applicant to the domestic courts provided a reasonable and sufficient basis for her claim and observed that the domestic courts did not indicate to the applicant what additional documents were necessary to prove her financial situation and the circumstances on which her claim was based (violation of article 6§1).

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

• Information is awaited on possibilities of reopening the case, if the applicant so wishes.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations as well as on the publication of the judgment of the European Court and its dissemination to competent authorities.

55707/00           Andrejeva, judgment of 18/02/2009 – Grand Chamber

This case concerns the Latvian authorities’ refusal to allow the applicant, who has resided permanently in Latvia since 1954, to benefit from state pension rights acquired before 1991 when working for state bodies having their headquarters outside Latvia (Kyiv and Moscow), on the grounds that she did not have Latvian nationality (violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of protocol No. 1).

The applicant has no nationality and since April 1995 has been a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia. She worked in Latvia from 1973 to 1981 in a state body depending from the Ministry of the Chemical Industry of the USSR, with headquarters in Kyiv. Until being made redundant in September 1993, she continued to work in another branch of the same body which had its headquarters in Moscow.

When the applicant retired in August 1997, the Social Insurance Directorate refused to take into consideration the period during which the applicant worked for USSR state bodies in the calculation of her retirement pension. The Directorate found that according to Article 1 of the Law on State Pensions, for foreigners or stateless persons residing in Latvia, only periods of work actually performed in Latvia could be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating the pension at issue.

The European Court found that nationality was the one and only criterion underlying the difference of treatment and that no objective, reasonable justification had been presented, not least considering that the applicant has no nationality.

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that she could not exercise her entitlement to take part (provided in Article 471 of the Law on Civil Procedure) in the public hearing of the Senate of the Supreme Court as it had been decided to bring forward the hearing date (violation of Article 6§1).

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

• Information is awaited on measures to redress the applicant’s situation, in particular the recalculation of her retirement pension.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations.

3669/03            Ādamsons, judgment of 24/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to free elections in that in 2002 he was disqualified from standing for election on account of his previous service in the Border Guard Forces of the Soviet Union, which were subordinate to the KGB (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.1).

Following the independence of Latvia in 1990, the applicant had a military and political career (Vice-Commander of the Navy, Commander of the Latvian Border Guard Forces and Minister of Interior) and was elected to Parliament of which he remained a member until 2002.

In a judgment of 03/03/2000, a domestic court found that during the Soviet era the applicant had been a “serving officer of the KGB Border Guard Forces” rather than a former “KGB officer”. Subsequently, the applicant was removed from the electoral list of the party of which he was then the Vice-President.

The European Court noted that Section 5(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act disqualified former “officers” of the KGB from standing for elections. Having regard to the wide-ranging functions of that agency, it considered that the concept was too broad and that a restriction of the electoral rights of a member of that group should take a case-by-case approach which would allow their actual conduct to be taken into account (§125).

The European Court also noted in this regard that after his return in 1992 from the service in the far east of the former USSR, the applicant had had ample opportunity to prove his loyalty towards the Latvian state and his attachment to democratic values, and that no evidence has been adduced of a lack of integrity on his part in that respect (§129).

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

• Information is awaited on the applicant's present situation and his eligibility to stand for election in the future.

General measures: Under the applicable Latvian law, past co-operation with the KGB may be invoked in similar situations until 2014 (§§73, 87, 131). The European Court found that the extension of the relevant statutory provisions until 2014 had a manifestly arbitrary character in the present case.

• Information is awaited on legislative measures taken or envisaged to avoid similar violations in the future. At the outset, the publication and wide dissemination of the European Court's judgment with an explanatory note to the authorities involved in the present case appears necessary.

- 2 cases against Lithuania / 2 affaires contre la Lituanie

27527/03           L., arrêt du 11/09/2007, définitif le 31/03/2008

L’affaire concerne le manquement de l'Etat à son obligation positive d’assurer le respect du droit à la vie privée faute pour les autorités d'avoir adopté une législation d’application qui permettrait à un transsexuel de subir une opération de conversion sexuelle complète et de faire changer son identification sexuelle sur les documents officiels (violation de l’article 8).

A sa naissance en 1978, le requérant a été inscrit sur le registre d’état civil comme étant de sexe féminin mais, très tôt, il s’est senti appartenir au sexe masculin. En 1997, il a consulté un médecin en vue de changer de sexe. Bien qu'il ait conclu que l’intéressé était transsexuel, son médecin a refusé de lui prescrire une thérapie hormonale, car il n'était pas certain qu’il serait juridiquement possible de procéder à une conversion sexuelle complète. Le requérant a été contraint alors de suivre un traitement hormonal de manière non officielle. A la suite de l’adoption du nouveau code civil, en 2000, qui a instauré pour la première fois le droit à la chirurgie de conversion sexuelle en droit lituanien (article 2.27 §1), l’intéressé a subi une opération de changement partiel de sexe. Néanmoins, il a convenu avec les médecins de suspendre toute autre opération en attendant les lois d’application fixant les conditions et la procédure de conversion sexuelle. A ce jour, aucune loi d'application n’a été adoptée à cette fin comme le prévoyait l'article 2.27 §2 du Code civil en raison d’une forte opposition parlementaire au projet. Le requérant est toujours considéré comme appartenant au sexe féminin au regard du droit interne et, bien qu’il ait finalement été autorisé à choisir un nouveau nom qui n'était pas marqué sexuellement, son code personnel figurant sur son nouvel acte de naissance et son passeport, ainsi que son diplôme universitaire, continuent de l’indiquer comme étant du sexe féminin.

La Cour européenne a établi que cette lacune législative plaçait le requérant dans une pénible incertitude quant à sa vie privée et à la reconnaissance de sa véritable identité. Les contraintes budgétaires des services de santé publique pouvaient peut-être justifier certains retards initiaux dans la mise en œuvre des droits des transsexuels en vertu du Code civil, mais pas une attente de plus de quatre ans. Dès lors, l’Etat n’a pas ménagé un juste équilibre entre l’intérêt général et les droits de l’intéressé (§ 59 de l'arrêt).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a estimé que l’Etat lituanien devait répondre aux demandes de réparation du requérant au titre du préjudice matériel en adoptant les textes d’application nécessaires dans les trois mois à compter du jour où l’arrêt serait devenu définitif. A défaut, il devrait verser à l’intéressé 40 000 euros pour les frais liés à la réalisation à l’étranger des interventions chirurgicales nécessaires pour terminer le processus de conversion.

• Informations fournies par les autorités lituaniennes (lettre du 01/10/2008) : Le 28/06/2008, la satisfaction équitable a été payée.

• Evaluation : Dans ces circonstances, aucune mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : Il ressort de l’arrêt que l'adoption rapide d’une législation d’application serait en mesure de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

Le 07/08/2008, le Secrétariat a adressé une lettre de phase initiale aux autorités lituaniennes en ce qui concerne les mesures générales prises ou envisagées et il les a invitées à fournir des informations sur l'état de la législation mentionnée.

• Informations fournies par les autorités lituaniennes (lettre du 01/10/2008) : Les autorités lituaniennes ont fait savoir que les tribunaux internes étaient en mesure de combler les lacunes juridiques existantes. De plus, un projet de loi, soumis au Parlement le 19/03/2008, propose l'abrogation de l'article 2.27 du Code civil. Il est en cours d'examen. Les autorités ont assuré que l'abrogation éventuelle de cette disposition ne porterait pas préjudice aux possibilités de traitement des transsexuels. Selon elles, les transsexuels sont déjà soignés en Lituanie et leur droit à changer de sexe est reconnu, de même que leur droit à la modification des documents officiels par la suite.

• Informations fournies par les autorités lituaniennes (lettre du 09/04/2010) : Les autorités lituaniennes ont fait savoir que le Comité de surveillance d’amendement du Code civil, formé d’académiciens et de juristes praticiens, a récemment examiné les amendements nécessaires au code civil afin de combler les lacunes juridiques indiquées par la Cour dans cette affaire. Le Comité a par conséquent proposé, dans un premier temps d’adopter des textes d’application de l’article 2.27 du Code civil, d’abroger cet article, ou de l’amender. Cependant, en l’absence d’unanimité sur la question, le projet d’amendement a été retiré. 

La position des autorités lituaniennes est qu’un traitement médical n’a pas besoin d’être réglementé par des actes législatifs et que l’Etat dispose d’une marge d’appréciation pour déterminer les conditions et les procédures à suivre pour assurer le traitement des transsexuels. D’après les autorités, le Code civil peut soit régler la question par des dispositions rédigées de manière abstraite concernant la reconnaissance légale des conversions sexuelles, soit ne comporter aucune disposition régissant la question et les lacunes juridiques pourraient en conséquence être comblées par la jurisprudence des tribunaux internes.

Par ailleurs, en mars 2010, le gouvernement a demandé aux Ministères de la Justice et de Santé d’adopter les mesures nécessaires pour combler la lacune juridique indiquée par la Cour et de présenter des projets de loi pour assurer la mise en œuvre de ces mesures.

Pour ce qui concerne la modification de l’identité sexuelle sur des documents officiels, les autorités lituaniennes ont fait savoir que les intéressés ayant subi une opération de conversion sexuelle, peuvent à l’heure actuelle saisir les juridictions internes si leur demande en modification de l’identité sexuelle est rejetée par les bureaux de l’état civil. D’autre part, le Ministère de la Justice a déjà préparé un projet de loi afin de déterminer la procédure à suivre pour la modification de l’identité sexuelle sur les documents officiels. Selon le projet, il suffit que les intéressés ayant subi une opération de conversion sexuelle, saisissent les instituts de santé afin d’obtenir un rapport médical confirmant la conversion sexuelle, pour obtenir la modification de leur identité sexuelle sur les documents officiels.

• Evaluation : Etant donné l’évaluation faite par la Cour européenne, il ne semble pas qu'il y ait des structures médicales raisonnablement accessibles ou disponibles en Lituanie tant que des textes d'application ne seront pas adoptés (§57 de l'arrêt). Cependant, il semble que les autorités lituaniennes aient retenu une méthode différente pour assurer la reconnaissance légale des conversions sexuelles. Les effets pratiques des mesures prises restent à démontrer. A cet égard, l'attention des autorités est attirée sur les mesures prises dans le cadre de l'affaire Christine Goodwin contre le Royaume-Uni (rubrique 6.2).

• Des informations sont donc attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires, notamment sur les effets pratiques des mesures déjà prises.

• Des informations sont aussi attendues sur l’adoption du projet de loi préparé par le Ministère de la Justice concernant la modification de l’identité sexuelle sur des documents officiels.

• Publication et diffusion : L'arrêt de la Cour européenne a été traduit en lituanien et publié sur le site Internet du Ministère de la Justice, accompagné d'une note explicative. L'Agent du gouvernement a informé par écrit l'ensemble des institutions intéressées et des tribunaux internes de l'arrêt et leur a adressé une note explicative à cette fin. De plus, l'Agent du gouvernement a porté l’arrêt de la Cour européenne à l’attention du Président du Parlement et du Ministre de la Santé au sujet de l'arrêt.

26652/02           Žičkus, arrêt du 07/04/2009, définitif le 07/07/2009

Cette affaire concerne la restriction professionnelle imposée au requérant qui a été licencié de son travail au sein du ministère des affaires intérieures et radié du Barreau, au motif qu’il était un ancien « collaborateur secret du KGB », en application de la loi du 23/11/1999 sur l’enregistrement, la confession, et la protection des personnes ayant admis d’avoir collaboré en secret avec les services spéciaux de l’ex-URSS.

La Cour européenne a estimé que ces mesures ne se justifiaient plus s’agissant d’emploi dans le secteur privé. Ainsi, la radiation du requérant du Barreau et la limitation des perspectives d’embauche dans diverses branches du secteur privé ont été considérées par la Cour européenne comme des mesures disproportionnées au regard des buts légitimes poursuivis (violation de l’article 14 combiné avec l’article 8).

En tant que telle, cette affaire se distingue des affaires Rainys et Gasparavičius (70665/01 et 74345/01) et Sidabras et Džiautas (55480/00 et 59330/00) (rubrique 6.2), dans la mesure où dans ces deux affaires, des restrictions similaires avaient été imposées aux anciens agents permanents du KGB en application d’une autre loi spéciale (« la loi sur le KGB ») adoptée en juillet 1998. 

Mesures de caractère individuel :

• Informations fournies par les autorités lituaniennes le 09/04/2009) : Après avoir souligné que le requérant avait été radié du Barreau à la suite des décisions judiciaires incriminées dans cette affaire, les autorités lituaniennes mettent en exergue que le requérant n’a toujours pas formulé de demande de réintégration auprès du Barreau.

Mesures de caractère général:

• (Informations fournies par les autorités lituaniennes le 09/04/2009) : Un projet d’amendement à la loi sur l’enregistrement, la confession et la protection des personnes ayant admis avoir collaboré en secret avec les services spéciaux de l’ex-URSS a été présenté au Seimas (Parlement de la République de Lituanie) qui a décidé de la formation d’un groupe de travail afin d’examiner cet amendement. Dans la préparation du projet d’amendement, les rapporteurs ont porté une attention particulière sur la nature de la profession qui fait l’objet de restriction en raison des activités du titulaire en tant qu’ancien « collaborateur secret du KGB ».

Compte tenu des considérations de la Cour européenne dans la présente affaire, les restrictions professionnelles en question imposées aux anciens collaborateurs secrets du KGB dans le projet, poursuivent strictement les buts légitimes de protection de la sécurité nationale, de la sûreté publique et des droits et libertés d’autrui et aucune restriction professionnelle n’est imposée dans le cadre du secteur privé. Selon le projet d’amendement, les anciens collaborateurs du KGB sont interdits d’accomplir les fonctions suivantes pour une durée de dix ans à partir de l’entrée en vigueur du projet : les fonctions dont le recrutement est effectué par le Seimas, le Président de la République, le Président du Seimas, le Gouvernement, le Premier ministre. Les anciens collaborateurs ne peuvent d’ailleurs pas exercer les fonctions de Vice Premier ministre, secrétaire d’Etat de ministère, président des institutions publiques, président des écoles municipales ou publiques ; ils ne peuvent exercer les fonctions de procureur, contrôleur d’Etat ou fonctionnaire public statutaire (selon l’article 2§6 de la loi sur le service public tel qu’amendé par la loi du 23/04/2002, le terme « fonctionnaire public statutaire » vise les fonctionnaires dont les fonctions sont régies directement par la loi ou des fonctionnaires qui utilisent un pouvoir administratif sur des personnes qui ne leur sont pas directement subordonnées) ; ils ne peuvent pas exercer des fonctions qui concernent la défense nationale ou des fonctions dans le cadre du service diplomatique ; ou des fonctions qui concernent l’accès à des documents classés confidentiels.

Les autorités lituaniennes soulignent que cet amendement va permettre aux anciens collaborateurs du KGB de trouver du travail non seulement dans le secteur privé, mais aussi, au sein du secteur public avec certaines exceptions définies clairement dans la législation pertinente. Un équilibre sera ainsi établi entre les buts légitimes visés par les restrictions professionnelles imposées aux anciens collaborateurs et le droit de ces derniers à la protection de la vie privée.

Par ailleurs, l’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été traduit en lituanien et a été placé sur le site internet du Ministère de la Justice, accompagné d’une note explicative sur l’arrêt et son contenu. Toutes les juridictions concernées ont été informées de l’arrêt.

• Des informations sont attendues sur l’adoption du projet d’amendement de la loi sur l’enregistrement, la confession et la protection des personnes ayant admis avoir collaboré en secret avec les services spéciaux de l’ex-URSS.

- 3 cases against Luxembourg / 3 affaires contre le Luxembourg

- 2 cases concerning the violation of the right of access to court due to dismissal of a cassation appeal on excessively formalistic grounds[28]

17140/05           Kemp and others, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008

18522/06           Dattel No. 2, judgment of 30/07/2009, final on 10/12/2005

2113/04            Schneider, arrêt du 10/07/2007, définitif le 10/10/2007

L'affaire concerne une atteinte au droit au respect des biens (violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1) en raison de l'obligation pour la requérante d'inclure son terrain dans une zone de chasse. L'affaire concerne en outre une atteinte à la liberté d'association (violation de l'article 11) dans la mesure où la requérante était contrainte, en application d'une loi de 1925, d'adhérer à une association - le syndicat de chasse - alors qu'elle en désapprouvait les objectifs.

Bien qu'elle se fut déclarée opposante éthique à la chasse et fit connaître son opposition à ce que son terrain soit inclus dans la zone de chasse, le syndicat auquel elle était tenue d'appartenir se prononça pour la mise en location du droit de chasse dans une zone incluant son terrain et cette décision fut approuvée par le ministre de l'Intérieur et entérinée par les juridictions administratives en 2003 (tribunal et Cour administrative).

La Cour européenne a dit que ce système d'adhésion obligatoire plaçait la requérante dans une situation qui rompait le juste équilibre devant régner entre la sauvegarde du droit de propriété et les exigences de l'intérêt général et que contraindre par la loi un individu à adhérer a une association profondément contraire à ses propres convictions et l'obliger, du fait de cette adhésion, à apporter le terrain dont il est propriétaire pour que l'association en question réalise des objectifs qu'il désapprouve va au-delà de ce qui est nécessaire pour assurer un juste équilibre entre des intérêts contradictoires et ne saurait être considéré comme proportionné au but poursuivi.

Mesures de caractère individuel : il ressort des informations fournies par les autorités qu’à ce stade, la chasse ne pourrait être arrêtée sur le terrain de la requérante, pour trois raisons. Premièrement, les autorités seraient confrontées au principe de l’autorité de la chose jugée et aucune disposition de droit interne ne permettrait de rouvrir la procédure juridictionnelle litigieuse. Deuxièmement, au niveau administratif, un retrait de la décision ministérielle approuvant la délibération du syndicat de chasse sur la mise en location du droit de chasse serait également impossible, car contraire à la législation nationale (en matière de procédure non-contentieuse). Troisièmement et enfin, un tel retrait porterait atteinte aux droits des tierces personnes (membres du syndicat de chasse, locataires du lot de chasse concerné) liées par un contrat de bail portant sur une période de 9 ans et venant à terme en 2012.

• Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours.

La requérante n'a formulé aucune demande de satisfaction équitable devant la Cour européenne ; la Cour européenne a estimé qu'il n'y avait pas lieu de lui allouer de somme à ce titre.

Mesures de caractère général : La loi du 20/07/1925 sur l'amodiation de la chasse et l'indemnisation des dégâts causés par le gibier, qui contraint les propriétaires à adhérer à un syndicat de chasse, est mise en cause dans cette affaire. Il convient toutefois de noter qu’après les faits de l’espèce, le 13/07/2004, la Cour administrative a, dans un cas très similaire au cas Schneider, annulé la décision ministérielle approuvant la délibération d’un syndicat de chasse en se fondant en particulier sur l’article 1 du Protocole n°1 (voir §§ 20-24 de l’arrêt).

Suite à l’arrêt de la Cour européenne, le Gouvernement a déposé le 04/06/2008 un projet de loi relative à la chasse, en vue entre autres d’éviter de nouvelles violations similaires.

S’agissant de la question de l’adhésion obligatoire à l’association, il peut être noté qu’aux termes de ce projet de loi (article 23), « les propriétaires qui pour des convictions éthiques personnelles sont opposés à la pratique de la chasse sur leurs fonds ne font pas partie d’un syndicat de chasse ». Il suffit pour cela que « les intéressés présentent au moins huit jours avant l’assemblée générale des syndicats, sous peine de forclusion, une déclaration de retrait écrite et motivée », selon certaines conditions de forme précisées par la loi.

S’agissant de l’inclusion obligatoire du terrain dans une zone de chasse, il peut être noté qu’aux termes du projet de loi, formellement, les terrains des opposants éthiques à la chasse font partie du lot de chasse, mais que « l’exercice de la chasse est alors suspendu sur ces fonds pendant la durée du bail » (sans préjudice de l’application de trois dispositions spéciales, relatives à la recherche du gibier blessé et aux chasses administratives dans l’intérêt général). La déclaration de retrait doit être renouvelée à chaque fois que le bail arrive à échéance.

Le Conseil d’Etat a émis un avis sur ce projet de loi le 03/03/2009, dans lequel il soulève un certain nombre de questions, concernant entre autres la date d’entrée en vigueur des dispositions de la loi relatives à l’opposition éthique à la chasse (31/07/2011, mais en pratique la très grande majorité des baux en cours ne viennent à échéance que le 31/07/2012), ou les cas de changement de propriétaire du terrain en cours de bail (un acheteur opposant à la chasse devrait attendre la fin du bail pour demander le retrait de son terrain).

La procédure législative se poursuit.

Il est encore à noter qu’en vue d’attirer l’attention des autorités compétentes sur les conclusions de la Cour européenne, l'arrêt de la Cour européenne a été diffusé aux Cours administratives et publié dans la revue Codex de juin-juillet 2007.

• Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours.

- 11 cases against Malta / 11 affaires contre Malte

11956/07           Stephens No. 1, judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 14/09/2009

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention for ten days (between 12/11/2004 and 22/11/2004) after his arrest order had been declared unlawful (violation of Article 5§1).

In August 2004, the applicant was arrested and detained in Spain following a request for his extradition by the Maltese authorities, pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Court of Magistrates. Following proceedings brought by the applicant, on 12/11/2004 the Civil Court in Malta held inter alia that the arrest warrant in question should be annulled as the issuing court had acted ultra vires, and granted the applicant compensation in this respect. The applicant appealed this decision in respect of other issues before the Constitutional Court. On the same day the Civil Court delivered its judgment, the Maltese authorities informed their Spanish counterparts that the warrant had been declared unlawful, but that the judgment was not final and had no effect until the appeal had been decided. Pending the main constitutional proceedings, the applicant filed another application with the Constitutional Court requesting his release in accordance with the judgment of 12/11/2004. On 22/11/2004 the Constitutional Court upheld the applicant’s request, stating that the judgment of 12/11/2004 was provisionally enforceable. It found the compensation granted by the Civil Court to be adequate and confirmed the sum. That day the applicant was granted bail by the Spanish authorities.

The European Court noted that the Constitutional Court had confirmed the first-instance judgment insofar as there was a violation of Article 5§1 because the arrest warrant was null and void, and had confirmed the compensation granted in this respect. However, the European Court observed that the judgment of the Constitutional Court made no reference to the ten-day period of detention between 12/11/2004 and 22/11/2004, and did not increase the compensation granted in the light of this continued unlawful detention. The European Court held that the violation resulting from this further period was also imputable to Malta and had not been redressed.

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

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that he was denied the possibility of obtaining a judicial determination of his claim that he was not the biological father of a child born by his wife in 1967 several months after their separation (violation of Article 6§1).

Until 1990, the applicant was prevented from bringing such a claim since the Maltese Civil Code permitted the denial of paternity only in cases of adultery and where the birth had been concealed, which was not the case here. Following an amendment, the law permitted claims in paternity cases within 3 months after birth. This time-limit was raised to 6 months in 1993. Thus the applicant was barred at the material time from using this remedy. Under the new rules, evidence of adultery and of any other fact tending to exclude paternity was sufficient to bring an action for disavowal.

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

The European Court held that, given the wording of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code coupled with the Constitutional Court’s refusal to grant the applicant leave for introducing an action for disavowal, the practical impossibility of denying paternity impaired the essence of the applicant’s right to a court (§80 and §89 of the judgment).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life since a fair balance has not been struck between the general interest of the protection of the legal certainty of family relationships and the applicant's right to have the legal presumption of his paternity reviewed in the light of the biological evidence (violation of Article 8).

Finally, the case concerns the violation of the prohibition of discrimination in that, while the applicant was subject to a stricter time-limit than the other interested parties, whose right to challenge the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock were not subject to any time-limit (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 6§1 and 8).

Individual measures: By virtue of the amendment to clause 70(4) of the Civil Code, introduced following the judgment of the European Court (see general measures below), the applicant was able to bring an action for disavowal of paternity before the Maltese courts between 2007 and 31/12/2008.

• Assessment: no further measures appear necessary.

General measures:

            1) Violation of Articles 6§1 and 8:

• Information provided by the Maltese authorities: On 9/06/2006 a Bill to amend Clause 4 of Article 70 of the Maltese Civil Code was published. The new Clause 4 will entitle the applicant as well as other persons in the same position to repudiate a child born before 1/12/1993.

On 24/06/2009, the Maltese authorities confirmed that the bill had become law and included the new, proposed Article 70(4). The new law is available at http://www2.justice.gov.mt/lom/home.asp.

Under the new clause, any applicant bringing a claim which related to a child born prior to 1993 might benefit from the reforms enacted in 1993 provided they brought their claim before the 31.12.08. Therefore, people in the same position in the applicant (and the applicant himself) had a period of one year from 2007 (when the amendment came into force) until 31/12/2008 to bring an application repudiating paternity before the Maltese Courts.

• Assessment: the Court found a violation of Article 6§1 based on the fact that “…a time-limit precluded the applicant from benefiting from the 1993 amendments…” but that this “…did not impair the existence itself of the right in the domestic legal system” (§74). The new amendment appears to remedy the position for those who were previously excluded from bringing claims under the 1993 amendments by providing a one year period where any possible claims could be made.

• Assessment: no further measures appear necessary.

            2) Violation of Article 14:

• Information is awaited on any measures taken or envisaged.

            3) Publication and dissemination: judgments of the European Court against Malta are habitually sent out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry of Justice and Home affairs (mjha.gov.mt/ministry/links.html) which provides for a direct link to the Court's website.

• Information submitted by the Maltese authorities is currently being assessed.

7333/06            Lombardo and others, judgment of 24/04/2007, final on 24/07/2007

The case concerns a breach of the freedom of expression of the applicants, of whom the first three were members of the Fgura Local Council and the fourth the editor of the newspaper In-Nazzjon Taghna, due to a judgment against them in civil libel proceedings concerning the publication of an article in 2001 on a road-building project, denouncing the Local Council for failure to consult the public or to take account of public opinion (violation of Article 10).

The European Court found that the article did not exceed the bounds of acceptable criticism, observing in particular the importance of preserving elected representatives’ freedom of expression in matters of public interest. The Court also considered that the applicants’ statements had adequate basis in fact, and included that in spite of the modest amount of damages awarded against the applicants, the finding had been such as to dissuade criticism of the local council’s policy and was thus unnecessary in a democratic society.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damages sustained with regard to the fines and damages ordered in the domestic proceedings. The applicants made no claim in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

• Assessment: No individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: No information has been provided by the Maltese authorities concerning general measures taken or envisaged.

• In the absence of any information given the period of time since delivery of the judgment, the authorities are invited to provide an action plan / action report with respect to the measures taken or envisaged.

17209/02          Adami Zarb, judgment of 20/06/2006, final on 20/09/2006

The case concerns the fact that the applicant was subject to discrimination on account of the practice of enrolling far more men than women on the jurors' list even though the law in force at the material time (Article. 603 [1] of the Maltese Criminal Code) made no distinction between sexes, both men and women being equally eligible for jury service. The European Court held that the government had not provided an adequate explanation to justify this difference of treatment (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4§3(d)).

According to the European Court's judgment, since 1997 an administrative process has been set in motion in order to bring the number of women registered as jurors in line with that of men. As a result, in 2004, 6,344 women and 10,195 men were enrolled on the list of jurors.

Individual measures: The applicant was exempted from jury service in April 2005 under Article 604 [1] of the Maltese Criminal Code. The European Court held that the finding of a violation in itself constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained.

• Assessment: No individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Information submitted by the Maltese authorities is currently being assessed.

77562/01          San Leonard Band Club, judgment of 29/07/2004, final on 29/10/2004

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, in that in 1996, in the ambit of retrial of civil proceedings the same judges of the Court of Appeal were called upon to ascertain whether their previous judgment was based on a misinterpretation of the law (violation of Article 6§1). Thus, the same judges were called upon to decide whether or not they themselves had committed an error of legal interpretation or application in their previous decision (§§63-64 of the judgment).

The European Court found that these circumstances were sufficient to justify the applicant's fears as to the lack of impartiality of the Court of Appeal (§65 of the judgment).

Individual measures: The applicant submitted no claim for just satisfaction. The European Court indicated that in cases of violation of the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, the most appropriate measure in principle is reopening before an independent and impartial tribunal (§70 of the judgment).

• Information submitted by the Maltese authorities is currently being assessed.

General measures:

• The authorities are invited to provide an action plan / action report with respect to the measures taken or envisaged.

31122/05          Ghigo, judgment of 26/09/2006, final on 26/12/2006 and of 17/07/2008, final on 17/10/2008 (Article 41)

17647/04           Edwards, judgment of 24/10/2006, final on 24/01/2007 and of 17/07/2008, final on 06/04/2009 (Article 41)

35349/05           Fleri Soler and Camilleri, judgment of 26/09/2006, final on 26/12/2006 and of 17/07/2008, final on 17/10/2008 (Article 41)

The cases concern a violation of the applicants' right to respect to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions on account of the requisition of their buildings under the Maltese Housing Act, imposing a landlord-tenant relationship on the applicants. They had been requested to bear most of the social and financial costs of supplying housing accommodation to a third party and his family (Ghigo and Edwards) and the financial costs of providing a working environment for government departments and/or for public offices which were performing their duties for the benefit of the community as a whole (Fleri Soler and Camilleri).

The European Court found that a disproportionate and excessive burden had been imposed on the applicants because of the extremely low amount of rent, the fact that the applicants' premises had been requisitioned for more than 22 years (Ghigo), more than 30 years (Edwards), and for almost 65 years (Fleri Soler and Camilleri) , and the restrictions on the landlords’ rights.

It followed that the Maltese state had failed to strike the requisite fair balance between the general interests of the community and the protection of the applicants' right of property (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: In separate judgments rendered concerning just satisfaction, the European Court compensated the pecuniary damage resulting from the applicants’ loss of rent.

In the Fleri Soler and Camilleri case, the Court also noted (§16 of judgment on just satisfaction) that the government had restored the requisitioned property in 2007.

However, in the Ghigo and Edwards cases the Court noted that the applicants were still subject to the requisition measure at issue. It recalled in this respect that its Article 41 judgments aimed only to redress damage sustained as a result of the violation and that it was not in a position to calculate the extent of any future damage resulting from the maintenance of the said measure. It therefore rejected the applicants’ requests in this respect, subject to the establishment by the government of a mechanism to ensure the payment of fair rent in the future.

• Information is awaited on the current situation of the applicants in the Ghigo and Edwards cases and on measures taken or envisaged to erase the consequences of the violation.

General measures: The European Court noted in the judgments rendered under Article 41 that its conclusions in the principal judgments resulted from shortcomings in the Maltese legal system, particularly Maltese housing legislation, as a consequence of which, an entire category of individuals has been and is still being deprived of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of property. In the Court’s view, the unfair balance detected in the applicants’ particular cases may subsequently give rise to other numerous, well-founded applications which are a threat for the future effectiveness of the system put in place by the Convention.

The European Court further expressly stated that general measures are undoubtedly called for in the execution of the present judgments. In particular, the European Court considered that the Maltese state must above all, through appropriate legal and/or other measures, secure in its domestic legal order a mechanism maintaining a fair balance between the interests of landlords, including their entitlement to derive profit from their property, and the general interest of the community – including the availability of sufficient accommodation for the less well-off – in accordance with the principles of protection of property rights under the Convention.

It also observed that the many options open to the respondent state include measures setting out the features of a mechanism balancing the rights of landlords and tenants and criteria for what might be considered nowadays a “tenant in need”, “fair rent” and “decent profit” (§§25-29 in Art. 41 judgment in Ghigo).

• Information submitted by the Maltese authorities is currently being assessed.

                        - 3 cases of length of civil proceedings

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

15091/06           Bezzina Wettinger and others, judgment of 08/04/2008, final on 08/07/2008

35829/03          Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited, judgment of 24/10/2006, final on 24/01/2007

These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings initiated between 1964 and 2000, and closed between 1981 and 2003 (violations of Article 6§1).

In the case of Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited, the Constitutional Court in 2003 declared that there had been a violation of Article 6§1 of the Convention on account of the unreasonable delay in proceedings; however the non-pecuniary damage which it awarded was held to be insufficent by the European Court.

Individual measures: The proceedings in all the cases are closed. The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: No individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: No information has been provided by the Maltese authorities concerning general measures taken or envisaged.

• In the absence of information and given the period of time since delivery of the judgments, the authorities are invited to provide an action plan / action report with respect to the measures taken or envisaged.

- 119 cases against Moldova / 119 affaires contre la Moldova[29]

39806/05           Paladi, judgment of 10/03/2009 – Grand Chamber

17332/03           Levinta, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009

81/04                Savitchi, judgment of 17/06/2008, final on 17/09/2008

- 10 cases mainly concerning violations related to detention on remand

3456/05            Sarban, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

23393/05          Castravet, judgment of 13/03/2007, final on 13/06/2007

21984/05          Gorea, judgment of 17/07/2007, final on 17/10/2007

14437/05          Modarca, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 10/08/2007

42440/06          Muşuc, judgment of 06/11/2007, final on 06/022008

8207/06            Stepuleac, judgment of 06/11/2007, final on 06/02/2008

35324/04          Stici, judgment of 23/10/2007, final on 23/01/2008

10809/06          Turcan, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 27/02/2008

39835/05          Turcan and Turcan, judgment of 23/10/2007, final on 23/01/2008

3817/05            Ursu, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 27/02/2008

                       CM/Inf/DH(2009)42-rev

- 7 cases concerning ill-treatment in police custody, lack of effective investigation in this respect (Articles 3 and 13)

18944/02          Corsacov, judgment of 04/04/2006, final on 04/07/2006

41088/05          Boicenco, judgment of 11/07/2006, final on 11/10/2006 and of 10/06/2008, final on 10/09/2008

12544/08           Breabin, judgment of 07/04/2009, final on 07/07/2009

28653/05           Buziloz, judgment of 23/06/2009, final on 23/09/2009

29089/06           Colibaba, judgment of 23/10/2007, final on 23/01/2008

7045/08            Gurgurov, judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 16/09/2009, rectified on 17/06/2009

6888/03            Pruneanu, judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 23/05/2007

41578/05           David, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 27/02/2008

20289/02           Guţu, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 07/09/2007

35615/06          Cebotari, judgment of 13/11/207, final on 13/02/2008

- 6 cases concerning poor detention conditions and lack of effective remedy in this respect

9190/03            Becciev, judgment of 04/10/2005, final on 04/01/2006

12066/02          Ciorap, judgment of 19/06/2007, final on 19/09/2007

30649/05          Holomiov, judgment of 07/11/2006, final on 07/02/2007

8721/05+          Istratii and others, judgment of 27/03/2007, final on 27/06/2007

7101/06            Malai, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

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

36492/02           Bujnita, judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 16/04/2007

- 47 cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration in abiding by final domestic judgments

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Luntre group)

                        - 8 cases mainly concerning the quashing of final domestic judgments

19960/04           Popov No. 2, judgment of 06/12/2005, final on 06/03/2006

39815/07           Baroul-Partner-A, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

11712/04           Ceachir, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

3052/04            Dacia S.R.L., judgment of 18/03/2008, final on 18/06/2008 and of 24/02/2009, final on 14/09/2009

75/07                Duca, judgment of 03/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

53773/00           Istrate, judgment of 13/06/2006, final on 13/09/2006

6923/03            Melnic, judgment of 14/11/2006, final on 14/02/2007

30475/03          Moldovahidromas, judgment of 27/02/2007, final on 27/05/2007 and of 13/05/2008 – Friendly settlement

40663/98          Asito, judgment of 08/11/2005, final on 08/02/2006, and judgment of 24/04/2007 (Article 41) - Friendly settlement

17211/03           Dolneanu, judgment of 13/11/2007, final on 13/02/2008

32263/03           Tocono and Profesorii Prometeişti, judgment of 26/06/2007, final on 26/09/2007

- 2 cases concerning the violation of the right to a fair trial before the Supreme Court of Justice

289/04+            Popovici, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

25236/02           Navoloaca, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009

- 3 cases concerning the violation of the right of access to a court due to the refusal by tribunals to examine appeals for lack of payment of court fees

13229/04           Clionov, judgment of 09/10/2007, final on 09/01/2008

28790/03           Istrate No. 2, judgment of 10/06/2008, final on 10/09/2008

27888/04           Tudor-Comert, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

33066/04           Mancevschi, judgment of 07/10/2008, final on 07/01/2009

41827/02           Kommersant Moldovy, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 09/04/2007

14277/04           Guja, judgment of 12/02/2008 – Grand Chamber

                       - 8 cases concerning freedom of expression

31001/03           Flux No. 2, judgment of 03/07/2007, final on 03/10/2007

28702/03           Flux, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008

32558/03           Flux No. 3, judgment of 12/06/2007, final on 12/09/2007

17294/04           Flux No. 4, judgment of 12/02/2008, final on 12/05/2008

17343/04           Flux No. 5, judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/10/2008

28700/03           Flux and Samson, judgment of 23/10/2007, final on 23/01/2008

36305/03           Tara and Poiata, judgment of 16/10/2007, final on 16/01/2008

42864/05           Timpul Info-Magazin and Anghel, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

33482/06           Hyde Park and others, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

45094/06           Hyde Park and others No. 2, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

45095/06           Hyde Park and others No. 3, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

18491/07           Hyde Park and others No. 4, judgment of 07/04/2009, final on 07/07/2009

                        - 2 cases concerning freedom of assembly

28793/02          Christian Democratic People's Party (CDPP), judgment of 14/02/2006, final on 14/05/2006

25230/02+         Roşca, Secăreanu and others judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 27/06/2008

6303/05            Masaev, judgment of 12/05/2009, final on 12/08/2009

25198/02           Iordachi and others, judgment of 10/02/2009, final on 14/09/2009, rectified on 14/09/2009

19247/03           Balan, judgment of 29/01/2008, final on 29/04/2008

40117/02           Cazacu, judgment of 23/10/2007, final on 23/01/2008

15084/03           Bimer S.A., judgment of 10/07/2007, final on 10/10/2007

21151/04           Megadat.com SRL, judgment of 08/04/2008, final on 08/07/2008

- 3 cases of length of civil proceedings

13012/02           Cravcenco, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

27581/04           Boboc, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

35967/03           Gusovschi, judgment of 13/11/2007, final on 31/03/2008

- 4 cases against the Netherlands / 4 affaires contre les Pays-Bas

24919/03          Mathew, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 15/02/2006

The case concerns the poor conditions of detention on remand and the detention regime the applicant suffered in the Aruba Correctional Institution (KIA) on the island of Aruba, which in the European Court’s view amounted to inhuman treatment (violation of Article 3).

When establishing the facts, the European Court considered the applicant’s mental condition even if no psychiatric or psychological examination of the applicant had been undertaken. It noted that the applicant’s behaviour in detention was characterised by his continued inability to adapt to the exigencies of prison life and his lack of response to normal prison discipline. Thus, it was apparent for the European Court that he was, while detained, suffering from a disturbance the precise nature of which the European Court did not determine but which resulted in an increased propensity to recalcitrant and even violent behaviour. The European Court accepted that the authorities found him impossible to control except in conditions of strict confinement. However, it found that the Aruban authorities were aware that the applicant was a person unfit to be detained in the KIA in normal conditions and that the special regime designed for him was causing him unusual distress. While the Court accepted that accommodation suitable for prisoners of the applicant’s unfortunate disposition were non-existent at the relevant time, it found that the respondent authorities could and should have done more, for example, to execute the judicial order in another part of the Netherlands. It also found that “the applicant was kept in solitary confinement for an excessive and unnecessarily protracted period, that he was kept for at least seven months in a cell that failed to offer adequate protection against the weather and the climate, and that he was kept in a location from which he could only gain access to outdoor exercise and fresh air at the expense of unnecessary and avoidable physical suffering”.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damages he sustained. He was released on 30/04/2004.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information provided by the authorities of the Netherlands: The European Court’s judgment was published in several legal journals in the Netherlands (NJCM-Bulletin 2006, no. 4, pp. 529-543; NJB 2005, no. 45/46, pp. 2377-2378; and ECHR 2005, no. 11, pp. 1084-1096). Furthermore, the KIA has recently been renovated, as a result of which the prison cells and the place designated for outdoor activity are now on the ground floor. In addition, disciplinary cells have been renovated (Beds and extra ventilation elements as well as a cell bell system are installed. The exercise cage is equipped with a bench). Following the publication on 29/01/2008 of the most recent CPT report (2008)2 concerning its visit to Aruba in June 2007, the State Secretary of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations requested the governors of Aruba (and the Netherlands Antilles) to report every six months. The Aruban Ministry of Justice has set up a Commission on the Supervision of Prison Cells and Treatment of Detainees to supervise the adjustment of the prisons and to deal with legal, individual and personnel aspects. In addition, special attention will be paid to education and to expanding of prison staff and police personnel.

• Latest developments (letter of 15/01/2009): The transfer of prisoners from Aruba to the Netherlands lies within the discretionary powers of the Ministry of Justice, and is based on Article 36 of the Charter of the Kingdom of the Netherlands which empowers the Government of the Netherlands to render assistance to Aruba (and the Netherlands Antilles). A transfer of prisoners may be ordered either upon an individual request in cases of pressing reasons of security or medical and/or psychiatric indications, or if there is a risk of imminent breach of an international treaty on human rights. Furthermore, within an understanding reached between the penitentiary institutions in Aruba (Dienst Gevangeniswezen) and the Netherlands (Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen), the latter has provided expertise and personnel at the disposal of Aruba.

• Assessment of the measures adopted and further information required: The measures adopted seem to constitute a very positive step towards ensuring appropriate detention conditions for prisoners in situations similar to the applicant’s. Further information is, however, still required, in particular, on psychological and psychiatric treatment available at the KIA.

 

30810/03           Geerings, judgment of 01/03/2007, final on 01/06/2007 and of 14/02/2008, final on 14/05/2008

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant's right to be presumed innocent (violation of Article 6§2). On 30/03/2001 the domestic court of appeal, on the basis of article 36e of the Criminal Code, issued an order for the confiscation of illegally obtained advantage in respect of thefts of which the applicant had been partially acquitted by a final judgment of 29/01/1999.

The appellate court indicated that the offences of which the applicant was acquitted constituted “similar offences”, within the meaning of Article 36e of the Criminal Code, to those for which he had been convicted, and thus, pursuant to the same provision and contrary to the general rule on the burden of proof in criminal matters, the Prosecutor only had to establish that there was “sufficient indication” that the accused had committed the offences in order to obtain a confiscation order.

The court of appeal found that this was so in this particular case and consequently ordered the confiscation of alleged advantages obtained from those offences in addition to those of which he had been convicted. The Supreme Court later upheld the judgment of the court of appeal.

The European Court considered that confiscation following conviction is an inappropriate measure having regard to assets which are not known to have been in the possession of the person affected (as was the case here), the more so if the measure concerned relates to a criminal act of which the person affected has been acquitted. It further held that the court of appeal’s finding amounted to a determination of the applicant’s guilt without the applicant having been found guilty according to the law.

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

In domestic proceedings introduced by the Advocate General following the European Court’s judgment, by a judgment of 27/09/2007, the confiscation order of 30/03/2001 was reduced to an amount which corresponded to that of the offence for which the applicant had been convicted by the judgment of 29/01/1999. The applicant subsequently withdrew his claim in respect of pecuniary damage before the European Court.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: The judgment was published in several legal journals in the Netherlands (EHRC 2007/61, pp 574-577, Delikt & Delinkwent 2007/6,NJB 2007/22 and JOL 2007/389 (Hoge Raad Strafkamer)). On 9/08/2007 it was sent out to the authorities competent for confiscation matters, to raise their awareness on the requirements under Article 6§2 of the Convention.

Furthermore, on 26/09/2007, the Board of Prosecutors-General issued a new guideline for confiscation practice to ensure that future confiscation procedures are conducted in accordance with Article 6§2 of the Convention. According to the guideline inter alia no advantage obtained could be confiscated in respect of counts on which one had been acquitted, unless it was firmly established that the person concerned had derived an actual advantage from those counts.

• Bilateral contacts are under way to assess and clarify the information provided by the authorities.

49902/99          Brand, judgment of 11/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004

48865/99           Morsink, judgment of 11/05/2004, final on 10/11/2004

The cases concern the provisional detention of the applicants (14 and 15 months respectively) pending availability of places in a secure psychiatric facility (violations of Article 5§1).

The applicants, who had been judged responsible for their acts, had been sentenced to imprisonment. In addition, because of problems of mental health, they were ordered to be detained in a secure psychiatric facility upon expiry of their sentences (respectively in 1994 and 1998). This was not a punitive measure but rather aimed at protecting society from the risks posed by the applicants.

The European Court found that the length of time the applicants had to wait was unacceptable. In addition, the Court stated that “[…] even a delay of six months in the admission of a person to a custodial clinic cannot be regarded as acceptable” (see §66 of the judgment in the case of Brand).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage Compensation was awarded in domestic proceedings for the pre-placement detention. The applicants are no longer in pre-placement detention contrary to Article 5§1.

• Assessment: No further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Background: The Secretariat notes that the current legislation, which entered into force in 1997 (i.e. after the facts in this case), provides a maximum delay for placement in a secure institution of six months. The Minister of Justice may extend this period by three months at a time, if placement proves impossible.

• Measures concerning the delay in admission to a custodial clinic: The Netherlands authorities have initiated measures to increase the capacity of secure psychiatric facilities, keeping in mind that following the judgments of the European Court and developments in domestic case-law, persons waiting for six months or more for placement in a custodial clinic need to be given priority. Thus in the years 2006/2007 the capacity of the concerned clinics was to be increased by a total of 260 places. In 2006 the capacity was expanded by 146 places and more increases were envisaged. On 16/08/2006, the Netherlands authorities have informed the Secretariat that despite these measures the waiting period has not been reduced to below 6 months in all cases as the number of confinement orders is still high and expanding capacity depends also on finding and appointing qualified staff. Accordingly, three-month extensions are not yet exceptional. In addition, a pilot programme has been initiated under which those in detention awaiting placement may receive treatment in order to shorten their subsequent stay at a clinic.

• Measures regarding the creation of an effective remedy: If placement in a custodial clinic is not possible within six months, the person awaiting admission may receive compensation for each month spent waiting in detention. The Netherlands authorities also refer to a recent appeal judgment (of 27/04/2006) in which a waiting period of more than four months was found excessive and therefore needs to be compensated. In this judgment, reference was made to the findings of the European Court in these cases.

• Latest developments (letter of 10/04/2008): The Supreme Court confirmed the appeal judgment on 21/12/2007. Consequently, a person awaiting admission in a custodial clinic for more than 4 months will receive compensation. This finding is applied in the Netherlands.

• Information is awaited on the progress of the ongoing expansion of the capacity of custodial clinics since 2006. Statistics regarding the average waiting period for placement in such clinics would be useful. In addition, information would be useful on whether the pilot programme mentioned above will become permanent in practice.

- 1 cases against Norway / 1 affaire contre la Norvège

21132/05           Tv Vest As and Rogaland Pensjonistparti, judgment of 11/12/2008, final on 11/03/2009

This case concerns the violation of the freedom of expression of the applicants, TV Vest AS Ltd. – a television broadcasting company – and the Rogaland Pensioners Party (Rogaland Pensjionistparti), on account of a fine imposed by the State Media Authority on 10/09/2003 for breaching legislation prohibiting television broadcasting of political advertisements (violation of Article 10).

The decision of the State Media Authority concerned advertisements aired in 2003 by TV Vest and was based on the prohibition on television broadcasting of political advertising under section 3-1(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1992. The prohibition is permanent and absolute and applies only to television, political advertising in other media being permitted.

The European Court noted that the rationale for the statutory prohibition of television broadcasting of political advertising had been, as stated by the Supreme Court in rejecting the appeal of one of the applicants, the assumption that allowing the use of such a powerful and pervasive form and medium of expression had been likely to reduce the quality of political debate and to give richer parties and groups more scope for opportunities for marketing their opinions.

However, the European Court found that “paid advertising on television had been the sole means for the Pensioners Party to get its message across to the public through that type of medium” (§73). By being denied this possibility under the law, the Pensioners Party had been put at a disadvantage in comparison with the major parties, which had obtained broader editorial broadcasting coverage. Moreover, the content of the advertising was not as such as to lower the level of public debate. Therefore the Court considered that “the fact that the audio-visual media has a more effective and powerful effect than other media could not justify the disputed prohibition and fine imposed in respect of the broadcasting of the political advertising at issue” (§76).

The Court accordingly concluded that there had not been a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the legitimate aim pursued by the prohibition of political advertising and the means deployed to achieve that aim. The restriction could not therefore be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society (§ 78).

Individual measures: The Court did not award the applicants just satisfaction as they submitted their claim out of time.

• Information provided by the Norwegian authorities: Following the judgment of the Court, on 8/07/2009, the Media Authority annulled its decision of 10/09/2003 fining TV Vest under section 10-3 of the Broadcasting Act and section 10-2 of the Broadcasting Regulations. The fine was never collected due to the dispute concerning its legality.

The applicants have recently requested the re-opening of the case in order to claim legal costs pertaining to the proceedings before the national courts and the European Court. According to the government, as the Court decided not to award just satisfaction, a claim for compensation cannot be based on the Article 46 of the Convention. Section 407(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure permits the re-opening of internal proceedings following a judgment of the European Court finding a violation.

• Information is awaited as to the outcome of the applicant’s request for reopening of the proceedings.

General measures: Section 3-1(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1992 reads: ”Broadcasters may not transmit advertisements for life philosophy or political opinion through television. This applies also to teletext”. 

The European Court acknowledged that the absence of a European consensus with regard to the extent of the regulation of television broadcasting of political advertising could be viewed as emanating from the different perceptions regarding what is necessary for the proper functioning of the “democratic” system in the respective states. However, on the basis of its assessment on the circumstances of the case (see above), it concluded that “the view expounded by the respondent Government, supported by the third party intervening Governments, that there was no viable alternative to a blanket ban must [therefore] be rejected” (§77).

• Information provided by the Norwegian authorities: The prohibition in Section 3-1(3) of the Broadcasting Act has remained unchanged. The Norwegian authorities have however indicated that they have implemented two general measures to prevent similar violations. These were proposed in a white paper of the Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs and approved by the Norwegian Parliament on 29/05/2009.

First, the Statutes of the national public broadcaster (NRK) have been amended. The NRK is now obliged to provide broad and balanced coverage of elections in accordance with the amended Section 12 (b) of the Statutes of the NRK , “The NRK shall provide a broad and balanced coverage of political elections. All parties and lists over a certain size shall normally be included in the editorial election coverage.” According to the white paper, the objective behind this amendment is to provide that smaller political parties, such as the Pensioners Party, are included in the NRK’s editorial coverage. The Media Authority will monitor NRK’s obligations according to these articles. The NRK has given an account of the editorial principles that will govern its election coverage during elections in 2009 (parliamentary elections) and 2011 (municipal elections) in a letter dated 10/03/2009 to the Ministry: “Parties with eligible candidates in more than half of the Regions in the national elections or in more than one municipality in the local elections, will normally be included in the NRK’s election coverage.” This includes the Pensioners Party and other political parties of a similar size. Smaller parties may also be covered according to NRK’s obligation to provide a broad and balanced coverage. In any case, according to the Norwegian authorities, such parties will be covered by the second general measure. The Norwegian authorities reported that during the last parliamentary elections (September 2009), the Pensioners Party and other political parties of similar size were included in the NRK’s election coverage.

Secondly, all political parties are able to use Frikanalen (the Open Channel) as a means to communicate with the public. This also includes political parties smaller than the Pensioners Party. Frikanalen is an open television channel in which organisations or individuals broadcast their own programmes. The channel is owned by more than 60 different non-profit organisations in Norway and is financed by support from the Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs and a membership fee. Frikanalen was started in October 2008 and is distributed through the digital terrestrial television network which covers more than 95 % of households. The terms of the licence permit the editor of the Frikanalen to delegate editorial responsibility to organisations or individuals. The editor’s sole obligation is to divide broadcasting time between the different organisations and to schedule their broadcasts. The Channel as such does not produce or broadcast any programmes of its own. To facilitate party political broadcasts during elections, the Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs in May 2009 signed an agreement with Frikanalen which states: “Reference is made to the objectives of the Frikanalen ‘to strengthen the freedom of speech and democratic participation by enabling new groups the opportunity to communicate by way of the television medium’. Reference is furthermore made to the Ministry’s objectives concerning an open channel. In order to fulfil these aims Frikanalen is to facilitate freedom of speech for all political parties and lists. During the last three weeks before an election such political parties and lists shall be given priority.

Frikanalen shall furthermore enable regionalisation of its signals in connection with Municipal and Regional Elections in order for local parties and lists to obtain television coverage through Frikanalen.”

The Norwegian authorities report that during the last parliamentary elections the Pensioners Party exercised the opportunity to broadcast programmes on Frikanalen. At present four political parties have broadcast their programmes on this Channel, including smaller political parties.

In addition, the Court’s judgment highlighted the direct effect of the European Court’s case-law accepted by the State Media Authority.

A summary of the judgment in Norwegian, with a link to the original judgment, was published on the Internet site Lovdata (<http://www.lovdata.no/avg/emdn/emdn-2003-012148-2-norge.html>). The Lovdata web site is widely used by all who practice law in Norway, civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike. The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights (an independent national human rights institution) writes the summaries of the Court's judgments for the database.

• Assessment:  The measures taken by the respondent Government are welcome.

At the outset, it should be recalled that the European Court found a violation in this case taking account of the fact that paid advertising on television had been the sole means available to the Pensioners’ Party to convey its message to the public. The European Court concluded that contrary to the rationale of this statutory prohibition, by being denied this possibility, the applicant political party had been put at a disadvantage in comparison with the major parties, which had obtained broader editorial broadcasting coverage. In this respect, it should be noted that the prohibition prescribed by Section 3-1(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1992 remains unchanged.

It is observed that the measures taken by the Norwegian authorities aimed at securing access to the media for small political parties. The Norwegian authorities preferred to make changes in the public service broadcaster NRK’s mandate to allow for political parties’ access to the TV media (editorial coverage). In this respect, it should first be noted that all the parties and lists “over a certain size shall normally be included in the editorial election coverage”, i.e. all parties and lists are not guaranteed editorial coverage (the modification of Section 12 (b) of the Statutes of the NRK). In addition, it is not clear whether the mandate entails a requirement of equal treatment, or how the respect of this obligation is monitored. Nor is it clear how the “parties and lists over a certain size” were included in the editorial election coverage in practice.

The Norwegian authorities have also supported the Open Channel in order to guarantee TV access for all political parties during the election period. However, more detailed information is awaited as to the efficiency of this measure taken (whether or not it allows small parties to have access to the TV media). In this connection the Secretariat takes note the OSCE/ODHIR Needs Assessment Mission Report (22-25 June 2009) dated 4/08/2009, in which it was stated that “the open channel is currently functioning on a limited basis, as it is potentially available to some 30% of the population and only broadcasts five and a half hours a day...The Government is also proposing changes to the public broadcaster’s mandate to ensure broad and balanced coverage of elections. However, this will not necessarily ensure that smaller parties, which formed the basis for the ECHR judgment, receive television news coverage.”

• Further information is necessary In this respect to make a more conclusive assessment as to whether or not these measures are sufficient to prevent similar violations and secure access to the edited media for small political parties.

- 32 cases against Poland / 32 affaires contre la Pologne

17885/04           Orchowski, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

17599/05           Sikorski Norbert, judgment of 22/10/2009, final on 22/01/2010

The cases concern inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicants due to imprisonment in inadequate conditions, particularly overcrowding (violations of Article 3). From 2003 and 2001, respectively, the applicants were detained in several different prisons where they did not benefit from the statutory minimum living space of 3m² per prisoner. This lack of space had been aggravated by factors such as the lack of exercise, particularly outdoor exercise, lack of privacy, insalubrious conditions and frequent transfers. The European Court held unanimously that the distress and hardship endured by the applicants had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.

“Quasi-pilot-judgment” procedure: The European Court recalled that imprisonment in inadequate conditions constituted a recurrent problem in Poland. It held that from 2000 until at least mid-2008, overcrowding in Polish prisons and remand centres revealed a persistent structural dysfunction, qualified as a practice incompatible with the Convention (i.e. § 147 of the Sikorski judgment). The Court further observed that in the recent case of Kauczor (No. 45219/06, 1092nd meeting, September 2010), it had held that the excessive length of pre-trial detention in Poland revealed a structural problem consisting of a practice incompatible with Article 5§3 of the Convention and that the solution to the problem of overcrowding of detention facilities in Poland was indissociably linked to the solution of that identified in the Kauczor case.

            1) General measures to solve problems at the basis of the repetitive violations: The European Court underlined that consistent and long-term efforts must continue in order to achieve compliance with Article 3. It acknowledged that solving the systemic problem of overcrowding in Poland could call for the mobilisation of significant financial resources, but stressed that it is incumbent on the respondent government to organise its penitentiary system so as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (i.e. § 153 of the Sikorski judgment). The Court concluded that if the state is unable to ensure that prison conditions comply with the requirements of Article 3, it must abandon its strict penal policy in order to reduce the number of incarcerated persons or put in place a system of alterative means of punishment.

            2) Effective domestic remedies: The European Court encouraged the respondent state to develop an efficient system of complaints to the authorities supervising detention facilities, in particular the penitentiary judge and the administration of these facilities, which would be able to react more speedily than courts and to order, when necessary, a detainee's long-term transfer to an establishment in which the conditions were compatible with the Convention (i.e. § 154 of the Sikorski judgment).

The European Court took also note of an emerging practice civil courts which allows prisoners to claim damages in respect of prison conditions. In this connection, the Court emphasised the importance of the proper application by civil courts of the principles which had been set out in the relevant judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 26/02/2007.

3) Individual applications lodged before the delivery of the quasi-pilot judgment and communicated to the government: Approximately 160 cases concerning similar facts were pending before the Court at the time of the adoption of the present judgments. The European Court did not adjourn the examination of other cases raising similar issues pending the adoption of domestic remedial measures by the Polish authorities.

Individual measures: The applicants have been transferred to prisons which are not categorised as overcrowded.

• Assessment: In the circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on the adoption of the measures required by the quasi-pilot judgment. The relevant issues were raised with the authorities during the mission of the Secretariat to Warsaw in March 2010. Substantial information was provided orally to the Secretariat and this will be supported by information in writing to be submitted by the Polish authorities.

23052/05           Kaprykowski, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

28300/06           Musiał Sławomir, judgment of 20/01/2009, final on 05/06/2009

44369/02           Wenerski, judgment of 20/01/2009, final on 20/04/2009

These cases concern inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicants due to lack of adequate medical care in detention facilities (violations of Article 3).

Kaprykowski: The applicant suffered from epilepsy, encephalopathy and dementia and was held on remand in several detention facilities. He had frequent epileptic fits and required constant medical supervision. The European Court found that during his detention on remand at various times between 2005 and 2007 in the Poznan Remand Centre, he did not receive adequate medical treatment and was placed in a position of dependency and inferiority vis-à-vis his healthy cellmates. This was not least because the establishment did not specialise in treating neurological disorders and the applicant spent almost seven months in an ordinary cell, without constant medical supervision.

Musiał: The applicant suffers from epilepsy, schizophrenia and other serious disorders, and has been detained on remand since April 2005. During nearly three and a half years’ detention he has for the most part been detained with healthy inmates in ordinary detention facilities, even though he requires regular psychiatric supervision. In addition, the European Court observed that the establishments in which he has been held faced overcrowding and hygiene problems and that the cumulative effects of the inadequate medical care and inappropriate detention conditions were such as to be qualified as inhuman and degrading.

Wenerski: The applicant was remanded in custody in 2001 and has been serving a prison sentence since 2003. He suffered from a serious eye problem and, according to a 1998 medical report, needed urgently to undergo an operation on his right eye-socket. However, until 2004 the prison authorities failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that this operation was carried out, even though at least two hospitals agreed to have it performed “under escort”, thus not requiring the applicant to be released.

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence in that a letter sent to him by the European Court in 2003 had been opened and marked “censored” (violation of Article 8).

Findings under Article 46 in the Musiał judgment: The Court, mindful of the structural nature of these problems, called upon the Polish authorities in the Musiał judgment under Article 46 to take the necessary legislative and administrative measures to secure appropriate conditions of detention, in particular adequate conditions and medical treatment for prisoners needing special care owing to their state of health (§ 107 of the judgment). It also urged them to put an end to the violation of Article 3 in this case by securing adequate detention conditions for the applicant as soon as possible in an establishment capable of providing him with the necessary psychiatric treatment and constant medical supervision (§108).

Individual measures:

1) Violation of Article 3: In all these cases the European court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In the Kaprykowski case the applicant was released on 01/12/2007 (§24 of the judgment). According to a letter from the Polish authorities dated 23/06/2009, Mr Musiał was released from the Herby State Prison on 18/11/2008. In Mr Wenerski’s case, the necessary surgery finally took place in February 2004. The applicant is still in prison, serving his sentence. He is now awaiting the requested plastic surgery on his eyes, guaranteed to him by the authorities. His state of health is closely monitored.

• Assessment: As Mr Kaprykowski and Mr Musiał are no longer in detention, no further individual measures are required in their cases. Mr Wenerski has been granted medical care according to his wishes and his health care needs are respected. In the circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.

2) Violation of Article 8 in the Wenerski case: The European Court awarded just satisfaction.

• Assessment: the censorship of detainees’ correspondence is linked to the general measures (see below).

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 3:

a) Legislative reforms: An amendment of the Minister of Justice’s Ordinance of 31/10/2003 on detailed rules, scope and procedure relating to medical services available to persons deprived of their liberty is to be prepared by 08/07/2010. Furthermore, on 28/08/2009 an amendment to the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences was adopted by Parliament and subsequently transmitted to the Senate and to the President for further legislative work. The purpose of this amendment is to implement the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 26/05/2008 which found that Article 248 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (which made it possible under certain circumstances to place detainees, for a specified time, in conditions in which the living space per capita is less that 3 m²) is unconstitutional.

The Central Prison Service Board is working on the rationalisation of the health-care system for persons deprived of their liberty. A significant element of this process is a projected reform of penitentiary hospital facilities, in particular psychiatric wards.

b) Other measures: The Central Prison Service Board intends to enforce more strictly the provisions concerning the obligation to co-operate non-penitentiary health-care establishments in providing medical services for persons deprived of liberty. On 01/092009 the law on the Electronic Supervision System came into force. This is intended to help diminish the overcrowding in the penitentiary units.

c) Publication and dissemination: The judgments of the European Court in the Musiał and Wenerski cases have been published on the public website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl) and sent out to appeal courts and the Director of the Central Administration for the Prison Service. 

• Assessment: an action plan/action report should be provided for evaluation by the Committee. To this end, further information should be made available including a time-table, further detail of the measures envisaged and already taken and an evaluation of how these measures address the violations found by the Court. In particular information would be welcome on:

-           the scope and functioning of the law on Electronic Supervision System and its implementation;

-           detail of the provisions of the draft amendment to the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences;

-           clarification of the scope and aim of the reform of procedure relating to the provision of medical services to persons deprived of their liberty and the current state of the legislative process;

-           detailed information on the envisaged rationalisation of the health-care system and the reform of penitentiary hospital facilities.

• The relevant issues were raised with the authorities during the mission of the Secretariat to Warsaw in March 2010. Substantial information was provided orally to the Secretariat and this will be supported by information in writing to be submitted by the Polish authorities.

2) Violation of Article 8 in the Wenerski case: See the Klamecki No. 2 group of cases (31583/96, 1100th meeting, December 2010) dealing with the censorship of prisoners’ correspondence with the European Court. Measures taken to prevent new, similar violations include: publication, awareness-raising measures, new instruction of the Director General of Prison Services, installation of special mailboxes in detention centres for correspondence with the European Court.

77766/01           Dzieciak, judgment of 09/12/2008, final on 09/03/2009

This case concerns the authorities’ failure to protect the applicant’s life while in custody between September 1997 and October 2001 and the lack of effective investigation into his death.

The applicant, who suffered from heart disease and had had two heart attacks, was remanded in custody on suspicion of drug trafficking on 17/09/1997. Despite his numerous requests for release on grounds of ill-health, the domestic courts repeatedly extended his detention, relying on the reasonable suspicion against him and the complexity of the investigation. It was only on 22/10/2001, during a trial at which the applicant fainted, that the court ordered his release for 26/10/2001, knowing that he was to undergo a heart bypass operation that day. On 25/10/2001 the applicant died; the post-mortem examination concluded that he had died of acute coronary insufficiency.

The European Court noted that despite the medical panel’s recommendations of 1998 and 1999 that the applicant should be kept in a detention centre with a hospital wing, between November 1999 and March 2000, he was kept in a detention centre in Łódź with no hospital wing. Consequently, his health deteriorated gradually. Even though in 2001 doctors decided that he should have a heart bypass operation, the authorities did not give a satisfactory explanation as to why he was not transferred to the Institute of Cardiology on the first two dates scheduled for that purpose. It was particularly striking that the second date was communicated to him too late, because of prosecutor’s censorship. The European Court also noted that the medical panel’s recommendation of 01/10/2001 on the applicant’s release had been notified to the trial court 22 days later and the applicant had had no access to medical care when he attended hearings in October 2001. Furthermore the grounds given by the domestic authorities to extend his detention could not justify the total period spent on remand which exceeded four years. Thus the European Court concluded that the lack of quality and promptness of the medical care provided to the applicant during his four years’ pre-trial detention had put his health and life in danger (substantive violation of Article 2).

The European Court also criticised the fact that the investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s death lasted more than two years, from December 2001 until the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue it on 28/08/2003, upheld by the district court on 19/01/2004. It concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into the allegation that the applicant’s death had been caused by ineffective medical care during his detention (procedural violation of Article 2).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant’s widow just satisfaction in respect non-pecuniary damage.

The European Court noted the incomplete and inadequate character of the investigation insofar as it was not capable of establishing the circumstances directly preceding the applicant’s death. The prosecutor failed to establish whether the applicant had been taken to court on the morning of 22/10/2001, what exactly had happened in the court building, why the ambulance had brought him back to the detention centre; what had happened before the applicant had been taken unconscious from his cell at 3.45 p.m. (§ 107) and what was the real date of the applicant’s death (§ 108). Nor had it considered the doubts expressed by experts about the postponement of surgery on three occasions (§ 110).

On 20/07/2009 the authorities stated that the reopening of the investigation in this case is possible. However, they expressed doubts as to the prospects of such reopening in the particular circumstances of the case.

• Information is awaited as to whether the investigation has been reopened.

General measures:

1) Substantive violation of Article 2: The European Court concluded that in particular the lack of co-operation and co-ordination between the various State authorities, the failure to transport the applicant to hospital for two scheduled operations, the lack of adequate and prompt information to the trial court on the applicant's state of health, the failure to secure him access to doctors during the final days of his life and the failure to take into account his health in the automatic extensions of his detention amounted to inadequate medical treatment and constituted a violation of the State's obligation to protect the lives of persons in custody (§101).

The judgment of the European Court was translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice(www.ms.gov.pl) and sent out to competent authorities (prison authorities, prosecutors, district, regional and appellate criminal courts), along with a circular.

• Information is awaited whether further measures are envisaged.

2) Procedural violation of Article 2: This violation resulted from the protracted length of the investigation and the lack of critical assessment by prosecutor and the district court of evidence obtained in the case.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent similar violations.

11818/02           Mojsiejew, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 24/06/2009

This case concerns the death of the applicant’s husband at the Tychy Sobering-up Centre in August 1999 in circumstances invoking the state’s responsibility (substantive violation of Article 2). The applicant’s husband had died by suffocation resulting either from an immobilisation technique known as “the headlock” or the use of immobilisation belts for many hours without supervision.

The case also concerns the absence of an effective investigation of the circumstances of his death (procedural violation of Article 2). The European Court noted that the courts had remained practically inactive for years after a bill of indictment had been lodged against the staff of the centre. Shortcomings in the proceedings were the major ground for quashing of the first-instance judgment and the case was still pending when the European Court gave its judgment.

• The relevant issues were raised with the authorities during the mission of the Secretariat to Warsaw in March 2010. Substantial information was provided orally to the Secretariat and this will be supported by information in writing to be submitted by the Polish authorities.

14612/02           Wiktorko, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

This case concerns ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant at the Olsztyn Sobering-up Centre in December 1999 (substantive violation of Article 3). The applicant was stripped naked by the staff of the centre, one woman and two men, and strapped in a bed for several hours.

The case further concerns the shortcomings of the investigation initiated by the applicant against the staff of the Centre (procedural violation of Article 3). These proceedings were discontinued in 2000 on the basis of the court’s finding that there had been no grounds on which to hold that a criminal offence had been committed.

The European Court found in particular that the investigation had been conducted in too narrow a framework: it focused on the justification for depriving the applicant of her liberty and the use of force against her in the centre and not on the justification for the forced removal of her clothing by two male employees and the use of restraining straps.

• The relevant issues were raised with the authorities during the mission of the Secretariat to Warsaw in March 2010. Substantial information was provided orally to the Secretariat and this will be supported by information in writing to be submitted by the Polish authorities.

                        - 2 cases concerning iIl-treatment by the police while arresting the applicants

46702/99           Dzwonkowski, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

9258/04            Mrozowski, judgment of 12/05/2009, final on 12/08/2009

These cases concern inhuman treatment suffered by the applicants when arrested by the police in June 1997 and April 2002, respectively (substantive violations of Article 3).

The European Court considered that the government had advanced no considerations to explain or justify the use of force. It concluded that, given the severity of the applicants' injuries, attested by medical certificates, the use of force by the police had been excessive and unjustified. The Court referred to criminal proceedings brought against the applicants for using violence against police officers and to the findings of the first-instance courts that the applicants had been beaten up by the police.

The cases also concern the absence of any effective investigation into the circumstances of the incidents (procedural violations of Article 3). The European Court noted that the prosecution had dropped the criminal complaints brought by the applicants against the police, despite the medical reports and the findings of the domestic courts. It found that the investigations had been superficial and lacking in objectivity, resulting in decisions which were contradicted by the facts.

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

According to the authorities, the applicants may request the reopening of the discontinued proceedings (concerning their ill-treatment) under Article 327 of the 1997 Code of Criminal Procedure.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

1) Substantive violations of Article 3: According to the Police Act of 1990, police officers may apply only such coercive measures as correspond to the requirements of the situation and are necessary to ensure that their orders are obeyed. Thus in these cases the violations resulted from the abusive actions of the police officers.

2) Procedural violations of Article 3: These violations resulted from public prosecutors’ decisions to drop the criminal complaints against the police officers in spite of factual elements presented. The European Court considered that the investigation had been “superficial, lacked objectivity and ended in decisions which contained conclusions unsupported by a careful analysis of the facts” (§66 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Polish authorities:

a) Police Human Rights Advisers: In 2007 the network of Human Rights Advisers to the Chief Commander and Province (Voivodship) Commanders of Police, established in 2005, were given full-time positions. Their tasks include, inter alia, training police officers, promoting police conduct in accordance with international human rights standards and monitoring police operations. Particular importance is given to monitoring police activity.

b) Changes to the Police complaints system: On 29/05/2008 there was a meeting of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Matters Concerning the European Court at which the Head of the Department for Control, Complaints and Petitions at the Ministry of Interior and Administration reported that about 20 000 complaints concerning police activity were being examined. On 17/02/2009 the authorities provided preliminary statistical data in this respect. In 2008 there was a total of 17 936 complaints about police conduct (7% less than in 2007). In 1588 cases, the charges were confirmed at the enquiry stage; in 130 cases disciplinary proceedings were initiated and in 1013 cases complaints were sent to prosecutors for further appraisal. Complaints referred in particular to the means and justification of police interventions, promptness of investigation, inactivity and negligence in dealing with complaints by the police and material errors in police activities. Until the end of 2008, the police used an outdated system of classification, recording and processing complaints. Following recommendations by the CPT and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Chief Commander of Police decided to establish a new computer system for processing complaints as one of the elements of a new approach to complaints about police conduct. Due to need to find savings, the implementation of the system was delayed.

c) National Police Headquarters Action plan: In November 2007 the National Police Headquarters drafted an action plan to implement recommendations by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the CPT and the European Court’s judgments, which includes establishing a special body to scrutinise the observance of human rights by the Police when having recourse to the use of force. On 28/05/2008 a workshop took place on this issue in Strasbourg. On 17/07/2008 a working group within the Ministry of Interior and Administration met to prepare a concept for the special body and to discuss the outcomes of the Strasbourg workshop. After considering the adoption of binding regulations it was decided that the most suitable solution would be to create a special body within the office of the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection. The relevant law (law of 15/07/1987 on the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection of the Republic of Poland) enables examination of applications arising from the conduct of the Police and other services. Under the Constitution, the Commissioner is an independent authority competent to examine complaints on action of the Police and other services. During a visit of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in Poland in 2008, the Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection of the Republic of Poland announced the creation within his office a special work-group to this end. However, the work-group will not come into existence in the immediate future due to the need for legislative amendments and assurance of appropriate funds.

Even so, the Ministry of Interior and the Commissioner have decided that:

-           information on relevant cases resulting in a judgment of the European Court will be submitted to the Office of the Commissioner,

-           the Ministry of the Interior and Administration will prepare an information campaign about the possibility of appealing to the Commissioner in case of improper conduct by the Police or other services.

d) Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgments have been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl/re/re_wyroki.php) and disseminated to police officers, courts and prosecutors. In May 2009 the National Police Headquarters organised workshops for complaints coordinators, acquainting them with the European Court’s case-law (cases of Dzwonkowski, Lewandowska and Lewandowski and Litwa v. Poland) and with the international human rights standards and conventions of CPT, CAT, CERD and ICCPR.  

• Information is awaited on the implementation of the action plan, in particular the creation of the special human rights body for the police and implementation of the new computer system for processing complaints about police conduct.

11638/02           Pawlik, judgment of 19/06/2007, final on 19/09/2007

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to respect for his family life due the authorities' failure to take effective steps to enforce his right of contact with his son, born in 1988 (violation of Article 8).

By a decision of 16/09/1994, the Szczecin Regional Court dissolved the applicant's marriage, limited the exercise of the applicant's parental rights over his son and specified the access arrangements (later modified on 30/06/2000). Since the applicant's ex-wife consistently refused to comply with these arrangements, the applicant actively sought their enforcement before the Szczecin District Court. Even though he managed to see his son only very rarely, the only sanction used against his ex-wife by the authorities was a fine imposed in September 2001. The situation only improved after 17/06/2002, when the Szczecin District Court discontinued the proceedings following an agreement reached between the applicant and his wife concerning access to the child.

The European Court noted that there had been long delays in the enforcement proceedings and that no satisfactory explanation had been put forward to justify them. The inaction of the authorities placed on the applicant the burden of having to have constant recourse to a succession of time-consuming and ultimately ineffectual remedies to enforce his rights. The European Court recalled that cases of this kind of require urgent handling as the passage of time and the change of circumstances may have irreparable consequences for relations between the children and the parent who does not live with them.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant's son reached the age of majority in 2006.

• Assessment: no further individual measure appears to be necessary in this case.

General measures: A similar problem was raised in the context of the examination in the case of Zawadka (48542/99, Section 6.2), in which the violation of Article 8 was partly due to the failure to enforce access arrangements. In that case, the authorities published and widely disseminated the European Court's judgment.

• Information provided by the authorities:

            1) Applicable domestic provisions: Concerning the enforcement of court decisions on parental rights of access, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on enforcement of non-pecuniary obligations are applicable.

According to Section 1050§1, if the debtor fails to comply with the obligation to take measures which cannot be taken by any other person, the court may fix time-limits for complying with this obligation on pain of a fine. This provision is applicable to a situation in which one of the parents is allowed to have access to his/her child outside his/her residence. If access is only possible in the child's residence, the provision of Section 1051 is applicable, which means that in case of non-enforcement of a judicial decision the court may impose a fine on the other parent without fixing an additional time-limit to comply with the decision.

The fine shall not exceed 1 000 PLN (230 euro), but it may be imposed several times, up to a total amount of 100 000 PLN (23 000 euro). When fixing the fine, the court shall state that failure to pay will result in arrest (Section 1053§1).

Moreover, where one of the parents does not respect access arrangements, the court may hold a hearing, of which the public prosecutor is informed, and may order the guardian to take the child away from this parent (Section 598¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure). Failure to respect access arrangements by one of the parents may also constitute ground for depriving him/her of parental authority or limiting it (Sections 111 and 109 of the Family Code).

            2) Legislative amendments under way: The Ministry of Justice has prepared a bill amending the Code of Civil Procedure with a view to ensuring better enforcement of decisions on access arrangements.

            3) Monitoring carried out by the Ministry of Justice: The Ministry of Justice is monitoring the enforcement of judicial decisions concerning access arrangements and return of children. Presidents of regional courts are obliged to send quarterly reports on execution of decisions on forcible removal of children under parental authority or in care, issued in accordance with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and on execution of courts’ decisions on enforcement of contacts with minors. According to the 2007 and 2008 reports, cases of the first category are very rare and fall under supervision of the Department of International Co-operation and European Law of the Ministry of Justice, as they have to be completed within 6 weeks. On the basis of the reports obtained, the Ministry of Justice conducts a review of any irregularities and possible grounds of protracted enforcement of decisions concerning custody rights or contacts. Subsequently, the Ministry provides the Presidents of regional courts with an analysis of submitted reports, indicating irregularities and obliging them to eliminate them. Moreover, a systematic analysis of quarterly reports is conducted, followed by necessary supervisory actions. In 2009 the Ministry was planning to conduct an inspection in some district courts where irregularities had been found.

            4) Publication: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl) and disseminated to courts dealing with family issues and to appeal courts.

• Information is awaited on the adoption of the bill prepared by the Ministry of Justice (see point 2 above), as well as on any other measures envisaged following the outcome of the monitoring carried out by the authorities.

55339/00          Różański, judgment of 18/05/2006, final on 18/08/2006[30]

- 2 cases concerning the unlawful detention of the applicants in a remand centre pending placement in a psychiatric hospital

26917/05           Mocarska, judgment of 06/11/2007, final on 06/02/2008

34151/04           Pankiewicz, judgment of 12/02/2008, final on 12/05/2008

These cases concern the unlawful provisional detention of the applicants pending placement in a psychiatric hospital (violations of Article 5§1 (e)).

In the case of Mocarska on 25/10/2005 the Warsaw District Court discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that she could not be held criminally responsible due to her poor mental condition and ordered that she be placed in a psychiatric hospital. Subsequently the applicant remained in a detention centre for eight months, due to delays caused by the district court itself and the Psychiatric Commission on Preventive Measures, which was responsible for indicating in which psychiatric hospital the applicant should be placed.

In the case of Pankiewicz case, the applicant remained in a detention centre between 05/01/2004 and 30/03/2004 pending his transfer to a psychiatric hospital.

The European Court noted that the continuation of provisional detention for eight months in the case of Mocarska and two months and twenty-five days in the case of Pankiewicz could not be regarded as lawful.

Individual measures:

In the case of Mocarska, on 30/06/2006 the applicant was transferred from the detention centre to the Pruszkow Psychiatric Hospital. She claimed no just satisfaction before the European Court.

In the case of Pankiewicz, the applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital on 30/03//2004. The European Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: According to Article 264§3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if proceedings are discontinued for reasons linked to the mental health of the accused, detention may be ordered pending the application of a preventive measure.

The European Court noted that the length of detention pending transfer to a psychiatric hospital is not specified by any statutory or other provision.

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: The violations result from the lack of available places in psychiatric hospitals. The Ministry of Justice is currently preparing draft amendments to the provisions on the placement in psychiatric facilities.

The Mocarska judgment has been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.ms.gov.pl and disseminated among criminal courts.

• Information is awaited on the dissemination of the Mocarska judgment to other competent authorities (in particular, psychiatric commissions) and other measures to prevent similar violations in the future, in particular on the envisaged legislative changes and the measures taken to increase the capacity of psychiatric facilities.

- 2 cases concerning the lack of equality of arms in proceedings concerning the review of the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention on remand[31]

22755/04           Chruściński, judgment of 06/11/2007, final on 06/02/2008

28481/03           Łaszkiewicz, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008

77782/01           Luczak, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

The case concerns the discrimination suffered by the applicant due to the dismissal of his request for admission to the farmer’s social security scheme on the ground of his nationality (French) (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1).

The applicant had lived and worked in Poland since 1984 and as an employee he had been affiliated to the general social security scheme for some years. In 1997 the applicant and his wife (a Polish national) bought a farm and decided to make their living from it. On 2/12/1997 the applicant requested the Częstochowa branch of the Farmers' Social Security Fund (Kasa Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego) to admit him to the farmers' social security scheme. On 16/12/1997, his request was refused on the ground that he was not a Polish national, a condition laid down in the Farmers' Social Security Act of 20/12/1990. As a result, the applicant had no social security cover in the event of sickness, occupational injury or invalidity. In addition, he could not pay contributions towards his old-age pension.

The European Court found that the difference in treatment in admission to the Polish farmers’ social security scheme on account of the applicant’s nationality was not justified by any public-interest grounds.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage. The European Court took note of the fact that, as a result of the violation found, the applicant could not contribute towards his retirement pension from 1997 to 2002.

• Information provided by the Polish authorities (letter of 23/10/2009): The applicant must apply to the Farmers’ Social Security Fund for assessment of his right to receive the farmer’s pension in order to obtain a determination as to whether the period during which he was prevented from contributing should be taken into account when calculating his pension. To date, the applicant has made no such application. Moreover, pursuant to Article 55 of the Farmers’ Social Security Act, the President of the Fund may, upon application, grant the farmers’ pension to a farmer, or to a member of his household or family, even if that person does not fulfil all the requirements prescribed by law but is deprived of other financial means. 

• Assessment: In these circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary. The issue of recalculation of the pension is linked to the questions raised under the general measures.

General measures: On 2/04/2004 the 1990 Act was amended following Poland's accession to the European Union (EU) in that nationals of European Union member states and foreign nationals in possession of a residence permit could join the farmers' scheme (entry into force on 2/05/004). Consequently, the difference in treatment in the farmers’ scheme has been remedied. In addition, an ordinance of 23/09/2008 by the Prime Minister established the Inter-departmental Consent on the Reform of the Farmers’ Social Security Scheme. The Consent will prepare relevant legal regulations concerning rights of persons in similar situation to that of the applicant, based on the analysis of the Luczak judgment.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of the work of the Inter-departmental Consent and the progress of the planned legal reform. In particular, clarification is requested on measures taken/envisaged as to how the period of time during which non-Polish nationals who were in the same situation as the applicant and, thus, deprived of making contributions towards their retirement pension under the farmers’ scheme is taken into account when calculating their retirement pension (i.e. before the entry into force of the amendment of the 1990 Act on 2/05/2004).

19206/03           Bruczyński, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

This case concerns the excessive length of detention of the applicant on remand between 2000 and 2004, given that the grounds relied upon by the domestic courts in support of the detention could not be deemed, as required by the case-law of the European Court, “relevant and sufficient” (violation of Article 5§3).

Moreover, the European Court found that the applicant did not have at his disposal an enforceable right to compensation for his detention on remand, which it had found to be in violation of Article 5§3 (violation of Article 5§5).

Individual measures: The applicant was released in 2004. The European Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage occasioned by the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention.

• Evaluation: no other measure appears to be necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 5§3: This case presents similarities to the Trzaska group (Section 4.2).

2) Violation of Article 5§5: The European Court noted, first, that the applicant could not avail himself of the remedy provided in Article 552§4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since reliance on that provision pre-supposes that the criminal proceedings giving rise to remand have been terminated and the applicant’s case was still pending before the Supreme Court when it delivered its judgment.

Secondly, the applicant could not use the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on the State’s liability for tort, as the applicant’s detention ended before the entry into force of these provisions in September 2004.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations.

20310/02           Płonka, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to be assisted by a lawyer at the initial stage of proceedings (violation of Article 6§3(c) in conjunction with Article 6§1).

The European Court found that the applicant’s initial confession made in the absence of a lawyer had had a bearing on her conviction, while there had been no evidence of her having expressly waived her right to legal representation during her questioning by the police and the prosecution.

In the absence of information and given the period of time since delivery of the judgment, the authorities are invited to provide an action plan / action report with respect to the measures taken or envisaged.

22695/03           Demski, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

This case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in that he could not question or have questioned the sole prosecution witness (violation of Article 6§1 in conjunction with Article 6§3(d)).

In 2001 the applicant was convicted to 4 years’ imprisonment for rape in proceedings in which the statements of the victim, who was the only direct witness, were made at the pre-trial stage. During the trial the applicant had no possibility to put questions to her or to confront her with other evidence.

The European Court concluded that the applicant’s conviction was based mainly on depositions of a witness whom he had had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at the trial and that, in consequence, his rights of defence had been restricted to an extent which was incompatible with the requirements of Article 6.

Individual measures: Under Article 540§3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant may apply to have the criminal proceedings reopened invoking the finding of a violation by the European Court. Having regard to this possibility, the European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant.

• Assessment: in these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.

General measures: The European court noted that the first-instance court had not made every possible effort to summons the victim to testify at the trial although her address was known. It stated furthermore that if it had been established that the victim was not in a position to take part in the trial, arrangements could have been made so that she could testify without suffering the ordeal of cross-examination whilst at the same time respecting the rights of the defence (§44).

The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.ms.gov.pl ).

• Information is expected on the dissemination of the European Court's judgment to relevant authorities (criminal courts and the Supreme Court) as well as on other measures envisaged or taken to prevent similar violations.

11036/03           Ladent, judgment of 18/03/2008, final on 18/06/2008

The case concerns several violations related to the unlawfulness of applicant’s detention on remand in Poland following a private prosecution for slander in March 2001.

Although the applicant, a French national, left Poland in March 2001, summonses issued in these proceedings remained unanswered. Thus on 15/07/2002 the Kraków–Śródmieście District Court ordered his remand in custody and issued a “wanted” notice.

The applicant was arrested during a routine passport check at the Polish-German border and detained on remand on 03/01/2003. On 10/01/2003 the Kraków–Śródmieście District Court revoked the remand order and substituted non-custodial measures. The applicant was ultimately released on 13/01/2003.

The European Court concluded that the district court had failed to apply the relevant domestic legislation correctly and that the applicant’s detention between 3/01/2003 and 10/01/2003 had not been in accordance with “a procedure prescribed by law”. It also found that the applicant’s detention had been arbitrary, as the detention order imposed on him could not be considered a proportionate measure to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, considering in particular the petty nature of the alleged offence (first violation of Article 5§1).

Moreover, the European Court noted that the applicant had not been informed promptly and in a language which he understood of the reasons for his arrest and the charges brought against him until his release (violation of Article 5§2).

It also noted that the applicant’s detention was ordered on 15/07/2002 without having heard him and following his arrest on 03/01/2003, there was no automatic judicial review of his detention, the further review having been initiated by his counsel. Hence there has been a violation of Article 5§3.

Finally, concerning the delay in releasing the applicant between 10 and 13/01/2003, the European Court noted that the administrative formalities concerning the applicant’s release could and should have been carried out more swiftly and that the applicant’s detention during this period was unjustified (second violation of Article 5§1).

Individual measures: On 17/01/2003 the district court lifted the ban on the applicant’s leaving the country and he and his family returned to France. In 2005 the applicant was acquitted.

In March 2003, following an intervention of a member of Parliament, the applicant was informed by the President of the Court of Appeal about the possibilities of seeking institution of disciplinary proceedings against the judge who had issued the detention order, instituting criminal proceedings for abuse of power and seeking compensation in a civil court.

The European Court granted just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: no further individual measure is required.

General measures:

1) First violation of Article 5§1 and violation of Article 5§2: The violation of Article 5§1 resulted from an error of the district court and the violation of Article 5§2 from this court’s and the Slubice Border Guard’s officers’ failure to provide adequate information in the applicant’s mother tongue.

The judgment has been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.ms.gov.pl and disseminated among criminal courts.

• Information is awaited on the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the police and border guard (for example training). Measures would be useful to ensure that foreigners are provided with proper information on the reasons for their arrest and any charge against them in a language they understand.

2) Second violation of Article 5§1: This resulted from the district court’s delay in sending the release order to the detention centre. A similar issue has already been raised in the context of the case of Gębura (Section 6.2), in which information was provided on the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment, together with a circular.

3) Violation of Article 5§3: The European Court noted that in circumstances such as those of this case, where the applicant was arrested on the basis of a detention order issued in his absence, domestic law does not appear to provide an automatic initial review, instead making it dependent on application by the detainee. It underlined that review must be automatic and must not depend on the application of the detained person (§ 75 of the judgment).

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations.

                  - 3 cases concerning impossibility to appear before an appellate court

19847/07           Sobolewski No. 2, judgment of 09/06/2009, final on 09/09/2009

3818/04            Seliwiak, judgment of 21/07/2009, final on 21/10/2009

31509/02           Strzałkowski, judgment of 09/06/2009, final on 09/09/2009

The cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial in that they were deprived of the possibility to appear before an appellate court and to defend themselves in person in respect of criminal charges against them (violations of Article 6§1 taken in conjunction with Article 6§3(c)).

The issue at stake is similar to that examined by the European Court and the Committee of Ministers in the case of Belziuk (23103/93, Resolution ResDH(2001)9). Shortly after the Belziuk judgment, the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended. The new Article 451 (entry into force on 1/09/2000) now provides that a court of appeal shall order an accused, who is detained, to be brought to the hearing, unless the court considers that the presence of his or her defence counsel is sufficient.

The European Court found in these cases that the appellate courts had decided not to bring the applicants to the courtroom, having regard to the fact that they had been legally represented at the appeal hearings. However, the courts had not referred to the specific grounds of appeal submitted by the applicants, nor did they make any distinction between the factual issues raised by the applicants which were ultimately relevant for the assessment of their guilt and required their presence at a hearing, and merely legal issues.

• In the absence of information and given the period of time since delivery of the judgments, the authorities are invited to provide an action plan / action report with respect to the measures taken or envisaged.

77765/01          Laskowska, judgment of 13/03/2007, final on 13/06/2007

This case concerns the lack of effective access to the Supreme Court on account of a Regional Court’s flawed interpretation of domestic law (violation of Article 6§1). In 2000, the applicant seised the Regional Court to request legal aid with a view to lodging an appeal on a point of law in proceedings concerning her entitlement to a maintenance allowance. The Regional Court dismissed her appeal on the ground that no such appeal was available in cases of this kind. The applicant nonetheless lodged an appeal herself, without legal assistance, but in September 2000 the Regional Court rejected it on the ground that legal representation was compulsory in such proceedings. The applicant appealed against this decision, and in January 2001 the Supreme Court indicated that the applicant was entitled to appeal on a point of law, but dismissed her appeal on formal grounds, namely the late lodging of the appeal and the absence of legal representation.

The European Court found that “the denial of legal aid to the applicant in the cassation appeal proceedings and the rejection of her cassation appeal [due in part to the fact she did not have legal representation] infringed the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court” (§63).

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

It should be noted that Article 168§1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a possibility of leave to appeal out of time, if a party was not able to perform a measure within the prescribed time-limit through no fault of his/her own. However, the time-limit for requesting the leave to appeal out of time expired in the present case (see §33 of the judgment).

• Information is awaited on the applicant’s situation and possible individual measures. In this context, reference is made to the developments in the Tabor case (12825/02, 1100th meeting, December 2010) concerning the possibility of reopening of civil proceedings, under Article 401 item 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when a party has been deprived of the possibility to act.

• Information is also awaited as to whether the applicant might avail herself of the possibility of leave to appeal out of time following the judgment of the European Court in her case. 

General measures: The violation resulted from the Katowice Regional Court’s erroneous premise that an appeal on a point of law was not available in the applicant’s case. Since then, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning appeals on points of law have been amended to make them more precise in that respect.

Concerning the refusal to provide the applicant with legal assistance in the appeal proceedings before the Regional Court, the European Court did not find it necessary to examine whether it amounted to a breach of Article 6§1 (§62 of the judgment). The European Court was concerned with the refusal to grant legal aid in the cassation appeal proceedings (§63).The problem of not granting legal aid for lodging an appeal on points of law is being examined in the Tabor case

• Information is awaited on publication of the European court’s judgment and its dissemination to appellate and regional courts, as well as on the provisions currently in force concerning the possibility of lodging an appeal on points of law in similar cases and on other measures taken or planned by the authorities to avoid new, similar violations. In this respect, clarification would be welcome as to whether in the given circumstances a motion for reopening of the proceedings is available in the light of the recent developments in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court stemming from the Tabor case and whether the leave to appeal out of time can be granted as a result of a violation of the right to access to court established by the European Court.

14480/04           A.E., judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 30/06/2009

This case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Proceedings began in December 1999 and were still pending when the European Court gave its judgment (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the restriction of the applicant’s right to freedom of movement due to the prohibition of leaving the country during the proceedings (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

The European Court found that the that the prohibition on leaving Poland imposed on the applicant who was divested of his passport was disproportionate, being an automatic, blanket measure of indefinite duration.

• In the absence of information and given the period of time since delivery of the judgment, the authorities are invited to provide an action plan / action report with respect to the measures taken or envisaged.

- 5 cases concerning the violation of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions following modifications to the local land development plan

52589/99          Skibińscy, judgment of 14/11/2006, final on 26/03/2007 and of 21/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

10446/03           Buczkiewicz, judgment of 26/02/2008, final on 26/05/2008

38185/02           Pietrzak, judgment of 08/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008

17373/02           Rosiński, judgment of 17/07/2007, final on 17/10/2007

38672/02           Skrzyński, judgment of 06/09/2007, final on 06/12/2007

These cases concern interferences with the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No 1) which occurred between 1993 and 2003. Following modifications to the local land development plans adopted between 1992 and 1998 the applicants were deprived de facto of the use of their land and constantly threatened with expropriation.

Moreover, they had no effective entitlement to compensation under the specific provisions of Local Planning Act of July 1994, which excluded the application of its compensatory provisions in respect of plans adopted before 1995. A new Local Planning Act, which entered into force in July 2003, did not alter the applicants' situation, as it was operational only in respect of local land development plans adopted after that date.

The European Court concluded that a fair balance was not struck between the competing general and individual interests and that the applicants had been required to bear an excessive individual burden.

Individual measures:

            1) Skibińscy case: The Local Development Plan expired at the end of 2003 and in April 2004, the municipal authorities granted the first applicant initial planning permission (§27 of the judgment).

The applicants have been awarded just satisfaction for the pecuniary damage by the European Court.

• Assessment: in these circumstances no further measure appears necessary.

            2) Rosiński and Skrzyński cases: The Local Development Plan expired at the end of 2002. On 25/08/2003 the applicant Rosinski was granted an initial planning permit in respect of his land (§25 of the judgment). The applicant Skrzynski was also granted a final building permit on 25/11/2003.

Both applicants have been awarded just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage by the European Court.

• Assessment: in these circumstances no further measure appears necessary.

            3) Buczkiewicz case: The Local Development Plan expired on 31/12/2003. Apparently to date no new land development plan has been adopted by the municipality (§19 of the judgment). The applicants have been awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage by the European Court. Their claims for pecuniary damage were rejected by the European Court, which found that the applicants had not quantified them.

• Assessment: in these circumstances no further measure appears necessary.

            4) In the case of Pietrzak: The Local Development Plan expired on 31/12/2003. Apparently no new land development plan has been adopted by the municipality and the applicant has not applied for planning permission (§§ 29-30 of the judgment). The applicant has been awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage by the European Court. His claims for pecuniary damage were rejected by the European Court, as it did not find any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged.

• Assessment: in these circumstances no further measure appears necessary.

General measures: The European Court noted that the measures which affected the applicants' situation were taken on the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1994 and that the planning laws subsequently adopted had made no provision for retroactive compensation (§95 of the judgment in the case of Skibinscy).

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: No local land development plan adopted before 01/01/1995 is now in force and thus cannot constitute a basis for limitations of landowners’ rights. Where a new local land development plan is adopted and imposes limitations on owners’ rights, owners affected by its provisions are entitled to seek redress under Section 36 §§ 1-3 of the 2003 Local Development Plan Act. The legal regulations currently in force exclude the possibility of similar violations. Since 01/01/1995 no new violation of landowner’s rights with reference to the local land developments could occurr, the legal regulations currently in force excluding the possibility of violations similar to those found in the present case.

• Information is awaited on measures envisaged or taken to guarantee to persons remaining in a position similar to that of the applicants, a retrospective right to compensation for prejudice suffered before the entry into force of the 2003 Local Development Plan Act, as a result of restrictions originating in land development plans adopted in the past. Clarification would also be useful on how many people can still be affected by former provisions applied to their land before 2003.

 

8677/03            P.P., judgment of 08/01/2008, final on 08/04/2008

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for family life due to the non-enforcement of decisions with respect to the return of his daughters to Italy and his visiting rights (violation of Article 8). The applicant, an Italian national, was married to a Polish national, K.P. They had two daughters, A and B, born in 1992 and 1996, and lived in Italy. In the summer of 1999 K.P. took her daughters on holiday to Poland and filed an application for divorce. In September 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings on grounds of the Hague Convention. On 17/11/1999 the Poznan District Court granted him visiting rights and on 05/01/2001 allowed his application for the return of the children and ordered K.P. to return them to the applicant, considering that she had unlawfully abducted them. This decision became final and enforceable in June 2001. Subsequently the applicant requested its enforcement, but K.P. failed to comply with the decision and hid the children, despite the attempts of the bailiff, guardians assisted by police officers and the representative of the Italian embassy. A guardian’s request for instituting criminal proceedings against her was dismissed in August 2003. During this period, the applicant did not come to Poland, as in January 2002 an arrest warrant was issued against him, due to non-payment of child support ordered in the divorce proceedings. This warrant remained valid until March 2005.

On 03/04/2003 the guardians found the children, but due to A’s strong resistance they called for a medical examination and decided not to enforce the court order. K.P. remained in hiding with the children until September 2003. The applicant eventually met his daughters on 27/03/2005. On 07/06/2005 the Poznan District Court quashed the decision of 05/01/2001 and decided not to return the children to the applicant, considering that their return would expose them to psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation. It took note in particular of the girls’ assimilation in Poland and their strong emotional bonds with their mother.

The European Court noted that even though the authorities did finally find the children on 03/04/2003, the circumstances were such that they could not remove them. Even though the difficulties in finding the children were created by the resistance of their mother, the lapse of time was to a large extent caused by the authorities’ own handling of the case (courts, bailiffs, guardians and also the prosecutor who discontinued the criminal proceedings instituted against K.P.). The European Court concluded that the Polish authorities had failed to take promptly all the measures that could reasonably be expected to enforce the return order and consequently to secure the applicant’s visiting rights. It pointed out in particular that the lack of contact between the applicant and his children was mainly caused by the authorities’ failure to find the children hidden by K.P. and by the arrest order which had been issued against the applicant and was upheld for over three years and which had made it more difficult for him to come to Poland.

Individual measures: Since September 2003, the children have been living in K.P.’s father house in P., where they attend school (§43 of the judgment). The decision of the Poznan District Court of 07/06/2005 is final. However, the case was simultaneously dealt with by the Italian courts. On 24/02/2005 and 28/11/2005 the Venice Court granted the applicant sole custody of A. and B. and deprived K.P. of her parental authority. The decision is final (§ 55 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Polish authorities: The applicant’s visiting rights had been fixed provisionally in the decision of the Poznan District Court of 15/04/2005 (see §49 of the judgment), in the framework of the proceedings concerning the children’s return, based on the Hague Convention. The terms of the exercise of the visiting rights were confirmed by a judgment of the Poznan Regional Court of 22/01/2007. According to this judgment the applicant may see his daughters at their place of residence and take them outside it as long as they do not oppose and their mother has been informed one week before his arrival in Poland. So far the applicant has not requested the assistance of the Ministry of Justice in executing this judgment.

On 26/02/2008 the Ministry of Justice received a note from the Italian Embassy, calling upon the Polish authorities to take measures to ensure that the applicant enjoys fully his visiting rights and spend holidays with his daughters in Italy. On 10/03/2008 the Ministry of Justice replied that the applicant had met his daughters for the last time on 27/05/2005 and since then had contacted them only by telephone.

It also informed the applicant that he may lodge a request for the extension of his visiting rights, clearly indicating in which form they should be carried out and that he should also apply to be allowed to receive his daughters in Italy during holidays.

Moreover, on 19/05/2008 the Ministry of Justice informed the Italian Embassy that if the mother were to hinder the applicant’s contacts with his daughters, he should lodge a motion under Article 1050 of the Code of Civil Proceedings, which concerns the enforcement of court decisions on parental rights of access. Under Article 1050, Section 1, according to which if a debtor fails to comply with the obligation to take measures which cannot be taken by any other person, the court may fix time-limits for complying with this obligation on pain of a fine. The Ministry also indicated which court would be competent to examine such a motion and, in addition, that the applicant may lodge a motion on the basis of Article 21 of the Hague Convention (application to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access).

Besides that on 3/09/2008 the Ministry of Justice answered a letter from the European Union Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security of 5/08/2008, informing him of the legal avenues available to the applicant to amend the judgment of the Poznan Regional Court of 22/01/2007 and that the applicant had lodged no further complaint or request.

• Information provided by the applicant’s counsel (letters of 24/09/2008 and 25/11/2008): Since the decision of the Poznan District Court of 15/04/2005 the applicant has tried to visit his daughters several times. On 14/10/2007 he saw the younger daughter for one hour in a commercial centre. Since then he wanted to meet his daughters for Christmas in 2007 and spend the winter holidays with them in Italy in January 2008, but the mother and her family opposed it. He has visited Poland several times to see his daughters, but to no avail. He also complained to the police about the behavior of the mother and her family, but there has been no follow-up. He speaks sometimes with the younger daughter on the telephone, but their conversations are limited due to linguistic problems and the mother’s interference.

On 07/07/2008 the Italian Ministry of Justice wrote to the Polish Ministry of Justice, asking the latter to help the applicant in the exercise of his visiting rights. The letter specified that the applicant wanted to host his daughters in Italy during the summer and the Christmas break of 2008 as well as one week in the wintertime in 2009, without their mother’s presence. He was willing to pay their travel expenses from Warsaw to Venice, while the Italian Embassy could take care of the girls’ journey from Poznan to Warsaw.

By letter of 11/08/2008, the Polish Ministry of Justice answered its Italian counterpart’s letter, stating the following:

-           the Hague Convention is no longer applicable to the elder daughter since she has already reached the age of 16;

-           the courts are competent to modify the applicant’s visiting rights,

-           the applicant may lodge a request for the extension of his visiting rights by the District Court in Poznan (himself or by a lawyer), clearly indicating how they should be exercised (day, hour, venue, etc.). He may ask the court to order the mother not to hinder the exercise of these rights. The Ministry also informed the applicant of the formal requirements that should be met in this respect (documents to be submitted and fees).

The applicant asked the Committee of Ministers to ensure the proper execution of this judgment of the European Court. His lawyer opposed the initiation of new proceedings, as he is of opinion that they would concern facts that have been already subject to the European Court’s assessment in its judgment.

• By a letter of 21/01/2010 the authorities provided information on the applicant’s situation. The Secretariat is currently assessing it.

• Bilateral contacts are under way to clarify the scope of individual measures in this case and the applicant’s situation. An update on the case was provided orally to the Secretariat during its recent mission and this will be supported by information in writing to be provided by the Polish authorities.

General measures: This case presents similarities to that of H.N. (77710/01) (see the Podbielski group of cases, 1092nd meeting), in which some measures have already been taken (publication and wide dissemination).

However, due to the peculiar circumstances of this case, the European Court’s judgment was also sent out to competent authorities (criminal courts, prosecutors, guardians and bailiffs).

• Information is awaited on other general measures envisaged or taken with respect to the particularity of the excessive length of enforcement proceedings in child-related cases. 

- 6 cases against Portugal / 6 affaires contre le Portugal

73229/01           Reigado Ramos, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

The case concerns the failure to take adequate and sufficient action to enforce the applicant’s right of access to his child (born in 1995) (violation of Article 8).

After their separation, the applicant and the mother concluded an agreement regarding their child, according to which the applicant should have a right of access. A year later, in 1998, the applicant brought proceedings seeking the judicial enforcement of the agreement, which was not being observed by the mother. Over several years, the mother could not be found by the domestic court, even though it undertook several steps to locate her (by requesting assistance from the police and the social security services, etc.). The proceedings were closed in 2003 with the decision by the court to impose a moderate fine on the mother and to award equally moderate damages to the applicant.

Pointing out that the applicant had last seen his daughter on 04/10/1997, when she had been just two years old, the European Court found that the measures taken by the Portuguese authorities with a view to enforcing the agreement, which was still valid, had been automatic and stereotyped and that those authorities had failed to take practical and concrete steps to resolve the issue. The European Court noted in particular that neither the prosecution nor the competent court had tried to bring the parties together or actively involve the social services in finding a solution to the problem.

Individual measures: In February 2007, the Portuguese delegation informed the Committee that, with the assistance of the judicial police, the whereabouts of the mother and the child had been identified. At a meeting held before a judge on 20/06/2007, it was agreed between the parties that, before a new regime on the right of access could be determined, the child, as well as both the parents, had to undergo psychological examinations, which took place beginning 2008. According to the Portuguese authorities, following these examinations, two meetings took place before the judge (06/05 and 13/05/2008) between the parents accompanied by their counsel. During the second meeting the child was heard and refused to meet her father. It was agreed that a meeting between father and daughter would be organised at the social security offices in presence of social advisers, to enable the father to establish contact with his daughter. The meeting did not take place as the father was not summoned in time.

Following an evaluation report drawn up by the Social Security Institute, the judge decided on 15/07/2008 that preparatory psychological support was a pre-condition for establishing contacts between the child and her father. In a new report of 24/07/2008, Social Security proposed to avoid any contact between them before the psychological support had started. On 12/09/2008, the judge ordered the Social Security Institute to provide precise information on how the psychotherapist’s support was to be put in place. As no answer was provided, the order was reiterated at the beginning of November 2008. At the meeting held on 19/02/2009 between the judge, the parents and their counsels and a social adviser, it was confirmed that the parents did not oppose the psychotherapeutic intervention. Following the judge’s order, the social adviser made an approach to two institutions and found two psychotherapists willing to carry out the “systemic psychotherapeutic intervention”. On 11/03/2009, it was decided to inform the parents and to have a new meeting so that they could choose one of the two psychotherapists and agree on the starting date of the therapy. On 30/03/2009 the judge ordered the re-establishment of relations between the father and the child through the mediation of the Centre for Children Development (CADIN), which filed two reports on developments in the situation (on 27/05/2009 and 10/08/2009). On 23/09/2009 the judge issued a further order, expressly asking the CADIN to provide further updated information in order to re-assess his latest order of 30/03/2009. On 20/10/2009 the CADIN filed a further report illustrating the latest developments. In particular, the father had a meeting with the psychotherapist on 30/04/2009: although he expressed the wish to meet his daughter and develop his relations with her, he was aware of the need to respect her feelings and to wait for his child to change her current position (i.e. refusal to have contact with him). On 14/07/2009 the mother, the stepfather and the child met the psychotherapist: the mother said that she would not oppose visits between the child and the father, underlining that in any case her daughter had to decide freely on the issue. Although the child appeared intransigent in her will not to meet her father (being convinced that he had abandoned her), the doctor described the feelings of her father and the importance of her relation with him, proposing that the child reflected on the issue. According to the psychotherapist, no further meetings with the child are necessary if she does not express her will to meet her father: in any case, considering the importance of the father-child relationship, the psychotherapist deems it necessary to have a new decision by the judge clarifying the objectives of an intervention. Following a meeting on 27/01/2010 between the judge, the psychotherapist and the parents – and  with consent of the latter – the judge ordered the CADIN and the doctor to begin a psychotherapeutic intervention with the child, aimed at a possible re-establishment of father-child contact. The judge also ordered the CADIN to file a report assessing the situation within 60 days from the beginning of the intervention.

• Information provided by the applicant’s counsel (17/08/2009 and 28/08/09): the applicant, bearing in mind the well- being of his daughter, is not willing to use coercive measures in order to see her, which he thinks would be detrimental to the development of his relationship with his child.

• Bilateral contacts between the Secretariat and the authorities, in order to evaluate the necessity of further measures, are under way.

General measures:

            1) Publication and dissemination: A copy of the judgment was sent to all national authorities concerned, including to the Instituto de Reinserção Social (the Institute of Social Reintegration, which carries out social investigations ordered in the framework of court proceedings on matters related to parental rights). The judgment was also translated and published on the Internet (www.gddc.pt). In addition, the judgment was sent out by the Portuguese Attorney General to all magistrates working with courts that deal with family cases. Finally, both the Supreme Council of Magistrates and the aforementioned Institute of Social Reintegration were requested to adopt appropriate measures in order to prevent new, similar violations in the future.

            2) Training: The Portuguese authorities also indicated that the Institute for Social Security has been vested with competences concerning parental authority. The Portuguese authorities have indicated that the Institute is carrying out activities addressed to all professionals co-operating with courts in civil tutelary matters aimed at improving their intervention in the field. Moreover, in 2008, 24 training activities on Mediation and conflict management and the Evaluation of parental competences have been carried out. In 2009, the Institute for Social Security carried out 13 training activities on the new law 61/2008 and until the end of 2009 other 13 training activities concerning “Interview Techniques in cases of parental conflict“, as well as two workshops on “positive parental relations” are scheduled.

            3) Legislative measures: Law No. 61/2008 on divorce (entered into force on 01/12/2008) modified the Civil and the Criminal Codes. Article 1906 of the Civil Code on the exercise of parental authority provides inter alia that the tribunal will decide on the right of access on the basis of the best interest of the child. According to the new Article 1776-A, an agreement on the exercise of parental authority is submitted to the prosecutor at the first-instance tribunal, who shall decide within 30 days.

Articles 249 (Abduction of minors) and 250 (Maintenance obligation) of the Criminal Code have also been amended. Article 249 provides that child abduction or reiterated and unjustified refusal to abide by agreements regulating the exercise of parental authority is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or by a up to 240 day-fine. As regards failure to comply with the agreement, the penalty is softened when the parent’s behaviour is motivated by the wish to respect the child’s will, when the child is over 12 years of age.

However, it should be noted that the new law No. 61/2008 does not apply to cases (like this one) already pending when it entered into force (1/12/08).

• Assessment: The legislation recently passed is to be welcomed since it reinforces the existing means in Portuguese law to ensure compliance with the obligations resulting from Article 8 of the Convention. The training measures adopted are to be welcomed as well, in the light of their importance to ensuring execution of judicial decisions on means of exercise of parental authority. The evaluation of the need for further measures is under way.

41870/05           Ferreira Alves No. 4, judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/07/2009

This case concerns the violation of the principle of equality of arms, and thus of the applicant’s right to a fair trial, on account of the failure to communicate to the applicant a note, dated 13/12/2004, prepared by the first-instance judge for the appellate court (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the unfairness of the proceedings in that the court of appeal failed to decide on the applicant’s ground of nullity of the first instance decision. The European Court found that the appellate court had rejected the appeal on the erroneous ground that the applicant did not raise any concrete ground of nullity (violation of Article 6§1).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

39005/04           Santos Pinto, judgment of 20/05/2008, final on 20/08/2008

This case concerns the breach of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the dismissal, for lack of legal representation, of an appeal he lodged in the context expropriation proceedings in respect of part of his land, even though a similar appeal in respect of another part of the same plot had been accepted (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court underlined that the rules on the admissibility criteria for appeals must be sufficiently coherent and clear. It considered that the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal had been contrary to the principle of judicial certainty and had amounted to a denial of justice, given the difference in the assessment of identical situations by the same court. In one of the cases, on 29/04/2004, the Évora appeal court dismissed his appeal finding that there was no obligation to warn the appellant of the consequences of non-representation by counsel. In the other, the same court in a different composition, on 1/07/2004, found that the notification addressed to the applicant for the purposes of instructing counsel should have included information on the consequences of non-representation. As this had not been the case, it ordered that the proceedings be pursued even though the applicant was not represented.

The European Court further noted that, under Article 678 of the Code of civil procedure on the admissibility of appeals, the applicant was prevented from submitting the diverging case-law to the Supreme Court on the ground of the limited value of the matter at issue.

Individual measures: The European Court made no award on just satisfaction in the absence of a claim by the applicant.

Decree law No. 303/2007 amending the Code of civil procedure allows re-examination of final domestic judgments following a judgment of the European Court finding a violation (Article 771 (f)). Under Article 772 § 2(b), re‑examination may be requested within 60 days following the date when the Court’s judgment became final and no more than 5 years must have elapsed from the date of the final domestic decision.

• Assessment: under these circumstances, no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures: Article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads: “If a party is not represented by counsel when such representation is compulsory, the court ex officio or upon request of the opposing party, orders the party to seek counsel within a specific time-limit, failing which the appeal will be dismissed, discontinued, or the party’s defence will become ineffective”. According to the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of 3/11/1988 (published in Boletim do Ministério da Justiça, No. 369, p. 609) and concurring case-law of the Porto Court of appeal (judgments of 13/02/1996 and 29/04/2003), the notification as provided in the above provision is only effective if it indicates the consequences of the lack of representation. On the other hand other judgments of the Lisbon (28/01/1992 and 3/06/1993) and even Porto (21/02/1990) courts of appeal held that the indication of the consequences was not a due formality.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to ensure consistent interpretation of Article 33 of the Code of Civil procedure, as well as on the publication of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination to the competent authorities, in particular first-instance and appeal courts. 

40225/04           Feliciano Bichão, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008

This case concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial due to the fact that memoranda prepared by the public prosecutor in criminal proceedings, in which the applicant had the status of assistente, were disclosed to him neither before the appellate court nor before the Constitutional Court (violation of Article 6§1). The applicant did not receive communication either of the memoranda of the public prosecutor filed in 2003 before the appeal court, or of the memoranda filed in 2004 before the Constitutional Court. In the proceedings at issue, his request for investigations against the mayor of a municipality for usurpation of property was rejected.

The European Court found that the right to a fair trial had been breached since the memoranda should have been communicated to the applicant, first because of his right to be informed and to comment on all documents submitted in the proceedings and, secondly due to the fact that these documents were evidently aimed at influencing the attitude of the judges in charge of examining the case.

Individual measures: The European Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The European Court found no causal relationship between the violation and the pecuniary damages claimed by the applicant and it rejected the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages. 

The criminal proceedings at issue concerned a dispute between the applicant and the mayor of a municipality concerning the ownership of a path alongside the applicant’s land. As regards the weight that the memoranda of the public prosecutor could have had on the outcome of the proceedings at issue, it should be noted that the investigating judge had rejected the applicant’s request for investigations, considering that there was no possibility of a criminal conviction in this case, due to the lack of objective elements of offence. The decision of the investigative judge was confirmed in 2003 by the appeal court.

• Assessment: In these circumstances, no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

According to Article 413§2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as in force at the material time), the memoranda in reply of the parties affected by the appeals must be transmitted to them. The failure to comply with this provision in the present case appears to constitute an isolated incident, as was also acknowledged by the government (§35 of the judgment).

• Assessment: no further specific measure therefore seems necessary to prevent future violations due to the non-respect of this provision.

The Court's judgment is available on the Internet site of the Cabinet of Documentation and Comparative Law (www.gddc.pt), which comes under the Prosecutor General of the Republic.

However, as regards memoranda submitted before the Constitutional Court, the Law on the organisation, functioning and proceedings of the Constitutional Court (Law No. 28/82) provides no obligation to disclose public prosecutors’ memoranda or opinions to individual applicants (§§ 24 and 35 of the judgment).

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged, including legislative measures, to ensure that individual are also guaranteed a fair trial before the Constitutional Court as regards disclosure of documents relevant to the final decision.

                        - 2 cases concerning the right to effective defence

10418/03           Panasenko, judgment of 22/07/2008, final on 22/10/2008

35228/03           Bogumil, judgment of 07/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

These cases concern a breach of the right to a fair criminal trial due to the ineffectiveness of the applicants’ defence (violations of Article 6§§1 and 3c).

In the Panasenko case, the ineffectiveness of the defence prevented the applicant (a Ukrainian national) from having his conviction examined on the merits before the Supreme Court. In fact, although the applicant complained about his court-designated counsel and indicated his intention to appeal on points of law against a judgment of October 2003 sentencing him to 21 years’ imprisonment, his appeal before the Court of Cassation was declared inadmissible in 2004 on the ground of being out of time. The European Court noted that at the time of the appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court, which is a crucial moment in the proceedings, national jurisdictions did not react to the obvious failures of the defence, and neither did the Supreme Court itself when finally seized.

In the Bogumil case, the applicant (a Polish national) was assisted in 2002 before the examining magistrate by a practising lawyer (court designated counsel): who was then substituted in January 2003 by a lawyer admitted to the Bar, who resigned three days before the beginning of the proceedings (September 2003). A new court-designated counsel was appointed on the very day of the first hearing (18/09/2003) and could study the file for just a few hours before the opening of the proceedings.

The European Court considered that the circumstances of the cases imposed upon the competent courts a positive obligation to ensure respect for the applicants’ concrete and effective right to defence (see the Panasenko judgment, §53 and the Bogumil judgment, §49).

Individual measures: In both cases the European Court awarded just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damages.

In the Panasenko case the European Court considered that when an individual, as in the present case, has been convicted in proceedings vitiated by failures to comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, a new trial or reopening of proceedings at the applicant's request represents in principle an appropriate means of providing redress for the violation found. However, the specific reparatory measures to be taken […] depend on the particular circumstances of the case and must be defined in the light of the judgment rendered by the Court, taking due account of the case-law. In the present case, being in question only the absence of legal assistance to the applicant, which brought the consequence of preventing him from acceding to the Supreme Court, the examination of his appeal by that latter jurisdiction could represent an adequate means to redress the violation found (§78 of the judgment).

In the Bogumil case: the applicant was transferred to a prison in Poland in June 2005 and freed in December 2005.

It has to be noted that Act No. 48/2007, amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, permits the re-examination of domestic judgments, even those having the status of res judicata, following a judgment of the European Court finding a violation (Article 449). Under Article 450, the public prosecutor, as well as others including the person convicted, is entitled to ask for re-examination without any time-limit.

• Assessment: in the light of the above, no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on the measures envisaged to avoid future similar violations. To this end, publication of the judgments and their dissemination to the competent authorities - as well as their inclusion in future awareness-raising activities on the case-law of the European Court, also appear to be useful.

- 73 cases against Romania / 73 affaires contre la Roumanie

37284/02           Lafargue, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 13/10/2006

The case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to respect for his family life due to the failure by the Romanian authorities in their obligation to take adequate and sufficient efforts to ensure respect for the applicant's right of access to and residence with his son, born in 1995, over a period of approximately six years (violation of Article 8).

After the applicant's divorce in 1997, the custody of the child was awarded to his ex-wife. On 16/12/1999 an access and residence order was made (final on 3/05/2000) authorising the applicant to spend one week with his son during the winter holidays and two weeks during his annual holidays. The applicant applied to the court bailiff service of the Bucharest Court of First Instance to obtain enforcement of this decision. However, his attempts remained ineffectual mainly due to the conduct of the mother, who failed to appear or came alone when summoned to attend with the child, or refused her former husband, accompanied by a court bailiff, entry to her flat.

Following a request by the French authorities under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the Romanian Ministry of Justice brought an action demanding that a detailed access programme be drawn up for the applicant. In 2005, the Bucharest Court of First Instance drew up a provisional access programme granting the applicant access on alternate weekends, from 4 p.m. on Friday to 5 p.m. on Sunday. Even so, the applicant was only able to meet his child for five months at the beginning of 2005 and after notice of the application had been given to the government. Moreover, the Romanian authorities only imposed a small fine on the ex-wife.

Individual measures: According to the European Court’s judgment the authorities did not pursue the programme of meetings between the applicant and his child after first five months of 2005, even though psychologists' reports attested to the effectiveness of such meetings.

• Information provided by the Romanian authorities: The applicant spent one week with his son during the winter holidays in 2006.

By a judgment of 22/06/2006 (final in May 2007) the Bucharest Court established a visiting schedule for the applicant. According to this schedule, the applicant may visit his son from Friday (6 p.m.) until Sunday (6 p.m.) during the first and the third week of each month. The stays were also foreseen for the first week of the Easter school holidays, in the period from 15/07 (6 p.m.) to 30/08 (6 p.m.) and during the first week of the Christmas holidays. This decision provides a possibility to send the applicant’s son during those periods to the applicant’s residence in France. By a letter of 4/06/2007 the Ministry of Justice requested a bailiff’s office to undertake all necessary measures to ensure the implementation of this decision.

On 27/03/2007 the Court of First Instance of Bucharest decided that the applicant’s son should undergo two months of psychological treatment. In May 2008 the Romanian authorities presented a report from the first psychological interview of the beginning of 2008. In this report it is mentioned that the child said he had spent the Christmas holiday with his father, that he would like the applicant to be more active and that they should enjoy more activities together. The child mentioned that it would be more comfortable for him if meetings were to be at his request. He said that he suspected his father’s feelings were not genuine, as, in his opinion, the applicant paid  particular attention to making the father-son relationship  public, which he found disturbing. The child also mentioned that he would prefer that the meetings between him and his father did not exactly respect the time intervals fixed by the domestic court, his school schedule and preparation programme being very busy.

• Additional information is expected on the progress in the implementation of the applicant’s right of access to and residence with his son.

General measures:

1) General legislative provisions regulating the exercise of the right of access

• Information is awaited on any appropriate general legislative provisions capable of ensuring the respect of the state's positive obligations under Article 8 with respect to access rights. Information would in particular be useful as regards the adequacy and effectiveness of the available means in this respect (e.g. enforcement measures, including sanctions, psychological and social assistance, etc.) and their capacity to ensure implementation of the legitimate rights of interested persons and respect for judicial decisions. Furthermore, information would be useful on any measures envisaged by the Romanian authorities in this respect.

2) Specific legislative provisions concerning the implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention with respect of the right of access

a) On 15/09/2004 Romania adopted Law No. 369/2004 on the implementation of the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (entered into force on 29/12/2004). Specific provisions of this Law relate to the right of access:

- Enforcement measures

Law 369/2004 provides that the Romanian Central Authority (Ministry of Justice) shall attempt to bring about a friendly resolution concerning the exercise of the right of access. If this attempt fails, and at the explicit request of the person endowed with such right, the Central Authority shall take the necessary measures to ensure the compulsory enforcement of this right. The Law provides an initial, civil fine (approximately 125 to 625 euros) and, if the perpetrator does still not comply, the general rules governing the enforcement of court decisions are applicable. In addition, the court may order a defendant to pay a civil fine of approximately 12 to 25 euros for each day of delay.

- Preparation of the child for the contact with its parent

Law 369/2004 explicitly provides the possibility of psychological therapy for the child for a maximum of three months where access rights cannot be exercised due to the constant opposition of a child who manifests hostile feelings towards its parent (Article 18).

b) On 5/04/2005 the Ministry of Justice, on the basis of Article 24 of Law 369/2004, adopted Order No. 509/C to approve the Regulation on the modalities of exercising the duties of the Ministry of Justice as a Central Authority designated through Law No. 100/1992 on Romania's accession to the 1980 Hague Convention.

• Bilateral contacts are under way to assess the statistical data and examples of the application of Law 369/2004 by domestic courts, submitted by the Romanian authorities in June 2008.

3) Publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment to relevant authorities:

The European Court’s judgment was sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view to bringing it to the attention of all domestic courts.

10337/04          Lupsa, judgment of 08/06/2006, final on 08/09/2006

33970/05           Kaya, judgment of 12/10/2006, final on 12/01/2007

These cases concern a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their private and family life on account of their expulsion for security reasons in August 2003 and April 2005 (violations of Article 8).

The European Court found that these measures were not provided by a law responding to the requirements of the Convention. In this respect it noted that the applicants, Serbian and Turkish nationals respectively, were declared to be undesirable aliens, expelled and denied access to Romanian territory. These measures were ordered by the public prosecutor's office on the ground that the Romanian Intelligence Service had received sufficient and serious intelligence that they were engaged in activities capable of endangering national security. No proceedings were brought against the applicants for participating in the commission of any offence in Romania or any other country and they were not provided with any details as to the allegations against them. Furthermore, in the Lupsa case, in breach of domestic law, the applicant was not served with the order declaring his presence to be undesirable until after he had been expelled. Finally, the Bucharest Court of Appeal confined itself to a purely formal examination of the public prosecutor's orders.

These cases also concern the failure to respect procedural guarantees in the procedure whereby the applicants were expelled (violations of Article 1 of Protocol 7). The European Court recalled that Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002, the legal basis for the expulsion, did not afford them the minimum guarantees against the arbitrary action by the authorities.

Thus, although the applicants' expulsions were carried out pursuant to a lawfully taken decision, the relevant law did not comply with the requirements of the Convention. In addition, the authorities had failed to comply with the requirements of Article 1 a) and b) of Protocol 7.

Individual measures: The Romanian authorities have indicated that the applicants may request the re-examination of the decisions in question under Article 322 (9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The European Court awarded them just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures: Following the European Court’s judgments, Emergency Ordinance No. 194/2002 was amended on several occasions and republished on 5/06/2008. According to the new wording, Article 85 provides that declarations of undesirability of aliens are made by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, seised by a public prosecutor attached to this court at the request of the authorities having jurisdiction in the field of public order and national security. The data and information at the basis of such declarations shall be placed at the disposal of the judicial authority in accordance with the conditions provided by the law regulating national security activities and the protection of classified information. The public prosecutor's submission is examined by a court chamber sitting in private, the parties being summonsed. The judicial authority shall inform the alien of the facts at the basis of the submission. A reasoned judgment should be given within 10 days of the prosecutor's submission. It is final and shall be communicated to the alien concerned and, if the alien is declared undesirable, to the Aliens Authority for enforcement.

An alien may be declared undesirable for between 5 and 15 years, with the possibility of extension. Article 86 provides the possibility of an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice against the judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal within 10 days from the date of its notification. The Court is required to give a decision within 5 days from the date of receipt of the request. In justified cases and in order to avoid the production of imminent damages, the alien may request the suspension of the enforcement of a decision declaring him or her undesirable, until the end of the proceedings.

Both of the European Court’s judgments have been translated and published in the Official Journal and on the internet site of the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice (http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp). In addition, the Lupsa judgment was transmitted to the Superior council of Magistracy, with a view of bringing it to the attention of all domestic courts. It was also transmitted to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the Ministry of Interior and the Authority for Aliens.

Moreover, the Romanian authorities have submitted examples of decisions of the Bucharest Court of Appeal concerning the declaration of aliens as undesirable. In all cases the applicants were informed of the reasons for the request concerning them and were represented by lawyers.

• Bilateral contacts are under way to assess the information submitted and the necessity of further measures.

28341/95          Rotaru, judgment of 04/05/00 - Grand Chamber

                       Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)57

The case concerns a breach of the applicant's right to respect for his private life in that the relevant national legislation does not contain sufficient safeguards against abuse as regards the way in which the Romanian Intelligence Service (RIS) gathers, keeps and uses information. The European Court has thus concluded that the holding and use by the RIS of information on the applicant's private life were not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of the Convention (violation of Article 8).

In this context the European Court observed that section 8 of Law no. 14/1992 on the Organisation and the Operation of the Romanian Intelligence Service provided that information affecting national security might be gathered, recorded and archived in secret files. No provision of domestic law, however, laid down any limits on the exercise of those powers. Thus, for instance, the Law did not define the kind of information that may be recorded, the categories of people against whom surveillance measures such as gathering and keeping information may be taken, the circumstances in which such measures may be taken or the procedure to be followed. Similarly, the Law laid down no limits on the age of information held or the length of time for which it might be kept. Further section 45 of Law No. 14/1992 empowered the RIS to take over for storage and use archives that belonged to the former intelligence services operating on Romanian territory and allowed inspection of RIS documents with the Director's consent. The European Court noted that this section contained no explicit, detailed provision concerning the persons authorised to consult the files, the nature of the files, the procedure to be followed or the use that may be made of the information thus obtained (see §57 of the judgment).

The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy before a national authority that could rule on his application to have the file amended or destroyed (violation of Article 13).

Lastly, the case concerns a breach of the applicant's right to a fair trial on account of the Court of Appeal's failure to consider the claim for damages and costs (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Romanian delegation has indicated that there was no individual file on the applicant. Following the judgment of the European Court, the document that was in the possession of the RIS, based on which the applicant was erroneously designated as a member of an extreme-right organisation, was modified in order to avoid any confusion (another person bearing the same name as the applicant was listed there).

The Romanian authorities have indicated that the judgment of the European Court has been included in the file of the Romanian intelligence service, in order to avoid that any such confusion could occur again.

General measures:

1) Progress in the adoption of general measures

• Adoption of Interim Resolution: On 05/07/2005, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)57, in which it noted with interest the provisions of Law No. 535/2004 on the prevention and repression of terrorism which provide a procedure of judicial supervision of all secret surveillance measures, including cases involving threats to the national security. The Committee noted in addition the procedure provided by Law No. 187/1999 which, in spite of the shortcomings identified by the European Court (see §71 of the judgment), nevertheless allows interested persons to inspect the files created concerning them between 1945 and 1989 by the organs of the former Securitate, to obtain certificates concerning their possible collaboration with the former Securitate and to contest before a court the content of such certificates. Nevertheless, the Committee noted with regret that, more than five years after the date of the judgment, several shortcomings identified by the European Court still did not seem to have been remedied, in particular concerning the procedure to be followed in order to have access to the archives taken over by the RIS from former secret services (other than the Securitate), the absence of a specific regulation concerning the age of the information which could be stored by the authorities, or the lack of any possibility to contest the holding of this information and, save for the cases provided for by Law No. 187/1999, their truthfulness.

The Committee therefore called upon the Romanian authorities rapidly to adopt the legislative reforms needed to respond to the criticism made by the Court in its judgment concerning the Romanian system of gathering and storing of information by the secret services.

• Interim measures

Due to the very broad scope of the reform in the field of national security (a package of 5 draft laws) and the ongoing national consultation process, the time-frame for adoption of the package of laws has not yet been established. In the course of bilateral consultations between the Secretariat and the competent authorities (March, May, and July 2008) it was agreed that until the adoption of specific regulations related to the functioning of the intelligence service, general rules related to the protection of personal information adopted after the violation found by the European Court in the above case should be reviewed in order to assess their possible capability to prevent new violations to occur. In this context it has been also noted that the analysis made by the Supreme Council of Magistrates of the domestic courts’ decisions, delivered in the period from 2000 to 2008 demonstrates that no similar case has been dealt with since the delivery of the European Court’s judgment in the present case.

It should be further noted that after the delivery of the European Court’s judgment a series of measures were taken to secure respect for individuals’ rights and fundamental freedoms, with regard to automatic processing of personal data:

- ratification, in November 2001, of the Council of Europe’s Convention of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data;

- adoption, in November 2001, of Law 677/2001 for the protection of persons related both to the processing of personal data and to the free circulation of such data;

- adoption of Law No. 102/2005 regarding the setting up, organisation and functioning of the National Supervisory Authority for Personal Data Processing;

- adoption of Law No. 182/2002 on Protection of Classified Information.

• Bilateral contacts are under way to assess this information, in particular, the applicability of the laws adopted since the judgment of the European Court to situations similar as this in the present case.

            2) Violation of Article 8: The Romanian authorities indicated that the shortcomings identified by the European Court in respect of the violation of this Article should be taken into account in the context of the legislative reform which is currently under way. Thus, under the draft Law on information activities, counter-information and protection of information the Romanian intelligence services have an obligation to assure information and to take measures necessary to guarantee the constitutional order, human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 2).

It should be also noted that the objectives of intelligence activities include: defence of democracy and constitutional order, rights and fundamental freedoms of the citizens, as guaranteed by the Romanian Constitution, and protection of an unlimited exercise of rights and fundamental freedoms. The draft Law contains provisions related to the collection of information, in particular, the procedure for a judicial authorisation. Thus, the draft law provides that, where there is a risk or a threat to national security, the intelligence and protection authorities may restrict the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms but must seek a judicial authorisation to carry out information-gathering activities. Such requests are examined by a judge of the High court of Cassation and Justice and, if approved, must mention among other things the category of information which may be obtained and the duration of the validity of the authorisation (Articles 39-41). Anyone who considers that their rights have been violated by the issue and the application of such an authorisation, or by use of methods and specific means of the intelligence activity may, aside from the exercise of her right to access to justice, refer to the ombudsman or to Parliament for the exercise of parliamentary control over intelligence and protection authorities. The draft law also provides that the competent authorities are obliged to delete personal data from their files if it does not relate to any threat to Romanian national security (Article 70§1). Information concerning personal data, private life, honour and reputation of individuals obtained accidentally in the course of collecting information necessary for the protection of national security cannot be presented publicly, stored or archived. Thus, it should be destroyed as soon as it is established that that it has no relation to any threat to national security (Article 70§2). It seems, however, that the draft law contains no provision concerning the age of information that can be held by the authorities.

The Romanian authorities further indicated that certain guarantees are offered by instructions and laws amended or adopted after the European Court’s judgment in the present case. In particular, Law No. 535/2004 on Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism provides that the authorisation of secret surveillance measures in all cases of presumed threats to national security provided by Law No. 51/1991, comes within the competence of judges of the High Court of Justice and Cassation.

• Further information is awaited on progress in the adoption of the draft law.

3) Violation of Article 13: The Romanian authorities indicated that the legislative reform in the field of national security should also respond to the European Court’s criticism concerning the violation of Article 13. In this context it should be noted that certain provisions of the draft Law on information activities, counter-information and protection of information might make it possible to challenge the holding by the intelligence services of information on private life or to refute the truth of such information. Thus, everyone should have a right to ask the competent authorities to provide access to information which concerns him/her exclusively (Article 68). The draft Law also provides a possibility to request the administrative authorities to verify, correct or delete personal data if they are incorrect, incomplete or obtained illegally (Article 69). The competent authorities are obliged to respond to such requests within specific time-limits (Articles 68-69). Finally, Article 71 provides the  possibility for anyonewho considers that their rights have been violated by acts of the intelligence authorities through failure to protect personal data or storage of data that is incomplete, incorrect or interpreted without the observation of legal requirements, to seise the domestic courts in order to annul abusive or illegal administrative acts, to grant access to pertinent information, to carry out any necessary modifications and corrections, to erasure of data and also to provide redress for damage sustained.

The Romanian authorities also noted that the publication of the Rotaru judgment and its dissemination has allowed the Romanian courts to take account of the European Court’s findings, in particular of those concerning the right to challenge the holding of personal data by the intelligence service, to challenge their truthfulness and to request modification of inexact data. Moreover, they indicated that the decision of the Constitutional Court of 31/01/2008, found Law No. 187/1999 on access to personal files and disclosure of the Securitate as political police to be unconstitutional. Following this decision, the government adopted a new law, Emergency Ordinance No. 24/2008, regulating access to personal files. This ordinance gives interested persons the possibility to consult the files concerning them compiled by the former Securitate and to challenge before a court any findings concerning collaboration with it. In this context, numerous examples of requests lodged with the courts have been provided. Most of these examples concern the annulment of decisions adopted by the National council for the study of Securitate archives (NCSSA) by virtue of law No. 187/1999, by which the NCSSA had established that the applicants had been collaborators. Examples of requests lodged with the courts to gain access to personal files have also been provided. Given the interest that these requests represent, the authorities were invited to provide examples of case-law concerning Emergency Ordinance no. 24/2008.

• Examples of case-law concerning Emergency Ordinance No. 24/2008 are expected.

4) Violation of Article 6§1: The Romanian authorities observe that domestic courts will give direct effect to the Rotaru judgment, so as to avoid new violations, similar to that found in the present case, in which the Bucharest Court of Appeal failed to consider the applicant's claim for compensation and for the reimbursement of the costs incurred in order to obtain the rectification of the data at issue.

5) Publication and dissemination:The judgment of the European Court has been translated and published in the Official Journal.

67021/01           Tătar, judgment of 27/01/2009, rectified on 17/03/2009, final on 06/07/2009

The case concerns the failure of the state in its obligation to inform the population, including the two applicants, of the possible risks and consequences for human health and environment linked to the use of a hazardous industrial process (violation of Article 8).

The European Court considered that the Romanian authorities failed to comply with their obligation to insure the right of the applicants, who lived near a gold ore extraction plant which had caused an environmental accident in January 2000, to respect for their private and family life including the enjoyment of a healthy and protected environment.

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 05/03/2010.

• Bilateral discussions are currently under way aimed at securing the additional information necessary to present an action plan / action report to the Committee.

31675/04           Codarcea, judgment of 02/06/2009, final on 02/09/2009

The case concerns the absence of means of rendering effective the reparation awarded to the applicant by the domestic courts in 2008 for bodily injuries caused by medical errors (violation of Article 8).

The European Court considered that, at the time of the facts, there was no medical-negligence insurance scheme. It mentioned that, at present, the domestic law has evolved, imposing doctors the obligation to sign an insurance for civil professional responsibility. The European Court also noted that the domestic courts had refused to engage the liability of the hospital for acts of his employee stating that this aspect was not provided by the civil code, despite the fact that a significant part of the case-law and doctrine was favourable to this approach.

The case also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant as a civil party against her doctor - more than 9 years and 6 months (violation of Article 6§1).

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

71525/01           Popescu Dumitru No. 2, judgment of 26/04/2007, final on 26/07/2007

The case concerns the absence of judicial guarantees related to interception of the applicant's telephone conversations under Law No. 51/1991 on national security (violation of Article 8).

The European Court, noting that under Article 13 of this law telephone conversations unlimited as to time could be intercepted by simple authorisation of the prosecutor, considered that prosecutors could exercise considerable discretion with regard to serious interference with private life considering that their did not fulfil the requirement of independence from the executive. Furthermore, at the material time, permission to carry out telephone interception was not subject to review, either before or after the fact, by an independent, impartial judicial authority. The European Court also observed that Romanian law provided no safeguards concerning the need to keep recordings of telephone calls intact and in their entirety, or their destruction. Lastly, the European Court noted that the Romanian intelligence service was the only authority empowered to certify that the recordings were genuine and reliable but that doubts existed with regard to its independence and impartiality.

Individual measures: The European Court noted that the finding of a violation of Article 8 constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

• Information is expected as to whether the recordings in question have been destroyed.

General measures: The European Court that the Code of Criminal Procedure now contains many safeguards concerning the interception and transcribing of telephone calls, the storage of relevant information and the destruction of information which is not relevant. Thus, Laws Nos. 281/2003 and 356/2006 modifying the Code of Criminal Procedure require a reasoned judicial authorisation for operations of interception and recording of telephone or other electronic communications. It also seems that responsibility for determining the reliability of recordings has now to the National Institute of Forensic Expertise, which acts under the authority of the Ministry of Justice and whose experts, as “public officials” are completely independent from the authorities responsible for intercepting or transcribing communications (§§82-83).

Nevertheless, the European Court noted that the public prosecutor apparently still had powers to order surveillance measures under Article 13 of Law No. 51/1991 in the event of a presumed threat to national security. This assumption was attested to by a recent decision of the Romanian Constitutional Court (published in the Official Journal of 16/01/2007) according to which the application of Law 51/1991 was justified by its “special character”, even after the entry into force of the reforms of the Code of Criminal Procedure (§84).

The European Court’s judgment has been translated and published in the Official Journal and is also available on the Internet site of the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice (http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp). The judgment was also sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy (http://www.csm1909.ro/csm/index.php?cmd=9503), with a view to its dissemination to all domestic courts and prosecutors' offices, with the recommendation that it is discussed amongst the activities related to continued training of magistrates.

 • Information is expected on the current legal framework regulating the issue of telephone interception and measures taken or envisaged to avoid any future violations.

34814/02           Didu, judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/09/2009

The case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 6§1) and the failure by a domestic court to respect the applicant’s presumption of innocence (violation of Article 6§2).

With regard to this last aspect, the European Court stated that the domestic court had made a new analysis of the evidence without hearing the witnesses again and without hearing the applicant. It noted that, before closing the case in March 2002 in application of the rules governing the statute of limitations in criminal matters, the domestic court had considered that it resulted from the evidence adduced that the applicant had committed the crime in question. The European Court also mentioned that the finding of the applicant’s guilt could have played a key role if the injured party had brought a civil action for damages.

• To date, the authorities have provided no information.

26105/03           Mitrea, judgment of 29/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

The case concerns the annulment by means of an extraordinary appeal of a final decision in the applicant's favour, given on 17/06/2002, following a request lodged by the defendant (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court observed that the situation in the present case was a typical example of divergence of views between courts concerning the admissibility and relevance of the evidence adduced, which did not justify the quashing of a final and binding decision. Consequently, the authorities failed to strike a fair balance between the interests at stake.

Individual measures: Romanian law provides, in Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the possibility of reopening civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court found a violation. In addition, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: No further measure appears necessary.

General measures: The European Court recalled that legal certainty presupposes respect for the principle of res judicata, that is the principle of the finality of judgments. This principle underlines that no party is entitled to seek a review of a final and binding judgment merely for the purpose of obtaining a rehearing and a fresh determination of the case. Higher courts’ power of review should be exercised to correct judicial errors and miscarriages of justice, but not to carry out a fresh examination. The review should not be treated as an appeal in disguise, and the mere possibility of there being two views on the subject is not a ground for re-examination. A departure from that principle is justified only when made necessary by circumstances of substantial and compelling character (§ 24 of the judgment).

• Information is expected on measures taken or envisaged to avoid new, similar violations. In this context, publication of the European Court’s judgment and its dissemination among relevant courts and authorities is expected.

1562/02            Gaga, judgment of 25/03/2008, final on 29/09/2008

The case concerns the applicant’s conviction in absentia by the Supreme Court of Justice, on 27/02/2001, on account of an error in the service of the summons to appear (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court noted that it had not been shown that the applicant had tried to abscond or that he had unequivocally waived the right to appear at his trial. It also noted that he had not been given the opportunity to obtain from a court a fresh determination of the charges against him (§57 of the judgment).

Individual measures: Article 408¹ of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure provides the possibility for the applicant to request the reopening of criminal proceedings in cases in which the European Court found a violation. Further, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: No further measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Information is expected on the authorities’ assessment concerning the nature of the violation found by the European Court and measures taken or envisaged to avoid new, similar violations. Publication of the European Court's judgment and dissemination among the relevant courts and authorities are also expected.

- 2 cases concerning the unfairness of civil proceedings due to conflicting decisions by the Supreme Court in similar cases

30658/05           Beian No. 1, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

24428/03+         Ştefan and Ştef, judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 27/04/2009

These cases concern the unfairness of civil proceedings brought by the applicants in order to benefit from certain rights granted by domestic law. In 2005 and 2003, respectively, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ requests despite having found in favour of similar requests in other cases, both before and since the applicants’ appeals.

The European Court considered that the inconsistency of the case-law of the supreme judicial authority was counter to the principle of legal certainty (violation of Article 6§1).

The Beian No. 1 case also concerns discrimination suffered by the applicant due to the inconsistency of the case-law, in comparison with others in similar situations who obtained recognition of their rights (violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of all heads of damage taken together.

Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the possibility of reopening civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court has found a violation.

• Assessment: no further measure appears necessary.

General measures: The European Court noted that the violations found in these cases resulted from the inconsistent practice of the highest domestic court. The judgment in the case of Beian No. 1 was published in the Official Journal and was also sent to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view to bringing it to the attention of all domestic courts.

• Information is awaited on the current practice of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in similar cases and measures taken or envisaged to avoid future violations. Information is also awaited on the publication and dissemination of the judgment in the Ştefan and Ştef case.

- Case concerning the violation of the right of access to a court due to excessive court fees required[32]

4227/02            Iorga, judgment of 25/01/2007, final on 25/04/2007

- 3 cases mainly concerning the lack of judicial guarantees in the context of detention on remand and the non-respect of the presumption of innocence

33065/03           Samoilă and Cionca, judgment of 04/03/2008, final on 04/06/2008

29723/03           Lapusan, judgment of 03/06/2008, final on 03/09/2008

42084/02           Vitan, judgment of 25/03/2008, final on 01/12/2008

The Samoilă and Cionca and Lapusan cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to be promptly brought before a judge after their arrest in February 2003 (violations of Article 5§3).

The Samoilă and Cionca case also concerns the refusal by the Supreme Court to examine the applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 25/04/2003 concering the prolongation of their detention, thus depriving the applicants of the possibility of having the lawfulness of their continued detention verified (violation of Article 5§4).

In addition, the applicants in Samoilă and Cionca and Lapusan cases had not been offered the opportunity to appear before the court in those hearings whose outcome had determined whether their detention was to continue (violation of Article 5§4).

The Samoilă and Cionca and Vitan cases also concern the applicants’ right to the presumption of innocence regarding public declarations of the commanding police officer (in Samoilă and Cionca case) and the public prosecutor (in both cases). The Samoilă and Cionca case also deals with the fact that the applicants were obliged to appear before the court in prison garments for convicts which could confirm the public’s impression that the applicants were guilty (violations of Article 6§2).

Finally, the Vitan case concerns also the unlawful interference, by the penitentiary administration, with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The applicants were sentenced to prison but have since been released. The European Court awarded them just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were entitled to request the reopening of the proceedings in conformity with Article 408¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 5§3: The cases present similarities to the Pantea case (33343/96, 1092nd meeting, September 2010)

2) Violation of Article 5§4 (refusal to examine the appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal prolonging the detention on remand): The European Court noted that the existence in domestic law of a remedy against a decision prolonging detention on remand was not contested and, moreover, in the course of the same proceedings the Supreme Court of Justice had examined several such appeals lodged by the applicants (§§ 59-60 of the judgment).

3) Violation of Article 5§4 (non-attendance at hearings before the appellate courts): The European Court observed in this context that the fact that the applicants and their lawyers had attended hearings before the first instance courts did not exonerate the State from the obligation to ensure that they also attended in person (or were represented) at the hearing before the appellate courts in order to guarantee equality of representation with the public prosecutor who had been present at the hearings and had requested their continued detention. Moreover, the applicants did not enjoy an effective defence before the appellate courts, as the representation was provided by various lawyers officially appointed on the spot, who were unfamiliar with the case-file, did not know their clients and had no time to prepare their defence properly.

In the Lapusan case, the Court took note of the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure brought by Law No. 281/2003, in the sense that the presence of the defendant before the court dealing with the appeal on points of law against the interim decision ordering the prolongation of detention on remand during the criminal investigation phase became mandatory.

4) Violation of Article 6§2: The European Court noted that, in their public declarations, the prosecutor and the commanding police officer referred to the applicants as being guilty. The Court also noted that presenting the applicants before the court in prison garments was against the law and at variance with a decision of the Constitutional Court of 1994.

5) Violation of Article 8: The case presents similarities to the Petra case (Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)92)

• Information is expected on measures taken and/or envisaged to avoid similar violations, in particular with respect to the public declarations of officials which could call into question the presumption of innocence.

• Publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgments to the relevant courts and authorities seem, in any event, to be necessary to increase their awareness of the Convention’s requirements.

                        - 17 cases concerning unlawful subjection of allowances to income tax

29556/02           Driha, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 21/05/2008

23887/03           Bălăucă, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

26852/03           Bizau, judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 27/04/2009

8027/03            Bozian, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

13480/03           Gavriş, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

26845/03           Gologus, judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 27/04/2009

26842/03           Mihai, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

26841/03           Onofrei, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

26839/03           Poppov, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

26838/03           Radu Aurel, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

26837/03           Ranete, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

26831/03           Ţară Lungă, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 08/10/2008

1578/03            Tehleanu, judgment of 16/09/2008, final on 16/12/2008

26833/03           Vasiliu Iancu Alexandru, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

26834/03           Vasui, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

26835/03           Zaharia, judgment of 04/11/2008, final on 04/02/2009

26832/03           Zăinescu, judgment of 23/09/2008, final on 23/12/2008

These cases concern the violation of the right of the applicants (who had military status) to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in that assignment allowances they received when appointed on reserve in 2000 was subjected to income-tax, in clear contradiction with domestic law, by their former employers (public authorities) (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

These decisions were upheld in 2002 and 2003, by domestic courts, mainly on the ground that the relevant legal provisions (Article 31 of Law no. 138/1999) should be interpreted in the light of subsequently adopted legislation, which clearly showed the intention of the legislator to subject this allowance to taxation.

In the Driha judgment, the European Court noted that Law no. 138/1999 relating to salaries and other rights of servicemen stated clearly enough that the said allowance, calculated on the basis of gross salary, was not taxable. It considered that nothing authorised domestic courts to conclude that the allowance should be taxable, given that the subsequently adopted legislation (Ordinances Nos. 73/1999 and 136/2000) did not dispute its tax-free nature but affected the way the allowance was calculated. The European Court considered that the fact that the Court of Cassation (former Supreme Court) found in two cases (in 2002 and 2003) that the allowance was taxable, should have no effect on the clarity and foreseeable nature of the law, as these decisions were contrary to the clear provisions of domestic law, to its own case-law and to the consistent case-law of other courts (§32 of the judgment).

The cases also relate to the discriminatory treatment to which the applicants were subjected compared with other reserve officers who received this allocation tax-free (violation of Article 14 combined with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction for all damages sustained. It may be accepted that the tax levied on the applicants’ allocations was included in the amounts awarded by the Court. 

• Assessment: No other measure seems necessary.

General measures: The European Court pointed out that the domestic courts’ interpretation, at the origin of the violations in these cases, was contrary to the relevant domestic law which was sufficiently foreseeable and clear. It also noted that its clarity and its foreseeable nature were reinforced by the consistent case-law of the courts up to 2002 and that they had not been overruled by the two Court of Cassation decisions of 2002 and 2003 which stated that the allowances were taxable. In addition, the Court considered that Ordinances no. 73/1999 and no. 136/2000 had not affected the tax-free nature of these allowances.

 • Assessment: As the violations in these cases resulted from an incorrect interpretation of domestic law by the authorities, publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment in the Driha case to the competent authorities and the competent courts, seem to be appropriate measures for execution. Furthermore, it would be useful to receive information on the present rules and practices relating to the taxation of these allowances to evaluate whether further measures are needed.

- 8 cases mainly concerning the length of criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy

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

73502/01          Aliuta, judgment of 11/07/2006, final on 11/10/2006

5512/02            Crăciun, judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 26/01/2009

71649/01          Petre, judgment of 27/06/2006, final on 23/10/2006

1505/02            Reiner and others, judgment of 27/09/2007, final on 27/12/2007

72439/01          Soare, judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 16/09/2009

36293/02          Temeşan, judgment of 10/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008

78048/01          Tudorache, judgment of 29/09/2005, final on 29/12/2005

The cases concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants (violations of Article 6§1). The proceedings in the Aliuta, Crăciun and Petre cases were pending when the European Court gave its judgments.

The Reiner and others case also concerns the dismissal by the domestic courts of the applicants’ repeated requests to question certain witnesses (violation of Article 6§3(d)).

The Soare case also concerns the lack of an effective remedy for excessive length of criminal proceedings (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: In the Reiner and others case the European Court observed that the applicants might request the reopening of the proceedings under Article 408-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

• The authorities are invited to provide information on the current state of the pending proceedings and, if appropriate, to take appropriate measures to accelerate them.

General measures:

1) Excessive length of proceedings and lack of effective remedy: According to the statistics collected by the Superior Council of Magistracy with regard to the average length of criminal proceedings, in 2007 85,6% of criminal proceedings were concluded in less than 6 months (the recommended limit) and only 3% in more than one year. Starting with 2005, the inspectors of the Superior Council of Magistracy have regularly monitored courts’ activities from the point of view of compliance with the recommended time limits for criminal trials and, where needed, disciplinary sanctions have been applied.

It should be also noted that the Ministry of Justice is drawing up a new Code of Criminal Procedure containing a series of measures which should contribute to the speediness of proceedings (e.g., introduction of a simplified procedure for less serious offences, recognition of guilt, etc.).

The judgment in the Stoianova and Nedelcu case was published in the Official Journal and sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view to bringing it to the attention of all domestic courts with a recommendation to discuss this judgment during activities related to continued professional education of judges.

In accordance with the practice of the Committee of the Ministers since the adoption of Recommendation Rec(2004)6 to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies, information was also requested on measures taken or envisaged to set up an effective remedy against the excessive length of criminal proceedings.

In this context, it should be noted that on 03/04/2006, the Romanian authorities, in co-operation with the Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), organised a conference on possible remedies in respect of excessive length of proceedings.

The discussions concerned the identification of the reasons for excessive length of proceedings and remedies. The results of the conference have been partially reflected in the conclusions of a study published by the Venice Commission at the end of 2006. The Romanian authorities intend to examine the adoption of possible practical solutions to the problem of the excessive length of proceedings, taking into account the conclusions of the Venice Commission.

• Bilateral contacts are under way to assess the scope of the measures adopted and still envisaged to prevent new violations due to excessive length of proceedings and on possibilities of establishing effective domestic remedies in this respect.

2) Impossibility to examine witnesses: It seems that the violation found in the Reiner and others case resulted from the incorrect practice of courts. In view of the direct effect of the European Convention in Romania, it may be assumed that the requirements of Article 6§1 (d) and the European Court's case-law will be taken into account in the future, thus preventing new, similar violations, after the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court. In this context it should be noted that all judgments of the European Court against Romania are regularly published in the Official Journal and on the Internet site of the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice (http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp).

• In addition the present judgment should be sent out to all domestic courts in order to avoid similar violations.

- 31 cases mainly concerning the length of civil proceedings and lack of an effective remedy

1295/02            Nicolau, judgment of 12/01/2006, final on 03/07/2006

37411/02           Abramiuc, judgment of 24/02/2009, final on 24/05/2009

19895/02           Apahideanu, judgment of 02/12/2008, final on 06/04/2009

15204/02           Atanasiu, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008

8870/02            Bercaru, judgment of 16/09/2008, final on 26/01/2009

42588/02           Cârjan, judgment of 25/01/2007, final on 25/04/2007

56326/00           Cârstea and Grecu, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 23/10/2006

31250/02           Cerăceanu No. 1, judgment of 04/03/2008, final on 29/09/2008

3076/02            Ciovică, judgment of 31/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

10277/04           Constantinescu Nicolae, judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 30/12/2008

26662/02           Craiu, judgment of 07/10/2008, final on 07/01/2009

19055/05           Deak, judgment of 03/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008[33]

22011/03           Deckany, judgment of 01/04/2008, final on 01/07/2008

29301/03           Drăgănescu, judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 06/04/2009

6373/03            Dumitrescu Gheorghe and Maria Mihaela, judgment of 29/07/2008, final on 26/01/2009

29558/02           Duţă, judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 26/01/2009

38692/05+         Forum Maritime S.A., judgment of 04/10/2007, final on 04/01/2008

19215/04           Gheorghe, judgment of 15/03/2007, final on 15/06/2007

35229/02           Guţă, judgment of 16/11/2006, final on 26/03/2007

17782/02           Ionescu Dan Christian, judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/07/2009

12534/02           Ionescu Petre, judgment of 02/12/2008, final on 06/04/2009

67710/01           Ispan, judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 31/08/2007

19567/02           Matica, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 02/02/2007

34461/02          Mişcarea Producătorilor Agricoli pentru Drepturile Omului, judgment of 22/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

65965/01          Paroisse Gréco-Catholique Sfântul Vasile Polonă, judgment of 07/04/2009, final on 07/07/2009

32700/04           Păunoiu, judgment of 16/09/2008, final on 16/12/2008

30043/04           Popovici Laurenciu, judgment of 24/02/2009, final on 24/05/2009

32228/02           S.C. Comprimex S.A., judgment of 30/09/2008, final on 06/04/2009

42907/02           SC Concept Ltd SRL and Manole, judgment of 22/11/2007, final on 07/07/2008

26533/05           Stanciu Varvara, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 21/05/2008

9415/02            Tăşchină, judgment of 01/07/2008, final on 01/10/2008

These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The Abramiuc and the Paroise Gréco-Catholique Sfântul Vasile Polonă cases also concern the lack of an effective remedy for excessive length of civil proceedings (violation of Article 13).

The Dan Cristian Ionescu case also concerns the length of judicial proceedings in which the applicant was awarded an amount of money, which caused the decrease of its value because of inflation (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The Abramiuc case also deals with the late enforcement of a final judgment (violation of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Gheorghe case also concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing on the account of absence of a specific and explicit response from the Supreme Court of Justice in a decision of 4/11/2003, to his ground of appeal in a case concerning his disability allowance (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court found that in the absence of such a response it was impossible to ascertain whether the domestic courts had simply neglected to examine the content of the applicant's claim or whether its dismissal had been the result of a manifest error of judgment as to the subject-matter of the action.

The Forum Maritime S.A. case also concerns the impossibility to have an independent and impartial tribunal examine the order of dismissal issued by the prosecutor in 2000 with respect to the applicant company’s criminal complaint with civil-party application (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court noted that a prosecutor did not fulfil the requirement of independence from the executive branch and that at the material time, the Code of Criminal Procedure provided no possibility of judicial appeal against an order of dismissal issued by a prosecutor. Finally, the Forum Maritime S.A. case also concerns the unfairness of the proceedings, neither the applicant nor his counsel having had access to the criminal file (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures:

            1) Excessive length of proceedings: the proceedings in all these cases, with exception of the Duţă, Mişcarea Producătorilor Agricoli pentru Drepturile Omului, Nicolau, SC Concept Ltd SRL and Manole cases, were closed when the European Court gave its judgments. In the Dan Cristian Ionescu case the European Court considered that the applicant had suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages which could not be sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation. The Court therefore awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of all heads of damage.

• Information is expected on the state of proceedings in the Duţă, Mişcarea Producătorilor Agricoli pentru Drepturile Omului, Nicolau, SC Concept Ltd SRL and Manole cases and, if appropriate, on measures taken to accelerate them.

            2) Late enforcement of a final judgment in the Abramiuc case: the judgment in question was enforced on 7/07/2005 (see §90 of the judgment). The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: no further individual measure is required. 

            3) Failure to give specific response to applicant's claims in the Gheorghe case: Romanian law provides, in Article 322§9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the possibility of reopening civil proceedings in cases in which the European Court has found a violation. In addition, the European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: no further individual measure is required. 

            4) Independent and impartial tribunal and lack of access to the prosecution file in the Forum Maritime S.A. case:

• Bilateral contacts are under way to assess the need for individual measures in addition to the payment of the just satisfaction awarded.

General measures:

            1) Excessive length of proceedings and lack of effective remedy:

• Information provided by the Romanian authorities (3/12/2008): In the framework of the draft new code of civil procedure, a special procedure will be created to contest the excessive length of proceedings before the court competent to hear the case, which will pronounce its decision by an interlocutory judgment. It will be possible to appeal such judgment before the hierarchically superior court. Amendments are also proposed concerning appeals on points of law, which will become an extraordinary appeal available only in exceptional cases. Stricter conditions for the exercise of this appeal are being considered. The notion of “deadline in full awareness” will be given a broader sense, so that it includes all situations in which it may be presumed that the party received the notification and is aware of the deadline. Thus it will no longer be possible to adjourn hearings because of failure to carry out the formal requirements of notifying the parties, if it becomes clear that the parties were already fully aware, as a result of their presence at earlier hearings, of the dates in question.

This measure should contribute to shortening proceedings. Legislative amendments are also envisaged in the field of forced execution, including the possibility to order certain measures by the enforcement body by final and binding interlocutory judgments.

• Bilateral contacts are under way concerning this information and on measures still envisaged to prevent new violations and on possibilities of establishing effective domestic remedies in this respect.

It should be noted that all the judgments of the European Court are regularly published in the Official Journal. The European Court’s judgment in the Cârstea and Grecu case was also sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view to bringing it to the attention of all domestic courts.

            2) Late enforcement of a final judgment: The Abramiuc case presents similarities to Săcăleanu group (73970/01, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

3) Failure to give specific response to applicant's claims: In view of the direct effect of the European Convention in Romania, it may be assumed that the requirements of Article 6§1 and the European Court's case-law will be taken into account in the future, thus preventing new, similar violations, after the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court. In this context it should be noted that all judgments of the European Court against Romania are regularly published in the Official Journal and on the Internet site of the Supreme Court of Cassation and Justice (http://www.scj.ro/decizii_strasbourg.asp). The Gheorghe judgment was also sent to the Superior Council of Magistracy, with a view of its dissemination to all domestic courts, with the recommendation that it be discussed amongst the activities related to continued education of judges.

• Assessment: No further measure appears necessary.

4) Independent and impartial tribunal: The Forum Maritime S.A. case presents similarities to that of Grecu (75101/01, 1100th meeting, December 2010).

5) Access to a prosecution file: In the Forum Maritime S.A. case the European Court noted that under the Code of Criminal Procedure and according to general legal opinion, criminal proceedings during the prosecution phase were, at the material time, neither public nor contradictory. However, following the amendment of Article 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Law No. 281 of 24/06/2003, lawyers of the civil party may be present during the course of all prosecution acts.

• Assessment: No additional measure seems necessary.

62276/00          Nichifor No. 1, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 13/10/2006

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative commission responsible for the application of Law No. 112/1995 and before civil courts (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings began in July 1996 and ended in December 2000 (four years and five months, of which three years and eight months were before the administrative commission).

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

General measures: It should be noted that all the judgments of the European Court against Romania are regularly published in the Official Journal. The present judgment was also published on the Internet site of the Supreme Council of Magistracy (http://www.csm1909.ro/csm/index.php?lb=ro /) and a summary on the Internet site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (http://www.mae.ro). The content of this judgment was sent to the Supreme Council of Magistracy, with a view to its dissemination to all domestic courts, with the recommendation that it is included for consideration in the activities related to continued education of judges, and to all prefectures, with a view to its dissemination to the administrative commissions responsible for the application of laws related to the restitution of property.

The European Court noted that that national law requires the administrative commission at issue to take decisions within 30 days.

• The authorities are therefore invited to provide information as to whether or not the delay encountered in this case was exceptional and, if appropriate, whether measures have been taken or are planned to ensure that the limits established by law are respected.

- 299 cases against the Russian Federation / 299 affaires contre la Fédération de Russie[34]

46468/06           Aleksanyan, judgment of 22/12/2008, final on 05/06/2009

15339/02+         Budayeva and others, judgment of 20/03/2008, final on 29/09/2008

4353/03            Tarariyeva, judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 14/03/2007

25385/04           Medova, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 05/06/2009

- 15 cases mainly concerning ill-treatment of the applicants while in custody and the lack of an effective investigation

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

5742/02            Akulinin and Babich, judgment of 02/10/2008, final on 02/01/2009

36220/02           Barabanshchikov, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 26/01/2009

1748/02            Belousov, judgment of 02/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

3811/02            Denisenko and Bogdanchikov, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

19223/04           Fedorov Vladimir, judgment of 30/07/2009, final on 30/10/2009

2807/04            Gladyshev, judgment of 30/07/2009, final on 30/10/2009, rectified on 15/03/2010

30049/02           Kornev Yevgeniy, judgment of 30/07/2009, final on 30/10/2009

78145/01          Kovalev, judgment of 10/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007

839/02              Maslova and Nalbandov, judgment of 24/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008

9297/02            Nadrosov, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 26/01/2009

36410/02           Nikitin Oleg, judgment of 09/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

30033/05           Polonskiy, judgment of 19/03/2009, final on 14/09/2009

64398/01           Samoylov, judgment of 02/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

65859/01           Sheydayev, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 23/05/2007

- 2 cases concerning the lack of an effective remedy on respect of the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment inflicted in prison by a special unit

7178/03            Dedovskiy and others, judgment of 15/05/2008, final on 15/08/2008

8413/02            Alibekov, judgment of 14/05/2009, final on 14/08/2009

49790/99           Trubnikov, judgment of 05/07/2005, final on 30/11/2005

59261/00           Menesheva, judgment of 09/03/2006; final on 09/06/2006

63993/00           Romanov, judgment of 20/10/2005, final on 20/01/2006

5140/02            Fedotov, judgment of 25/10/2005, final on 25/01/2006

                       CM/Inf/DH(2006)19-rev3 and CM/Inf/DH(2006)45

35421/05           Mechenkov, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/07/2008

7188/03            Chember, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

25948/05           Knyazev, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 02/06/2008

                       - 55 cases concerning unlawful detention, excessive length and insufficient grounds

                       CM/Inf/DH(2007)4

                        (see Appendix for the list of cases in the Klyakhin group)

14139/03           Bolat, judgment of 05/10/2006, final on 05/01/2007

2512/04            Nolan and K., judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 06/07/2009

                       - 8 cases concerning extradition

38411/02          Garabayev, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 30/01/2008

42443/02          Eminbeyli, judgment of 26/02/2009, final on 26/05/2009

2947/06            Ismoilov and others, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 01/12/2008

13476/04          Khudyakova, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

42502/06          Muminov, judgment of 11/12/2008, final on 04/05/2009

656/06              Nasrulloyev, judgment of 11/10/2007, final on 11/01/2008

8320/04            Ryabikin, judgment of 19/06/2008, final on 19/09/2008

16074/07          Shchebet, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

- 6 cases mainly concerning courts’ refusal to accept the testimony of defence witnesses in proceedings leading to the applicants’ conviction

26853/04          Popov, judgment of 13/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006

13769/04           Makeyev, judgment of 05/02/2009, final on 05/05/2009

30997/02           Polufakin and Chernyshev, judgment of 25/09/2008, final on 26/01/2009

77018/01           Polyakov, judgment of 29/01/2009, final on 29/04/2009

41461/02           Romanov Vladimir, judgment of 24/08/2008, final on 26/01/2009

1111/02            Trofimov, judgment of 4/12/2008, final on 4/03/2009

44009/05          Shtukaturov, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 27/06/2008 and of 04/03/2010, possibly final on 04/06/2010

78146/01           Vlasov, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

16159/03           Lobanov, judgment of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009

62936/00           Moiseyev, judgment of 09/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

3896/04            Ryabov, judgment of 31/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008

14939/03           Zolotukhin Sergey, judgment of 10/02/2009 – Grand Chamber

13470/02           Khuzhin and others, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 23/01/2009

71933/01          Gartukayev, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

55762/00+        Timishev, judgment of 13/12/2005, final on 13/03/2006

55565/00           Bartik, judgment of 21/12/2006, final on 21/03/2007

32718/02           Tuleshov and others, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007

7672/03            Ponomarev, judgment of 15/05/2008, final on 15/08/2008

33307/02           Galich, judgment of 13/05/2008, final on 26/01/2009

4378/02            Bykov, judgment of 10/03/2009 – Grand Chamber

3451/05            Kalacheva, judgment of 07/05/2009, final on 07/08/2009

29492/05          Kudeshkina, judgment of 26/02/2009, final on 14/09/2009

184/02              Kuznetsov and others, judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 11/04/2007

10519/03          Barankevich, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

72881/01          Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army, judgment of 05/10/2006, final on 05/01/2007

18147/02          Church of Scientology Moscow, judgment of 05/04/2007, final on 24/09/2007

30160/04           Dzhavadov, judgment of 27/09/2007, final on 27/12/2007

35082/04           Makhmudov, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

                       - 8 cases concerning freedom of expression

72683/01          Chemodurov, judgment of 31/07/2007, final on 31/10/2007

25968/02          Dyuldin and Kislov, judgment of 31/07/2007, final on 31/10/2007

37406/03           Dyundin, judgment of 14/10/2008, final on 14/01/2009

14888/03           Godlevskiy, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

73219/01           Filatenko, judgment of 06/12/2007, final on 06/03/2008

29372/02           Karman, judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 14/03/2007

12365/03           Krasulya, judgment of 22/02/2007, final on 22/05/2007

34736/03           Obukhova, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

55066/00+        Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and others, judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 11/04/2007

17864/04+         Krasnov and Skuratov, judgment of 19/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008

10877/04           Kuznetsov Sergei, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 23/01/2009

32147/04           Kuimov, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

1509/02            Tatishvili, judgment of 22/02/2007, final on 09/07/2007

1758/02            Kazakov, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 05/06/2009

                       - 2 cases concerning violations of the right to home due to industrial pollution

55723/00          Fadeyeva, judgment of 09/06/2005, final on 30/11/2005

53157/99+        Ledyayeva, Dobrokhotova, Zolotareva and Romashina, judgment of 26/10/2006, final on 26/03/2007

                       CM/Inf/DH(2007)7

6293/04            Mirilashvili, judgment of 11/12/2008, final on 05/06/2009

3891/03            Samokhvalov, judgment of 12/02/2009, final on 12/05/2009

14810/02           Ryakib Biryukov, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 07/07/2008

- 3 cases concerning the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings due to courts’ failure to appoint counsel for the applicants

15435/03           Shulepov, judgment of 26/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008

14934/03           Potapov, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

40631/02           Timergaliyev, judgment of 14/10/2008, final on 14/01/2009

- 2 cases mainly concerning the violation of the right to a fair trial due to the recharacterisation of the charges against the applicants at a late stage

19692/02           Seliverstov, judgment of 25/09/2008, final on 25/12/2008

10709/02           Abramyan, judgment of 09/10/2008, final on 09/01/2009

- 2 cases concerning the violation of the right to a fair trial, the applicants’ cases not having been determined by a tribunal established by law

73225/01           Fedotova, judgment of 13/04/2006, final on 13/09/2006

26716/03           Barashkova, judgment of 29/04/2008, final on 29/07/2008

5433/02            Shabanov and Tren, judgment of 14/12/2006, final on 14/03/2007

66941/01           Zagorodnikov, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 07/09/2007

- 4 cases concerning the failure to summons the accused in criminal supervisory-review proceedings

53203/99          Vanyan, judgment of 15/12/2005, final on 15/03/2006

66041/01          Aldoshkina, judgment of 12/10/2006, final on 12/01/2007

74266/01           Alekseyenko, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 06/07/2009

54632/00          Zhukov Stanislav, judgment of 12/10/2006, final on 12/01/2007

67099/01           Solodyuk, judgment of 12/07/05, final on 30/11/05

- 16 cases concerning violation of the right of access to a court or to fair trial due to the belated notification of a procedural act in civil or criminal proceedings

23377/02           Mokrushina, judgment of 05/10/2006, final on 12/02/2007

3932/02            Batsanina, judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 14/09/2009

70142/01           Dunayev, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 24/08/2007

75893/01           Fokin, judgment of 18/09/2008, final on 18/12/2008

3354/02            Gorbachev, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007

12377/03           Kabkov, judgment of 17/07/2008, final on 17/10/2008

74286/01           Larin and Larina, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 07/09/2007

34489/05           Litvinova, judgment of 14/11/2008, final on 14/02/2009

33132/02           Metelitsa, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 23/10/2006

8630/03            Prokopenko, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007

1385/04            Sazonov, judgment of 16/10/2008, final on 16/01/2009

32165/02           Sibgatullin, judgment of 23/04/2009, final on 14/09/2009

4537/04            Sidorova, judgment of 14/02/2008, final on 14/05/2008

31049/05           Sivukhin, judgment of 07/05/2009, final on 07/08/2009

6857/02            Stadukhin, judgment of 18/10/2007, final on 18/01/2008

837/03              Subbotkin, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

- 13 cases mainly concerning quashing of final judgments on the basis of newly discovered circumstances

69529/01           Pravednaya, judgment of 18/11/2004, final on 30/03/2005

69524/01          Bulgakova, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007 and of 10/06/2008 – Friendly settlement

69533/01           Kondrashina, judgment of 19/07/2007, final on 30/01/2008

73294/01           Kumkin and others, judgment of 05/07/2007, final on 30/01/2008

67579/01           Kuznetsova, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 12/11/2007

944/02              Levochkina, judgment of 05/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008

76676/01           Maltseva, judgment of 19/06/2008, final on 19/09/2008

852/02              Smirnitskaya and others, judgment of 05/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008

11589/04           Tetsen, judgment of 03/04/2008, final on 03/07/2008

25580/02           Vedernikova, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008

842/02              Volkova and Basova, judgment of 05/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008

77478/01           Yerogova, judgment of 19/06/2008, final on 19/09/2008

560/02              Zhukov Nikolay, judgment of 05/07/2007, final on 31/03/2008

- 6 cases concerning quashing of final judgments through the supervisory review procedure (criminal proceedings)

65582/01           Radchikov, judgment of 24/05/2007, final on 12/11/2007

54882/00           Chervonenko, judgment of 29/01/2009, final on 06/07/2009

15336/02           Chistyakov Eduard, judgment of 09/04/2009, final on 09/07/2009

75469/01           Kiselev, judgment of 29/01/2009, final on 06/07/2009

63997/00           Fedorov, judgment of 26/02/2009, final on 26/05/2009

8927/02            Sharomov, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

18274/04           Borzhonov, judgment of 22/01/2009, final on 22/04/2009

- 37 cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration in enforcing judgments relating to the social benefits of former Chernobyl workers

Resolution ResDH(2004)85, Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)43

33264/02          Levin, judgment of 02/02/05, final on 02/05/06

34439/04           Agaponova and others, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/05/2008

75025/01+         Aleksentseva and others, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008

966/03              Almayeva, judgment of 25/10/2007, final on 25/01/2008

35774/04           Arulepp, judgment of 06/11/2008, final on 06/02/2009

32786/04           Bakharev and others, judgment of 18/09/2008, final on 18/12/2008

21932/03           Bakharev, judgment of 19/07/2007, final on 19/10/2007

37930/02           Bazhenov, judgment of 20/10/05, final on 20/01/06

34679/03           Belotserkovets, judgment of 03/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

24620/02           Belyayev, judgment of 25/01/2007, final on 25/04/2007

72558/01           Blagovestnyy, judgment of 04/07/2006, final on 04/10/2006

1719/02            Butsev, judgment of 22/09/05, final on 15/02/06

40642/02           Denisenkov, judgment of 22/09/05, final on 15/02/06

34431/04           Denisova, judgment of 18/09/2008, final on 18/12/2008

28488/04           Dokolin, judgment of 18/09/2008, final on 18/12/2008

41842/04           Fitisov, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 08/02/2008

38719/03           Glushakova, judgment of 12/04/2007, final on 12/07/2007

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

63995/00           Kukalo, judgment of 03/11/2005, final on 03/02/2006

11319/04           Kukalo No. 2, judgment of 24/07/2008, final on 24/10/2008

43209/04           Ledovkin, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 21/05/2008

35893/04           Levin Viktor, judgment of 25/09/2008, final on 25/12/2008

43282/02           Naydenkov, judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 24/09/2007

37927/02           Nikolayev, judgment of 02/03/06, final on 02/06/06

19589/02           Parkhomov, judgment of 20/10/05, final on 20/01/06

15890/04           Petrov Viktor, judgment of 24/07/2008, final on 24/10/2008

36939/02           Podyapolskiy, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

38720/03           Popov Aleksandr, judgment of 05/04/2007, final on 05/07/2007

26307/02           Shirykalova, judgment of 27/03/2008, final on 27/06/2008

32786/03           Silchenko, judgment of 28/09/2006, final on 28/12/2006

24664/02           Siverin, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 04/03/2009

33660/04           Smelov, judgment of 02/10/2008, final on 02/01/2009

37647/04           Smorodinova, judgment of 17/01/2008, final on 17/04/2008

34938/04           Suslin, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 23/01/2009

39013/05           Svitich, judgment of 31/07/2007, final on 31/10/2007

40543/04           Voronin, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 04/03/2009

38845/04           Zubarev, judgment of 02/10/2008, final on 02/01/2009

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

Housing disputes (former military)

63501/00          Konovalov, judgment of 23/03/2006, final on 13/09/2006

27995/05           Bogunov, judgment of 23/10/2008, final on 23/01/2009

24435/04           Bormotov, judgment of 31/07/2008, final on 31/10/2008

38872/02           Galkin Ivan, judgment of 20/11/2008, final on 20/02/2009

9593/06            Gorbunov, judgment of 04/12/2008, final on 04/03/2009

25971/03           Kotsar, judgment of 29/01/2009, final on 29/04/2009

34672/03           Levishchev, judgment of 29/01/2009, final on 06/07/2009

16048/06           Lotorevich, judgment of 22/01/2009, final on 22/04/2009

14656/03          Ponomarenko, judgment of 15/02/2007, final on 15/05/2007

41307/02          Shpakovskiy, judgment of 07/07/2005, final on 07/10/2005

13979/03           Sladkov, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 18/03/2009

40078/03           Tolstov, judgment of 26/06/2008, final on 26/09/2008

                        Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)43

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

Housing disputes (judges)

11931/03          Teteriny, judgment of 30/06/2005, final on 30/09/2005

5950/04            Blinov and Blinova, judgment of 30/04/2009, final on 06/11/2009

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

Housing disputes (Tchernobyl)

41302/02          Malinovskiy, judgment of 07/07/2005, final on 07/10/2005

21074/03           Makarov, judgment of 25/01/2007, final on 25/04/2007

7363/04            Mikryukov, judgment of 08/12/2005, final on 08/03/2006

6859/02            Nagovitsyn, judgment of 24/01/2008, final on 24/04/2008

                        Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)43

- 54 cases of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

(See Appendix for the list of cases in the Kormacheva group)

- 1 case against San Marino / 1 affaire contre Saint-Marin

69700/01           Tierce Vanessa, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 03/12/03

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings which lasted from 1993 to 2001, i.e. around 8 years and 9 months for two degrees of jurisdiction (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court noted that the reason for such a length was mainly the complexity of civil procedure in San Marino, characterised by the need to observe various statutory periods as well as the fact that civil judges have no power of initiative if the parties are inactive (§31 of the judgment).

Individual measures: None. The proceedings are closed.

General measures:

• Information provided by the authorities of San Marino (letter of 25/01/2006): A working group was established to take measures to reduce the length of proceedings. This group consists, inter alia, of representatives of the Ministries of Justice and of Foreign Affairs, judges and lawyers. The group started its meetings at the beginning of 2005. The working group concluded its work in early 2006 and its conclusions will be published shortly.

At the same time, a new law (No. 145) adopted on 28/10/2005 introduces procedural and material changes in order to shorten the length of proceedings. The law provides, inter alia, that the civil suits may now also be extinguished ex officio and not only on the application of the parties. The aim of this change is to prevent parties from prolonging proceedings by remaining inactive. Also, the workload of the Commissario della legge has been reduced by widening the competencies of the conciliating judges (Giudici Conciliatori) and by directing appeals concerning their decisions to appeal judges (Guidici delle Appellazioni) rather than to the Commissario della legge.

• Information is awaited on the follow-up to be given to these proposals and on the timetable for the possible legislative reform as well as on the effective remedy in the length of proceedings cases.

• Information is also awaited on publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court.

- 25 cases against Serbia / 25 affaires contre la Serbie

39177/05           V.A.M., judgment of 13/03/2007, final on 13/06/2007

The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings initiated in 1999 by the applicant, who is HIV positive, before the Fourth Municipal Court of Belgrade seeking dissolution of her marriage, sole custody of her daughter, born in 1995, and child maintenance (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court recalled that exceptional diligence was required in dealing with cases in which the plaintiff was HIV positive, as well in all matters where the proceedings concern child custody disputes (§§101, 105 and 106 of judgment).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant's right to respect of her family life due to the non execution since 1999 of the domestic court's interim order providing the applicant's access to her daughter, as well as the excessive length of the civil proceedings (double violation of Article 8). The child has not seen the applicant since August 1998 and the interim access order has not been enforced due to the unco-operative attitude of the child's father and impossibility of serving court documents on him due to his repeated changes of addresses, including abroad in Montenegro.

Finally, the case concerns the lack of an effective remedy under domestic law concerning the excessive length of proceedings (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The European Court recalled the obligation of the respondent state to enforce, “by appropriate means”, the interim access order of 23/07/1999 and to “bring to a conclusion, with particular diligence, the ongoing civil proceedings” (§166 of judgment).

• Information provided by the Serbian authorities and the applicant: While providing the information on the individual measures taken in this case, the Serbian authorities stressed that the child has already reached the age of 15. Under these circumstances domestic law provides that the courts should take her opinion into account when deciding on her willingness to maintain contact with her mother.

1) Child custody and maintenance proceedings: The proceedings concerning the child custody and maintenance were closed on 14/12/2007 and the judgment was confirmed on appeal on 12/03/2008. It has thus become final and repealed the 1999 interim order. The judgment left custody to the father and confirmed the applicant's visitation rights. On 08/09/2008 the child’s father filed an action against the applicant requesting the annulment of her visiting rights. However, on 28/11/2008 the domestic court dismissed his claim on procedural grounds. Nonetheless, it appears that the child’s father submitted a fresh action against the applicant requesting again the annulment of her visiting rights. The hearing held on 12/10/2009 in this case was interrupted after the domestic court had warned the child’s father not to shout at the presiding judge and not to point at her. The child’s father also instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant in respect of her obligation to pay a maintenance allowance to the child. Finally, the child’s father brought an action against the applicant alleging her unjust enrichment. He claims from the applicant the reimbursement of the costs and expenses awarded to her under the judgment of 14/12/2007 stating that the European Court also awarded her those costs and expenses.

2) Enforcement proceedings: On 02/06/2008 the court ordered enforcement of the judgment of 14/12/2007 and its decision was served on the child's father on 14/06/2008. However, the child's father has persisted in obstructing the applicant's access to her child as well as the payment of costs awarded to the applicant. So far no contact between the applicant and her child has been established. The court fined the father three times for failure to produce the child for the purpose of enforcing the interim access order and several times for non-compliance with the final judgment, most recently on 24/04/2010. According to the court, the father's non-compliance cannot be and is not in the best interest of the child and amounts to a threat to the psychological, physical and emotional development of the child. All set-off claims against the applicant and proposals raised by the child's father for rescheduling the enforcement to a later date were expeditiously dismissed. In its ruling of 26/01/2009 the court indicated that failure of the applicant to communicate with her child might have adverse consequences for the child’s development and therefore could not be in the child’s best interest. Furthermore, the court heard the school psychologist at the hearing held on 05/05/2009. The child was also heard in the presence of the school psychologist and the expert witnesses (a clinical psychologist and a neuropsychiatrist) at the hearing held on 17/06/2009. She firmly declared that she would not like at all to meet the applicant, thus repeatedly demonstrating her firm resistance to establishing any contact with her mother. In such a situation, the court ordered the expert witnesses to give their opinion on further methods of enforcement. On 18/06/2009 the experts submitted their report to the court stating that any administrative or other type of pressure at this stage would pose a risk of destroying the child’s fragile personal and family balance. The hearing scheduled for 21/09/2009 was adjourned since the expert witnesses were unable to appear. On the other hand, the hearing held on 13/10/2009 was interrupted as a result of inappropriate behaviour by the child’s father, who was shouting and threatening in the courtroom. The hearing scheduled for 10/11/2009 was not held due to a strike by members of the bar. At the hearing held on 24/11/2009, the court ordered the expert witness to submit an opinion on what would be the most appropriate method of organising the implementation of the applicant’s right of access in the child’s best interest. At the hearing held on 08/12/2009 neither of the expert witnesses appeared and the court fined them. However, they submitted their opinion in writing on the same day, stating that they were unable to propose a visiting model in this case since the child persistently refused any contact with the applicant. On 24/03/2010 the court dismissed a request by the child’s father to postpone the enforcement proceedings. In particular, the court found that he had indoctrinated the child to make her accept his attitude towards the applicant. In this way, he did violence to the child. The court ordered him to comply with the enforcement order within three days. The Social Care Centre was also ordered to inform the competent public prosecutor if the child’s father resisted the enforcement order.

3) Criminal proceedings:The Social Care Centre was ordered by the ministry in charge to take a number of legal steps. Pursuant to this order, the Social Care Centre filed a criminal complaint against the child's father on 21/07/2008 alleging abduction of the child and joined the applicant in her motion for enforcement of the judgment. On 08/10/2008 the public prosecutor filed a criminal indictment against the child's father before the court alleging abduction of a minor.

The applicant and the child were heard at the hearing held on 11/05/2009. The child declared in the applicant’s presence that she would not like to see “that woman”. The expert witness stated in her turn that she could not assert whether the child was instructed by anyone to testify in this way. She further continued saying that the child “had to establish certain defence mechanisms, which [she] did and she had quite an economic defence mechanism i.e. she defended herself in the most rational way so that she [was] emotionally distant from her real mother, even though she herself [was] not an emotionally challenged person.” On 27/05/2009 the court sentenced the child’s father to six months’ prison suspended for two years for having abducted the minor child.

4) Proceedings for privation of parental rights initiated by the applicant: The Social Care Centre also submitted a report to the court in the proceedings for deprivation of parental rights, putting forward arguments for such deprivation and underlying that “there have been elements of emotional abuse” of the child by the father . Upon the judge's request, the Social Care Centre on 14/10/2008 appointed a guardian to represent the interests of the minor child in these proceedings. On 25/11/2009, the expert witness from the Belgrade School of Medicine stated at the hearing that it would not be in the child’s best interest if her father were deprived of his parental right and that no force should be used to compel the child to accept contact with her mother. On the same date, the court rendered judgment, dismissing the claim in respect of depriving the child’s father of his parental right. In particular, while blaming the child’s father for the lack of contact between the applicant and her child, the court stated that if the child’s father were stripped of his parental rights, it would be “a draconic sanction toward the minor S. since she would be thereby deprived of her right to live with [her father] as her parent with whom she [was] most closely related.” 

5) Preparatory work:  On 25/11/2008, in the context of the enforcement proceedings, the Belgrade Fourth Municipal Court ordered the head teacher of the child’s school to organise preparatory work with the child in co-operation with the Social Care Centre. The court also ordered the Social Care Centre to hold a meeting with the school to draw up a plan concerning the methods and the timetable of such preparatory work. The Social Care Centre was under an obligation to inform the court of the steps taken by 25/12/2008. The Social Care Centre held this meeting on 17/12/2008. The Social Care Centre briefed the school psychologist and provided relevant material in writing. It was agreed that the school psychologist should plan working with the child at least once a week and should regularly inform the Social Care Centre on further developments. Due to the school winter holidays, the school psychologist scheduled the first meeting with the child only for 18/02/2009. However, it did not take place because the child was sick. The interview with the child was eventually held on 24/02/2009. The child was told at that occasion that her mother was regularly coming at the designated time in the Social Care Centre to meet with her. Nonetheless, the child persistently refused to have any contact with her mother. In its report of 09/03/2009, the Social Care Centre stated that the school psychologist agreed with the child, her father and step mother on the schedule and the content of the future work. However, on 24/03/2009 the school psychologist submitted a report to the Government Agent indicating the firm unwillingness on the part of the child to see her mother. The school psychologist concluded that any further insisting on talking with the child would be unfeasible due to the child’s strong opposition in this matter.

6) Planning further actions: The Government Agent organised a meeting for all authorities involved in the present case on 07/10/2008, attended as well by the Deputy Minister of Justice. The attendees agreed upon the future measures to be taken by each of them.

• Assessment: The Secretariat notes at the outset that the underlying child custody and maintenance proceedings have been brought to a conclusion as it was indicated by the European Court. Beyond this, the child’s father was also convicted for abduction and sentenced to six months’ prison suspended for two years. Also, the proceedings brought by the applicant to strip the child’s father of his parental right have been brought to an end. It appears that the Serbian authorities have taken many different steps available under domestic law and demonstrated commitment in their efforts to make the child's father comply with the court's decisions. However, the measures taken so far have not made it possible for the applicant to have access to her child. It appears that the child clearly and repeatedly demonstrated her unwillingness to make any contact with the applicant, including before the court and in front of the applicant. In this respect, it is recalled that various court witnesses, including the members of the faculty of the Belgrade School of Medicine, have stated in two different sets of proceedings that no force should be used to compel the minor child to maintain contact with the applicant.

In the meantime, the child has already attained the age of 15, which means that under Serbian law domestic courts should take her opinion into account when deciding on her willingness to maintain contact with the parent with whom she does not live. In these circumstances, the Serbian authorities are expected to continue taking further steps within the framework of the ongoing enforcement proceedings.

• Information is therefore awaited on further measures taken to ensure that the applicant may exercise her access rights and on the developments in the ongoing enforcement proceedings.

General measures

1) Excessive length of civil proceedings: See Jevremović group of cases (3150/05, Section 4.2).

2) Violation of right to respect for family life (non-enforcement of a court decision): See E.V.T. group of cases (3102/05, Section 4.2), in particular the Tomić subgroup (25959/06).

3) Lack of an effective remedy: See Jevremović group of cases (3150/05, Section 4.2).

4) Dissemination: The State Agent promptly issued a press release on the European Court's judgment, which was widely reported in the Serbian press. He also forwarded the translation of the Court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Serbia with a request for further distribution to all domestic courts. During his visits to certain courts the State Agent delivered copies of the translated judgment to them. Finally, the judgment was distributed and discussed at a seminar organised on 14-15/06/2007 by the Department for Human and Minority Rights of the government and the State Agent in co-operation with the Council of Europe, attended by members of judiciary and state authorities.

5) Publication: The European Court's judgment was immediately translated and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia No. 53 of 13/06/2007, as well as on the website of the State Agent (www.zastupnik.gov.rs). A commentary on the judgment by the State Agent was published in the specialised legal magazine Paragraf, including its Internet edition, and in the journal Selected Case- Law (Izbor sudske prakse) No. 5/2007.

            - 2 cases mainly concerning prolonged pre-trial detention without judicial review

2361/05 Vrenčev, judgment of 23/09/2008, final on 23/12/2008

31320/05           Milošević, judgment of 28/04/2009, final on 28/07/2009

These cases concern the unlawfulness of the applicants’ prolonged pre-trial detention without any judicial review in 2004 and 2005 in Belgrade. The applicant in Vrenčev was only brought before a judge 20 days after his arrest, not to examine the lawfulness of his detention but to judge him, while the applicant in Milošević was brought before a judge who had both an obligation to review his detention and the power to order his release, more than forty-one days following his arrest (violations of Article 5§3).

The Vrenčev case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right “to be released pending trial”, which could have been “conditioned by [his] guarantees to appear” in court (§77). The applicant filed a motion seeking release on bail or alternatively confinement to his residence. These were apparently never considered by the court. Ten days later, he was merely fined for a drug offence, which was a lenient sentence for such an offence and, given the circumstances, certainly the only one which could have been anticipated (violation of Article 5§3).

The European Court noted that whenever the danger of absconding can be avoided by bail or other guarantees, the accused must be released, it being always incumbent on the national authorities duly to consider such alternatives. It also noted that where a lighter sentence may be anticipated, the reduced incentive for the accused to abscond should also be taken into account (§76). 

The Vrenčev case also concerns the lack of diligence in review proceedings before the Supreme Court initiated by the applicant with regard to the initial detention order and the absence of an oral hearing. It took more than 6 days for the applicant’s lawyer to receive the Supreme Court’s decision after the appeal had been correctly lodged, in breach of the 48-hour time-limit prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (violation of Article 5§4).

Finally, the Vrenčev case also concerns the violation of the applicant’s enforceable right to compensation with regard to the unlawful detention (violation of Article 5§5).

The European Court noted that since the Serbian Supreme Court deemed the applicant’s detention lawful, no domestic case-law existed to the effect that the applicant could obtain compensation for detention in breach of the Convention under these circumstances (§93).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants are no longer detained.

• Assessment: In these circumstances no further measure appears necessary.

General measures: 

• Information provided by the Serbian authorities: The Code of Criminal Procedure was amended on 12/09/2009 (Official Gazette No. 72/09), so that a detention order should be rendered only after a judge has heard the defendant (Article 142a, Section 1). If the defendant has not been heard when his detention was being considered, such person must be brought within 48 hours before the judge and heard before him (Article 143, Section 7).

• Assessment: These amendments should be capable of preventing prolonged initial detention without judicial review. However, no information has been provided with respect to measures concerning other violations found in these cases.

 • Information is thus awaited on measures taken or envisaged to ensure: (i) that a detainee is heard by a judge when deciding on extension of his detention and that such supervision of detention is prompt and automatic; (ii) that courts consider all relevant facts when considering the possibility of releasing a defendant pending his trial; (iii) that proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning complaints about detention are conducted diligently; (iv) that the right to compensation with respect to unlawful detention is enforced.

The European Court's judgment in the Vrenčev case has been translated into Serbian and published in the Official Gazette (No. 17 of 14/10/2008) as well as on the website of the Government Agent (www.zastupnik.gov.rs). The judgment was also published in the Case-Law Bulletin of the Supreme Court and on the Internet page of the Paragraf legal magazine, with expert comments. The Government Agent forwarded the judgment to the Supreme Court of Serbia requesting its distribution to all courts. He also made several public statements relating to the judgment. The judgment was also discussed at a seminar attended by a large number of judges, which was held in October 2009 in Vrnjačka Banja.

- 12 cases concerning failure or substantial delay by the administration in abiding by final domestic decisions The general measures taken so far and the outstanding issues will be examined in the light of a memorandum to be prepared by the Secretariat. A. COMMERCIAL MATTERS 3102/05    EVT Company, judgment of 21/06/07, final on 21/09/07 17556/05  Marčić and 16 others, judgment of 30/10/2007, final on 30/01/2008 These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the authorities’ failure to enforce domestic judgments in commercial matters (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The leading case of EVT Company also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial as a result of the authorities’ failure to carry out effective enforcement proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court found that the Serbian judicial authorities have failed to conduct enforcement proceedings effectively as a result of the repeated refusal by the police to assist the bailiffs (EVT only) and prolonged periods of inactivity of the courts. The European Court noted in the case of Marčić and 16 others, that there had been no attempt to enforce the Commercial Court’s decision throughout the period in question, even though there is no evidence that this delay could be attributed to the debtor’s lack of means which, had it been so, should by now have resulted in the conclusion of the insolvency proceedings as well as the extinction of the debtor as a legal entity (§59 of the judgment). Individual measures: 1) EVT Company: The European Court held that “the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damage must be met by the government ensuring, by appropriate means, the full execution of the Commercial Court’s final judgment of 7/05/1996 as modified by the enforcement orders of 17/10/ 1996 and 21/12/1998” (§60). • Information provided by the Serbian authorities: The domestic court has established the facts concerning the assets of the debtor companies, which appear to be largely insufficient to cover the applicant’s claim. On 11/03/2008 the applicant filed a motion to change the particular assets subject to enforcement. However, it turned out that the property specified by the applicant had been subject to prior enforcement proceedings involving over 80 other creditors. The applicant was informed of the situation and is entitled to indicate another of the debtor’s assets should any be free of prior encumbrance. In this respect, the authorities noted that two auctions failed, as no prospective buyer appeared for the debtor’s assets. The third auction has been scheduled for 06/10/2009. • Information is awaited on further developments and measures taken or envisaged to ensure full execution of this judgment. 2) Marčić: The European Court noted that the respondent state must secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the Commercial Court’s final decision of 27/12/1990 (§65). • Information provided by the Serbian authorities: On 25/07/2008 the Commercial Court of Leskovac informed the applicants’ lawyer in writing that the funds for enforcement of the final decision of 27/12/1990 had been secured. It further invited the lawyer to communicate bank account details for payment or to ensure that funds were collected from the court in cash. • Assessment: In view of this information, no further individual measure seems necessary. B. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOCIALLY OWNED ENTERPRISES 2269/06+   Kačapor and others, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 07/08/2008  35835/05*  Crnišanin, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009 16909/06+  Grišević and others, judgment of 21/07/2009, final on 21/10/2009 42619/04    Vlahović, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009 These cases concern violations of the applicants’ right to a fair trial due to the authorities’ failure to take the measures needed to enforce domestic judgments ordering socially-owned enterprises to pay salary arrears and employment benefits (violations of Article 6§1). These cases also concern violations of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in this regard (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The European Court noted that socially-owned enterprises were not sufficiently independent, either institutionally or operationally to absolve the state from its responsibility under the Convention. It further stated that companies predominantly comprised of social capital were as such closely controlled by the Privatisation Agency, itself a state body, as well as the government, irrespective of whether any formal privatisation had been attempted in the past (§§97-98, 75 in Kačapor; §§110-111, 124 in Crnišanin). The European Court also noted that the state cannot cite either the lack of own funds or the indigence of debtors predominantly funded by social capital as an excuse for not enforcing final judgments (§114 in Kačapor). Finally, the European Court noted that the period of non-execution should not be limited to the enforcement stage only, but should also include subsequent insolvency proceedings (§ 115 in Kačapor). The European Court found that the Serbian judicial authorities failed to enforce domestic court decisions as a result of: - failure of the enforcement court to proceed ex officio with other means of enforcement in case of impossibility of those proposed by parties; - failure of the Central Bank to request the opening of insolvency proceedings in respect of those corporations whose bank accounts have been “blocked” due to outstanding debts within a specified period. Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage to each applicant and ordered payment of the sums awarded under the domestic judgments. • Assessment: In view of the above information, no further individual measure seems necessary. C. CIVIL MATTERS 37343/05  ZIT Company, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 27/02/2008 14145/05  Bulović, judgment of 01/04/2008, final on 01/07/2008 These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial as a result of the authorities’ failure to carry out effective enforcement proceedings in civil matters (violations of Article 6§1). The case of ZIT Company also concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions on this account (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1) and the lack of en effective remedy to expedite the enforcement proceedings (violation of Article 13). The European Court found in the case of Bulović that the Serbian judicial authorities failed to conduct enforcement proceedings effectively as a result of prolonged misplacement of the case file (§52). It also noted in the case of ZIT Company that in the context of taking possession of a property, the applicant cannot be blamed for relying on the accuracy of the information contained in the respondent state’s own land registers (§60). Individual measures: 1) ZIT Company: The European Court noted that the enforcement entitlements at issue in this case had yet to be fully executed and that the applicant might still request enforcement of the Municipal Court’s decision of 04/04/2006 (§§58 and 70). It further noted that the applicant did not request the enforcement of the Municipal Court’s decision of 04/04/2006 in accordance with the relevant law, but instead resorted to an apparently ineffective civil suit (§60). The European Court considered that the Serbian authorities cannot be held accountable for any subsequent delay (§61). • Information provided by the Serbian authorities (letter of 10/04/2008): The applicant has not yet requested the enforcement of the decision at issue. • Assessment: In view of the above information, no further individual measure seems necessary. 2) Bulović: The applicant submitted no claim in respect of just satisfaction. However, the European Court noted that the proceedings in question ended, not as a result of the succesful seizure carried out by the domestic court, but because of the applicant’s decision to withdraw her enforcement request in response to the debtor’s payment (§53) • Assessment: In view of the above information, no further individual measure seems necessary. D. FAMILY-RELATED MATTERS 25959/06    Tomić, judgment of 26/06/07, final on 26/09/07 14011/07    Felbab, judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/09/2009 These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial as a result of the authorities’ failure to take sufficient steps to execute the final custody (Tomić) and access orders (Felbab) (violations of Article 6§1). These cases also concern the violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their family life as a result of the non-enforcement of the final custody or access orders (violations of Article 8). These cases finally concern the lack of an effective remedy to expedite enforcement proceedings (violations of Article 13). The European Court noted in the Tomić case that “the forcible transfer of custody, though unavoidable and attempted on several occasions, was never brought to a successful conclusion” (§104). The European Court also noted in the Felbab case that, having adopted the enforcement order, the domestic court was under an obligation to proceed ex officio and that it had failed to make use of any coercive measure despite the clearly unco-operative attitude shown by the applicant’s ex-wife (§63). Individual measures: 1) Tomić: The European Court held that the child’s father ”was de facto allowed to use the judicial system to his advantage until the factual situation was sufficiently altered by the passage of time so as to allow for the reversal of the applicant’s custody right through a separate set of judicial proceedings” (§104). • Information provided by the Serbian authorities (letter of 10/04/2008): The applicant has not so far requested the reopening of the second set of proceedings, even though on 13/11/2007 the authorities informed her in writing that such a possibility existed. The judgment granting visitation rights to the applicant and obliging her to pay maintenance is now final. The first meeting between the applicant and her child took place on 24/11/2007 in Krupanj in the premises of the local Social Care Centre. The second meeting took place on 27/12/2007. However, the meeting scheduled for 26/01/2008 was postponed at the applicant’s request. The Social Care Centre is not aware of any subsequent private contacts between the applicant and her child. In addition, on 26/11/2007 proceedings were initiated for the removal of the judge presiding over the enforcement proceedings due to judicial malfeasance in this case. • Assessment: It appears that the applicant has established contact with her child. Therefore no other individual measure is required. 2) Felbab: The European Court observed that the enforcement proceedings had been closed on 22/05/2008 (§63). In particular, the access order of 06/06/2000 was replaced by the decision of 12/04/2007, which restricted the applicant’s prior access rights (§20). • Assessment: In view of this information, no further individual measure seems necessary. E. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (i) Eviction orders in the context of a special “protected tenancy regime” 30132/04    Ilić, judgment of 09/10/2007, final on 09/01/2008 This case concerns violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the authorities’ failure to enforce a final eviction order issued by a Belgrade municipality in administrative proceedings in the context of a special “protected tenancy regime”. The order provided the applicant’s repossession of his flat. Domestic courts themselves held that the municipality was not only under a legal obligation to enforce the order at issue but also had sufficient funds and available flats to provide the applicant’s protected tenant with adequate alternative accommodation. Lastly, the domestic courts noted that there were no legal means by which the applicant could have compelled the municipality to honour its own eviction order (§74) (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).  The case also concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning a civil suit for damages resulting from the applicant’s inability to use his flat in the context of the special “protected tenancy regime” (violation of Article 6§1). Finally, the case concerns a lack of an effective remedy to expedite the civil proceedings (violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 6§1). Individual measures: The eviction order has been enforced and the applicant has regained possession of the apartment. • Assessment: In view of this information, no further individual measure appears necessary. (ii) Demolition orders in the context of unauthorised construction 41760/04   Kostić, judgment of 25/11/08, final on 25/02/09 This case concerns the violation of the applicants' right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions due to the authorities' failure, since 1998, to enforce a final administrative decision ordering the demolition of an unauthorised construction, which affected a house co-owned by the applicants (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). The European Court noted that the very existence of an unauthorised construction amounted to an interference with the applicants' property rights (§68) and that it was the state's responsibility to make use of all available legal means at its disposal to enforce a final administrative decision, even if it had been issued against a private party (§67). Individual measures: The European Court held that the applicants' “pecuniary damage claim must be met by the government ensuring, through appropriate means, the speedy enforcement of the demolition order dated 2 September 1998” (§80). • Information provided by the applicants (letter of 20/03/2009 and 29/05/2009): The applicants' lawyer indicated that the competent administrative authority decided on 09/03/2009 to adjourn sine die the enforcement of the demolition order of 02/09/1998 pending the termination of administrative proceedings subsequently initiated to obtain a building permit for the unauthorised construction. In fact, on 21/04/2009 the Serbian authorities ordered the applicants to demolish "their” unauthorised construction. On 13/05/2009, the enforcement of the demolition order of 21/04/2009 was ordered against the applicants. This information was transmitted to the Serbian authorities on 24/03/2009 and 02/06/2009 together with the decisions forwarded by the applicants' lawyer. In their letter to the Committee of Ministers of 01/03/2010, the applicants again raised the issue of the continuing non-enforcement of the demolition order of 02/09/1998. In particular they stated that the municipal authorities had begun proceedings against them in respect of their allegedly unauthorised construction, thereby punishing them for applying to the European Court.  The applicants indicated that they would lodge a new application with the European Court if the demolition order of 02/09/1998 were to remain unenforced. This letter has also been transmitted to the Serbian authorities. • Information provided by the Serbian authorities: Following the applicants’ complaint, the decision adjourning enforcement of the demolition order was quashed by the second-instance authority. Meanwhile, on 18/05/2009, the authorities declined to issue a building permit for the unauthorised building. The second-instance authority quashed the decision of 18/05/2009 and remitted the case to the first-instance authority for re-examination. Under Serbian law, the authorities may not proceed with the enforcement of a demolition order before the proceedings on the issue of the building permit are over. In this regard, the Serbian government admitted certain difficulties in enforcing the demolition order and promised to continue its efforts to ensure its execution. • Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to ensure speedy execution of the demolition order of 02/09/1998 as requested by the European Court. The Deputies, 1.             noted that the Serbian authorities have taken a number of measures, in particular the preparation of the draft Enforcement Act, with a view to improving the efficiency of enforcement procedures; 2.             invited the Serbian authorities to inform the Committee as to the timetable for the adoption of this draft Act, as well as the measures taken to ensure its effective implementation; 3.             observed that problems related to the non-enforcement of court decisions rendered in respect of socially-owned companies are a major issue of concern as there are already over 400 similar applications pending before the European Court;  4.             strongly encouraged the Serbian authorities to take the necessary measures to find appropriate solutions to this problem, first, by identifying the number of such unenforced decisions and making a global assessment of the aggregated debt arising from these decisions and second by ensuring its payment; 5.             decided to declassify the Memorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)25; 6.             invited the Serbian authorities to provide the Committee with further information on the outstanding issues identified in the Memorandum; 7.             decided to resume consideration of these cases at their 1100th meeting (December 2010) (DH), in the light of further information to be provided on individual and general measures.

- 12 affaires concernant le manquement ou le retard substantiel de l’administration à se conformer à des décisions définitives Les mesures déjà prises et les questions qui restent à régler seront examinées à la lumière d'un Memorandum à préparer par le Secrétariat. A. AFFAIRES COMMERCIALES 3102/05     EVT Company, arrêt du 21/06/2007, définitif le 21/09/07 17556/05   Marčić et 16 autres, arrêt du 30/10/2007, définitif le 30/01/08 Ces affaires concernent la violation du droit des requérants au respect de leurs biens en raison du manquement des autorités à leur obligation d'assurer l'exécution de décisions judiciaires nationales dans des litiges commerciaux (violations de l'article 1 du Protocole n°1), L'affaire EVT Company, affaire précédente, concerne également la violation du droit à un procès équitable en raison du manquement des autorités à leur obligation de mettre en œuvre les procédures en exécution forcée (violation de l'article 6§1). La Cour européenne a estimé que les autorités serbes n'avaient pas mis en œuvre les procédures en exécution forcée requises en raison des refus répétés de la police d'assister les huissiers de justice (affaire EVT seulement) et de l'inactivité prolongée des tribunaux. Dans l'affaire Marčić et 16 autres, la Cour européenne a constaté qu'il n'y avait eu aucune tentative en vue de faire exécuter l'arrêt de la Cour commerciale pendant toute la période en question et que de surcroit aucun retard ne pouvait être imputé au débiteur, En effet, si ce dernier n'avait pas eu les moyens de s'acquitter de ses dettes, cela aurait eu pour effet la clôture de la procédure de faillite ainsi que la perte de la qualité de personne morale du débiteur (§59 de l’arrêt). Mesures de caractère individuel : 1) EVT Company : La Cour européenne a indiqué que la réparation du préjudice matériel incombait au gouvernement, par des moyens appropriés, en vue de l’exécution intégrale de l’arrêt définitif du 7/05/1996 du tribunal de commerce, tel que modifié par des décisions en matière d’exécution forcée du 17/10/1996 et du 21/12/1998 (§60). • Information fournies par les autorités serbes: La juridiction nationale a établi les faits s’agissant des biens des sociétés débitrices, lesquels semblent être largement insuffisants pour couvrir la demande de la requérante. Le 11/03/2008, la requérante a soumis une demande visant à modifier les biens saisissables au titre de l’exécution forcée. Cependant, il s’est avéré que le bien immobilier indiqué par la requérante avait fait l’objet d’une précédente procédure en exécution forcée impliquant plus de 80 autres créanciers. La requérante, qui a été informée de la situation, a le droit d’indiquer d’autres biens immobiliers exempts de charge. À cet égard, les autorités ont fait remarquer que deux ventes aux enchères avaient échoué, aucun acheteur potentiel ne s’étant manifesté pour acquérir les biens du débiteur. La troisième vente a eu lieu le 06/10/2009. • Des informations sont attendues sur tout développement et mesures complémentaires prises ou envisagées en vue de l’exécution intégrale de cet arrêt. 2) Marčić : La Cour européenne a noté que l'Etat défendeur devait assurer, par des moyens appropriés, l'exécution de la décision définitive du tribunal de commerce du 27/12/1990 (§65). • Informations fournies par les autorités serbes: Le 25/07/2008, le tribunal de commerce de Leskovac a informé par écrit l'avocat des requérants que les fonds nécessaires à l'exécution de la décision définitive du 27/12/1990 avaient été réunis. Il a de plus invité l'avocat à communiquer les coordonnées bancaires pour le paiement ou de faire en sorte que les fonds soient récupérés au tribunal en liquide. • Evaluation : Etant donné les informations qui précèdent, aucune mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire. B. AFFAIRES CONCERNANT LES ENTREPRISES APPARTENANT A LA COLLECTIVITE 2269/06+     Kačapor et autres, arrêt du 15/01/2008, définitif le 07/08/2008  35835/05+   Crnišanin et autres, arrêt du 13/01/2009, définitif le 13/04/2009 16909/06+   Grišević et autres, arrêt du 21/07/2009, définitif le 21/10/2009 42619/04     Vlahović, arrêt du 16/12/2008, définitif le 16/03/2009 Ces affaires concernent la violation du droit des requérants à un procès équitable en raison du manquement des autorités à leur obligation de prendre toutes les mesures requises pour l’exécution de décisions judiciaires ordonnant à une entreprise d’Etat (socially-owned company) de payer des arriérés de salaires et des prestations salariales (violations de l’article 6§1). Ces affaires concernent également la violation du droit des requérants au respect de leurs biens à ce titre (violations de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1). La Cour européenne a relevé que les entreprises appartenant à la collectivite (socially-owned companies) ne disposaient pas de suffisamment d’indépendance institutionnelle et opérationnelle à l’égard de l’Etat pour exempter l’Etat de toute responsabilité au titre de la Convention. Elle a relevé en outre que les sociétés à capital majoritaire détenu par l’Etat étaient étroitement contrôlées par l’Agence de privatisation, une instance étatique, ainsi que par le gouvernement qu’elles aient fait ou non l’objet d’une tentative de privatisation par le passé (§§97-98, 75 de l’arrêt Kačapor, §§110-111, 124 de l’arrêt Crnišanin). La Cour européenne a également relevé que l’Etat ne pouvait invoquer l’insuffisance de fonds étatiques ou l’insolvabilité du débiteur, actionnaire principal, pour justifier la non-exécution de décisions judiciaires définitives (§114 de l’arrêt Kačapor). Enfin, la Cour a relevé que la période de non-exécution ne devait pas être limitée à la procédure en exécution forcée à proprement parler mais couvrait également les procédures de faillite ultérieures (§115 de l’arrêt Kačapor). La Cour européenne a estimé que les autorités judiciaires serbes avaient manqué à leur obligation d’assurer l’exécution des décisions judiciaires : - en raison de l’absence de mesures prises ex officio par les juridictions internes pour pallier l’insuffisance des moyens d’exécution proposés par les parties ; - du fait que la Banque centrale n’avait pas requis, dans un certain délai, l’ouverture de procédures de faillite à l’égard des sociétés dont les comptes avaient été bloqués en raison de dettes impayées.  Mesures de caractère individuel : la Cour européenne a octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral à chacun des requérants et a ordonné l'exécution des décisions internes. • Evaluation: au vu de ces informations, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire. C. AFFAIRES CIVILES 37343/05     ZIT Comany, arrêt du 27/11/2007, définitif le 27/02/2008 14145/05     Bulović, arrêt du 01/04/2008, définitif le 07/07/2008 Ces affaires concernent la violation du droit des requérants à un procès équitable en raison du manquement des autorités à leur obligation d'assurer l'exécution de décisions judiciaires nationales dans des litiges civils (violations de l'article 6§1). L'affaire ZIT Company concerne également la violation du droit des requérants au respect de leurs biens à ce titre (violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n°1) et l'absence de recours effectif pour accélérer les procédures en exécution forcée (violation de l'article 13). Dans l'affaire Bulović, la Cour européenne a constaté les autorités serbes avaient manqué à leur obligation de diligenter une procédure exécution forcée du fait que le dossier avait été égaré pendant un long laps de temps (§52). Dans l'affaire ZIT Company, elle a également relevé que la société requérante ne pouvait être tenu responsable pour avoir estimé fiables les informations contenues dans les propres registres fonciers de l'Etat, dans le contexte de la prise de possession d'une propriété (§60). Mesures de caractère individuel: 1) Affaire ZIT Company : La Cour européenne a noté que le droit à exécution en cause en l'espèce n'avait toujours pas été pleinement assuré et que la société requérante pouvait toujours demander l'exécution de la décision du tribunal municipal du 04/04/2006 (§§58 et 70). Elle a en outre relevé que la requérante n'avait pas demandé l'exécution de la décision du tribunal municipal du 04/04/2006 conformément au droit applicable, mais qu'elle avait plutôt recouru à une action au civil manifestement peu efficace (§60). La Cour européenne a jugé que les autorités serbes ne pouvaient être tenues responsables des retards qui en ont découlé (§61). • Informations fournies par les autorités serbes (lettre du 10/04/2008) : La requérante n'a pas encore demandé l'exécution de la décision contestée. • Evaluation: Etant donné ce qui précède, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire. 2) Affaire Bulović : Le requérant n'a soumis aucune demande au titre de la satisfaction équitable. Cependant, la Cour européenne a relevé que la procédure en cause avait été close non en raison d'une saisie effectuée par les tribunaux internes mais parce que le requérant avait renoncé à sa demande d'exécution forcée suite au paiement effectué par le débiteur (§53) • Evaluation: Au vu de ce qui précède, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire. D. AFFAIRES EN MATIERE DE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE 25959/06   Tomić, arrêt du 26/06/2007, définitif le 26/09/2007 14011/07   Felbab, arrêt du 14/04/2009, définitif le 14/09/2009 Ces affaires concernent la violation du droit des requérants à un procès équitable en raison du manquement des autorités à leur obligation de prendre les mesures requises pour assurer l'exécution d'ordonnances définitives relatives au droit de garde d'un enfant (Tomić) ou au droit d'accès à un enfant (Felbab) (violation de l'article 6§1). Ces affaires concernent en outre la violation du droit des requérants au respect de leur vie familiale, en raison de la non-exécution de ces ordonnances définitives (violation de l'article 8). Ces affaires concernent enfin l’absence de recours effectif pour accélérer les procédures en exécution forcée (violations de l’article 13). La Cour européenne a noté dans l'affaire Tomić que « bien qu'il soit inévitable et qu'il ait été tenté à maintes reprises, le transfert forcé de la garde d'enfants n'avait jamais été mené à bonne fin » (§104). La Cour européenne a également fait observer dans l'affaire Felbab que, après avoir rendu une ordonnance d'exécution, la juridiction interne avait l'obligation de procéder d'office à l’exécution, mais que celle-ci n’avait pas eu recours à des mesures coercitives en dépit de l’attitude clairement peu coopérative l'ancienne femme du requérant (§63). Mesures de caractère individuel: 1) Tomić : la Cour européenne a estimé que le père de l'enfant « avait de facto été autorisé à utiliser le système judiciaire à son avantage jusqu'à ce que la situation factuelle soit modifiée par l'écoulement du temps au point d'entraîner un renversement du droit de garde de la requérante par une procédure judiciaire distincte » (§104). • Informations fournies par les autorités serbes (lettre du 10/04/2008) : Jusqu'à présent, la requérante n'a pas demandé la réouverture de la seconde procédure, bien que le 13/11/2007, les autorités l'aient informée par écrit de la possibilité de le faire. La décision qui donne à la requérante un droit de visite et qui l'oblige à payer des aliments est désormais définitive. La première rencontre entre la requérante et son fils a eu lieu le 24/11/2007 à Krupanj dans les locaux du Centre d'assistance sociale. La deuxième s'est déroulée le 27/12/2007. Cependant, la rencontre qui était prévue le 26/01/2008 a été ajournée à la demande de la requérante. Le Centre d'assistance sociale n'a pas connaissance de contacts privés entre la requérante et son enfant depuis. Par ailleurs, le 26/11/2007, une procédure a été entamée pour révoquer le juge qui était chargé de la procédure d'exécution en raison de la mauvaise administration de la justice dans cette affaire. • Evaluation : Il semble que la requérante ait établi un contact avec son enfant. Aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble donc nécessaire. 2) Felbab : la Cour européenne a fait observer que la procédure d'exécution litigieuse s'était achevée le 22/05/2008 (§63). En particulier, l'ordonnance relative au droit d'accès du 06/06/2000, a été remplacée par une décision du 12/04/2007 restreignant le droit d'accès du requérant (§20). • Évaluation : au vu des informations précitées, aucune mesure de caractère individuel supplémentaire ne semble nécessaire. E. AFFAIRES ADMINISTRATIVES (i) Arrêtés d’expulsion dans le cadre du régime spécial de bail protégé 30132/04     Ilić, arrêt du 09/10/2007, définitif le 09/01/2008 L'affaire concerne la violation du droit du requérant au respect de ses biens dans le contexte en raison du manquement des autorités serbes à leur obligation d'exécuter une ordonnance d'expulsion définitive rendue par la municipalité d'un arrondissement de Belgrade dans le cadre d'un « régime spécial de bail protégé » (violation de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1). L'ordonnance prévoyait la restitution de l'appartement au requérant. Les tribunaux internes ont eux-mêmes estimé que la municipalité devait non seulement exécuter l'ordonnance en cause, mais qu'elle disposait de suffisamment de fonds et d'appartements disponibles pour offrir à la locataire protégée du requérant un logement approprié de rechange. Enfin, les tribunaux internes ont noté qu'il n'y avait aucun moyen légal par lequel le requérant aurait pu contraindre la municipalité à respecter sa propre ordonnance d'expulsion (§ 74). Cette affaire concerne également la durée excessive de la procédure civile concernant la demande de dommages et intérêts introduite en raison de l’impossibilité pour le requérant d’utiliser son appartement dans le contexte du « régime spécial de bail protégé » (violation de l’article 6§1). Enfin, l'affaire concerne aussi l'absence de recours effectif pour accélérer la procédure civile (violation de l'article 13, combiné avec l'article 6§1). Mesures de caractère individuel: L'arrêté d'expulsion a été exécuté et le requérant a pu récupérer son appartement. • Evaluation: au vu de ces informations aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.  (ii) Arrêtés de démolition dans le cadre de constructions non autorisées 41760/04   Kostić, arrêt du 25/11/2008, définitif le 25/02/2009 Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit des requérants au respect de leurs biens en raison de l’inexécution par les autorités d’une décision administrative définitive, depuis 1998, ordonnant la démolition d’une construction sans permis ayant affecté la maison en copropriété des requérants (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n°1). La Cour européenne a relevé que l’existence même d’une construction sans autorisation constitue une ingérence dans le droit de propriété des requérants (§68) et qu’il incombe à l’Etat de faire usage de tous les moyens légaux à sa disposition afin d’exécuter une décision administrative définitive, nonobstant le fait que celle-ci a été rendue contre une partie privée (§67). Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a relevé que la demande d’indemnisation au titre du préjudice matériel devrait être assurée par le Gouvernement, par le biais de l’exécution rapide de l’arrêté de démolition du 2/09/1998 (§80). • Informations fournies par les requérants (lettres des 20/03/2009 et 29/05/2009) : Le 09/03/2009, l’avocat des requérants a indiqué que l’autorité administrative compétente avait pris la décision d’ajourner sine die l’exécution de l’arrêté de démolition du 02/09/1998, en attendant l’issue d’une série de procédures administratives introduites afin de demander la régularisation de la construction non autorisée. Par ailleurs, le 21/04/2009, les autorités serbes ont ordonné aux requérants la démolition de « leur » construction non autorisée. Le 13/05/2009, il a été ordonné aux requérants d’assurer la mise en œuvre de l’arrêté de démolition du 21/04/2009. Cette information a été transmises aux autorités serbes le 24/03/2009, accompagnée des décisions transmises par l’avocat des requérants. Dans leur courrier adressé au Comité des Ministres le 01/03/2010, les requérants ont évoqué à nouveau le fait que la non-exécution de l'ordonnance de démolition du 02/09/1998 se poursuivait. Ils ont indiqué notamment que les autorités municipales avaient engagé une procédure à leur encontre au sujet de leur construction qui, selon elles, n'avait pas été autorisée, les sanctionnant ainsi pour avoir saisi la Cour européenne. Les requérants ont fait part de leur intention d'introduire une nouvelle requête devant la Cour européenne en l'absence de toute exécution de l'ordonnance de démolition du 02/09/1998. Cette lettre a également été transmise aux autorités serbes. • Informations fournies par les autorités serbes : A la suite d’une plainte des requérants, la décision d’ajourner l’ordonnance de démolition a été cassée en appel. Dans l’intervalle, le 18/05/2009, les autorités ont rejeté la demande de permis visant à régulariser la construction en question. La juridiction d'appel a annulé le jugement du 18/05/2009 et a renvoyé l'affaire devant la juridiction de première instance pour qu'elle la réexamine. En vertu du droit applicable, les autorités serbes ne peuvent procéder à la démolition de la construction en cause tant que la procédure concernant la régularisation du permis de construction est pendante. À cet égard, les autorités ont indiqué être confrontées à certaines difficultés s’agissant de l’exécution de l’ordonnance de démolition et se sont engagées à poursuivre leurs efforts à cet égard. • Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin d’accélérer l’exécution de l’arrêté de démolition du 02/09/1998 ainsi que demandé par la Cour européenne. Les Délégués, 1.             notent que les autorités serbes ont pris un certain nombre de mesures, en particulier l’élaboration d’un projet de loi sur l’exécution, afin d’améliorer l’efficacité des procédures d’exécution ; 2.             invitent les autorités serbes à informer le Comité des Ministres du calendrier d’adoption de ce projet de loi ainsi que des mesures prises pour assurer son application effective ; 3.             observent que les problèmes liés à l’inexécution des décisions de justice rendues au sujet des entreprises appartenant à la collectivité (socially owned companies) sont un grave sujet de préoccupation car il y a déjà plus de 400 requêtes similaires pendantes devant la Cour européenne ; 4.             encouragent vivement les autorités serbes à prendre les mesures nécessaires destinées à trouver des solutions appropriées à ce problème, d’abord en déterminant le nombre des décisions inexécutées et en faisant une évaluation globale de la dette cumulée découlant de ces décisions, et ensuite en assurant leur paiement ; 5.             décident de déclassifier le Mémorandum CM/Inf/DH(2010)25 ; 6.             invitent les autorités serbes à fournir au Comité des informations complémentaires sur les questions en suspens identifiées dans le Mémorandum ; 7.             décident de reprendre l’examen de ces affaires à leur 1100e réunion (décembre 2010) (DH) à la lumière d’informations complémentaires à fournir sur les mesures individuelles et générales.

            - 10 cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings and lack of an effective remedy

A. FAMILY-RELATED PROCEEDINGS

3150/05            Jevremović, judgment of 17/07/2007, final on 17/10/2007

This case concerns the excessive length of paternity and maintenance proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant’s parentage was confirmed by a Supreme Court judgment but the question of maintenance payment was still pending when the European Court rendered its judgment. The European Court recalled that particular diligence is required in all cases concerning civil status and capacity (§81).

The case also concerns the violation of the first applicant's right to respect of her family life due to the excessive length of the paternity proceedings, leaving her in a state of prolonged uncertainty concerning her identity (violation of Article 8).

Finally, the case concerns the lack of an effective remedy in domestic law concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: None (the proceedings are closed).

General measures: There are approximately 294 applications pending before the European Court concerning the excessive length of all types of civil proceedings. The European Court also found the same violations in family-related matters in the case of V.A.M. (39177/05, Section 4.2).

1) Excessive length of proceedings:

• Legislative measures (adopted): The Serbian Constitution provides the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time (Article 32). Similarly, the 2005 Civil Procedure Act prescribes that a court should decide on claims and motions of the parties within reasonable time (Article 10). In accordance with the 2005 Family Law, all family-related disputes involving children must be resolved urgently. First-instance courts should conclude proceedings after no more than two hearings, and second-instance courts must decide on appeals within 30 days. Maintenance proceedings are particularly urgent: a first hearing must be scheduled within 8 days of the filing of the claim and second-instance courts must decide on appeal within 15 days. Beyond that, mediation was introduced in 2005 by the Mediation Act as an alternative means of dispute resolution to further alleviate the workload of the courts.

• Legislative measures (Pending): Amendments to the Civil Procedure Act are currently being drafted with a view to increasing the efficiency of judicial procedures and removing problems faced in practice when applying this law (e.g. inefficient service of court documents resulting from the failure to comply with the rules governing registration of residence).

• Measures concerning the case backlog: Secondary legislation defines parameters for the number of cases to be resolved by a judge during a month. It is planned to introduce a weighting system the better to measure the efficiency of individual judges.

• Measures concerning court organisation: With a view to increasing, inter alia, the efficiency of the administration of justice, a new court organisation was introduced in 2009 followed by a general election of all judges in the country. In this regard, a new building with 500 offices and 40 courtrooms has been completed to accommodate the supreme judicial institutions.

• Measures concerning information technology: It was planned to complete the judicial IT network in all courts by 2010. For the time being, all first-instance commercial courts have been automated, while all second-instance courts have been also equipped with the most modern IT equipment.

• Training activities: The Judicial Training Centre (www.pcsrbija.org.rs) offers training and education programmes for members of the Serbian judiciary. It is envisaged that continued training would be a requirement for appointments of judges. Since 2006 training on case-management has also been provided.

•Assessment: It appears that the new legislative framework should be capable of preventing excessive length of proceedings. The Serbian authorities have demonstrated significant efforts to shorten the length of judicial proceedings, including civil proceedings. However, in view of the number of pending applications before the European Court in this respect, it appears that the problem of excessive length of proceedings still persists in Serbia. The impact of the new court organisation on the length of civil proceedings also remains to be demonstrated.

• Information is awaited on all ongoing measures, in particular on the developments and the calendar concerning (i) the amendments to the Civil Procedure Act, including the content of the proposed amendments; (ii) introduction of the weighting system the better to measure the efficiency of individual judges; (iii) IT upgrading of all courts; (iv) introduction of continuous training as a requirement for appointment of judges. Information is also awaited on any other measure taken or envisaged with a view to reducing the length of civil proceedings and on the impact of the new court organisation on the length of civil proceedings. 

2) Violation of right to respect of family life (excessive length of proceedings): The above measures are also relevant in order to prevent similar violations under this head. 

3) Lack of an effective remedy: The Constitutional Court Act has been adopted in 2007. It provides for the possibility to lodge an appeal before the Constitutional Court in case of breach of the right to a trial within reasonable time, even if the other legal remedies have not been exhausted. The Constitutional Court Act further provides that if an appeal before the Constitutional Court is upheld, the applicant may submit a claim for damages to the special Commission for Compensation. The Commission for Compensation must make a decision on the claim within 30 days failing which the applicant will be entitled to file a claim for damages before a court of law. In this regard, the Serbian authorities also submitted that the average length of proceedings in respect of constitutional appeals has taken 445 days. In the period from 2006 to 2009 a total of 6 550 constitutional appeals have been filed. The Constitutional Court decided on the merits in respect of 535 constitutional appeals, while 1 628 such appeals have been dismissed for procedural reasons. The European Court found in the case of Vinčić (44698/06, Section 2.1) that the constitutional appeal should, in principle, be considered as an effective remedy as of 07/08/2008 (§51).

• Assessment: In view of the above conclusion of the European Court, no further measure appears necessary.

B. COMMERCIAL PROCEEDINGS

28443/05           Samardžić and AD Plastika, judgment of 17/07/2007, final on 17/10/2007

The case concerns the excessive length of commercial proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). 

The European Court noted that the length of the proceedings was also due in part to the staying of the initial proceedings following the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against the second applicant as well as to remittals of the case for re-examination and to a prolonged inactivity of the first instance of  a year and a half (§§44-45). In this connection, the European Court recalled that the remittal of a case for re-examination is usually ordered as a result of errors committed by lower instances and may disclose a deficiency in the procedural system (§44).

Individual measures:

• Information provided by the Serbian authorities (letters of 07/11/2008, 05/03/2008, 17/04/2008, 22/10/2008 and 15/01/2009): The bankruptcy proceedings against the second applicant have been completed. The decision on distribution of assets became final on 05/01/2009. The civil proceedings involving the second applicant as plaintiff were closed on 16/12/2008 and the delivery of the first-instance judgment is awaited.

• Assessment: No further measure appears necessary.  

General measures: See Jevremović above for the excessive length of proceedings. The European Court noted that the 2005 Criminal Code incriminates “abuse of office”, “judicial malfeasance” and “official malfeasance” (§§18-19). Those offences may imply fines or prison terms for any official, including members of the judiciary, failing to act in the proceedings for long periods without justification.

• Information provided by the Serbian authorities (letters of 15/01/2009 and 17/03/2009): Pursuant to the provisions of Article 369 Section 2 and 3 of the new Civil Procedure Code, a second-instance court can remit the case only once. The new provisions apply to all proceedings initiated after 22/02/2005.

• Assessment: It appears that the new legislative provisions permitting remittal of the cases only once would contribute to the reduction of the length of proceedings. However, the application of the Criminal Code in respect of members of judiciary personally responsible for excessive length of proceedings might also help in preventing similar violations.

• Information is therefore awaited on the application of the 2005 Criminal Code with respect to “abuse of office”, “judicial malfeasance” and “official malfeasance” in the circumstances similar to the present case.

C. CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

38350/04           Popović, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008

9906/04            Čeh, judgment of 01/07//2008, final on 01/10/2008

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

The case of Čeh concerns the eviction proceedings in the context of a special “protected tenancy regime”.

Individual measures: None (the proceedings are closed).

General measures: See Jevremović above.

D. LABOUR PROCEEDINGS

41513/05           Mikuljanac, Mališić and Šafar, judgment of 09/10/2007, final on 09/01/2008

17271/04           Cvetković, judgment of 10/06/2008, final on 01/12/2008

33029/05           Dorić, judgment of 27/01/2009, final on 27/04/2009

2637/05            Jovićević, judgment of 27/11/2007, final on 27/02/2008

29907/05           Stanković, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 06/04/2009

26642/05           Stevanović, judgment of 09/10/2007, final on 09/01/2008

These cases concern the excessive length of labour proceedings (violations of Article 6§1) and lack of an effective remedy to expedite them (violations of Article 13) (except in Stanković). Reasons cited for protracted duration of these proceedings were re-assignments to different judges and/or protracted periods of court inactivity (§41 in Mikuljanac, Mališić and Šafar, §§58, 60 in Stevanović, §51 in Cvetković) as well as repeated financial expertise (§20 in Dorić) and remittals of the case (§12 in Dorić).

The European Court noted in particular that “the subject matter of the litigation was of primary importance to the applicants and required that the proceedings be dealt with ‘expeditiously’. Indeed, this requirement is reinforced additionally if the domestic law provides that reinstatement cases must be resolved with particular urgency“ (§41 in Mikuljanac, Mališić and Šafar, §51 in Cvetković).

Individual measures: All the proceedings have been closed, except in the Dorić case (§16).

• Information provided by the Serbian authorities (letter of 01/10/2009): The Belgrade District Court rendered a judgment in the Dorić case on 30/04/2009. The case has been pending since 22/09/2009 before the Supreme Court of Cassation on appeal on points of law.

• Information is awaited on acceleration of the domestic proceedings in the Dorić case.

General measures:

1) Excessive length of proceedings: See Jevremović above. The European Court noted that under the 2005 Labour Act, employment-related disputes were to be resolved by the courts within 6 months (§§16-17 in Mikuljanac, Mališić and Šafar). Additionally, under Serbian law a reinstatement case may be resolved by a state-appointed arbitrator. Such proceedings, however, may only be instituted with the consent of both parties and must be concluded within 30 days following to the initial hearing (§35 in Stevanović).

• Information provided by the Serbian authorities (letter of 17/03/2009, 01/10/2009 and 06/04/2010): The Serbian authorities submitted that the secondary regulation provides that a judge must resolve a minimum of 20 labour disputes per month. The Serbian authorities also indicated that the Ministry of Justice had no specific statistic data on average length of labour disputes.

• Assessment: The information provided does not allow the Secretariat to make a conclusive assessment at this stage as to whether the measures taken concerning excessive length of labour proceedings are adequate. However, considering the number of judgments issued by the European Court in respect of Serbia concerning the excessive length of labour proceedings, it appears that this problem is still an issue in Serbia. 

• Information is thus awaited on other measures taken or envisaged to reduce the excessive length of labour proceedings.

2) Lack of an effective remedy: See Jevremović above.

• Publication and dissemination in all these cases: The European Court’s judgments have been translated into Serbian and published in the Official Gazette as well as on the website of the Government Agent (www.zastupnik.sr.gov.yu). The judgments were also published on a CD issued by the magazine Paragraf and on the Internet page of that magazine, with expert comments. The Government Agent forwarded the judgments to the Supreme Court of Serbia requesting its distribution to all courts in Serbia as well as to the High Commercial Court in the case of Samardžić and AD Plastika. He also made several public statements relating to the judgments. The Office of the Government Agent has published two books containing translations of judgments rendered by the European Court against Serbia. Several articles were published in the local newspapers and websites on the European Court’s judgment in the case of Čeh.

- 70 cases against the Slovak Republic / 70 affaires contre la République slovaque

7510/04            Kontrová, judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 24/09/2007[35]

24528/02           Borovský, arrêt du 02/06/2009, définitif le 02/09/2009

L'affaire concerne une atteinte au principe de présomption d'innocence en raison de déclarations que le directeur adjoint de l'Office de la police financière a faites aux médias en 2000, laissant entendre dès le tout début de l'enquête pénale que le requérant était coupable d'une infraction dont il n'avait pas été accusé (violation de l'article 6§2).

• Un plan d’action/bilan d’action est toujours attendu.

10699/05           Paulìk, arrêt du 10/10/2006, définitif le 10/01/2007

L’affaire concerne une violation du droit du requérant au respect de sa vie privée en raison de l’impossibilité, en 2004, de se prévaloir de tests ADN pour contester sa paternité, établie judiciairement en 1970.

La Cour européenne a conclu que la loi interne ne donnait à l’intéressé aucune possibilité de contester la déclaration judiciaire de 1970 relative à sa paternité en raison de l’autorité de chose jugée et qu’un juste équilibre n’avait pas été ménagé entre les intérêts du requérant et celles de la société (violation de l’article 8).

En outre, la Cour a relevé que la législation nationale permettait à tout moment aux pères dont la paternité n’avait pas été établie par les tribunaux, mais par le bais d’une simple déclaration ou de l’application du principe de la présomption de paternité, d’engager une action judiciaire aux fins de contester leur paternité, mais qu’elle ne tenait pas compte des circonstances particulières correspondant à la situation du requérant. Dès lors, il n’y a pas eu de rapport de proportionnalité raisonnable entre le but poursuivi par la législation et les moyens employés (violation de l’article 14, combiné avec l’article 8).

Mesures de caractère individuel : Dans son arrêt, la Cour européenne a relevé que le requérant a la possibilité de demander la réouverture de la procédure, en vertu des articles 228§1(d) et 230§2 du Code de procédure civile. Selon ces dispositions, une partie à la procédure peut demander la réouverture si la Cour européenne a constaté une violation et si les conséquences de cette violation ne sont pas suffisamment effacées par l'octroi de la satisfaction équitable. La possibilité de rouvrir les procédures nationales est soumise à un délai de trois mois à compter de l'arrêt définitif de la Cour européenne.

Le 26/01/2007 l’avocat du requérant a déposé une demande en réouverture de la procédure concernant sa paternité devant le 4e tribunal de district de Bratislava, en vertu de l’article 228.1 (d) du Code de procédure civile. Le 02/04/08, le bureau d’enregistrement de Nitra a modifié le certificat de naissance pour supprimer la référence au requérant en tant que père.

La Cour européenne a octroyé une satisfaction équitable pour préjudice moral.

• Evaluation : dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure d'ordre individuel ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : Selon l’article 62 du Code la famille, une paternité peut être contestée par le procureur général, si l’intérêt de la société le nécessite. Toutefois, dans les circonstances de l’espèce cette disposition n’a pas été utilisée, car elle ne s’appliquait pas en cas de paternité établie par une déclaration judiciaire.

• Informations fournies par les autorités slovaques (lettre du 20/03/2007) : L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été publié dans la Revue juridique (Justična Revue) N° 2/2007.

Le Bureau de l’Agent de la République slovaque auprès de la Cour européenne a porté l’arrêt à l’attention du Ministre de la Justice ainsi que du département de la législation de son ministère. Il a également attiré leur attention sur la nécessité éventuelle de modifier la législation actuelle régissant le problème de la contestation de la paternité.

Le 09/04/2010, les autorités slovaques ont de nouveau confirmé qu’il y aurait un changement législatif grâce à une modification envisagée du Code de la famille. L’amendement projeté a pour but de rétablir la situation qui existait dans le Code de la famille jusqu’au 31/03/2005 (§§21 - 26 de l’arrêt). Il devrait être adopté après les élections législatives fixées au 12/06/2010.

• Des informations sont toujours attendues sur la modification prévue au Code de la famille.

72094/01           Kvasnica, arrêt du 09/06/2009, définitif le 09/09/2009

L'affaire concerne l'interception injustifiée des communications téléphoniques professionnelles du requérant, en 2000, dans le cadre d'une enquête pénale sur les activités financières d'un groupe dont il était le représentant légal.

La Cour européenne a estimé, sur la base des pièces qui lui ont été soumises, que la procédure suivie pour ordonner et pour surveiller la mise en œuvre des interceptions téléphoniques ne semblait pas pleinement compatible avec les exigences du droit applicable. De la même façon, elle a estimé que cette ingérence dans le droit au respect de la vie privée et de la correspondance du requérant n’était pas « nécessaire dans une société démocratique » (violation de l'article 8).

• Le 08/04/2010, les autorités ont fourni des informations sur la publication et la diffusion de l’arrêt.

• Un plan/bilan d’action est toujours attendu.

67149/01           Berková, arrêt du 24/03/2009, définitif le 24/06/2009

L'affaire concerne le fait que les tribunaux internes ont interdit pendant trois ans à la requérante (entre 1999 et 2002) de demander le rétablissement intégral de sa capacité juridique qui lui avait été retirée lors d'une procédure antérieure.

La Cour européenne a estimé que cette interdiction constituait une ingérence grave dans l'exercice du droit au respect de la vie privée de la requérante qui, bien que légale au regard de la législation applicable à l'époque, ne répondait pas à un besoin social impérieux et était disproportionnée et non nécessaire dans une société démocratique (violation de l’article 8).

L’affaire concerne aussi la durée excessive d'un certain nombre d'autres procédures civiles entamées par la requérante ainsi que l’absence de voie de recours effectif à cet égard (violations des articles 6§1 et 13).

• Un plan d’action/bilan d’action est toujours attendu.

74258/01          Urbárska Obec Trenčianske Biskupice, arrêt du 27/11/2007, définitif le 02/06/2008 et du 27/01/2009, définitif le 27/04/2009

L’affaire concerne la violation du droit à la propriété de la requérante, une association de propriétaires terriens de Trenčín (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

A l’époque du régime communiste, le terrain qui appartenait aux prédécesseurs des membres de l’association requérante avait été confié à une coopérative agricole qui par la suite l’a loué aux membres de l’Union des jardiniers. Ceci n’affectait en rien le droit de propriété, mais dans les faits les propriétaires étaient dans l’impossibilité d’utiliser le terrain.

En juillet 1998, les jardiniers ont engagé une procédure de consolidation de propriété en vue d’obtenir le transfert à leur profit de la propriété du terrain sur la base de la loi n° 64/1997. Cette loi n° 64/1997 conférait un droit d’acquisition aux utilisateurs des terrains, sans avoir à obtenir l’accord du propriétaire qui se voyait octroyer soit un autre terrain soit une compensation financière. Par conséquent, en 2002, l’association requérante s’est vu offrir un terrain pour l’indemniser de sa perte (le nouveau terrain ne valait que 3 % de la valeur du terrain perdu) et en 2003 l’union des jardiniers est devenue le nouveau propriétaire. Dans l’attente de l’issue de la procédure de consolidation, la loi 64/1997 était applicable et exigeait que les locataires versent un loyer à l’association requérante jusqu’à ce que la procédure prenne fin.

Cette loi fixait le montant du loyer que devait verser les locataires à l’association requérante à 10% de sa valeur réelle, loyer qui était inférieur à l’impôt foncier dû sur ce terrain.

La Cour européenne a conclu que le transfert de propriété de l’association de propriétaires terriens aux preneurs à bail constituait une privation disproportionnée de biens. D’après la Cour européenne la protection de l’intérêt général dans les procédures prévues par la loi n°64/1997 n’était pas suffisamment importante pour justifier la différence substantielle entre la valeur réelle du terrain de l’association requérante et la valeur du terrain qui leur avait été proposé en compensation. La loi n’a pas assuré un équilibre acceptable entre les intérêts de la requérante et ceux des jardiniers. De plus concernant le bail forcé, la Cour européenne a noté que l’intérêt général ne justifiait pas le loyer réduit qui n’était pas proportionnel à la valeur réelle du terrain. Ainsi la location forcée du terrain sur la base des termes du bail prévu par la loi représentait un contrôle disproportionné du droit de propriété de l’association requérante.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a octroyé une satisfaction équitable au titre des préjudices matériel et moral résultant de la violation.

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : La Cour européenne a conclu que la source de la violation résidait dans la législation slovaque qui affecte de nombreux propriétaires dont les terrains sont soumis à la loi n° 64/1997. Les deux violations ont pour origine l’application de la loi à une catégorie spécifique de citoyens. La Cour européenne a noté que la présente affaire n’est que la première d’une série d’affaires pendantes devant la Cour et a identifié une violation systémique. Elle a donc suggéré que les autorités slovaques prennent des dispositions au niveau national pour régler ce problème de violation systémique.

Les mesures de caractère général devraient assurer que :

1) Les termes du bail du terrain en parcelle devraient pouvoir prendre en compte la valeur réelle du terrain et les conditions actuelles du marché.

2) la compensation au titre du transfert de propriété devrait raisonnablement prendre en compte la valeur réelle du terrain au moment du transfert.

Le 26/04/2010, les autorités ont fourni des informations sur des projets législatifs qui ont été élaborés au sein des ministères de l’Agriculture et de la Justice. Ces projets prévoient que tant le loyer au titre du bail des terrains en cause que la compensation au titre du transfert de la propriété seront calculés selon la valeur marchande de ces terrains. Des mesures rétroactives sont prévues pour dédommager les propriétaires des terrains qui ont déjà fait l’objet d’un transfert de propriété. Le Ministère de l’Agriculture est en train d’analyser les commentaires du Ministère de la Justice.

• Les informations fournies par les autorités slovaques sur les mesures générales sont actuellement examinées en détail par le Secrétariat.

• Des informations sont attendues sur l’état d’avancement du processus législatif.

                       - 63 affaires de durée de procédures civiles et d’absence de recours effectif

                       (Voir Annexe pour la liste d’affaires dans le groupe Jakub)

Ces affaires concernent la durée excessive de procédures civiles qui ont commencé entre 1990 et 2000 et se sont terminées, dans la plupart des cas, entre 1999 et 2004 (violations de l'article 6§1). La Cour européenne a rappelé sa jurisprudence selon laquelle certains litiges (conflits du travail, indemnisation pour le préjudice subi suite à un accident, droits parentaux) doivent être résolus avec une célérité toute particulière (affaires Magura, Teréni, Palgutova, Lubina, Španίr et Kuril).

Par ailleurs, lors de l'examen de la recevabilité de la requête dans l'affaire Jakub, la Cour européenne a conclu que la pratique suivie par la Cour constitutionnelle, dans les circonstances de cette affaire, avait rendu ineffectif le recours constitutionnel au regard de l'article 127 de la Constitution contre la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires, introduit en Slovaquie en 2002.

En effet, la Cour constitutionnelle a rejeté en 2003 la demande introduite par du requérant concernant la durée excessive de la procédure, au motif que la procédure en question n'était plus pendante devant l'instance responsable des retards allégués (voir également §§45 et 58 de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne dans l'affaire Malejčík et §§35 et 46 de l'arrêt L'.R.).

Dans l'affaire Dudičová la Cour européenne a également constaté une violation de l'article 13 car la Cour constitutionnelle avait rejeté la plainte du requérant concernant la durée excessive de la procédure d'insolvabilité comme étant clairement sans fondement, alors que la procédure avait duré cinq ans. La Cour européenne a conclu que « le recours prévu par l'article 127 de la Constitution, tel qu'appliqué à cette affaire, ne pouvait être considéré comme efficace » (§§82‑83).

De surcroît, elle a noté que le recours interne contre la durée excessive des procédures judiciaires, introduit en 2002, s'était avéré inefficace dans un certain nombre d'affaires puisque la Cour constitutionnelle avait alloué aux requérants des indemnisations manifestement insuffisantes (moins de 5% à 25% des montants alloués par la Cour européenne dans ce type d'affaires).

De plus, les affaires Múčková, Preložník, Šidlová et Komanický n° 2 ont également trait à l'absence de recours effectif contre la durée excessive de ces procédures, étant donné que les procédures judiciaires incriminées se sont terminées avant l'introduction du recours constitutionnel contre la durée excessive de procédures en 2002 (violations de l'article 13). Dans l'affaire Dobál, la Cour européenne a constaté que le requérant ne disposait pas de recours effectif pour se plaindre de la durée déraisonnable d'une procédure suspendue depuis 1999 (violation de l'article 13). Le 19/02/2003, la Cour constitutionnelle a déclaré irrecevable son recours constitutionnel, car, selon sa pratique, aucun délai non justifié ne pouvait survenir lorsqu'une procédure avait été suspendue conformément à la loi.

L'affaire Múčková a également trait au caractère inéquitable d'une procédure engagée par la requérante contre l'Etat, pour demander une indemnisation du préjudice moral subi à la suite d'un accident de la route provoqué par un agent du Ministère de l'intérieur (violation de l'article 6§1). Sa fille avait été grièvement blessée dans cet accident. A cet égard, en 1997, le tribunal compétent avait refusé d'exonérer la requérante des frais de procédure, estimant que son action était dépourvue de toute chance de succès, mais sans fournir de motifs précis pour cette conclusion.

L'affaire Turek concerne la violation du droit du requérant au respect de sa vie privée en raison de l'iniquité des procédures par lesquelles le requérant avait contesté en vain son enregistrement par l'ancienne Agence de Sécurité de l'Etat (StB) en tant qu'un de leurs « agents » (violation de l'article 8). La Cour européenne a estimé que dans le cadre de l'adoption de mesures de lustration, les Etats devaient s'assurer que les personnes affectées bénéficient de toutes les garanties procédurales selon la Convention, dans le cadre de toute procédure concernant l'application de telles mesures. A cet égard, la Cour a estimé que le requérant n'avait pas bénéficié de ces garanties dans la mesure où il avait été exigé qu'il prouve que son enregistrement avait été fait en violation des règles en vigueur à l'époque, les lignes directrices du Ministère fédéral de 1972, alors que ces règles était un document confidentiel, non accessible au requérant. Cette exigence avait imposé au requérant une charge irréaliste et excessive et n'avait pas respecté le principe d'égalité des armes.

Mesures de caractère individuel :

1) Violations du droit à un procès dans un délai raisonnable :

• Informations fournies par les autorités slovaques : Les procédures sont toujours pendantes sans les affaires suivantes : Ščuryová, Hrobová, Lubina, Orel, Tomláková, Rišková, Sofitel n° 1, Softel n° 2, Dudičová, Eliáš, Jakubίčka et Magyaricsová, Komanický n° 2, Komanický n° 4, Rapoš, Španίr et Šidlová.

Dans les affaires Ščuryová, Hrobová et Lubina, le Bureau de l'Agent du gouvernement a attiré l'attention des juridictions concernées sur les conclusions de la Cour européenne.

• Des informations sont attendues sur l'état d'avancement des procédures encore pendantes et, le cas échéant, leur accélération.

            2) Violation du droit à un procès équitable dans l'affaire Múčková et violation de l'article 8 dans l'affaire Turek : Les requérants ont eu la possibilité de demander la réouverture de la procédure inéquitable, en vertu de l'article 228§1(d) du Code de procédure civile. Selon cette disposition, une partie à la procédure peut demander la réouverture si la Cour européenne a constaté une violation et si les conséquences de cette violation ne sont pas suffisamment effacées par l'octroi de la satisfaction équitable. La possibilité de rouvrir les procédures nationales est soumise à un délai de trois mois à compter de l'arrêt définitif de la Cour européenne.

• Evaluation : dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure d'ordre individuel ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

            1) Durée excessive des procédures civiles : des mesures de caractère général visant à améliorer l'efficacité du système judiciaire et à éviter de nouvelles violations ont déjà été adoptées, notamment dans le cadre de l'examen de l'affaire Jóri (arrêt du 09/11/2000), dont l'examen a été clos par la Résolution ResDH(2005)67 (loi n° 501/2001 qui réduit le nombre de cas dans lesquels les tribunaux de second degré statuent en tant que première instance, et vise l'accélération de l'administration des preuves ; loi n° 385/2000 qui régit la responsabilité civile et disciplinaire des juges en cas de retards injustifiés dans les affaires qu'ils traitent).

a) Mesures personnelles et organisationnelles : Trois mesures de ce type ont été faites et une mesure proposée :

1) Le gouvernement a augmenté de 50 le nombre de juges au cours du premier trimestre de 2008.

2) Suite à l'adoption de la loi n° 511/2007 portant modification de la loi n° 371/2004, neuf tribunaux locaux ont été créés et mis en service depuis 01/01/08.

3) Le Ministre de la Justice a invité tous les juges à adopter une approche proactive et responsable en matière d'exécution de leurs obligations judiciaires. Il se rend devant les tribunaux sans annoncer sa venue pour contrôler l'état de préparation des juges pour les audiences.

4) Il travaille actuellement sur un projet de loi destiné à confier aux référendaires principaux et aux membres des greffes le travail judiciaire de base, pour permettre aux juges de se concentrer uniquement sur les décisions de justice.

- Développement du système informatique et gestion des tribunaux : Certaines modifications techniques ont été apportées à la gestion du système judiciaire dont la création de nouvelles bases de données électroniques et d'une base de données centrale pour le système judiciaire permettant aux utilisateurs de vérifier avec efficacité l'existence de procédures parallèles ; les juges pourront suivre l'état d'avancement des affaires devant les tribunaux et vérifier la situation des détenus qui purgent leur peine.

- Mesures législatives : Quatre modifications législatives ont été faites.

(i)         Un groupe d'amendements adoptés sous la forme de la loi 273/2007, entrée en vigueur le 01/07/07 (« petite » modification du Code de procédure civile). La loi a modifié la loi 99/1963 du Code de procédure civile. Elle aussi modifié la loi 71/1992 sur les frais de justice. La « petite » modification visait à instaurer huit changements dans la procédure civile afin d'améliorer le fonctionnement des tribunaux. Ces changements comprennent quatre mesures administratives sur l'attribution de compétences ; les modalités de notification des pièces ; la gestion des dossiers au sein des cours d'appels et la simplification/réduction des frais de justice. Il y a également quatre changements de fond dans le Code en ce qui concerne la procédure judiciaire :

-      article 16 : harmonisation des délais de récusation avec les délais de recours. Les allégations de partialité ne seront plus considérées dans une procédure distincte, mais seront examinées parmi les motifs principaux de recours ;

-      article 214 : les cours d'appel peuvent se prononcer sur un plus grand nombre de questions sans tenir d'audience dans des circonstances limitées qui incluent l'accord des parties de ne pas tenir d'audience et sous réserve d'une vérification des considérations d'intérêt public ;

-      article 250f(3) et 250ja(3) : élargissement du type d'affaires qui peuvent être tranchées sans audience par les juridictions administratives, lorsqu'il est clair que la décision d'une autorité administrative doit être annulée ;

-      article 250t(2) : dans les procédures diligentées contre les autorités administratives, le procureur peut déposer devant le tribunal une requête tenant à obliger l'administration intéressée à agir et à prendre une décision.

(ii)         La loi 24/2007 portant modification de la loi 530/2003 sur le registre des sociétés. Depuis le 01/08/07, le registre des sociétés est disponible en ligne et il n'est plus nécessaire d'aller devant un tribunal pour créer une société ou pour faire des démarches administratives concernant une société.

(iii)        La loi 568/2007 portant modification de la loi 527/2002 sur les « ventes aux enchères volontaires ». Cette modification, entrée en vigueur le 01/01/08, a simplifié la procédure de « ventes aux enchères volontaires » afin de réduire les cas de ventes annulée.

La quatrième modification est un amendement au Code de procédure civile (n° 384/2008), entré en vigueur le 15/10/2008 (« grande » modification du Code de procédure civile). Elle a introduit entres autres les changements suivants :

-       articles 15 (1) et (2) et 16 (3) : harmonisation de la procédure de récusation des juges pour éviter de transmettre le dossier à un autre juge qui pourrait être également concerné par des allégations de partialité et pour permettre au tribunal de continuer à traiter le dossier (sans toutefois statuer sur le fond), à condition que les allégations de partialité soient mal fondées ;

-       article 29a (1) et (2) : possibilité pour les tribunaux de désigner un conseil commun pour plusieurs parties à la procédure dans les affaires où il y a plus de vingt demandeurs ou défendeurs, ce qui permet notamment d’accélérer les procédures lorsqu’une partie est décédée et ses héritier ne sont pas connus ; le litige concernant la partie qui s’oppose à la désignation du conseil commun peut être disjoint et jugé dans le cadre d’une procédure séparée ;

-       articles 38 (1), (2) et (5) et 175cza (7) : simplification de la procédure de succession qui est conduite, en vertu de l’autorisation du tribunal, par le notaire ; ce dernier peut délivrer des certificats d’hérédité ;

-       article 45 (3) à (6) : possibilité pour les parties à la procédure de notifier et de se voir notifier des documents par voie électronique ;

-       articles 114 (1) et (3) à (6) et 115a (2) : extension de la possibilité pour le tribunal de trancher une affaire sans audience et introduction d’une procédure simplifiée de règlement des petits litiges ; cette première modification permet de contrecarrer les démarches dilatoires d’une partie à la procédure, qui omet de soumettre ses observations ou ne réceptionne pas son courrier ;

-       articles 172 (5) et (6) et 174b (1) : élargissement du domaine d’application du régime juridique d’injonction, ce qui habilite les tribunaux à rendre non seulement une injonction de payer, mais aussi une injonction de faire ou de ne pas faire ;

-       article 221 (1) (h) : limitation de la possibilité pour les juridictions d’appel d’infirmer les décisions rendues en première instance et de les renvoyer pour réexamen ; un tel renvoi n’est désormais possible que si le tribunal de première instance a à la fois mal établi les faits et mal appliqué la loi ;

-       article 243b (1) à (4) et (6) : introduction du principe de révision dans la procédure devant la Cour de cassation, ce qui permet à celle-ci de réformer certaines décisions faisant l’objet d’un pourvoi en cassation au lieu de les casser et de les renvoyer à une juridiction inférieure pour réexamen.

b) Le projet de stabilisation de la magistrature : le 25/04/2007, le Comité législatif du Conseil National a approuvé un rapport sur la situation de la justice en République slovaque et a demandé au Ministre de la Justice de préparer un projet de stabilisation de la magistrature.

Le Ministre de la Justice a rédigé les points principaux de ce projet, entre autres la préparation d'une analyse des décisions de la Cour constitutionnelle sur le travail des juridictions ordinaires ainsi que celle des décisions de la Cour européenne, la prise en compte notamment des avis des fonctionnaires responsables de la gestion dans les tribunaux et des magistrats sur les principaux problèmes de la justice et sur les possibilités de les résoudre, ainsi que des avis du groupe de travail chargé de la mise en œuvre de l'évaluation de la charge de travail des magistrats.

A la demande du Ministre de la Justice, le bureau de l'Agent du Gouvernement de la République slovaque a présenté l'analyse requise des décisions de la Cour européenne. Les autres entités ont également soumis les documents nécessaires. Le Ministre de la Justice est en train d'examiner ces documents en vue de finaliser le projet « visant à stabiliser la magistrature ».

• Informations statistiques complémentaires fournies par les autorités slovaques (lettres des 11/01/2007, 24/10/2007 et 18/03/08 et 28/04/09) : La durée moyenne de procédures civiles ces dernières années sont les suivantes :

2002	15,18 mois
2003	16,56 mois
2004	17,56 mois
2005	16,86 mois
2006	15,40 mois
2007	15,06 mois
2008	14,07 mois

c) Publication et diffusion : les arrêts de la Cour européenne contre la république slovaque sont régulièrement publiés dans la revue Justičná.

• Des informations sont attendues sur ces grandes lignes finalisées visant à renforcer la justice et sur l'évolution actuelle de la durée moyenne des procédures civiles pour 2009.

            2) Recours contre la durée excessive des procédures civiles : Une réforme de la Constitution de 2002 a introduit un recours constitutionnel pour les allégations de violations des droits de l'homme garantis par les traités internationaux. La Cour européenne a déjà relevé, à diverses reprises, que cette nouvelle procédure représentait un recours effectif au sens de l'article 13 de la Convention (voir notamment la décision sur la recevabilité dans l'affaire Andrášik et autres du 22/10/2002).

a) Pratique de la Cour constitutionnelle consistant à rejeter des recours lorsque l'affaire n'est plus pendante devant l'instance responsable de retards allégués (Jakubίčka et Magyaricsová) :

• Informations fournies par les autorités slovaques (lettre du 11/01/2007) : des exemples d'arrêts de la Cour constitutionnelle de 2003 et 2005 ont été fournis en vue d'illustrer une autre pratique de cette juridiction, pratique consistant à examiner le recours en tenant compte de la durée des procédures devant plusieurs instances. Selon les autorités slovaques, la pratique de la Cour constitutionnelle critiquée par la Cour européenne était sporadiquement suivie lors de cinq premières années du fonctionnement du nouveau recours et était due aux changements législatifs. La tendance actuelle vise à l'aligner sur les exigences découlant de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne.

De surcroît, les arrêts Jakub et Malejčík ont été diffusés auprès de la Cour constitutionnelle. L'arrêt Malejčík a été publié dans Justičná Revue, n° 6-7/2006.

• Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours sur la question de savoir si ces mesures sont suffisantes.

b) Insuffisance des montants des compensations octroyées par la Cour constitutionnelle :

La Cour européenne a noté que dans plusieurs affaires, l'indemnisation octroyée par la Cour constitutionnelle ne correspondait pas aux sommes qu'elle-même aurait allouées en vertu de l'article 41 pour ces retards ; les indemnisations en cause atteignent moins de 20 % de ce qui aurait été octroyé par la Cour. Les affaires du groupe dans lesquels se pose ce problème sont les suivantes : Magura, Rišková, Sika, Šidlová, Kuril, Tomláková, Ščuryová, Solárová et autres, Šedý, Čavajda, Bič, Softel n° 1, Softel n° 2, Martikán. Báňas, Eliáš Komanický n° 3, Komanický n° 4, Pobijaková, Rapoš, Španίr et Weiss.

Dans l'affaire Vičanová la Cour Européenne a critiqué le faible montant de l'indemnisation ainsi que l'inefficacité de l'injonction de la Cour constitutionnelle en vue de l'accélération de la procédure.

Les arrêts de la Cour européenne dans les affaires Magura et Sika ont été envoyés à la Cour constitutionnelle par lettre du Ministère de la Justice.

Le 07/11/2008, l'Agent de la République slovaque devant la Cour européenne a organisé un séminaire avec le Centre de droit européen EUROIURIS. Ce séminaire eu lieu au sein de la Cour constitutionnelle de la République slovaque avec la participation des conseillers juridiques de la Cour constitutionnelle. Au cours de ce séminaire l'accent a été mis sur l'insuffisance de l'indemnisation octroyée par la Cour constitutionnelle dans les affaires de durée excessive. L'attention des participants a été attirée sur la jurisprudence pertinente de la Cour européenne et sur une analyse des affaires individuelles slovaques concernées.

Les autorités ont transmis (08/01/2010) douze exemples de décisions rendues par la Cour constitutionnelle entre le 17 février et le 10/09/2009, concernant des recours contre la durée des procédures civiles. Par rapport à ce qui pourrait être accordé par la Cour européenne dans ce type d’affaires, les sommes octroyées par la Cour constitutionnelle sont les suivantes : dans cinq cas, elles varient entre 25 % et 42 %, dans cinq cas entre 46 % et 74 % et dans deux cas elles restent au-dessus de 100 %. Dans toutes les affaires qui étaient encore pendantes, la Cour constitutionnelle a ordonné aux juridictions du fond de procéder sans délai.

• Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours sur la question de savoir si ces mesures sont suffisantes.

c) Pratique de la Cour Constitutionnelle quant au rejet des recours concernant les procédures suspendues (affaire Dobal) :

Le 02/09/2008, les autorités slovaques ont confirmé que l'arrêt dans l'affaire Dobál avait été diffusé à la Cour constitutionnelle avec une lettre circulaire de l'agent de la République slovaque. Il a été demandé au Président de la Cour constitutionnelle d'informer tous les juges de la cour de l'arrêt en vue d'éviter des violations similaires. 

• Des informations sont attendues sur la pratique actuelle de la Cour constitutionnelle à cet égard.

d) Pratique de la Cour constitutionnelle consistant à rejeter des recours concernant des affaires où la durée des procédures n'a pas été considéré comme un motif suffisant de plainte (Dudičová)

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées.

e) Inefficacité des injonctions de la Cour constitutionnelle à l'égard des tribunaux en vue d'accélérer les procédures ayant subi d'importants retards (Komanický No. 2, Vičanová).

Parmi les décisions soumises le 08/10/2010 (voir ci-dessus), la Cour constitutionnelle a ordonné - dans toutes les affaires qui étaient encore pendantes (dix) - aux juridictions du fond de procéder sans délai.

• Des informations sont attendues sur l’impact des décisions de la Cour constitutionnelle sur la durée des procédures.

3) Iniquité de la procédure, dans l'affaire Múčková :

• Informations fournies par les autorités slovaques (lettre du 22/11/2006) : le 10/10/2006, l'arrêt de la Cour européenne, accompagné d'une circulaire du ministre de la Justice, a été diffusé aux tribunaux régionaux. Le ministre de la Justice a demandé aux présidents de ces tribunaux d'en informer les magistrats des tribunaux de district.

• Informations complémentaires fournies par les autorités le 18/03/08 : l'arrêt rendu dans l'affaire Múčková a été publié dans la revue juridique Justična n° 10/2006.

4) Violation de l'article 8 dans l'affaire Turek : La loi de 1991 sur la lustration qui excluaient les anciens agents de la StB de certains postes importants de l'administration, a cessé de produire ses effets en République slovaque le 31/12/1996 (§74 de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne).

• Informations fournies par les autorités slovaques : En ce qui concerne la charge de la preuve dans les litiges relatifs à la protection des droits des personnes, l'article 200i du Code de procédure civile, disposant que le défendeur devait présenter au tribunal toutes preuves éventuelles attestant de la véracité de ses allégations, a été abrogé avec effet à partir du 20/12/1997, suite à un arrêt de la Cour constitutionnelle du 11/11/1997.

L'arrêt a été publié dans la revue juridique Justična, n° 6-7/2006. Afin d'éviter de nouvelles violations similaires, le Ministère de la Justice a adressé une circulaire à tous les Présidents des juridictions régionales, leur demandant de diffuser cet arrêt à tous les juges de ces juridictions ainsi qu'aux juridictions de première instance relevant de leur juridiction.

• Evaluation : Dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure ne semble nécessaire.

30754/04           Dvořáček et Dvořáčková, arrêt du 28/07/2009, définitif le 28/10/2009

Cette affaire concerne le manquement des juridictions nationales à leur obligation de diligence et de célérité raisonnables dans la conduite de l’enquête effective sur la mort de la fille des requérants (violation procédurale de l’article 2). En 1987, les requérants ont engagé une action civile sur le fondement des déficiences du traitement post-natal de leur fille qui ont gravement et irrémédiablement endommagé sa santé, et finalement ont conduit à son décès en 2004.

Cette affaire concerne également la durée excessive de cette procédure (violation de l’article 6§1 voir le groupe d’affaires Jakub, 2015/02, rubrique 4.2).

- 210 cases against Slovenia / 210 affaires contre la Slovénie

71463/01           Šilih, judgment of 09/04/2009 – Grand Chamber

The case concerns the inefficiency of the Slovenian judicial system in dealing with the applicants’ claim that their son’s death in 1993 resulted from medical malpractice. The applicants instituted criminal proceedings against the doctor and civil proceedings for damages against both the hospital and the doctor. The criminal proceedings, in particular the investigation, were excessively long and lasted from 1993 to 2000, when they were finally discontinued. The civil proceedings were instituted in 1995 and are still pending before the Constitutional Court. They were stayed for three years and seven months pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings; however, for the two years before they were officially stayed, the civil proceedings were in fact already at a standstill (§204). After the criminal proceedings were discontinued it took the domestic courts a further five years and eight months to rule on the applicants’ civil claim (§207). Lastly the applicants’ case was dealt with by at least six different judges in a single set of first-instance proceedings (§210).

The European Court noted the shortcomings above and found that domestic authorities had failed to deal with the applicants’ claim arising out of their son’s death with the requisite level of diligence (§211) (procedural violation of Article 2).

Individual measures: The European Court granted the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the non- pecuniary damage sustained. Furthermore, it appears that the prosecution of the alleged offence of medical malpractice became time-barred in 2003 (§47).

• Information provided by the Slovenian authorities (01/10/2009):  The Constitutional Court has examined the applicants’ complaint in respect of the civil proceedings as a high priority. On 22/05/2009 it decided to hear the applicants’ constitutional complaint. The case was heard on 10/09/2009 and it will be also heard in October 2009. No decision has been taken so far.

• Information would be useful on the outcome of these proceedings.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Slovenian authorities (01/10/2009): The State Attorney will submit to the Ministry of Health an initiative to amend legislation concerning the medical sector. The initiative is also supported by the Ministry of Justice. These draft amendments provide for changes in the composition of the tribunals operating within the framework of the Slovenian Doctors’ Association. In particular, those tribunals will not be composed solely of doctors but could also include a representative from the Ministry of Health and some prominent experts from the justice sector. This change would contribute to increasing the transparency and legitimacy of the investigations into the alleged medical malpractice.

• Publication and dissemination: The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Slovenian and published on the website of the State Attorney’s Office (www.dp-rs.si). It was also published in the second edition of the Short Guide on the European Convention of Human Rights by Donna Gomien. The book was distributed free to all judges, state prosecutors, state attorneys and practicing lawyers in Slovenia. The Ministry of Justice also included the case in the training programme for judges for 2010.

• Assessment: The proposed legislative changes are certainly capable of increasing transparency of the investigations into alleged medical malpractice. However, they are not directly related to the issue of the excessive length of criminal and civil proceedings before the domestic courts in medical malpractice cases. It appears nonetheless that the wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all domestic courts would help to reduce the risk of excessive length of proceedings in such cases. 

• Information is awaited on the follow-up given to the proposed legislative amendments and the calendar for their adoption. Information is also awaited on how the proposed legislative changes will reduce the risk of excessive length of criminal and civil proceedings before domestic courts in medical malpractice cases and how the proceedings before the Slovenian Doctor’s Association are related to such court proceedings.

43393/98           Matko, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 02/02/2007

This case concerns the ill-treatment to which the applicant was subjected by the Slovenj Gradec police at the time of his arrest in April 1995 and the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the matter.

The applicant alleged that he had been severely beaten when he was apprehended. Although the medical reports subsequently obtained by units involved in the operation found that his injuries were due to the use of force by the police, his complaint to the Slovenj Gradec police was dismissed by the Public Prosecutor in January 1997. At the same time, a judicial investigation was opened against the applicant for “obstructing an official in the course of his duties”. The district court convicted the applicant on 12/02/2001.

The European Court held that the Slovenian authorities had not furnished credible or convincing arguments explaining or justifying the degree of force used against the applicant (substantive violation of Article 3), particularly because the statements of the officers who had used force against the applicant were not examined at any stage in the investigation. Furthermore, during the judicial proceedings against the applicant, the police officers concerned were not questioned because the district court considered it necessary to protect their identity.

The European Court also found that the investigation conducted into the applicant’s allegations was not effective (procedural violation of Article 3). The investigation was conducted by the Slovenj Gradec police and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, i.e. the authorities to which the officers accused of injuring the applicant belonged. Moreover, the Public Prosecutor, in her last-instance decision, lacked the necessary transparency and appearance of independence, and took 18 months to dismiss the applicant’s complaint, although no major steps had been taken to investigate the circumstances at issue. In addition, the Court found it particularly striking that the police officers were not questioned during the judicial proceedings.

Individual measures: The investigation into the ill-treatment of the applicant was closed by decision of 17/01/1997. The judicial proceedings against the applicant ended with a judgment given by the Maribor Higher Court on 09/05/2001. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment. He was given a suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The European Court awarded him just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses. It dismissed his claims concerning pecuniary damage and the costs of the domestic proceedings.

• Information provided by the Slovenian authorities (letter of 02/08/2007): The State Prosecutor may not initiate a criminal investigation against the police officers responsible for the ill-treatment of the applicant as the matter is time-barred.

• Information would be useful on the exact time-limits of prescription in this case as well as on the possibility of instituting disciplinary proceedings against the police officers concerned.

General measures:

            1) Substantive violation of Article 3:The issue of the ill-treatment inflicted by the Slovenj Gradec police was already raised during the examination of the Rehbock case (Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)137), which concerned facts posterior to the ones in this case. The Rehbock case gave rise to publication of the judgment of the European Court.

• Assessment: no other general measure appears to be necessary.

            2) Procedural violation of Article 3: The European Court welcomed the Constitutional Court decision of 06/07/2006 (§§ 66 and 95). In this decision the Constitutional Court emphasised that the right to judicial protection secured by the Slovenian Constitution also included the right to an independent investigation in cases of alleged ill-treatment by the police.

• Information provided by the Slovenian authorities (letters of 29/03/2007, 02/08/2007 and 01/10/2007):

- Dissemination of the judgment: the European Court’s judgment has been translated and sent out to police stations in the territory in which the violation occurred, to the Ministry of Justice and the State Prosecutor’s Office. In January 2007 the State Prosecutor sent out a memorandum to heads of District Prosecutors’ Offices and the State Prosecutor’s Special Group for the Prosecution of Organised Crime, requesting them to inform all state prosecutors of the judgment.

- Amendments to the State Prosecutor Act: two amendments to the State Prosecutor Act were adopted on 16/02/2007 and 07/05/2007. They set up a specialised task group responsible solely for the prosecution of criminal offences committed by employees in the field of internal affairs (Article 10 of the Act). The special task office began work on 01/11/2007. These amendments also transfer jurisdiction to state prosecutors who will co-ordinate and direct the work of the police during criminal investigations concerning unlawful police acts. A copy of the text of the amendment of 16/02/2007 was sent to the Secretariat.

- Amendment to the Police Act of 10/11/2005: it contains detailed provisions on how medical care shall be provided to detainees.

- Training of police officers: the Ministry of Internal Affairs conducted an internal analysis of the Matko case. Its findings will become part of the compulsory training programme for police officers and staff. The Police provide continuous training and education of its staff as regards the exercise of its powers and practical implementation of procedures. It also regularly publishes brochures on the issue of the exercise of these powers in the context of human rights. The Human Rights Ombudsman is also involved in this training process.

- Inspections: the Ministry of Internal Affairs regularly inspects the work of Police, to monitor the legality of the procedures applied and protect individuals’ rights. The rules specifying the powers of the Minister of Internal Affairs over the Police were published in the Official Gazette No 97/2004 of 03/09/2004.

• Written confirmation of the publication of the judgment is awaited.

                       - 3 cases of length of criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy

28400/95          Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

19611/04           Šubinski, judgment of 18/01/2007, final on 18/04/2007

28936/02           Acikgöz, judgment of 07/02/2008, final on 07/05/2008

These cases concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants in 1991, 1998 and 1987 respectively (violations of Article 6§1) and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect, except in Majarič (violations of Article 13).

Individual measures: The proceedings in the case of Šubinski were still pending before the Constitutional Court when the European Court delivered its judgment, while the proceedings in the case of Majarič and Acikgöz had been ended.

• Information provided by the Slovenian authorities in the case of Šubinski (14/01/2008):The proceedings before the Constitutional Court ended on 14/06/2007; the constitutional appeal filed by the applicant was rejected.

• Assessment: In view of the information provided, no further individual measure appears necessary.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 6§1: The issue of excessive length of criminal proceedings was initially examined in the context of the Majarič case, in which the Slovenian authorities took measures to accelerate criminal proceedings, i.e. wide dissemination and publication of the European Court’s judgment, 1998 amendments to the Criminal Procedures Act (introducing settlement procedures) and training of judges.

• Information provided by Slovenian authorities (letters of 22/04/2008, 20/10/2008 and 06/04/2010):

A. Statistics: The proportion of criminal cases before local courts examined within a year attained 57,8% in 2007 as compared to 36,7% in 2000. However, backlogs increased in criminal cases before district courts as compared to 2000. The proportion of criminal cases before district courts examined within a year decreased in 2007 to 40,6% as compared to 51,8% in 2000. As far as the higher courts are concerned, they examined 58% and 53% of all criminal appeals within 3 months in 2006 and 2007 respectively. As of 30/06/2008, there were 4 701 backlog criminal cases before local courts and 1 912 such cases before district courts. There was no backlog in higher courts at that date. It is to be noted that in 2001 there were 7 055 backlog criminal cases before local courts, while in 2006 there were 2 469 such cases before district courts.

B. IT project: The modernisation of the IT infrastructure in the criminal justice sector has been completed. Since 01/01/2010 all courts in Slovenia have been using electronic records in criminal cases.

• Assessment: The information provided by the Slovenian authorities points to certain problems concerning backlogs in criminal cases, in particular before district courts. It also points to trends in average length of criminal proceedings which could be further improved.

• Information is awaited on further developments in measures taken or envisaged to reduce the length of criminal proceedings and backlogs.

2) Violation of Article 13: These cases present similarities to those of the Lukenda group (23032/02, Section 4.2) in which information is awaited under this heading.

• In addition, information is awaited on the functioning of the legal remedy introduced (see the Lukenda group,) in the context of the length of criminal proceedings and on the statistical data corroborating its efficiency in practice. 

            3) Publication and dissemination: The judgments of the European Court have been translated into Slovenian and published on the website of the State Attorney’s Office (www.dp-rs.si).

- 205 cases of length of civil proceedings and of lack of an effective remedy

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Lukenda group)

These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (violations of Articles 6§1 and 13).

Certain key findings by the European Court in successive judgments have set the parameters for the execution measures adopted:

(i) that the excessive length of proceedings in Slovenia constituted “a systemic problem that has resulted from inadequate legislation and inefficiency in the administration of justice” (§93 of the Lukenda judgment), that the violations were due to a malfunction of domestic law and practice (§4) and that “the respondent State must, through appropriate legal measures and administrative practices, secure the right to a trial within a reasonable time” (§5);

(ii) that the remedies introduced in the Law of 2006 on the Protection of the right to trial without undue delay (the “2006 Act”) were in principle of a nature to prevent the continuation of alleged violations of the right to a hearing without undue delay and of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred and could thus be considered effective (§62 of the Grzinčič judgment). This effectiveness extended to applications lodged after the entry into force of the 2006 Act and those concerning domestic proceedings pending at first and second instance already on the Court’s list (§103). The Court highlighted that that there was no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the remedy introduced but that its position might be subject to future review (§108).

(iii) that, with regard to the compensatory remedy provided in the 2006 Act, “national authorities should ensure that the aggrieved party has a prompt access to the compensatory remedy once he or she has made use of the acceleratory remedies” (§54 of the Žunič judgment) and that there were certain limits to the possibility of claiming just satisfaction in that, for just satisfaction claims to be admitted, two cumulative conditions must be satisfied: first, the claimant must have properly exhausted the accelerative remedies and, secondly, the proceedings must have been finally resolved (§47).

(iv) that the 2006 Act provides no remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court (§43 of the Tomažič judgment) but that that amendments to the Constitutional Court Act were introduced in July 2007 (Official Gazette, No. 51/07) with the aim of simplifying and shortening procedures before that court. These changes were expected to have an effect in practice at the end of 2008 (§31).

Individual measures:

• Information provided by the Slovenian authorities (letter of 31/07/2007, 22/04/2008, 20/10/2008 and 06/04/2010): In 58 cases, proceedings have been concluded. All relevant domestic courts have been informed that they should give priority to 6 cases in which the European Court has found a violation.

• Information is awaited concerning the state of proceedings and on measures taken or envisaged to accelerate them if they are still pending.

General measures: The European Court observed in the Grzinčič judgment that there were some 1 700 cases of length of proceedings against Slovenia pending before the Court (§59). Following that judgment and the in light of the findings contained in it, 900 applications have been declared inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the proceedings before the first and the second instance courts, while 350 applications were declared inadmissible either because a friendly settlement had been reached or a unilateral declaration had been made by the government. There are approximately 520 applications currently pending before the Court. These concern the excessive length of proceedings before the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court (120 cases) as well as those proceedings which had ended before the 2006 Act became operational but for which no application had been lodged with the European before that date (66 cases). The remaining applications concern the excessive length of proceedings before first- and second-instance courts.

• Information provided by the Slovenian authorities: In response to the Secretariat's initial-phase letter of 27/03/2006, the Slovenian authorities provided an action plan for the implementation of measures aiming at avoiding further similar violations (letters of 06/06/2006, 04/10/2006, 27/03/2007, 31/07/2007 and 06/04/2010):

1) The "Lukenda Project":Following the Lukenda judgment, the Slovenian authorities adopted on 12/12/2005 a Joint State Project on the elimination of court backlogs, the so-called “Lukenda Project”. Its goal is the elimination of the backlog before the Slovenian courts by the end of 2010, with the aim of introducing structural and managerial reform.

The project aims to halve the number of backlog cases in courts, in the statistical context, by 31/12/2010, i.e. to 284 000 cases. In the substantive context, the time needed to examine a certain case by a specific court were to be determined in an agreement reached between the Supreme Court, the Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice for each type of court and each calendar year separately and the Court Rules modified accordingly. The number of undecided cases shall not exceed 155 000 after 31/12/2010.

The Lukenda project moreover provides many complex ways to increase judicial efficiency and solve the problem of court backlogs. The most significant measures envisaged are the following:

- ensuring workplace conditions in accordance with the strategy of spatial development of the judicial system,

- additional provision and organisation of human resources or professional staff for a fixed period until 31/12/2010,

- stimulating the remuneration of court staff for their increased workload directed at eliminating court backlog,

- simplification of legislation and standardisation of judicial proceedings,

- computerisation of courts and judicial proceedings,

- additional training of judges and prosecutors and introduction of specialisation of judges,

- reorganisation and better management of courts.

1. Increased employment of judicial staff and new premises for courts: In 2006 there were 1002 judges, 276 associates and 2705 other judicial staff members. According to the budget for 2007 and 2008, the number of judges' posts is to increase by 90 and 15 respectively and that of other judicial staff members by 250 each year. The Ministry of Justice is also preparing complete documentation necessary for the acquisition of additional premises for courts.

2. Measures to accelerate proceedings before labour courts: A new Labour and Social Courts Act entered into force on 01/01/2005 setting up specialist jurisdictions for social and labour litigation. This act also contains a specific provision for appeal proceedings in such cases (Article 30): in case of erroneous or incomplete finding of the material circumstances or an essential violation of procedural provisions, the appellate court may itself correct any irregularity in the first-instance judgment by collecting supplementary or new evidence or by other procedural acts.

3. Seminars for judges and State Attorneys: In September and October 2006, the Ministry of Justice, in cooperation with the Council of Europe, organised two seminars on the practice of the Convention bodies concerning Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

4. Statistics on backlog and average length of civil proceedings in Slovenian courts: In 1998-2007, court backlogs have been reduced by an average annual rate of 9%: in 2007 it was reduced by 11.8%. Backlog cases also decreased in 2009 by 9% as compared to 2008. The average time required for examination of a case has decreased from 14,1 months in 1997 to 6,1 months in 2009.

The number of backlog cases in local courts has decreased in 2007 by 10.5% compared to 2006 and by 51% compared to 2000. Local courts have reduced the number of unresolved civil claims from 53 000 in 1998 to 21 422 in 2007. The share of civil claims examined within a year attained 46.1% in 2007 as compared to 36.2% in 2000.

The time required for examination of a case has also decreased in district courts. As a result, in 2007 the district courts managed to gain control over the flow of new cases, while the number of pending cases has also decreased. Since 2000, the share of civil claims resolved in district courts has been constantly within the margin of 55%-60% of all claims. In 2006 higher courts examined 58.7% of all civil appeals within 6 months, while this share increased in 2007 to 66.4%. Labour and social courts examined 66.4% of all cases within one year, while only 3.4% cases were lasting over 3 years. The number can be considered a significant success taking into account that such cases constituted more than a quarter of all cases. The Higher Labour and Social Court has decreased its backlog in 2007 by almost 56% as compared to 2006. At the end of 2007, a total of 471 cases remained pending. In addition, this backlog was reduced by 38.9% (from 628 to 384) cases since December 2007. The backlog of cases is monitored by the Supreme Court since 01/01/2008.

• Assessment: It may be observed from the statistical information provided by the Slovenian authorities that there is a steady decrease in the backlog cases in all courts. These figures are indicative of a positive development in dealing with backlog cases. Furthermore, the increase of posts within the judiciary is helpful to solve the problem of backlog and excessive length of proceedings.

The measures taken have yielded the first results as corroborated by the fact that the backlog cases have been reduced three times before local courts and twice before higher courts, while the district courts have slightly less performing statistics.

• Information is awaited on the further implementation of the "Lukenda Project". In particular, further updated statistical information on the backlog cases, the average length of civil proceedings and the implementation of the planned increase of posts within the judiciary would be helpful to further monitor the positive trends in this field. Information on any other measures taken or envisaged in this respect would be also appreciated (e.g. the measures taken concerning the introduction computer systems in courts and the remuneration of court staff, training etc.).

2) Introduction of effective remedies: A new law on the Protection of the right to trial without undue delay was adopted on 26/04/2006 (the 2006 Act) (published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No 49/2006 of 12/05/2006) and took effect on 01/01/2007. This law provides the following remedies against excessive length of proceedings:

1. Scope of the application of the 2006 Act: The remedies provided in the 2006 Act are available to parties to court proceedings, participants of non-contentious proceedings and injured parties in criminal proceedings (Articles 1 and 2). They may be also used before administrative courts and the Supreme Court, but not before the Constitutional Court.

2. Remedies for acceleration: The 2006 Act provides for two types of acceleratory remedies:

a) a supervisory appeal with a proposal for expediting the hearing of a case: In case of excessive length of proceedings the applicant should first lodge such a complaint before the court hearing the case (Article 5). The president of the court will request the judge to submit a report within 15 days indicating reasons for the duration of the proceedings. If the judge dealing with the case notifies the president that procedural acts or a decision will be forthcoming within 4 months, the president informs the party accordingly. On the other hand, if the complaint is substantiated, the president of the court may order the judge in charge of the case to perform certain procedural acts within a specified time-limit (not less than 15 days and not longer than 6 months) and/or to treat the case with priority (Article 6). The president of the court may also order that the case be reassigned if it is found that the excessive length is due to an excessive workload or an extended absence of the judge.

b) a motion for a deadline: It may be lodged with the president of the higher court if a supervisory appeal has been rejected or has not been examined within 2 months, or if the procedural acts ordered by the president of the court have not been performed within the time-limit set (Article 8).  The decision on whether the complaint is well-founded must be rendered within 15 days. If this motion is substantiated, the president of the higher court may, inter alia, order the judge in charge of the case to perform certain procedural acts within a specified time-limit, which may not be less than 15 days and not longer than 4 months, and/or to treat the case with priority (Article 11§4).

In the Court’s view, these deadlines as they stand in the text of the 2006 Act comply with the requirement of speediness necessary for a remedy to be effective (§88 in Grzinčič). However, the Court also noted that the two acceleratory remedies available in Supreme Court proceedings are dealt with by the president of that court. Thus, in substance they remain similar to the ineffective request for supervision (the request dealt with in the framework of judicial administration and not in court proceedings; no binding effect on the court concerned; no right of appeal) (§§40-45 in Lesjak Robert, 33946/03).

3. Remedies for compensation: The 2006 Act provides for the following compensatory remedies:

a) a claim for just satisfaction: Pursuant to the 2006 Act, anyone sustaining non-pecuniary damage as a result of a failure to comply with the “reasonable-time” requirement is entitled to just satisfaction if a supervisory appeal lodged by the party has been granted or if a motion for a deadline has been lodged (Article 15 and 16).  Just satisfaction will be provided by means of monetary compensation, a written statement of the State Attorney's Office or the publication of a judgment finding a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay.  Monetary compensation shall be payable for non-pecuniary damage caused by the excessive length of proceedings. It will be granted for each finally decided case in an amount of between  300 and 5 000 euros and is awarded following friendly settlement proceedings before the Office of the State Attorney (Article 16 and 19). The party may lodge a claim for just satisfaction within 9 months after the final resolution of the case. The State Attorney’s Office shall rule on the claim within a period of 3 months if it establishes that the claim for just satisfaction is substantiated. The corresponding sums for payment of monetary compensation are earmarked in the Slovenian budget (Article 23). However, no compensation can be claimed in respect of the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Court (§41 in Lesjak Robert, 33946/03).

b)  an action for damages: If no agreement is reached with the State Attorney’s Office, a party may bring an action for non-pecuniary damages in the local court within 18 months after the final resolution of the case (Article 20).

c) an action for pecuniary damage: a party may bring an action for pecuniary damages within eighteen months after the final decision. When deciding on pecuniary damage, the court has to take into account the provisions of the Obligations Act and the 2006 Act.

4. Just satisfaction for damage sustained prior to coming into force of 2006 Act: In cases in which the domestic proceedings are concluded but an applicant has already lodged an application with the European Court, the 2006 Act provides that the applicant could obtain redress from the national authorities (the European Court has declared approximately 1300 applications inadmissible on the ground that the applicants in this situation may obtain redress).

5. Information provided by the Slovenian authorities regarding the effectiveness of the remedies under the 2006 Act (letter of 22/04/2008): In total 3058 supervisory appeals were filed, out of which 964 were declared ill-founded and rejected while 118 were referred for examination to the president of the competent court. Furthermore, 468 supervisory appeals were dismissed while 1275 were allowed by the presidents of the courts and the applicants received a notification that the court would perform the appropriate procedural action within a specified deadline. In total 835 motions for a deadline were also filed, out of which 603 were declared ill-founded, 146 were dismissed and 18 motions were allowed as reasonable and well-founded.

6. Remedies before the Supreme Court: Having regard to the nature of the acceleratory remedies provided in the 2006 Act in relation to proceedings before the Supreme Court (see above) and to the fact that they are not available in combination with any compensatory remedy, the European Court noted that such remedies did not provide effective redress in respect of the length of Supreme Court proceedings (§45 in Lesjak Robert, 33946/03).

7. Remedies before the Constitutional Court: The 2006 Act does not provide any remedy for excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court (see the case of Tomažič). However, the authorities noted that the Constitutional Court has been implementing a project “Hearing within reasonable time before the Constitutional Court” since 2008.

• Assessment of the European Court: As mentioned in the judgments quoted above, the European Court has made a number of observations regarding the remedies introduced for excessive length of proceedings under the 2006 Act. These observations can be summarised as follows:

1) Accelerative remedies: A supervisory appeal and a motion for a deadline are designed to obtain acceleration of pending proceedings and/or a finding that time-limits have been exceeded. Since a supervisory appeal and a motion for a deadline, as they stand, consist in different tools for expediting pending proceedings, those remedies are effective;

2) Compensatory remedies: these remedies provide for compensation of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages sustained. This remedy is, without doubt, an appropriate means of redressing a violation that has already occurred. The national authorities should ensure that the aggrieved party has a prompt access to the compensatory remedy once he or she has made use of the accelerative remedies (§ 54 Žunič).

However, the Court noted that associating access to a “just satisfaction claim“ with the “final resolution“ of the case not only excluded the Supreme Court proceedings but might delay the availability of that remedy to the extent that was not compatible with the Convention’s requirements. Moreover, this rule makes the application of the new remedies complicated as well as uncertain. As a result, an assessment of the issue of whether a particular applicant has prompt access to a “just satisfaction claim” unavoidably involves a degree of speculation and depends on the stage at which domestic proceedings are pending (§55 in Lesjak Robert, app. no. 33946/03);

3) in assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, the national authorities are required to look at the criteria established by the Court’s case-law;

4) the ensemble of remedies provided by the 2006 Act in cases of excessively long proceedings pending at first and second instance is effective in that they are in principle capable both of preventing the continuation of the alleged violation of the right to a hearing without undue delay and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (§§ 95-98 of Grzinčič);

5) although finding the remedies introduced so far effective, the Court’s position may however be subject to review in the future and the national authorities should take particular care to ensure that the 2006 Act is applied in conformity with the Convention and the Court’s case-law (§54 Žunič).

6) the acceleratory remedies in relation to the proceedings before the Supreme Court combined with the lack of any compensatory remedy in this regard do not provide effective redress in respect of the lenght of those proceedings (§45 in Lesjak Robert, 33946/03).

• Secretariat’s assessment: It appears from the Court’s assessment that the remedies introduced by the 2006 Act may be considered as effective so far as the first and second instance courts are concerned. It is important that the national authorities take particular care to ensure that these remedies are applied in conformity with the Convention and the Court’s case-law. In particular, the authorities should take the necessary steps to ensure that an aggrieved party has a prompt access to the compensatory remedy once he or she has made us of the accelerative remedies.

However, the remedies introduced are not effective regarding proceedings before the Supreme Court. It also appears that the 2006 Act does not provide a remedy for excessive length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court.

• Additional information is therefore awaited on the functioning of all remedies introduced in practice in the next period.

• Information is also awaited on the measures taken or envisaged to introduce an effective remedy in respect of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, including the information on the project run by the latter court.

- 11 cases against Spain / 11 affaires contre l’Espagne

21369/04           Gomez de Liaño y Botella, judgment of 22/07/2008, final on 22/10/2008

The case concerns the lack of objective impartiality of the court which convicted the applicant in 1999, as the judges on the bench at his trial had already participated in different stages of the proceedings, in particular the appeal against the applicant’s indictment (violation of article 6§1).

The European Court found that the chamber of the Supreme Court which decided on 03/11/1998 on the appeal against the indictment (composed by judges G., B. and M.-P) had underlined the provisional nature of the indictment and had stated that it did not prejudge the merits of the case. However the European Court found that the reasoning of the judgment of 15/10/1999, rendered by the criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court composed by the same judges (G., B. and M.-P) upholding the indictment could be construed as showing that the judges already had an opinion on the existence of evidence relating to the offence, including on issues relating to the applicant’s guilt (see §68 of the judgment).

Individual measures: In the proceedings the applicant, who was a judge at the time, was convicted of abuse of office, fined and disqualified from public service for 15 years. In 2000, through a royal decree, the applicant obtained a pardon concerning the disqualification from public service. In 2002, the Judicial Service Commission decided to reinstate him in the judicial profession. Since then the applicant has been working as a lawyer (§§ 35 and 36 of the judgment). The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect non-pecuniary damages.

• Assessment: in light of the above, no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures: The European Court's judgment has been published in Spanish in the Ministry of Justice's information bulletin (Boletín de Informacion, Ministero de Justicia) and sent by the Ministry to the courts and authorities concerned.

• Information is awaited as to whether further general measures are envisaged to prevent new, similar violations.

                        - 8 cases concerning the right of access to a court[36]

55524/00          Stone Court Shipping Company S.A., judgment of 28/10/03, final on 28/01/04

34506/02          Barrenechea Atucha, judgment of 22/07/2008, final on 22/10/2008

3321/04            De La Fuente Ariza, judgment of 08/11/2007, final on 08/02/2008

423/03              Díaz Ochoa, judgment of 22/06/2006, final on 22/09/2006

1518/04            Golf de Extremadura S.A., judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

41745/02          Lacárcel Menéndez, judgment of 15/06/2006, final on 11/12/2006

77837/01          Saez Maeso, judgment of 09/11/2004, final on 09/02/2005

25779/03          Salt Hiper, S.A., judgment of 07/06/2007, final on 12/11/2007

26178/04          Moreno Carmona, judgment of 09/06/2009, final on 09/09/2009

28142/04          Bendayan Azcantot and Benalal Bendayan, judgment of 09/06/2009, final on 09/09/2009

The cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time (violations of Article 6§1).

In the first case, the criminal proceedings against the applicant remained at the investigation stage for approximately 13½ years, having been stayed in 1998. The second case concerns enforcement proceedings in respect of a criminal judgment obliging a private individual to pay damages to the applicants; these lasted 7 years and almost 10 months in 1997 – 2005.

• Preliminary information was provided by the authorities on 20/10/2009 and 24/03/2010. Bilateral discussions are currently under way to secure the additional information necessary to present an action plan/action report to the Committee.

- 1 case against Sweden / 1 affaire contre la Suède

28426/06           Mendel, judgment of 07/04/2009, final on 07/07/2009

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that she had not been able to appeal before a court against an administrative decision of 29/03/2006 revoking her participation in a labour-market policy programme (violation of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that the applicant had not had a practical, effective right of access to court because the decision in question had, in accordance with Section 39 of the 2000 Ordinance regulating the labour-market programme concerned at the time, expressly excluded the possibility of judicial appeal. It also observed that at the material time, Section 3 of the 1986 Administrative Procedure Act, concerning the right to judicial appeal, had not yet been amended.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages. The applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages was rejected as the Court could not speculate as to what the outcome of a trial would have been had it been conducted in compliance with Article 6§1 and as it could not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged.

• Information is awaited as to whether the applicant may appeal against the decision of the National Labour Market Board (on the basis of the Court's judgment or the new legislation); information on the outcome of the proceedings before the Chancellor of Justice would be useful (§13 of the judgment).

General measures:

• Information provided by the Swedish authorities (18/02/2010) The judgment has been published and disseminated; a report containing a summary of the judgment in Swedish has been sent to the relevant authorities, including the Employment Service, the Swedish National Courts Administration, the Bar Association, the Chancellor of Justice and the Parliamentary Ombudsmen; the judgment in English with a summary in Swedish has also been published on the Swedish National Courts Administration’s web-site www.domstol.se, and the government’s human rights web-site www.manskligarattigheter.gov.se.

Following the judgment, the legal department at the Employment Service analysed it, and published an article on 20/04/2009 on the Employment Service’s intranet. The article contains a decision to change the appeal instructions concerning decisions on revocation of an assignment to a labour-market policy programme and clearly states the right to appeal to a court against such decisions.

The authorities emphasise that the prohibition against appeals may be set aside if a decision excluded from appeal concerns civil rights or obligations under Article 6 of the Convention. This mechanism was initially established by domestic case-law and was intended to ensure the right of access to a court (§26 of the judgment).

The government is currently reviewing the relevant legislation and the proposed amendments are expected to enter into force on 1/07/2010.

• Assessment: The general measures taken in order to comply with the judgment are to be welcomed.

• Information is awaited on the outcome of the legislative process. A copy of the government’s legislative proposal would be useful.

- 1 case against “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" / 1 affaire contre « l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine »

74651/01          Association of citizens “Radko” and Paunkovski, judgment of 15/01/2009, final on 15/04/2009

The case concerns the unjustified dissolution of the applicant association in 2002 following a decision of the Constitutional Court, declaring the association’s articles null and void (violation of Article 11). According to the Constitutional Court, the applicant association’s true objectives were the revival of Ivan Mihajlov-Radko’s ideology according to which “… Macedonian ethnicity never existed …, but belonged to the Bulgarians from Macedonia and its recognition (i.e. that of Macedonian ethnicity) was the biggest crime of the Bolshevik headquarters committed during its existence”. In particular, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant association’s articles were directed towards the violent destruction of the constitutional order of the respondent state and to incitement to national or religious hatred or intolerance.

The European Court accepted that the name “Radko” and his or his followers’ ideas were liable to arouse hostile sentiments among the population of the respondent state, given that they had connotations likely to offend the views of the majority of the population. However, it considered that the naming of the association after an individual who was negatively perceived by the majority of population could not in itself be considered reprehensible or to constitute in itself a present and imminent threat to public order (§75).

The European Court concluded that the dissolution of the applicant association was provided by law and pursued a legitimate aim. However, such dissolution did not pursue a pressing social need and thus could not be deemed necessary in a democratic society for two reasons: first, the applicant association had not hinted at any intention to use violence or other illegal or undemocratic means to achieve its aims; secondly, the Constitutional Court provided no explanation as to why a negation of Macedonian ethnicity had been tantamount to violence, especially to violent destruction of the constitutional order (§§72, 78).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage (§84). As to the applicants’ request for registration, the European Court noted “that the applicants requested it to order the respondent State to register ‘the political party Association of citizens “Radko”’. In this connection, it is unclear whether the applicants were requesting that the Association be registered as a ‘political party’, for which specific rules apply. In addition, having regard to the Court’s case-law in respect of Article 11 of the Convention, as well as Article 46 of the Convention, under which the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments, the Court sees no reason to issue a specific ruling on the applicants’ request for registration” (§85).

• Information provided by the authorities of the respondent state (29/06/2009, 09/10/2009, 24/11/2009 and 05/01/2010):

Communication with the Constitutional Court: According to the authorities of the respondent state, the second applicant sent a letter to the Constitutional Court on 10/03/2009 in which he requested the transmission of his opinion concerning the need for constitutional reform to the President of the Republic and to the government. However, the second applicant raised no claim of a judicial character. Consequently, the Constitutional Court informed the applicant on 17/03/2009 that it had no competence to accede to his request. The authorities have also indicated that, following the judgment of the European Court, the applicants have not requested the reopening of proceedings before the Constitutional Court although they had the possibility to do so under domestic law.

Communication with the Ministry of Justice:  On 22/05/2009 the second applicant asked the Ministry of Justice for “the renewal of the registration” of the applicant association. On 28/05/2009 the Minister of Justice informed the second applicant that there was no possibility for the automatic registration of the applicant association and that the applicant might apply for registration under the applicable rules. In this respect, it was noted that the Central Register was in charge of registration of associations in accordance with the legislative amendments introduced in 2007.

Registration proceedings: The applicant association filed an application on 13/07/2009 with the Central Register requesting the re-registration of the association. On 20/07/2009 the Central Register informed the applicant association that it failed to comply with a number of formal requirements in its application and asked that these requirements were met. However, the applicant association did not comply with this request and thus the Central Register dismissed the application on 31/07/2009. The Central Register based its decision mainly on the following grounds:

-           the programme and Articles of Association of the applicant association had not been brought into compliance with the national regulations; the latter had been found to be directed towards violent destruction of the constitutional order of the respondent state and incitement to national or religious hatred or intolerance. The request was therefore not in conformity with Article 4 of the Law on Civic Associations and Foundations (“Law”);

-           the Articles of Association had not specified the activities to be carried out by the applicant association in order to obtain funds for its operation. Nor did they provide the possibility to establish a corporation to carry out such activities. This was found to be contrary to Articles 2 and 61 of the Law;

-           the applicant association had failed to submit the relevant documents attached to the registration applications in the standard official language used in the respondent state and had rather used certain Bulgarian words;

-           the applicant association had failed to submit a registration application instead of the re-registration application submitted earlier;

-           the applicant association had failed to describe its objectives.

On 07/08/2009, the applicant association lodged an appeal against the decision of 31/07/2009. The appeal contained only three lines. The applicant association did not specify any reasons, new facts or new evidence in its appeal. On 31/08/2009, the appeal was dismissed as unsubstantiated.

Proceedings before the Administrative Court: On 23/09/2009, the applicant association challenged the decision of 31/08/2009 before the Administrative Court. These administrative proceedings are still pending.

• Information provided by the applicants’ lawyer (09/10/2009): The authorities declined to register the applicant association on the same grounds which had already been found to be incompatible with the Convention in the present judgment. The applicants’ lawyer asked the Committee to indicate to the authorities that they were under an obligation to register the applicant association and to ask them what practical measures they would take to assist the applicant association in the re-registration procedure. He also stated that the applicants had filed a motion with the Constitutional Court asking for the reopening of the proceedings.

• Assessment: It is observed that the applicant association’s request for re-registration following the judgment of the European Court was rejected and that this decision had been challenged before the Administrative Court.

These proceedings are still pending. It is noted that the decision of the Central Register was not only based on formal grounds but also on the assessment made by the authorities that “the programme and the Articles of Association… had been found to be directed towards violent destruction of the constitutional order… and incitement to national or religious hatred or intolerance”. In this respect, it has to be recalled that the European Court found a violation in this case because it had not been demonstrated by the domestic courts why the objectives of the applicant association would destroy the constitutional order and would constitute an incitement to hatred and violence. Without prejudice to the fact that the appeal proceedings are pending before the Administrative Court, it is important to note that the authorities are expected to bear in mind the judgment of the European Court in this case when they give a decision on the merits of a request made following the finding of a violation of the European Court.

• Information is awaited on further developments in the proceedings before the Administrative Court and in particular whether or not the findings of the European Court in this case are taken into consideration in these proceedings.

General measures:

• Information provided by the authorities of the respondent state (29/06/2009 and 05/01/2010): The European Court's judgment has been translated and published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice (www.pravda.gov.mk). The Government Agent forwarded the judgment and the information on the violation found to the Constitutional Court, Ohrid Court of First Instance, all appeal courts in the country, the Supreme Court and the Central Register in charge of registering citizens’ associations. Apart from the publication and dissemination, no other measure has been envisaged since this violation is not perceived as a systemic problem in the country.

• Assessment: As indicated above, it does not appear from the decision of the Central Register that the findings of the European Court in this judgment have so far been taken into consideration by the authorities despite the publication and dissemination of the judgment. It therefore remains to be demonstrated what measures the authorities of the respondent state envisage to ensure that similar violations are prevented in the future.

• Information is thus awaited on other measures taken and/or envisaged in order to prevent similar violations in the future.

- 576 cases against Turkey / 576 affaires contre la Turquie

40073/98           Bilgin Ihsan, arrêt du 27/07/2006, définitif le 27/10/2006

Cette affaire concerne le manquement des autorités nationales à leur obligation de protéger le droit à la vie du père du requérant, eu égard à l'organisation et au déroulement d'une opération armée par des gardes villageois dans le Sud-Est de la Turquie, en 1994 (violation de l'article 2).

Une enquête pénale a été ouverte et les gardes villageois ont été mis en accusation pour homicide volontaire. La procédure a cependant été suspendue au motif que les gardes devaient être qualifiés de « fonctionnaires » et dès lors toute poursuite nécessitait l'aval du comité administratif. Sur décision du comité administratif, les poursuites ont été abandonnées.

La Cour européenne a relevé tout d'abord qu'il n'y avait aucune indication d'éventuelles instructions écrites ou orales données aux gardes dans le cadre de leurs fonctions, en particulier en cas d'arrestation de suspects. Elle a également relevé que les gardes ne disposaient pas de l'équipement nécessaire, comme des jumelles à infrarouge et des talkies-walkies, leur permettant d'identifier des suspects sans le moindre doute. Elle a conclu que dans les circonstances de l'affaire, le recours à la force par les gardes villageois n'avait pas été rendu absolument nécessaire pour assurer la défense d'autrui.

L'affaire concerne en l'outre l'inadéquation de l'enquête. La Cour européenne a rappelé la nécessité d'assurer l'indépendance des enquêteurs par rapport aux personnes impliquées pour qu'une enquête sur des allégations d'homicide par des agents de l'Etat puisse être effective. Dans cette affaire, l'inspecteur, un officier de la gendarmerie, relevait de la même hiérarchie que les gardes villageois (violation de l'article 2).

Enfin l'affaire concerne l'absence de recours effectif à la disposition du requérant, eu égard en particulier au fait que les comités administratifs ne pouvaient être considérés comme étant en mesure de mener des enquêtes effectives (violation de l'article 13).

Mesures de caractère individuel : Il convient de noter que selon la pratique bien établie du Comité des Ministres, le gouvernement de l'Etat défendeur a l'obligation continue de mener des enquêtes effectives a fortiori en cas de violation de l'article 2 (voir en particulier la Résolution intérimaire ResDH(2005)20 dans les affaires McKerr et autres affaires contre le Royaume-Uni, l'affaire Scavuzzo Hager et autres contre la Suisse, les affaires concernant les forces de sécurité en Fédération de Russie

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées par les autorités turques pour assurer une nouvelle enquête sur le décès du père du requérant, à la lumière des lacunes identifiées par la Cour européenne.

Mesures de caractère général : Les autorités turques ont fourni un plan d’action précisant les mesures générales prises dans le cadre de cette affaire. D’une part, le Gouvernement a rappelé que depuis janvier 2003, il n’était plus nécessaire d’obtenir une autorisation administrative préalable pour enquêter sur des accusations de torture et de mauvais traitements, suite aux modifications de la loi n^o 4483 relative aux poursuites à l’encontre des agents de l’Etat.

D’autre part, il a souligné qu’en tout état de cause, les gardes de village, investis d’une fonction temporaire au sein de l’administration générale, ne sont pas considérés, selon les dispositions de la loi n^o 442 (loi de village) et de la loi n^o 4483 relative aux poursuites à l’encontre des agents de l’Etat, comme des « fonctionnaires d’Etat», et en conséquence, aucune autorisation administrative n’est pas nécessaire pour l’ouverture de poursuites pénales à leur encontre. Enfin, les autorités ont souligné que l’arrêt de la Cour européenne dans la présente affaire avait été traduit en turc et publié sur le site Internet du Ministère de la Justice (www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/karar/ihsanbilgin.doc).

• Evaluation : Pour ce qui concerne les modifications apportées à la loi n^o 4483, le Comité des Ministres a souligné, dans le cadre des mesures générales concernant les actions des forces de sécurité en Turquie (CM/ResDH(208)69), que si la législation turque telle que modifiée a levé l’exigence d’une autorisation administrative en ce qui concerne les allégations de torture et de mauvais traitements, cette exigence continuait d’exister pou d’autres allégations d’infractions graves. Le Comité a donc demandé aux autorités turques de prendre les mesures législatives pour qu’aucune autorisation administrative ne soit désormais requise pour poursuivre non seulement des actes de tortures et de mauvais traitements mais aussi toute autre infraction grave. Or, en l’état actuel du droit turc, l’infraction d’homicide volontaire reprochée aux gardes de village dans le cas de l’espèce, semble néanmoins toujours exiger une autorisation administrative de la part de l’autorité compétente en vue de poursuivre les responsables.

Ensuite, concernant le statut des gardes villages dans l’administration générale et la question de savoir si une autorisation administrative est requise afin de les poursuivre au pénal, les dispositions législatives ci-dessus indiquées par le Gouvernement étaient en vigueur à l’époque des faits de la présente affaire, et n’ont pas empêché les autorités d’exiger une autorisation administrative pour poursuivre pénalement les gardes de village. Le Gouvernement n’a pas non plus indiqué de changement de jurisprudence ou de pratique administrative tendant à ne plus exiger d’autorisation pour poursuivre les gardes de village pour les infractions commises dans l’exercice des fonctions.   

• Des informations sont donc attenduessur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

8327/03            Kılavuz, arrêt du 21/10/2008, définitif le 21/01/2009

La présente affaire concerne le manquement des autorités pénitentiaires à leur obligation de protéger le droit à la vie du fils de la requérante, celui-ci s’étant suicidé à l’aide de sa ceinture, en novembre 2001, lorsqu’il était incarcéré à la prison de Bilecik.

La Cour européenne a estimé que bien que les problèmes psychologiques du fils de la requérante aient été confirmés dans un rapport médical versé à son dossier personnel auprès des autorités pénitentiaires et que le caractère variable de son état psychique indiquait que celui-ci avait à l’évidence besoin d’une surveillance étroite, les autorités n'avaient pas pris les mesures nécessaires pour protéger son droit à la vie (violation de l’article 2).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a alloué à la requérante une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral subi par son fils décédé et au titre de ses propres préjudices moral et matériel.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires ainsi que sur la traduction et la diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne à toutes les autorités concernées et notamment aux instances pénitentiaires.

32597/96           Dinç Halit et autres, arrêt du 19/09/2006, définitif le 19/12/2006

Cette affaire concerne le décès du proche des requérants, un sergent-chef, sous les balles tirées par un autre sergent, A.A. Le feu avait été ouvert lors du passage illégal d’un groupe de contrebandiers à la frontière entre la Turquie et la Syrie en 1994. La procédure pénale diligentée contre A.A. est toujours pendante devant les juridictions militaires.

La Cour européenne a relevé que la Cour de cassation militaire avait estimé fondé l’ordre donné par le commandant de régiment d’ouvrir le feu sans sommation dans le cadre de la surveillance de nuit de la frontière. La Cour européenne a estimé cependant qu’une telle instruction ne renfermait aucune garantie visant à empêcher que la mort ne soit infligée de manière arbitraire et qu’un tel cadre juridique était bien en deçà du niveau de protection par la loi du droit à la vie requis par la Convention et les sociétés démocratiques aujourd’hui en Europe. Elle a conclu que les autorités militaires turques n’avaient pas, à l‘époque, fait tout ce qu’on pouvait raisonnablement attendre d’elles pour offrir aux citoyens le niveau de protection requis dans le cas de recours à la force potentiellement meurtrière et pour parer aux risques réels pour la vie engendrés par des opérations militaires dans la zone frontalière (violation de l’article 2).

La Cour a en outre estimé que les autorités avaient manqué à leur obligation de mener une enquête effective dans la mesure où les déficiences initiales de l’enquête avaient rendu impossible l’identification, au-delà de tout doute raisonnable de l’identité de la personne responsable du décès du proche des requérants, après 12 ans de procédure (toujours pendante). La Cour a estimé que les requérants ne disposaient pas de recours effectif pour faire valoir leurs griefs au titre de la Convention (violations des articles 2 et 13).

Mesures de caractère individuel : Il convient de relever que suivant la pratique bien établie du Comité des Ministres, l’Etat défendeur a l’obligation continue de conduire des enquêtes effectives, a fortiori dans des cas où une violation de l’article 2 a été constatée (voir en particulier les affaires McKerr et autres affaires similaires contre le Royaume-Uni, Résolution intérimaire ResDH(2005)20, l’affaire Scavuzzo et autres contre la Suisse, les affaires concernant les actions des forces de sécurité contre la Fédération de Russie).

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (lettre du 15/12/2008) : Après un réexamen de l’affaire, le tribunal militaire d’Adana a acquitté le sergent A.A. et cette décision a été confirmée par le Cour de cassation militaire le 29/04/2008.

Les autorités estiment qu’elles ont ainsi rempli leur obligation découlant de la pratique bien établie du Comité des ministres, de conduire une enquête effective, notamment en cas de violation de l’article 2 de la Convention.

• Evaluation : En l’absence de l’arrêt du tribunal militaire d’Adana, rendu à l’issue de la procédure devant la Cour européenne, le Secrétariat n’est pas en mesure de préciser clairement si un réexamen de l’affaire de nature à remédier aux défaillances identifiées par la Cour européenne a été ouvert en droit interne. A titre d’exemple, les autorités turques n’ont pas informé le Secrétariat sur la question de savoir si les supérieurs de A.A. qui auraient donné l’ordre d’ouvrir le feu sans sommation, ont fait l’objet d’une enquête sur le plan national (§64 de l’arrêt) ou encore, sur la question de savoir si un examen balistique sur les fusils d’assaut, les douilles et les balles utilisées par les militaires durant l’opération en question a été effectué, de manière à établir au-delà de tout doute l’identité des responsables de la mort du proche des requérants (§ 65).

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées par les autorités turques pour assurer une nouvelle enquête sur les circonstances de cette affaire à la lumière des défaillances identifiées par la Cour européenne.

Mesures de caractère général : L’arrêt de la Cour européenne dans cette affaire, a été publié sur le site Internet du Ministère de la Justice (www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr). 

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées par les autorités turques en vue de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

45902/99           Kasa, arrêt du 20/05/2008, définitif le 20/08/2008

L’affaire concerne l’inefficacité d’une enquête menée sur les circonstances du décès du fils des requérants, au cours d’un affrontement armé en 1993 avec la police dans un centre commercial (violation procédurale de l’article 2).

Tout en estimant que le recours à la force par les policiers n’avait pas dépassé ce qui était « absolument nécessaire » pour assurer leur propre défense et effectuer une arrestation régulière, la Cour européenne a néanmoins relevé un certain nombre de lacunes dans l’enquête. Ainsi, elle a noté que les autorités d’enquête n’avaient commencé à interroger les policiers impliqués dans l’homicide du fils du requérant que quatre mois après, certains policiers n’ayant en fait été entendus que plus d’un an après.

Le gouvernement turc n’a donné aucune explication pour justifier ces retards. Ces policiers ayant été les seuls témoins oculaires, leur interrogatoire aurait dû constituer une priorité. La Cour a conclu que ce manquement était d’une gravité telle qu’il rendait toute l’enquête ineffective.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La position établie du Comité dans ce type d'affaire est qu'il existe une obligation continue de mener une enquête dans la mesure où une violation (procédurale) de l'article 2 a été constatée.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la question de savoir si les faits de cette affaire peuvent faire l'objet d'une nouvelle enquête.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires. Des informations sont également attendues sur la traduction et la diffusion de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne aux instances judiciaires compétentes.

28290/95           Güngör, judgment of 22/03/2005, final on 22/06/2005

The case concerns the lack of an effective investigation into the circumstances of the murder of the son of the applicant, at the time a Member of Parliament, in an official apartment in the parliamentary quarter of Ankara in 1991. The 21-year-old was found dead in his bed, having received multiple stab wounds and a bullet to the head. Criminal and parliamentary investigations initiated at the time failed to identify the perpetrators. 

The European Court pointed out the following shortcomings in those investigations: first, certain items of evidence – such as objects that were visible on a video recording made just after the crime was committed – had disappeared and were not among the exhibits in the case-file. Secondly, discrepancies between different expert reports demonstrated that the security forces had not done enough to preserve the evidence. Nor had they taken reasonable steps to follow up lines of inquiry suggested to them by different sources regarding the identity of the killers and the circumstances in which the crime had been committed.

The Court further found that although the investigators had considered it necessary to obtain statements from members of parliament living in the parliamentary quarter at the time of the murder and although there was no legal obstacle to prevent their doing so, they had not taken all the necessary statements (violation of Articles 2 and 13).

Individual measures: A commission was established by Parliament in February 2005 to carry out a fresh investigation into the murder of the applicant's son.

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities: In their reply of 22/11/2005 to the Secretariat's initial-phase letter of 13/10/2005, the Turkish authorities confirmed that the Parliamentary Investigation Commission had been set up but gave no information as to what steps it had taken so far. At the 982nd meeting (December 2006) the Turkish authorities indicated that the Commission had carried out a fresh investigation, including hearing witnesses and an on-site examination of the crime scene.

On 9/11/2007, the authorities informed the Secretariat that the parliamentary investigation had been completed. The Commission drafted a 148-page report after examining 124 witnesses including parliamentarians, police officials, former Ministers, friends of the applicant’s family and officials who had participated to the procedure with different titles. 

In its report, concerning the criminal investigation, the Commission stated that its findings must be taken into consideration by the judicial authorities as new evidence, so that certain testimony and evidence could be re-evaluated. The Commission clearly highlighted the contradictions and inconsistencies between the different witness statements and certain evidence collected and added that those responsible for carrying out the initial investigation might have been negligent in carrying out their duties.

A general debate was held on the Commission’s report in Parliament under Article 98 of the Constitution. The President of the Commission sent the report to the Principal Public Prosecutor’s Office and requested that the findings stated in the report should be taken as new evidence to initiate a new prosecution.

• Information is awaited as to whether a new criminal investigation has been initiated by the judicial authorities after receiving the Commission’s report.

General measures: The Court considered that Turkey must act without delay to discharge its obligation to ensure that its legislation is clarified so that parliamentary immunity no longer operates in practice to prevent prosecutions for ordinary criminal offences in cases in which members of parliament or their families are involved as possible witnesses or suspects (see §111 of the judgment).

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities: In their letters of 22/11/2005, and 9/11/2007, the Turkish authorities underlined that the sole purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect parliamentarians in respect of actions falling within their function. Parliamentary immunity does not prevent the investigatory authorities from carrying out criminal investigations concerning parliamentarians, but only requires the Assembly’s prior consent for their arrest, detention or trial. However, this prerequisite shall not apply in situations of flagrant délit. On the other hand, there is no such a prerequisite for taking testimony of the parliamentarians concerning incidents they witnessed.  In any event, it is clear that immunity does not extend to parliamentarians' families, in respect of whom the authorities are free to take any necessary investigatory measures in the framework of criminal investigations.

According to the Turkish authorities, provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure will prevent new, similar violations.

• Assessment: The Secretariat notes that the first part of the submissions by the Turkish authorities had already been refuted by the Court, which explicitly referred to the measures Turkey must take to avoid future violations (§111). On the other hand, it is observed that the provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure do not address the particular problem underlined in this judgment.

Therefore, information is awaited as to what further measures the Turkish authorities envisage so that parliamentary immunity no longer operates in practice as an obstacle to carrying out criminal investigations. Information would also be useful as to whether there are examples of court decisions or investigative material demonstrating the positive effect of the dissemination of the judgment to the relevant authorities in their practice in cases in which members of parliament or their families are involved as possible witnesses or suspects.

33401/02           Opuz, judgment of 09/06/2009, final on 09/09/2009

The case relates to the authorities’ failure to protect the applicant and her mother from domestic violence. The European Court found that the authorities had failed to protect the right to life of the applicant’s mother who was killed by the applicant’s ex-husband even though the authorities had been repeatedly alerted about his violent behaviour (violation of Article 2).

The case also concerns the authorities’ failure to take protective measures in the form of effective deterrence against serious breaches of the applicant’s personal integrity by her ex-husband’s violent and abusive behaviour (violation of Article 3).

Lastly, the case concerns the discrimination suffered in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 in that the violence suffered by the applicant and her mother was gender-based, which amounted to a form of discrimination against women, particularly considering that, in cases of domestic violence in Turkey, the general passivity of the judicial system and impunity enjoyed by aggressors mainly affected women (violation of Article 14).

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

63748/00           Taştan, arrêt du 04/03/2008, définitif le 04/06/2008

L’affaire concerne le traitement dégradant subi par le requérant en ce qu’il a été contraint en mars 2000, d’effectuer son service militaire à l’âge de 71 ans et dans des conditions incompatible avec sa santé et son âge. L’affaire concerne en outre l’absence de recours effectif à ce titre (violation de l’article 3 combiné à l’article 13).

La Cour européenne a noté que le gouvernement avait indiqué que, conformément à la pratique dans des cas similaires, le dossier personnel de l’intéressé concernant son service militaire avait été détruit. Donc, la Cour ne possédait que peu d’éléments, en dehors des déclarations du requérant, concernant les circonstances dans lesquelles s’était déroulée la période où il avait été maintenu sous les drapeaux, ou la façon dont il avait pu exprimer ses doléances aux médecins et à ses supérieurs hiérarchiques, alors qu’il ne parlait que le kurde.

Bien que le requérant n’ait pas été atteint d’une maladie particulière au moment où il avait été appelé sous les drapeaux, son état de santé s’est dégradé et il avait dû être hospitalisé au bout d’un mois de participation forcée aux entraînements militaires prévus pour des appelés de 20 ans. Par ailleurs, le Gouvernement turc ne s’est référé à aucune mesure particulière prise dans le but d’atténuer, pour le cas spécifique du requérant, les difficultés propres au service militaire ou d’adapter le service obligatoire à son cas. La Cour a estimé que le recrutement et le maintien du requérant sous les drapeaux, et le fait qu’il ait dû participer à des entraînements réservés à des recrues beaucoup plus jeunes que lui, avaient constitué une épreuve particulièrement douloureuse.

La Cour européenne a relevé en outre que la législation nationale ne prévoyait pas de voie de recours en annulation pour la situation particulière du requérant et que la destruction de son dossier l'aurait de toute manière empêché d'user d'une éventuelle voie d'indemnisation.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Le requérant a été exempté du service militaire en avril 2000. En outre, la Cour européenne a accordé une satisfaction équitable pour le préjudice moral subi.

• Évaluation: Dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : Les conclusions de la Cour européenne dans cette affaire démontrent que les autorités n'ont pas pris les mesures visant à adapter les conditions du service militaire obligatoire à la situation spécifique du requérant. En outre la loi ne prévoit pas de limite d’âge pour l’accomplissement de cette obligation. Par conséquent, les autorités sont invitées à indiquer les mesures prises ou envisagées à cet égard.

Le 7/08/2008, le Secrétariat a adressé une lettre de phase initiale aux autorités turques en ce qui concerne les mesures générales prises ou envisagées. Une réponse des autorités est attendue.

• Des informations sont également attendues sur la publication et la diffusion étendue de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne à toutes les autorités concernées.

70417/01           Avcı et autres, arrêt du 27/06/2006, définitif le 27/09/2006

2778/02            Yıldırım Hüseyin, arrêt du 03/05/2007, définitif le 03/08/2007

Ces affaires concernent les traitements dégradants infligés aux requérants durant leur détention en prison (violations de l’article 3).

Dans l’affaire Avcı et autres, les requérants ont été entravés à leur lit par la cheville alors qu’ils étaient dans le coma dans le service des soins intensifs. La Cour européenne a estimé que les mesures d'entrave étaient disproportionnées au vu de l’état de santé des requérants et de l'absence réaliste de risque de fuite.

Dans l’affaire Yıldırım Hüseyin, le requérant souffrait de paralysie pendant sa détention. Il a été maintenu en détention provisoire pendant presque trois ans en dépit de son incapacité physique et de rapports médicaux attestant qu’il n’était pas en mesure de subir une peine d’emprisonnement (violation de l'article 3).

L’affaire Avcı et autres concerne également la violation du droit des requérants à un recours effectif étant donné la décision des autorités nationales de ne pas poursuivre les gendarmes responsables (violation de l’article 13).

Mesures de caractère individuel :

1) Avcı et autres : Le 11/05/2007 les autorités turques on répondu à la lettre de première phase du Secrétariat du 09/03/2007. Elles ont indiqué qu’aucune enquête n’avait été ouverte par le Procureur d’Izmir.

            2) Yıldırım Hüseyin : le requérant a été gracié en juin 2004 en vertu de l’article 104 b. de la Constitution.

• Des informations sont toujours attendues sur les mesures envisagées par les autorités turques afin de remédier aux carences des enquêtes diligentées contre les gendarmes présumés responsables.

Mesures de caractère général : Les autorités turques se sont référées en premier lieu au Règlement relatif à l’administration pénitentiaire, à l’exécution des peines et aux mesures de sécurité. En deuxième lieu, elles ont soumis des informations concernant un protocole d’accord conclu le 30/10/2003 entre les Ministères de l’Intérieur et de la Santé, couvrant les conditions d’hospitalisation des détenus en établissement civil, les mesures de sécurité à prendre dans de telles circonstances et la création d’unités sanitaires carcérales au sein des hôpitaux. Toutefois, aucun des deux textes ne semble inclure de disposition en matière de mesures de contrainte.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées pour prévenir de nouvelles violations semblables.

26050/04           Gürbüz, arrêt du 10/11/2005, définitif le 10/02/2006

24040/04           Kuruçay, arrêt du 10/11/2005, définitif le 10/02/2006

7454/04            Uyan, arrêt du 10/11/2005, définitif le 10/02/2006

22913/04           Yıldız Tekin, arrêt du 10/11/2005, définitif le 10/02/2006

Dans toutes ces affaires, la Cour européenne a estimé qu’il y aurait violation de l’article 3 si les autorités turques décidaient de réincarcérer les requérants, précédemment libérés pour raison de santé, sans qu’il y ait un net changement dans leur aptitude médicale à endurer une telle mesure.

Les requérants avaient été initialement condamnés à différentes périodes de réclusion en raison de leur appartenance à des organisations terroristes. Durant leur détention, ils ont été diagnostiqués comme souffrant du syndrome de Wernicke-Korsakoff (encéphalopathie consistant en une perte de certaines fonctions cérébrales et résultant d’une carence en vitamine B1 (thiamine)) en raison d’une grève de la faim. La Cour européenne a constaté que le diagnostic médical initial avait été confirmé par les plusieurs contrôles médicaux, y compris les résultats du comité d’experts désigné par la Cour, et que l’état de santé des intéressés avait été jugé incompatible avec leur détention. En outre, il existait chez les requérants des signes cérébelleux importants qui pouvaient être considérés comme étant définitifs.

En outre dans l’affaire Yıldız Tekin, la Cour européenne a estimé que la réincarcération du requérant entre le 21/11/2003 et le 27/07/2004 avait constitué un traitement inhumain et dégradant au vu de son état de santé (violation de l’article 3).

Mesures de caractère individuel :

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (08/06/2006) : Les condamnations de tous les requérants ont été suspendues : le 28/04/2004 dans l’affaire Gürbüz, le 11/03/2005 dans l’affaire Yıldız Tekin et le 15/09/2004 dans l’affaire Uyan. Cette mesure de suspension s’applique pour une durée illimitée jusqu’à ce que les requérants soient guéris du syndrome de Wernicke-Korsakoff (guérison devant être attestée par un rapport médical), et soient ainsi en mesure de purger leur peine d’emprisonnement. Par conséquent, les requérants ne courent plus le risque d’être emprisonné. La requérante, dans l’affaire Günnaz Kuruçay est en fuite et sa condamnation est toujours valide.

De plus, le 24/07/2006, les autorités turques ont indiqué qu’à la suite de l’entrée en vigueur du nouveau Code pénal en juin 2005, les requérants avaient saisi les tribunaux pour bénéficier de la nouvelle législation qui prévoit des sanctions inférieures à celles qui leur ont été imposées.

Le 21/08/2007, les autorités ont informé le Secrétariat de ce que le 10e Cour d’assise d’Istanbul avait pris une nouvelle décision concernant l’exécution de la sentence de M Tekin Yıldız. La Cour a décidé qu’au vu de la durée de sa détention antérieure, le requérant avait exécuté la totalité de sa peine. Pour cette raison, le requérant ne peut pas faire l’objet d’un mandat d’arrêt ou être emprisonné.

• Evaluation : Dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général : A la lumière des conclusions de la mission d’enquête de la Cour européenne en Turquie concernant 53 affaires similaires, la Cour a estimé devoir indiquer au gouvernement les mesures qui lui semblaient aptes à pallier certains problèmes relevés dans ces affaires, ceci pour l’aider ce dernier à remplir ses obligations au titre de l’article 46 de la Convention. Selon la Cour, le problème majeur est surtout lié à la pratique des magistrats consistant à délivrer des mandats impliquant l’arrestation d’une personne condamnée, mais qui bénéficie d’une libération provisoire pour motif médical. Il ressort des dossiers que de telles mesures ont été prises dans l’un ou l’autre des trois cas suivants : (i) lorsqu’il fallait faire réexaminer l’intéressé par l’institut médico-légal (par exemple, l’affaire Uyan), (ii) lorsqu’il fallait évaluer la situation de l’intéressé à l’expiration du délai de sursis qui lui avait été accordé, ou bien (iii) lorsqu’il fallait procéder à la réincarcération de l’intéressé, suite à un rapport médico-légal ultérieur et défavorable de l’institut médicolégal (par exemple, l’affaire Gürbüz).

Or, dans les deux premiers cas, le but recherché pouvait être atteint au moyen d’invitations judiciaires ou de mandats à comparaître qui sont des possibilités prévues par le code pénal. S’agissant du troisième cas, la Cour observe une lacune procédurale. En effet, d’après l’article 15 de la loi n^o 2659 sur l’institut médico-légal, seul un procureur ou un juge est autorisé à remettre en cause les conclusions d’un rapport d’expertise devant la chambre plénière de l’institut.

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (24/07/2006) :

La loi sur l’exécution des peines et les mesures de sûreté (loi n° 5275) prévoit que les prisonniers qui refusent de s’alimenter quel qu’en soit le motif, doivent être informés par les médecins de la prison des dangers qu’ils encourent aussi bien sur le plan physique que psychologique. Les services sociaux doivent s’assurer que les prisonniers ne soient pas encouragés à refuser de s’alimenter. En cas de refus persistant, leur régime alimentaire doit être déterminé par les médecins de la prison.

Les prisonniers qui persistent à refusent de s’alimenter et dont la santé se détériore doivent être pris en charge par le personnel médical de la prison ou hospitalisés le cas échéant, y compris contre leur gré si leur vie est en danger.

En tout état de cause, toutes les mesures indiquées visant à la protection de la santé des prisonniers doivent être prises sous le contrôle du personnel médical.

• Evaluation : Les informations fournies par les autorités turques semblent utiles dans la mesure où elles montrent que le droit turc contient désormais des garanties supplémentaires pour la protection de la santé des prisonniers, en particulier ceux qui décident de faire une grève de la faim.

• Des informations sont attendues néanmoins sur la question de savoir si la pratique d’émettre des mandats d’arrêt à l’encontre de personnes condamnées mais libérées pour raisons de santé est toujours suivie.

70337/01           Güveç, judgment of 20/01/2009, final on 20/04/2009

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicant, aged 15, by putting him for five years in a prison for adults, where he made several suicide attempts, as well as the authorities’ failure in their obligation to provide appropriate medical care given his psychological condition and, finally, their failure to take steps with a view to preventing his repeated suicide attempts (violation of Article 3 in its substantial aspect).

The case also concerns the excessive length of his detention on remand (violation of Article 5§3), and the fact that he had no real opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of this detention (violation of Article 5§4). 

The case lastly concerns the lack of legal assistance for most of the proceedings (a lawyer assigned by the trial court of its own motion did not appear at most of the hearings) so that the applicant was unable to participate effectively in the trial (violation of Article 6§1 in conjunction with Article 6§3 c).

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

- 51 affaires concernant le défaut d’enquête effective au titre des actions des forces de sécurité turques

            (Voir Annexe pour la liste des affaires dans le groupe d’affaires Batı)

Ces affaires concernent les lacunes des procédures nationales (dont certaines sont encore pendantes) concernant des enquêtes conduites sur les abus commis par des membres des forces de sécurité, en particulier les mauvais traitements infligés aux requérants ou le décès de leurs proches dans des circonstances engageant la responsabilité de l'Etat.

Dans ces affaires, les déficiences procédurales constatées par la Cour européenne, dans la conduite des enquêtes, lesquelles ont eu pour conséquence d’accorder une quasi-impunité aux agents de sécurité mis en cause, sont les suivantes :

- la durée excessive de l’enquête menée à l’encontre des agents d’Etat impliqués,

- le défaut d’indépendance des autorités ayant mené l’enquête,

- l’impossibilité pour les requérants d’avoir accès au dossier de l’enquête,

- l’impossibilité pour les requérants d’interroger les témoins et les agents accusés,

- l’impunité résultant de l’application des règles de prescription,

- des décisions de sursis au jugement ou de sursis à l’exécution des peines rendues à l’encontre des agents accusés,

- le défaut de suspension des agents d’Etat de leurs fonctions malgré l’existence de poursuites à leur encontre pour mauvais traitement,

- l’insuffisance des rapports médicaux préparés par les experts,

- la clémence des peines d’emprisonnement infligées aux agents de police impliqués,

- la relaxe conditionnelle qui a été appliquée aux agents condamnés pour mauvais traitements.

Mesures de caractère individuel :

            1) Affaire Demir Ceyhan et autres : Le 2/08/2006, les autorités turques ont indiqué au Secrétariat que la Cour d'assises de Diyarbakır avait décidé le 27/02/2006 d'abandonner les poursuites pénales à l'encontre du médecin de la prison qui avait autorisé le transfert du proche des requérants, ceci en raison de la prescription. Cette décision peut faire l'objet d'un appel.

En outre, le 12/04/2006, la Cour d'assises de Diyarbakır a décidé d'acquitter les gendarmes responsables du transfert du proche des requérants. La Cour d'assises a pris bonne note de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne établissant que les autorités turques portaient la responsabilité du décès du proche des requérants mais a estimé que les gendarmes (des conscrits au moment des faits) avaient agi sur ordre légal de leur supérieur et sur la base d'un rapport médical établissant que le proche des requérants était apte à être transféré dans une autre prison. Elle a estimé qu'aucun autre élément dans le dossier ne permettait d'établir que les gendarmes mis en accusation étaient responsables du décès du proche des requérants. Cette décision peut également faire l'objet d'un appel.

• Des informations sont attendues sur l'issue des procédures en appel.

            2) Affaire Sunal : le 31/10/2005, les autorités turques ont informé le Secrétariat de ce que le Procureur général d'Izmir avait décidé le 26/09/2005 d'abandonner les poursuites à l'encontre des policiers accusés, pour cause de prescription.

            3) Affaires Karabulut Mustafa, Yılmaz Hürriyet¸ Ağdaş, .Y. et Hü.Y., Şahin Zülcihan et autres, şimşek et autres et Yaman Abdülsamet :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les possibilités de réouverture des procédures nationales contre les membres des forces de sécurités mis en cause ou sur toutes autres mesures ad hoc prises ou envisagées à la suite des arrêts de la Cour européenne.

            4) a) Affaires Sunal, Yeşil et Sevim, Tamer Fazıl Ahmet et autres, Öktem et Türkmen (violations des articles 3 et/ou 13) :

• Etant donné que l’action pénale est prescrite dans ces affaires, des informations sont attendues sur les mesures envisagées, y compris la possibilité de sanctions disciplinaires contre les agents de police.

            5) Affaire Türkmen (violation de l’article 6§1) : Cette affaire est à rapprocher du groupe Gençel (voir rubrique 4.1). La Cour européenne a rappelé sa jurisprudence selon laquelle lorsqu'un particulier a été condamné par un tribunal qui ne remplissait pas les conditions d'indépendance et d'impartialité exigées par l’article 6§1, un nouveau procès ou une réouverture de la procédure, à la demande de l'intéressé, représente en principe un moyen approprié de redresser la violation constatée. Les requérants ne peuvent cependant pas obtenir la réouverture en raison de l’inapplicabilité de la loi dans leur affaire. Les requérants ont cependant été libérés en 2002 et 2003 suite à une grâce présidentielle, et vivent actuellement en Allemagne où ils ont obtenu l’asile politique. En juillet 2006, leur affaire a été rouverte en vertu des dispositions du nouveau Code de procédure pénale. En février 2007, la Cour d’assises d’Istanbul a réajusté les condamnations précédentes des requérants en application du nouveau Code et a réduit leur peine à 6 ans et 3 mois d’emprisonnement.

• Evaluation : Ces développements sont positifs. Cependant, il semble que la Cour d’assises se soit limitée à réévaluer la peine encourue en vertu du nouveau Code pénal et ne se soit pas penchée sur le fond de l’affaire.

• Des informations sont par conséquent attendues sur les mesures envisagées pour assurer une réparation appropriée.

6) Autres affaires : Conformément à la pratique bien établie du Comité des Ministres, il est rappelé que l'État défendeur a l'obligation continue de conduire des enquêtes effectives, a fortiori dans une affaire emportant violation de l'article 2 (voir en particulier la Résolution intérimaire ResDH(2005)20 dans l'affaire McKerr et autres contre le Royaume-Uni, l'affaire Scavuzzo-Hager et autres contre la Suisse, les affaires concernant l'action des forces de sécurité en Fédération de Russie).

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées par les autorités turques pour octroyer une réparation adéquate aux requérants.

Mesures de caractère général :

            1) Règles de prescription introduites avec l'entrée en vigueur du nouveau Code pénal :

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques :

- Le nouveau Code pénal prévoit des périodes de prescription plus longues que celles prévues par l'ancien code. En cas de torture, la prescription est de 15 ans dans la mesure où l'article 94 du nouveau code sanctionne la torture d'une peine d'emprisonnement de 3 à 12 ans. La même prescription s'applique lorsque ce crime est commis sur un enfant, une personne handicapée, une femme enceinte, un juriste ou un policier dans l'exercice de ses fonctions. Si le crime est commis dans le cadre d'un harcèlement sexuel, cette règle de prescription s'applique également.

- En cas de torture aggravée (article 95§1 du Code), la prescription est de 20 ans.

- Si les actes de torture commis à l'encontre d'une personne ont eu pour effet d'entraîner une maladie incurable, des dysfonctionnements des organes ou de la perception, une perte de l'usage de la parole, la stérilité ou une fausse-couche (article 95§2 du Code) la prescription est également de 20 ans.

- Si la personne décède des suites des actes de torture infligés (article 95§4), la prescription est de 30 ans.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les règles de prescription en cas de décès dans des circonstances engageant la responsabilité des forces de sécurité, ainsi qu'en cas de décès lorsque la victime est tuée par une personne non identifiée.

            2) Sécurité des détenus durant leurs transferts d'une prison à un autre établissement pénitentiaire :

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques :

- Le Ministère de la Justice a émis une circulaire le 27/06/2005 afin que toutes les précautions nécessaires soient prises par les autorités lors de transferts de prisonniers. Il y est indiqué que tous les prisonniers doivent faire l'objet d'un examen médical avant leur transfert et que les prisonniers qui ne sont pas jugés aptes à voyager, doivent être immédiatement transférés dans un hôpital ou un établissement médical.

- Les arrêts de la Cour européenne ont été publiés et diffusés à toutes les autorités concernées dans les affaires Demir Ceyan et autres (cet arrêt figure également sur le site Internet de la Cour de cassation (www.yargitay.gov.tr) et Abdülsamet Yaman (Bulletin du Ministère de la Justice du 19/04/2005, n° 273).

• Des informations sont attendues sur la publication et la diffusion des arrêts de la Cour européenne en particulier aux forces de police, aux procureurs, aux cours d'assises et à la Cour de cassation.

- 11 affaires concernant principalement le recours excessif à la force en vue de disperser des manifestations illégales mais pacifiques

74552/01           Ataman Oya, arrêt du 05/12/2006, définitif le 05/03/2007

31451/03           Açık et autres, arrêt du 13/01/2009, définitif le 13/04/2009

32124/02+         Aldemir Nurettin et autres, arrêt du 18/12/2007, définitif le 02/06/2008

25/02               Balçık et autres, arrêt du 29/11/2007, définitif le 29/02/2008

34027/03           Dur, arrêt du 18/09/2008, définitif le 18/12/2008

16999/04           Karabulut Samüt, arrêt du 27/01/2009, définitif le 27/04/2009

33112/04+         Karatepe et autres, arrêt du 07/04/2009, définitif le 07/07/2009

9207/03            Öktem Evrim, arrêt du 04/11/2008, définitif le 04/02/2009

68263/01           Şahin et autres, arrêt du 21/12/2006, définitif le 21/03/2007

4327/02            Saya et autres, arrêt du 07/10/2008, définitif le 07/01/2009

42234/02           Ümit Erdem Mehmet, arrêt du 17/07/2008, définitif le 17/10/2008

Ces affaires concernent des violations du droit des requérants à la liberté de réunion et l’usage excessif de la force afin de disperser des manifestations illégales mais pacifiques. 

L’affaire Oya Ataman concerne la violation du droit de la requérante à la liberté de réunion en raison de la dispersion par les autorités, avec emploi de la force, d'une manifestation illégale mais pacifique, en 2000, à laquelle participaient entre 40 et 50 personnes, y compris la requérante. La requérante a organisé cette manifestation à Istanbul, consistant en une marche suivie d'une déclaration à la presse, destinée à protester contre un certain plan du gouvernement. Lorsque les manifestants ont refusé de se séparer, la police les a dispersés, empêchant ainsi la déclaration à la presse d'avoir lieu.

La Cour européenne a établi que la réunion était illégale. Cependant, elle a expliqué qu'une situation illégale ne pouvait justifier une atteinte à la liberté de réunion. La Cour a souligné qu'il n'y avait pas lieu de penser que les manifestants représentaient un quelconque danger pour l'ordre public, hormis une éventuelle perturbation de la circulation. Le rassemblement a pris fin avec l'arrestation du groupe, en une demi-heure seulement. La Cour a été particulièrement frappée par l'impatience manifestée par les autorités pour mettre fin à la manifestation organisée sous l'autorité d'une association de droits de l'homme. De l'avis de la Cour, il est important que les autorités publiques fassent preuve d'un certain degré de tolérance à l'égard de rassemblements pacifiques lorsque les manifestants ne commettent pas d'actes de violence. Dans ces circonstances, la Cour a considéré que l'emploi de la force par la police était disproportionné et n'était pas nécessaire à la prévention de troubles (violation de l'article 11).

De la même façon, dans les affaires Nurettin Aldemir et autres et Samut Karabulut, la Cour européenne a constaté la violation du droit des requérants à la liberté de réunion en se basant sur des faits similaires (violations de l’article 11).

Dans l’affaire Saya et autres, une manifestation avait eu lieu à Adıyaman le 01/05/1999. Même si la manifestation en question avait été autorisée par le gouverneur de la ville, elle a été dispersée par la police qui a placé les manifestants en garde à vue. Outre la violation de l’article 11 de la Convention, la Cour a constaté une violation de l’article 3 de la Convention sous ses volets matériel et procédural. 

L'affaire Şahin et autres concerne l'usage excessif de la force par la police (violation de l'article 3) et l'inefficacité de l'enquête menée à la suite des plaintes déposées par les requérants à l'encontre des policiers (violation de l'article 13) (voir aussi l’affaire Evrim Öktem). Une manifestation réputée illégale avait eu lieu à Istanbul en 1998. Au moment de l'intervention des forces de sécurité chargées de la disperser, des affrontements s'étaient produits et les manifestants s'en étaient pris aux policiers à coup de bâtons et de jets de pierres, blessant trente-six d'entre eux, ce qui avait entraîné l'arrestation de 261 personnes, dont les requérants.

Suite aux plaintes des requérant au parquet, au titre des blessures subies et résultant d'un usage excessif de la force par les policiers, le parquet a décidé d'abandonner l'enquête, considérant que l'intervention avait été légitime et que les blessures infligées aux requérantes (diverses contusions) ne révélaient pas un usage disproportionné de la force. Le recours exercé par les requérantes devant la Cour d'assises a été rejeté pour les mêmes motifs.

La Cour européenne a estimé qu'il existait un cadre juridique interne prévoyant la dispersion d'une manifestation, lequel fixe les limites admissibles dans lesquelles ce recours à la force peut s'exercer. Or celui-ci n'a pas été effectif en l'espèce, dans la mesure où le parquet était convaincu de la nécessité de l'intervention policière et de sa proportionnalité avec les buts poursuivis.

Dans l’affaire Balçık et autres la Cour européenne a constaté des violations des articles 3 et 11 en se basant sur des faits similaires. Il en est de même des affaires Mehmet Ümit Erdem, Açık et autres et Dur, dans lesquelles l’usage excessif de la force afin de disperser des manifestations, a conduit la Cour européenne à constater une violation de l’article 3 de la Convention.

Mesures de caractère individuel :

• Evaluation : Etant donné les circonstances des affaires Oya Ataman, Açık et autres, Samut Karabulut et Nurettin Aldemir et autres, aucune mesure de caractère individuel ne semble nécessaire dans ces affaires.

• Des informations sont attendues au sujet de toute mesure individuelle prise ou envisagée par les autorités dans les affaires Şahin et autres, Balçık et autres, Evrim Öktem, Saya, Dur et Mehmet Ümit Erdem.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (lettre du 11/09/2007) dans le contexte de l’affaire Şahin et autresconcernant les modifications législatives applicables : La loi n° 2911, notamment ses articles 22, 23 et 24, réglementant les réunions et les manifestations contient désormais une description détaillée de ce qui constitue une réunion ou une manifestation « illégale ». Entre autres, ces dispositions incluent le port d'armes à feux, de matériel explosif, de bâtons ou d'outils coupants ou perforants ; le fait de brandir des affiches, des pancartes et des signes appartenant à des organismes ou groupes illégaux ; et le fait de tenir des réunions publiques ou manifestations après ou avant l'heure et la date fixée ou en dehors des lieux annoncées. Lorsqu'une réunion ou manifestation initialement légale devient illégale (dans les circonstances énumérées ci-dessus), l'article 23 de la loi exige de l'officier de la police responsable d'obtenir une autorisation du gouverneur avant d'agir pour la disperser. En cas de résistance ou d'agression des manifestants contre les forces de sécurité ou d'agression contre des tiers, la police peut intervenir en utilisant la force sans autre avertissement. Si parmi les manifestants des personnes ont des armes ou d'autres objets dangereux, ils seront éloignés du groupe par les forces de sécurité, et la réunion ou la manifestation pourra ensuite se poursuivre. Les policiers qui interviennent doivent essayer de maintenir un équilibre entre les droits des manifestants à participer à une réunion ou à une manifestation, et la prévention des abus de ces droits.

En vertu de l'article 25 du règlement de la force d'intervention de la police, afin de disperser une réunion ou une manifestation illégale, la police doit d'abord avertir le groupe par le biais de haut-parleurs, elle doit disperser paisiblement le groupe et en cas de résistance la force pourra être utilisée. Le même article dispose que l'utilisation de la force doit observer le principe de proportionnalité, et doit être graduelle le cas échéant. L'article 4 du même règlement contient une disposition similaire en matière de proportionnalité dans le cadre du « recours à la force ».

Les autorités turques ont également confirmé que l'arrêt de la Cour européenne avait été traduit et diffusé auprès des différentes juridictions, et également adressé au Ministère de l'Intérieur. Le texte traduit en turc est également disponible sur le site Internet du Ministère de la Justice http://www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/karar/guzelsahinvedigerleri.doc .

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques le 21/04/2008, dans le contexte de l’affaire Oya Ataman, sur la législation applicable en matière de la liberté de réunion et des manifestations publiques : L’amendement de l’article 16 de la loi n° 2559 sur les fonctions et la compétence de la police, intervenu le 2/06/2007, a consacré le principe selon lequel les armes à feu doivent être utilisées de façon progressive et proportionnellement échelonnée aux caractéristiques et au degré de la résistance et de l’agression pour immobiliser les contrevenants. Par ailleurs, dans le but de prévenir l’utilisation par la police d’une force disproportionnée, les autorités ont publié à différentes dates plusieurs circulaires et ont adopté diverses ordonnances générales concernant les procédés et comportements à adopter par la police dans le cadre d’une intervention aux cours de réunions et manifestations. Ces circulaires et ordonnances semblent également prévoir l’ouverture de procédures administratives et disciplinaires à l’encontre des agents qui auraient recouru à la force de manière disproportionnée, et souligner la nécessité de l’usage de tous les procédés de dissuasion avant le recours à la force qui ne doit intervenir qu’en dernier recours. Enfin, des cours et séminaires auraient également été organisés pour les agents chargés d’assurer la sécurité aux cours des réunions et manifestations. Selon les informations fournies par le Gouvernement, chaque année 14 020 agents suivent des cours de formations organisés par la Direction générale de la Sûreté dans le cadre du « programme de formation interne des forces de sécurité».

L’arrêt de la Cour européenne dans l’affaire Oya Ataman a été publié et diffusé. Cet arrêt a également été placé sur le site Internet du Ministère de la Justice à www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/karar/oyaataman10032008.doc ainsi que sur celui de la Cour de Cassation : www.yargitay.gov.tr/aihm/upload/74552-01.pdf.

• Evaluation : Concernant la législation indiquée en matière de la liberté de réunion et des manifestations publiques, dans le cadre des affaires Şahin et autres et Oya Ataman, il convient de faire les observations suivantes :

1.- Pour ce qui concerne les articles 22, 23 et 24 de la loi n° 2911 réglementant les réunions et les manifestations, ces dispositions étaient déjà en vigueur à l’époque des faits des affaires précitées et il semble qu’elles n’aient subi aucun amendement depuis. Le seul amendement est celui apporté, le 30/07/1998, à l’article 23§b de cette loi dans le cadre de la définition d’une « manifestation illégale » (à savoir lorsque les manifestants portent des emblèmes appartenant à des organisations illégales ou lorsque le visage des manifestants est totalement ou partiellement couvert pour cacher leur identité etc.).

2.- Il en va de même des articles 4 et 25 du règlement d’intervention de la police. Ces dispositions étaient en vigueur à l’époque des faits.

3.- En ce qui concerne l’amendement du 2/06/2007, introduit à l’article 16 de la loi n° 2559 sur les fonctions et la compétence de la police, il est vrai que cet amendement a consacré le principe du recours à la force policière de façon progressive et proportionnellement échelonnée aux caractéristiques et au degré de résistance et d’agression des manifestants. Cependant, à l’époque des faits, le même principe était déjà consacré par l’article 6§2 annexé de la loi n° 2559 avant l’amendement de 2007). Les autres amendements de 2007 à la loi n° 2559 concernent les empreintes digitales (article 5), des fouilles corporelles (article 9) ou des contrôles d’identité (article 17) et ne portent pas spécifiquement sur le comportement de la police aux cours des réunions et des manifestations publiques.

4.- Enfin, les autorités turques indiquent que plusieurs circulaires et diverses ordonnances adoptées à différentes dates circonscrivent clairement les limites du recours à la force de la part de la police et prévoient des procédures à l’encontre des membres de sécurité qui auraient fait usage d’une force disproportionnée aux cours des manifestations publiques. Une évaluation de la portée de ces circulaires et ordonnances exige des informations plus détaillées en ces matières.

En conclusion, il convient de rappeler que selon la jurisprudence constante de la Cour européenne, une situation irrégulière dans l’organisation d’une manifestation publique, n’a pas pour effet automatique de justifier, en l’absence d’autres éléments comme l’absence de caractère pacifique d’une manifestation, une atteinte à la liberté de réunion consacrée par l’article 11 de la Convention (notamment, paragraphe 39 de l’arrêt Oya Ataman).  

• Des informations sont donc attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires, notamment sur les circulaires et ordonnances publiées à la suite de l’adoption des arrêts de la Cour européenne. 

- 3 affaires concernant le recours excessif à la force en vue de réprimer une émeute au sein d'une prison et l'absence d'enquête effective

35962/97          Gömi et autres, arrêt du 21/12/2006, définitif le 21/03/2007

5981/03            Keser et Kömürcü, arrêt du 23/06/2009, définitif le 23/09/2009

36672/97          Kurnaz et autres, arrêt du 24/07/2007, définitif le 24/10/2007

Ces affaires concernent l'absence d'enquête effective sur le décès des requérants dans l'affaire Gömi et autres (violation procédurale de l'article 2) ainsi que sur les blessures infligées à plusieurs requérants en 1995-1996, à la suite de raids lancés pour réprimer des émeutes dans des prisons et secourir des otages retenus par les insurgés (violation procédurale de l'article 3). L'affaire Kurnaz et autres concerne également les sévices subis par M. Kurnaz lors du raid (violation matérielle de l'article 3).

Dans l'affaire Gömi et autres, la Cour européenne a estimé qu'elle n'était pas en mesure d'établir au-delà de tout doute raisonnable que le recours à la force meurtrière par les gardiens, les gendarmes et les policiers avait été disproportionné au regard du but poursuivi, à savoir « la répression d'une émeute » et/ou « la défense de toute personne contre la violence ». Toutefois, s'agissant de l'enquête sur les décès survenus, la Cour a estimé que les autorités turques n'avaient pas agi avec une promptitude suffisante et une diligence raisonnable. Pour ce qui est des allégations de mauvais traitement, la Cour n'a pas trouvé motif à critiquer les autorités pour les mesures prises en l'espèce. Elle a cependant considéré qu'il y avait eu violation de l'article 3 en ce qui concerne certains des requérants, du fait qu'aucune enquête effective n'avait été diligentée par les autorités pour établir les faits.

Dans l'affaire Kurnaz et autres, la Cour européenne a estimé que le dossier ne contenait aucun élément de preuve indiquant que les autorités de la prison avaient véritablement tenté de rétablir l'ordre ou que l'opération avait été correctement organisée et contrôlée de manière à réduire au minimum le risque de blessures infligées aux détenus. La Cour a donc conclu que la force utilisée contre M. Kurnaz avait été excessive. La Cour a relevé par ailleurs que le dossier ne mentionnait pas l'issue de la procédure dirigée contre les gendarmes et que l'enquête menée par les conseils administratifs, hiérarchiquement subordonnés aux préfets, ne pouvait passer pour indépendante.

Mesures de caractère individuel : Conformément à la pratique bien établie du Comité des Ministres, il est rappelé que l'État défendeur a l'obligation continue de conduire des enquêtes effectives, a fortiori dans une affaire emportant violation de l'article 2 (voir en particulier la Résolution intérimaire ResDH(2005)20 dans l'affaire McKerr et autres contre le Royaume-Uni, l'affaire Scavuzzo-Hager et autres contre la Suisse, les affaires concernant l'action des forces de sécurité en Fédération de Russie).

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées par les autorités turques pour octroyer une réparation adéquate aux requérants.

Mesures de caractère général : Par courrier du 11/09/2007, les autorités turques se sont référées à de multiples amendements législatifs effectués dans le contexte du group d'affaires « actions des forces de sécurité contre la Turquie ». Ces dispositions incluent notamment les articles 94, 95 et 96 du nouveau Code pénal n° 5237 concernant le crime de torture et de mauvais traitement, l'article 2 (amendé) de la loi n° 4483 sur les poursuites pénales des fonctionnaires pour des infractions commises dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions, et l'article 161 du nouveau Code de procédure pénale régissant la compétence des parquets pour intenter des procédures contre les membres des forces de sécurité (pour une présentation détaillée de ces mesures, voir Résolution intérimaire CM/ResDH(2008)69 adoptée lors de la 1035e réunion (septembre 2008).

Par ailleurs, les autorités ont signalé l'article 85 de la loi n° 5275, réglementant les conditions de droit de visite en prison et les rencontres avec les détenus.

Enfin, les autorités ont informé le Secrétariat que le Ministre de la justice (Direction des affaires pénitentiaires) avait adressé une circulaire aux parquets en date du 20/08/2002, par laquelle il leur était recommandé de faire preuve de diligence et de vigilance dans l'application des lois d'harmonisation avec l'Union européenne.

• Evaluation : Il y a lieu de se féliciter du nouveau cadre législatif visé par les autorités concernant en particulier le crime de torture et de mauvais traitements. D'autre part, il convient de noter que l'usage disproportionné de la force dans une prison pour réprimer des émeutes pourrait nécessiter des mesures spécifiques comme, par exemple, la formation des forces de sécurité sur des confrontations physiques avec les personnes incarcérées.

• Par conséquent, des informations sont attendues sur les mesures générales visant spécialement à assurer que la force à utiliser en cas de confrontation avec les détenus soit dans les limites acceptables fixées par la Convention.

Par ailleurs, les deux arrêts ont été traduits et adressés aux autorités judiciaires compétentes. Des copies sont également mises à disposition sur le site internet du Ministère de la Justice à partir des liens suivants :

www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/karar/kemalgomi20022008.doc

www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/karar/kurnazvedigerleri.doc

                       - 4 cases concerning failure to enforce court decisions in cases concerning environmental protection

46117/99           Taşkın and others, judgment of 10/11/2004, final on 30/03/2005, rectified on 01/02/2005

46771/99           Öçkan and others, judgment of 28/03/2006, final on 13/09/2006

17381/02           Lemke, judgment of 05/06/2007, final on 05/09/2007

36220/97          Okyay Ahmet and others, judgment of 12/07/2005, final on 12/10/2005 - Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)4

(1), (2) and (3) Taşkın and others, Öçkan and others, and Lemke cases: These cases concern violations of the applicants' right to their private and family life and right to a fair trial due to decisions by the executive authorities to allow continuation of a gold-mining operation in Bergama using a sodium cyanide leaching process, in contravention of a Supreme Administrative Court decision of 13/05/1997 annulling the operation permit on account of the risk to the local ecosystem and to human health and safety posed by the chemicals.

In 1994 the Ministry of the Environment authorised the exploitation of the mine and granted permission for the use of sodium cyanide leaching after a preliminary public consultation and on the basis of an impact study, as required by the Environment Act.

Following the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of May 1997, a report drawn up at the Prime Minister's request concluded that the threats to the ecosystem listed in the Supreme Administrative Court's decision had been reduced to a level below the threshold of acceptability. On the basis of that report, the authorities granted permission to continue operations using cyanide leaching at the mine, on a provisional basis. However, the courts overturned the report and imposed stays of execution on administrative decisions based on its conclusions.

In a “decision of principle” which was not made public, the Council of Ministers decided that the gold-mine could continue its activities. In March 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered a stay of execution of that decision on the grounds that it had neither been published in the Official Gazette nor made public. An application for judicial review of the Council of Minister's decision is pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.

The European Court found that the government had failed in its obligation to guarantee the applicants' right to respect for their family life and right to a fair trial by annulling any useful effect of the procedural guarantees afforded to them by the applicable law and the judicial decisions taken. In so declaring, the Court based itself in particular on the fact that the administrative authorities had not ordered the closure of the mine immediately upon the Supreme Administrative Court's decision, but had on the contrary continued to issue operating permits despite the judicial decisions and the applicable law, most recently with the decision of the Council of Ministers (violation of Article 8).

The European Court also found that the administration's refusal to carry out the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court within the deadlines fixed by law and the fact that a further operation permit was issued as a direct result of the Council of Ministers' intervention, which was tantamount to circumventing a judicial decision, had constituted a breach of the applicants' right to effective judicial protection (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicants have informed the Secretariat that the Ministry of the Environment granted a new operating permit to the sameprivate company on 26/08/2004. In the meantime, the applicants in the present cases and more than 1500 others have lodged applications with the European Court alleging violation of their rights under Articles 2, 6 and 13 of the Convention as a result of the resumption of the mining activity in Bergama.

            - Granting of a new operation permit:

• Information submitted by the Turkish authorities (933rd meeting (July 2005) and letter of 11/07/2007): The Turkish authorities informed the Committee that the Ministry of Environment's permission in question was granted on the basis of a fresh environmental impact report in order to eliminate the possible danger of the mining operation.

On 14/09/2005 the Turkish authorities reported that the Izmir Administrative Court had decided on 14/03/2005 to stay the execution of the decision to grant a new operation permit. This decision was annulled by the Izmir Regional Court on 14/04/2005 following an appeal lodged by the mining company.

In the context of these proceedings, an on-site examination was carried out on 27/11/2006 by three experts in the mining area and a technical report was drafted on 26/03/2007 to assess whether or not the mine has been operating in compliance with environmental standards since the new operation permit was obtained following the fresh environmental impact report.

According to the technical report:

- the fresh environmental impact report, which was submitted to the authorities by the mining company in 2004, is sufficiently detailed to cover all the questions related to the potential risks of the mining operation;

- the extraction and tailing procedures are applied in accordance with the most advanced methods recognised by mining technologies;

- the implementation of the project and its surveillance are fully compatible with legal and technical requirements;

- to prevent leakage of hazardous material, the tailing pond is isolated from the soil by a special layer and the underground waters are surveyed.

The three experts also recommended that the strictest checks must be performed on underground waters and that the isolation layer of the tailing pond must be renewed in the future to avoid any leakage.

The Turkish authorities pointed out that the experts' report will play a decisive role in a number of pending proceedings before administrative courts, including those at issue here.

On 13/04/2007 the Ministry of Environment informed the Izmir Administrative Court that the mining company had undertaken to perform the necessary checks in the mining area for a period of ten years. Depending on the assessment to be made by the authorities after ten years, the mining company might be requested to maintain its checks for an unlimited period of time.

On 09/05/2007 the Izmir Administrative Court decided to reject the applicants' request for stay of execution of the decision to grant a new operating permit.

The applicants' representative submitted on 17/03/08 that the Izmir Administrative Court dismissed the applicants' challenge against the new operation permit on 12/12/2007. The court is reported to have ruled on the grounds that a so-called “environmental situation assessment report” and the measures taken had been found adequate by the three experts appointed by the same court. The applicants appealed that decision arguing that the “environmental situation assessment report” which is the basis of the new operation permit, was devoid of legal basis. The applicants submitted that a recent judgment of the 6th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court on 31/10/2007 had declared null and void the temporary Article 6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation, which provided for the situation assessment report. The appeal is pending.

            - Annulment of the urban plan for the mining area

On 21/04/2006 the Izmir Administrative Court annulled the urban plan made on 01/11/2004 for the mining area.

On 20/05/2006 the Office of the Governor of Izmir applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for the annulment of the decision of 21/04/2006 and requested a stay of execution of this decision.

On 08/06/2006 the Office of the Governor of Izmir informed the appropriate authorities (including the Governor of District of Bergama and the mining company) of the decision of the Izmir Administrative Court of 21/04/2006 and requested that the decision of the court be enforced.

On 11/07/2006 the Governor of Izmir requested the rectification of the decision of the Izmir Administrative Court of 21/04/2006 on the grounds that it was not clear whether or not the decision of annulment amounted to an obligation on the part of the administration also to annul the construction permit, the demolition of the mining site and the closure of the mine.

On 14/07/2006 the Izmir Administrative Court decided to reject the request for rectification on the ground that its decision was clear enough to be enforced. 

In July 2006 the Governor of Izmir wrote to the Office of the Prime Minister that a request for clarifications should be made to the Supreme Administrative Court concerning the question as to whether or not the enforcement of the decision of 21/04/2006 comprised annulment of the construction permit, the demolition of the mining buildings and the closure of the mine.

On 23/05/2007 the Supreme Administrative Court decided to uphold the decision of the Izmir Administrative Court of 21/04//2006, which annulled the urban plan for the mining area.

• Information is awaited first on the outcome of the appeal against the Izmir Administrative Court's decision of 12/12/07 dismissing the request for annulment of the new operation permit. Information is also awaited on how the domestic authorities will enforce the decision of the Izmir Administrative Court of 21/04/2006. Lastly, information is awaited concerning the extent to which the applicants or any other persons concerned had been involved in the decision-making process on the environmental impact report as required under the Convention (see §§ 118 and 119 of the judgment of the European Court).

General measures: See below

4) Ahmet Okyay case: This 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 failed to comply in practice and within a reasonable time with the decisions of domestic courts. The Court noted in particular 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 (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: At the 955th meeting (February 2006), as well as in their reply of 09/03/2006 to the Secretariat's initial-phase letter, the Turkish authorities informed the Committee that desulphurisation filter systems were in the process of being installed in the three power plants. The plants are now being operated at minimum capacity in order to maintain the gas emission at the lowest level. The emission levels are checked regularly and the plants will be shut down if the emission of gas exceeds the permissible levels.

On 25/10/2006 the Turkish authorities informed the Secretariat of a number of administrative fines imposed on the Yatağan power plant as a result of the pollution it had caused. Four of these administrative fines were imposed in February, June, July and August 2006 respectively. The Turkish authorities also gave information on the compensation proceedings initiated against the three power plants on grounds of damages suffered as a result of pollution caused by the power plants.

• Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)4: Given the absence of progress in the execution of this judgment, the Committee decided to adopt an interim resolution at its 987th meeting (February 2007) urging the Turkish authorities to enforce the domestic court orders imposing either the closure of the power plants or installation of the necessary filtering equipment without further delay.

• Response to the Interim Resolution: The Turkish authorities submitted at the 1020th meeting (March 2008) that filter mechanisms have already been installed in all three power plants. Until the installation, the power plants had been operating at minimum capacity without causing any danger to the environment.

• Assessment: In light of this information, no other individual measure is necessary in the case of Ahmet Okyay.

General measures (in respect of all four cases)

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities: They drew the Committee's attention to Article 138 of the Constitution and reiterated that the bodies of executive and the authorities must comply with court decisions. Furthermore, Article 28§3 of Law on Administrative Judicial Proceedings provides for the possibility of bringing compensation proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court against the administration or the civil servant deliberately refusing to comply with court decisions. The Turkish authorities also provided examples of case-law of the Council of State to that effect. Lastly, the Turkish authorities provided information on the provisions concerning criminal sanctions against public officials who refuse to carry out a public duty or fail to enforce court decisions, as well as supporting examples of decisions of domestic courts where public officials were sanctioned.

In their letter of 11/07/2007 the Turkish authorities drew the Committee's attention to Articles 181 and 182 of the Criminal Code (in force since 01/06/2007) which sanction both intentional and unintentional disposal of hazardous substances in a way that might cause damage to the environment. Any person disposing of such hazardous substances shall be liable to terms of imprisonment ranging from six months to two years.

The Code also provides that the terms of imprisonment shall be increased if the disposal of hazardous substances causes permanent damage to human health and to the environment.

The judgments of the European Court in these cases have been translated and disseminated. The judgments are also available at the internet site of the Ministry of Justice at http://www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/aihmtkliste.asp

Finally, at the 1020th meeting (March 2008), the Deputies noted the information provided by the Turkish authorities regarding the new provision of the Environmental Law which ensures the involvement of persons, such as inhabitants of relevant areas, civil society institutions etc, in the decision-making process on environmental issues and the recently introduced criminal liability for discharge of hazardous substances. The Deputies also noted that the Turkish authorities would consider in cooperation with the Secretariat the necessity of further general measures.

• Assessment of the information provided by the Turkish authorities: The domestic legal framework (in particular Article 138 of the Constitution and Article 28§3 of the Law on Administrative Judicial Proceedings) as well as examples of judicial sanctions demonstrate a healthy legal environment for ensuring respect for domestic court decisions. In addition, the legislative sanctions recently enacted against environmental polluters are also welcome developments. However, these procedural guarantees may prove ineffective in the face of high‑level political disregard as criticised by the European Court in the present cases. In the light of the foregoing, the Turkish authorities may wish to draw the attention of the Council of Ministers and of the Ministry of Environment in particular to their obligations under the Convention to prevent new, similar violations. Information would also be necessary about the reaction of these authorities to the present judgments and possible other measures taken or envisaged.

1448/04            Zengin Hasan and Eylem, judgment of 09/10/2007, final on 09/01/2008

The case concerns the refusal of the authorities to exempt a state school pupil, whose family was of the Alevi faith, from mandatory lessons on religion and morals (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.

The applicants, Hasan Zengin and his daughter Eylem Zengin are followers of Alevism, a branch of Islam which has deep roots in Turkish society and history. Its religious practices differ from those of the Sunni schools in certain aspects such as prayer, fasting and pilgrimage. At the time the application was lodged, Eylem Zengin was a seventh grade pupil at a state school, and as such, she was obliged to attend classes in religious culture and ethics, which are compulsory subjects for Turkish primary and secondary schools under Article 24 of the Turkish Constitution and Article 12 of National Education Law No. 1739.

In 2001, Mr Zengin submitted requests to the Directorate of National Education and before the administrative courts for his daughter to be exempted from these lessons, pointing out in particular that no teaching was provided in those classes on his daughter’s faith. The requests for exemption were dismissed, most recently on appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court in April 2003.

In the course of the proceedings, the European Court examined the Ministry of Education’s guidelines for lessons in religious culture and ethics and the relevant school textbooks. This examination revealed that the syllabus in primary schools and the first cycle of secondary school as well as textbooks gave greater priority to knowledge of Islam than to that of other religions and philosophies. Although the Court explained that this in itself could not be viewed as indoctrination, it was appropriate to examine whether the information or knowledge was disseminated in an objective, critical and pluralist manner, given that attendance at these classes was likely to influence the minds of young children. The Court established that the Alevi faith had features distinct from the Sunni understanding of Islam which was taught in schools. In the “religious culture and morals” lessons, the religious diversity which prevailed in Turkish society was not taken into account. In particular, pupils received no teaching on the confessional or ritual specificities of the Alevi faith, although the proportion of the Turkish population belonging to it was very large. Certain information about the Alevis was taught in the 9th grade, but, in the absence of instruction in the basic elements of this faith in primary and secondary school, this was insufficient to compensate for the shortcomings in the teaching. Accordingly, the instruction provided in these classes could not be considered to meet the criteria of objectivity and pluralism, enabling pupils to develop a critical mind with regard to religious matters, nor to respect the religious and philosophical convictions of the parent of a pupil who belonged to the Alevi faith, on the subject of which the syllabus was clearly lacking.

The Court further examined whether appropriate means existed in the Turkish education system to ensure respect for parents’ convictions. The class in question was a compulsory subject, but a possibility for exemption had existed since 1990 for children of Turkish nationality whose parents belonged to the Christian or Jewish religion, provided they affirmed their adherence to one of those religions. According to the government, this possibility for exemption could be extended to other convictions if such a request was submitted. Nonetheless, whatever the scope of this exemption, the fact that parents were obliged to inform the school authorities of their religious or philosophical convictions made this an inappropriate means of ensuring respect for their freedom of conviction.

In the absence of any clear text, the school authorities always had the option of refusing such requests. In consequence, the exemption procedure was not an appropriate method and did not provide sufficient protection to those parents who could legitimately consider that the subject taught was likely to give rise in their children to a conflict of allegiance between the school and their own values. No possibility for an appropriate choice had been envisaged for the children of parents who had a religious or philosophical conviction other than that of Sunni Islam, where the procedure for exemption was likely to subject those parents to a heavy burden and to the necessity of disclosing their religious or philosophical convictions.

Individual measures: Ms Zengin is now of college age and no longer attends a state secondary school.

• Assessment: under these circumstances, no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures: The Court concluded that, with regard to religious instruction, by failing to meet the requirements of objectivity and pluralism and to provide an appropriate method for ensuring respect for parents’ convictions, the Turkish educational system was inadequate. The violation found originated in a problem related to implementation of the syllabus for religious instruction in Turkey and the absence of appropriate methods for ensuring respect for parents’ convictions. In consequence, the Court considered that bringing the Turkish educational system and domestic legislation into conformity with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 would represent an appropriate form of compensation.

• The Turkish authorities are invited to present an action plan for the execution of this judgment, taking into account the European Court’s specific indication of an appropriate general measure. However, neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

• Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the relevant authorities are also expected, so as to draw their attention to their Convention requirements as they arise from the judgment.

36458/02           Temel İrfan et autres, arrêt du 03/03/2009, définitif le 03/06/2009.

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit des requérants à l’instruction en raison d’une sanction disciplinaire infligée aux requérants, étudiants universitaires dans diverses facultés à l’époque des faits, pour avoir adressé aux autorités universitaires des pétitions pour que des cours optionnels de langue kurde soient assurés par l’université.

La Cour européenne a considéré que même si la sanction disciplinaire de suspendre leur l’inscription à l’université pendant un ou deux semestres avait été annulée par les juridictions administratives, elle ne pouvait passer pour raisonnable, ni proportionnée. Elle a estimé que les opinions exprimées dans les pétitions en question ne pouvaient s’analyser en une activité pouvant conduire à une radicalisation sur la base d’une distinction fondée sur la langue, la race ou la religion (violation de l’article 2 du Protocole n° 1).

25321/02           Ülger, arrêt du 26/06/2007, définitif le 26/09/2007

Cette affaire concerne une violation du droit d’accès du requérant à un tribunal ainsi qu’au respect de ses biens.

En mars 2001, une juridiction du travail, statuant sur un litige entre le requérant et son employeur, avait rendu un arrêt en faveur du requérant et ordonné à son employeur de payer les frais de justice encore dus. Les frais ne furent pas acquittés. Le requérant demanda au tribunal de lui notifier l’arrêt afin de pouvoir initier une procédure en exécution forcée. Il fut cependant informé par le tribunal qu’en vertu de l’article 28(a) de la loi sur les frais de justice, il n’était pas possible de notifier l’arrêt tant que les frais encore dus n’avaient pas été acquittés. Le tribunal invita par conséquent le requérant à les régler afin d’obtenir une copie de l’arrêt, étant entendu qu’il serait remboursé au stade de l’exécution. Le requérant n’ayant pas les moyens de s’acquitter de ces frais au moment des faits, il fut donc dans l’impossibilité d’obtenir l’exécution forcée de l’arrêt.

La Cour européenne a estimé qu’en faisant peser sur le requérant l’entière responsabilité du paiement des frais, l’Etat n’avait pas assumé son obligation positive d’organiser un système efficace d’exécution forcée des arrêts (violations de l’article 6§1 et de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

Mesures de caractère individuel: La Cour européenne a octroyé au requérant une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice matériel subi équivalant au montant dû en vertu de l’arrêt interne, ainsi qu’au titre du préjudice moral et des frais et dépens.

• Evaluation : dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général:

• Des informations sont attendues sur la possibilité d’amender l’article 28(a) de la loi sur les frais de justice afin de le rendre conforme aux exigences de la Convention, ainsi que sur toutes autres mesures prises ou envisagées par les autorités pour prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

- 7 cases concerning the violation of the right of access to a court due to administrative courts' refusal to grant legal aid for court fees

52658/99           Yiğit Mehmet and Suna, judgment of 17/07/2007, final on 17/10/2007

54179/00+         Amaç and Okkan, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008

50939/99           Bakan, judgment of 12/06/2007, final on 12/09/2007

17582/04           Kaya Eyüp, judgment of 23/09/2008, final on 23/12/2008

33612/03           Öner Ciğerhun, judgment of 20/05/2008, final on 20/08/2008

18404/04           Serin, judgment of 18/11/2008, final on 18/02/2009

20400/03           Tunç, judgment of 21/02/2008, final on 07/07/2008

These cases concern the refusal of administrative courts to grant legal aid to the applicants because either their actions were ill-founded (Bakan, Kaya Eyüp), or they had failed to prove their absence of means as required (Tunç, Öner Ciğerhun, Serin) or because appellants represented by counsel could not be deemed to require legal aid (Bakan, Yiğit Mehmet and Suna, Amaç and Okkan).

The European Court observed that the amount to be paid in court fees represented a considerable sum for the applicants and that the dismissal of their applications for legal aid had totally deprived them of the possibility to have their case heard by a court. This being so, the Court found that the state had not fulfilled its obligation to regulate the right of access to a court in conformity with the Convention (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Court awarded the applicants just satisfaction in respect of the damage sustained, except in the Eyüp Kaya and Amaç and Okkan cases.

In addition, in all cases except for that of Eyüp Kaya, the Court considered that the most appropriate form of redress was to reopen the proceedings before the administrative courts in conformity with the requirements of Article 6§1, if the applicants so wished.

• Information is awaited in this respect.

General measures: It is noteworthy that in the Bakan, Yiğit Mehmet and Suna, and Amaç and Okkan cases, the reasoning behind the decisions not to grant legal aid (i.e. those who are represented by counsel are not entitles to legal aid) is based on well-established case-law rather than on procedural law. Thus, in addition to the publication of the European Court's judgment on an official website which is the habitual practice of the Turkish authorities, targeted publication and dissemination of the judgment to higher courts would seem necessary.

In this connection it may be noted that the judgment in Yiğit Mehmet and Suna has been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice: www.inhak-bb.adalet.gov.tr/aihm/karar/mehmetvesunayigit.doc.

• Information is still awaited on targeted dissemination, as well as on recent case-law, if there is any, demonstrating that the European Court's conclusions have been taken into consideration by domestic courts.

36533/04           Mesutoğlu, arrêt du 14/10/2008, définitif le 14/01/2009

La présente affaire concerne l’iniquité d’une procédure administrative dans la mesure où les juridictions nationales ont procédé à une interprétation des dispositions du code de procédure administrative avec un tel excès de formalisme que les requérants se sont vus privés de leur droit d’accès à un tribunal (violation de l’article 6§1).

En juin 2000, les requérants avaient intenté une action en dommages-intérêts contre la municipalité d’Elazığ devant le Tribunal de Grande Instance de la même ville, en faisant valoir la responsabilité de la municipalité dans un accident de circulation qui avait causé la mort de deux personnes, respectivement, le père et le fils des requérants.

En novembre 2000, le Tribunal de Grande Instance a décliné sa compétence ratione materiae et a ordonné le transfert du dossier au tribunal administratif de Malatya. En décembre 2002, en revanche, le tribunal administratif, à un stade avancé de la procédure, a déclaré la requête des requérants irrecevable pour vice de procédure. Il a considéré que l’article 9 du Code de procédure administrative ne prévoyait pas la saisine d’une juridiction administrative moyennant le transfert du dossier à celle-ci par une juridiction civile, à la suite d’un jugement constatant l’incompétence ratione materiae de cette dernière, et que les requérants auraient dû introduire eux-mêmes leur requête, directement devant le tribunal administratif compétent.

La Cour européenne a estimé qu’une telle interprétation stricte des dispositions du Code de procédure administrative avait empêché les requérants de faire examiner le fond de leur demande par un tribunal compétent et les avait privé de leur droit d’accès à la justice.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a alloué aux requérants une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la question de savoir s’il est possible de rouvrir la procédure litigieuse devant le tribunal administratif de Malatya, si la partie requérante formule une demande allant dans ce sens.

Mesure de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires ainsi que sur la diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne auprès des tribunaux administratifs et du Conseil d'Etat.

18384/04           Oral n° 2, arrêt du 25/11/2008, définitif le 25/02/2009

La présente affaire concerne le défaut d’équité d’une procédure fiscale dans la mesure où un rapport d’expertise qui a été déterminant sur l’issue du litige devant le tribunal des impôts, n’a pas été communiqué au requérant et ce dernier a été dépourvu de la possibilité de formuler ses observations sur les conclusions de ce rapport d’expertise (violation de l’article 6§1).

En janvier 2000, le requérant avait formé opposition devant le tribunal des impôts contre les amendes fiscales qui lui avaient été infligées par la municipalité de Kűçűk Cekmece, en considérant que, contrairement à ce qu’estimait la municipalité, ses déclarations précédentes concernant l’imposition foncier étaient correctes. Le tribunal des impôts a ordonné une expertise dont le rapport sur lequel la juridiction avait fondé sa décision, n’a pas été communiqué au requérant.

La Cour européenne a considéré que la non-communication du rapport d’expertise qui avait un poids prépondérant sur l’issue du litige, a placé le requérant dans une situation de net désavantage par rapport au service fiscal. Elle a estimé que le versement du rapport d’expertise dans le dossier de l’affaire auprès du tribunal des impôts, n’était pas non plus de nature à remédier à la situation du requérant.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a estimé que le constat d’une violation constituait une satisfaction équitable suffisante au titre du préjudice moral subi. Quant au préjudice matériel, elle a estimé qu’elle ne pouvait spéculer sur ce qu’aurait été l’issue de la procédure en l’absence de cette violation.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la question de savoir s’il est possible de rouvrir la procédure litigieuse devant le tribunal des impôts.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures envisagées ou prises en vue de prévenir des violations similaires ainsi que sur la diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne auprès des tribunaux des impôts.

35686/02           Ünel, judgment of 27/05/2008, final on 27/08/2008

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant as certain material evidence was not produced or discussed adequately at the hearing in his presence (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3d).

The applicant, who was the director general at a ministry between 1997 and 2000, was arrested while committing an act of corruption in a police operation. He was found guilty of corruption and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years and two months and a fine.

The European Court established that the applicant had repeatedly asked for (i) the video recordings of him accepting the bribe to be shown at the hearing, (ii) voice recordings of his telephone conversations about the bribe to be forensically examined, (iii) the complainant who had brought the corruption charges against him to be examined at a hearing, and finally (iv) certain witnesses to be summoned and heard. The domestic courts denied these requests on the grounds that they were irrelevant and that the evidence in the case file was sufficiently clear to establish his guilt.

The European Court found however that the proceedings had not met the requirements of a fair trial as certain material evidence relevant to the establishment of the applicant’s guilt had not been produced or discussed adequately at the hearing in his presence.

Individual measures: The applicant seems to have served the whole of his prison sentence.

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (28/11/2008): new criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant before the Ankara Assize Court, which pronounced judgment on 8/05/2008; the case is now pending before the Court of Cassation. The authorities accordingly consider that they have fulfilled their obligations with regard to individual measures (reopening) in this case.

• Assessment: The Ankara Assize Court’s decision of 8/05/2008 that proceedings were opened simultaneously with the entry into force of the new Turkish Penal Code (No. 5237) which provides lighter sentences for the offences of which the applicant was charged. It seems that in the new proceedings, the Assize Court did not re-assess the facts and evidence, but simply imposed upon the applicant, on the basis of the facts established in the earlier proceedings, the sentences provided in the new Code. Such proceedings are not of a nature to redress the procedural shortcomings found by the Court and therefore cannot be considered an adequate individual measure.

• Information is therefore awaited on measures to afford the applicant him proper redress, such as a retrial at his request or erasure of all the consequences of the violation found.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (28/11/2008): The European Court’s judgment in this case had been translated into Turkish and would be published as soon as possible in the Judicial Legislation Bulletin (Yargı Mevzuatı Bűlteni).

• Confirmation is awaited on the translation and distribution of the European Court’s judgment to the relevant judicial authorities.

18753/04           Tanay, arrêt du 09/12/2008, définitif le 09/03/2009

L’affaire concerne une violation du droit d’accès du requérant à un tribunal dans une procédure civile visant à l’augmentation d’une indemnisation dans une affaire d’expropriation.

En septembre 2000, l’avocat du requérant avait intenté une action en justice pour demander une augmentation de l’indemnisation. Bien que le délai légal soit écoulé, le tribunal civil a déclaré la demande recevable en raison d’un certificat médical de l’Institut de médecine légale confirmant que l’avocat avait eu des problèmes de santé qui l’avaient empêché de déposer plus tôt sa requête. En mars 2003, la Cour de cassation a annulé la décision en citant le nom du requérant plutôt que celui de son défenseur, comme personne tombée malade. Elle a jugé que même si le requérant avait été malade, son avocat aurait pu exercer la requête dans le délai légal. En mai 2003, la Cour de cassation a rejeté la demande en rectification du requérant en considérant que la rectification de l’erreur de fait n’aurait pas affecté le résultat.

La Cour européenne a considéré que quand elle avait refusé de corriger l’erreur, la Cour de cassation n’avait pas donné de motivation pour justifier sa décision et que la rectification de l’erreur aurait fait une différence déterminante en matière d’évaluation du respect par le requérant des règles de procédure internes. Elle a donc conclu que la décision non motivée de la Cour de cassation avait violé le droit d’accès du requérant à un tribunal (violation de l’article 6§1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a estimé que la forme de réparation la plus appropriée serait de rouvrir la procédure en appel et de corriger l’erreur de fait, si le requérant le demandait. Par ailleurs, elle a accordé au requérant une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice moral.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les possibilités de rouvrir la procédure dans l’affaire du requérant.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur la publication et la diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne, en particulier à la Cour de cassation.

- 2 cases concerning the unfairness of certain judicial proceedings in which a request for annulment of an administrative act was denied and the administration refused to submit a classified file

70516/01           Dağtekin and others, judgment of 13/12/2007, final on 13/03/2008, rectified on 21/05/2008

31881/02           Gencer, judgment of 25/11/2008, final on 25/02/2009

These cases concern the unfairness of civil proceedings brought by the applicants to complain of the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture (in the Dağtekin case) or by the Directorate General for Agricultural Reform) (in the Gencer case) had revoked the applicants’ leasehold on agricultural land situated in the South-East following a security enquiry. The courts rejected the applicants’ appeal even though the Ministry and the Directorate General refused to disclose the documents on the basis of which the lease had been revoked.

The European Court held that the conclusions of the security investigation were not revealed to the applicants or the courts, and that the applicants had been deprived of sufficient safeguards against any arbitrary action on the part of the authorities thus infringing the applicants’ right to a fair hearing (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures:

• Information is awaited on possible individual measures envisaged or taken to remedy the violation found.

General measures: Under the last sentence of Article 22§3 of Law no 2577 on administrative procedure, no defence submission by the administration is taken into account by the courts if it is based on information or documents withheld on grounds of national security or vital interests of the state.

• Assessment: This provision appears to be in line with the Convention’s requirements as it excludes this type of defence from administrative proceedings.

• Information is awaited on the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the judicial authorities.

- 25 cases mainly concerning the unfairness of criminal proceedings due to the lack of legal assistance during custody

36391/02           Salduz, judgment of 27/11/2008 – Grand Chamber

7638/02            Aba, judgment of 03/03/2009, final on 03/06/2009

5138/04            Amutgan, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

1915/03            Arzu, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009

38940/02+         Aslan and Demir, judgment of 17/02/2009, final on 17/05/2009

36838/03           Aslan Gülabi, judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 16/09/2009

8180/04            Baran İhsan No. 1, judgment of 15/09/2009, final on 15/12/2009

6318/02            Bayhan Zeki, judgment of 28/07/2009, final on 28/10/2009

43422/02           Bilgin and Bulga, judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 16/09/2009

5243/03            Çelik Gürsel, judgment of 05/05/2009, final on 05/08/2009

19582/02           Çimen, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

69006/01           Ditaban, judgment of 14/04/2009, final on 14/07/2009

6058/02            Ek and Şıktaş, judgment of 17/02/2009, final on 17/05/2009

6094/03            Elçiçek and others, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

19914/03           Gülçer and Aslım, judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 16/09/2009

23904/03           Gülecan, judgment of 28/04/2009, final on 28/07/2009

12550/03           Işık Çimen, judgment of 16/07/2009, final on 16/10/2009

5256/02            Karabil, judgment of 16/06/2009, final on 16/09/2009

15737/02           Öngün, judgment of 23/06/2009, final on 23/09/2009

10324/05           Özcan İzzet, judgment of 28/07/2009, final on 28/10/2009

16500/04           Öztürk İbrahim, judgment of 17/02/2009, final on 17/05/2009

47368/99           Soykan, judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009

4661/02            Şükran and others, judgment of 03/02/2009, final on 03/05/2009

71864/01           Tağaç and others, judgment of 07/07/2009, final on 07/10/2009

16943/03           Taşçıgil, judgment of 03/03/2009, final on 03/06/2009

These cases concern the unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicants, in that they did not benefit from the assistance of counsel while on remand. The applicants in the Salduz, Soykan and Şükran cases were minors at the material time. Statements made by the applicants in the absence of legal assistance became the main evidence used to convict them before state security courts (violations of Article 6§3c combined with Article 6§1).

The applicants were arrested at various times between 1993 and 2001, basically on suspicion of belonging to illegal organisations. Under Article 31 of Law No. 3842 then in force, the applicants’ right to legal assistance during police custody was subject to restriction as the offences in question fell within the jurisdiction of the state security courts. Between 2000 and 2003 the applicants were convicted by state security courts and sentenced to imprisonment.

The European Court considered however that the criminal proceedings at issue in these cases had not satisfied the requirement of fairness because statements made to the police in the absence of counsel constituted the essential basis for the security court’s sentence, even though they were contested by the applicants and their co-accused.

The Salduz, Bayhan, Bilgin and Bulga, Gülçer and Aslım, Karabil Taşçgil and Çimen cases also concern the failure to disclose the written conclusions of Prosecutor General before the Court of Cassation, and the Tağaç, Çelik, and Bilgin and Bulga cases also concern the independence and impartiality of state security courts (violations of Article 6§1). The Arzu and Şükran cases also concern the length of detention on remand (violations of Article 5§§3 and 4), and the Aba case also concerns the length of police custody violations of Articles 5§§3 and 5). 

Individual measures: The European Court has indicated that, where an individual has been convicted by a court not satisfying the conditions of independence and impartiality required by the Convention, a new trial or reopening of the proceedings at the behest of the person concerned represents in principle an appropriate means of redress for the violation found.

However, apart from the cases of Amutgan, Aslan, Baran, Gülçer and Aslım, Gülecan, Özcan, Taşçıgil and Öztürk and the applicant Şıktaş in the Ek and Şıktaş case, the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) does not authorise the reopening of criminal proceedings in most of these cases, since this is only possible in respect of applications judged by the European Court by decisions which became final before 04/02/2003 or applications brought before the Court after 04/02/2003.

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities(letter of 21/07/2009): In the Salduz case, following the amendment of Article 169 of the former Criminal Code (applied in the present case) by Article 2 of Law No. 4963, the Izmir State Security Court re-examined the case at the request of the applicant’s counsel. By a judgment of 01/10/2003, it cancelled the applicant’s conviction together with all of its legal consequences.

• Information is awaited as to the possibility of reopening of the criminal proceedings in the other cases, in particular those to which the restriction imposed by the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable.

General measures:

            1) Unfairness of the proceedings due to the absence of legal assistance during remand (Article 6§3c combined with Article 6§1): Measures have been taken in the context of the cases concerning the action of security forces in Turkey (see Interim Resolution CM/Res/DH(2009)69). On 15/06/2003, by Law No. 4928, the restriction on the right of access to a lawyer of accused persons in proceedings before state security courts was lifted. On 1/07/2005 a new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force. Under the present legislation a suspect or an accused has the right to consult counsel in private before being interrogated and to have counsel present during interrogation (articles 147 and 154 CCP). The new Code also provides that statements obtained by security forces in the absence of counsel shall not be taken into consideration as the basis of a conviction unless the suspect or accused confirms the statement before the judge or the court (Article 148 CCP). The appointment of a lawyer is obligatory if the person concerned is a minor or if he or she is accused of an offence punishable by a maximum of at least five years’ imprisonment. In addition, certain measures were taken in the context of Law No. 5395 of 03/07/2005 on the protection and detention conditions of minors (see Selçuk (21768/02) (Section 6.2).

• Assessment: In these circumstances, no further general measure appears necessary

            2) Failure to disclose the opinion of the Prosecutor General: Measures have already been taken in the context of the Göç case (36590/97 (Section 6.2).

            3) Independence and impartiality of state security courts: General measures have been taken in the context of the Gencel group of cases (53431/99, Section 4.1.).

            4) Length of detention on remand and lack of an effective remedy: Measures are being examined in Demirel (39324/98) (Section 4.2.).

            5) Length of police custody: Measures have already been taken in the context of the Satık case (36961/97) (Resolution ResDH(2005)12).

43980/04           Miran, judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to the failure to provide him with a copy of the written opinion of the Public Prosecutor before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, and the fact that he had been denied access to “classified” documents in the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

The case presents similarities to the cases concerning non-communication of the written opinion of the Public Prosecutor before the Court of Cassation and the Council of State (see, the Göç group (36590/97, Section 6.2) and the Meral group (33446/02, 1092nd meeting, September 2010), but this is the first case related to the Public Prosecutor before the Supreme Military Administrative Court.

The case also presents similarities to the Çorum group of cases (59739/00, Section 5.1) regarding the failure to communicate classified documents in the case-file.

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

75510/01          Artun and Güvener, judgment of 26/06/2007, final on 26/09/2007, rectified on 12/11/2007

This case concerns a breach of the applicants’ freedom of expression through the press. The applicants, a journalist and the chief editor of the daily Milliyet, had been sentenced to a year and 4 months’ imprisonment, on the basis of Article 158 of the former Criminal Code, for having denigrated the President of Republic. The execution of the sentence of Meral Artun was stayed and the other applicant’s sentence was commuted to a fine of about 1 665 euros.

The European Court considered that the restrictions imposed on the applicants were not necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 10).

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

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities: The applicants’ convictions have been erased from their criminal records.

• Assessment: Under these circumstances, no further individual measures seem necessary.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (letter of 2/04/2008), in reply to the Secretariat’s initial-phase letter of 28/11/2007): Article 299 of the new Criminal Code, which corresponds to Article 158 of the former Criminal Code, provides that anyone who insults the President of the Republic shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of one to four years. The sentence shall be increased by one sixth if the offence is committed in public. Prosecution of this crime shall be subject to the authorisation of the Minister of Justice.

• Assessment: The provision at the origin of the violation in this case is no longer in force, however, it seems that, the new provision, which replaced the old one, while phrased differently, is of the same substance as the previous one. Considering that the European Court reiterated in the judgment, in particular, that the imposition of a prison sentence for a press offence was only compatible with journalists’ freedom of expression in exceptional circumstances, and that in the present case there had been no justification for sentencing the applicants to a term of imprisonment, further information on general measures to ensure compliance with the Convention requirements appears necessary.

• Information is awaited on the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment.

• Further information on the general measures was provided (18/03/2010) by the authorities. This information is being assessed. 

64119/00+         Kayasu, arrêt du 13/11/2008, définitif le 13/02/2009

Cette affaire concerne la violation du droit à la liberté d’expression du requérant, procureur de la République à l’époque des faits, à la liberté d’expression du fait sa condamnation au pénal, en raison des termes utilisés dans un acte d’accusation qu’il avait dressé à l’encontre des ex-généraux de l’armée auteurs d’un coup d’Etat en septembre 1980 (violation de l’article 10).

La Cour européenne a considéré que la condamnation du requérant, en application de l’article 159 du code pénal, pour avoir insulté les forces militaires, et les conséquences de cette condamnation, à savoir sa révocation définitive de la fonction de procureur et l’interdiction d’exercer comme avocat (article 5 b) de la loi n^o 1136 relative à la profession d’avocat), étaient disproportionnées à tout but légitime poursuivi.

L’affaire concerne également l’absence de voie de recours à l’encontre des sanctions disciplinaires infligées par le Conseil supérieur de la magistrature à l’encontre du requérant (violation de l’article 13 combiné avec l’article 10).

La Cour européenne a constaté d’une part que l’article 129 de la Constitution turque donne la possibilité au législateur de soustraire au contrôle juridictionnel une catégorie de sanctions disciplinaires (l’avertissement et la blâme) concernant l’ensemble des fonctionnaires, et d’autre part, que l’article 159 de la Constitution exempte l’ensemble des décisions du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature, de recours devant les instances judiciaires.

La Cour a par ailleurs considéré qu’une opposition à l’encontre des sanctions disciplinaires devant le « comité d’examen des oppositions » constitué au sein du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature conformément à son règlement intérieur, ne répondait pas non plus aux exigences de l’article 13, dans la mesure où les membres du conseil d’examen des oppositions étaient les mêmes que ceux qui avaient délibéré au sein du Conseil supérieur pour prononcer la sanction disciplinaire attaquée. Du reste, le règlement intérieur du Conseil ne prévoyait aucune mesure visant à garantir l’impartialité des membres statuant en comité d’examen des oppositions.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour a alloué au requérant une satisfaction équitable tous chefs de préjudice confondus.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures permettant d’accorder au requérant une réparation adéquate, effaçant les conséquences de la violation constatée, telles que la suppression de l’interdiction d’exercer des fonctions judiciaires et l’effacement de la condamnation du requérant de son casier judiciaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

1) Absence de recours à l’encontre d’une catégorie de sanctions disciplinaires (article 129 de la Constitution) : les autorités turques ont indiqué le 29/11/2007 dans le contexte de l’affaire Karaçay (6615/03) (1092e réunion, septembre 2010) qu'un projet de loi relatif aux fonctionnaires (Kamu Personeli Kanunu Tasarısı) avait été préparé par les instances législatives compétentes. Selon l'article 95 du projet de loi, les « avertissements » disciplinaires seront soumis au contrôle judiciaire.

• Des informations sont attendues sur l'état d'avancement de ce projet de loi.

2) Absence de recours effectif à l’encontre des décisions du Conseil supérieur de la magistrature :

• Des informations sont attendues sur la préparation d’un plan d’action, tel que le prévu aux méthodes de travail des Délégués des Ministres (voir CM/Inf(2004)8-final), y compris un calendrier pour la mise en œuvre des mesures générales à prendre. Une lettre sera envoyée au Gouvernement à cet effet.

• Des informations sont également attendues sur la diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne auprès des autorités administratives et judiciaires concernées.

- 6 cases mainly concerning freedom of expression – military conviction for incitement to abstain from compulsory military service

47533/99           Ergin No. 6, judgment of 04/05/2006, final on 04/08/2006

37033/03           Doğan Ahmet, judgment of 10/03/2009, final on 06/07/2009

4211/02            Erükcü, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

56827/00           Düzgören, judgment of 09/11/2006, final on 09/02/2007

65344/01           Onaran, judgment of 05/06/2007, final on 05/09/2007

70335/01           Yurdatapan, judgment of 08/01/2008, final on 08/04/2008

The Ergin No. 6 case concerns a violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, the editor-in-chief of a newspaper, in that he was fined in 1999, by a military court, under Article 155 of the former Criminal Code for having published statements which were considered to incite to abstention from military service, which is compulsory in Turkey. Similarly, the cases of Düzgören, Erükçü, Onaran and Yurdatapan concern the conviction of the applicants by military courts for distributing leaflets in support of a conscientious objector, except the Erükçü case, in which the applicant was convicted for submitting a false health report in order to be excempted from military service.

The European Court noted, that the actions concerned did not incite to hatred or violence nor aim to provoke immediate desertion and concluded that the convictions were not “necessary in a democratic society” (violations of Article 10).

The European Court also found that the military courts which tried the applicants (civilians) entirely composed of military judges, could not be regarded as independent and impartial jurisdictions (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures:

            1) Case of Ergin No 6: Confirmation has been received that the applicant's conviction was erased from his criminal record.

            2) Cases of Erükçü, Doğan Ahmet, Düzgören Onaran, and Yurdatapan:

• Confirmation is expected of the erasure of all consequences of the violation found, namely the removal of the applicants' convictions from their criminal records.

General measures: On 11/10/2006 the Secretariat addressed a letter to the Turkish authorities, inviting them to present an action plan for the execution of the case Ergin no. 6. The authorities submitted an action plan on 12/01/2007.

            1) Violation of Article 10: a new Criminal Code was adopted in June 2005, but does not appear to have decriminalised non-violent expression of opinions on conscientious objection. Article 318 of the new Criminal Code still makes it a crime to incite to abstain from or discourage performance of military service although it now requires an active element, in that, to be a crime, the incitement or encouragement should be capable of accomplishing its aim. Nevertheless, this provision does not seem to require any of the elements that the European Court has referred to, i.e, “incitement to hatred or violence” or “aim to provoke immediate desertion”. Furthermore, §34 of the judgment underlined that the article concerned in the case of Ergin No. 6 was published in a newspaper and was intended for the public at large. This, according to the Court, was an indication that the article could not be considered an incitement to immediate desertion.

The second paragraph of Article 318, on the contrary, makes it an aggravating factor to incite to abstention through the medium of press or other media.

• Accordingly, information is expected on the legislative changes or other general measures that the authorities have taken or envisage in order to bring the relevant provisions in conformity with the Convention.

The European Court's judgments were translated and sent out with a circular to the judiciary, so that the relevant courts could take into account of the Convention's requirements when applying domestic law on incitement to abstention from military service.

            2) Violation of Article 6: Law No. 4963, which entered into force in July 2003 (i.e. after the facts at the origin of these cases), provides that military courts no longer have jurisdiction over civilians accused under former Article 155 of the Criminal Code. A new Law (No. 5530), which entered into force on 5/07/2006, introduces further limits to the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians. It now appears that the only exception that remains is a “military” crime (one that is described as such under the Military Penal Code as opposed to the general Penal Code) committed by a civilian in conspiracy with a military person (Article 12 of Law No. 353 as amended by Law No. 5530.

• Assessment: With regard to the trial of civilians by military courts, the above measures appear sufficient.

                        - 92 cases mainly concerning freedom of expression

                        Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)106 and ResDH(2004)38;

                        CM/Inf(2003)43; CM/Inf/DH(2008)26

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Inçal group)

These cases all relate to unjustified interferences with the applicants' freedom of expression, in particular on account of their conviction by state security courts following the publication of articles and books or the preparation of messages addressed to a public audience (convictions under former Articles 159 and 312 of the Criminal Code and former Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Anti-terrorism Law).

In the Özgür Gündem case, the Court also concluded that the search operation conducted in the applicant newspaper's premises had not been necessary in a democratic society and that the respondent government had failed to comply with its positive obligation to protect the applicant newspaper in the exercise of its freedom of expression. Furthermore, the cases Alinak, Öztürk Ayşe and Çetin and others specifically concern the seizure of publications (violations of Article 10).

Individual measures: Since June 1998, the necessity of adopting individual measures has been repeatedly stressed in the Committee. On 23/07/2001, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 (see CM/Inf/DH(2003)43). In addition, updated information on the current situation of the applicants and on the concrete follow-up given to Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 have been regularly requested.

• Measures taken: The Turkish authorities indicated (see also CM/Inf/DH(2003)43 and Interim Resolution ResDH(2004)38) that measures had been taken in order to ensure the erasure of convictions and of all their consequences :

- ex officio in cases concerning convictions under Article 8 of the Anti-terrorism Law No. 3713, following the abrogation of this provision on 19/07/2003 (by Law No. 4928), which also provided that any information on criminal records should be erased ex officio (in conformity with Article 8 of the Law on Criminal Records, as amended by Law No. 4778 of 2/01/2003), thereby automatically lifting any restrictions on applicants' civil and political rights.

- under certain conditions, in cases related to freedom of expression in general (Law No. 4809 2003 on suspension of proceedings and sentences concerning crimes committed through the press);

Furthermore, reopening of domestic proceedings is possible (on the basis of Law No. 4793 of 2003), in all cases which had already been decided by the European Court before 04/02/2003 and in all new cases brought before the European Court after that date. Re-opening is not possible in cases which were pending before the European Court on 04/02/2003, as well as for cases resulting in friendly settlements.

For a detailed assessment of the individual measures taken and outstanding issues in these cases, as well as for the list of cases in which confirmation of the erasure of any remaining consequences of the violations are expected, see CM/Inf/DH(2008)26 declassified at the 1028th meeting (June 2008), and the Appendix containing the list of cases in the Inçal group).

General measures: The question has been raised since 1998 of the need to adapt Turkish law to the requirements of the Convention so as to avoid further violations similar to those found. In particular, attention has been drawn to the need to assess the proportionality of restrictions on freedom of expression in the light of the presence of an “incitement to violence”. Furthermore, since 1999, the Turkish authorities have been invited to introduce a general criterion of truth and public interest into the Anti-Terrorism Law and to amend or abrogate Article 6 of this law; to review minimum penalties in crimes related to freedom of expression; to adopt specific measures aimed at ensuring the protection of freedom of expression

• Measures taken: For a detailed assessment of the general measures taken and outstanding issues in these cases see CM/Inf/DH(2008)26.

On 17/09/2008 the Turkish authorities provided information on a number of decisions of public prosecutors not to bring prosecutions under the recently modified Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The Secretariat is currently studying these decisions.

- 9 Friendly settlements concerning freedom of expression and involving undertakings by the Turkish government

                        Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)106 and ResDH(2004)38;

                        CM/Inf(2003)43; CM/Inf/DH(2008)26

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Inçal group)

These cases all relate in particular to alleged unjustified interferences with the applicants’ freedom of expression, on account of their conviction by state security courts following public speeches or the publication of articles, drawings or books (complaints under Article 10 and 6§1).

The European Court took note of the Friendly settlements reached between the parties. The Turkish Government undertook to pay a sum of money to the applicants, to implement all necessary reform of domestic law and practice in order to bring the Turkish law into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in the area of freedom of expression and to adopt the individual measures set out in Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106, adopted on 23/07/2001(appended to CM/Inf/DH(2003)43), in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of the applicants’ conviction. These cases are comparable with the “freedom of expression” cases against Turkey mentioned above.

Individual measures:

• Information is expected on the current situation of the applicants as well as on the measures envisaged, in conformity with the undertakings included in the friendly settlement, in order rapidly and fully to erase the consequences of their convictions.

The information available concerning the situation of the applicants’ criminal records is reproduced in the Appendix containing the list of cases in the Inçal group). 

General Measures: See above (“freedom of expression” cases against Turkey).

35832/97           IPSD et autres, arrêt du 25/10/ 2005, définitif le 25/01/2006

La présente affaire concerne la dissolution en 1994, de l’association IPSD (association de lutte contre le chômage et les prix excessifs) au motif que son statut était contraire à l’article 5§§11 et 12 de la loi n° 2908 sur les associations qui interdisait aux associations de mener des activités politiques et de bafouer l’Etat turc.

La Cour européenne a observé que l’association en question avait été dissoute sur la seule base de son statut, avant même d’avoir pu entamer ses activités. En l’absence de projet politique de nature à compromettre le régime démocratique dans le pays et d’une incitation ou d’une justification de recours à la force à des fins politiques, la dissolution de cette association ne pouvait raisonnablement être considérée comme « nécessaire dans une société démocratique » (violation de l’article 11).  

Mesures de caractère individuel :

• Des informations sont attendues sur le point de savoir si les requérants peuvent obtenir l’enregistrement de l’association en question.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées pour prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

- 2 affaires concernant la liberté d'association (condamnation pénale en raison de la participation à une grève)

23018/04+         Urcan et autres, arrêt du 17/07/2008, définitif le 17/10/2008

22943/04           Özcan Saime, arrêt du 15/09/2009, définitif le 15/12/2009

Cette affaire concerne l’atteinte au droit des requérantes à la liberté d’association en raison de leur condamnation pour avoir participé à une grève organisée pour améliorer les conditions de travail des enseignants de la fonction publique. Les requérantes, toutes membres d’un syndicat, ont été condamnées en vertu de l’article 236 du code pénal pour s’être absentées de leur poste de travail à une peine de prison commuée en amende. Elles ont également été temporairement exclues de la fonction publique (violation de l’article 11).

La Cour européenne a relevé que la sanction imposée aux requérantes ne pouvait pas être considérée comme nécessaire dans une société démocratique puisqu’elle pouvait dissuader les membres de syndicats de participer à d’autres rassemblements légitimes.

Mesures de caractère individuel :

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (lettre du 25/06/2009) : La condamnation incriminée de la requérante Aysun Urcan a été effacée de son casier judiciaire. Une copie de son casier est annexée à la lettre des autorités nationales.

• Des informations sont attendues sur l’effacement des condamnations des casiers judiciaires des autres requérantes concernées dans ces affaires. 

Mesures de caractère général:

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (lettre du 25/06/2009) : L’article 236 de l’ancien code pénal n’est plus en vigueur et a été remplacé par l’article 260 du nouveau code pénal du 26/09/2004.

Le nouvel article 260§1 érige en infraction pénale le fait d’abandonner ou de ralentir collectivement le travail. L’article 260§2 dispose néanmoins que lorsque l’abandon de travail (…) est effectué par les fonctionnaires publics de façon temporaire et pour une courte période dans l’objectif de protéger leurs droits professionnels ou sociaux et de manière à ne pas porter atteinte au service public, soit aucune peine n’est prononcée, soit la peine prévue dans le premier paragraphe est réduite.

D’autre part, l’exposé des motifs de l’article 260 explique que le juge pénal, dans l’application de cet article, dispose désormais d’une marge d’appréciation quant à la réduction ou à la suppression de la peine prévue par cet article, si les conditions indiquées au second paragraphe sont réunies en l’espèce.

• Evaluation: A la différence de l’article 236 de l’ancien code pénal, le nouvel article 260§2, attribue au juge pénal un pouvoir discrétionnaire afin d’établir un juste équilibre entre les exigences du service public et le droit des fonctionnaires publics à protéger leurs droits sociaux et intérêts professionnels. Autrement dit, le fait d’abandonner ou de ralentir le travail n’est pas automatiquement érigé en infraction pénale, à la différence d’ailleurs de l’ancien article 236, mais le juge est désormais tenu de vérifier si cet abandon ou ralentissement constitue, dans les circonstances de l’espèce, un moyen pour les fonctionnaires de protéger leurs intérêts sociaux. Dans l’affirmative, et à condition que cet abandon n’ait pas mis gravement en cause la continuité du service public, soit aucune peine n’est prononcée, soit elle est réduite.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la publication de l’arrêt de la Cour dans cette affaire et sa distribution aux autorités judiciaires pertinentes.

23815/04           Uslu No. 2, judgment of 20/01/2009, final on 20/04/2009, rectified on 15/07/2009

The case concerns a violation of the right to respect for the private life of the applicant, who was a detainee at the material time, due the authorities’ refusal to provide him with a copy of the doctor's report issued after his medical examination at the prison. This refusal was based on a practice – with reference to a Ministry of Justice circular dated 5/12/1990 – according to which no copies of official prison documents were to be given to detainees on grounds of security and public order (violation of Article 8).

• Neither an action report nor an action plan has yet been provided by the authorities.

37483/02           Erdagöz Güzel, judgment of 21/10/2008, final on 06/04/2009

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to respect of her private life due to the refusal by a domestic court by a judgment which was not based on any clearly established legislation or any sufficient and relevant reasoning, of an action for rectification of her name (violation of Article 8). The applicant brought an action for rectification of the spelling of her forename, asserting that she was called “Gözel”, not “Güzel”. The courts refused her application on the ground that the spelling which the applicant wished to use was based on the regional pronunciation of the word chosen as the name did not appear in the dictionary of the Turkish language.

The Court noted that, the domestic court mentioned neither a legal provision nor a conflict of public or private interest with the “legitimate interest” alleged by the applicant.

In the Court's opinion, Turkish law did not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and manner of the discretionary power of authorities with respect to the restrictions on the rectification of names. Furthermore the legislation concerned did not offer adequate safeguards to prevent possible abuses in the exercise of such restrictions.

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

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to allow the applicant to rectify her name as she wishes unless there are sufficient and relevant reasons for not doing so.

General measures:

• Information is awaited:

- on the legislative framework applicable to the change of name, particularly the scope of the discretionary power of the authorities, and measures envisaged to be taken to prevent new, similar violations;

- on the publication of the judgment of the European Court and its wide dissemination to all competent authorities.

28940/95           Foka, judgment of 24/06/2008, final on 26/01/2009

This case concerns the infringement of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression due to the unjustified confiscation of her cassettes, books, diary and maps by a public authority (violation of Article 10).

On 13/01/1995 the applicant, a Greek-Cypriot, resident in the northern part of Cyprus, travelled to the Ledra Palace checkpoint to cross into the northern part of Cyprus. At the checkpoint the applicant’s bus was met by agents of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) who took the applicant to a police station nearby. The applicant’s bag was searched and a number of cassettes, books, a diary and maps containing historical and political information were confiscated.

The European Court considered that the respondent state had not shown that the confiscation of the items corresponded to a “pressing social need” in the meaning of its case-law. The Court was therefore unable to reach the conclusion that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was justified under Article 10(2).

Individual measures: The applicant was awarded just satisfaction to the value of the confiscated items.

• Assessment: in these circumstances, no other measure appears necessary.

General measures:

• Information is awaited on any measures taken or envisaged in the light of the judgment.

74611/01+         Dilek et autres, arrêt du 17/07/2007, définitif le 30/01/2008, rectifié le 28/04/2008

L’affaire concerne une ingérence dans la liberté de réunion et d'association des requérants, du fait des jugements leur enjoignant de payer des dommages intérêts à l'administration pour avoir mené une action syndicale.

Les requérants sont des fonctionnaires d'Etat, en tant qu’agents du péage aux guichets du pont du Bosphore à Istanbul, et sont tous membres d’un syndicat des travailleurs du secteur public. En mars 1998 et février 1999, les requérants ont quitté leur poste de travail, pour une durée de 3 heures, dans le cadre d’actions de ralentissement du travail, permettant ainsi aux automobilistes de passer le péage sans payer. L’administration a intenté contre eux des actions en dommages et intérêts pour le préjudice en résultant. Se basant sur l’article 12§2 de la loi n° 657, selon lequel les fonctionnaires d’Etat sont tenus responsables pour le préjudice causé intentionnellement ou par faute, les juridictions internes leur ont enjoint de payer des dommages et intérêts à l'administration.

La Cour européenne a noté que la mesure litigieuse sous l’article 12§2 de loi n^o 657 avait pour base légale les articles 26§2 et 27 de la même loi, selon lesquelles le fait de ralentir le travail intentionnellement ou mener une grève est interdit aux fonctionnaires d'Etat. Dans la mesure où elle visait à empêcher les perturbations dans le bon déroulement du service public, la mesure en cause poursuivait un but légitime, dont la protection de l'ordre public. Cependant, les circonstances suivantes ne justifiaient pas une caractérisation de l’action syndicale des requérants dans cette affaire comme un acte délictuel ou un acte illégitime. Premièrement, les actions de ralentissement du travail avaient été décidées par le syndicat dont les requérants étaient membres et les autorités concernées en avaient été informées au préalable. En s'y joignant, les requérants ont usé de leur liberté de réunion pacifique. En outre, les décisions des juridictions internes engageant la responsabilité civile des intéressés, ont été rendues en raison de leur participation à l'action collective organisée par le syndicat dont ils étaient membres pour défendre leurs conditions de travail. Enfin, le gouvernement turc n’a pas expliqué si le syndicat avait la possibilité de défendre les droits des fonctionnaires par d'autres moyens pacifiques, alors que les dispositions internes interdisent d'une manière générale les actions collectives aux fonctionnaires d'Etat. Dans ces conditions, l'engagement de la responsabilité civile des requérants n'était pas « nécessaire dans une société démocratique » (violation de l'article 11).

Mesures de caractère individuel : Au titre du préjudice matériel, la Cour européenne a alloué aux requérants des montants correspondant aux sommes qu’ils avaient dû verser à l’administration.

• Evaluation : Dans les circonstances de cette affaire, il apparaît qu’il ne reste aucune autre conséquence à effacer ou à remédier.

Mesures de caractère général : La violation constatée dans cette affaire a résulté de l’interprétation des juridictions internes de l’article 12§2 de la loi n° 657, consistant à caractériser une activité pacifique syndicale avec avertissement préalable, comme un acte délictuel ou illégal. Cependant, une telle interprétation semble en voie de changement, de manière conforme aux exigences de la Convention. La Cour européenne a noté qu’en décembre 2004, le Conseil d’Etat turc avait constaté que « la participation d’un professeur de lycée à une activité syndicale et, par conséquent, son absence sans avertissement de son poste à l’école, ne pouvait pas faire l’objet d’une sanction disciplinaire, tel le prélèvement d’1/30eme de son salaire, au motif que cette absence sans avertissement ne pouvait pas être considérée sans excuse » (§36 de l’arrêt). Ce raisonnement est particulièrement bienvenu, car il s’écarte des jugements litigieux à l'encontre des requérants dans la présente affaire.

• Des informations sont attendues sur davantage d’exemples, s’il en existe, de la jurisprudence interne correspondant aux exigences de la Convention quant aux activités syndicales. De plus, la publication et la diffusion de cet arrêt aux autorités administratives et judiciaires concernées sont attendues. Des informations sont également attendues sur toute autre mesure générale prise ou envisagée.

25720/02           Amer, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 06/07/2009

This case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought in 2001 against the applicant in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”). The proceedings lasted 4 years and 9 months before two levels of jurisdiction (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the failure to provide the applicant with an interpreter when he was questioned by the police, infringing his right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1 in conjunction with Article 6§3e).

Individual measures: The European Court found that “the most appropriate form of redress would be the retrial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article 6(1)) of the Convention, should he so request it” (§91 of the judgment).

• Information submitted by the authorities: The applicant was released from prison on 19/06/2009, having served his sentence. The legislation applicable in the “TRNC” does not provide the possibility of obtaining a retrial following a judgment of the European Court which has found a violation of the Convention.  

• Information is awaited concerning the status of the applicant’s conviction, and any possible avenues of redress available in this respect.

General measures:

An action plan / action report is awaited from the authorities with respect to general measures.

                        - 100 cases of length of detention on remand and of length of criminal proceedings

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Demirel group)

These cases primarily concern the excessive length of the applicants' detention on remand and the absence of sufficient reasons given by domestic courts in their decisions to extend such detention (violations of Article 5§3). The European Court found that the domestic courts’ decisions, in only using identical, stereotyped wording, such as “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the file” did not provide sufficient information as to the reasons justifying the applicants' being kept in detention. In a number of these judgments, the Court also found that the domestic courts had failed to give consideration to the application of preventive measures foreseen by Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “CCP”) other than detention on remand, such as prohibition on leaving the country or release on bail (see for example, Duyum, §38).

A number of these cases also concern the absence of a domestic remedy whereby the applicants could challenge the lawfulness of their detention on remand (violations of Article 5§4). In particular, the Court observed that Turkish law did not provide a domestic remedy which was genuinely adversarial or which could offer reasonable prospects of success when challenging the lawfulness of detention on remand.

Lastly, a number of these cases concern the absence of a right to compensation for the applicants’ unlawful detention on remand (violations of Article 5§5).

The Court’s recent judgment in the case of Cahit Demirel (Application No. 18623/03). In this judgment the European Court referred to the number of cases before by the Committee in the context of the Demirel group of cases and noted that there were still more than 140 similar applications pending before it. Having regard to the number of pending cases and in the light of its findings in its previous judgments, the Court considered that the violations of Article 5§§3 and 4 of the Convention in these cases “originated in widespread and systemic problems arising out of the malfunctioning of the Turkish criminal justice system and the state of the Turkish legislation, respectively” (§46). The Court, having regard to the systemic situation, underlined that “general measures at national level must be taken in order to ensure the effective protection of the right to liberty and security in accordance with the guarantees laid down in Article 5§§3 and 4 of the Convention” (§48).

Other violations found by the Court: The European Court found the following other violations in a number of these cases: excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular before state security courts (violations of Article 6§1); failure to communicate the prosecutor's opinion to the applicants (violations of Article 6§1); lack of independence and impartiality of the state security courts (violations of Article 6§1); ill-treatment and lack of an effective remedy (violations of Articles 3 and 13) and the continued detention of the applicant following a release order (violation of Article 5§1) (see appendix for details).

Individual measures: It is observed that in a number of cases the applicants are still detained on remand and/or the proceedings against them are still pending before domestic courts despite the judgments of the European Court (in 18 cases the applicants are still detained on remand and in 47 cases the proceedings against them are still pending – see appendix for these cases). In certain cases (see for example, Yakışan, Yalçın, Ünay, and Veli Özdemir), the Court particularly noted that an appropriate means for putting an end to the violations found would be to conclude the criminal proceedings against the applicants as speedily as possible, while taking into account the requirements of the proper administration of justice, and/or to release the applicants pending the outcome of these proceedings.

• Information is urgently awaited

- as to whether or not the applicants in these cases are still detained on remand or whether the proceedings against them have been concluded, and,

- on the necessary measures taken or envisaged to bring to an end the applicants’ continued detention as well as the proceedings against them.

General measures:

            1) Violations of Article 5§§3, 4 and 5 on account of excessive length of detention on remand:

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (20/01/2004, 08/11/2006, 11/12/2006, 19/06/2007, and 21/08/2007). 

            a) Legislative amendments: The Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 5271) (CCP), which came into force on 01/06/2005, provides the following safeguards to prevent future violations of the same kind:

(i) Reasons for detention on remand: 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. The contents of such decisions must be communicated orally to the accused or suspects. A written copy of the decision must also be forwarded to the accused or suspect (Articles 100 and 101 of CCP).

(ii) Continued detention on remand: A judge or a court shall decide whether or not the conditions for the detention on remand still exist at every hearing or between two consecutive hearings, if necessary, or in any event every 30 days (Article 108 of CCP).

(iii) Maximum length of detention on remand: A maximum length of detention on remand is set (two years in the case of crimes within the jurisdiction of the assize courts, which may be extended for an additional period of three years; one year in the case of crimes that are not within the jurisdiction of the assize courts, with the possibility of extension for six months) (Article 102 of CCP). However, this provision will enter into force with respect to crimes falling under the jurisdiction of assize courts on 31/12/2010 (Article 12 of the Law on the Application of CCP (Law no. 5230)). For this exception, the relevant provisions of the former CCP (Law no. 1412) will continue to apply until the above deadline. Furthermore, Article 252§2 of CPP provides that the maximum time limits set above shall be doubled in judicial proceedings concerning certain crimes.

(iv) Right to compensation: Anyone who claims that he or she has been unlawfully detained on remand or whose detention on remand has been unlawfully extended may claim damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages incurred (Articles 141 to 144 of CCP).

            b) Examples of domestic court decisions: The Turkish authorities provided 55 examples of decisions, 24 given by assize courts and 31 by other criminal courts since the introduction of the legislative amendments. In most of these decisions, including those related to terrorism, the courts released the detained accused on a number of grounds such as the fact that most of the evidence had already been gathered; that the accused had already been on remand for a certain period of time; that the evidence in the record might indicate a crime less severe than the charges; that mitigating factors might apply in the event of conviction, or deteriorating health of the accused. In some cases, the accused were also released on bail.

In one case dealing with organised crime, the court denied requests for release on the ground that the alleged crimes were of a serious and organised nature, that the evidence was not fully gathered, hence potential evidence suppression attempts and the likelihood of absconding. In another case involving a terrorist organisation, an assize court ordered the defendants' continued detention on the ground of the nature of the charges being organised crime, the risk of absconding, the evidence yet to be gathered, and the fact that the defendants had been in detention for a relatively short period of time.

• Assessment:

(a) Regarding the legislative amendments: The amendments introduced with the entry into force of CCP appear to indicate a positive development in aligning Turkish legislation with the Convention’s requirements. It should be noted in this regard that it is extremely important that domestic courts, when applying Articles 100 to 102 of CCP in practice, give relevant and sufficient reasons to justify continued detention and take into consideration the particular circumstances of each case. Domestic courts are expected to refrain from giving stereotyped decisions and take into account the case-law of the European Court in light of Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution, which allows the direct application of the Convention in Turkish law.

As regards the maximum time-limit set for detention on remand, it should be noted that a rough survey of recent case-law of the European Court may give an impression that the length of detention on remand exceeding two years is likely to violate Article 5§3 of the Convention. However, it has to be underlined that, even the shortest period of detention on remand could be considered as a violation of Article 5§3 if it cannot be convincingly demonstrated that it is justified. Moreover, there are examples of judgments in which very long periods of detention on remand, approximately five years, were not automatically considered as a violation if there were relevant and sufficient reasons (see, for example, W. against Switzerland and Chraidi against Germany).  It should therefore be emphasised that the setting of time-limits for the period of detention on remand will not in itself prevent similar violations. In any event, the application of the general time-limits, together with the exceptions provided in CCP, might result in extremely long periods of detention on remand (for certain crimes this period might even reach seven years).  

(b) Regarding the examples of court decisions provided: At the outset, it should be recalled that neither the state of evidence nor the gravity of the charges can by themselves justify the length of preventive detention exceeding a certain period. The domestic judge, when deciding to extend detention on remand, should indicate the presence of “relevant and sufficient reasons”, i.e. to what extent the applicant's release would have posed a risk after the passage of time, in particular in the later stages of proceedings (see, for example, and Mehmet Yavuz , §§39 and 40).

Bearing in mind the Court’s considerations, the decisions provided by the Turkish authorities do not lead to a conclusive assessment as to whether or not the Convention’s standards have been reflected in the domestic courts’ practice. First, it is not clear at what stage of the proceedings these decisions were given and what the total length of detention was in these cases. Secondly, preventive measures, such as release on bail, were applied only in few cases and there are no examples of other preventative measures, such as prohibition on leaving the country, that had been considered by domestic courts.

(c) Regarding the absence of an effective remedy and the right to compensation: The Secretariat notes that the Turkish authorities provided no information on the existence of an effective remedy whereby an applicant might challenge the lawfulness of detention on remand in adversarial proceedings.

As to the right to compensation, it appears that CCP provides such a right but that it is not clear as to whether the grant of compensation requires a finding by domestic courts of a violation of one of the rights enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention. It should be noted in this respect that “the right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 […] presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court” (see, Elğay, § 30). It is therefore not clear as to whether the provisions of CCP are applied by domestic courts in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 of Article 5. 

Conclusion: It appears that, to be able to make a more conclusive assessment, further information is necessary on the application by domestic courts of the relevant provisions of CCP in their decisions extending detention on remand. It is expected that the domestic courts will take into consideration the case-law of the European Court in such decisions. In particular, it would be useful if the Turkish authorities could provide examples of decisions of the Court of Cassation allowing the direct application of the case-law of the European Court. Information is also awaited regarding the existence of an effective remedy providing adversarial proceedings to challenge lawfulness of detention on remand, as well as the application by domestic courts of the relevant provisions of CCP granting compensation for unlawful detention.

Lastly, it should be emphasised that information to judges and prosecutors on the requirements of the Convention and the European Court’s judgments is essential for the improvement of judicial practice. In this context, it would be very useful if the Turkish authorities would consider issuing a circular to all judges and public prosecutors drawing their attention to the requirements arising from the case-law of the European Court.

2) Violations of Article 6§1:

- Excessive length of criminal proceedings: The Committee is examining the measures taken in the Ormancı group (43647/98, Section 4.2). For this group, the Committee is expecting information on the adoption of draft laws which are intended to prevent lengthy proceedings as well as on the introduction of effective domestic remedies in this respect.

It should further be noted that state security courts were abolished by the constitutional amendments of May 2004.

- Independence and impartiality of state security courts: See, Çıraklar against Turkey (judgment of 28/10/1998) which was closed by final resolution DH(99)555 following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities. 

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

            3) Violations of Articles 3 and 13 (Ill-treatment and lack of an effective remedy): Measures are being examined in the context of the actions of security forces group against Turkey (see Aksoy group, 21987/93, 1078th meeting, March 2010).

            4) Dissemination of the judgments of the European Court: The Demirel (399324/98) judgment has been translated into Turkish and circulated to the relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior.

• Information is also awaited on the publication and dissemination of the Cahit Demirel judgment.

29986/96           A.D., arrêt du 22/12/2005, définitif le 22/03/2006

Cette affaire concerne la mise aux arrêts du requérant, infligée en 1994 par un lieutenant-colonel pour désobéissance militaire alors que le requérant servait dans les forces armées en qualité de sergent. La mise aux arrêts et la détention du requérant pendant 21 jours ont été ordonnées en vertu de l’article 171 du code pénal militaire qui autorise les lieutenants colonels à ordonner de telles sanctions disciplinaires en cas de désobéissance militaire. Le recours du requérant a été rejeté au motif qu’en vertu de l’article 21 de la loi sur la Cour suprême militaire administrative (loi n° 1602), de telles sanctions disciplinaires ne peuvent faire l’objet d’un recours judiciaire.

La Cour européenne a constaté que le requérant avait été privé de sa liberté en exécution d’une décision ordonnée par son supérieur militaire. Elle a relevé que ce dernier exerçait son autorité dans la hiérarchie militaire, relevait d’autres autorités supérieures et ne jouissait donc pas d’indépendance par rapport à elles. Rappelant que les privations de liberté doivent résulter d’un tribunal compétent présentant les garanties judiciaires, la Cour a conclu que la procédure disciplinaire devant le supérieur militaire ne fournissait pas les garanties judiciaires requises (violation de l’article 5§1a).

Mesures de caractère général:

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques : Dans leur réponse du 27/09/2006 à la lettre de phase initiale du Secrétariat du 06/06/2006, les autorités turques ont donné les informations suivantes :

1. L’article 171 du Code militaire a été amendé le 26/03/2006 pour ramener la peine de 21 à 7 jours de détention en cas de désobéissance.

2. L’arrêt de la Cour européenne a été traduit en turc et diffusé aux autorités compétentes. La traduction turque de l’arrêt est par ailleurs accessible sur le site de la Cour de cassation (http://www.yargitay.gov.tr/aihm/pdf/29986_98pdf).

Lors de la 1013e réunion (décembre 2007) les autorités turques ont indiqué qu’un amendement avait été proposé au Code pénal militaire en vue de modifier l’article 171.

• Evaluation : Dans son arrêt du 22/12/2005, la Cour européenne a souligné que pour respecter les dispositions de l’article 5§1a), une peine privative de liberté, indépendamment de la question de savoir si celle-ci est qualifiée de pénale ou disciplinaire en droit interne de l’Etat membre, doit résulter d’une décision juridictionnelle. Elle doit donc être infligée par un tribunal compétent ayant l’autorité requise pour juger l’affaire, jouissant d’une indépendance par rapport à l’exécutif et présentant les garanties judiciaires adéquates. En l’espèce, la violation de l’article 5§1a) résulte du fait que la peine « privative de liberté » infligée au requérant, ne résultait pas d’une décision judiciaire, mais d’une décision de son supérieur hiérarchique. C’est donc plus la nature de la peine encourue par le requérant (peine privative de liberté), que la durée de cette peine d’emprisonnement, qui a conduit la Cour européenne à constater une violation de l’article 5§1a).

L’amendement de l’article 171 du Code pénal militaire indiqué par les autorités dans leur lettre du 27/09/2006, tout en raccourcissant la durée de la peine à purger (désormais 7 jours d’emprisonnement), n’a pas pour autant modifié la nature de cette peine, et n’a pas non plus mis en place de recours judiciaires devant un tribunal indépendant à l’encontre des sanctions disciplinaires militaires privatives de liberté.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les progrès accomplis dans l’adoption du projet de loi indiqué par les autorités lors de la 1013e réunion (décembre 2007).

2036/04            Hamşioğlu, arrêt du 19/02/2008, définitif le 19/05/2008

Cette affaire concerne le retard de six jours dans la mise à exécution d’une ordonnance de libération rendue à faveur du requérant (violation de l’article 5§1) et l’absence de voie de recours permettant d’obtenir une réparation à cet égard (voir les §§ 17, 35 et 37 de l’arrêt) (violation de l’article 5§5).

En 1991, le requérant a été condamné à la réclusion à perpétuité. Par la suite, la Cour de sûreté d’Etat d’Erzurum a ordonné la libération du requérant pour 6 mois conformément au rapport médicolégal qui a diagnostiqué le syndrome de Wernicke-Korsakoff chez le requérant. Selon le gouvernement le retard dans la libération du requérant avait résulté en premier lieu des formalités administratives à accomplir et de la distance géographique entre le lieu où il avait été condamné et celui où il purgeait sa peine et en second lieu, du fait que le proche du requérant en présence duquel ce dernier devait être libéré, n’était pas présent à la date demandée.

La Cour européenne a estimé d’une part que le retard dans la libération du requérant n’avait été provoqué que partiellement par la nécessité d’accomplir les formalités administratives liées à la remise en liberté, le retard s’expliquait plutôt par l’envoi du dossier du requérant par la voie postale au parquet compétent (§26 de l’arrêt) et d’autre part que les autorités n’avaient pas pris les dispositions nécessaires pour accélérer l’arrivée du proche du requérant dont la présence était requise selon les dispositions de la circulaire n°43765 du 18 juillet 2001, lors de la libération du détenu (§30 de l’arrêt). Par ailleurs, cette circulaire a été abolie en 2006.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a octroyé au requérant une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice subi.

• Evaluation : Aucune autre mesure ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

            1) Violation de l’article 5§1 :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures envisagées ou prises en vue de prévenir des violations similaires. A cet égard, des informations seraient utiles sur les dispositions légales actuellement en vigueur régissant l’exécution des décisions de remise en liberté. En tout état de cause, des informations sont attendues sur la diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne auprès des autorités chargées de l’exécution des ordonnances de remise en liberté.

            2) Violation de l’article 5§5 :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les recours disponibles en cas de retard dans mise à exécution d’une ordonnance de libération.

16110/03           Karataş Şahin, arrêt du 17/06/2008, définitif le 17/09/2008

L’affaire concerne le fait que le requérant avait été détenu 43 jours de plus que la durée de l’emprisonnement à laquelle il avait été condamné à l’issue d’une série de procédures pénales engagées contre lui. La Cour européenne a relevé que l’extension de la détention du requérant ne pouvait être considérée comme une détention régulière au sens de la Convention (violation de l’article 5§1(a)).

L’affaire concerne également l’absence de recours qui aurait permis au requérant d’obtenir une indemnisation pour la période de détention illégale. La Cour européenne a noté que le Gouvernement n’avait présenté aucun exemple de l’application de la loi n°466 (loi sur le paiement de l’indemnisation aux personnes arrêtées ou détenus) (violation de l’article 5§5).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a octroyé au requérant une satisfaction équitable pour le préjudice moral subi. Par ailleurs, le requérant n’est plus en détention.

• Evaluation : Aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations semblables, notamment s’agissant des recours ouverts aux personnes se trouvant dans la même situation que le requérant.

- 2 affaires concernant la poursuite de la détention des requérants quelques heures après le prononcé d'une ordonnance de libération

18242/02           Değerli et autres, arrêt du 05/02/2008, définitif le 05/05/2008

21007/04           Özdemir, arrêt du 18/11/2008, définitif le 18/02/2009

L’affaire Değerli concerne le maintien en détention provisoire des requérants pendant plusieurs heures à l’issue de la transmission de l’ordonnance de mise en liberté (violations de l’article 5§1)

Les requérants n’ont été libérés qu’après une période allant de 18 heures et 50 minutes à 23 heures et 35 minutes. Selon le gouvernement le retard allégué a été causé par le grand nombre de détenus à libérer et la nature des formalités administratives à accomplir. Il soutient de plus que l’ordonnance de libération est arrivée en dehors des heures de travail.

La Cour européenne a estimé qu’en l’absence d’un relevé strict heure par heure des actes et des formalités accomplis par les responsables de la prison, la thèse selon laquelle la remise en liberté des requérants n’a pas subi de retard ne pouvait être retenue. En conclusion la Cour a souligné l’importance de l’obligation des Etats contractants de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour permettre au personnel des établissements pénitentiaires d’exécuter sans retard les ordonnances de mise en liberté, y compris lorsqu’il s’agit de la libération d’un grand nombre de détenus.

Dans l’affaire Özdemir, la Cour a constaté que bien que l’ordonnance de mise en liberté du requérant ait été rendue par le parquet le 27/03/2002, le requérant n’avait été effectivement libéré de la garde à vue que le 28/03 à 13h30 (violation de l’article 5§1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : Les requérants ont été libérés et la Cour européenne a indemnisé le préjudice moral subi.

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées en vue de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

                       - 10 affaires concernant le contrôle de la correspondance des prisonniers

6289/02            Tamer Fazıl Ahmet, arrêt du 05/12/2006, définitif le 05/03/2007

77097/01           Ekinci et Akalın, arrêt du 30/01/2007, définitif le 30/04/2007

43955/02           Güzel, arrêt du 21/10/2008, définitif le 21/01/2009

73520/01           Kepeneklioğlu, arrêt du 23/01/2007, définitif le 23/04/2007

39862/02           Koç Ali, arrêt du 05/06/2007, définitif le 05/09/2007

38327/04          Koç et autres, arrêt du 30/09/2008, définitif le 30/12/2008

25886/04          Nakçi, arrêt du 30/09/2008, définitif le 30/12/2008

4287/04            Özkartal, arrêt du 24/06/2008, définitif le 24/09/2008

60123/00           Reyan n°2, arrêt du 23/09/2008, définitif le 23/12/2008

9460/03            Tan, arrêt du 03/07/2007, définitif le 03/10/2007

Ces affaires concernent la violation du droit des requérants au respect de leur vie privée du fait de l'ingérence injustifiée des autorités pénitentiaires dans leur correspondance durant leur détention (violation de l'article 8).

Dans l’affaire Tamer Fazıl Ahmet, le requérant, durant sa détention de décembre 2000 à mai 2001, avait adressé à son avocat plusieurs courriers dans lesquels il se plaignait soit du refus des autorités pénitentiaires de faire suivre ses lettres soit de passages supprimés dans ses lettres. Les autorités pénitentiaires ont également détruit une lettre adressée à un journal en vue de la publication d'un article écrit par le requérant pour protester contre les prisons de type F. Les autres affaires concernent également une ingérence similaire par les autorités pénitentiaires dans la correspondance des requérants.

Vu l'ampleur du contrôle exercé sur la correspondance des requérants et l'absence de recours effectif à ce titre, la Cour européenne a estimé que l'ingérence dans le droit des requérants avait été disproportionnée et ne pouvait passer pour « nécessaire dans une société démocratique ».

Mesures de caractère individuel : Il découle des arrêts de la Cour européenne dans les affaires Tamer Fazıl Ahmet, Ekinci et Akalın, Kepeneklioğlu, Koç Ali et Tan, que les requérants ne sont plus en détention. Par conséquent aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est nécessaire dans ces affaires. Il semble que dans les affaires Reyhan, Güzel, Koç, Nakçi et Özkartal, les requérants soient toujours incarcérés.

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures individuelles prises ou envisagées par les autorités turques dans le cadre des affaires Reyhan, Güzel, Koç, Nakçi et Özkartal, pour garantir la liberté de correspondance des requérants.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées pour éviter de nouvelles violations similaires. En tout état de cause, semblent nécessaires la publication de l'arrêt de la Cour européenne et sa diffusion aux autorités concernées (en particulier les autorités pénitentiaires).

46827/99          Mamatkulov and Askarov, judgment of 04/02/2005 - Grand Chamber

16348/05          Mostafa and others, judgment of 15/01/2008, final on 15/04/2008, rectified on 10/06/2009

The case of Mamatkulov and Askarov concerns the applicants' extradition to Uzbekistan on 27/03/1999 following a decree issued by the Turkish Cabinet on 19/03/1999 despite the European Court's request for interim measures (Rule 39) indicating on 18/03/1999 to the government that “it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to extradite the applicants to Uzbekistan until the Court had had an opportunity to examine the application further at its forthcoming session on 23 March”. Both applicants, who were charged in Uzbekistan with murder and a terrorist bomb attack on the Uzbek President, were convicted by the Uzbek courts on 28/06/1999 and sentenced to 20 and 11 years’ imprisonment respectively.

Pending their extradition, the applicants complained before the European Court that there were substantial grounds for believing that they would be subjected in Uzbekistan to treatment proscribed by Article 3. They further complained under Article 6 of the unfairness of the extradition proceedings in Turkey and of the criminal proceedings in Uzbekistan.

On 19/04/1999 the Turkish government informed the Court that it had received assurances from the Uzbek authorities that the applicants' property would not be liable to general confiscation and that the applicants would not be subjected to acts of torture or sentenced to capital punishment. The Uzbek authorities further noted that the Republic of Uzbekistan was a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture and accepted and reaffirmed its obligation to comply with the requirements of the provisions of that Convention.

The European Court, reiterating Contracting states' undertaking to refrain from any act or omission that might hinder the effective exercise of an individual applicant's right of application, found that a failure by a Contracting state to comply with interim measures is to be regarded as preventing the Court from effectively examining the applicant's complaint and as hindering the effective exercise of his or her right (violation of Article 34). The Court also found that, as a result of Turkey's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 34, it was prevented from assessing the applicants' complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention.

The case of Mostafa and others also concerns interference with the effective exercise of the applicants’ right of individual petition to challenge an extradition as a result of the authorities’ failure to comply with an interim measure indicated by the European Court under Rule 39 (violation of Article 34).

The applicant family, of Iraqi nationality, arrived in Turkey in 2000. After the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Ankara denied them refugee status, the Ministry of the Interior decided to extradite them on 6/08/2005.

Having received a petition alleging potential violations of Articles 2 and 3 in the event of extradition, the European Court indicated to the authorities on 4/05/2005 that under Rule 39 it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to extradite the applicants pending its decision on the case. However, on 11/05/2005 they were deported to northern Iraq where they currently live. In March and September 2007, the applicants corresponded with the Court’s Registry claiming that they had faced political and other problems after the extradition and solicited the Court’s assistance so as to be able to immigrate to Europe. The European Court found the applicants’ allegations manifestly ill-founded (§27 of the judgment). However, it held that the applicants’ removal to Iraq hampered the proper examination of their complaints.

Individual measures and payment of just satisfaction:

            1) Mamatkulov and Askarov case: The Turkish authorities paid the amount of just satisfaction awarded by the Court into escrow because the applicants' representatives were unable to provide a valid power of attorney to the authorities (one applicant’s name was false as he used a counterfeit passport and the other applicant’s name was not spelled correctly). In a letter of 09/03/2007 the applicants' representatives informed the Secretariat that they were unable to withdraw the just satisfaction from the escrow account because it was impossible for them to meet with their clients in Uzbekistan due to security concerns. On 30/10/2007, the Secretariat inquired whether the Turkish authorities could obtain declarations from the applicants designating persons who could either withdraw the amounts in escrow or give valid powers of attorney to the applicants’ representatives in Turkey who in turn could withdraw those amounts.

At the 1035th meeting (September 2007), the Turkish delegation informed the Committee of Ministers that they had followed the Secretariat’s suggestion and that the Turkish ambassador in Uzbekistan contacted Mr Mamatkulov’s wife. Mrs. Mamatkulov then tried to obtain such a declaration from her husband but her attempt proved unsuccessful because of the restrictions imposed by the prison authorities. The Turkish authorities could not contact the other applicant, Mr Askarov, and sending a notary directly to the prison was not a practicable option. The authorities are currently exploring other options.

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (20/05/2009, and 24/03/2010)): The legal costs and expenses, plus accrued interest, have been paid to the lawyer who represented the aplicants before the Court. In his letter of consent, the lawyer indicated that he had been notified that the amount of just satisfaction had been paid into an escrow account because he was unable to provide the authorities with a valid power of attorney, and that he had accepted the payment of costs and expenses to his bank account, along with their interests, which were calculated as of January 2009. He further indicated that he gave his consent to the payment, along with the interest calculated as of January 2009, to the applicants' wives, or to other of the applicants’ next of kin. The amount of just satisfaction, plus the accrued interest regarding the applicant Mamatkulov, was paid to his wife, and the amount of just satisfaction, plus the accrued interest regarding the applicant Askarov, was paid to his sister, with the lawyer's consent. In their petitions, Ms. Mamatkulova and Ms. Hudayberganova stated that they had received the sum on behalf of the applicants.

• Assessment: No further individual measures appear necessary.

2) Mostafa and others case: The applicants submitted no claim in respect of just satisfaction.

General measures: It should be noted that failure to comply with an interim measure in the context of a deportation, constitutes an irreversible hindrance to the effective exercise of the right of individual petition of the deported applicants. For this reason, it is all the more important to implement general measures to prevent such future violations.

At the 1035th meeting (September 2007), the Turkish delegation informed the Committee of Ministers that all competent authorities had been duly notified and informed of their obligation under the Convention to abide by the Court’s decisions indicating interim measures. The Turkish authorities expressed that they had, ever since, complied with each and every interim measure indicated by the European Court under Rule 39, except for the unfortunate incident in the case of Mostafa and others. The measures implemented otherwise proved effective. The judgment was also published and widely disseminated to all relevant authorities.

• Assessment: The measures taken so far are welcome. Nevertheless, at the 1035th meeting, the Committee of Ministers invited the Turkish authorities to provide further information on additional measures envisaged to prevent similar violations in the future.

• Further information on general measures is therefore awaited.

2334/03            Kozacioğlu, arrêt du 19/02/2009 – Grande Chambre

La présente affaire concerne l’atteinte injustifiée au droit des requérants (héritiers de M. Kozacıoğlu) au respect de leur bien dans la mesure où la législation interne en matière d’expropriation des biens culturels ne permettait pas la détermination d’une indemnité d’expropriation raisonnablement en rapport avec la valeur du bien (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

En novembre 1990, dans le cadre d’un programme de protection du patrimoine culturel du pays, un immeuble appartenant à M. Ibrahim Kozacıoğlu (« de cujus ») sis à Tarsus, a été classé « bien culturel » en raison de sa rareté et de ses caractéristiques architecturales et historiques. En avril 2000, cet immeuble a été exproprié et une indemnité d’expropriation a été versée au de cujus à la date du transfert de propriété.

Lors de la procédure en majoration de l’indemnité d’expropriation de l’immeuble ouverte par le de cujus, une commission d’expertises a considéré que les caractéristiques architecturales, historiques et culturelles de l’immeuble, justifiaient une majoration de sa valeur de 100 %. Une indemnité complémentaire a été ainsi accordée au de cujus par décision du Tribunal de Grande Instance.

En novembre 2001, la Cour de cassation a infirmé le jugement rendu en première instance, en considérant qu’une majoration de 100 % du montant de l’indemnité ne pouvait passer pour justifiée, puisque, selon l’article 15 d) de la loi n° 2863 concernant la protection du patrimoine culturel, ni les caractéristiques architecturale et historique, ni celles découlant de sa rareté ne pouvaient entrer en jeu dans la détermination de la valeur du bien.

La Cour européenne a considéré que les exigences de proportionnalité entre la privation de propriété et le but d’utilité publique, imposait la prise en compte, dans une mesure raisonnable, de certaines caractéristiques spécifiques (architecturale, historique et culturelle) des biens en question, pour la détermination d’une compensation adéquate. Or, le fait que la législation interne en la matière écartait catégoriquement cette possibilité, imposait aux requérants une charge excessive et disproportionnée.

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a alloué aux requérants une satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice matériel.

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires.

71831/01          Günaydın Turizm ve Inşaat Ticaret Anonim Şirketi, arrêt du 02/06/2009, définitif le 02/09/2009

Cette affaire concerne l’illégalité de l’ingérence dans le droit au respect des biens de la société requérante s’agissant du transfert d’un de ses biens immobiliers, la villa Zarifi, au Trésor public sans indemnisation. Ce bien qui appartenait en 1951 à des ressortissants grecs (héritiers de Yorgo L. Zarifi), avait été vendu en 1954 à un ressortissant turc qui l’avait lui-même vendu à la société requérante en 1969.

A la suite d’une action intentée par le Trésor public, le tribunal de grande instance de Sarıyer, a annulé en avril 1997 le titre de propriété de la société requérante et l’a transféré au Trésor public. Le tribunal a notamment fait valoir l’absence de « vente valide », dans la mesure où, l’ancien propriétaire du bien en question, Yorgo L. Zarifi ayant quitté la Turquie dans les années 1910, tous ses biens devaient passer pour avoir été transférés au Trésor public.

La Cour européenne a estimé que rien ne permettait de mettre en doute la bonne foi de la société requérante lors de son acquisition. Elle a relevé par ailleurs que les tribunaux internes n’avaient pas suivi la jurisprudence constante de la Cour de cassation turque (§§54 et 55 de l’arrêt), selon laquelle il appartenait au Trésor public de prouver que les actes fonciers concernant un bien immobilier étaient viciés. Considérant que le jugement incriminé du tribunal de grande instance ne permettait guerre d’identifier la loi ou la jurisprudence appliqué à la requérante, la Cour européenne a conclut que l’ingérence litigieuse ne pouvait passer pour prévisible aux yeux de la requérante (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

14340/05          Fener Rum Patrikliği (Patriarcat œcuménique), arrêt du 08/07/2008, définitif le 08/10/2008

L’affaire concerne la violation du droit au respect des biens de la requérante, l’Eglise Orthodoxe à Istanbul.

En 1902 l’église requérante avait acquis et dûment enregistré un bien immobilier. En 1903 une fondation de minorité orthodoxe a eu l’usage du bien pour y installer un orphelinat. En 1936 la fondation a déposé une déclaration, en conformité avec la loi de 1935, en vertu de laquelle elle avait obtenu la reconnaissance de sa personnalité morale ; la déclaration mentionnait le bien susmentionné. Toutefois, en 1964, les autorités turques ont ordonné l’évacuation des locaux pour des raisons de sécurité. En 1997, la Direction générale des fondations a émis un arrêté dans lequel elle a qualifié la Fondation de l’orphelinat de fondation « désaffectée » et en a pris la gestion. Cette décision a été confirmée ultérieurement par les tribunaux nationaux. En 1999, la Direction générale des fondations a introduit une action en justice en vue de l’annulation du titre de propriété du requérant et de la réinscription du bien sur le registre foncier au nom de la fondation. Enfin, en 2004, la Cour de cassation a confirmé la décision d’un tribunal inférieur d’inscrire le bien au nom de la fondation. Elle a considéré que depuis la déclaration de la Fondation de l’orphelinat déposée en 1936, le bien figurait au patrimoine de celle-ci et n’appartenait plus à l’église requérante.

La Cour européenne a relevé que la question de la propriété du bien n’avait pas été remise en question par les tribunaux nationaux ou les autorités administratives, ni après l’acquisition en 1902, ni après la déclaration de 1936, jusqu’en 1997 lorsqu’une action en annulation avait été introduite. La propriété est restée ainsi incontestée de 1964, lorsque la propriété avait été évacuée pour des raisons de sécurité, jusqu’en 1997. A partir de 1964, l’usage du bien par la fondation avait en fait virtuellement cessé. La Cour européenne a souligné que la fondation elle-même n’avait jamais affirmé posséder le titre de propriété, y compris dans la déclaration de 1936.

Par conséquent, la Cour européenne a dit que l’usage restreint de la propriété durant une longue période ne pouvait conduire à la perte du titre de propriété. De plus, le fait que les autorités turques n’aient versé aucune indemnisation à la requérante pour ce bien avait porté atteinte au juste équilibre entre la protection du titre et l’intérêt public (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n°1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a noté que la question de la satisfaction équitable ne se trouve pas en état et en conséquence l’a réservée dans son intégralité.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées par les autorités turques afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations semblables.

6045/03            Miçooğulları Davut, judgment of 24/05/2007, revised on 16/12/2008, rectified on 02/02/2009 final on 14/09/2009

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the failure to compensate him for the transfer his property to the Treasury as a result of proceedings brought to annul his title (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The European Court was not satisfied by the government’s arguments, in particular to the effect that the previous owner of the property, not being Turkish citizen could not have been the rightful owner. The Court noted that the applicant purchased the land in question pursuant to a title granted by the competent national authorities, and that he had been able to enjoy the property, paying the various taxes due in respect of his assets, until the date of the annulment of the title. The Court noted that the government did not rely on any exceptional circumstances to justify the total absence of compensation (§54-§56).

The case also concerns the excessive length of the annulment proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

• Neither an action plan nor an action report has yet been provided by the authorities.

44088/04           Menemen Minibűsçűler Odası, arrêt du 9/12/2008, définitif le 9/03/2009

La présente affaire concerne une atteinte injustifiée au droit d’accès de la requérante à un tribunal, cette dernière étant une chambre de commerce exerçant une activité privée de transport en commun. A cet égard, la requérante n’a pas été informée de l’introduction de recours par une coopérative concurrente à l’encontre d’actes administratifs qui affectaient son activité de transport en commun, malgré le libellé de l’article 31 du Code de procédure administrative. L’article 31 prévoit en substance que le juge doit « d’office » procéder à la notification de l’introduction des recours administratifs aux individus pour lesquels le dossier en litige semble présenter un intérêt.

La Cour européenne a estimé que l’inobservation de l’article en question, avait empêché la requérante de se faire entendre dans un litige concernant ses droits et obligations (violation de l’article 6§1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a rejeté la demande de satisfaction équitable au titre du préjudice matériel, estimant qu’elle ne pouvait spéculer sur ce qu’aurait été l’issue des procédures litigieuses en l’absence de la violation constatée. La requérante n’a soumis aucune demande au titre du préjudice moral.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la question de savoir s’il est possible de rouvrir la procédure litigieuse devant le tribunal administratif d’İzmir, si la partie requérante formule une demande allant dans ce sens.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures envisagées ou prises en vue de prévenir des violations similaires ainsi que sur la diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne auprès des tribunaux administratifs et du Conseil d’Etat.

- 4 affaires concernant l’annulation des droits de propriétés sur des biens appartenant à des fondations de minorités religieuses, plus de trente ans après leur acquisition légale

34478/97           Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfi, arrêt du 09/01/2007, définitif le 09/04/2007, rectifié le 22/05/2007

37639/03+        Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi Vakfı, arrêt du 03/03/2009, définitif le 03/06/2009, rectifié le 02/10/2009

1480/03            Samatya Surp Kevork Ermeni Kilisesi, Mektebi Ve Mezarlığı Vakfı Yönetim Kurulu, arrêt du 16/12/2008, définitif le 16/03/2009

36165/02           Yekidule Surp Pırgiç Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfı, arrêt du 16/12/2008, définitif le 16/03/2009

Ces affaires concernent la violation du droit au respect des biens des requérantes, des fondations de droit turc créées sous l'Empire ottoman (violations de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1). Leurs statuts sont en conformité avec les dispositions du traité de Lausanne de 1923 concernant la protection des anciennes fondations assurant des services publics pour les minorités religieuses.

Dans ces affaires les violations constatées par la Cour européenne reposent sur les observations suivantes :

La loi n° 2762 sur les fondations [vakıf], promulguée en juin 1935, tout en reconnaissant la personnalité morale des fondations minoritaires créées sous l’Empire, a imposé à celles-ci l’obligation d’inscrire leurs biens immobiliers au registre foncier et les a invité à présenter une déclaration [beyanname] indiquant les biens immobiliers en leur possession et la nature et les sources de leurs revenus et dépenses.

A partir de 1936, les fondations en question ont continué à acquérir des biens immobiliers à titre onéreux, par donation, par succession, par échange ou par achat et ce, jusqu’en 1974.

Par un arrêt du 8/05/1974, la Cour de cassation turque a estimé que les déclarations faites en 1936 devaient être considérées comme les actes de fondation des vakıfs en question, précisant leur statut. Elle a considéré qu’en l’absence de clause explicite dans les déclarations, ces fondations ne pouvaient acquérir d’autres biens immobiliers que ceux figurant sur ce document.

C’est en s’appuyant sur cette jurisprudence de mai 1974 de la Cour de cassation, que le Trésor public a commencé à introduire des recours devant des instances judiciaires nationales à l’encontre de ces fondations afin d’annulation de leurs titres de propriété sur les biens immobiliers acquis après 1936.

Ainsi, dans l’affaire Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi vakfı (34478/97) la propriété d’un immeuble que la fondation requérante avait acquis par donation en octobre 1952, a été inscrite au registre foncier au nom du trésor public, par décision d’un tribunal de grande instance.  Les faits sont largement similaires dans les affaires Yedikule Surp Pirgiç Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfı (36165/02) et Samatya Surp Kevork Ermeni Kilisesi (1480/03).

Dans ces affaires, la Cour européenne, après avoir constaté qu’aucune disposition de la loi n° 2762 n’interdisait aux fondations en cause l’acquisition de biens outre que ceux figurant dans la déclaration de 1936 et que c’était une interprétation jurisprudentielle des dispositions de cette loi par la Cour de cassation en 1974 qui avait donné naissance à cette restriction, a considéré que l’atteinte portée au droit à la propriété des requérantes n’avait pas satisfait à l’exigence de prévisibilité.

Dans l’affaire Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi vakfı (37639/03), la fondation requérante avait demandé auprès du tribunal cadastral l’enregistrement en son nom d’un immeuble dont elle aurait acquis la propriété par le jeu de la prescription acquisitive, en ce que l’immeuble en question était en sa possession depuis longtemps. Mais le tribunal cadastral a débouté la fondation de sa demande, en considérant qu’en l’absence de clause explicite dans sa déclaration faite en 1936, cette fondation ne pouvait non plus acquérir la propriété de cet immeuble par prescription acquisitive (violation de l’article 1 du protocole n° 1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour européenne a dit que l’Etat défendeur devait procéder à la réinscription des biens litigieux au nom des fondations requérantes dans un délai de trois à compter de la date à laquelle l’arrêt de la Cour européenne sera devenu définitif. A défaut, l’Etat devra verser une somme au titre du préjudice matériel.

• Dans ces affaires, les autorités turques ont soit payé la somme accordée par la Cour européenne au titre de satisfaction équitable, soit restitué à la fondation concernée le bien immobilier en question.

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

La législation régissant le statut des fondations (la loi n° 2762) a subi une première modification en 2002 et une seconde modification en 2003, par la loi n° 4778 du 2/01/2003. L’article 3 de cette loi prévoyait que les fondations des minorités religieuses pouvaient acquérir des biens immobiliers et en disposer et ce, qu’elles soient ou non dotées de statuts (acte de fondation).

Dans un arrêt du 15/11/2005, le Conseil d’Etat a cependant limité la portée de ces amendements législatifs, en considérant que les amendements ne concernaient que les biens en possessions des fondations et ne régissaientt pas le statut des biens inscrits au registre foncier au nom de tierces personnes. En conséquence, la Cour européenne a estimé dans son arrêt Yedikule Surp Pirgiç Ermeni Hastanesi Vakfı (36165/02), que les amendements législatifs adoptés en 2002 et 2003 n’avaient permis à la requérante de demander la restitution de son bien ou une indemnisation à défaut d’une telle restitution. Par ailleurs, dans le cadre de l’affaire Bozcaada Kimisis Teodoku Rum Ortodoks Kilisesi vakfı (37639/03), les tribunaux nationaux avaient considéré que les amendements intervenus n’étaient pas applicables aux procédures en cours. Sur la base de cette jurisprudence, la Cour européenne a estimé qu’un recours dans le cadre des amendements précités, n’était pas une voie de recours à épuiser au sens de l’article 35 de la Convention.

Enfin, une nouvelle loi (n° 5737) portant sur les fondations a été adoptée en février 2008. Les dispositions pertinentes de cette loi sont les suivantes : Article 12« Les fondations peuvent acquérir ou posséder des biens immeubles, (...) ». Article 7 (provisoire) b) les biens immeubles acquis à titre onéreux par donation ou par succession, après le dépôt des déclarations de 1936 des fondations des minorités religieuses, et dont les titres sont toujours inscrits au nom du Trésor ou de la Direction [des fondations] ou bien du de cujusou des donateurs au motif que ces fondations n’ont pas la capacité d’acquérir des biens, sont inscrits, avec les droits et obligations qui s’y rattachent et après avis favorable de l’assemblée [des fondations], à leur nom si celles-ci en font la demande au bureau cadastral concerné dans les dix-huit mois à compter de l’entrée en vigueur de la présente loi (...) »

Dans son arrêt Samatya Surp Kevork Ermeni Kilisesi (1480/03), la Cour européenne a estimé qu’elle était prête à reconnaître que la loi n° 5737 était susceptible de permettre aux fondations requérantes de faire redresser leurs griefs avec une perspective raisonnable de succès, en vertu notamment de son article 7. Elle a par ailleurs considéré que les fondations requérantes devaient en principe saisir le bureau du cadastre compétent afin de demander l’inscription des biens en question en leurs noms, pour épuiser les voies de recours internes au sens de l’article 35§1 (§24 de l’arrêt).

Toutefois, la Cour européenne a également observé que le Gouvernement n’avait produit aucun exemple propre à démontrer qu’un recours dans le cadre de la nouvelle loi n° 5737, avait été tenté avec succès par les fondations minoritaires et elle a en conséquence rejeté l’exception du non-épuisement des voies de recours internes avancée par le Gouvernement.

• Des informations sont attendues sur la mise en œuvre de la nouvelle loi n° 5737, notamment des exemples propres à démontrer qu’un recours dans le cadre de l’article 7 provisoire de cette loi a été tenté avec succès par des fondations minoritaires.

• Des informations sont également attendues sur la question de savoir s’il existe des voies de recours en indemnités pour les cas non couverts par la loi n° 5737, notamment lorsque les biens immobiliers ont été vendus dans l’intervalle à des tiers.

- 8 affaires concernant le défaut d'indemnisation pour la perte de propriétés en raison de leur qualification de domaines forestiers

1411/03            Turgut et autres, arrêt du 08/07/2008, définitif le 26/01/2009, rectifié le 22/09/2009, et du 13/10/2009, éventuellement définitif le 13/01/2010

17203/03          Devecioğlu, arrêt du 13/11/2008, définitif le 04/05/2009 et du 24/11/2009, définitif le 24/02/2010, rectifié le 17/05/2010

343/04              Hacısaihoğlu, arrêt du 02/06/2009, définitif le 02/09/2009

35785/03           Köktepe, arrêt du 22/07/2008, définitif le 26/01/2009

18257/04          Rimer et autres, arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009 et du 20/05/2010, éventuellement définitif le 20/08/2010

36192/03          Şatır, arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009 et du 20/05/2010, éventuellement définitif le 20/08/2010

45651/04           Temel Conta Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş., arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009

16009/04          Vural Nural, arrêt du 10/03/2009, définitif le 10/06/2009 et du 20/05/2010, éventuellement définitif le 20/08/2010

Ces affaires concernent l’atteinte au droit des requérants au respect de leurs biens en raison de l’absence d’indemnisation pour l’annulation de l’inscription de leurs biens immobiliers au registre foncier. Les décisions des instances nationales annulant les titres de propriété des requérants étaient fondées sur le fait que les parcelles concernées faisaient partie du domaine forestier public qui ne pouvait faire l’objet d’aucun titre de propriété au nom d’un particulier. Les requérants ont vainement tenté d’obtenir des dommages et intérêts pour le préjudice subi par la perte de leurs biens.

La Cour européenne a constaté que le but de la privation de propriété imposée aux requérants relevait d’une cause d’utilité publique, à savoir la protection de la nature et des forêts et assurer une protection générale à l’environnement. Elle poursuivait donc un but légitime. Toutefois, soulignant qu’au moment de l’achat des terrains litigieux, les registres fonciers ne contenaient aucune mention laissant à penser que ces terrains faisaient partie du domaine forestier et que pour cette raison, les requérants n’avaient eu aucune connaissance sur la délimitation de leurs terrains, la Cour a estimé que l’absence totale d’indemnisation, non justifiée par des circonstances exceptionnelles, avait rompu le juste équilibre entre la protection de propriété privée et l’intérêt général (violations de l’article 1 du Protocole n^o 1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : La Cour a réservé l’application de l’article 41 de la Convention.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Des informations sont attendues sur les mesures prises ou envisagées afin de prévenir de nouvelles violations similaires ainsi que sur la diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne auprès des autorités compétentes.

- 23 affaires concernant l’absence d’indemnisation suite à l’annulation de titres de propriété en vertu de la loi sur le littoral

37451/97           N.A. et autres, arrêt du 11/10/2005, définitif le 15/02/2006 et du 09/01/2007, définitif le 23/05/2007

33431/02           Abaci, arrêt du 07/10/2008, définitif le 07/01/2009

23249/04           Ardıçoğlu, arrêt du 02/12/2008, définitif le 02/03/2009

36166/02+         Asfuroğlu et autres, arrêt du 27/03/2007, définitif le 09/07/2007

35973/02+         Aslan et Özsoy, arrêt du 30/01/2007, définitif le 30/04/2007

20606/04           Berber, arrêt du 13/01/2009, définitif le 05/06/2009

1262/02            Doğrusöz et Aslan, arrêt du 30/05/2006, définitif le 23/10/2006

43498/04           Fatihoğlu et Ugutmen, arrêt du 28/04/2009, définitif le 06/11/2009

40/02+              Gümüşoğlu et autres, arrêt du 18/03/2008, définitif le 18/06/2008

41220/07           Kalyoncu, arrêt du 03/02/2009, definitive le 06/07/2009

19467/07           Karakuş, arrêt du 14/04/2009, definitive le 14/09/2009

16480/03+        Katayıfçı et autres, arrêt du 17/07/2007, définitif le 17/10/2007, rectifié le 13/12/2007

9738/06            Koçer Mustafa, arrêt du 21/04/2009, definitive le 21/07/2009

1318/04            Kutluk et autres, arrêt du 03/06/2008, définitif le 03/09/2008

75606/01           Miçooğulları Mehmet Ali, arrêt du 10/05/2007, définitif le 24/09/2007

40217/02+         Moğul, arrêt du 09/01/2007, définitif le 09/04/2007

36531/02           Özdemir Adil, arrêt du 10/05/2007, définitif le 10/08/2007

18367/04           Taci et Eroğlu, arrêt du 10/05/2007, définitif le 10/08/2007, rectifié le 13/11/2007

16858/05+         Terzioğlu et autres, arrêt du 16/12/2008, définitif le 16/03/2009

29128/03          Tozkoparan et autres, arrêt du 17/07/2007, définitif le 10/12/2007, rectifié le 17/06/2008

1250/02 Tuncay, arrêt du 12/12/2006, définitif le 23/05/2007

43/02                Uslu Edip, arrêt du 20/05/2008, définitif le 20/08/2008

21850/03           Yurtöven, arrêt du 17/07/2007, définitif le 17/10/2007

Ces affaires concernent l'atteinte au droit des requérants au respect de leurs biens en raison de l'absence d'indemnisation pour l'annulation de l'inscription de leurs biens immobiliers au registre foncier ainsi que dans l'affaire N.A. la destruction de l'hôtel en construction sur cette propriété, ordonnées par décisions judiciaires respectivement de juin 1987 et décembre 1989. Ces décisions étaient fondées sur le fait les parcelles concernées faisaient partie du littoral et n'étaient pas susceptibles de faire l'objet d'une acquisition. Les requérants ont vainement tenté d'obtenir des dommages et intérêts pour le préjudice subi par la perte de leurs biens.

La Cour européenne a constaté que les décisions de privation de propriété relevaient d'une cause d'utilité publique, les terrains se situant sur le bord de mer et faisaient partie de la plage, lieu public ouvert à tous, et poursuivaient donc un but légitime. Elle a cependant estimé que l'absence totale d'indemnisation, non justifiée par des circonstances exceptionnelles, avait rompu le juste équilibre entre la protection de la propriété privée et l'intérêt général (violations de l'article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

Mesures de caractère individuel : Dans toutes ces affaires, la Cour européenne a indemnisé le préjudice matériel subi par les requérants.

• Evaluation : aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

Mesures de caractère général :

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques : Dans leur réponse du 27/09/2006 au courrier de phase initiale du Secrétariat, daté du 06/06/2006, les autorités turques ont indiqué qu'un projet de loi amendant la loi sur le littoral était en cours de préparation et que le Comité serait dûment informé une fois le texte prêt. L'arrêt dans l'affaire précédent, N.A. et autres, a été traduit en turc et a été porté à l'attention des autorités.

Le 06/03/08, les autorités ont indiqué que le projet de loi était toujours en cours de préparation.

• Informations fournies par les autorités turques (lettre du 17/07/2009) : La Cour de cassation a développé une nouvelle jurisprudence selon laquelle l’Etat encourt une responsabilité objective dans le cadre de la tenue des registres fonciers et l’administration doit indemniser les personnes lésées par la tenue défectueuse de ces registres. Un certain nombre de conséquences découle de cette nouvelle jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation.

- Responsabilité objective de l’Etat : Dans un arrêt du 18/09/2008 (E. 2007/14851, K. 2008/10543), la Cour de cassation a considéré que la responsabilité consacrée par l’article 1007 du Code Civil (« L’Etat encourt une responsabilité pour tous les préjudices résultant de la tenue des registres fonciers »), est une responsabilité objective qui ne dépend pas de l’existence ou non d’une faute. Les autorités ont indiqué que dans cette affaire, la juridiction de première instance avait annulé le titre de propriété du demandeur au motif que le terrain faisait partie du littoral, alors qu’il n’existait aucune indication à ce titre dans le registre foncier et que le demandeur avait acheté son terrain en se fondant sur ces registres.

La Cour de cassation a infirmé l’arrêt rendu en première instance et a estimé qu’il fallait accorder des dommages et intérêts au demandeur en s’appuyant sur la responsabilité objective de l’Etat telle que consacrée par l’article 1007 du Code civil turc. Le même principe a été réitéré par la Cour de cassation dans ses arrêts des 29/11/2007(E. 2007/1940, K. 15047), 03/04/2008 (E. 2007/517, K. 2008/177) et 25/11/2008 (E. 2008/2501, K. 2008/14587).

Les autorités turques soulignent que ce principe consacré par ces arrêts de la Cour de cassation, ne concerne pas seulement les affaires relatives aux domaines du littoral. La Cour de cassation applique le principe de responsabilité objective de l’Etat dans tous les cas où il y a une tenue défectueuse des registres fonciers. Dans son arrêt du 10/02/2005 (E. 2005/503, K. 2005/1111) la Cour de cassation a accordé des dommages et intérêts au demandeur au motif qu’il avait subi un préjudice résultant de la détermination défectueuse des coordonnées de son terrain sur le registre foncier. Aussi, l’omission de mettre à jour les registres fonciers a été considérée par la Cour de cassation comme un élément de nature à engager la responsabilité pécuniaire objective de l’Etat en application de l’article 1007 du Code civil (arrêt du 07/12/2005, E. 2005/4-54, K. 2005/708).

- La bonne foi de l’acheteur : Dans son arrêt du 03/04/2008 (E. 2007/517, K. 2008/117), la Cour de cassation a estimé qu’un demandeur est présumé de bonne foi s’il a acheté son terrain en se fondant sur les registres fonciers. Ce principe a été réitéré dans d’autres arrêts de la Cour de cassation (arrêt des 29/11/2007 -E. 2007/1940, K. 15047-, 18/09/2008 -E. 2007/14851, K. 2008/10543- et 25/11/2008 -E. 2008/2501, K. 2008/14587-).

- Indemnisation : Pour les affaires concernant l’annulation de titres de propriété au motif que les terrains en question faisaient partie du littoral, la Cour de cassation condamne l’administration à payer des dommages et intérêts (équivalents au taux de compensation en cas d’expropriation) aux victimes dans tous les cas où le préjudice résulte de la tenue défectueuse des registres fonciers par l’Etat. Ainsi, dans son arrêt du 29/11/2009 (E. 2007/1940, K. 2007/16047), la Cour de cassation a accordé des dommages et intérêts au demandeur au motif que son titre de propriété avait été radié à tort des registres fonciers. Quant au montant de l’indemnité en question, celui-ci correspond à la valeur exacte du terrain confisqué (par exemple, arrêt du 13/1/2008, E. 2008/16, K. 2008/274). En outre, dans son arrêt du 15/07/2008 (E. 2006/247, K. 2008/129), la Cour s’est référée directement à l’article 41 de la Convention européenne et a condamné l’administration à payer la valeur exacte du terrain déterminée par les experts.

- Prise en compte de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne : Dans son arrêt du 12/11/2007 (E. 2007/9403, K. 2007/10807), la Cour de cassation, après avoir rappelé que la Convention européenne faisait partie du droit positif turc en vertu de l’article 90 de la Constitution, s’est référée à l’arrêt Doğrusöz et Arslan (1262/02) de la Cour européenne, pour considérer que l’ingérence dans le droit au respect de la propriété du demandeur n’était pas proportionnée au but légitime poursuivi, en raison de la charge excessive imposée à celui-ci. Se référant à l’article 41 de la Convention européenne, la Cour de cassation a accordé des dommages et intérêts au demandeur (même principe, arrêts des 24/09/2008 -E. 2008/7459, K. 2008/9727-, 17/09/2009 –E. 2008/7386, K. 2008/9359-).

Les autorités turques considèrent qu’une nouvelle voie de recours interne efficace et rapide a été mise en place à travers la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour de cassation. 

• Evaluation : Les informations fournies par les autorités turques sont en cours d’évaluation.

- 31 cases concerning the failure or substantial delay by the administration in abiding by final domestic judgments

38473/02           Kılıç Ahmet, judgment of 25/07/2006, final on 25/10/2006

27150/02           Ak, judgment of 31/07/2007, final on 31/10/2007

12146/02           Akıncı, judgment of 08/04/2008, final on 08/07/2008

42894/04+         Arat and others, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009 rectified on 29/06/2009

35528/03           Arıcı and others, judgment of 28/04/2009, final on 28/07/2009

5325/02+          Aygün and others, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008

35075/97           Baba, judgment of 24/10/2006, final on 24/01/2007

14558/03           Buyruk, judgment of 08/04/2008, final on 08/07/2008

74069/01+        Çiçek and Öztemel and 6 other cases, judgment of 03/05/2007, final on 03/08/2007, rectified on 23/10/2007

2620/05            Çoban and others, judgment of 24/01/2008, final on 24/04/2008

28152/02           Demirhan, Görsav and Çelik, judgment of 05/06/2007, final on 05/09/2007

77361/01           Dildar, judgment of 12/12/2006, final on 12/03/2007

22261/03           Durmaz M. Ali, judgment of 08/01/2009, final on 08/04/2009

28877/03           Ekici and others, judgment of 23/09/2008, final on 23/12/2008

38323/04           Kaçar and others, judgment of 22/07/2008, final on 22/10/2008

29016/04           Kaplan Mehmet, judgment of 09/12/2008, final on 09/03/2009

3224/05            Kaplan Mehmet Ali and others, judgment of 16/12/2008, final on 16/03/2009, rectified on 09/06/2009

36424/06           Kılıç Kemal, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

31277/03           Kranta, judgment of 16/01/2007, final on 16/04/2007

27817/04           Kuş, judgment of 08/07/2008, final on 01/12/2008

45559/04           Şahin Abidin, judgment of 18/12/2007, final on 18/03/2008

6124/02            Şahin Mehmet Emin, judgment of 24/03/2009, final on 24/06/2009

11912/04           Sakarya, judgment of 20/05/2008, final on 01/12/2008

11098/04           Sarıkaya Yavuz, judgment of 13/01/2009, final on 13/04/2009

13090/04           Selçuk Mehmet, judgment of 10/06/2008, final on 10/09/2008

27402/03           Sevgili, judgment of 18/12/2007, final on 18/03/2008

37054/03+         Tok and others, judgment of 20/11/2007, final on 20/02/2008

41246/98          Ünal Akpinar İnşaat İmalat Sanayi Ve Ticaret S.A. and Akpinar Yapi Sanaysi S.A., judgment of 26/05/2009, final on 06/11/2009

9923/05+          Yavuz and others, judgment of 05/05/2009, final on 05/08/2009

14710/03           Yerebasmaz, judgment of 10/10/2006, final on 10/01/2007

10985/02+         Yerlikaya, judgment of 08/04/2008, final on 08/07/2008

These cases concern the violation of the applicants' right to a fair trial, as well as the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in certain cases, on account of the failure by administrative bodies to enforce judicial decisions awarding them compensation and other pecuniary awards (violations of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Kılıç Ahmet case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures:

1) Non-enforcement of domestic judgments: In the case of Kılıç Ahmet, the government provided a copy of a declaration signed by the applicant indicating that on 06/11/2006 he had received the full amount of compensation awarded by the domestic court, including interest. In the case of Yerebasmaz, the domestic judgment has been enforced: the relevant administration issued an order of payment and the full amount was made available to the applicant. Similarly, in the case of Çiçek and Öztemel and 6 other cases, confirmation was received on 11/02/2008 in the Çoban case, on 03/09/2008 in the Ak and Buyruk cases, that the sums owed in respect of domestic judgments have either been paid to the applicants’ representatives or deposited on escrow accounts in the applicants’ names. In the cases of Tok, Baba, Dildar, Kranta, Yerebasmaz, Kaplan Mehmet, Sakarya and Sevgili the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court in respect of pecuniary damages were paid to the applicants. In the cases of Selçuk Mehmet and Kaplan Mehmet Ali, the domestic judgments have been implemented. The sums awarded by the European Court in respect of non-pecuniary damage were paid. In the Unal Akpinar case, the Court declared that the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision.

• Information is awaited on the enforcement of the domestic judgments in the cases of Aygün and others, Demirhan, Görsav and Çelik, Şahin Abidin, Akıncı, Kuş, Yerlikaya, Arat, Durmaz, Ekici, Kılıç Kemal, Sahin Mehmet Emin, Sarıkaya Yavuz, Arıcı (only for Kansu, Cingöz, Gülbahar and Ağca), Yavuz Bekir and others (only for the application nos. 14704/05 and 14650/05).

2) Length of administrative proceedings (case of Kılıç Ahmet): No individual measure is required as the proceedings are closed.

General measures:

1) Non-enforcement of judgments: The applicants were unable to secure the enforcement of the domestic judgment given in their favour due to the obstacles existing in the current Turkish legislation. In this respect, an individual or a private entity cannot legally seize the property of a municipality allocated to a public service, with a view to obtaining satisfaction of a judgment.

• Information is therefore awaited concerning the measures taken or envisaged to prevent similar violations, in particular ensuring the effective and timely enforcement of domestic court decisions.

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (08/04/08): Since the European Court’s judgment in this case, the new Penal Code came into force. Article 257 of the Code makes it a crime for public officials to fail to discharge their duties, by omission or delay.

• Assessment: While this provision is welcome, it is unlikely to prevent new, similar violations since the root cause of the violations established in these cases was not the public officials’ failure to discharge their duties but the lack of sufficient public funds and the immunity of administrative bodies’ property from enforcement proceedings (attachment, foreclosure etc).

• Information is accordingly awaited on general measures capable of allowing future creditors of administrative bodies to obtain judgment debts granted in their favour. In this regard, the Turkish authorities may wish to take into account the examples of other countries confronted with similar problems in the past in planning and adopting general measures (see, for example, the cases of Hornsby against Greece or Heirs of Dierckx against Belgium). 

2) Length of administrative proceedings (in the case of Kılıç Ahmet): General measures are being examined within the context of the Ormancı group (43647/98, Section 4.2).

- 2 affaires concernant l'impossibilité pour les étrangers d'hériter de biens immobiliers en Turquie en raison du prétendu manquement aux exigences de réciprocité

45628/99          Apostolidi et autres, arrêt du 27/03/2007, définitif le 24/09/2007 et du 24/06/2008, définitif le 24/09/2008

19558/02+        Nacaryan et Deryan, arrêt du 08/01/2008, définitif le 02/06/2008 et du 24/02/2009, définitif le 24/05/2009

Ces affaires concernent l’illégalité de l’ingérence dans le droit au respect des biens des requérants, des ressortissants grecs.

Dans l’affaire Apostolidi et autres, les requérants avaient hérité en 1990 d’un appartement de leur tante, une ressortissante turque. Cet appartement était situé à Beyoğlu, Istanbul. Les requérants enregistrèrent l’appartement à leur nom au cadastre, sur la base du certificat d’héritiers délivré par une juridiction civile. Ce certificat fut cependant annulé en 2001 après qu’un autre héritier, de nationalité turque, avait revendiqué des droits sur cet appartement. Les juridictions ont estimé que les ressortissants turcs ne pouvaient acquérir de biens immobiliers par voie de succession en Grèce et que par conséquent la condition de réciprocité prévue à l’article 35 du Code foncier n’était pas remplie en l’espèce. Suite à l’annulation du titre d’héritiers des requérants, l’héritier turc plaignant fut désigné comme unique héritier et fit enregistrer l’appartement à son nom.

Sans remettre en question la clause de réciprocité, la Cour européenne a estimé qu’il n’avait pas été établi que les ressortissants turcs n’avaient pas la faculté d’acquérir des biens immobiliers en Grèce, par voie de succession. A cet égard, des documents officiels, tel qu’un rapport de 1995 du Ministre de la Justice turc, démontraient que les ressortissants turcs avaient acquis des biens immobiliers en Grèce par voie de succession. Par conséquent, la Cour a estimé cette ingérence n’était pas suffisamment prévisible (violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1).

Cette affaire concerne en outre la durée excessive de la procédure civile concernée, à savoir plus de dix ans (violation de l’article 6§1)

Dans l’affaire Nacaryan et Deryan, la Cour européenne a constaté une violation de l’article 1 du Protocole n° 1 sur le fondement de faits similaires à ceux de l’affaire Apostolidi.

Mesures de caractère individuel :

            1) Affaire Apostolidi et autres : La procédure civile est terminée.

Par ailleurs, dans son arrêt sur la satisfaction équitable, la Cour européenne a dit que l’Etat turc devait procéder à la restitution aux requérants de leurs parts respectives de l’appartement et à la réinscription de celles-ci à leur nom au registre foncier, dans les trois mois à compter du jour où l’arrêt sera devenu définitif.

En outre, après avoir constaté que les Etats contractants parties à une affaire sont en principe libres du choix des moyens pour se conformer à un arrêt constatant une violation, la Cour européenne a considéré qu’à défaut pour les autorités turques de procéder à une telle restitution, elles devraient verser aux requérants, pour dommage matériel, une somme calculée sur la base de la valeur actuelle du bien immobilier en question. La Cour a par ailleurs octroyé aux requérants une somme au titre du préjudice moral causé par la violation constaté en l’espèce.  

Par lettre du 9/01/2009, les autorités ont informé le Secrétariat du paiement des sommes octroyées au titre des préjudices matériel et moral.

            2) Affaire Nacaryan et Deryan: L’arrêt de la Cour européenne sur la satisfaction équitable est devenu définitif le 24/05/2009. La Cour a accordé à chacun des requérants une somme au titre de dommage matériel.

• Evaluation : Dans ces circonstances, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire dans ces affaires.

Mesures de caractère général : La Cour européenne n’a pas estimé que la clause de réciprocité contenue à l’article 35 du Code foncier était en soi incompatible avec la Convention. Cependant, la violation résulte d’une erreur des juridictions internes dans l’appréciation de la législation grecque en vue de déterminer si la clause de réciprocité était bien remplie.

• Des informations sont par conséquent attendues sur les mesures générales prises ou envisagées par les autorités, en particulier la publication et diffusion de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne aux autorités judiciaires. Une lettre de phase initiale sur les mesures générales et sur la possibilité de la préparation d’un plan d’action, a été envoyée aux autorités turques le 07/12/2007. Jusqu’à présent aucune

Information n’a été reçue.

En ce qui concerne la durée de la procédure, les mesures générales sont examinées dans le cadre du groupe Ormancı (43647/98, rubrique 4.2).

                        - 144 cases of excessive length of judicial proceedings

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Ormancı group)

A. CASES BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS

These cases concern the excessive length of compensation proceedings before administrative courts.

Some of these cases particularly concern loss sustained as a result of the death of applicants' relatives during clashes involving the security forces (violations of Article 6§1).

The cases of Ayık, Koşal, Olcarand Şenol Uluslararası Nakliyat concern the absence of any remedy in Turkish law by which the applicants might have complained of the length of proceedings (violations of Article 13).

The Baş case also concerns a breach of the applicant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of her (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: It is observed that in seven cases, proceedings are still pending before domestic courts (see appendix).

• Information is awaited as to whether these proceedings are still pending and on their acceleration if need be.

General measures: In reply to the Secretariat's initial-phase letter of 02/06/2005 the Turkish authorities gave information on 18/07/2005, 01/08/2005 and 29/09/2005 on measures envisaged to prevent lengthy proceedings before administrative courts.

- A new Code of Administrative Procedure is being drafted with a view to decreasing the workload of administrative courts. It also lays down procedures for resolving disputes before the trial stage and for friendly settlements and envisages a number of amendments with the aim of reducing the length of proceedings before administrative courts. These amendments were submitted to the office of the Prime Minister on 23/05/2005.

- Preparations are under way for the adoption of a draft law on the establishment of the Council of Scrutiny of Public Works (Kamu Denetciliği Kurumu Kanunu), which will provide that all disputes between the administration and citizens regarding public works will first be examined by an Ombudsman before being brought before the administrative authorities or the administrative courts.

On 13/03/08, the authorities further indicated that the draft had been passed into law on 28/09/06. However, a challenge was made before the Constitutional Court, which suspended application of the law on 27/06/06, pending its examination.

- The Law on the Council of State (Law No: 2575) was amended by Law No. 5183 of 02/06/2004 whereby a new Chamber (the 13th Chamber) was established and the functions and jurisdictions of the other Chambers were revised with the aim of reducing the length of proceedings before the Council of State.

- The judgment in the case of Ormancı and others was published in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice (No.74).

• Information is awaited on the adoption of these draft laws and their texts, as well as the outcome of the challenge before the Constitutional Court.

B. CASES BEFORE CIVIL COURTS

These cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). The case of Çolak also concerns a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their private life due to the courts' inability to decide the paternity question promptly or to oblige the alleged father to take a DNA test (violation of Article 8).

Lastly, the cases of Bahçekaya, Çolak, Şener, Tamar; Başaran, Daneshpayeh and Yıldız and others concern the absence of any remedy in Turkish law by which the applicants might have complained of the length of proceedings (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: It is observed that in six cases the proceedings are still pending before domestic courts (see appendix).

• Information is awaited as to whether these proceedings are still pending and on their acceleration if need be.

General measures: In reply to the Secretariat's initial-phase letter of 02/06/2005 the Turkish authorities submitted the following information on 15/09/2005:

- According to the statistics provided by the Ministry of Justice, the average length of civil proceedings in Turkey is 177 days before first-instance courts and 86 days before the Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation.

- The competence and jurisdiction of Civil and Criminal Courts of First Instance were reorganised and Regional Courts were established with the coming into force of Law No. 5235 of 26/09/2004.

- A number of new courts have recently been established in Turkey, namely 823 Civil Peace Courts, 960 Civil Courts of First Instance, 704 Cadastral Courts, 174 Enforcement Courts, 98 Labour Courts, 149 Family Courts, 54 Commercial Courts, 20 Consumer Rights Courts, 4 Intellectual Property Rights Courts, 19 Juvenile Courts and 1 Maritime Court.

- A new Law amending the Code of Civil Procedure is being drafted in order to prevent lengthy proceedings before civil courts. On 13/03/08, the authorities indicated that the preparatory work on this new law continued.

• Information is awaited on the adoption of this draft law as well as on publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, in particular to family courts and the Court of Cassation.

C. CASE BEFORE LABOUR COURTS

This case concerns the excessive length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Istanbul Labour Law Court (the proceedings began in January 1994 and ended in June 1999) (violation of Article 6§1). Şirin case also concerns the absence of any remedy in Turkish law by which the applicant might have complained of the length of proceedings (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: No proceedings are pending, except in the case of Karyağdı.

• Information is awaited on the acceleration of these proceedings if they are still pending.

General measures: The Secretariat wrote to the Turkish authorities on 03/04/2006 requesting information on the measures taken or envisaged. On 13/03/08, the authorities indicated that procedure before labour courts was governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the planned changes in the draft Code of Civil Procedure, once put into place, should reduce the length of proceedings before these courts.

• Information is awaited on the adoption of these draft laws and their texts, as well as on publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, in particular to labour courts and the Court of Cassation.

D. CASES BEFORE CRIMINAL COURTS

These cases concern excessive length of proceedings before criminal courts (violations of Article 6§1). The case of Kahraman Yılmaz and others presents similarities to the Şahiner group of cases, except the compensation proceedings regarding the applicant Ahmet Cihan.

The case İletmiş also concerns the unjustified interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life as a result of the confiscation of his passport while the lengthy criminal proceedings were pending against him (violation of Article 8). (For the measures taken in the case of İletmis concerning the violation of Article 8 of the Convention, see the Annotated Agenda at the982nd meeting (December 2006, section 4.2)).

The cases of Vurankaya, Samsa, Başaran, Şahin Fedai, Şahin Volkan, Özcan and Özcan concern the absence of any remedy in Turkish law by which the applicants might have complained of the length of proceedings (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: It is observed that in thirteen cases the proceedings are still pending before domestic courts (see appendix).

• Information is awaited as to whether these proceedings are still pending and on their acceleration if need be.

General measures:

• Information provided by the Turkish authorities (13/03/2008): The authorities pointed to the new Code of Criminal Procedure which introduced new mechanisms to accelerate proceedings. The principal changes in this regard include:

(i) notifications are now made directly by the courts. The trial judge shall directly notify the parties to a case as well as third parties;

(ii) the new Code addresses summonsing of witnesses to bring it in line with the Convention’s requirements. To speed up the hearing of witnesses, summonses may now be issued by telephone, telegram, fax or e-mail;

(iii) jurisdictional decisions of criminal courts may now be appealed before regional courts;

(iv) a maximum period is introduced for detention pending trial, to encourage judges to move towards a verdict more speedily;

(v) grounds for cassation applications are set down in more detail and in a more restrictive manner.

These measures are currently being assessed by the Secretariat. For the measures taken in the case of İletmis concerning the violation of Article 8, see the Annotated Agenda at the 982nd meeting (December 2006, section 4.2).

E. CASES BEFORE COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMERS' COURTS

Individual measures: No proceedings are pending, except in the Erhun case (53842/07).

• Information is awaited on the acceleration of these proceedings if they are still pending.

General measures: On 13/03/08, the authorities indicated that procedure before commercial and consumers’ courts was governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the planned changes in the draft Code of Civil Procedure, once put into place, should reduce the length of proceedings before these courts.

• Information is awaited on the adoption of these draft laws and their texts, as well as on publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, in particular to commercial and consumer courts and the Court of Cassation.

F. CASES BEFORE LAND REGISTRY COURTS

Individual measures: It is observed that in six cases the proceedings are still pending before domestic courts (see appendix).

• Information is awaited as to whether these proceedings are still pending and on their acceleration if need be.

General measures: On 13/03/08, the authorities indicated that procedure before cadastre courts was governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the planned changes in the draft Code of Civil Procedure, once put into place, should reduce the length of proceedings before these courts.

• Information is awaited on the adoption of these draft laws and their texts, as well as on publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, in particular to cadastre courts and the Court of Cassation.

G. CASES BEFORE MILITARY COURTS

Individual measures: The proceedings are still pending in the case of Özel and others.

• Information is awaited on the acceleration of the proceedings if they are still pending.

General measures: None, there does not seem to be a systemic problem of excessive length of proceedings before Military Courts in Turkey.

Assessment: Further to the general measures mentioned above, in context of all types of proceedings in this group of cases, the attention of the authorities should be drawn to the fact that Turkish law still provides no effective remedy in respect of excessive length of proceedings. Measures in this respect should be taken. It is important to note that in a number of cases the European Court observed that Turkish legal system does not provide any remedies to accelerate the proceedings or to provide litigants with adequate redress, i.e., to obtain any compensation for the delays in the proceedings and that the applicants did not have personal rights to compel any other authority to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the trial court to expedite the proceedings (see, for example, Bahçekaya, §28, Tendik, §36, Olcar §27, Mete §§18-19, Sencan, §24, Pekinel §43).

• Information is awaited on measures taken or envisaged to introduce an effective acceleratory remedy in respect of the excessive length of proceedings, and/or adequate redress for the delays already occurred.

- 126 cases against Ukraine / 126 affaires contre l’Ukraine

15825/06          Yakovenko, judgment of 25/10/2007, final on 25/01/2008

The case concerns the poor conditions under which the applicant was detained from June 2003 to April 2006 in the Sevastopol Temporary Detention Centre (Sevastopol ITT), found by the European Court to amount to degrading treatment, due in particular to poor material conditions and to the authorities’ failure to provide timely and appropriate assistance to the applicant for his HIV and tuberculosis.

In further concerns unacceptable conditions of the applicant’s repeated transporting - both by road and rail - between the ITT and the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”) (violations of Article 3).

The case also concerns the absence of any effective or accessible remedy in respect of the applicant’s complaints about the conditions of his detention (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: On 28/04/2006, following an interim measure indicated by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the applicant was transferred to the Sevastopol Anti-Tuberculosis Healthcare Centre. On 8/05/2007 he died.

General measures:

1) Conditions of detention:

a) Overcrowding, lack of natural light and ventilation, poor sanitary conditions:

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (11/04/2008): To resolve the problem of conditions of detention in the Sevastopol ITT, an extra block for was created its detainees within another ITT in the same region. Furthermore, since 2006, the Ministry of Interior has been implementing the Programme on construction, reconstruction, repair of police detention facilities aimed, inter alia, at solving the problem of overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions.

• More detailed information is awaited on the programme and results of its implementation as well on other measures taken following the Court’s judgment.

b) Lack of timely and appropriate medical assistance for HIV and tuberculosis: It appears from the Court’s judgement that the problems lies in the authorities’ failure to comply with the requirements of the relevant domestic legislation. Thus, the applicant was not urgently brought before an infectious diseases doctor for antiretroviral treatment after the authorities had become aware of his HIV status, and the recommendations given after the medical examination of the applicant were not followed. In this connection, the Court also noted the failure to share information about the applicant’s state of health between the SIZO the ITT.

Furthermore, it appears from the Court judgements and from the CPT reports that there exists in Ukraine an unlawful practice of refusal by SIZOs to admit persons with tuberculosis. In the present case, for this reason the applicant was ordered to stay in the ITT, which had no doctor or paramedic, for a period exceeding ten days.

2) Conditions of road and rail transport of detainees: On the basis of the CPT reports, the Court concluded that the space per inmate in prison vans and railway carriages was not suitable for transporting a person on journeys of any length. The Court further took note of the CPT’s findings that the ventilation in the carriages was poor, food was not provided and water was in short supply.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to avoid similar violations in future. Information would be useful on the current standards or regulations on prison vans and railway carriages.

3) Lack of an effective and accessible remedy: The issue of domestic remedies against poor conditions of detention has been raised before the Committee in the context of Nevmerzhitsky group of cases (54825/00, 1092nd meeting, September 2010).

4) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court was translated into Ukrainian and published in the official government’s print outlet – Official Herald of Ukraine [Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy], No.35/2009. The summary of it was published in the Government’s Currier [Uriadovyi Kurier], No. 32 of 19.02.2008.

By letter of 04/03/2008 the attention of the Ministry of Interior and the State Department on Execution of Sentences was drawn to the Court's conclusions in the judgment at issue.

The judgment was further sent out by the Ministry of Interior to staff dealing with convoying, extradition and custody of detainees.

- 7 cases mainly concerning unlawful and/or lengthy detention on remand

16505/02           Doronin, judgment of 19/02/2009, final on 19/05/2009

16447/04           Kucherenko Nikolay, judgment of 19/02/2009, final on 19/05/2009

34211/04           Miroshnichenko Roman, judgment of 19/02/2009, final on 19/05/2009

40774/02+         Solovey and Zozulya, judgment of 27/11/2008, final on 27/02/2009

35231/02           Svershov, judgment of 27/11/2008, final on 27/02/2009

39458/02           Tkachev, judgment of 13/12/2007, final on 13/03/2008

17283/02           Yeloyev, judgment of 06/11/2008, final on 06/02/2009

These cases concern different violations of Article 5 which occurred in 1998 – 2004, arising from:

-           the extension of detention by prosecutors who were a party to the proceedings and could not thus in principle be regarded as “independent officers authorised by law to exercise judicial power”. This occurred before 2001: Solovey and Zozulya, Yeloyev (violations of Article 5§1c);

-           the use of administrative arrest to ensure the applicant’s availability as a suspect in a criminal case without safeguarding his procedural rights as a suspect, in particular the right to defence: Doronin (violation of Article 5§1c);

-           the general practice of detaining accused without any judicial decision to this effect, solely on the ground that their case had been submitted by the prosecutors to the trial court and back, or that they were studying the case-files (before 2003): Doronin, Yeloyev, Nikolay Kucherenko, Solovey and Zozulya, Svershov (violations of Article 5§1);

-           the failure of the judicial authorities to give reasons for their decisions authorising detention and to set a time-limit for such detention or validation of the detention retroactively: Doronin, Yeloyev, Solovey and Zozulya (violations of Article 5§1);

-           the absence of relevant and sufficient grounds for ordering and prolonging detention of the applicants on remand, including failure to consider any alternative preventive measures to detention on remand: Svershov, Tkachev, Solovey and Zozulya, Roman Miroshnichenko (violations of Article 5§3);

-           the failure to examine the lawfulness of the applicants’ detention, due inter alia to domestic courts’ refusal to re-examine issues which they had already considered previously, or due to ignoring substantive arguments advanced by the applicantsor their their lawyers for change of preventive measure: Yeloyev, Svershov (violations of Article 5§4).

The Yeloyev case also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: None of the applicant is being held on remand. They have either been released or sentenced. In all cases, with the exception of Yeloyev, the Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

No sum was awarded in the Yeloyev case as the applicant submitted no claim under this head.

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

               1) Violations of Article 5: Current domestic procedural legislation distinguishes between two types of detention on remand: “detention during the investigation stage of proceedings” which is between the apprehension and the date on which the bill of indictment is sent to a trial court and “detention pending trial”, i.e. while the case is before a trial court. The Court criticised the legal framework and its application in practice for both types of detention on remand.

A. Measures taken by the Ukrainian authorities:  

(i)         Legislative amendments: The current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (“the CCP”) was adopted in 1961. It has been amended 152 times since then. It appears that most important amendments regarding detention on remand were introduced in June 2001 as a result of the so-called “small judicial reform” and in April 2003:

- extension of detention by prosecutors: As from June 2001, prosecutors have no power to order or prolong detention on remand. The Ukrainian Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that detention on remand as a preventive measure shall be applied only by a reasoned decision or ruling of a court.

 - studying of the case-files by the accused: As from April 2003, following the amendments to Article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Terms of pre-trial detention”), the time taken by the accused and his defence counsel to familiarise themselves with the materials of the criminal case shall be taken into account when calculating the term of pre-trial detention as a preventive measure. The accused and his defence shall be provided, not later than a month before the expiry of the term of pre-trial detention, with the materials of the part of the criminal case in respect of which the investigation has been completed, so that they can familiarise themselves with. If the materials were made available beyond the one-month time-limit - the accused shall be immediately released from detention after expiration of the statutory period for his detention. In this case he shall still be entitled to study the case file. If the deadline for making the case-file available for the accused has been respected but appears to be insufficient, the period of detention may be extended by the Court of Appeal on the investigator’s motion as agreed with the Prosecutor General of Ukraine or his/her deputy, or on a motion of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine or his/her deputy.

• Clarification is still awaited on the legislative provisions currently governing the procedure of ordering and prolonging detention on remand as well as on the judicial review of ongoing detention.

• Information is awaited on further measures, including legislative measures, taken or planned to resolve all problems highlighted by the Court in the present judgments in order to bring the detention pending investigation and trial into compliance with the Convention’s requirements.

(ii) Decision by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Ukraine: In its Resolution of 25/04/2003 (amended in 2008), the Plenary of the Supreme Court inter alia drew the attention of all courts to their obligation to meet the requirements of Article 5 of the Convention when deciding on application or extension of detention on remand. In this respect, the Supreme Court provided guidelines for lower courts, stressing the need to ensure that the use of remand in custody is always exceptional and is always justified, considering the fundamental importance of the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. Particular attention was drawn to the obligation to respect procedural time-limits for detention on remand, duly motivate detention orders, and consider the alternative preventive measures.

• Assessment: It appears from the events in the cases and violations found by the Court in this respect that the guidelines of the Supreme Court were not duly put into practice.

• Information is awaited on measures taken in this respect. 

Further improvement of judicial practice concerning detention on remand may be achieved through more detailed guidelines based on the analysis of the European Court’s case-law regarding Article 5 and appropriate training and awareness-raising of judges. In this respect, the authorities’ attention may be drawn to the measures already taken by other states confronted by similar problems (See e.g. Trzaska against Poland, 25792/94, 1092nd meeting, September 2010, Assenov and others against Bulgaria and Nikolova against Bulgaria, Resolutions ResDH(2000)109 and ResDH(2000) 110).

            2) Violations of Article 6§1: The issue of excessive length of criminal proceedings is being examined in the context of the Merit group of cases (66561/01, Section 4.2).

• Information is expected on publication and dissemination of the judgments, possibly together with an explanatory note, to all relevant authorities.

B. Supervision by the Committee of Ministers

• Multilateral Round Table in Warsaw: On 9-10/12/2009 a high-level Round Table was organised in Warsaw by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court thanks to a German voluntary contribution, which involved representatives of the Council of Europe and the authorities of six member states, including Ukraine, facing the problem of unlawful detention and/or excessive length of detention on remand. The participating authorities acknowledged the particular seriousness of the problems revealed by the Court and their often systemic character. The constructive exchanges of experience between different participants led to the adoption of Conclusions in which the main problems were identified and a range of possible solutions to be envisaged by the authorities while elaborating their action plans were proposed. These Conclusions may be found on the following web site: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Inf/DH(2009)53&Language=lanEnglish

The Ukrainian authorities informed the participants of an ongoing reform of criminal justice in Ukraine, in particular on new draft Code of Criminal Procedure, which was at the final stage of elaboration, and was supposed to resolve the majority of the problems underlined by the Court.

• Information is expected on action taken by the Ukrainian authorities following the Round Table.

2570/04            Kucheruk, judgment of 06/09/2007, final on 06/12/2007

The case concerns a number of substantial and procedural violations of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 while detained on remand at the Kharkiv Regional Pre-trial Detention Centre SIZO No. 27 (“the SIZO”). In particular:

-          ill-treatment of the applicant, who suffered from chronic schizophrenia, by the SIZO officers (excessive use of force (use of truncheons to control his agitated behaviour); handcuffing when in solitary confinement);

-          lack of adequate medical care and assistance;

-          lack of an effective and independent investigation into the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment.

It further concerns the confinement of the applicant in a psychiatric clinic without legal basis between 22/07/2003 and 6/08/2003 (violation of Article 5§1).

Finally, the case concerns the fact that the applicant could not challenge the lawfulness of his confinement in the psychiatric institution before a court (violation of Article 5§4).   

Individual measures: The applicant has been discharged from the psychiatric clinic, declared legally incapacitated and placed under the responsibility of his mother. The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages and of costs and expenses.

The investigation of the applicant’s allegations of ill treatment was still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment. The Court noted that the investigation failed to meet the minimum standards of effectiveness as it lacked independence, promptness, and public scrutiny on the part of the investigative authorities. In particular, the Court noted that the initial inquiry into the applicant's complaints did not satisfy the minimum requirement of independence since the investigating body – the SIZO governor – represented the authority involved. The medical examination of the applicant's injuries was conducted 37 days after the events and thus could not establish the extent of the bodily harm sustained. The Court further noted that an independent investigation by a prosecutor began more than two years and two months after the incident but did not remedy the omissions of the initial stages of the proceedings.

Furthermore, on three occasions the domestic courts revoked the authorities' decisions not to bring criminal proceedings against the SIZO officials on the ground of the insufficiency of inquiries.

• Information is awaited on the measures taken to comply with the Court’s judgment.

General measures:

1) Violations of Article 3:

            a) Use of truncheons and handcuffing of the applicant when in solitary confinement: finding the use of force to be unjustified, the Court noted that prior to this accident the duty shifts of the SIZO were regularly informed of the possibility of violent outbursts on the part of the applicant. His agitated behaviour was therefore by no mean an unexpected development to which the authorities might have been called upon to react without prior preparation. Furthermore, at no stage of the proceedings did any witnesses state that the applicant attempted to attack the officers or fellow inmates or that his erratic movements, classified by the guards as “outrage” (буйство), constituted any danger to their health or that of the applicant's cellmates.

The Court further noted that the handcuffing of the mentally ill applicant for a period of seven days without any psychiatric justification, or any medical treatment for injuries sustained during his forced restraint and self-inflicted during the confinement in the disciplinary cell, must be regarded as constituting inhuman and degrading treatment.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to ensure application of more suitable instruments for restraining the mentally ill. Information on the current rules governing application of force to mentally ill detainees is also awaited. 

b) Lack of adequate medical care and assistance: the applicant’s solitary confinement and handcuffing suggested that the domestic authorities had not provided appropriate medical treatment and assistance to the applicant. The specialists’ recommendation that the applicant should be treated in a specialised hospital was not immediately complied with by the SIZO authorities.

Questions regarding the lack of appropriate medical treatment for SIZO and prison detainees, including those suffering from HIV and tuberculosis, have already been raised before the Committee of Ministers in a number of cases (see, e.g. Kats and others (29971/04, 1092nd meeting, September 2010), Melnik (72286/01, 1092nd meeting, September 2010).

The present case raises the specific issue of medical care of mentally ill detainees on remand.

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (11/04/2008): To secure proper medical assistance for detainees suffering from mental illness, special psychiatric wards were created in the medical wings of 12 regional SIZOs.

• Information is awaited on further measures taken or planned, if any, to ensure proper medical attention for mentally ill detainees. Information would be useful on procedural rules governing detention on remand, including medical treatment, of the mentally ill. Information is also expected on the measures to ensure that particular recommendations in the relevant forensic reports on the mentally ill person are followed immediately. 

c) Lack of an effective and independent investigation into the allegation of the applicant’s ill-treatment: the question of the measures to ensure effectiveness, independence, promptness, and public scrutiny of investigations on ill-treatment in the establishments under control of the State Department of Execution of Sentences is being raised before the Committee of Ministers in the context of Kuznetsov group of cases (39042/97, 1092nd meeting, September 2010).

2) Violation of Article 5§1: The general issues of the lack of legal grounds for detention on remand and failure to immediately release a person due necessity to complete some administrative formalities is been examined by the Committee in the context of Doronin group of cases (16505/02, Section 4.2) and the case of Kats and others respectively.

3) Violation of Article 5§4: the issue of a person’s inability to challenge the lawfulness of his confinement in the psychiatric institution is being examined by the Committee in the context of the Gorshkov case (67531/01, Section 5.1).

4) Awareness-raising measures: On 28/02/2008 a special report on the present case and the relevant case-law of the European Court was made by the Government Agent to the Collegium of the State Department for Execution of Sentences (“the Department”). The Court’s conclusions and the relevant case-law were further delivered to all officials of the Department’s regional branches, penitentiary institutions and SIZOs. By the letter of 23/01/2008 the attention of the Prosecutor General’s Office was drawn to the Court's conclusions in the judgment at issue. Additional trainings on the Convention and the relevant domestic legislation were held for officials of penitentiary institutions and SIZO. The judgment has been included in the curriculum for students of the National Academy of Prosecutors as well as in the prosecutors’ in-service training programmes. A summary of the judgment in Ukrainian was published in the official government publication, Government’s Currier, No. 243 of 26/12/2007.

Appropriate training of SIZO and prison staff has been given (see above).

39948/06           Saviny, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 18/03/2009

The case concerns the violation of the right to respect for the family life of the applicants (husband and wife) because of removal of their three children from their care without sufficient reasons and because of placement of the children to different institutions that made it difficult to maintain regular contacts with them and between them (violation of Article 8).

The applicants have both been blind since childhood. They gave birth to seven children. Four of them were taken into public care in 1998; subsequently one of them was adopted with the parents’ consent. The applicants did not challenge this fact before the European Court. In January 2004, at the request of the Juvenile Service, the prosecutor initiated court proceedings to place the remaining three children in public care. In 2006 the courts allowed the prosecutor’s claim, having found that the applicants, due to insufficient financial means and personal qualities, were unable to provide their children with proper nutrition, clothing, sanitary environment and health care, as well as to ensure their social and educational adaptation, thereby endangering the children’s life, health and moral upbringing. At that time the three children were 15, 8 and 5 years old.

The European Court found that these reasons were undoubtedly relevant to the taking of the requisite decision. The Court however doubted the adequacy of the requisite evidentiary basis for the domestic courts’ findings.

First, the custody proceedings instituted in January 2004 had not resulted in the children's removal from home until June 2006. No interim measure had been sought and no actual harm to the children during this period had been recorded.

Secondly, the domestic courts appeared to have taken on trust the submissions by the municipal authorities, drawn from their occasional inspections of the applicants' dwelling. No other corroborating evidence, such as the children's own views, their medical files, opinions of their paediatricians or statements by neighbours, had been examined. Nor did the courts appear to have analysed in any depth the extent to which the purported inadequacies of the children's upbringing were attributable to the applicants' irremediable incapacity to provide requisite care, as opposed to their financial difficulties and objective frustrations, which could have been overcome by targeted financial and social assistance and effective counselling.

Thirdly, the European Court noted that it was not its role to determine whether the promotion of family unity in the case entitled the applicants' family to a particular standard of living at public expense. It was, however, a matter which fell to be discussed, initially by the relevant public authorities and, subsequently in the course of the judicial proceedings. As regards the applicants' purported parental irresponsibility, the European Court emphasised that no independent evidence (such as an assessment by a psychologist) had been sought to evaluate the applicants' emotional or mental maturity or motivation in resolving their household difficulties. Nor had the courts examined the applicants' attempts to improve their situation, such as requests to equip their flat with access to natural gas and hot water, recoup salary arrears or request employment assistance. No data was sought as regards the actual volume and sufficiency of social assistance or the substance of specific recommendations provided by way of counselling and explanations as to why these recommendations had failed. Soliciting specific information in this regard would have been pertinent in evaluating whether the authorities had discharged their obligation under the Convention to promote family unity and whether they had sufficiently explored the effectiveness of less far-reaching alternatives before seeking to separate the children from their parents. Furthermore, at no stage of the proceedings had the children been heard by the judges.

Finally, the Court found that not only had the children been separated from their family of origin, they had also been placed in different institutions, which rendered it difficult to maintain regular contacts.

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants. One of the three children has reached 18.

On 24/04/2009, following the judgment of the European Court, the applicants applied to the Supreme Court requesting reopening of the proceedings in their case, quashing of the impugned decisions of the domestic courts and dismissal of the prosecutor’s claim of January 2004.   

• Information is still urgently awaited on the proceedings before the Supreme Court and on measures taken to ensure that the time required for re-assessment of the situation will not prejudice the possibility of reunification;

General measures: The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Ukrainian. A summary in Ukrainian was published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No. 71 of 18/04/2009. It will also be published in the official government print outlet – Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy). The translation of the judgment will be placed on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice.

The attention of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and Ministry for Family, Youth and Sport of Ukraine was drawn to the Court's conclusions in the judgment.

• Assessment: it appears from the European Court’s judgment that the violation in the present case was due to deficiencies in the quality of the decision–making process leading to splitting up the family. A relevant measure in this context would be the wide dissemination of the judgment by a circular explanatory note to the relevant authorities, including the Municipal Juvenile Service, the Tutelage Board and domestic courts. The relevant guidelines from the Supreme Court to lower courts would be also useful in this respect. These measures also appear relevant for the issue relating to the subsequent placement of the children.

Information therefore is awaited on the wide dissemination of the judgment and on any other measures taken or planned by the authorities.

23543/02          Volokhy, judgment of 02/11/2006, final on 02/02/2007

The case concerns a violation of the applicants' right to respect for their private life following an order for interception and seizure of their postal and telegraphic correspondence issued in 1997. This order was issued in the framework of a criminal investigation into tax evasion opened against a relative of the applicant. The criminal case was ended on 04/05/1998, but the interception order was only cancelled in May 1999, i.e. a year afterwards. The applicants were not informed of the application of the surveillance measures after they were discontinued, but found out about it by chance and were thus not able to question the lawfulness of the decision on interception. The applicants’ claim for compensation for unlawful interference in their rights was rejected by the domestic courts as unsubstantiated.

The European Court found that Ukrainian law did not indicate with sufficient clarity the scope and conditions of exercise of the authorities' discretionary power in the area under consideration and did not provide sufficient safeguards against abuse of that surveillance system (violation of Article 8).

The also case concerns the lack of effective domestic remedies in relation to their complaints under Article 8, as the relevant Ukrainian law and it its interpretation by the domestic courts did not offer sufficient safeguards to persons under surveillance to allow them to challenge the lawfulness of the interference with their rights and seek redress (e.g. the absence of any obligation to inform the subject that he/she was under surveillance) (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The interception order was cancelled on 28/05/1999. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by both applicants.

Following the European Court’s judgment, the second applicant (the first applicant had died) applied to the Supreme Court for review of the domestic courts’ decisions on compensation for the unlawful interference with his rights. On 25/05/2007 the court partly allowed the applicant’s claim, quashed the decisions at issue and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the court of first instance. On 30/01/2008 the Leninsky District Court of Poltava partly allowed the applicant’s claim and awarded the applicant UAH 3000 to be paid from the State Budget as non-pecuniary damage caused by unlawful interception of his correspondence. This decision has become final. According to the applicant (letter of 9/08/2009), this decision still remains unenforced because of the lack of relevant appropriations in the state budget.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to ensure full redress to the applicant for the violation found, in particular on the enforcement of the decision of the Leninsky District Court of Poltava of 30/01/2008.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 8: Article 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the interception of correspondence was substantially amended in June 2001, i.e. after the events in this case. The new wording determines the grounds, terms and the procedure for ordering interception of correspondence, clarifying the scope and conditions of exercise of the authorities’ power in this respect.

• Information is awaited as to whether and in what form and in which circumstances the authorities are obliged to inform the person concerned about the surveillance measures applied to him/her.

2) Violation of Article 13: The authorities informed the Committee on 31/10/2007, that the Ukrainian Law “on the procedure compensating damage caused to the citizen by the unlawful actions of bodies of inquiry, pre-trial investigation, prosecutors and courts” was amended in December 2005, i.e. after events in this case. Under the new wording, persons other than the accused may initiate proceeding before a court in case of unlawful procedural actions restricting or infringing their rights and freedoms in the context of criminal proceedings against a third person.

• This information is being assessed.

3) Publication and dissemination.  The European Court's judgment was translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice's official web-site. It was published in the Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 23 of 10/04/2007. A summary of the Court's judgment in Ukrainian was also published in the Government's Currier, No. 48 of 17/03/2007.

On 28/04/2007 the judgment of the European Court was sent to all authorities concerned, i.e. the Supreme Court of Ukraine, Ministry of Internal Affairs, General Prosecutor's Office, State Security Service and the State Tax Administration with a view to take account of the findings of the European Court in its daily practice.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine transmitted these letters to the Heads of Courts of Appeal. According to the General Prosecutor’s Office, it has ordered the Ministry of Internal Affairs to disseminate the judgment among investigators to prevent further similar violations. According to information of the State Tax Administration, local investigation departments of the State Tax Administration have been ordered to hold a training on the Court's conclusions in the above judgment and on the Convention as a whole.

1291/03            Volosyuk Sergey, judgment of 12/03/2009, final on 12/06/2009

The case concerns a number of violations related to the criminal proceedings against the applicant in 1999-2004 for murder and an aggravated robbery.

            1) The applicant's detention on remand: The European Court considered that the domestic courts failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the extension of the applicant’s detention. It further noted that at no stage did the domestic authorities consider any preventive measure alternative to detention (violation of Article 5§3).

The European Court also found that the applicant had never been given any opportunity to obtain effective judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§4).

            2) Criminal proceedings against the applicant: The European Court found that these were excessively long (violation of Article 6§1).

            3) The applicant's correspondence whilst in detention on remand and his placement in a disciplinary cell: The European Court found that of the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence by officials of the detention centre was not “in accordance with the law”.  In particular, the European Court noted that the applicable domestic law did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of the exercise of the discretion conferred upon public authorities in respect of the monitoring of detainees’ correspondence.

The European Court further found that, by placing the applicant in a disciplinary cell for ten days as a punishment for sending a letter bypassing the control of prison staff, the authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation and that this interference with the applicant’s rights was not proportionate and necessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 8) 

Individual measures: The applicant is currently serving his sentence. The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained.

• Assessment: No further measure seems necessary.

General measures: General measures concerning detention on remand are being examined in the Doronin group of cases (16505/02, Section 4.2); those regarding length of criminal proceedings, in the Merit group of cases (66561/01, Section 4.2).

• An action plan is still awaited on the measures taken or envisaged to resolve the problem concerning monitoring of detainees’ correspondence and that of the proportionality of punishment for breaking the Prison Rules.

17707/02          Melnychenko, judgment of 19/10/2004, définitif le 30/03/2005

The case concerns the refusal by the Central Electoral Commission (“CEC”), upheld by the Supreme Court, to register the applicant as a candidate for the 2002 parliamentary elections. The reason given for the refusal was that, having stated his legal residence address in Kyiv (“propiska”) as his place of residence for the previous five years, the applicant provided false information about his place of residence as since 2000 he had been granted refugee status in the United States and left Ukraine.

The European Court found that neither the relevant legislation nor practice contained a direct eligibility requirement of “habitual” or “continuous” residence in the territory of Ukraine. Furthermore, no distinction was made in the law between “official” and “habitual” residence. It is clear that the applicant’s “habitual residence” had been partly outside Ukraine during the relevant period, as he had had to leave the country on 26/11/2000 for fear of persecution and had taken up residence as a refugee in the United States.

However, the propiska in his internal passport remained unchanged. The Court further noted that requirement of residence in Ukraine was not absolute and that the domestic authorities, in allowing or refusing registration of a particular candidate, were obliged to take into account his or her specific situation.

Consequently, the Court found that the decision of the Central Electoral Commission to refuse the applicant’s candidacy for the Verkhovna Rada as untruthful, although he still had a valid registered place of official residence in Ukraine (as denoted in his propiska), was in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

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

• Applicant’s position: The applicant requested the restoration of his right to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections (restitutio in integrum). For this purpose, he asked to be re-inscribed on the lists of the candidates for the 2002 elections. Thus, he requested the CEC to cancel its 2002 decision which was called into question in the European Court's judgment. The CEC dismissed this request on the ground that national law does not allow the reopening of proceedings before a non-jurisdictional body following a judgment of the European Court.

• Information provided by the authorities: On 14/07/2005, the Supreme Court set this decision aside and sent the case back to the CEC indicating that it must examine the applicant's request, taking into account the judgment of the European Court. At the end of August 2005, the CEC requested the Supreme Court to quash its own decision of 2002 which confirmed the refusal to register the applicant on the electoral lists, even though the Supreme Court had indicated that the decision in question was not an obstacle for the examination of the applicant's request by the CEC.

On 28/10/2005 the CEC rejected the applicant's request to be registered as a candidate on the 2002 lists on the ground that national law does not allow such a possibility. On 15/11/2005 the Supreme Court annulled its decision of 2002 challenged in this judgment. Finally, on 05/12/2005 the CEC annulled the part of its decision of 2002 concerning the refusal to register the applicant on the 2002 electoral lists.

• Assessment: It appears that the consequences of the violation found in this case have been erased as far as possible. That should avoid the applicant's exclusion from future elections on grounds already challenged in the judgment of the European Court.

General measures: The new law on parliamentary elections entered into force on 01/10/2005. However this law does not specify what should be understood by candidates’ residence, and particularly whether the term used by the law refers to the “legal” residence or the “habitual” residence of candidates.

The idea of a special draft law to clarify this issue was abandoned by the Ukrainian authorities on the ground that preventing new, similar violations may be achieved by other means, not least by providing an official interpretation of the provisions of the election law regarding residential requirements.

In the meantime the authorities indicated that the provisions of the new law on parliamentary elections concerning the determination of the place of residence of voters may be applied by analogy to the determination of the place of residence of candidates (Article 39§11). These provisions refer to the official residence (the former propiska) as defined by the law on freedom of movement and free choice of residence.

• Information is still awaited on on what authority, by what means and in what terms it is expected to give the official interpretation.

The judgment of the European Court was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice www.minjust.gov.ua and in the Official Journal, issue No. 21/2005. A copy of the judgment has been sent to the CEC and to the Supreme Court.

20347/03           Plakhteyev and Plakhteyeva, judgment of 12/03/2009, final on 12/06/2009

The case concerns a violation of the right of access to a court of the applicants (a son and his mother) due to the domestic authorities’ failure to determine their claim for damages against a court and the Tax Office for wrongful conviction and unjustified seizure, protracted withholding and deterioration of their goods.

The European Court, acknowledging that the domestic courts are immune to civil actions for damages, found that the courts had failed to pronounce on the part of the claim brought against the Tax Office, which enjoyed no such immunity, and failed to give reasons for the failure to consider it in adversarial proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).    

The European Court also found that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions between 26/01 and 15/08/2001 (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

• An action plan / action report on execution of the present judgment is still awaited.

33089/02           Romanova, judgment of 13/12/2007, final on 13/03/2008

The case concerns the unfairness of certain proceedings brought by the applicant following her dismissal from a post with a maintenance company of a Ukrainian University.

Article 21 of the Ukrainian Code of Civil proceedings provides that a judge who has been involved in the first instance examination of the case shall not participate in its rehearing on a remittal from a higher court. The European Court found that a failure to comply with this provision had constituted a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing on account of her case not having been considered by an impartial tribunal (violation of Article 6§1).

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

• Information is awaited as to whether the applicant may resubmit her claims to domestic courts.

General measures: It would appear from the judgment that the national law is in compliance with the requirements of the Convention.

The European Court's judgment has been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice's official web-site (www.minjust.gov.ua). It has also been published in the Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 127, while a summary was published in the Government's Currier No. 66 of 9/04/2008.

 Information is awaited on the dissemination of the judgment to all courts. Information would also be useful on the measures takento ensure judges’ compliance with their obligations provided by the Code of Civil proceedings.

22750/02           Benderskiy, judgment of 15/11/2007, final on 15/02/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to the domestic courts’ failure to address a substantial argument advanced by him, which might have been decisive for the outcome of compensation proceedings he brought against the “Inter-regional Centre for Clinical Lymphatic Surgery” in September 1998 (violation of Article 6§1).

The applicant, who was suffering from cancer of the bladder, was operated on at the “Inter-regional Centre for Clinical Lymphatic Surgery” and alleged that a gauze compress had been left in his bladder during the operation. A medical report requested by the domestic court established that the compress had most probably penetrated the applicant’s bladder during the operation, or this might have happened during post-operative treatment at home. The applicant thus requested the courts to rule on this issue. However, the courts neither granted that request nor commented in any way on the doctors’ statements.

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

According to Ukrainian law in force, the applicant is entitled to request reopening of the proceedings at issue following the judgment of the European Court. The authorities have informed the applicant in writing of this right.

• Assessment: No further individual measure seems necessary.

General measures:

            1) Legislative measures: The Code of Civil Procedure of 1963 (in force at the material time) provided comprehensive, full and objective examination of all circumstances of the case within the scope of a claim brought before a court (Article 62). It also provides that courts’ judgments should be lawful and well-founded. Courts should ground their judgments only on evidence which had been examined during the proceedings (Article 202).

The new Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine in force since 1/09/2005 contains further improvements in this respect. In particular, Article 212 of the Code (“Assessment of evidence”) the Code provides in addition that courts shall examine the relevance, admissibility, trustworthiness of each item of evidence separately, and the sufficiency and correlation of evidence as a whole. The results of the court’s assessment of evidence shall be reflected in the judgment, which shall contain reasons for their acceptance or rejection. Article 213 of the Code further provides that a well-founded judgment is one delivered as a result of fully and comprehensively established circumstances – to which the parties refer when grounding their claims and objections – which are proved by evidence examined during the proceedings.

Failure by courts to comply with these obligations gives rise to an appeal including an appeal on points of law.

• Information would also be useful on possible training measures to ensure that all judges strictly comply with their obligations resulting from the legislation in force and the Convention as well as on further additional measures such as the judges’ disciplinary responsibility.

            2) Publication and dissemination:  The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice official website (www.minjust.gov.ua). The translation of the judgment was published in the official government publication, the Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy), No.18/2008. A summary of the judgment was also published in the Government's Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier).

According to the government (letter of 11/04/2008) the Supreme Court’s attention has been drawn to the European Court’s conclusions in this case.

• Information is therefore awaited on wide dissemination of this judgment to domestic courts at all levels, possibly accompanied by an explanatory note.

7460/03            Nadtochiy, judgment of 15/05/2008, final on 15/08/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial due to the failure to notify the applicant, a detainee, of criminal proceedings brought against him and the consequent breach of the adversarial principle (violation of Article 6§1).

Although the authorities were aware that the applicant was serving his sentence, they made no attempt to ensure his presence at the proceedings against him, which resulted in his conviction. The applicant was only informed about the verdict after the proceedings had ended. The European Court found that these proceedings, in the absence of important procedural guarantees, were deprived of any fairness (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The Court found that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. It also recalled its case-law to the effect that where an applicant has been convicted in proceedings judged to be unfair, as in this case, reopening or retrial at the instance of the person concerned constitutes in principle an appropriate means of redressing the violation found.

According to the applicable law, the applicant may request reopening of the proceedings at issue following the judgement of the European Court. By letter of 3/09/2008 the authorities informed the applicant of this right.

General measures: The judgment has been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice's official website (www.minjust.gov.ua). The translation of the judgment was published in the official government publication, the Official Herald of Ukraine [Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy], No. 85, 2008. A summary of the judgment was also published in the Government's Currier [Uriadovyi Kurier], No.165 of 6/09/2008.

The European Court's judgment has been sent out by the authorities to the Supreme Court and the Academy of Judges together with letters from their hierarchy inviting them to take account of the findings of the European Court in their daily practice.

• Information is still awaited on the current rules governing the notification of persons serving a sentence of the initiation of new proceedings against them and on how their participation in these proceedings is ensured.

- 2 cases concerning the violation of the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal established by law

29458/04+         Sokurenko and Strygun, judgment of 20/07/2006, final on 11/12/2006

39157/02           Veritas, judgment of 13/11/2008, final on 13/02/2009

Both cases concern the violation of the applicants' right to a fair hearing before a tribunal established by law, in that, in 2004 (Sokurenko and Strygun) and 2002 (Veritas), in commercial proceedings, the Supreme Court, acting as a “second-instance cassation court”, having quashed a judgment by the Higher Commercial Court, upheld a decision delivered by the court of appeal even though this course of action was not provided in the Code of Commercial Procedure or other regulations.

The European Court found that having overstepped the limits of its jurisdiction, which were clearly laid down in the Code of Commercial Procedure, the Supreme Court could not be considered a "tribunal established by law" (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures:

            1) Sokurenko and Strygun case: The European Court awarded both applicants just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained.

Following the Court’s judgment, on 28/12/2006, the authorities informed the applicants of the possibility provided by Article 10 of the Law of Ukraine on enforcement of judgments and application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights to initiate re-opening of the proceedings at issue. According to the Ukrainian authorities, the applicants have not lodged such an application.

            2) Veritas case: The applicant company submitted no claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court made no award.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to erase the consequences of the violation for the applicant.

General measures: It follows from the judgments of the European Court that quashing of Higher Commercial Court decisions and upholding first- and second-instance courts’ judgments, even though not explicitly provided by the Code of Commercial Procedure, constituted a general practice of the Supreme Court, when acting as second cassation court in commercial cases.

            1) Legislative reform: On 20/02/2007, Parliament adopted at first reading the Draft Law On amendments to the Code of Commercial Procedure (registration No. 2566 of 16/11/2006). The draft law provides abolition of the so-called “double cassation” procedure, establishing the Higher Commercial Court as the only cassation court. According to the draft law, the Supreme Court is entrusted only with the extraordinary review (“review under exceptional circumstances”) of decisions of the Higher Commercial Court.

• Information is expected on the adoption of the draft law. Information is also awaited on interim measures taken to ensure compliance with the European Court’s judgment pending adoption of legislative reform.

            2) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court in the Sokurenko and Strygun case has been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice's official website (www.minjust.gov.ua). It was published in the Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 1 of 19/01/2007. A summary was published in the Government's Currier No. 6 of 13/01/2007. By letter dated 28/12/2006, the authorities drew the attention of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the Court’s conclusions in this case. The Government Agent has also drawn attention to this judgment in the course of a number of seminars and training sessions for judges.

• Information is awaited on publication and dissemination of the European Court judgment in the Veritas case.

34786/03           Balatskyy, judgment of 25/10/2007, final on 25/01/2008

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the domestic courts’ failure to take a formal, final decision in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s unlawful transfer brought against his employer.

The first-instance court had initially dismissed his appeal on the ground that he had brought an identical action for reinstatement. Despite a finding at appeal that this dismissal was groundless and referring the case back to the first instance, no judgment was rendered. In June 2006 the applicant received an unofficial letter informing him that any further examination of his request would be pointless because it was identical to his application for reinstatement, rejected in 2002.

The European Court accordingly found that the applicant had been deprived of his right of access to a court, since the authorities had advanced no plausible explanation for the domestic courts’ failure to take a formal, final decision in relation to the applicant’s suit (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. It appears from the judgment of the European Court that no formal decision has been taken to date in the applicant’s case.

• Information is awaited on measures taken to erase the consequences of the violation for the applicant.

General measures: The Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine provides two types of decisions which are to be taken by courts in proceedings: rulings and judgements (Art. 208). Courts deliver rulings when deciding, inter alia, to suspend or to close cases, not to consider a claim, and on other issues dealing with course of proceedings before it. A trial must be concluded by delivery of a judgment.

In the present case the district court, by not rendering a judgment, failed to comply with the national law in force.

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (11/04/2008):The judgment has been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice official website (www.minjust.gov.ua). The translation of the judgment was published in the Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy), No.11/2008. A summary of the judgment was also published in the Government's Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier).

The Supreme Court’s attention has been drawn to the European Court's conclusions in this case.

• Information is expected on possible training measures to ensure that all judges strictly comply with their obligations resulting from the legislation in force and the Convention, as well as on further additional measures such as the judges’ disciplinary responsibility. Information is also awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent new, similar violations, in particular via the wide dissemination of this judgment to domestic courts at all levels, possibly accompanied by an explanatory note.

6725/03            Lizanets, judgment of 31/05/2007, final on 31/08/2007

The case concerns the quashing in 2002 of a final judgment awarding applicant material and moral damages for unlawful prosecution on the ground of new circumstances. The new circumstances in question were the annulment of a provision of the 2001 State Budget Law by the Constitutional Court. Even though this only concerned the source from which the money awarded to the applicant was to be paid, the court re-examined the initial judgment of 17/05/2001 on the merits, regardless of the original aim of the reopening of the proceedings, thus violating the principle of legal certainty (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the violation of the applicant's right to a fair trial in that the state treasury failed to execute the judgment initially delivered in the applicant's favour. 

Individual measures: The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, including the compensation due under the judgment of 12/06/2002 which confirmed that of 17/05/2001.

• Assessment: no further individual measure seems required.

General measures:

1) Reopening of the proceedings on the ground of new circumstances: The European Court noted that domestic law provided no safeguards against possible infringement of the principle of legal certainty, giving the relevant court unfettered power to reconsider a case on the merits regardless of the original aim of the reopening of the proceedings (§33 of the judgment).

• Information is still awaited on measures taken or envisaged to prevent similar violations, in particular related to a possible change of legislation concerning the reopening of proceedings on the ground of new circumstances. Pending the adoption of a possible legislative reform, given the direct effect of the Convention and of the European Court’s judgments in Ukraine, the domestic courts are expected to bring their practice in line with the findings of the European Court. The authorities’ confirmation in this respect would be particularly useful.

2) Failure to enforce final judgments: The problem of the non-enforcement of judgments is being examined in the context of the Zhovner group of cases (56848/00, Section 4.3).

3) Publication and dissemination of the judgment: The Ukrainian authorities indicated that on 14/09/2007 the judgment of the European Court was sent to the Supreme Court so that it might take account of the findings of the European Court in its daily practice.

The judgment was translated into Ukrainian and published in the official government bulletin, the Official Herald of Ukraine No. 71/2007. A summary of the judgment in Ukrainian was also published in the Government Currier No. 177 of 27/09/2007

17988/02           Zhoglo, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008

The case concerns a violation of the right to a fair trial in that the applicant, the defendant in criminal proceedings, could not confront or question the victim at any stage of these proceedings (violation of Article 6§§1, 3).

On 15/08/2001; the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having caused grievous bodily injury. During the criminal proceedings, the applicant repeatedly asked to confront the victim, who presented a different account of the events. However he was not given such an opportunity either during the investigation or during the trial, because of the state of health of the victim. The domestic courts relied entirely on the version given by the victim during the pre-trial investigation without hearing evidence from him in person.

The European Court noted that the domestic courts had made no attempt to find an alternative solution to the victim’s appearance in person to establish his credibility and found that the applicant was denied an adequate and proper opportunity to contest the statements on which his conviction was based, leading to the denial of a fair trial.

Individual measures: The Court found that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.

According to the Ukrainian legislation in force the applicant is entitled to request reopening of the impugned proceedings following the judgement of the European Court. By letter of 12/08/2008 the authorities informed the applicant of this right.

General measures: The judgment was translated into Ukrainain and out on the placed on the Ministry of Justice's official website (www.minjust.gov.ua). The translation of the judgment was published in the official government publication, the Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy), No. 86, November 2008. Summary of the judgment was also published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No.157 of 27/08/2008.

The European Court's judgment has been sent out by the authorities to the Supreme Court and the Academy of Judges together with letters from their hierarchy inviting them to take account of the findings of the European Court in their daily practice.

• Information is awaited on measures taken or planned to ensure that suspects and accused may confront and question a victim or witnesses if direct questioning in the courtroom is not possible. Information is also awaited on publication and dissemination of the judgment.

11901/02           Panteleyenko, judgment of 29/06/2006, final on 12/02/2007

The case concerns first, a violation of the applicant's right to respect for his home due to a search conducted in his notary office in 1999 without prior presentation of the search warrant as required by the Ukrainian Code of Criminal Procedure, and the unselective seizure of documents and personal items (violation of Article 8).

The case concerns, secondly, the violation of the applicant's right to respect for his private life due to the disclosure by a court of information concerning his mental health in the course of defamation proceedings. The information concerned was read out loud by one of the judges at a public hearing, in breach of the domestic law which provides a specific regime for the protection of personal data. The European Court found moreover that the domestic court’s request for confidential psychiatric information concerning the applicant was without point, having no relevance to the court proceedings at issue and was thus unlawful (violations of Article 8).

Thirdly, the case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to the presumption of innocence in that a decision to terminate criminal proceedings against him taken by the court in 2001 was couched in terms which left no doubt as to its view that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, although he had not been proved guilty. The European Court considered that the language employed by the domestic court, as well as the reasons given (which were upheld at appeal), combined with the subsequent rejection of the applicant's compensation claim on the basis of these same reasons, constituted an infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence (violation of Article 6§2).

Finally, the case concerns a violation of the applicant's right to an effective domestic remedy in respect of the violations of Article 8: he had no possibility of obtaining compensation in respect of the violation of his right to respect for his home, and even though he had been vindicated at appeal, the court did nothing to put an end to the disclosure of confidential psychiatric data in the file or to award any compensation (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage caused by unlawful search of the applicant’s premises and non-pecuniary damage sustained.

In addition, on 02/03/2007, the Ukrainian authorities reminded the applicant in writing of the possibility of applying for review of the impugned proceedings following the European Court’s judgment. According to the authorities, the applicant has lodged no application for such review.

The European Court noted that although the disclosure of confidential psychiatric data was found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal, it did not result in the discontinuation of the disclosure of confidential data in the court case-file or any award of compensation to the applicant for damages suffered as the result of the unlawful interference with his private life.

• Information is still awaited as to whether the confidential information regarding the applicant has been removed from the court case-file.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 8

a) Violation of the right to respect for home:  It transpires from the judgment of the European Court that the violation was due to the authorities’ failure to comply with the statutory safeguards (see §51). By a letter dated 07/09/2007, the Ukrainian authorities drew the attention of investigating bodies involved in pre-trial investigation (the Ministry of the Interior and Office of the Prosecutor General) to the European Court’s conclusions concerning the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home. The Office of the Prosecutor General has indicated, by letter of 20/09/2007, that officials supervising the lawfulness of the pre-trial investigation had been acquainted with the European Court conclusions in the present case. By letter dated 20/09/2007, the Ministry of the Interior indicated that training concerning the Court’s conclusions in this judgment would be given in regional departments.

▪ Information is awaited on the trainings held at the Ministry of Interior’s regional department.

b) Violation of the right to respect for private life:

The Court of Appeal found that the judges of the lower courts lacked training in the field of confidential data protection and notified the Regional Centre for Judicial Studies of the need to remedy this shortcoming in their training programme (see §25 of the judgment).

▪ Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (31/10/2007): in December 2002, that is, after the events in the case, the Court of Appeal of Chernihiv Region held training for judges concerning the legislation on collection, use and dissemination of confidential personal data.

• Information is still awaited on further measures taken to prevent or put an end to the disclosure of confidential psychiatric data. Further training (especially of firs- instance judges) in the field of data protection would be useful in this respect.

2) Violation of the presumption of innocence (Article 6§2)

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities on 31/10/2007: By letter of 07/09/2007 the attention of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and its judges was drawn to the European Court’s conclusions in the present case, in particular as regards the obligation to respect the principle of presumption of innocence. By letter dated 20/09/2007, the Supreme Court reported that the judgment had been sent to the State Court Administration for further dissemination amongst appeal and local courts.

• Information would be useful on any further measure, such as special trainings for judges (especially in lower courts).

3) Violations of Article 13

• Information is awaited on an action plan with timetable and projected measures to introduce a remedy allowing a person to challenge the lawfulness of searches and obtain the appropriate compensation, in particular in the circumstances as appeared in the present case.

            4) Translation, publication and dissemination of the European court's judgment: The European Court’s judgment has been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice’s official web-site. It has also been published in the Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 19 of 26/03/2007, while a summary was published in the Government’s Currier No. 44 of 13/03/2007.

The judgment together with the circular has been sent to all state authorities concerned (see above). The European Court’s conclusions in the present judgement were also brought to the attention of the students of the relevant educational establishments.

15007/02           Ivanov, judgment of 07/12/2006, final on 07/03/2007

This case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings which began in September 1995 and were still pending when the European court gave judgment (over 9 years within the European Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis) (violation of Article 6§1) and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

The case also concerns a violation of the applicant's right to freedom of movement in that, during the proceedings the applicant was required not to abscond for a period of approximately 10 years and 4 months (8 years and 8 months within the jurisdiction ratione temporis of the European Court) (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

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

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities (31/10/2007): The proceedings against the applicant are closed and on 22/05/2007 the Panel of Judges in Criminal Cases dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal, so that the judgment became final.

General measures:

1) Violation of Article 6§1 and Article 13: The problem of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and of the absence of an effective remedy is being examined in the context of the Merit group of cases (66561/01, Section 4.2).

2) Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4: The European Court noted that the application of the obligation not to abscond was provided by law and pursued a legitimate aim.

However, the European Court noted that the mere length of the restriction in the present case could be sufficient to conclude that it was disproportionate to the aim pursued, the more so given that the charges against the applicant had already become time-barred in September 2000, whereas the restriction was imposed on him until May 2006.

• Information provided by the Ukrainian authorities on 11/04/2008: The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (Articles 148, 165 and 165-1) provides that a preventive measure shall be withdrawn by the competent authority as soon as it ceases to be necessary. The withdrawal decision shall be grounded and the person concerned shall be immediately informed thereof.

• Assessment: The provisions on preventive measures do not appear to set any time-limit for the imposed undertaking not no abscond or to provide automatic or periodic review of the restriction imposed. Thus it seems that the observance of a person’s right to freedom of movement primarily depends on due diligence of the relevant state authority.

• Information would be useful in such circumstances, as to whether there is any control mechanism ensuring compliance by the relevant state authorities with their obligations under the legislation mentioned, thus, preventing violations of the right to freedom of movement.

3) Translation, publication and dissemination of the judgment: The judgment of the European Court has been translated into Ukrainian and placed on the Ministry of Justice's official website. It was published in the Official Herald of Ukraine, No. 23 of 10/04/2007. Summary of the Court's judgment was also published in the Government Currier, No. 58 of 31/03/2007.

On 28/04/2007 the judgment of the European Court was sent, together with explanatory notes, to the Supreme Court of Ukraine and to all state investigating bodies, namely the Ministry of Interior, the Office of the Prosecutor General, the State Security Service and the State Tax Administration, drawing their attention to the findings of the European Court and inviting them to take account of them in their daily practice in order to avoid new, similar violations.

The Supreme Court also drew the attention of the heads of courts of appeal to the European Court’s conclusions in this case and to the necessity to take them into account in their practice.

803/02              Intersplav, judgment of 09/01/2007, final on 23/05/2007[37]

- 81 cases mainly concerning the length of civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy

                        (See Appendix for the list of cases in the Naumenko Svetlana group)

All these cases concern the excessive length of civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1). In some of these cases the European Court also found violations of Article 13 due to the lack of an effective remedy against the unreasonable length of the judicial proceedings.

The case of Svetlana Naumenko also concerns the quashing of final court decisions given in the applicant's favour by means of a supervisory review procedure (protest), following applications lodged by a state official under the Code of Civil Procedure in force at that time. The European Court found that the use of the supervisory review procedure infringed the principle of legal certainty and thus the applicant's right to a court (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court also found in this case that the sustained non-enforcement of the final judicial decision in the applicant's favour (recognising her right to a pension and entitlement to state privileges) constituted a violation of her property rights (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

In addition, it found that examination by the Deputy President of the Odessa Regional Court of the application for supervisory review that he had himself lodged with the Presidium – of which he had been a member and Deputy President – was incompatible with the requirement of impartiality (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures:

• Information is expected on the current state of the proceeding in some cases (see table in the Appendix containing the list of cases in this group) as well as on measures adopted or under way to accelerate the proceedings at issue and bring them to an end.

 General measures:

            1) Excessive length of proceedings: The main reasons for the protracted length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases may be summarised as follows:

- courts’ failure to take the measures needed to ensure the presence of plaintifs, defendants and witnesses;

- numerous transfers of cases between trial courts and remittals for expert assessments and re-trials;

- bad case-management by courts: considerable intervals between hearings, numerous adjournments due to judges’ participation in other hearings, illness or absence on business.

            2) Lack of an effective domestic remedy: Following a decision by the working group in charge, the 2005 draft law on pre-trial proceedings as well as enforcement of court decisions within reasonable time was modified and renamed on amendments to certain legal acts of Ukraine (on the protection of the right to pre-trial and trial proceedings and enforcement of court decisions within reasonable time). The modified draft set up a new remedy making it possible to complain to administrative courts of violations of the right to proceedings within reasonable time. It included compensation for delays and sanctions against those responsible. Since 2007 the draft law has been submitted to the Parliament, sent back to the drafters and re-submitted to the Parliament several times. No information has been provided as to the current situation regarding the adoption of the draft law. 

• Are awaited: a copy of the latest official version of the draft as well as information on the time-table envisaged for its adoption, togather with the authorities’ own assessment of how this draft law would improve the existing situation is expected. In particular, the authorities’ comments would be appreciated on whether the draft law provides a possibility to accelerate enforcement proceedings.

            3) Sustained failure to enforce final judicial decisions: The case of Svetlana Naumenko presents similarities to those in the Zhovner group (56848/00, Section 4.3) in which the Committee is supervising the adoption of general measures to prevent further similar violations.

            4) Supervisory review procedure and the related issue of impartiality: The case of Svetlana Naumenko presents similarities to that of Sovtransavto Holding (48553/99, Section 4.3), in which the Committee is supervising the adoption of general measures to prevent further similar violations.

            5) Publication and dissemination of the judgments: All these judgments have published in the official publications. Most of them may be found on the website of the Ministry of Justice (www.minjust.gov.ua). A number of judgments, accompanied by circular letters, have been sent by the Government Agent to the relevant domestic authorities.

                       - 20 cases mainly concerning the length of criminal proceedings and the absence of an effective remedy

66561/01          Merit, judgment of 30/03/2004, final on 30/06/2004

14183/02          Antonenkov and others, judgment of 22/11/2005, final on 22/02/2006

1282/03            Artsybashev, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

23194/02           Aybabin, judgment of 18/12/2008, final on 18/03/2009

31585/02          Benyaminson, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

7307/05            Bevz, judgment of 18/06/2009, final on 18/09/2009

39405/03           Chervonets, judgment of 24/04/2008, final on 24/07/2008

28780/02           Farafonova, judgment of 11/12/2008, final on 11/03/2009

17277/03          Fedko, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

39447/03           Gavrylyak, judgment of 18/06/2009, final on 06/11/2009

25444/03          Kalinichenko, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

7324/02            Kobtsev, judgment of 04/04/2006, final on 04/07/2006

25821/02          Lugovoy, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

14809/03          Mazurenko, judgment of 11/01/2007, final on 11/04/2007

26277/02          Nosalskiy, judgment of 12/07/2007, final on 12/10/2007

35312/02          Ryshkevich, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

31580/03          Safyannikova, judgment of 26/07/2007, final on 26/10/2007

35184/02          Solaz, judgment of 12/06/2008, final on 12/09/2008

13404/02           Yefanov and others, judgment of 30/07/2009, final on 30/10/2009

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

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

The cases of Merit, Benyaminson, Bevz and Farafonova also concern the absence of an effective remedy against the excessive length of criminal proceedings (violations of Article 13).

The Chervonets case also concerns the failure to enforce a domestic court decision delivered in civil proceedings initiated by the applicant (violations of Article 6§1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures:

            1) Merit case: the Ukrainian authorities were invited to provide information on measures adopted or under way to accelerate these proceedings and bring them to an end. The applicant on several occasions complained (most recently on 27/07/2009) that the Ukrainian authorities had not complied with the judgment of the European Court. In particular, he stated that, because of the pending criminal proceedings, he has been unable to claim the property and documents seized during the prosecution. The authorities indicated that the General Prosecutor’s Office is supervising the conduct of proceedings. They also specified that the Tchernovtsi Regional Court suspended the criminal investigation due to the applicant’s failure to appear and issued a warrant for him to be brought before the investigation authorities. The Ukrainian authorities noted that a key problem affecting the length of criminal proceedings against the applicant resulted from the fact that his co-accused could not be brought before the domestic courts. Thus, following the European Court’s suggestion, they disjoined the proceedings. On 17/02/2005 the proceedings against the applicant were suspended due to the failure to find the applicant, who is currently abroad.

• Additional measure required: The authorities are invited to consider possible solutions with a view to bringing the proceedings to an end despite the non-appearance of the applicant.

            2) Antonenkov and others: The proceedings were closed on 07/12/2006 due to the prescription of criminal liability.

3) Other cases

• Information is expected on measures adopted or under way to accelerate the proceedings in the cases of Bevz Nosalskiy, Solaz, and Chervonets and bring them to an end. In the Chervonets case, information is also expected concerning the enforcement of the domestic court’s decision delivered in the applicant’s favour.

General measures:

            1) Excessive length of criminal proceedings: The main reasons for the protracted length of the proceedings in the applicants’ cases can be summarised as follows:

-           the authorities’ failure to take any investigative action for a long period of time (Benyaminson, Kobtsev);

-           the courts’ failure to take the appropriate measures to ensure the presence of the applicant, the victim and the witnesses (Benyaminson; Mazurenko, Artsybashev, Kobtsev);

-           the numerous transfers of cases between various trial courts and remittals for additional investigations, expert assessments and re-trials (Merit, Benyaminson, Antonenkov and others, Yurtayev, Ryshkevich, Safyannikova, Farafonova, Lugovoy, Kalinichenko);

-           frequent transfers of cases to new investigators who had to acquaint themselves with the files (Benyaminson);

-           bad case-management by courts: considerable intervals between hearings, numerous adjournments of cases due to judges’ absence (participation in other hearings, illness or a “business trip”) (Farafonova, Lugivoy, Kalinichenko, Kobtsev).

• The Ukrainian authorities are invited to inform the Deputies of measures taken or envisaged to resolve the problems at the heart of the violations found by the European Court, thus preventing new, similar violations.

In this respect, it may be recalled the Committee's position that the setting up of domestic remedies (see below) does not dispense States from their general obligation to solve the structural problems underlying the violation (see for example Interim Resolution ResDH(2005)114).

            2) Lack of an effective domestic remedy: Following a decision by the working group in charge, the 2005 draft law On pre-trial proceedings as well as enforcement of court decisions within a reasonable time was modified and renamed On amendments to certain legal acts of Ukraine (on the protection of the right to pre-trial and trial proceedings and enforcement of court decisions within reasonable time).

The modified draft provides a new remedy making it possible to complain to administrative courts about violations of the right to proceedings within reasonable time. It includes compensation for delays and sanctions against those responsible. Since 2007 the draft law has been submitted to the Parliament, sent back to the drafters and re-submitted to the Parliament several times. No information has been provided as to the current situation with the adoption of the draft law. 

• A copy of the latest official version of the draft as well as the information on the time-table envisaged for its adoption is awaited. The authorities’ own assessment of how this draft law would improve the existing situation is expected. In particular, the authorities’ comments on whether the draft law provides for a possibility to accelerate the enforcement proceedings would be appreciated.

3) Failure to enforce domestic courts’ decisions: This problem is being examined in the context of the Zhovner group of cases (56848/00, Section 4.3).

4) Publication of judgments: The judgment of the European Court concerning the Merit case was translated and published in the Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy) of 13/08/2004. The official Ukrainian translation of the judgment has also been published in the specialised law publications, namely Legal Bulletin of Ukraine (n°24, June 2004), Bulletin of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (n° 7, 2004), Law of Ukraine and the Legal Newspaper (n° 9, May 2004).

Other judgments have been translated into Ukrainian and published as follows:

- Artsybashev – Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy), No. 74, October 2008; summary of the judgment was also published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No.197 of 22/10/2008;

 - Mazurenko – Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy), No. 34 of 21/05/2007; summary of the judgment was also published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No.85 of 17/05/2007;

 - Fedko - Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy), No. 80, October 2008; summary of the judgment was also published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No.186 of 7/010/2008;

- Ryshkevich - Official Herald of Ukraine (Ofitsiinyi Visnyk Ukrainy), No. 75, October 2008; summary of the judgment was also published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No.197 of 22/10/2008.

 - Lugovoy - Summary of the judgment published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No.186 of 7/010/2008;

 - Solaz - Summary of the judgment published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No.186 of 7/010/2008;

- Chervonets - Summary of the judgment published in the Government’s Currier (Uriadovyi Kurier), No.152 of 19/08/2008;

All the judgments, with the exception of Benyaminson, Kalinichenko, Nosalskiy, Safyannikova, Artsybashev, Lugovoy, Ryshkevich, Aybabin and Farafonova, can be found on the web site of the Ministry of Justice (www.minjust.gov.ua).

• Information is awaited on the publication of the judgments in the cases where this has not been done.

5) Dissemination of judgments: By letter of the Government Agent of 8/09/2006 the judgment in the Kobtsev case was sent to the Ministry of the Interior to take measures to avoid similar violations in future. The judgment was transmitted to the local departments of the Ministry.   

By a circular letter of the Government Agent of 10/05/2007 attention of the Supreme Court and the General Prosecutor’s Office was drawn to the European Court’s conclusion in the Mazurenko judgment.

• Information is awaited on dissemination of other judgments.

- 10 cases against the United Kingdom / 10 affaires contre le Royaume-Uni

30562/04+         S. and Marper, judgment of 04/12/2008 – Grand Chamber

This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life, due to the retention from 2001 of their fingerprints and DNA data under section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), following their arrest on suspicion of having committed criminal offences, for which neither applicant was ultimately convicted (violation of Article 8).

The Court identified at the outset that the only issue it had to consider was whether the retention of the fingerprints and DNA data of the applicants, as persons who had been suspected but not convicted of criminal offences, was justified under Article 8§2 of the Convention (§106 of the judgment). For the purposes of this examination, the Court noted that the applicants' fingerprints and cellular samples were taken and DNA profiles obtained in the context of criminal proceedings brought on suspicion of attempted robbery in the case of the first applicant S., a minor aged 11 years, and harassment in the case of the second applicant, Marper. Furthermore, the Court noted that the data had been retained despite the acquittal of the former and the discontinuance of proceedings against the latter as the charge was not pressed (§113 of the judgment).

While acknowledging that the extension of the National DNA Database (NDNAD) to persons in the applicants' situation has contributed to the detection and prevention of crime, the Court was nevertheless “struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales. The material may be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence of which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender; fingerprints and samples may be taken - and retained - from a person of any age, arrested in connection with a recordable offence, which includes minor or non-imprisonable offences” (§119 of the judgment).

The Court highlighted that persons in the applicants' situation are entitled to a presumption of innocence, and that “weighty reasons would have to be put forward by the Government before the Court could regard as justified such a difference in treatment of the applicants' private data compared to that of other unconvicted people” (§123 of the judgment). The Court identifies that the retention of unconvicted persons' data may be especially harmful in the case of minors, and that particular attention should be paid to their protection (§ 124 of the judgment). As regards remedies, the Court noted that “there is no provision for independent review of the justification for the retention according to defined criteria, including such factors as the seriousness of the offence, previous arrests, the strength of the suspicion against the person and any other special circumstances” (§119 of the judgment).

The Court concluded that “the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard” (§125 of the judgment).

Individual measures: The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction.

Following a request from the applicants, the responsible police authority has destroyed the applicants' fingerprints and DNA samples and profiles. On 09/06/2009 the United Kingdom authorities stated that the applicant S. has had further biometric data taken on suspicion of having committed a subsequent criminal offence.

• Assessment: no further individual measure appears necessary. The retention of later data taken from S. is linked to the general measures.

General measures: The NDNAD, in proportional terms, is the largest of its kind in the world, containing data on 7.39% of the United Kingdom population. Austria's forensic DNA database is the next largest in proportional terms, containing approximately one per cent of the population (House of Lords Constitution Committee, Second Report of Session 2008-2009, Surveillance: Citizens and the State, § 180, HL 18-I, 6 February 2009). As at 24/04/2009, there were some 4.5 million persons on the NDNAD, of whom some 986,000 had no current conviction or caution record held on the Police National Computer (House of Commons Library, Standard Note SN/HA/4049 of 07/12/2009, Retention of fingerprint and DNA data).

            1) Crime and Security Act 2010: The Crime and Security Act received Royal Assent on 08/04/2010. The provisions of the Act will subsequently be brought into force by commencement orders made by the Secretary of State. Section 14 of the Crime and Security Act amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985, which applies to England and Wales. It introduces identical amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

The new provisions will introduce the following powers of retention:

-           Cellular samples: samples should not be retained beyond a six-month maximum, which is needed to ensure satisfactory loading of the profile taken from the sample onto the NDNAD (section 64ZA).

-           Adults: six-year retention period for the fingerprints and DNA profiles of adults arrested but not ultimately convicted of an offence, irrespective of the seriousness of the crime for which they were arrested (section 64ZD).

-           Minors:

- 16 and 17 year-olds: six-year retention period for the fingerprints and DNA profiles of minors aged 16 and 17 years arrested but not ultimately convicted of a serious offence (section 64ZG). For other recordable offences (lesser offences) the retention period shall be three years (section 64ZE).

- Under 16 year-olds: three-year retention period for the fingerprints and profiles of minors aged under 16 years arrested but not ultimately convicted of an offence, irrespective of the seriousness of the crime for which they were arrested (section 64ZE and 64ZF). Although not evident in the text of the Act, the United Kingdom authorities have confirmed that steps have been taken to remove the records of children under the age of 10 years from the NDNAD, and such material will not be retained in the future

-           Terrorism and national security:  If the responsible Chief Officer determines that fingerprints or DNA profiles are to be retained for national security purposes, they need not be destroyed in accordance with the above retention periods for as long as the determination has effect (section 64ZK, see also clauses 17 and 18 of the Crime and Security Bill amending Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000). Such a determination has effect for a maximum of two years beginning with the date on which the material would otherwise be required to be destroyed, but may be renewed.

-           Volunteers: Material which has been given voluntarily is to be destroyed as soon as it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was taken, unless, among other reasons, the individual consents to its retention under section 64ZL (section 64ZB). Consent to retention of material under section 64ZL may be withdrawn at any time.

-           Legacy profiles: Section 22 requires the Secretary of State to make provision for the destruction of material taken prior to the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Act which would have been destroyed had those provisions been in force when the material was obtained.

-           Review procedure: Under section 64ZI(5), material falling within sections 64ZD to 64ZH must be destroyed if it appears to the Chief Officer that (a) the arrest was unlawful; (b) the taking of the fingerprints, impressions of footwear or DNA sample concerned was unlawful; (c) the arrest was based on mistaken identity, or (d) other circumstances relating to the arrest or the alleged offence mean that it is appropriate to destroy the material. Section 23 requires the National DNA Database Strategy Board to issue guidance to chief officers on the early destruction of samples and DNA profiles.

            2) Reasons presented for the revised powers of retention: The government has submitted that the Home Office research cited in support of the powers of retention contained in the Crime and Security Act 2010 (DNA Retention Policy: RE-Arrest Hazard Rate Analysis) suggests that the chance of an individual with no previous conviction being re-arrested remains higher than the chance of arrest in the general population for six years following the initial arrest. The research assessed the risk of re-arrest, rather than the risk of subsequent conviction, as limited data was available for use of an arrest-to-conviction ratio. The research states that “It is generally accepted in the academic crime literature that offenders tend to be relative generalists across the course of their careers”, implying no evidential case for distinguishing retention periods on grounds of the seriousness of the offence. Consequently the government proposed a single six-year retention period for the fingerprints and DNA profiles of arrested but ultimately unconvicted adults, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence for which they were arrested. The government’s submissions as to how the revised framework executes the Court’s judgment are contained in DD(2009)619E and DD(2010)119E.

3) Submissions from civil society: A number of submissions have been made by NGOs and human rights institutions under Rule 9. These include submissions from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and Genewatch (representing a large group of NGOs including Liberty and Amnesty International). All submissions and the government’s responses have been circulated to the Committee, and are available on its website: http://www.coe.int/t/cm/home_EN.asp.  

4) Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR): In a report on the Crime and Security Bill (Twelfth Report of Session 2009-10, published on 02/03/2010) the JCHR welcomed the government’s decision to respond swiftly to the Court’s judgment (§1.27). The JCHR however expressed concern that “the Government’s approach to the assessment of proportionality fails to recognise that it must illustrate why the measures proposed are necessary in order to meet the legitimate aim of the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights of other” (§1.27). It expressed disappointment that “the Government argues it can rely on this evidence [the Home Office research] in order to depart entirely from the guidance of the Court” (§1.36). In this respect the JCHR expressed disappointment that “the Government has chosen not to draw any distinction between arrest in connection with serious violent or sexual offences and less serious offences” (§1.48).

5) 1078th meeting (DH) (March 2010): The Deputies noted that bilateral consultations had not led to a common understanding as to how certain factors, deemed relevant by the Court for balancing the value of retention against the individuals' right to respect for private life, are reflected in the new legislation, in particular as to whether:

-           the latest research material presented by the government constitutes such an important development, compared to the factors taken into account by the Court and the material available to it, as to now provide the “weighty reasons” required by the Court to justify a difference in treatment of persons in the applicants' situation, compared to that of other, unconvicted people (§123 of the judgment);

-           the then draft proposals adequately addressed the problem identified by the Court that “there is no provision for independent review of the justification for the retention according to defined criteria, including such factors as the seriousness of the offence, previous arrests, the strength of the suspicion against the person and any other special circumstances”  (§119 of the judgment).

6) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court has been widely published in the legal press and on the Home Office website. It was reported inter alia in The Times Law Reports on 08/12/2008, Lawtel Ref LTL 4/12/2008 and the British and Irish Legal Information Institute. The judgment was sent out to chief police officers and to chief crown prosecutors.

• A preliminary assessment of the revised powers of retention, presented at the March DH meeting, is contained in DD(2010)119E.

• Bilateral consultations between the Secretariat and the United Kingdom authorities are continuing with respect to the proportionality of the revised powers of retention contained in the Crime and Security Act 2010.

 

                       - 6 cases concerning the action of the security forces in the United Kingdom

28883/95          McKerr, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

37715/97          Shanaghan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

24746/94          Hugh Jordan, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

30054/96          Kelly and others, judgment of 04/05/01, final on 04/08/01

43290/98          McShane, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

29178/95          Finucane, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 01/10/03

                       Interim Resolutions ResDH(2005)20, CM/ResDH(2007)73 and CM/ResDH(2009)44

                       CM/Inf/DH(2006)4-rev2, CM/Inf/DH(2006)4-addrev3 and CM/Inf/DH(2008)2-rev

These cases concern the death of applicants' next-of-kin during security forces operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicions of collusion of such forces.

In this respect, the Court found various combinations of the following shortcomings in the proceedings for investigating deaths giving rise to possible violations of Convention rights (violations of Article 2): lack of independence of the investigating police officers from security forces/police officers involved in the events; lack of public scrutiny and information to the victims' families concerning the reasons for decisions not to prosecute; the inquest procedure did not allow for any verdict or findings which could play an effective role in securing a prosecution in respect of any criminal offence which might have been disclosed; the soldiers / police officers who shot the deceased could not be required to attend the inquest as witnesses; the non‑disclosure of witness statements prior to the witnesses' appearance at the inquest prejudiced the ability of the applicants to participate in the inquest and contributed to long adjournments in the proceedings; the inquest proceedings did not commence promptly and were not pursued with reasonable expedition.

The McShane case also concerns the finding by the Court of a failure by the respondent state to comply with its obligations under Article 34, in that the police had - albeit unsuccessfully - brought disciplinary proceedings against the solicitor who represented the applicant in national proceedings for having disclosed certain witness statements to the applicant's legal representatives before the European Court.

Measures taken so far: Information on the measures taken so far by the United Kingdom authorities and the general and individual measures closed by the Committee of Ministers can be found in the above mentioned interim resolutions, their appendixes and the Secretariat's information documents. Information provided by the United Kingdom authorities regarding the outstanding general and individual measures since the adoption of Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)44 at the 1051st meeting (March 2009) is summarised below.

Individual measures:

            1) Jordan case: At the preliminary hearing on 22/01/2009 the Coroner announced that hearings would be delayed until at least June 2009. Following that announcement, the applicant sought judicial reviews of the Coroner's decisions in relation to the anonymity of Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) witnesses and compellability of witnesses who are outside the UK. The challenge to the Coroner's decisions on compellability of witnesses was withdrawn from the court on 5/03/2009. With regard to anonymity, the Coroner has sought the views of the next of kin and the PSNI in relation to the procedure to be adopted for determining applications by witnesses for anonymity and screening. Consequently, the Coroner circulated a protocol for anonymity and screening applications to the legal representatives of interested parties on 22/06/2009. The process of applications (including obtaining risk assessment for witnesses) is expected to take until autumn 2009.

Regarding the issue of disclosure, on 31/03/2009 the Coroner received a request from the next of kin asking that he seek certain information from the PSNI. He is now waiting for submissions on this issue from both the PSNI and the next of kin. Once these are received, the Coroner may then convene a preliminary hearing before making his decision regarding the request.

Separately, in relation to a judicial review brought by the next of kin in December 2008 seeking disclosure by the PSNI of certain documents, a further decision is pending in which the judge concerned will seek to clarify matters that have arisen in relation to his original judgment. The applicants sought a further judicial review, challenging the decision of the Coroner not to recuse (remove) himself from the inquest proceedings. The application was heard by the High Court of Northern Ireland on 15 and 16/06/2009 and was subsequently rejected. The applicants have lodged an appeal against the refusal. The appeal hearing was scheduled to take place on 6 and 7 October. At the request of the applicant, a preliminary hearing in relation to the inquest which had been listed for 16/09/2009 was adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal. The inquest is listed for 17/05/2010. Issues relating to anonymity and screening of witnesses, Public Interest Immunity applications and disclosure remain outstanding.

            2) Case of Kelly and Others: The Historical Enquiries Team (HET) met with representatives of four of the nine families involved on 23/03/2009. The Pat Finucane Centre and Committee for the Administration of Justice were also present. The meeting was very positive. The HET continues to pursue a number of lines of enquiry (including animated reconstruction of the scene, interviews with witnesses and examination of a linked incident) in order to move to delivery of the Review Summary Report. This may take some time to finalise. Arrangements to interview soldiers are at an advanced stage as a result of co-operation from the Ministry of Defence.

In response to concerns raised by the next of kin, an independent pathology review is now complete; the pathologist commissioned has an international reputation in the field of gunshot injuries. A meeting took place on Sunday 15/11/2009 fully to brief the family of the victim who was the subject of the review (Sundays are not working days for the HET however staff worked in order to accommodate family wishes). The family expressed satisfaction at the action undertaken by HET. The meeting involved representatives of other families and a full brief on the progress was discussed in addition to a range of wider family concerns. The Pat Finucane Centre were also present. The review continues

            3) McKerr case: The Coroner held a preliminary hearing on 16/09/2009 at which he determined that the Chief Constable should produce the Stalker/Sampson papers to him on or before the 9/11/2009. In January 2010, the Chief Constable began judicial review proceedings in relation to the Coroner’s approach to determining relevance of material. The leave hearing took place on 26/03/2010 and judgment is awaited. The matter is listed for a further preliminary hearing before the Coroner on 23/04/2010.

The case also remains subject to ongoing review by the Office of the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (OPONI). The Ombudsman's office has access to the Stalker/Sampson papers and are currently examining a substantial amount of sensitive material. Given the complexity of the case the Police Ombudsman cannot give a timescale for completion at this stage.

            4) Shanaghan case: The HET case review is progressing. A positive meeting between the HET and members of the Shanaghan family took place on 9/06/2009. Representatives from the Pat Finucane Centre and the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) also attended. The Review Summary Report is currently being prepared and HET representatives are planning to meet with colleagues in the OPONI to discuss respective reporting times to the next of kin. Furthermore, the OPONI investigation is progressing well. The Shanaghan family and their CAJ representatives are in contact with the Ombudsman's office. OPONI intends to complete a draft report on the case in the coming months. 

• Information is awaited on progress in these investigations. It should be recalled that in its Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)44 the Committee strongly urged the United Kingdom authorities to take all necessary measures with a view to bringing to an end, without further delay, the ongoing investigations while bearing in mind the findings of the Court in these cases. 

General measures: The United Kingdom authorities have now responded to the Police Ombudsman’s report on the five yearly review of her powers, following consultation and in agreement with the current Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

• Detailed information provided by the United Kingdom on their response to the review is currently being assessed.

36936/05           Szuluk, judgment of 02/06/2009, final on 02/09/2009

This case concerns the unjustified monitoring by prison authorities of medical correspondence between the applicant, a convicted prisoner detained in a high-security prison, and his external medical specialist in 2002 (violation of Article 8). 

Under Rule 34 of the Prison Rules 1999 prisoners were not permitted to communicate with any persons outside the prison except with the leave of the Secretary of State, who may impose any restriction or condition upon such communications. Chapter 36.21 of Prison Service Order (PSO) 1000, which was applicable at the relevant time, provided that all correspondence, other than that with legal advisors or the Samaritans, must be read as a matter of routine, for all prisoners of whatever security category, held in a prison which holds high-security prisoners.

The European Court highlighted that the applicant suffered from a life-threatening condition for which he required continuous, specialist medical supervision. The Court found that there had not been any grounds to suggest that the applicant had ever abused the confidentiality given to his medical correspondence in the past or that he had any intention of doing so in the future.

The Court did not share the Court of Appeal’s view that the applicant’s medical specialist, whose bona fides had never been challenged, could be “intimidated or tricked” into transmitting illicit messages or that that risk had been sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant’s rights. In this context, the Court held that the monitoring of the applicant’s medical correspondence did not strike a fair balance with the right to respect for his correspondence.

Individual measures: The applicant was released from custody on 03/07/2009. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

• Assessment: In these circumstances no further measure appears necessary.

General measures: The United Kingdom has three separate prison services: HM Prison Service for England and Wales, the Scottish Prison Service and the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

1) England and Wales: PSO 1000 is no longer applicable. On 27/11/2009 The United Kingdom authorities submitted information stating that PSOs 4411 (“Prisoner Communications: Correspondence”) and 3050 (“Continuity of Healthcare for Prisoners”), which came into operation on 05/09/2007 and 10/02/2006 respectively, have been revised to comply with the European Court’s judgment. At the time of the Court’s judgment, prisoners’ correspondence with registered medical practitioners was not subject to confidential handling arrangements under these PSOs.

Following recent amendments (the Prison and Young Offender Institution (Amendment) Rules 2009, which came into force on 01/01/2010, amended the Prison Rules 1999 and Young Offender Institution Rules 2000). Rule 20(5) of the Prison Rules 1999 now provides that “A prisoner may correspond, in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State for the confidential handling of correspondence, with a registered medical practitioner who has treated the prisoner for a life threatening condition, and such correspondence may not be opened, read or stopped unless the governor has reasonable cause to believe its contents do not relate to the treatment of that condition.” An identical provision was inserted in the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000.

2) Scotland: The Scottish Prison Service has reviewed its policy and Prison Rules in the light of the judgment, and it is anticipated that a new policy will be introduced by the end of May 2010. Amendments to the Scottish Prison Rules, similar to those implemented in England and Wales, are expected to be approved in October 2010.

3) Northern Ireland: The Northern Ireland Prison Service has reviewed its policy and Prison Rules in the light of the judgment; however implementation of any necessary amendments is subject to the recent devolution of justice powers on 12/04/2010.

4) Publication and dissemination: The judgment of the European Court has been published in the Times Law Report on 17/06/2009 and in Butterworth’s Medico-Legal Reports at 108 BMLR 190 (2009). It was disseminated to HM Prison Service, including all prison governors, and the Offender Health policy group within Government.

• Bilateral contacts with the United Kingdom authorities are under way with a view to clarifying how the Prison Service Orders have been revised to comply with the Court’s judgment.

• Information is awaited as to the content and progress of proposed amendments to the policy and Prison Rules of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

66746/01          Connors, judgment of 27/05/2004, final on 27/08/2004[38]

19009/04           McCann, judgment of 13/05/2008, final on 13/08/2008[39]